Green Mountain Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest

Lane County, Oregon

Legal Location: T16S R04E Sec: 36; T16S R05E Sec: 31-32; T17S R04E Sec: 1-2, 11-

13, 24-25, 36; T17S R05E Sec: 5-10, 14-34; T17S R06E Sec: 19, 30; T18S R04E Sec: 1, 

12; T18S R05E Sec: 1-30, 32-36; T18S R06E Sec: 6-8, 17-36; T18S R061⁄2E Sec: 25-28, 

31-35; T18S R07E Sec: 27-28, 31-35; T19S R05E Sec: 1-3, 11-15, 22-24; T19S R051⁄2E 

Sec: 1-5, 8-17, 20-24, 27-28; T19S R06E Sec: 1-36; T19S R07E Sec: 2-11, 14-23, 27, 

30-31; T20S R06E Sec: 1-3, 10-12; Willamette Meridian

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific 

Northwest

Region

June 2016
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - i

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Green Mountain Project

Willamette National Forest Service

Lane County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: TRACY BECK

Forest Supervisor

Willamette National Forest

3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite D

Springfield, OR 97477

541-225-6312

For Information Contact: ELYSIA RETZLAFF 

NEPA Planner

57600 McKenzie Highway

McKenzie Bridge, OR 97413

541-822-7214

Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=40858

Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains the McKenzie River Ranger 

District’s proposal to provide a sustainable supply of timber products, increase vegetative habitat 

complexity and hardwood composition along streams, shift age class, and improve structural diversity 

in 4,398 acres on the Willamette National Forest. The proposed project is located south of Highway 

126, along Aufderheide Road, Forest Road 19, near the town of Blue River, Oregon. Three alternatives 

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

(Alternative 2 and 3). Alternative 2 proposes 4,398 acres of treatment (including skips); Alternative 3 

proposes 3,957 acres of treatment (including skips). Alternative 2 is the Forest Service preferred 

alternative. A one-time project specific Forest Plan Amendment would be required to implement either 

Alternative 2 or 3. 

Comments: This DEIS is made available for a 45-day public comment period, under the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508) and 36 CFR Part 218, which replaced Notice,

Comment, and Appeal procedures at 36 CFR 215. The Forest Service will accept comments beginning on 

the day following the date of publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. The 

official comment period timelines will be posted in a legal notice in Register Guard, and on the

Willamette National Forest’s Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=40858

Submit comments electronically via the Forest Service online commenting system at:

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?project=40858

Or send comments to: 

Elysia Retzlaff, NEPA Planner 

McKenzie River Ranger District

57600 McKenzie Highway 

McKenzie Bridge, OR 97413
Reader’s Guide

ii - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Reader’s Guide

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. 

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts that would result from the proposed actions 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. This section describes the 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 actions. 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 actions as well as the environmental 

consequences of implementing the 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

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - iii

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
List of Acronyms

iv - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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

IRA...................Inventoried Roadless Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - v

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
vi - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

This page left intentionally blank.
Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - vii

Table of Contents

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

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need...................................................................................................... 13

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................13

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action....................................................................................................17

1.3 Proposed Actions ............................................................................................................................20

1.4 Forest Plan and Management Direction .........................................................................................21

1.5 Tribal Consultation..........................................................................................................................26

1.6 Public Involvement Efforts..............................................................................................................26

1.7 Consultation with other Agencies...................................................................................................27

1.8 Issues Derived from Public Comments ...........................................................................................28

1.9 Decision Framework........................................................................................................................28

Chapter 2 - Alternatives................................................................................................................ 30

2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action................................................................................................................30

2.2 Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative..............................................................................................30

2.3 Alternative 3 – No Regeneration Harvest and No Treatment in Stands Over 80 Years Old...........37

2.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ..........................................................................................44

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................................................44

2.6 Design Features...............................................................................................................................47

2.7 Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3......................57

2.8 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................59

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................ 61

Cumulative Effects Analysis....................................................................................................................61

3.1 Forest and Stand Structure .............................................................................................................62

3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................................74

3.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................78

3.4 Aquatic Resources (Fisheries and Aquatic Insects).......................................................................103

3.5 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................114

3.6 Botany and Invasive Plants............................................................................................................160

3.7 Heritage.........................................................................................................................................167

3.8 Roads and Access...........................................................................................................................171

3.9 Recreation......................................................................................................................................176
viii - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.10 Scenic Quality..............................................................................................................................184

3.11 Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)......................................................................193

3.12 Unroaded Areas...........................................................................................................................198

3.13 Wild and Scenic Study River........................................................................................................200

3.14 Special Interest Areas..................................................................................................................206

3.15 Special Habitat Areas...................................................................................................................215

3.16 Fire and Fuels..............................................................................................................................216

3.17 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................222

3.18 Climate Change ...........................................................................................................................225

3.19 Economics ...................................................................................................................................227

3.20 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .....................................................................................................229

3.21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.........................................................229

3.22 Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Productivity .....................................................................229

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers....................................................................................................... 231

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

Availability................................................................................................................................... 233

Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders.................................. 235

Appendix B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives ............................ 241

Appendix C – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Preferred Alternative............... 248

Appendix D - Road Treatment Proposals.................................................................................... 252

Appendix E - Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy .................... 255

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................255

Appendix F - Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................................................... 265

Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments...................................................... 268

Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis............................................................................................... 279

References................................................................................................................................... 286

Glossary....................................................................................................................................... 305

Index............................................................................................................................................ 313
Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - ix

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Green Mountain Vicinity Map .....................................................................................................................14

Figure 2. Green Mountain Project Area......................................................................................................................15

Figure 3. 6th Field Watersheds within the Green Mountain Project Area ..................................................................16

Figure 4. Current Age Class Distribution in the Green Mountain Project...................................................................19

Figure 5. Historic Age Class Distribution in the Green Mountain Project..................................................................20

Figure 6. Forest Plan Management Allocations.........................................................................................................23

Figure 7. Northwest Forest Plan Management Allocations........................................................................................24

Figure 8. Map of Alternative 2 (North) .......................................................................................................................34

Figure 9. Map of Alternative 2 (Middle) .....................................................................................................................35

Figure 10. Map Alternative 2 (South) .........................................................................................................................36

Figure 11. Map of Alternative 3 (North) .....................................................................................................................41

Figure 12. Map of Alternative 3 (Middle) ...................................................................................................................42

Figure 13. Map of Alternative 3 (South) .....................................................................................................................43

Figure 14. Current Stand Age Classification in the Green Mountain Project Area .....................................................64

Figure 15. Visualization of Stand Before (left side) and After (right side) Thinning ...................................................68

Figure 16. Visualization of Thinning with Gaps...........................................................................................................68

Figure 17. Visualization of Single vs Multiple Tree Dominant Tree Release................................................................69

Figure 18. Visualization of Shelterwood with Reserves Pre (left side) and Post (right side) Treatment ....................70

Figure 19. Waterbodies and 6th Field HUC Sub-watersheds within the Green Mountain Project Area....................79

Figure 20. Desired Conditions for Late-seral Riparian Reserves.................................................................................81

Figure 21. Vegetation Classification of the South Fork McKenzie Watershed (North)...............................................82

Figure 22. Vegetation Classification of the South Fork McKenzie Watershed (South)...............................................83

Figure 23. Overstocked, Conifer-Dominant Stand in Riparian Reserves in the Project Area .....................................83

Figure 24. Properly Functioning Riparian Reserves in the Project Area .....................................................................84

Figure 25. Source Distance Curves for Study Area (Brenda and Bigelow 2014) .........................................................87

Figure 26. Green Mountain Project Area Elk Emphasis Areas..................................................................................146

Figure 27. Summary of Predicted Elk Habitat Use in Green Mountain Project Area by Alternative ........................154

Figure 28. Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest (North).....................................................................175

Figure 29. Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest (South).....................................................................176

Figure 30. Management Areas and Associated ROS for Alternative 2 (North)..........................................................179

Figure 31. Management Areas and Associated ROS for Alternative 2 (South).........................................................180

Figure 32. Affected Trails in the Project Area –Alternative 2 ..................................................................................183

Figure 33. Potentially Visible Areas and Viewpoints within the Green Mountain Project Area...............................187

Figure 34. Trails Affected by Proposed Actions in the Green Mountain Project......................................................192

Figure 35. Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area (North) .............................................196

Figure 36. Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area (South) .............................................197

Figure 37. Special Interest Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area...................................................................208

Figure 38. Previously Managed Stand in SIA in Green Mountain Project Area ........................................................209

Figure 39. Fire Regimes in the Green Mountain Project Area .................................................................................217

Figure 40. Riparian Reserve Vegetation Classification (North).................................................................................281

Figure 41. Riparian Reserve Vegetation Classification (South).................................................................................282

Figure 42. Hardwood Gaps #1 ..................................................................................................................................283

Figure 43. Hardwood Gaps #2 ..................................................................................................................................284

Figure 44. Hardwood Gaps #3 ..................................................................................................................................285

Table of Tables

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

Table 2. Summary of Direct Environmental Consequences.........................................................................................5

Table 3. Management Allocations..............................................................................................................................25
x - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Table 4. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 2................................................31

Table 5. Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 2 .........................................................33

Table 6. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 3................................................38

Table 7. Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 3 .........................................................40

Table 8. Comparison of Alternatives...........................................................................................................................44

Table 9. Design Features Common to Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 ......................................................................47

Table 10. Wildlife Tree and Large Down Wood Creation Recommendations for Alternatives 2 and 3......................57

Table 11. Harvest Units by Alternative and Stand Age Classification .........................................................................64

Table 12. Average Stand Characteristics of Stands Considered for Harvest...............................................................66

Table 13. Comparison of Treatments (acres) by Alternative......................................................................................72

Table 14. Acres and Mode of Regeneration by Alternative........................................................................................73

Table 15. Management Indicators for Assessing Effects to Soils Issue Management Indicator Justification .............75

Table 16. Proposed Units with Wildlife Gaps in the Secondary Shade Zone..............................................................89

Table 17. Proposed Units with In-stream Fall-and-Leave Treatments .......................................................................90

Table 18. Units with Proposed Near-stream (primary shade zone) Gap Treatments ................................................91

Table 19. Riparian Reserve Management on Federally Managed Lands in the Project Area.....................................91

Table 20. Stream Temperatures for the Green Mountain Project Area ....................................................................94

Table 21. Aggregate Recovery Percentage for the Green Mountain Project .............................................................98

Table 22. Total Road Densities Across the South Fork McKenzie Watershed ............................................................99

Table 23. Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for Green Mountain Project Area Roads................................101

Table 24. Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative for the Green 

Mountain Project..............................................................................................................................................101

Table 25. Fish Species of the South Fork McKenzie River and its Tributaries (USDA Forest Service 1994)..............103

Table 26. Proposed Units with In-stream Fall-and-Leave Treatments .....................................................................106

Table 27. Woody material counts for some streams in the Green Mountain Project Area .....................................106

Table 28. Nutritional quality of various types of organic matter (from (Murphy and Meehan 1991) .....................108

Table 29. Culvert replacement needs on Forest Road 1900 within 150 feet of the South Fork McKenzie ..............112

Table 30. Trees and Logs Added to the South Fork McKenzie River and Lower Roaring River ................................114

Table 31. Green Mountain Project Area Spotted Owl Habitat Type Distribution by Acres and Percent.................119

Table 32. Age Class Acres by Treatment Type – Alternative 2.................................................................................120

Table 33. Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type.............................................................................................121

Table 34. Alternative 2 Spotted Owl Habitat Acres..................................................................................................122

Table 35. Alternative 3 Spotted Owl Habitat Acres Proposed for Treatment ..........................................................122

Table 36. Effects on Owl Sites within Critical Habitat – Alternative 2 ......................................................................125

Table 37. Treatments in Suitable Habitat in the Core Area (CA) - Alternative 2......................................................128

Table 38. Proposed Activities in Suitable Habitat in the Provincial Home Range (HR) of Known and Potential Owl 

Sites (USFWS 2012b) – Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................128

Table 39. Summary of USFWS Consultation for Helicopter Use Near Owl Nest Sites..............................................130

Table 40. Summary of Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 Proposed Threatened and Sensitive Species.......................136

Table 41. Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Willamette National Forest...........................................141

Table 42. Wildlife Habitat Types in the South Fork McKenzie River Watershed ......................................................142

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

Field Watershed for the MMC and WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Types...........................................................143

Table 44. Large Snags/Acre at Various Tolerance Levels for the WLCH_OCA Habitat Type.....................................143

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

South Fork McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed for the MMC and WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Types.........143

Table 46. Average Snags per Acre in Stands Proposed in Alternative 2 ...................................................................144

Table 47. HEI Analysis for Elk Habitat in the Green Mountain Project Area (Current Condition) ............................150

Table 48. 2016 Analysis of DDE Categories by Big Game Emphasis Area .................................................................152

Table 49. BGEA Improvements with Proposed Harvest Treatments.......................................................................153

Table 50. Open Road Mileage for the Green Mountain Project...............................................................................155

Table 51. Special Status Botanical Species in the Green Mountain Project Area.....................................................160
Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - xi

Table 52. Survey and Manage Species in the Green Mountain Project Area ...........................................................163

Table 53. Special Habitats in the Green Mountain Project Area ..............................................................................164

Table 54. Invasive Plants in the Green Mountain Project Area ................................................................................165

Table 55. Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest...................................................................................174

Table 56. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) definitions................................................................................178

Table 57. Visual Quality Objectives...........................................................................................................................188

Table 58. Visual Quality Objective Acres in Project..................................................................................................189

Table 59. Size Class and Acreage of Unroaded Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area ....................................198

Table 60. Unroaded Areas in Green Mountain Project Area with Implementation of Alternative 2 .......................199

Table 61. Unroaded Areas in Green Mountain Project Area with Implementation of Alternative 3 .......................199

Table 62. Average Stand Characteristics of Managed Stands Considered for Harvest in the SIAs...........................207

Table 63. Modeled Wildfire behavior for Green Mountain Unitsa ...........................................................................219

Table 64. Estimated Economic Alternatives 1, 2.........................................................................................................228

Table 65. Acres of Riparian Reserves within the South Fork McKenzie 5th Field Watershed ...................................280

Table 66. Riparian Reserve vegetation classification outputs. .................................................................................280
xii - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

This page left intentionally blank.
Summary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 1

Summary

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

increase vegetative habitat complexity and hardwood composition along streams, shift age class, and 

improve structural diversity in 4,398 acres on the Willamette National Forest. The proposed project is 

located off Highway 126, along Aufderheide Road (Forest Road 19), near the town of Blue River, 

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 1.2 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.

Increase Vegetative Habitat Complexity and Hardwood Composition along 

Streams

The proposed project is needed to increase vegetative habitat complexity and hardwood composition 

along streams. Past logging practices and fire exclusion have resulted in dense, uniform species stands 

with few hardwood trees along riparian areas. As a result, these stands have low wildlife habitat 

complexity and low species diversity. The proposed project would help restore these stands to more 

desirable, healthy conditions by adding snags and down wood in and near streams and also increasing the 

amount of hardwood trees, shrubs, and forbs along streams to add both structural and species diversity. 

Shift Age Class and Structural Diversity

The proposed project is needed to balance the age class and structural diversity in the proposed project 

area, providing benefits to vegetation, wildlife and overall health of the forest. The presence of all age 

classes, from the very young forests (0-20 years) to the very old forests (250+ years) is important for 

ecosystem health, ensuring that habitat needs of a multitude of plants and animals, is better situated to 

persist in the future despite uncertainties associated with climate change. The proposed project would 

help restore age class diversity with thinning, gap diversity, dominant tree release and skips.

Proposed Actions

Proposed harvest treatments include thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, regeneration harvest, 

and skips. Post-harvest fuels treatments would include pile and burn and post-harvest underburn.

Transportation related activities would include temporary road construction, road maintenance, road 

decommissioning, road storage, and bridge replacement. 

Forest Plan Amendment (#58)

The proposed actions in Alternative 2 and 3 would include treatments in Management Area 5a – Special 

Interest Areas (SIAs). The Green Mountain project proposes to treat approximately 206 acres in the 

South Fork McKenzie SIA and approximately 59 acres in the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA with thinning, 

gaps, and skips. 
Summary

2 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

No programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and 

Guideline MA-5a-05: “No programmed harvest shall be scheduled.” However, Implementation Guides 

for SIAs include objectives and enhancement recommendations for managing second growth plantations 

to accelerate growth and more quickly attain attributes of older stands; implementing silvicultural 

treatments in stands where densities are high or showing a reduction of growth to improve tree and stand 

vigor; maintaining health and aesthetics while maintaining decadence of the forest in and around Hidden 

Lake area through harvest of even-aged, previously managed stands; and accelerating late successional 

characteristics in young stands to enhance connectivity corridor between Late Successional Reserves. 

Treatments proposed in the SIAs would move stands towards achieving the objectives and enhancement 

recommendations listed above and described in further detail in the Implementation Guides. Because No 

programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and Guideline 

5a-05, a one-time exception approved with a Forest Plan amendment would be required with Alternative 2 

or 3. 

Alternatives

Three alternatives were analyzed in this DEIS; 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 

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 1,454 1,596

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 901 894

Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 325 0

Gaps Acres 0 320 261

Dominant Tree Release Acres 0 291 206

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 346 253

Skips In Riparian Reserves Acres 0 761 747

Total Acres 0 4,398 3,957

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF 0 ~89 ~68

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/ or hand 

treatments)1, 2 Acres 0 2,496 2,575

Post-Harvest Underburn1, 2 Acres 0 795 382

Road Activities Associated with Harvest
Summary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 3

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

New Road Construction Miles 0 0 0

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 10.3 8.6

Roads Maintained Miles 0 130 115

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 2 2

Road Storage Miles 0 21.1 21.1

Seasonal Road Closure Removed Miles 0 6 6

Seasonal Road Closure Changed to 

Permanent Road Closure Miles 0 3 3

Bridge Replacement

(Hardy Creek) -- No Yes Yes

Rock obtained from expanding existing 

quarries Cubic Yards 0 15,000 15,000

Acres by Harvest System

Helicopter Harvest Acres 0 90 90

Skyline Harvest Acres 0 2,436 2,265

Ground-based Harvest Acres 0 765 602

Harvest Associated Planting, Snags, and Down Wood

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 325 0

Planting in Gaps Acres 0 130 53

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres 0 190 208

Snags and Down Wood

(occurs in regeneration units)

Snags per 

acre and 

liner feet of 

large down 

wood of 

decay 

classes I-II

0

Retain or create 

up to 5 snags per 

acre and at least 

240 linear feet of 

down wood on 

approximately 43 

acres.

0

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated 

Acres 0 57 0

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated 

Acres 0 1,187 1,187

NSO Non-Habitat Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated 

Acres 0 76 76
Summary

4 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1

Acres 0 411 0

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1

Acres 0 3,287 3,287

NSO Non-Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1

Acres 0 592 592

Gap and Fall and Leave Treatments in Riparian Reserves

1⁄4 Acre Non-commercial Gaps in Primary 

Shade Zone1 Acres 0 3.5 3.5

1⁄4 Acre Gaps within Riparian Reserves in 

Secondary Shade zone (Total)1 Acres 0 4 4

Fall and Leave to Add Wood to Stream 

Channels Miles 0 2.7 2.7

Forest Plan Amendment (#58)

South Fork McKenzie River Special 

Interest Area1

- No Yes Yes

Hidden Lake – Lulu Special Interest Area1 - No Yes Yes

1 - These acres are already accounted for in the above table under “Timber Harvest Treatments” and therefore are not included in 

the total.

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

mechanical device). Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. 
Summary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 5

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table 2. Summary of Direct Environmental Consequences

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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees 

harvested in the future 

would be reduced due to 

continued decline in 

diameter growth.

2,966 acres treated to: 

reduce competition, 

increase tree growth and 

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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees in the 

future would increase with 

increased diameter growth.

2,957 acres treated to: 

reduce competition, 

increase tree growth and 

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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees in the 

future would increase with 

increased diameter growth.

Fire and Fuels No effect

Reduction of harvest 

created slash ≤3” diameter. 

This would improve 

firefighter and public safety 

during future wildfires, 

prepare units for planting, 

help to create snags, 

increase vegetation 

diversity to the project area 

and a secondary benefit of 

returning the natural 

disturbance process of fire.

Reduction of harvest 

created slash ≤3” diameter. 

This would improve 

firefighter and public safety 

during future wildfires, 

prepare units for planting, 

help to create snags, 

increase vegetation 

diversity to the project area 

and a secondary benefit of 

returning the natural 

disturbance process of fire.

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 No effect

Reduction in risk of 

sedimentation and road 

failures post-treatment. 

Benefit to long-term large 

woody debris and water 

temperatures. No 

measurable adverse effects 

to water quality

Reduction in risk of 

sedimentation and road 

failures post-treatment. 

Benefit to long-term large 

woody debris and water 

temperatures. No 

measurable adverse effects 

to water quality
Summary

6 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Rare Plants No effect No effect No effect

Rare Fungi No effect

Commercial harvest, 

broadcast burning, gaps,

and regeneration harvest

may impact fungi 

propagation.

Commercial harvest, 

broadcast burning, gaps,

and regeneration harvest

may impact fungi 

propagation.

Special Habitats No effect No effect No effect

Invasive Plants No effect

Potentially invasive habitat 

would occur on 75 acres 

due to temporary road 

construction.

Potentially invasive habitat 

would occur on 63 acres 

due to temporary road 

construction.

Roads

No change in the use 

pattern of roads or 

correction of existing road 

maintenance problems. 

Brush and tree re-growth 

and associated reduced 

visibility, debris on road, 

and surface irregularities 

from OHV and other traffic 

could eventually result in

unsafe traveling conditions 

for public and administrative 

traffic, as well as increasing 

resource damage 

associated with localized 

erosion. 

Would reverse declining 

road conditions on an 

estimated 130 miles of 

road. Would reduce the 

open road density by 26 

miles leaving stored and 

decommissioned roads in a 

hydrologically stable 

condition reducing the miles 

of road maintenance and 

reducing the risk of 

sediment. 

Would reverse declining 

road conditions on an 

estimated 115 miles of 

road. Would reduce the 

open road density by 26 

miles leaving stored and 

decommissioned roads in a 

hydrologically stable 

condition reducing the miles 

of road maintenance and 

reducing the risk of 

sediment. 

Air Quality No effect

Effects on air quality from 

smoke emissions would not 

exceed state mandated 

policy.

Effects on air quality from 

smoke emissions would not 

exceed state mandated 

policy.

Heritage No effect

Potential direct effects to 

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.

Potential direct effects to 

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.

Recreation

No effect. Potential benefits 

to scenic driving and 

dispersed camping due to 

improved road quality, 

opening closed roads and 

the replacement of the 

bridge on Forest Service 

Road 1980-204 would not 

occur.

Some indirect effects to 

developed and dispersed 

recreation sites and trails 

such as temporary 

increases in noise, dust and 

minor road delays may 

occur. Direct effects to trails 

will include loss of access to 

portions of trails during 

harvest activities and short 

Moderately less indirect 

effects of noise, dust and 

road delays compared to 

Alternative 2 due to an 

overall reduction of harvest 

activity. No change in direct 

effects between Alternative 

2 and 3.
Summary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 7

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

term evidence of harvest 

activities adjacent to 

approximately 1.25mi of 

trails within the project area. 

No direct effects to 

developed sites or 

inventoried dispersed 

campsites would occur.

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 89 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 68 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.

Inventoried Roadless 

Area No effect No effect No effect

Wilderness No effect

Temporary deterioration of 

air quality and noise during 

haul and harvest activity in 

units in close proximity to 

wilderness.

Temporary deterioration of 

air quality and noise during 

haul and harvest activity in 

units in close proximity to 

wilderness.

Unroaded Areas No effect Unroaded areas would be 

reduced by 2.3 percent

Unroaded areas would be 

reduced by 0.39 percent.

South Fork McKenzie 

Wild and Scenic Study 

River

No effect No effect No effect

South Fork McKenzie 

Special Interest Area

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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

206 acres treated to: reduce 

competition, increase tree 

growth and 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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees in the 

future would increase with 

increased diameter growth.

206 acres treated to: reduce 

competition, increase tree 

growth and 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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees in the 

future would increase with 

increased diameter growth.
Summary

8 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

product value of trees 

harvested in the future 

would be reduced due to 

continued decline in 

diameter growth.

Lulu / Hidden Lake 

Special Interest Area

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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees 

harvested in the future 

would be reduced due to 

continued decline in 

diameter growth.

59 acres treated to: reduce 

competition, increase tree 

growth and 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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees in the 

future would increase with 

increased diameter growth.

59 acres treated to: reduce 

competition, increase tree 

growth and 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, sugar pine, and 

western white pine. The 

product value of trees in the 

future would increase with 

increased diameter growth.

Northern Spotted Owl 

(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

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

Likely to Adversely Affect 

due to downgrading of 57 

acres of suitable habitat to 

dispersal habitat

May Affect, Not likely to 

Adversely Affect

American Peregrine 

Falcon 

(R6 Sensitive and 

Management Indicator 

Species)

No impact No impact with seasonal 

restrictions applied

No impact with seasonal 

restrictions applied

Pacific Fisher 

(ESA Proposed Threatened 

and R6 Sensitive)

No Effect

No short-term effect with 

potential long-term 

beneficial impact. Fishers 

are unlikely to occur in the 

project area and the scale 

of the alternatives, which 

would impact between <1 

percent to 8 percent of 3 

hypothetical female home 

ranges, would not preclude 

them from reestablishing in 

the watershed, and effects 

No short-term effect with 

potential long-term 

beneficial impact. Fishers 

are unlikely to occur in the 

project area and the scale 

of the alternatives, which 

would impact between <1 

percent to 8 percent of 3 

hypothetical female home 

ranges, would not preclude 

them from reestablishing in 

the watershed, and effects 
Summary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 9

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

to this species are unlikely 

to occur. In the long-term, 

potential Pacific Fisher 

habitat quality may benefit 

from year-round road 

closures, road storage and 

decommissioning, and 

possible large down wood

enhancement.

to this species are unlikely 

to occur. In the long-term, 

potential Pacific Fisher 

habitat quality may benefit 

from year-round road 

closures, road storage and 

decommissioning, and 

possible large down wood

enhancement. Impacts 

somewhat reduced 

compared to Alt. 2.

Fringed Myotis and 

Townsend’s Big-eared 

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.

No 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 

Green Mountain 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 

10m no-harvest and noburn buffer. Where suitable 

habitat would be impacted 

at the Hardy Creek bridge, 

presence does not occur. 

No impact because all 

suitable habitat would be 

protected with a minimum 

10m no-harvest and noburn buffer. Where suitable 

habitat would be impacted 

at the Hardy Creek bridge, 

presence does not occur. 

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 2,651 acres

May impact suitable habitat

on about 2,231 acres

Red Tree Vole 

(Survey and Manage 

Species)

No impact

Would remove or thin about 

447 acres of higher quality 

habitat in stands over 80 

years of age. May impact 

about 2,915 acres of lower 

quality habitat. No impact 

to documented nest areas.

No impact to higher quality 

habitat. May impact about 

2,987 acres of lower quality 

habitat.
Summary

10 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Great Gray Owl 

(Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact

May impact suitable habitat. 

Harvest treatments would 

create about 935 acres of 

open foraging habitat.

No impact to suitable 

habitat. Harvest treatments 

would create about 467 

acres of open foraging 

habitat.

Cavity Excavators 

(Management Indicator 

Species)

No impact

Snag abundance may 

initially decline on 3,292 

acres but may increase with 

post-harvest mitigation and 

enhancement

Snag abundance may 

initially decline on 3,973 

acres but may increase with 

post-harvest mitigation and 

enhancement

Elk and Deer (Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact

Regeneration harvest and 

small gaps should increase 

elk forage quality from 

“poor” to “higher-marginal” 

for about 20 years on 

approximately935 acres. 

Thinning would improve 

forage on approximately 

2,357 acres.

Regeneration harvest and 

small gaps should increase 

elk forage quality from 

“poor” to “higher-marginal” 

for about 20 years on 

approximately 467 acres. 

Thinning would improve 

forage on approximately 

2,491 acres.

Pileated Woodpecker 

(Management Indicator 

Species)

No impact

approximately 446 acres of 

older forest stands over 80 

years would be degraded 

No impact

Marten 

(Management Indicator 

Species) 

No impact

Degrades approximately 

236 acres of marten habitat 

in the preferred montane 

forest habitat type

No impact

Bald Eagle (Management 

Indicator Species) No impact No impact No impact

Northern Goshawk 

(Landbirds preferring older 

forest habitat)

No impact

Removal of approximately 

86 acres of habitat between 

80-135 years of age, and 

thins approximately 360

acres between 80-144 

years of age, which has the 

preferred forest habitat 

structure 

No impact

Rufous Hummingbird, 

Purple Finch (Landbirds 

favoring shrub habitat in 

early seral conifer stands) 

No impact

Creates approximately 935

acres of complex early seral 

habitat lasting about 20 

years

Creates approximately 467 

acres of complex early seral 

habitat lasting about 20 

years

Olive-sided Flycatcher 

(Landbirds favoring forest 

openings with large snags) 

No impact

Harvest treatments would 

create approximately 935

acres of complex early seral 

habitat lasting about 20 

years, with planned snag 

mitigation and 

enhancement for nest sites 

at the rate of 0-5/acre

Harvest treatments would 

create approximately 467 

acres of complex early seral 

habitat lasting about 20 

years, with planned snag 

mitigation and 

enhancement for nest sites 

at the rate of 0-5/acre
Summary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 11

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon 

(Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit) 

No effect

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect. This 

effects determination is due 

to the potential for incidental 

take.

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect. This 

determination is due to the 

potential for incidental take.

Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon 

(Critical Habitat)

No effect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect. There 

would be no adverse 

modification to critical 

habitat. Critical habitat 

would be enhanced by fall 

and leave projects in Elk 

Creek.

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect. There 

would be no adverse 

modification to critical 

habitat. Critical habitat 

would be enhanced by fall 

and leave projects in Elk 

Creek.

Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon 

(Essential Habitat)

No effect

Will Not Adversely Affect

because of the no cut 

buffers established along 

fish bearing streams, 

project design measures, 

and the implementation of 

Best Management Practices 

(BMPs).

Will Not Adversely Affect

because of the no cut 

buffers established along 

fish bearing streams, 

project design measures, 

and the implementation of 

Best Management Practices 

(BMPs).

Bull Trout 

(Distinct Population 

Segment) 

No effect

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect. This 

effects determination is due 

to the potential for incidental 

take.

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect. This 

effects determination is due 

to the potential for incidental 

take.

Bull Trout 

(Critical Habitat) No effect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect. There 

would be no adverse 

modification to critical 

habitat. This is due to no cut 

buffers established along 

fish bearing streams,

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect. There 

would be no adverse 

modification to critical 

habitat. This is due to no cut 

buffers established along 

fish bearing streams,

Rhyacophila chandleri

(Caddisfly) No impact

The biological evaluation 

found that the Green 

Mountain Project may have 

beneficial impacts to this 

species. This is due to an 

improvement in the type of 

organic matter they 

consume. That is, a small 

increase of deciduous 

leaves due to the small 

gaps that would be created 

near streams where we do 

not expect significant 

increases in stream 

temperatures.

The biological evaluation 

found that the Green 

Mountain Project may have 

beneficial impacts to this 

species. This is due to an 

improvement in the type of 

organic matter they 

consume. That is, a small 

increase of deciduous 

leaves due to the small 

gaps that would be created 

near streams where we do 

not expect significant 

increases in stream 

temperatures.

Rhyacophila leechi

(Caddisfly) No impact

The biological evaluation 

found that the Green 

Mountain Project may have 

beneficial impacts to this 

species. This is due to an 

The biological evaluation 

found that the Green 

Mountain Project may have 

beneficial impacts to this 

species. This is due to an 
Summary

12 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

improvement in the type of 

organic matter they 

consume. That is, a small 

increase of deciduous 

leaves due to the small 

gaps that would be created 

near streams where we do 

not expect significant 

increases in stream 

temperatures.

improvement in the type of 

organic matter they 

consume. That is, a small 

increase of deciduous 

leaves due to the small 

gaps that would be created 

near streams where we do 

not expect significant 

increases in stream 

temperatures.

Namamyia plutonis

(Caddisfly) No impact

The biological evaluation 

found that the Green 

Mountain Project may have 

beneficial impacts to this 

species. This is due to an 

improvement in the type of 

organic matter they 

consume. That is, a small 

increase of deciduous 

leaves due to the small 

gaps that would be created 

near streams where we do 

not expect significant 

increases in stream 

temperatures.

The biological evaluation 

found that the Green 

Mountain Project may have 

beneficial impacts to this 

species. This is due to an 

improvement in the type of 

organic matter they 

consume. That is, a small 

increase of deciduous 

leaves due to the small 

gaps that would be created 

near streams where we do 

not expect significant 

increases in stream 

temperatures.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 13

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need 

1.1 Introduction

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

increase vegetative habitat complexity and hardwood composition along streams, shift age class, and 

improve structural diversity in 4,398 acres on the Willamette National Forest.

The project area encompasses 99,051 acres along Aufderheide Roade (Forest Road 19), near the 

community of Blue, River Oregon (Figure 1 and 2). The project is located in the South Fork McKenzie 

River-Cougar Reservoir; Rebel Creek; Augusta Creek; Roaring River; and Elk Creek-McKenzie River 6th

field watersheds (Figure 3). 

96,566 acres in the project area are managed by the Willamette National Forest with the remaining 2,485 

acres managed by private industrial timber companies. 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. There is a transition to the true fir/mountain 

hemlock zone above approximately 4,000 feet, most notably in the area east of Box Canyon.

Fire has been a dominant disturbance in the project area. Records indicate 316 fires occurred in the Green 

Mountain project area from 1970-2013. However, due to fire suppression most fires were suppressed at 

less than five acres within a few days of ignition. 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 including camping, hiking, horseback riding, 

fishing, bicycling, picnicking, berry picking, mushroom harvesting, scenic driving, and soaking in hot 

springs. Numerous developed recreation facilities including campgrounds, day use areas, boat launches 

and rental cabins provide a wide array of developed recreation options for visitors. An extensive trail 

system in the area supports a range of trail oriented activities including multi-day backpacking trips, day 

hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and access to the Three Sisters Wilderness. Forest Road 19, 

also known as the Robert Aufderheide Memorial Drive, is the primary road in the project area and is a 

designated portion of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway. The South Fork of the McKenzie River 

runs through the project area. A 25.7 mile portion of the South Fork of the McKenzie is a designated as a 

National Study Wild and Scenic River.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

14 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 1. Green Mountain Vicinity Map
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 15

Figure 2. Green Mountain Project Area 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

16 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 17

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action

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. 

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 actions, the McKenzie River Ranger District 

would contribute approximately 66 MMBF to the Willamette National Forest PSQ target over a four year 

period (approximately 16-17 MMBF/year). 

Increase Vegetative Habitat Complexity and Hardwood Composition along

Streams

Why Consider Taking Action: The proposed project is needed to help restore the vegetative habitat 

complexity and hardwood composition along streams, while providing secondary benefits to wildlife and 

fisheries with improved habitat in second growth stands and previously managed stands. 

According to the NW Forest Plan, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) “must strive to maintain and 

restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales to protect habitat for fish and other ripariandependent species and resources and restore currently degraded habitats. This approach seeks to prevent 

further degradation and restore habitat over broad landscapes as opposed to individual projects or small 

watersheds” (NW Forest Plan, p. B-9).

ACS objective (#8) specifically identifies maintaining and restoring the species composition and 

structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas to provide thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

18 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

appropriate rates of erosion and channel migration, and to supply coarse woody debris (downed wood) 

sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability (NW Forest Plan, p. B-11).

Existing Condition: Past logging practices and fire exclusion have resulted in dense, uniform species 

stands with few hardwood trees or understory shrubs throughout Riparian Reserves. As a result, these 

stands have low wildlife habitat complexity and low species diversity.

Desired Condition: The desired condition within Riparian Reserves includes: large conifers (Northwest 

Forest Plan, p. 31); complex habitat structure representative of that which would result from natural 

disturbance patterns; diverse species composition; snags and logs on the forest floor (Northwest Forest 

Plan, p. B-2); and future large wood for streams. The proposed project would help restore these stands to 

more desirable, healthy conditions by adding snags and down wood in and near streams while also 

increasing the amount of hardwood trees, shrubs and forbs along streams to add both structural and 

species diversity. Managing for hardwoods would also increase the diversity of the leaf litter in streams 

adding to the amount of nutrients available to aquatic insects. The treatments proposed along the streams 

would increase dynamic fish habitat which are important contributors to thriving populations. 

Additionally, improving existing roads and making them hydrologically stable would reduce sediment 

delivery to streams and improve their health.

Shift Age Class and Structural Diversity

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 here as less than 15 

years old to represent grass/forb thru sapling/pole habitat) is of key importance to an estimated 165 to 198 

species of wildlife in the Westside/Montane Forests of Oregon and Washington (Johnson D.H, O’Neil 

T.A., 2001, p. 194). 

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 (removing stand and non-stand replacing fires) 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 Green Mountain project area is only partially effective (marginal) at providing 

quality diverse early seral habitat due to the lack of vertical and horizontal stand structure. 

The proposed project is needed to balance the age class and structural diversity in the proposed project 

area, providing benefits to vegetation, wildlife and overall health of the forest. The presence of all age 

classes, from the very young forests (0-15 years) to the very old forests (250+ years) is important for 

ecosystem health, ensuring that habitat needs of a multitude of plants and animals, is better situated to 

persist in the future despite uncertainties associated with climate change. The proposed project would 

help restore age class diversity with thinning, gap diversity, dominant tree release and skips.

Existing Condition: Approximately 80 acres or 0.09 percent of the land managed by the Forest Service 

within the Green Mountain project area is 0-15 years of age. 

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

Swanson (2012, pg. 4) stated that at any point in time, a given landscape would be composed of 5-20 

percent early seral habitat. The historic forest age-class distribution, derived from A Landscape Plan 

Based on Historical Fire Regimes for a Managed Forest Ecosystem: the Augusta Creek Study (USDA 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 19

1998), states that approximately seven percent of the Green Mountain project would historically be in 

young, 0-15 year old stands. Figure 4 shows the current age class distribution compared to the historic age 

distribution in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Current Age Class Distribution in the Green Mountain Project

0-15 years

0.09%

16-39 years 

8.89%

40-79 years

9.09%

80-149 years 

29.90%

150-249 years

28.04%

250-399 years 

17.27%

400+ Years

6.71%

Current Age Distribution

Data based on F.S. managed acres with known ages. Does not include unvegetated ares such as rock or water.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

20 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Historic conditions based on the Augusta Creek Study of 1998

Figure 5. Historic Age Class Distribution in the Green Mountain Project

1.3 Proposed Actions

Proposed harvest treatments include thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, regeneration harvest, 

and skips. Post-harvest fuels treatments would include pile and burn and post-harvest underburn.

Transportation related activities would include temporary road construction, road maintenance, road 

decommissioning, road storage, and bridge replacement. 

Forest Plan Amendment (#58)

The proposed actions in Alternative 2 and 3 would include treatments in Management Area 5a – Special 

Interest Areas (SIAs). The Green Mountain project proposes to treat approximately 206 acres in the 

South Fork McKenzie SIA and approximately 59 acres in the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA with thinning, 

gaps, and skips. 

No programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and 

Guideline MA-5a-05: “No programmed harvest shall be scheduled.” However, Implementation Guides 

for SIAs include objectives and enhancement recommendations for managing second growth plantations 

0-15 years

7%

16-39 years

8%

40-79 years

11%

80-149 years

11%

150-249 years

21%

250-399 years

21%

400+ years

21%
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 21

to accelerate growth and more quickly attain attributes of older stands; implementing silvicultural 

treatments in stands where densities are high or showing a reduction of growth to improve tree and stand 

vigor; maintaining health and aesthetics while maintaining decadence of the forest in and around Hidden 

Lake area through harvest of even-aged, previously managed stands; and accelerating late successional 

characteristics in young stands to enhance connectivity corridor between Late Successional Reserves. 

Treatments proposed in the SIAs would move stands towards achieving the objectives and enhancement 

recommendations listed above and described in further detail in the Implementation Guides. Because No 

programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and Guideline 

5a-05, a one-time exception approved with a non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required

with Alternative 2 or 3. Please refer to Section 3.14 for additional information on the proposed Forest 

Plan amendment.

A detailed description of the actions proposed under each alternatives are included in Chapter 2. A 

detailed description of proposed treatments and project activities is located in Appendix B.

1.4 Forest Plan and Management Direction

This draft environmental impact statement is tiered to the following environmental impact statements and 

plans, which are incorporated by reference:

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

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

“LRMP”)

• The Forest Plan, as amended by 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 Final 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 6 and 7 

illustrate the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan management areas. Table 3 displays Forest Plan 

management areas, Northwest Forest Plan land management areas and unit acres for the alternatives.

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

the project area:
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

22 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Forest Plan

Special Interest Areas (5a) within the project area that have proposed treatments include the South Fork 

McKenzie Special Interest Area and the Hidden/Lulu Lake 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.

Wildlife Habitat-Special Areas (9d) are areas allocated the goal of protecting or enhancing unique wildlife 

habitats and botanical sites which are important components of healthy, biologically diverse ecosystems. 

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

implemented for treatments if necessary to meet established wildlife objectives.

Scenic-Modification Middleground (11a) are areas have the goal to create and maintain desired visual 

characteristics of the forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes will be 

managed for a modest level of scenic quality. These areas are also managed for other resource goals 

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

habitats. 

Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground (11c) are areas that have the objective to create and maintain 

desired visual characteristics of the forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive 

landscapes will be managed for a moderate level of scenic quality. This area will also be managed for 

other resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and 

maintenance of wildlife habitats.

Scenic-Partial Retention Foreground (11d) are areas that have the objective to create and maintain desired 

visual characteristics of the forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes will 

be managed for a moderate level of scenic quality. This area will also be managed for other resource 

goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of 

wildlife habitats.

Scenic Retention Foreground (11f) are areas that have the objective to create and maintain desired visual 

characteristics of the forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes will be 

managed for a high level of scenic quality. This area will also be managed for other resource goals 

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

habitats.

Northwest Forest Plan

General Forest-Matrix Lands (MA 14a) consist of areas outside of other NWFP land allocation categories 

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

production that is compatible with multiple use objectives.

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. 

Adaptive Management Areas (MA 17) are areas designed to develop and test new management approaches 

to integrate and achieve ecological, economic, and other social and community objectives. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 23

Figure 6. Forest Plan Management Allocations
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

24 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 7. Northwest Forest Plan Management Allocations
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 25

Table 3. Management Allocations

Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Northwest Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Acres of 

Treatment 

Alternative 2 

Acres of 

Treatment 

Alternative 3

Wilderness (1) 44,909 0 0

Special Interest Areas (5A) Matrix (14) 5,558 265 265

Special Interest Areas (5A) 100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 185 0 0

Special Interest Areas (5A) Adaptive Management Reserve 

(17) 139 0 0

Pileated Woodpecker (9B) 111 0 0

Pileated Woodpecker (9B) 100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 92 0 0

Pileated Woodpecker (9B) Adaptive Management Reserve 

(17) 191 0 0

Marten (9C) 169 0 0

Marten (9C) 100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 116 0 0

Special Areas (9D) 1,327 0 0

Special Areas (9D) 100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 148 73 73

Dispersed Recreation –

Semiprimitive non-motorized 

(10E)

Matrix (14) 4,309 0 0

Dispersed Recreation –

Semiprimitive non-motorized 

(10E)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 120 0 0

Scenic Modification 

Middleground (11A) Matrix (14) 11,062 1,387 1,245

Scenic Modification 

Middleground (11A)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 578 0 0

Scenic Modification 

Middleground (11A)

Adaptive Management Reserve 

(17) 2,975 788 755

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground (11C) Matrix (14) 2,800 541 426

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground (11C)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 177 0 0

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground (11C)

Adaptive Management Reserve 

(17) 684 151 151

Scenic Partial Retention 

Foreground (11D) Matrix (14) 889 3 0

Scenic Partial Retention 

Foreground (11D)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 2 0 0

Scenic Retention Foreground 

(11F) Matrix (14) 71 3 3

Scenic Retention Foreground 

(11F) Late Successional Reserve (16A) 547 0 0

Scenic Retention Foreground 

(11F)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 117 0 0
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

26 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Northwest Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Acres of 

Treatment 

Alternative 2 

Acres of 

Treatment 

Alternative 3

Scenic Retention Foreground 

(11F)

Adaptive Management Reserve 

(17) 1,264 19 19

Max Modification (14A) Matrix (14) 15,325 1,019 871

Max Modification (14A) 100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 1,125 0 0

Max Modification (14A) Adaptive Management Reserve 

(17) 615 152 149

Riparian Reserves (15)1 48,979 1,786 1,764

Water (Cougar Reservoir) Adaptive Management Reserve 

(17) 961 0 0

Private Land 2,485 0 0

Total Land Allocations 99,051 4,398 3,957

1 – Riparian Reserves overlay other land allocations and are therefore not included in the Total Land Allocations

1.5 Tribal Consultation 

Tribal consultation for the Green Mountain project began in 2011, where it was presented at annual and 

individual Tribal meetings including the Klamath Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. Updates to the 

timeline of planning were identified every year at the annual meetings 2012 through 2015. On June 20, 

2014, the Tribes listed above received a consultation package that included information about the 

proposed project location, proposed actions, and the purpose and need for the project. 

1.6 Public Involvement Efforts

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

scoping letters, 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 Green Mountain project:

• January 1, 2013: Project published in the Willamette National Forest Schedule of Proposed 

Actions

• April 11, 2014: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS published in the Federal Register

• April 10, 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

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

• May 2, 2014: Public meeting to discuss Green Mountain project held in McKenzie Bridge, 

Oregon

• May 9, 2014: Public meeting to discuss Green Mountain project held in Leaburg, Oregon
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 27

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

and concerns about the Green Mountain project during the public scoping comment period from April 10th

through May 15th, 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. 

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

District office.

1.7 Consultation with other Agencies

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

Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout

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

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

and Columbia River bull trout is currently in progress. The Biological Evaluation prepared for the Green 

Mountain project found that the project “may affect, and is likely to adversely effect” Upper Willamette 

spring Chinook salmon and bull trout. This analysis also found that there would not be any adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat for either species. On October 14, 2014, the Green Mountain 

project was presented to the USFWS and NMFS and they concurred with the effects determination of 

“may affect, is likely to adversely effect.” A Biological Assessment is currently being prepared to enter 

into formal consultation with USFWS and NMFS. Consultation will be completed prior to publication of 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Green Mountain 

project. The Forest Service will be required to comply with the terms and conditions provided by the 

USFWS and NMFS in the Biological Opinion.

Northern Spotted Owl

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

completed in 2012 and evaluated by the USFWS in the 2012 Biological Opinion (FWS reference 

01EOFW00-2013-TA-0034) signed October 29, 2012. 

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 

DEIS 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 2011 

and 2012. All known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (project area) were protected by 

avoidance, resulting in a determination of “Historic Properties Avoided” on June 27, 2013. SHPO 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

28 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

concurred with the Forest Service finding on January 27, 2015. Documentation has been retained in the 

Forest and District Heritage files.

1.8 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 actions 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, four key issues were identified from comments and questions: 

Key Issue #1: Harvest treatments should not occur in stands over 80 years of age

Key Issue #2: No regeneration harvest should occur

Key Issue #3: Reduce miles of temporary road construction

Key Issue #4: Eliminate all new, permanent road construction

Alternative 3 was developed in response to Key Issues 1, 2, and 3. Alternative 3 eliminates harvest 

treatments in stands over 80 years of age, eliminates regeneration harvest, and reduces temporary road 

construction. In response to Key Issue 4, all new, permanent road construction was eliminated from 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

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.

1.9 Decision Framework

The Responsible Official for this proposal is the Forest Supervisor of the Willamette National Forest. The 

Forest Supervisor will review the proposed actions, alternatives, and the environmental consequences in 

order to make the following decisions:

• Whether to implement the proposed actions and which alternative;
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 29

• 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 actions and alternatives.

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.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

30 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Chapter 2 - Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Green Mountain 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 –

Preferred Alternative; and Alternative 3 - No Regeneration Harvest and No Treatment in Stands Over 80 

Years Old.

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 actions would not be met under Alternative 1, as no timber harvest 

would be implemented. 

2.2 Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative

Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative and was developed to fully meet the purpose and need for this 

project. Alternative 2 proposes to treat approximately 4,398 acres in the project area (Figure 8, 9, and 

10). Harvest treatments proposed include thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, regeneration 

harvest, and skips. Harvest treatments would yield an estimated gross 89 million board feet of timber.

Post-harvest fuels treatments would include pile and burn and post-harvest underburn. Approximately 

10.3 miles of temporary road construction would occur and approximately 130 miles of existing road 

would be maintained under Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 would include treatments in Management Area 5a – Special Interest Areas (SIAs). The 

Green Mountain project proposes to treat approximately 206 acres in the South Fork McKenzie SIA and 

approximately 59 acres in the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA with thinning, gaps, and skips. 

No programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and 

Guideline MA-5a-05: “No programmed harvest shall be scheduled.” However, Implementation Guides 

for SIAs include objectives and enhancement recommendations for managing second growth plantations 

to accelerate growth and more quickly attain attributes of older stands; implementing silvicultural 

treatments in stands where densities are high or showing a reduction of growth to improve tree and stand 

vigor; maintaining health and aesthetics while maintaining decadence of the forest in and around Hidden 

Lake area through harvest of even-aged, previously managed stands; and accelerating late successional 

characteristics in young stands to enhance connectivity corridor between Late Successional Reserves. 

Treatments proposed in the SIAs would move stands towards achieving the objectives and enhancement 

recommendations listed above and described in further detail in the Implementation Guides. Because no 

programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and Guideline 

5a-05, a one-time exception approved with a non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required. 

Please refer to Section 3.14 for additional information on the proposed Forest Plan amendment.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 31

Table 4 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 4. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 2

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 1,454 1, 3

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 901 2

Regeneration Harvest Acres 325 1, 3

Gaps Acres 320 1, 2, 3

Dominant Tree Release Acres 291 1, 3

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 346 3

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 761 2, 3

Total Acres 4,398 1, 2, 3

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF ~89 1

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units2,3

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments ) Acres 2,496 3

Post-Harvest Underburn Acres 795 3

Transportation

New Road Construction Miles 0 -

Temporary Road Construction Miles 10.3 -

Roads Maintained Miles 130 -

Road Decommissioning Miles 2 -

Road Storage Miles 21.1 -

Seasonal Road Closure Removed Miles 6 -

Seasonal Road Closure Changed to Permanent 

Road Closure Miles 3 -

Bridge Replacement

(Hardy Creek) - Yes -

Rock Obtained From Existing Quarries Cubic Yards 15,000 -
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

32 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 90 -

Skyline Acres 2,436 -

Ground Acres 765 -

Harvest Associated Planting, Snags, and Down Wood

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres 325 3

Planting in Gaps Acres 130 3

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres 190 3

Snags and Down Wood

(occurs in regeneration units)

Snags per 

acre and liner 

feet of large 

down wood

of decay 

classes I-II

Retain or create 

up to 5 snags

per acre and at 

least 240 linear 

feet of down 

wood on 

approximately 43 

acres.

3

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 57 3

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 1,187 3

NSO Non-Habitat Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated Acres 76 3

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 411 3

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 3,287 3

NSO Non-Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 592 3

Gap and Fall and Leave Treatments in Riparian Reserves

1⁄4 Acre Non-commercial Gaps in Primary Shade 

Zone1 Acres 3.5 2, 3

1⁄4 Acre Gaps within Riparian Reserves in 

Secondary Shade zone (Total)1 Acres 4 2, 3

Fall and Leave to Add Wood to Stream Channels Miles 2.7 2

Forest Plan Amendment (#58)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 33

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed1

South Fork McKenzie River Special Interest Area2 Acres 206 2, 3

Hidden Lake – Lulu Special Interest Area2 Acres 59 2, 3

1 - 1- Provide a sustainable supply of timber products; 2- Increase vegetative habitat complexity and hardwood composition along 

streams; and 3- Shift age class and structural diversity. 

2 - These acres are already accounted for in the above table under “Timber Harvest Treatments” and therefore are not included in 

the total.

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

mechanical device). Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding.

Harvest treatments would occur in stands ranging from 26-144 years old. Approximately 320 acres 

proposed for harvest are in stands over 80 years old and 2,971 acres proposed for harvest are in stands 

under 80 years old. Table 5 provides a summary of forest age classes and treatment acres for Alternative 

2.

Table 5. 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) 3,957 307 134

Acres Proposed for 

Harvest 2,971 207 113

Average Age 37 103 135
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

34 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 8. Map of Alternative 2 (North)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 35

Figure 9. Map of Alternative 2 (Middle)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

36 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 10. Map Alternative 2 (South)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 37

2.3 Alternative 3 – No Regeneration Harvest and No Treatment 

in Stands Over 80 Years Old

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

Key Issue #1: Harvest treatments should not occur in stands over 80 years of age

Key Issue #2: No regeneration harvest should occur

Key Issue #3: Reduce miles of temporary road construction

Key Issue #4: Eliminate all new, permanent road construction

Alternative 3 was developed in response to Key Issues 1, 2, and 3. Alternative 3 eliminates harvest 

treatments in stands over 80 years of age, eliminates regeneration harvest, and reduces temporary road 

construction. Additionally, Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 in that any regeneration harvest

proposed in stands under 80 years of age were changed to thinning treatments; therefore, Alternative 3 has 

fewer acres of commercial harvest, but more acres of thinning, when compared to Alternative 2. In 

response to Key Issue 4, all new, permanent road construction was eliminated from Alternatives 2 and 3.

Alternative 3 proposes to treat approximately 3,957 acres in the project area (Figure 11, 12, and 13). 

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

treatments would yield an estimated gross 68 million board feet of timber. Post-harvest fuels treatments 

would include pile and burn and post-harvest underburn. Approximately 8.6 miles of temporary road 

construction would occur and approximately 115 miles of existing road would be maintained under 

Alternative 3.

Alternative 3 would include treatments in Management Area 5a – Special Interest Areas (SIAs). The 

Green Mountain project proposes to treat approximately 206 acres in the South Fork McKenzie SIA and 

approximately 59 acres in the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA with thinning, gaps, and skips. No 

programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and Guideline 

MA-5a-05: “No programmed harvest shall be scheduled.” However, Implementation Guides for SIAs 

include objectives and enhancement recommendations for managing second growth plantations to 

accelerate growth and more quickly attain attributes of older stands; implementing silvicultural treatments 

in stands where densities are high or showing a reduction of growth to improve tree and stand vigor; 

maintaining health and aesthetics while maintaining decadence of the forest in and around Hidden Lake 

area through harvest of even-aged, previously managed stands; and accelerating late successional 

characteristics in young stands to enhance connectivity corridor between Late Successional Reserves. 

Treatments proposed in the SIAs would move stands towards achieving the objectives and enhancement 

recommendations listed above and described in further detail in the Implementation Guides. Because No 

programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and Guideline 

5a-05, a one-time exception approved with a non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required. 

Please refer to Section 3.14 for additional information on the proposed Forest Plan amendment.

Table 6 includes a summary of treatments and connected actions proposed under Alternative 3. 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. 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

38 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Table 6. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 3

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 3 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 1,597 1, 3

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 894 2

Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 -

Gaps Acres 261 1, 2, 3

Dominant Tree Release Acres 206 1, 3

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 253 3

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 747 2, 3

Total Acres 3,957 1, 2, 3

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF ~68 1

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units2,3

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments ) Acres 2,575 3

Post-Harvest Underburn Acres 382 3

Transportation

New Road Construction Miles 0 -

Temporary Road Construction Miles 8.6 -

Roads Maintained Miles 115 -

Road Decommissioning Miles 2 -

Road Storage Miles 21.1 -

Seasonal Road Closure Removed Miles 6 -

Seasonal Road Closure Changed to Permanent 

Road Closure Miles 3 -

Bridge Replacement

(Hardy Creek) - Yes -

Rock Obtained From Existing Quarries Cubic Yards 15,000 -

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 90 -
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 39

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 3 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Skyline Acres 2,265 -

Ground Acres 602 -

Harvest Associated Planting, Snags, and Down Wood

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 -

Planting in Gaps Acres 53 3

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres 208 3

Snags and Down Wood

(occurs in regeneration units)

Snags per 

acre and liner 

feet of large 

down wood

of decay 

classes I-II

0 -

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 0 3

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 1,187 3

NSO Non-Habitat Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated Acres 76 3

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 0 3

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 3,287 3

NSO Non-Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1 Acres 592 3

Gap and Fall and Leave Treatments in Riparian Reserves

1⁄4 Acre Non-commercial Gaps in Primary Shade 

Zone1 Acres 3.5 2, 3

1⁄4 Acre Gaps within Riparian Reserves in 

Secondary Shade zone (Total)1 Acres 4 2, 3

Fall and Leave to Add Wood to Stream Channels Miles 2.7 2

Forest Plan Amendment (#58)

South Fork McKenzie River Special Interest Area2 Acres 206 2, 3

Hidden Lake – Lulu Special Interest Area2 Acres 59 2, 3

1 - 1- Provide a sustainable supply of timber products; 2- Increase vegetative habitat complexity and hardwood composition along 

streams; and 3- Shift age class and structural diversity. 

2 - These acres are already accounted for in the above table under “Timber Harvest Treatments” and therefore are not included in 

the total.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

40 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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

mechanical device). Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding.

Harvest treatments would occur in stands ranging from 26-76 years old. No harvest would occur in stands 

over 80 years old. Table 8 provides a summary of forest age classes and treatment acres for Alternative 3.

Table 7. 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) 3,957 0 0

Acres Proposed for 

Harvest 2,957 0 0

Average Age 37 - -
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 41

Figure 11. Map of Alternative 3 (North)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

42 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 12. Map of Alternative 3 (Middle)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 43

Figure 13. Map of Alternative 3 (South)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

44 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

2.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated

Alternative that Includes Increased Acreage of Regeneration Harvest to 

More Quickly Achieve the Desired Age Distribution in the Landscape and to 

Regenerate within Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CHU)

The original proposed action included 1,250 acres of regeneration harvest to more quickly achieve the 

desired age distribution in the landscape. In 2012, the US Fish and Wildlife Service released the final 

Critical Habitat designation for the Northern Spotted Owl, which included Critical Habitat Units (CHU) 

in numerous stands in the project area proposed for regeneration harvest. While the final CHU 

designation does give flexibility to achieve the project’s purpose and need within CHUs, its primary 

purpose is to protect and improve existing habitat within the CHU. The Willamette National Forest 

determined that the purpose and need of the proposed project could be achieved while not regenerating 

within the CHUs. As such, the original proposed action was modified (see Alternative 2) to include only 

324 acres of regeneration harvest rather than analyzing it as a separate alternative.

Alternative that Limits Proposed Harvest in Contiguous Blocks 1000 Acres 

or Greater that Do Not Have Roads

There was a request to not harvest in blocks that are at least 1000 acres in size and that do not currently 

have roads. Within the project area, there are seven polygons meeting this contiguous block criteria that 

range in size from 1,122 to 9,798 acres and total 17,966 acres. Alternative 3 is nearly identical to this 

request with the exception of one managed stand, unit 1290, which is 51 acres in size. This stand is 

approximately 44 year old, and is overly dense with about 290 trees per acre larger than seven inch 

diameter at breast height and a canopy cover exceeding 80 percent. Additionally, this 1000 plus acre 

polygon surrounds an existing road into the unit which is near a ridge top that has remnant skid trails from 

the previous ground based logging. Because Alternative 3 is nearly identical to this requested alternative, 

with the exception of one unit, it was eliminated from detailed study to avoid duplication among

alternatives. 

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 8 summarizes and compares treatments and connected actions that would occur under each 

alternative. 

Table 8. Comparison of Alternatives

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 1,454 1,596

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 901 894

Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 325 0

Gaps Acres 0 320 261

Dominant Tree Release Acres 0 291 206
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 45

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 346 253

Skips In Riparian Reserves Acres 0 761 747

Total Acres 0 4,398 3,957

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF 0 ~89 ~68

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/ or hand 

treatments)1 Acres 0 2,496 2,575

Post-Harvest Underburn1 Acres 0 795 382

Road Activities Associated with Harvest

New Road Construction Miles 0 0 0

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 10.3 8.6

Roads Maintained Miles 0 130 115

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 2 2

Road Storage Miles 0 21.1 21.1

Seasonal Road Closure Removed Miles 0 6 6

Seasonal Road Closure Changed to 

Permanent Road Closure Miles 0 3 3

Bridge Replacement

(Hardy Creek) - No Yes Yes

Rock obtained from expanding existing 

quarries Cubic Yards 0 15,000 15,000

Acres by Harvest System

Helicopter Harvest Acres 0 90 90

Skyline Harvest Acres 0 2,436 2,265

Ground-based Harvest Acres 0 765 602

Harvest Associated Planting, Snags, and Down Wood

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 325 0

Planting in Gaps Acres 0 130 53

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres 0 190 208
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

46 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

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

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated 

Acres 0 57 0

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated 

Acres 0 1,187 1,187

NSO Non-Habitat Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated 

Acres 0 76 76

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1

Acres 0 411 0

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1

Acres 0 3,287 3,287

NSO Non-Habitat Treated 

(including skips) 1

Acres 0 592 592

Gap and Fall and Leave Treatments in Riparian Reserves

1⁄4 Acre Non-commercial Gaps in Primary 

Shade Zone1 Acres 0 3.5 3.5

1⁄4 Acre Gaps within Riparian Reserves in 

Secondary Shade zone (Total)1 Acres 0 4 4

Fall and Leave to Add Wood to Stream 

Channels Miles 0 2.7 2.7

Forest Plan Amendment (#58)

South Fork McKenzie River Special 

Interest Area1

- No Yes Yes

Hidden Lake – Lulu Special Interest Area1 - No Yes Yes

Key Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4

Harvest treatments in stands over 80 years 

of age1 Acres 0 441 0

Regeneration Harvest1 Acres 0 325 0

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 10.3 8.6

New, Permanent Road Construction Miles 0 0 0

1 These acres are already accounted for in the above table under “Timber Harvest Treatments” and are not additional to the 

number above. Non-commercial gaps are enhancements which would occur after harvest.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 47

2.6 Design Features

The design features in Table 9 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 9. Design Features Common to Alternative 2 and Alternative 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 will vary with sugar pine more prominent 

in warmer drier sites.

All harvest units where 

planting is to occur

2 Protect integrity of IRA During presale, verify that no encroachment on 

the IRA exists. Units: 5320,5420,5800

3 Maintain structural diversity

During presale, protect identified trees with 

raptor nests and those with unusual structure 

such as broken tops.

All harvest units

4 Minimize damage during 

harvest

Protect residual stand and reserve trees to the 

best extent possible from treatment damage. All harvest units

Soils, Hydrology, and Aquatic Resources

5 To reduce compaction and 

undesirable soil damage

Primary landings, temporary haul or principal 

skid roads utilized by the purchaser / logger 

should be subsoiled (to a depth of 18 to 24 

inches) at the completion of logging activities.

Units 70, 610, 1030, 

1500, 1930, 5120, 5130, 

5140

6 To reduce compaction and 

undesirable soil damage

No ground based operations permitted below 

the 1900425 road. Units 5120, 5130, 5140

7 To reduce compaction and 

undesirable soil damage

Existing landings, temporary haul roads, old 

primary skid roads, and/or tractor fire lines 

would be utilized as much as possible prior to 

disturbing new areas.

All harvest units

8 To 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.

All harvest units and 

associated access.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

48 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

9 To minimize erosion and 

sedimentation

Native surfaced roads would be restricted from 

hauling when soils are saturated or run-off 

occurs.

All harvest units and 

associated access.

10 To minimize potential impacts 

to fish.

Any project activity such as culvert replacement 

that must occur within fish-bearing streams 

would 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 will need to review the 

proposal and seek a waiver from ODFW, 

NMFS, and the USFWS if it is warranted. 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

11 To prevent sedimentation

All haul roads would be maintained in stable 

condition. Wet weather haul would be 

monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator, the 

District Road Manager, Fisheries Biologist, 

and/or Hydrologist. When necessary, haul may 

be suspended during rainfall to prevent off-site 

movement of sediment into drainage courses. 

Haul may also occur when the road surface is 

either covered with a relatively continuous snow 

pack or is frozen. Dust abatement of road 

surfaces would be used if roads become 

excessively dusty during the summer.

All harvest units

12 To 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% lignin sulfate and 50% water. 

Lignosulfonate would remain on the road 

surface and not go over road edge. During 

blading, small berms could be created or 

wattles used at stream crossings to assist with 

keeping palliatives on the road surface. A 1 foot 

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
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 49

Objective Design Feature Location

13 To reduce off-site movement of 

sediment into drainage courses

Ground-based equipment used for yarding, 

processing, fuel treatment, or other project 

activities would operate only when soils are 

relatively dry where water is not pooling. Stop 

work if trenching, or rutting detected. 

Operations would be suspended before rainfall 

or precipitation results in off-site movement of 

sediment into drainage courses. 

Snow/frozen soil may be operated on in the 

following conditions:

• 0 inches of frozen soil−Need at least 

18 inches of settled snow

• 4 inches of frozen soil−Need at least 9 

inches of settled snow

• 6 inches of frozen soil−No snow cover 

necessary

If necessary, pre-pack snow on designated 

routes before work commences. This allows 

soil to freeze and the snow road to solidify.

 

All harvest units

14

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. Timber sale 

administrators may approve equipment use on 

slopes from 30-40% for short pitches based on 

site specific conditions. The upper limit for 

prebunching is on 45% slope. 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. 

All harvest units

15 To reduce compaction directly 

adjacent to stream channels.

Ground based equipment and skid roads should 

be at least 50 feet from the no-cut buffer for all 

streams (fish-bearing to intermittent). These 

widths are required unless a change is 

approved by the district hydrologist or district 

fish biologist.

All harvest units

16 Minimize impacts to stream 

channels.

Full suspension over the high water mark would 

be required when yarding over perennial stream 

channels. Full suspension is preferred over 

intermittent streams, however where full 

suspension is not obtainable partial suspension 

would be required and yarding would be limited 

to when the stream is dry. Bump logs to protect 

the stream channel would be utilized as 

appropriate.

All harvest units

17 Minimize impacts to stream 

channels.

Where cable yarding requires corridors through 

a riparian area, corridors would be laid out to 

minimize the number of trees cut. Trees 

located within no-harvest buffers that must be 

cut to facilitate yarding corridors would be felled 

towards the channel (if feasible) and left on site.

All harvest units
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

50 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

18

To provide adequate drainage 

and avoid unnecessary soil

disturbance

All skid trails and landings should be waterbarred to provide adequate drainage. Water 

bar location should occur where local terrain 

facilitates effective drainage of the skid trail or 

landing while avoiding unnecessary soil

disturbance. An example would be to construct 

water bars every 100 feet on slopes less than 

15 percent, and every 50 feet on slopes greater 

than 15 percent. Water bars should be keyed-in 

to the cut bank and have a clear outlet on the 

downhill side. In lieu of waterbars, where 

available in concentrations, slash can be 

scattered on corridors, skid trails and landings.

All harvest units

19 Reduce compaction

Primary skid trails and landings in harvest units 

with ground-based yarding should be sub soiled 

to a depth of 18-24 inches at the completion of 

project activities. Primary skid trails in gaps as 

well as all temporary landings should be subsoiled to a depth of 18-24 inches or to bedrock.

All harvest units

20 To 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 unless 

agreed to otherwise. 

All harvest units

21 To prevent sedimentation

Scarification and waterbars 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 soil compaction and 

erosion.

All harvest units

22

To reduce soil disturbance and 

the risk of erosion in Riparian 

Reserves

Fire line for underburning would not be 

constructed along no-cut riparian buffer areas. 

Fire would only be allowed to back into riparian 

areas.

All harvest units

23 To reduce soil disturbance.

The west boundary of Unit 160 has an existing 

debris chute type failures as well as additional 

potentially unstable and unsuited rocky ground. 

This area would be deleted from the unit at 

layout and not affected by timber management. 

Soils/Geology personnel may assist in the 

layout of this unit.

Unit 160

24 To reestablish hydrologic and 

geologic processes

Temporary roads would be made hydrologically 

stable and removed after completion of project 

activities. Removal of temporary roads may 

include: 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/or the sub soiling of compacted 

surfaces when necessary.

All harvest units
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 51

Objective Design Feature Location

25 To protect key riparian features 

and integrity

All existing down wood would be retained within 

Riparian Reserves to maintain aquatic 

objectives.

All harvest units

26 To 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 will be 

drafted from various water sources outside of 

Listed Fish Habitat. At all drafting locations, 

90% of stream flow would be maintained to 

reduce risk to aquatic species and water quality.

Entire project area

27 To protect and enhance 

riparian features Riparian buffer see Appendix G. All harvest units

Wildlife

28 To protect existing downed 

wood within the landscape

Existing large down woody material should be 

retained within harvest units. All Harvest Units

29

To provide downed wood and 

emulate material seen following 

a natural disturbance

Up to 5 trees per acre may be fallen after 

harvest to ensure a minimum of 240 linear feet 

of downed wood in decay classes 1 and 2.

Regeneration Units

30 To enhance downed wood 

within the landscape

Up to 4 trees per acre, of the average size 

within the unit, may be fallen after harvest with 

site specific recommendation by the district 

wildlife biologist.

All Thinning Units

31

To provide snags and emulate 

effects of mortality following a 

natural disturbance

Retain or create up to 5 large snags per acre 

after logging. Residual trees with diseases may 

substitute for snag creation. One snag/acre will 

have “kerf cuts” in the trunk to provide habitat 

for roosting bats.

Regeneration Units

32 To enhance snag levels within 

the landscape

Up to 4 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.

All Thinning Units

33 To 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

34 To 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

35

To reduce disturbance to 

nesting birds and during 

popular hunting periods

Snag creation and large down wood placement 

activities will have seasonal restrictions applied 

and will not occur during general elk rifle 

season.

Snag and large down 

wood placement units.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

52 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

36 To reduce disturbance to 

nesting birds

When possible, conduct prescribed burning 

during the fall when conditions allow. Units with underburn.

37

To reduce disturbance during 

nesting season of peregrine 

falcons

Restriction on falling trees, ground-based 

yarding, and helicopter yarding between 

January15-July 31.

Units 40, 41, 1290, 1320, 

1350, 1360, 1370, 1380, 

1430, 1450, 1540, 1980, 

5370, 5380, 5390, 5410, 

5420, 5440 and 5450.

38

To reduce disturbance during 

nesting season of northern 

spotted owls

Restriction on falling trees and ground-based 

yarding between March 1-July 15.

Units 200 (east half 

only), 310, 320, 1940, 

5510, 5530, 5800, and 

5810.

39

To reduce disturbance during 

the critical nesting of Great 

Gray Owls

Restriction on falling trees and all yarding

activities between March 15-May 15.

Units 5510, 5530, and 

the area below road 

1958 on units 5800 and 

5810

40

To 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 by the 

wildlife biologist.

All roadside hazard tree 

maintenance

41

To reduce disturbance during 

the nesting season of northern 

spotted owls

Restriction on prescribed unit underburning 

between March 1-July 15, without clearance by 

district wildlife biologist.

Units 150, 160, 200, 220, 

300, 310, 320, 380, 390, 

400, 410 (west half only), 

820, 840, 860, 1070 

(north half only), 1090, 

1100, 1110, 1430, 1450, 

1540 (western 1/3 only), 

1610, 1880, 1940, 5030, 

5300, 5410, 5420, 5440, 

5470, 5510, 5530, 5720, 

5800, and 5810. 

42 To 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

43

To protect and maintain 

Johnson’s Hairstreak (butterfly) 

habitat 

Mark for retention any identified western 

hemlock trees which contain dwarf mistletoe All harvest units. 

44 To protect habitat for the Crater 

Lake Tightcoil.

Prevent ground/habitat disturbance within 10 

meters (approximately 30 feet) of perennially 

wet areas during project activities.

All harvest units

45

To protect locations of the 

sensitive Cascades Axetail 

Slug and the Survey and 

Manage Oregon Megomphix

180-foot no-harvest and no-burn buffers. 

Because the location in Unit 690 is about 100 

feet from Road 1985, the protection buffer will 

only apply south of the road. Presale to get 

GPS location from the district wildlife biologist.

Units 390 (3 locations) 

and 690 (1 location).
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 53

Objective Design Feature Location

46

To 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 closed 

roads beginning the Friday before that week 

through the end of the following Friday.

All harvest units

47

To protect any discovered 

Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive (TES)

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

48 To reduce the 

introduction/spread of weeds

All road construction and logging equipment 

shall be cleaned prior to entering working in the 

area.

Entire project area

49 To 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

50 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

51 To reduce the introduction of 

weeds

Use weed-free rock for all road construction and 

maintenance. Entire project area

52 To reduce area for weeds to 

germinate

Minimize soil disturbance (minimize fireline 

construction, reuse old skid roads) to meet 

project objectives.

All harvest units

53

To reduce the introduction of 

weeds and prevent 

sedimentation.

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

54 To reduce the introduction of 

weeds

Roads to be closed or decommissioned would 

be treated for invasive plants prior to closing. Entire project area

55 To protect known occurrences 

of sensitive plant species.

180 foot buffers around known sensitive plants 

species. 260, 580, 990, and 1680
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

54 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

56 To protect known special 

habitats.

Buffers identified in Table 54 would be 

implemented to protect special habitats. 

Units identified in Table 

54

57 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

Heritage Resources

58 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. 

All harvest units

59 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 provision 

B(T)6.24 must be included in all project 

contracts.

Entire project area

60 Protect previously unidentified 

heritage resources

All units proposed for subsoiling must contact 

the Zone Archaeologist prior to activities for 

post-harvest surveys.

Entire project area

61 Protect previously unidentified 

heritage resources

Changes to current unit configuration would 

require coordination with the Zone Archeologist 

to protect know or unknown heritage resources.

All harvest units

62 Protect previously identified 

heritage resources

Activities associated with the following nine 

sites: 06180100156, -177, -185, -240, -251, -

265, -292, -692, -699, -714 shall be coordinated 

with the Zone Archaeologist, to make sure the 

areas are excluded from the units. 

See: Zone Archaeologist

Roads

63 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 offsite movement of sediment.

Entire project area

64 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
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 55

Objective Design Feature Location

65 Protect against sediment

All road reopening, reconstruction and 

temporary road building would occur when soils 

are relatively dry to avoid potential surface 

erosion of exposed soil.

Entire project area

66 Protect against sediment

All temporary roads shall be made 

hydrologically stable if not being used during 

extended periods of wet weather.

Entire project area

67 Protect road infrastructure

Road maintenance along haul routes, including 

placement of additional surface rock, blading, 

brushing, ditch relief culvert cleaning or addition 

of ditch relief culverts should occur prior to 

project implementation.

Entire project area

68 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

Entire project area

69 Minimize impacts to recreating 

public.

No haul on weekends April 15 through Sept 30. 

S&G MA-6B-30. Entire project area

70 To reduce impacts to recreating 

public

Post advance notice when disruption, such as 

harvest, may impact recreational opportunities 

at the following locations: Bruckart boat launch, 

Cougar Crossing, Slide Creek, Sunnyside, Red 

Diamond, Hard Rock, French Pete, Frissell 

Crossing, Roaring River, Box Canyon Horse 

Camp, Box Canyon Guard Station, Terwilliger 

Hot Springs, Indian Ridge Lookout and Hidden 

Lake. Post notice at the impacted site, and the 

Rd. 19 entrance bulletin board. Work with 

recreation specialist prior to project activities to 

ensure appropriate sites are posted.

Entire project area

71 To protect trails and recreating 

public experience using trails

Post advance notice of potentially disruptive 

activities, such as harvest, at primary trailheads 

for the following trails: 3510 (Elk Creek Trail), 

3320 (Frissell Crossing), 3327 (South Fork 

Trail), and 3523 (McBea Trail). Recreation

specialist will work with presale for design and 

layout of the units, and to determine locations 

where trail postings are needed.

Units 5780, 5420, 5410

Scenic Quality

72 To minimize visual impacts Gaps should appear natural and subordinate to 

the natural landscape All harvest units

73 To minimize visual impacts Avoid temporary road layout perpendicular to 

the slope. Units 1200 and 1290

74 To minimizie visual impacts Uneven variable spacing, feather upper edge 

and side edges. Unit 1290
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

56 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

75 To minimize visual impacts Uneven varial space, feather north and south. Unit 1200

76 To minimize visual impacts

Include a 75ft. harvest buffer between FS RD19 

and harvest activity in the unit. Post advance 

notice of harvest activities at Cougar Crossing 

Day Use area and campground.

Unit 890

77 To minimize visual impacts Uneven variable spacing, feather upper edge 

and portions of side. Unit 890

78 To minimize visual impacts Uneven variable spacing, feather north side, 

upper half, and upper part of sides. Unit 860

79 To minimize visual impacts

As much as possible, while staying within the 

Region 6 Theft Prevention plan, orient leave 

tree and other pre-sale boundary markers away 

from trails in those areas where units are 

adjacent to trails.

Units 5780, 5420, 5410

80 To minimize visual impacts Work with recreation specialist during layout 

phase to mitigate potential impacts to scenery. Units 150, 160

Inventoried Roadless Areas

81 Maintain integrity of IRA

Units adjacent to IRA will have boundary 

markers established during implementation to 

ensure all project activities are restricted to 

areas outside the IRA boundaries.

5120, 5130, 5140, 5320, 

5370, 5380, 5400, 5410, 

5420, 5440, 5470, and 

5800. 

Fire and Fuels

82 To reduce post-harvest fuels Follow Forest Plan Standards and Guides for 

prescribed burning S&G FW-252. All harvest units

83

To maintain effective ground 

cover and downed wood 

following fuels treatments

Follow Forest Plan Standards and Guides for 

prescribed burning S&G FW-081 and FW-253. All harvest units

84

Identify management objectives 

in the forest plan, related to 

fuels, prescription parameters, 

contingency, safety hazards 

and mitigations, and public 

notification

Use the nationally approved Interagency 

Prescribed Fire Burn Plan for any activity 

involving prescribed fire. 

All harvest units

85 Maintain forest structure and 

wildlife objectives

Follow burn prescription parameters, overstory 

mortality should not exceed 10%. Underburn units

Air Quality

86

To 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
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 57

Objective Design Feature Location

87

Approve burning of units/piles 

given current 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

2.7 Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common to 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Table 10 provides a list of mitigation and enhancement recommendations for wildlife trees and down 

wood common to Alternatives 2 and 3. Shaded units have high treatment priority due to land allocation, 

Critical Habitat, proximity to spotted owl, other wildlife high use area, or Riparian Reserves that currently 

lack snags and large down wood. Units proposed for regeneration harvest would have snag/large down 

wood creation as a mitigation measure (units shown in bold font). Some units have habitat mitigation 

measures recommended in riparian reserves. Other units have snag/down wood creation recommended as 

an enhancement measure and implementation is dependent on funding.

Table 10. Wildlife Tree and Large Down Wood Creation Recommendations for Alternatives 2 and 3

Unit

Land 

Allocation/Critical 

Habitat 

(CH)/other criteria

Snag 

Creation 

per acre

Large Down 

Wood 

Creation per 

acre

Unit

Land 

Allocation/Critical 

Habitat

Snag 

Creation 

per acre

Large 

Down 

Wood 

Creation 

per acre

40 AMA/owl core 5 5 1240 Matrix 2 2

41

AMA/owl core 4 4

1290

Special Interest 

Area – Hidden 

Lake

2 2

60

AMA/low snags 2 1

1310

Special Interest 

Area – Hidden 

Lake /CH

2 2

70 AMA/low snags 2 1 1320 Matrix/CH 3 3

80 AMA 2 0 1330 Matrix 0 2

130 AMA 2 2 1340 Matrix 0 2

140 AMA 2 2 1350 Matrix 2 2

150 AMA 0 0 1360 Matrix 2 2

160 AMA 1 1 1370 Matrix 2 2

200

AMA/low 

snags/owl core 4 1 1380

Matrix 2 2

220 AMA 2 2 1410 Matrix/CH 4 4

230 AMA 1 1 1430 Matrix/CH 0 3

240 AMA 1 1 1450 Matrix/CH 1 3

250 AMA 1 1 1490 Matrix/CH 0 2

260 AMA 0 0 1500 Matrix/CH 0 2

290 AMA 2 2 1540 Matrix/CH 0 2

300 AMA 2 2 1570 Matrix 2 2

310 AMA 1 1 1610 Matrix/CH 0 2

320 AMA 2 2 1830 Matrix/CH 5 5
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

58 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Unit

Land 

Allocation/Critical 

Habitat 

(CH)/other criteria

Snag 

Creation 

per acre

Large Down 

Wood 

Creation per 

acre

Unit

Land 

Allocation/Critical 

Habitat

Snag 

Creation 

per acre

Large 

Down 

Wood 

Creation 

per acre

330 AMA 2 2 1840 Matrix/CH 5 5

350 AMA 2 2 1850 Matrix/CH 2 2

380 AMA 2 2 1880 Matrix/CH 4 4

390 AMA 4 2 1890 Matrix/CH 5 5

400 AMA 0 1 1910 Matrix/CH 3 3

410

AMA 0 0

1920

Special Interest 

Area – South 

Fork/CH

2 2

420 AMA 2 0 1930 Matrix/CH 2 2

430 AMA 0 0 1940 Matrix/CH 2 2

440 AMA 3 0 1950 Matrix/CH 2 2

500 AMA 1 0 1960 Matrix/CH 2 2

530 AMA 0 0 1980 Matrix/CH 2 2

580 AMA 1 0 5030 Matrix/CH 3 2

600 AMA 1 0 5040 Matrix/CH 3 3

610 AMA 2 0 5080 Matrix/CH 2 2

630 AMA 2 2 5090 Matrix/CH 2 2

640

Matrix 1 2

5120

Special Interest 

Area – Wildlife 

Habitat/CH

2 2

650

Matrix 0 0

5130

Special Interest 

Area – Wildlife 

Habitat/CH

0 2

680

Matrix

0 1

5140

Special Interest 

Area – Wildlife 

Habitat/CH

3 2

690 Matrix 2 0 5160 Matrix/CH 2 2

720

Matrix

2 2

5170

Special Interest 

Area – South 

Fork/Matrix/CH

0 2

740

Matrix

2 2

5180

Special Interest 

Area – South 

Fork/CH

2 2

750 Matrix 0 2 5230 Matrix/CH 2 2

760 Matrix 0 2 5300 Matrix/CH 2 2

770 Matrix 0 2 5320 Matrix 2 2

780 Matrix 2 2 5360 Matrix 2 2

790

Matrix

2 0

5370

Special Interest 

Area –Wildlife 

Habitat/CH

3 3

800

Matrix

2 2

5380

Special Interest 

Area – Wildlife 

Habitat/CH

3 3

820

Matrix

2 2

5390

Special Interest 

Area – South 

Fork/CH

0 2
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 59

Unit

Land 

Allocation/Critical 

Habitat 

(CH)/other criteria

Snag 

Creation 

per acre

Large Down 

Wood 

Creation per 

acre

Unit

Land 

Allocation/Critical 

Habitat

Snag 

Creation 

per acre

Large 

Down 

Wood 

Creation 

per acre

830

Matrix 2 2 5400Special Interest 

Area – South Fork 1 2

840

Matrix/CH 2 2 5410Special Interest 

Area – South Fork 2 2

850

Matrix 2 2 5420Special Interest 

Area – South Fork 2 2

860

Special Interest 

Area- South Fork 3 0 5430

Matrix 0 2

890 AMA 3 3 5440 Matrix 2 2

980 Matrix 0 2 5450 Matrix 1 1

990

Matrix 2 2 5460Matrix 3 in RR, 2 

elsewhere 0

1020

Matrix 0 2

5470

Matrix 3 in RR, 2 

elsewhere

2 in RR, 1 

elsewhere

1030 Matrix 0 2 5480 Matrix 4 3

1040 Matrix 0 2 5510 Matrix 5 3

1060 Matrix 0 2 5530 Matrix 5 4

1070

Matrix 2 2 5710Matrix/high snag 

levels adj. 1 2

1090 Matrix 0 2 5720 Matrix 4 4

1100

Special Interest 

Area – South Fork 2 1 5730

Matrix 4 4

1110

Special Interest 

Area – South Fork 2 1 5740

Matrix 2 1

1120 Matrix 0 2 5770 Matrix 4 4

1130 Matrix 3 2 5780 Matrix 3 3

1160 Matrix 2 2 5800 Matrix 4 1

1190 Matrix 2 2 5810 Matrix 2 0

1200 Matrix 2 0

 

2.8 Monitoring

Operations: Contract administrators would monitor treatments during implementation to ensure 

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

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

designated skid trails. 

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

during and following the fuels treatments. Fuels treatment results will offer data to use in the future.

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

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

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

include review of aquatic management zones, erosion prevention and control measures, cable and groundbased yarding operation effects, and site treatment.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

60 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Invasive Plant Monitoring: Monitoring for invasive plants for three years after the treatment is 

completed. Identified weed populations would be treated.

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 regenerated stands are 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 61

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected 

project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It 

also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

This section of the DEIS 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 actions and alternatives 

of the Green Mountain 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 DEIS 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 DEIS. 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.”
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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)

Appendix F 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 Green Mountain 

project.

3.1 Forest and Stand Structure

3.1.1 Scale of Analysis

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

with the Green Mountain project is the project area. The project area consists of 99,051 acres within the 

Cougar Reservoir - South Fork McKenzie River (SFMR), Rebel Creek - SFMR, Augusta Creek - SFMR, 

Roaring River - SFMR, and Elk Creek – SFMR 6th field watersheds. By using the project area, it is 

possible to evaluate potential impacts in an area large enough to encompass other disturbances, both 

human and natural, and it is a logical analysis area to assess stand conditions based on plant associations.

3.1.2 Affected Environment

The Green Mountain project area consists of approximately 99,051 acres along the South Fork McKenzie 

River within the McKenzie River Ranger District. 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. There is a transition to the true fir/mountain hemlock zone 

above approximately 4,000 feet, most notably in the area east of Box Canyon.

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. Data shows approximately 

86,439 USFS managed acres as forested in the project area. 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 63

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

conifer seedlings after the regeneration harvest at stocking level to ensure survival of fully stocked sites.

Other plants – trees, shrubs, and herbs grow from seed, sprouts, advance regeneration, and other 

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 4,041 acres, or 

approximately 4.7 percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in the project area 

(Figure 14).

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 (1996), these stands are 

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

differentiate into size classes 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 10,956 acres, or 13 

percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in the project area (Figure 14).

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 41,318 acres, or 48 percent of the forested lands 

administered by the Forest Service in the project area (Figure 14).

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

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

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

stands have large, live trees, often dominated by 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 

29,839 acres, or 34 percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in the project area 

(Figure 14).

Figure 14 illustrates the current stand age classifications in project area and Table 11 provides the 

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

alternative.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 14. Current Stand Age Classification in the Green Mountain Project Area

Table 11. 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) 4,041 10,956 41,318 29,839

Alternative 2 (acres) 316 3,641 441 0

Alternative 3 (acres) 316 3,641 0 0

1

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

Stand Vigor and Growth

Stand Density Index

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

stands. Eighty-three percent (Table 13) of stands proposed for harvest, both managed stands and fire 

regenerated, in the project area are second growth stands classified as being in the stem exclusion 

development stage (Oliver and Larson, 1996). Stands in this stage have dense crowns which block out the 

light to the forest floor and limit additional tree regeneration in the understory. Shade-tolerant understory 

trees that are present persist but grow very slowly. Intermediate or suppressed trees that do not tolerate 

shade well suffer from competition and have an increased mortality rate. 

0-30 years

5%

31-40 years

13%

81-180 years

48%

>180 years

34%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 65

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 

209 to 582 and averages 380 for all stands being considered for treatment in the Green Mountain 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. 

Age of the stands play a role in the stand development both in fire regenerated stands and previously 

managed stands, however it is not the sole factor. Because other factors such as climate/microclimate, 

soils, and water availability “are fundamental to site productivity – the potential for a site to produce plant 

biomass” (Tappeiner 2007 pg. 37) age alone does not tell much about the stands development. Stands 

with favorable climate, soils and water availability will in a shorter period of time grow larger diameters 

and heights compared to those stands with less favorable climate, soils and water availability. 

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. In addition, Gradient Nearest Neighbor, or 

GNN data was used to develop the existing landscape age classes, because modeling with nearest 

neighbor creates only slight differences for ecological systems according to Ohmann et al. (2011).

Previously Managed Stands 

Approximately 3,957 acres of previously managed stands are proposed for treatment in the Alternative 2. 

Over about the last 70 years there has been approximately 17,979 acres of timber harvest on lands 

managed by the Forest Service in the project area. Approximately 8,225 acres of Forest System lands in 

the project area have been precommercially thinned. Approximately 13,823 acres of Forest System lands 

in the project area were modified with regeneration-type timber harvest, which is now in plantations less 

than 60 years old. 

In previously managed stands, the average age of the stand is 37 years old with the range between 26 and 

72 years old. Many of the stands are just starting to enter the stem exclusion stage or are already well in 

the stem exclusion stage with SDI’s averaging 373. Little understory development and species diversity 

appears to be in the stands. Many of the existing plantations in the analysis area are becoming ready for 

intermediate thinning treatments. Over the next decade, tree diameters in younger plantations will 

continue to become large enough for commercial thinning.

Fire Regenerated Stands

Approximately 441 acres of fire regenerated (naturally regenerated) stands are proposed for harvest in 

Alternative 2. The project area has been shaped by wildfires over the last several centuries, as well as 

timber harvest over the past 100 years. In the Augusta Creek study (USDA 1998, pg. 9), which looks at 

only the Augusta Creek portion of the project area, 26 stand replacing fire events occurred over about a 

450 year period, burning on average 1,624 acres with many areas burned multiple times. Many, but not 

all fire-regenerated stands in the analysis area show signs of active management. Some fire-regenerated 

stands have residual stumps representing either past salvage logging or selective harvest. The project area 

includes fire-regenerated stands which have been thinned in previous entries, as well as some stands that 

have not been previously thinned.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

In the fire regenerated stands proposed for treatment, the average age is 118 years old with a range of 90 

to 144 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 Green Mountain project have an average SDI of 427 (Table 

14) which is 72 percent of maximum SDI. 

Stands Over 80 Years of Age

Table 12 illustrates average stand characteristics of previously managed, fire regenerated, and an average 

of all stands proposed for harvest in the project area.

Table 12. Average Stand Characteristics of Stands Considered for Harvest

Stand Type Total Trees 

Per Acre

Trees per 

acres 

available for 

harvest1

Quadratic 

Mean 

Diameter1

Average 

Stand 

Height1

Canopy 

Cover 

Percent1

Average 

Age1 Basel Area1

Stand 

Density 

Index

Managed 920 201 14 84 70 37 202 373

Fire Regenerated 824 102 22 106 62 118 260 427

All 908 189 15 87 69 47 209 380

1

: Based on trees seven inches and greater DBH, because seven inches is the minimum DBH of a tree considered for harvest in the Green Mountain project.

3.1.3 - Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Stands left untreated would continue for another 200-500 years baring a natural disaster, but at slower 

rates as trees compete with each other for growing space. Growth rates would continue to decline, and 

natural processes that affect tree vigor and cause changes in stand structure would continue. The effects of 

overstocked stands include decreased growth, increased rates of mortality, higher risk for insect and 

disease attacks, and higher risk for stand replacing fires. Diameter growth would be low or would decline, 

and live crown ratios would get smaller. Trees within these stands would become less vigorous and more 

susceptible to insects and diseases. Competition-induced mortality would increase, thus increasing small 

diameter <15” snags and down wood. The down material would increase fuel loadings, fire risk and 

vulnerability of the stands to insect infestations. The competition-induced mortality would not be 

available for commercial wood products. Low light levels in un-thinned stands would suppress 

development of shade-tolerant trees and limit understory vegetation. The diameter and product value of 

trees harvested in the future would be reduced without treatment. The no action alternative would result 

in no compaction and potential loss of growth along temporary roads.

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. 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 67

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 of the remaining trees and help increase the stands ability to 

adapt to environmental changes. Additional light, from reduced canopy cover, reaching the forest floor 

would help promote a second cohort of trees. Both shade-tolerant and intolerant species may be 

established; however, shade-tolerant species would thrive better over time as the overstory crown closes. 

The beneficial effects of a more open canopy would taper off over the next 15-20 years as the canopy 

cover is estimated to increase 2 percent per year (Chan 2006). This second cohort 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 (Figure 15). This prescription would also maintain or 

increase vegetative diversity in the understory by opening the canopy to allow for growth of seedlings, as 

well as the development of understory shrubs and forbs which have broad ecosystem benefits.

Young uniform stands can be diversified by early thinning (DeBell et al 1997, and Hayes et al. 1997) as 

proposed for the plantations to be treated with the Green Mountain Project. Early commercial thinning

has been shown to be beneficial to the future development of understories, the promotion of natural 

regeneration, and in enhancing biodiversity (Muir et al 2002). With early thinning, overstory trees can 

develop deep canopies and large-diameter branches in open stands (McGuire et al 1991). Low overstory 

density facilitates the establishment of understory trees (McGuire et al 1991, Bailey and Tappeiner 1998, 

Miller and Emmingham 2001).

Heavier thinning would likely promote rapid growth of trees with characteristics normally associated with 

old trees in old-growth stands. Many old trees grow rapidly when they are young (30-100 years), 

producing large stems and crowns. Evidence (Franklin et al 1981, Tappeiner et al. 1997) suggests that 

growth rates of some older forests indicate slow regeneration and at low densities over a long period with 

little tree-to-tree competition. Old-growth stands typically have multiple canopy layers, and thinning

promotes a second cohort by allowing for natural regeneration to occur (Tappeiner et al. 1997). 

Some old-growth forests appear to have developed from relatively even-aged cohorts that have undergone 

long-term suppression mortality, little understory regeneration of Douglas-fir, and episodic release of 

established tolerant conifers (Winter et al 2002a 200b). Therefore, stand management can follow multiple 

routes that emulate natural processes to move dense young stands towards structure similar to old-growth 

forest.

A short-term adverse effect to understory vegetation and below ground fungi would be the mechanical 

damage from logging. The removal of host trees and soil disturbance from the yarding operation impacts 

below ground fungi (Courtney et al 2004). This adverse effect is mitigated by the use of designated skid 

trails with ground –based yarding systems and log-suspension capabilities of skyline and helicopter 

yarding systems.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 15. Visualization of Stand Before (left side) and After (right side) Thinning

Gaps

Gaps are openings which would range in size from one to three acres outside of Riparian Reserves and up 

to 1⁄4 acre within Riparian Reserves (Figure 16). Gaps would be randomly placed unless it was necessary 

to strategically place the openings to minimize conflict with logging systems, to minimize 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.

Gaps outside of Riparian Reserves would retain up to four trees per acre, with five trees per acre retained 

in Riparian Reserves to add diversity and provide for natural recruitment of snags and down woody 

material in the future. Trees designated as a leave tree within the gap would not be used for snag or large 

down wood enhancement projects. Retention trees meeting criteria for wildlife trees (i.e. having 

Phellinus pini conks or other elements of wood decay, crooked tops, etc.) would serve as a wildlife tree 

and offset the need for enhancement. Additionally, non-commercial small, approximately 1/8 acre gaps

would be placed along streams to encourage light to the streams for increased primary productivity and 

in-stream wood. Refer to Section 3.4 – Aquatic Resources for additional information. 

By implementing gaps, the project would provide numerous benefits for many species of wildlife over the 

next 10-20 years before regeneration reclaims the opening. For birds, gaps have been shown to provide 

habitat to shrubland birds not present in mature forest (Chandler et al. 2009) while generally providing 

more fruit and more resource abundance due to a lower canopy and increased fruiting (Blake and Hoppes. 

1986). Generally, with gaps, provide more resources to herbs, shrubs, and broad-leaved plants which 

provide the foundation for food webs that contribute to many different trophic levels in Pacific Northwest

conifer forest (Hargar, 2007). 

Figure 16. Visualization of Thinning with Gaps

* *
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 69

Dominant Tree Release (DTR)

This prescription would provide for growth of a dominant tree or group of five to ten trees to promote 

larger trees scattered throughout the stands. This meets the purpose of improving stand conditions in 

terms of species composition, diversity, density, and structure. DTR may result in open grown trees that 

develop larger limbs lower to the ground, which could serve as wildlife habitat (McGuire et al 1991), as 

well as greater taper, reducing tree susceptibility to wind damage in the future. The area around the 

dominant tree would be cut to a radius of 66 feet from the bole of an individual tree, or each tree in a 

group. Around an individual tree, the 66 feet equates to approximately 1⁄4 acre when one tree is identified. 

When five to ten trees in a clump are identified, the opening size would vary depending on the number 

and spacing of trees retained but would likely range from an estimated 1/3 to 1⁄2 acre (Figure 17). Sugar 

and white pine over 24” in size would be treated as a dominant tree. The lack of competition will provide 

the tree(s) in the DTR a long term benefit of at least 50-100 years as it will remain a dominant tree in the 

opening even as other trees encroach on the opening.

Figure 17. Visualization of Single vs Multiple Tree Dominant Tree Release

Regeneration Harvest - Shelterwood with Reserves (Alternative 2 Only)

Many of the stands proposed for regeneration harvest have not reached culmination of mean annual 

increment (CMAI), meaning a point at which a stand’s growth has reached its maximum annual increment

and starts to decline (Society of American Foresters 2008). Typically, regeneration harvest is limited to 

stands that “Generally have reached CMAI,” which is defined as “the age required to achieve volume 

production equivalent to at least 95 percent of CMAI as expressed in cubic measure” (USDA 2006a). 

However exceptions are allowed when the harvest is driven by other resource objectives (USDA 2006a, 

36 CFR 219.11(d) (7)) and when a project level analysis is performed with public disclosure (USDA 

2006b). Additionally, the Willamette Land and Resource Management Plan’s Forest-Wide Standard and 

Guideline, FW-182 allows for harvest when stands have not reached 95 percent CMAI “...where special 

resource considerations require earlier harvest (36 CFR 219.16(a)(2)(iii))”. The Green Mountain project 

aims to address the lack of age and structural diversity in the project area because early seral habitat is of 

key importance to an estimated 156 species of wildlife in the central Oregon Cascades (O’Neil et al 

2001). 

In an effort to balance the needs of the Norther Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CHU), and the need for 

increased age distribution and structural diversity, the Green Mountain project proposes regeneration 

harvest in stands that have and have not reached 95 percent CMAI outside of the CHU. Currently, the 40-

80 year old age class represents about 9 percent (Figure 4) of the project area, while according to the 

Augusta Creek Study (USDA 1998); approximately 11 percent (Figure 5) is more representative of a 

historic percentage based on fire regimes. Conversely, the 0-15 year age class is currently less than onetenth of a percent (Figure 4) compared to about 7 percent historically (Figure 5). By including 

regeneration harvest in approximately 3 percent of the stands in the 40-80 years old class; the Green 

Mountain project would increase acreage of an under represented age class (0-15 years old) while also 

helping to assure a sustainable supply of timber products in the future. Over the next 10-15 years, the 

Dominant Tree(s) Selected

Cut Radius around dominant tree(s)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

younger age classes (0-15, and 15-39) will help balance the age classes in the project area to better 

represent the historic age distribution (Figure 5). When a benchmark, such as moving an existing age 

distribution to a more desirable historic distribution is established and analyzed to meet other resource 

needs, an alternative to CMAI may be evaluated (USDA 1992).

Approximately 325 acres would be treated with a regeneration harvest, of which approximately 253 acres 

are less than 80 years old, and 72 acres are over 80 years old. The majority of trees would be removed 

with some residual live trees left on site. Although not exactly mimicking naturally occurring disturbance 

events, this harvest would provide a forest products while creating a small-scale disturbance in the 

analysis area somewhat similar to what may have occurred naturally. The objective would be to leave 

approximately 25 trees per acre following harvest to help establish a future stand by providing a 

beneficial microclimate, and contribute towards creating snags and down wood (Figure 18). 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.

Figure 18. Visualization of Shelterwood with Reserves Pre (left side) and Post (right side) Treatment

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. Planting will be used to help regenerate the stands (see 

Connected Actions below), with a precommercial thin (PCT) planned for 15 years later, and commercial 

harvest 25 years after the PCT. 

The residual canopy would be composed of the largest trees in the stand, primarily Douglas-fir. At least 

15 percent of each stand would be retained in no-harvest patches to provide diversity and maintain 

existing snags (NWFP 1994 C-40). 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. 

No Harvest – Skips

By not treating an area, the area would provide diversity within a stand. These areas would be allowed to 

have natural processes take place such as inter-tree competition, which would create snags and down 

woody material. However, there would be an edge effect that could take place along the skips edge. 

Skips would be dispersed between riparian and non-riparian areas. Depending on the location and 

positioning of the skip, the edge effect could allow for more light to reach the trees along the edge and 

forest floor. This extra light could lead to greater growth of some of the individual trees, forbs, and 

shrubs along the edge.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 71

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. Similar to the no action alternative, skips

would continue for another 200-500 years baring a natural disaster, but at slower rates as trees compete 

with each other for growing space and resources.

Comparison of Effects from Alternative 2 and 3

Both action alternatives would have the same beneficial effects previously identified on treated acres 

(Table 15). However, Alternative 3 would harvest fewer acres which would results in fewer treatment 

benefits, as identified above in the direct/indirect effects section, compared to Alternatives 2. Alternative 

3, by treating fewer acres would result in more acres showing signs of no treatment such as explained in 

the Alternative 1 section of the direct/indirect section above. 

Alternative 2 would use thinning and dominant tree release (DTR) on 2,646 acres; about two percent 

fewer acres than the 2,696 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 2,966 acres with thinning, DTR, and gaps to promote the development of a 

diverse, multi-layered stands, virtually the same as Alternative 3 which would treat 2,957 acres. 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 3,957 acre in Alternative 3, or approximately three percent fewer acres than 

4,073 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 oldgrowth stands (Bailey et al 1998). 

Moving acres into stand initiation is accomplished more with Alternative 2, where Gaps, DTR, and 

regeneration harvest would provide for 936 acres, or over twice the acres compared to 467 for Alternative 

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

Through commercial harvest, fuel loading would increase on 2,957 acres with Alternative 3, compared to 

3,291 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.

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 13 compares the acreages proposed for treatment in each alternative. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Table 13. Comparison of Treatments (acres) by Alternative

Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres of Thinning Outside Riparian 

Reserves 0 1,454 1,596

Acres of Thinning Within Riparian Reserves 0 901 894

Acres of Regeneration Harvest 0 325 0

Acres of Gaps 0 320 261

Acres of Dominant Tree Release 0 291 206

Acres of Skips Outside Riparian Reserves 0 346 253

Acres of Skips Within Riparian Reserves 0 761 747

Total Acres of Timber Harvest Units

(includes skips) 0 4,398 3,957

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

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 

three past projects – Cascade Thin, Hartz Reoffer Thin, and Road 19 Salvage. The Cascade Thin Project 

was completed in 2013 and treated approximately 56 acres including approximately ten acres of gaps. 

Harvest was completed on Road 19 Salvage in 2014, which include harvest of approximately 120 trees 

adjacent to Road 19 which posed a hazard to the road. Hartz Reoffer Thin, completed in 2015, treated 

approximately 115 acres with thinning similar to that of the Green Mountain project. Hartz Reoffer Thin 

also contained about 430 acres of thinning west of the project area, which is not considered in this 

analysis. 

Effects to shift age class diversity (acres move back to stand initiation) on the landscape from activities 

associate with the Green Mountain project would have a beneficial cumulative effect by increasing the 

acres in the 0-30 year age class. By adding Green Mountain’s acres to the acres of gaps associated with 

Cascade Thin (10 acres), Green Mountain would cumulatively increase the acres of forest in the stand 

initiation stage within the project area to 946 and 477 acres for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. 

In conjunction with Cascade Thin, and the Hartz Reoffer Thin the Green Mountain project would 

cumulatively benefit the project area by helping to maintain or enhance plant species, increase structural 

diversity and composition, and promote crown differentiation. Cumulatively, the project would have 

beneficial effects on 4,569 and 4,128 acres for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 73

When looked at with Cascade Thin, and the Hartz Reoffer Thin, treatments associated with Green 

Mountain would reduce the time 3,462 and 3,128 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. Additionally, the Road 19 Salvage has removed approximately 120 

trees (snag/hazards to the road) which resulted in a small reduction in the number of existing snags.

No cumulative effect to fuel loading is anticipated because of the lag in time from harvest associated with 

the Green Mountain project. Fuel treatments on the Cascade Thin, Hartz Reoffer Thin, or Road 19 

Salvage project will be complete on these projects prior to the implementation of Green Mountain.

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. Reforestation would be expected to occur within 

five years of harvest, and occur from both tree planting and natural regeneration, (Table 14). Alternative 2 

would require approximately 644 acres associated with regeneration harvest and gaps, while Alterative 3 

would require approximately 261 acres associated with gaps. 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. 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. 

Table 14. Acres and Mode of Regeneration by Alternative

Shelterwood w/ Reserves Gaps

Planting Natural 

Regeneration Planting Total

Alternative 2 325 190 130 645

Alternative 3 N/A 208 53 261

Creating Snags and Down Wood

Approximately five snags per acre would be created from the reserved trees in units with regeneration 

harvest in Alternative 2. In addition, at least 240 linear feet of down wood would be retained or created in 

decay classes 1 and 2. Enhancement opportunities would occur in thinned stands. 

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 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Temporary Road Construction and Decommissioning

Temporary road construction and decommissioning would occur where temporary roads are necessary to 

facilitate project activities. The initial effects of the construction would be compacted soils which could 

affect Forest and Stand Structure; however those effects would be offset by decommissioning. The effects 

of decommissioning would be the same as subsoiling, and is generally beneficial to the residual stand 

because of reduced compaction and root growth, so increased growth is likely along skid trails and 

landings that have treatment. Some adverse effects may occur if residual trees inadvertently have roots 

pruned during decommissioning.

Fuels Treatments

Fuels treatments will be discussed in Section3.14. A benefit of the fuels treatment to the Forest and Stand 

Structure is that when fuels treatments are complete, the likelihood of a reburn in the event of a wildfire is 

reduced. Also, when the selected fuels treatment is an underburn which is often in units which have 

regeneration harvest, and in unmanaged stands, a secondary benefit of exposing mineral soil. Mineral 

soils is proven to increase the survival of seedlings and the success of seeds to sprout and take root 

(Tappeiner, et all. 2007). 

3.2 Soils

3.2.1 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. 

3.2.2 Affected Environment

The Green Mountain project area lies primarily within the younger Western Cascade rocks and perhaps 

the oldest High Cascades sequences. More specifically, the basic rock strata in the project area are basaltic 

andesite and andesite lava flows, and flow breccias that represent younger events of the Western Cascade 

volcanic sequence. These volcanic units are mapped by Walker and Duncan (1989) as “Tfc” or “QTba”, 

and include strata of Miocene age of about 17 to 10 million years old (Walker and Duncan 1989).

The various land types are generally well drained where permeability is rapid in the surface soil and 

moderately rapid in the subsoil. Because of relatively fast infiltration rates, overland flow is generally 

uncommon. Additionally, slope instability is not a geologic process that is generally active in this project 

area. 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. Off-site 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. 

Field investigation indicated that several areas within the Green Mountain project approached or 

exceeded the Willamette National Forest FW-081 Standard of 20 percent of activity area impacted by 

compaction (see Section 3.2.3 for specific units).

Most of this project area was burned 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 

underburned instead of experiencing stand replacement fire events. Consequently, natural accumulations 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 75

of downed 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. 

However because of the lack of sunlight to the forest floor, many of the stands proposed for treatment 

currently have little understory vegetation which is needed for nutrient and duff development. 

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 is slowly returning 

the soil to near preharvest conditions.

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences 

The major effects to soil productivity from harvest activity, as discussed in the Willamette National Forest 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 1990), include displacement, compaction, nutrient loss, and 

instability (Table 15). The total area of detrimental soil effects should not exceed 20 percent of the total 

acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings. 

Table 15. Management Indicators for Assessing Effects to Soils Issue Management Indicator Justification

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

Instability Increase in size, intensity or number of slope failures FW-086

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Previously harvested stands will continue to mature. Many of the stands proposed for treatment currently 

have little understory vegetation because of the lack of sunlight to the forest floor. This results in altered

nutrient cycling. 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 (several 

decades). Short-term (within the first year or two) to intermediate-term (over 2-3 decades) 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 Alternative 3

Effects between both action alternatives would be the same except for acreage harvested. The major 

short-term (the first year or two) 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
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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).

Field investigation indicated that seven units approached or exceeded the Willamette National Forest FW081 Standard of 20 percent of activity area impacted by compaction: 70, 610, 1500, 1930, 5120, 5130, 

and 5140. In addition, unit 1030 was higher than desirable, though not yet over the threshold. The 

remaining units were sufficiently within the standard. As mitigation in the units where compaction levels 

may exceed the 20 percent threshold at the completion of harvest activities, two actions are required: 1) 

Primary landings, temporary roads, or principal skid trails utilized by the purchaser/logger will be 

subsoiled (to a depth of 18 to 24 inches) at the completion of logging activities in units 70, 610, 1030, 

1500, 1930, 5120, 5130, and 5140; and 2) the portion of units 5120, 5130, and 5140 downhill of Forest 

Road 1900425 would be cable yarded uphill to the existing road to keep Road 1900427 closed in order to 

minimize impacts to soils. In order to prevent future accumulation of impacts: 1) subsoiling landings and 

primary haul will be required to ensure that the overall levels remain well below the 20 percent standard; 

and 2) some post sale enhancement subsoiling for most ground based areas is recommended. 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 (legacy from past logging practices) 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 skid roads) 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. Some short temporary roads may be required. Consequently, effects from 

skyline yarding are not anticipated for any individual unit.

Also, temporary road construction will compact and displace approximately 52 acres and about 43 acres 

of soil will be disturbed in Alternative 2 and 3 respectively. However, all temporary roads will be

decommissioned post-harvest by subsoiling as well as placing slash back onto the surface or re-vegetating 

with native grasses/trees. Temporary road construction and decommissioning results in some loss of soil

structure that will partly recover over 10-20 years on these acres. 

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 by the 

Forest Geologist 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 77

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 

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 (more than 4 

decades) soil productivity are not anticipated.

Within this project, Units 390, 690, 820, 840, 890, 1040, 1090, 1240, 1320, 1340, 1350, 1360, 1370, 

1380, 1490, 1500, 1540, 1840, 1940, 1980, 5060, and 5090 contain or border actively unstable or 

potentially highly unstable areas. Actively unstable or potentially highly unstable areas would be avoided 

with unit placement. Thinning is intended to enhance the growth and root development of leave trees

which is important along the edges of unstable areas. With regards to Units 1540 and 1980, they contain 

areas of older, stabilized debris chute scars, where the failure originated outside the unit. Field review of 

previously thinned units in the past several years on both stable and unstable land types has shown no 

increase in either slope instability or erosion in either uplands or Riparian Reserves, when critical areas 

are avoided. Soils/Geology personnel may assist in the layout of some of these units, as needed. 

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 features 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. The objective is to remain below 

the 20 percent cumulative level, maintain long-term (more than 4 decades) 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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.

3.3 Hydrology

3.3.1 Scale of Analysis

Unless otherwise noted, the geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 

water quality and aquatic resources for this project includes the project area units, the project area, the Elk 

Creek, Augusta, Roaring, Rebel, and Cougar Reservoir 6th Field sub-watersheds (Figure 19).

3.3.2 Assessment Methodology

Data on current and historic watershed condition was gathered from the South Fork McKenzie Watershed 

Analysis and through GIS analysis of a USFS vegetation database (FSVeg) and high resolution satellite 

imagery (WorldView2). Please refer to Appendix G and H for additional information.

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. Refer to Appendix G for 

unit by unit information on Riparian Treatments.

3.3.3 Affected Environment - Riparian Conditions

Most of the Green Mountain project area is located in the older West Cascades geologic region. However, 

a portion of the project area drains the gently sloping terrain of the High Cascades which has a large water 

storage capacity that contributes to a stable, even flow regime. There are 2 portions of the project area 

dominated by earth flow terrain. The largest is found throughout most of the Rebel Creek 6th field 

subwatershed. Pocket wetlands and their characteristic vegetation can be found in this terrain. Most of 

the tributaries to the South Fork McKenzie River are moderate to high gradient (> 2 percent) first to fifth 

order streams. Boulders and large wood are key components found in these types of step/pool channels

Primary streams within the project area include the South Fork McKenzie River, Elk Creek, Roaring 

River, Augusta Creek, Grasshopper Creek, Loon Creek, Starr Creek, Hardy Creek, Buoy Creek, Ridge 

Creek, Rider Creek, and Boone Creek. Figure 19 shows the location of the major streams within the 

project area and the sub-watersheds. The 1964 and 1996 floods had complex effects on stream channels 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 79

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 also been shaped by fires as well as timber harvest within the last 100 years.

Records indicate 316 fires occurred in the Green Mountain project area from 1970-2013. Due to fire 

suppression, most fires were suppressed at less than five acres within a few days of ignition. Multiple 

researchers collected past fire data in and near the project area and categorized the fire regime as both 

mixed and high severity (see Section 3.16). Mixed severity fires are not stand-replacing but rather create a 

patchy mosaic of different mortality (forest structure and diversity) across the landscape – something that 

is lacking today.

Figure 19. Waterbodies and 6th Field HUC Sub-watersheds within the Green Mountain 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
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Northwest Forest Plan resulted in removal of riparian vegetation that provided large wood and shade to 

the small tributary streams in the project area. There are pockets of mature forest, but most of the land has 

been impacted by management and recreation. 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 natural “riparian stands often develop in a 

much more open structure, such that stem exclusion is much less common and understory vegetation 

usually is present throughout the development of a forest.” The existing lack of complexity and diversity 

of many of the stands in the project area may be limiting nutrient cycling, deciduous organic matter input

to waterbodies, and habitat for riparian dependent wildlife.

Historic stream cleaning along the South Fork McKenzie River led to the removal of much of the instream wood. In order to assess aquatic habitat conditions, the Forest Service conducted stream surveys 

most recently in 2005 including wood counts which are summarized in Table 27. A goal of 80 “large” 

pieces per mile has been set by fisheries agencies to characterize habitat as “properly functioning.” As 

indicated by the Table 27, the South Fork McKenzie and its tributaries do not reach this goal even in the 

streams influenced by wilderness. Projects to add wood to the South Fork McKenzie River channel have 

been implemented since 1995. Since that time, 841 trees or logs have been placed in the South Fork 

McKenzie between the Augusta Creek and the Elk Creek confluences. Little is known of wood counts in 

the smaller unnamed streams within project 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 watershed for over 100 years, and historic logging practices have greatly 

altered vegetation patterns. As a result, there is evidence of a lack of early-seral vegetation within the 

whole South Fork McKenzie watershed. Within the project area, there is currently less than 4% of earlyseral vegetation (<20 years old) in Riparian Reserves. The natural range of variability is between 5 and 20 

percent (Swanson 2012); and a large component of this early seral vegetation is deciduous and 

herbaceous, particularly within riparian areas (Gregory et al. 1991).

Within the project area, mature and late-seral vegetation currently make up about 75% of the watershed 

(South Fork McKenzie WA 2010). However, most of this is in the mature forest classification and within

the Wilderness. For stands older than 180 years, the level is closer to 34%. In late-seral stands, shrubs 

and herbs are reinitiated as conifers die and create gaps in the canopy. A recent study of riparian plant 

communities in northwest Oregon (McCain 2004) 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. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 81

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 20

illustrates the desired conditions for late-seral Riparian Reserves with a mix of species and complex stand 

characteristics.

Figure 20. 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.).

The analysis found that, upstream of Cougar Dam, only 3.0% of the Riparian Reserve area is deciduous 

and deciduous/shrub. Figures 21 and 22 show the classified vegetation for the South Fork McKenzie 

Watershed. The analysis of the current coniferous versus hardwood component of the Riparian Reserves

shows little difference between wilderness and non-wilderness. However, wildfires have been suppressed 

within the Wilderness for over 100 years which have also altered their riparian conditions. In addition, 

late-seral and old growth stands have numerous natural gaps which are frequently colonized by deciduous 

species (Warren 2013). Since the acres of old growth across the watershed have been reduced over the 

last century, it can be assumed that so has the deciduous component. Within Riparian Reserves of the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

South Fork McKenzie watershed, there is currently less than 5 percent combined deciduous tree and 

shrubs and mixed deciduous with conifer. 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 23 illustrates typical overstocked stands in the project area.

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 24 illustrates properly functioning conditions within

Riparian Reserves in the project area.

Figure 21. Vegetation Classification of the South Fork McKenzie Watershed (North)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 83

Figure 22. Vegetation Classification of the South Fork McKenzie Watershed (South)

Figure 23. Overstocked, Conifer-Dominant Stand in Riparian Reserves in the Project Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 24. Properly Functioning Riparian Reserves in 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 carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio of the detritus. Most animals require food with a 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 (Murphy and Meehan 1991).

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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 85

that current conditions in some portions of the Riparian Reserves are outside the natural range of 

variability and are not meeting desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain ACS Objectives. See 

Appendix G (Riparian Reserve treatment tables) for more details. Though the trend is slow, the overall 

aquatic habitat is improving in the project area as the riparian vegetation recovers towards more natural 

conditions.

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences – Riparian Conditions

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Current rates of large wood recruitment, provided mostly by stem mortality (from competition, disease, 

wind and snow downed trees) and bank erosion, would be maintained. Alternative 1 would provide a 

slightly higher rate of in-stream wood recruitment compared to the action alternatives. Where the action 

alternatives protect about 90 percent of the wood recruitment zones, the No-Action alternative would 

protect 100 percent. In some streams, recruitment trees are of sufficient size to meet ACS Objectives; but 

in other streams with small diameter riparian stands, the aquatic benefit is limited, namely through the 

reduced ability to store sediment and organic matter and contribute to habitat forming processes (e.g. 

scour). Though small wood has some value, particularly in the smaller headwater reaches, the longevity 

of recruited small diameter trees is short-lived, as they break down through abrasion and decomposition 

more rapidly compared to large trees. Small diameter trees are also more likely to be transported out of 

the system. In-stream wood abundance is low for most streams in the project area and is largely due to the 

lack of current wood inputs and the lack of stable wood in channels.

The No-Action alternative would not accelerate desired vegetation conditions. Desired riparian conditions 

– high species and structural diversity with large dead and down wood – would slowly develop over time 

(several decades) and depend solely on natural thinning events (stem exclusion mortality and 

disturbance). Without management to increase the abundance of deciduous and herbaceous vegetation in 

dense, conifer-dominant stands, ecosystem productivity would remain at relatively lower levels.

Accelerated restoration of riparian stands that currently do not meet ACS Objectives would not be 

accomplished. Alternative 1 would perpetuate the impacts of homogenous, densely stocked stand 

conditions longer into the future potentially by several decades. 

In addition, the currently dense riparian stands would be at greater risk to high severity fire, insect 

infestation, and disease – all carried more efficiently through overstocked stands. Although these are 

natural disturbance processes that contribute to forest habitat and diversity, a large disturbance event, or 

one of high severity, has the potential to reduce vegetation, large woody material, and stream shade across 

large areas of Riparian Reserves. Research conducted in the Pacific Northwest has shown that while fire 

severity may be lower along perennial streams due to relatively cool and moist conditions, fire severity 

along intermittent streams can be similar to adjacent upland areas (Tollefson 2004). In fact, under some 

circumstances, riparian areas can become corridors of increased fire spread (Pettit 2007).

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
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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.

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose both active and passive management of Riparian Reserves: thinning, gap 

creation, down wood augmentation, and no treatment. Below are descriptions of the types of treatments 

proposed and the considerations for analysis with each.

Thinning in Riparian Reserves

The body of literature on the effects of thinning on stream and forest ecosystems is quite extensive. 

Several key factors in determining where this type of treatment would be beneficial for the attainment of 

ACS objectives were considered. In-stream wood recruitment, upland down woody material levels, stand 

structure, and species composition are described below. Stream temperature, sediment, riparian 

microclimate, and other factors are described in the sections below. Alternative 2 would thin 

approximately 902 acres and Alternative 3 would thin approximately 894 acres within Riparian Reserves. 

Appendix G details where treatments are proposed within Riparian Reserves and the vegetation objectives

for each unit in Alternative 2 and 3. 

In-Stream Wood

In-stream wood in important to the health of aquatic habitats, and many researchers have studied the areas 

along streams where wood recruitment typically occurs. Wood recruitment zones, as they are called, vary 

from as little as 8m (26 feet) up to about 45m (148 feet) depending on various factors (Benda and 

Bigelow 2014, Spies et al. 2013). According to Benda and Bigelow (2014), 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 25 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

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 87

Figure 25. 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.

In all of the proposed riparian thinning stands, an area near the stream was designated as a no-harvest 

buffer to protect these wood recruitment zones as well as other resources such as temperature. The 

overall goal for developing wood recruitment zones was to protect at least 90 percent of trees that could 

potentially be recruited to the stream channel. This level of future wood input is thought to be sufficient 

levels to sustain physical complexity and stability required by the ACS Objectives. This no-harvest 

buffer ranges in width depending on specific conditions in each unit (i.e. width and gradient of stream, 

vegetation characteristics, etc.) and by stream type (i.e. seasonally flowing streams, perennial non-fish 

bearing streams, and fish bearing streams). Based on the research findings, a primary wood recruitment 

zone of 30 feet from each side of narrow (typically the intermittent class 4 and small class 3) stream 

channels was defined for young, dense stands within the project area, where bank erosion and tree 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

mortality are the dominant wood recruitment processes and average tree heights range from 57 to 95 feet. 

Along the wider perennial and fish bearing streams where average tree heights were greater than 95 feet,

no-treatment buffers range from 60 feet to 360 feet depending on conditions. 

Terrestrial Down Wood

In addition to in-stream wood, numerous studies have been conducted that address both the specific roles 

of down wood in ecosystem 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 in the upland portions of 

Riparian Reserves 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. Across the project area, current levels of down wood are 

within estimated historical ranges (see Section 3.5 for more information). Field surveys of the Green 

Mountain proposed units during 2011 and 2012 showed approximately 38% of all proposed units to have 

higher levels of large down logs (over 14” diameter) over 6/acre, 58% had moderate levels of about 3-

6/acre, and about 4% had low levels of large down logs under 3/acre. Many of the plantations showed 

relatively high levels of large down wood that was left from the original harvest, with quite large 

diameters over 40”, such that it will last many more decades. 

The number of total trees per acre (i.e. this number includes trees less than 7 inches in diameter) within 

most of the Riparian Reserve treatment areas range from 176 to 1,822. 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). Given the 

unnaturally over-stocked conditions of these managed stands, in the long term (decades to a century) there 

will still be adequate woody material to maintained volumes within the natural range of variability, and 

abundant overstory would be retained for future wood input sufficient to sustain the objectives listed in 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Appendix E).

However within specific treatment units where current estimates are below the desired ranges, dead and 

down wood objectives would be met through leaving more of the residual stand or through supplemental 

down wood creation treatments. These treatments are proposed as a potential enhancement effort so that

habitat needs could be met at a site specific as well as a landscape level.

Stand Structure and Species Composition

Based on a review of existing literature and stand development theory, Spies et al. (2013) found that the 

“greatest potential ecological benefits of thinning to accelerate the development of older forest structure 

(e.g. large trees, large dead trees, spatial structure and compositional heterogeneity, etc.) come in dense 

uniform plantations less than 80 years and especially less than 50 years old.” The benefits of thinning in 

stands over 80 years old are more variable. Stand conditions were reviewed for each waterbody and 

recommendations were based on multiple variables, not just age. These factors included tree height and 

diameter, stand density, species composition, and understory development. 

In Alternative 2, most stands where thinning would occur within Riparian Reserves are under 80 years old

however. Thinning in stands over 80 that contain Riparian would occur in only two units in Alternative 2 

(Units 1890 and 5800). However, based on field review of these units by resource specialists, no 

treatments within the Riparian Reserves were recommended.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 89

No stands over 80 are proposed for treatment in Alternative 3. This would only eliminate approximately 

eight acres of riparian treatment. The effects of not treating the eight additional acres would be localized 

and not perceptible at the landscape scale. 

Where thinning is proposed within Riparian Reserves, increases in abundance of understory vegetation, 

species diversity, stand structural diversity, and tree growth at a faster rate than background levels are 

expected. It should be noted that some modeling has shown that young conifer stands, if left untreated, 

would follow a trajectory towards forest structure found in certain reference conditions (Pollock et al. 

2012). Reference conditions were considered to have mature, late-successional conifer dominated stands 

with abundant large trees in the overstory, abundant large snags, and a well-developed understory of 

shade-tolerant trees. However, according to Harrington et al. (2005) thinning tends to increase shrub 

cover and greatly increase within-stand variability where shrub cover is absent before treatment. Riparian 

thinning can also promote the development of late successional forest attributes of value to many riparian 

and upland-associated species (Pabst et al. 2008, Harrington et al. 2005). Based on new research (Ruzicka 

et al. 2014), increased tree growth within no-treatment buffers adjacent to thinned stands is also 

anticipated. In their study, trees responded to an apparent edge effect up to 15 m (49 feet) downslope of 

thinned areas. So it is expected to have similar beneficial effects within a large portion of the no-treatment 

buffers. 

In order to add additional structural complexity, vegetative diversity, and habitat diversity some of the 

Riparian Reserve stands proposed for thinning also have small gap creation of a total of 4 acres (<0.25 

acres each gap) in the secondary shade zone to enhance terrestrial habitats which are also a component of 

the ACS objectives (see Wildlife Section and Appendix E). Table 16 shows a list of these proposed units. 

Table 16. Proposed Units with Wildlife Gaps in the Secondary Shade Zone

A minimum of 50 percent canopy closure (approximately 40 percent canopy cover) would be maintained 

throughout the stand (which results in an average of 70-90 trees per acre remaining on site which is 

slightly higher than average old growth stand densities. Over all, the proposed prescriptions are a 

compromise between thinning and retention to try and meet the greatest diversity and important resource 

protection needs such as microclimate and future large wood input. 

No-Harvest Treatments in Riparian Reserves

Alternative 2 and 3 propose a variety of management actions for Riparian Reserves. One action is to 

leave the current stand relatively intact. The no-harvest portions of the Riparian Reserves were selected 

where added protection of existing habitats were needed. These no-harvest areas are either partial buffers 

within the Reserves or full Riparian Reserves. For example, units 1890 and 5800 are mature stands over 

125 years while units 5430 and 5420 are younger (<80 years old). However, the Riparian Reserves in all 

of these units and several others show existing stand and vegetation diversity, sensitive habitat, soil

stability issues, temperature sensitivity, or existing quality aquatic habitat so no thinning was 

Stream Name/Class Unit Treatment Description

Penny Creek, Class 3 740

Fall and leave conifers to create gaps <0.25 acres each in the 

secondary shade zone for a total of approximately four acres.

Class 2 and Class 4 820

Class 4 1110

Class 4 1200

Class 4 5370

Class 2 5380
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

recommended within the Riparian Reserves. Information on proposed silvicultural treatments in Riparian 

Reserves, or non-treatment, can be found in Appendix G.

Fall-and-leave In-stream Treatments in Riparian Reserves

Several streams were identified during field surveys to have a shortage of large woody material within the 

channel or floodplain. Selected streams were chosen for their vegetation characteristics at the stream 

catchment scale and at the site-specific scale. The large majority of riparian stands along the entire length 

of the following streams are dense plantations lacking structural and species diversity. Units 5030, 5080, 

5230, 5420, 5440, 5460, and 5470 have stream side fall-and-leave prescriptions along approximately 2.7 

miles of fish-bearing streams (Table 17). This would be done either through fall-and-leave individual or 

small groups of trees or through whole tree winching to leave the rootwads attached.

Table 17. Proposed Units with In-stream Fall-and-Leave Treatments

Stream Name/Class Unit Treatment Description

Pass Creek, Class 2

5080 Fall conifers into channel every 50-100 feet alternating sides and 

avoid bank trees

5230

Elk Creek, Class 1

5420

Fall conifers into channel every 50-100 feet alternating and 

avoiding bank trees. Every 200-400 feet, fall 5-10 trees into the 

channel as a clump.

5440

5460

5470

Near-stream Gap Treatments in Riparian Reserves

Approximately 3.5 acres of near-stream gaps are proposed within 6 units (Table 18). There are several 

objectives for these treatments including increased light availability for primary productivity and 

increased deciduous vegetation for allochthonous material (decomposition of organic matter imported 

from outside the stream). Historic logging and dense conifer revegetation in the project area has resulted 

in a lack of deciduous vegetation along many streams. These homogenous conifer stands near streams 

have been shown to impact the food supply and thus the lifecycle of macro-invertebrates (Hoover 2011). 

Also, mature and old-growth stands exhibit a mixture of heterotrophic (shaded) and autotrophic (lighted) 

habitats within stream reaches (Stovall 2009, Warren 2013).

Research and field surveys indicate that near-stream gaps may be appropriate in certain situations: 

• Drainages with dense conifer canopy (i.e. plantations) where stream productivity may be 

relatively low

• Lower gradient reaches (<10 percent) that have higher potential to retain and process organic 

inputs

• Streams tightly coupled to biological hotspots (e.g. South Fork McKenzie River, tributary 

junctions) where increases in productivity could be utilized

• streams with low sensitivity to thermal loading and erosion

• riparian areas within plant associations that should have a hardwood/deciduous component
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 91

This treatment would increase light availability to streams by 20-30 percent to increase primary 

productivity and increase the hardwood component in order to begin to emulate old-growth 

characteristics. Canopy gaps have been shown to play a major role in providing light to streams within 

old growth stands and is significantly higher in those reaches than within younger (approximately60 years 

old) closed canopy stands (Warren 2013). Some removal of trees out of the gaps may be required in order 

to allow regeneration of early serial species. However, these trees would be left in the Riparian Reserves

for large woody material. Monitoring will be a major component of this project. All of the proposed nearstream gaps are within young plantations <80 years old. Maps of these proposed units can be found in 

Appendix G.

Table 18. Units with Proposed Near-stream (primary shade zone) Gap Treatments

Stream Name/Class Unit(s) Treatment Description

Class 3 (2 streams) 420, 430, 440 fall and leave conifers to create < 0.25 acre gaps to promote 

hardwood and understory growth

Class 3 500 fall and leave conifers to create < 0.25 acre gaps to promote 

hardwood and understory growth

Class 3 530, 600 fall and leave conifers to create < 0.25 acre gaps to promote 

hardwood and understory growth

Other Treatments

Within some treatment units, the introduction of low severity fire into patches of Riparian Reserves is 

anticipated during hazardous fuels treatments. Fire would be allowed to back into the Reserves and burn 

in a mosaic pattern rather than requiring a fire line around the Reserves which would potentially result in 

erosion. With local differences in soil moisture and relative humidity, the pattern of burning in the 

Riparian Reserves is expected to resemble a patchwork mosaic of unburned and lightly burned sites. In 

the unburned portions, the existing understory vegetation, including conifers, would be retained. In lightly

burned areas, understory conifers would experience some mortality, but fire adapted species such as 

willow and other hardwood shrubs would re-sprout and, in some instances, be stimulated into increased 

growth in response to the disturbance. At low burn severities, large wood would not be removed from the 

Reserves. The net results, though localized, would be increased plant species and stand structural 

diversity, with a closer resemblance to historic stand condition than non-thinned plantations.

Table 19 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 19. Riparian Reserve Management on Federally Managed Lands in the Project Area

Total Riparian Reserves

within the Project Area Activity

Proposed for Treatment

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

64,300 acres

Thinning 0 acres 902 acres 894 acres

No Treatment 0 acres 762 acres 749 acres

1⁄4 acre Gaps (near-stream) 0 acres 3.5 acres 3.5 acres

1⁄4 acre Gaps (secondary shade 

zone) 0 acres 4 acres 4 acres

Fall and Leave 0 acres 2.7 miles 2.7 miles
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Wherever possible, temporary roads would be located on ridge tops, gentle slopes, or would utilize 

locations previously disturbed by historic logging that had not been decommissioned. Those segments 

located within the Riparian Reserves would be located well outside of the primary shade zone or cross 

perpendicular to the stream. Alternative 2 will have about 2.3 miles of temporary roads within the 

Riparian Reserves. This is equivalent to approximately 11 acres of disturbance. Alternative 3 will have a 

similar length of temporary roads (about 2.1 miles) in Riparian Reserves. There are 14 proposed 

temporary stream 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 re-vegetation start occurring 

within 2 decades from natural regeneration if the disturbed area is not replanting. All temporary road 

crossings would be removed, and all temporary roads in Riparian Reserves would be decommissioned 

after treatment activities are completed.

In summary, Alternative 2 would thin approximately 902 acres within Riparian Reserves. Additionally, 

3.5 acres of gaps would be created within the secondary shade zone and 3.5 acres of near-stream (primary 

shade zone) gaps. Approximately 2.7 miles of stream would have large wood enhancement treatments. 

Alternative 3 would thin approximately 894 acres within Riparian Reserves, and all other treatments 

would be the same as Alternative 2. 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 902 and 894 

acres (less than 1.5 percent) 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. 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. 

Analysis and field reconnaissance of Riparian Reserves by fisheries, hydrology and wildlife personnel on 

a unit by unit basis assured that Riparian Reserve prescriptions will provide for small wood inputs from 

no-harvest buffers and fall and leave in the short term (1-2 decades) while treating outer portions of 

riparian reserves for long-term (2-5 decades or more) shade, wood source and terrestrial habitat 

complexity. Table 19 summarizes the acres of Riparian Reserves affected by the various treatments. 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. Refer to Appendix G for overview 

maps of the Riparian Reserves within the project area and locations of the various riparian treatments.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

Federal timber sales and pre-commercial thinning are ongoing in the project area, and the cumulative 

effects are a reduction in Riparian stand densities and a short term (1-2 decades) reduction in small woody 

material. All recent and planned timber harvest, riparian habitat complexity development, and road 

decommissioning 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

projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the Cumulative 

Effects Analysis (Appendix F) 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 93

impacts expected from the Green Mountain 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.

3.3.5 Affected Environment – Stream Shade and Temperature

Major road construction and timber harvest began in the Green Mountain 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. 

Stream temperature data were collected at 19 locations in the project area during the summer months 

(June through September). The data were collected for a minimum of two seasons with a maximum of 10 

seasons. A summary of the data for South Fork watershed is provided below in Table 20. Control streams 

were selected because they are relatively un-impacted and were thought to be hydrologically/geologically 

similar to the project area streams. In addition to capturing the summer temperatures, NetMap was used 

to model the potential thermal sensitivity to various stream reaches. 

The existing conditions for temperature in the Green Mountain project area varies widely even between 

the control streams. Much of this variability is due to the geology underlying the stream channels. Both 

the South Fork McKenzie near the Wilderness boundary and Elk Creek flow from the groundwater 

dominated High Cascades geology and exhibit the characteristically colder temperatures. Walker and 

French Pete flow from ridge capping basalts in the characteristically warmer West Cascades geology. 

Rebel is on the boundary between the West and High Cascades and exhibits intermediate temperatures. 

Like the streams that run through project units, Roaring River and the upper reaches of the South Fork 

flow through managed stands but exhibit cooler temperatures due to the High Cascades geological 

influence. Augusta Creek is the warmest of the streams within the project area despite having the highest 

percentage of older stands. The upper reaches of the stream are buffered by older plantations and mature 

stands while the lower mile and a half flows through younger plantations. This vegetation pattern may 

partially explain the warming trend of the stream. Other factors that influence the stream’s temperature 

are the predominant south/north direction of the channel which also increases solar radiation potential and 

the historic removal of in-stream wood. Grasshopper Creek is similar to upper Augusta in geology, 

drainage size, orientation, and vegetation composition; and thus the temperatures are also similar. Upper 

Starr Creek is influenced by coarse heterogeneous glacial deposits where hyporheic flow (water flowing 

in and out of the gravel beds and banks) can cool the stream. Hardy Creek is the second warmest stream 

that flows through the proposed units. It lies along the edge of a deep seated earthflow which typically 

has a cooling effect on the temperatures due to groundwater contributions. However, it too flows in a 

predominately south/north direction with higher solar radiation potential in most of the lower reaches, and 

several of its larger tributaries have experienced debris flows that have removed vegetation and gravel. 

Ridge Creek lies almost entirely in old earth flow terrain with low to moderate solar radiation potential. 

Changes in the range of maximum temperatures from one water year to the next are attributable to annual 

differences in precipitation and stream flows. The annual timing of the maximum temperature occurred 

between July and August in all instances.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Table 20. Stream Temperatures for the Green Mountain Project Area

Lowest Max. 

Daily Temp. 

°C*

Highest Max. 

Daily Temp. °C*

Range of 

Values °C

Composite 

Average 

Value °C

Control Streams

Elk Creek 8.8 9.7 0.9 9.1

Walker Creek 12.9 16.3 3.4 14.5

Rebel Creek 12.2 14.1 1.9 13.2

French Pete Creek 14.5 17.1 2.6 16.0

S. F. McKenzie (Wilderness boundary) 8.6 10.7 2.1 9.7

Non-Control Streams

Roaring River 7.3 7.5 0.2 7.4

S. F. McKenzie R. (upper) 9.5 9.9 0.4 9.6

S. F. McKenzie R. (middle) 11.1 11.4 0.3 11.3

S. F. McKenzie R. (lower) 12.8 13.8 1.0 13.3

Grasshopper Creek 12.9 14.3 1.4 13.5

Starr Creek (upper) 11.9 13.1 1.2 14.5

Starr Creek (lower) 14.4 16.3 1.9 15.2

Augusta Creek (upper) 12.4 14.6 2.2 13.2

Augusta Creek (lower) 16.2 19.0 2.8 17.8

Hardy Creek (upper) 10.7 11.3 0.6 11.0

Hardy Creek (lower) 13.7 16.2 2.5 15.5

Ridge Creek 13.8 15.2 1.4 14.9

* Maximum 7-day average

Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters. 

Lower reaches (river mile 0-4.5) of the South Fork McKenzie had been listed as 303(d) for temperature 

(12.8° C) prior to the 2010 revision. Data above the Reservoir were insufficient to list in the 2010 

revisions. From the data collected internally by the Forest Service, most of the South Fork McKenzie is 

at or below the 12.8° C criteria for spawning. Augusta is listed as a potential concern (criteria 17.8° C). 

Both French Pete and Rebel are Category 2 with specific water quality standards being met or trending 

that direction. However, French Pete which is almost entirely in the Three Sisters Wilderness is close to 

the 16° C criteria for cold water habitat. (Oregon DEQ. 2004/2006 and 2010. 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters). The high temperatures with French Pete goes to show the significant role that the underlying 

geology can have on stream temperatures.

3.3.6 Environmental Consequences – Stream Shade and Temperature

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Activities that affect shade vegetation would not occur. Water temperatures in streams in the project area 

would continue to recover toward more natural levels as riparian vegetation that was disturbed or 

removed by management activities prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan re-grows and reestablishes streamside shade. However, with the increased risk of high severity wildfire, which is carried 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 95

more easily through dense stands, this may affect water quality in the future. The corresponding loss of 

vegetation and duff may affect temperatures and microclimates around the edges of the streams and 

wetlands. Intermittent (class 4) streams and seasonal wet meadows go dry during the summer when 

temperatures are typically an issue. So increased stream temperature at the current vegetation conditions 

or after a high-severity fire is not expected in most of the class 4 streams in the project area. However, 

temperatures in perennial streams would be effected as would microclimates. See the Fire and Fuels

Section in Chapter 3 for more specifics on the probability and effects of wildfires in the project area.

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” (TMDL 2012). All streams except 

Roaring River 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-harvest buffers were developed to eliminate 

management effects. These buffers were developed based in part by calculating the width of the riparian 

area adjacent to perennial stream channels that provides stream shade for the period of greatest solar 

loading, known as the primary shade zone; and the width of the riparian area that provides shade in the 

morning and afternoon, considered the secondary shade zone. Research has shown that in many cases 

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 several cases, buffer distances less than one site potential tree have been 

shown to protect water temperature. Typically the primary shade zone is half of the site potential tree

height. Gomi et al. (2006) reported maximum daily temperatures in headwater streams did not increase 

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 the Riparian Reserves, 

conifer densities are high and would benefit from thinning. Where Riparian Reserves are actively 

managed, a minimum of 50% canopy closure (approximately 40% canopy cover) is preserved in the outer 

portions (outside the no-harvest buffer) to help protect microclimate also. Some of the streams in the 

project area are less than 3 feet wide and others have very course substrate. The effective shade is 

typically less for these streams. In addition, several papers have been published recently indicating that 

hyporheic flow (water flowing through gravel), not just shade, has a significant influence on stream 

temperature. Janishch et al. (2012) found that that the canopy cover of “buffers” was not a strong variable 

for temperature in small (<7feet wide) headwater streams. Instead, the streams with coarse-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 play in 

stream temperatures and was used to further establish no-harvest buffer recommendations. 

The development of no-harvest buffer widths also took into account the stream classification. 

Intermittent (Class 4) streams are dry during the portion of the year when elevated temperatures occur and 

therefore temperature is not as significant an issue. However, bank stability trees and no-harvest buffers 

of 30 feet which were designed for other resource objectives would provide substantial shade when water 

is present regardless. Much of the stream-influenced microclimate would also be preserved since the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

gradients are strongest within the first 20-30 feet (Anderson 2007) and a portion of the canopy cover 

throughout the rest of the Riparian Reserve would be maintained. No-treatment buffers on perennial 

streams have varying widths developed, in part, to accelerate species and structural diversity while 

protecting effective shade. 

Most of the 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. Where thermal loading, soil stability, desired stand characteristics, etc. is present; 

no-treatment buffers are wider. Several class 3 streams have narrower no-treatment buffers in order to 

accomplish other aquatic and terrestrial habitat goals. The locations selected for these additional thinning

treatments are in locations where thermal loading potential is low and where microclimate has less 

influence on the small streams.

The majority of perennial streams class 1 and 2 (fish bearing) are provided with a minimum of a 60 foot 

no-treatment buffer to retain effective stream shade. Certain units have additional riparian treatments 

within the traditional no-harvest buffer for in-stream large wood creation or to increase primary 

productivity. Approximately 2.7 miles of streams would have wood added. Selection and spacing of 

trees for large wood creation would be chosen so that they minimized the impacts of canopy removal to 

stream temperature.

Near-stream gaps are proposed in several class 3 streams with low thermal loading and where there is 

sufficient vegetation and bed roughness retained above and below the gap to provide shade and to cool 

the stream. Average width for the small class 3 streams with proposed gaps is about 6-9 feet and average 

depth is ≤ 1ft. The current canopy cover for the proposed gap units is 74-93 percent. Ridge Creek is 

about 14.9 °C with about 85 percent canopy cover at that location. Cold water criterion is 16°C. NetMap 

was used to model thermal warming potential. This model helps provide a large-scale comparison of 

streams across the watershed, but it has limitations. Most significant of these limitations is that the 

topography and stream channel gradient are estimated at a constant grade which may minimize the effects 

of topographic shading and result in slightly higher estimated temperatures. Despite this limitation, the 

model provides a helpful estimation. Using this model, the reaches where near-stream gaps are proposed 

have an estimated level of solar radiation to warm 1 ft3 water 0.33°C every minute assuming absolutely 

no shade is available from local vegetation at any point during the day. On average, the stream flow is 

approximately 90 ft3 per minute. 

Small openings in old growth stands are common; and localized warming as a result of the proposed gaps

are expected to result in similar conditions remaining within the range of natural variability (Warren 

2013). Most studies relevant to shade recovery after clear-cut and other “heavy” harvests predict 

substantial return to pre-harvest levels within 5–7 years of treatment (Brown 1970; Feller 1981; Harr 

1988). These recovery predictions assume the rapid return of bankside understory vegetation, because 

canopy shade provided by second-growth forests will require 10–20 years (Beschta 1987, Johnson 2000).

It is estimated that the canopy openings in these gaps would likewise be transitory and re-vegetate. In 

addition to protection for excessive thermal loading, the proposed gaps are in streams flowing through 

locations where hyporheic exchange can provide additional offsets to warming. 

There are eight proposed temporary class 4 (intermittent) and 6 class 3 (perennial non-fish bearing) 

stream crossings as part of Alternative 2 and 3 treatment activities. Class 4 streams are dry during the 

summer when water temperature is typically a concern. When there is water in the streams however, the 

width of the clearing needed to establish the crossings would not create a detrimental change in 

temperature or shade because the primary and secondary shade zones of the surrounding riparian area 

would retain sufficient canopy closure to provide shade to these narrow streams, and because the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 97

topographic location further enhances protection from solar radiation. A few short segments of other 

temporary roads will enter the outer portion of the Riparian Reserves but not cross any streams. This 

would allow for historically compacted areas to be re-used then properly sub-soiled and re-vegetated. 

The reduction in canopy closure of the secondary shade zone is taken into account in the overall 

calculations of canopy closure on Riparian Reserve thinning treatments. Based on implementation of the 

design features outlined in Chapter 2, which reduce the acres of disturbance due to temporary roads and 

skid trails as well as field observations during project reconnaissance; a minimal direct effect is 

anticipated at a localized level within a few feet downstream of the temporary road crossings.

Additional road decommissioning and storage analyzed under this DEIS are expected to be accomplished 

within the subwatersheds during the time period of this project and its direct effects. In general, these 

activities help restore streamside vegetation which would provide additional shading of streams 

previously impacted by human activities.

Streamside gap treatments and subsequent monitoring were informally consulted upon with Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality to assure their approval (Wright, 2014). Stream no-harvest buffer 

widths and retention of canopy cover were designed to minimize effects to stream temperature. Minimal 

direct effects may occur at a small/localized level within a few feet downstream of the gaps and 

temporary road crossings, but the impact to a stream reach would be negligible. 

No long-term (> 5-10 years) increases of stream temperature are anticipated within the project area as a 

result of these alternatives. Consequently, as in the No Action Alternative, water temperatures of streams 

within the project area would continue to recover toward more natural levels as riparian vegetation regrows and re-establishes streamside shade. 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. Many of the treatment units are overstocked plantations with small diameter riparian trees. Thinning within the secondary shade zone would 

increase growth of the remaining trees. Additionally, thinning of dense stands and managing fuel loading 

helps reduce the risk of high severity wildfire. This, in turn, reduces the risk of impacts to stream shade 

and microclimate. 

Cumulative Effects 

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 the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix F) were analyzed for effects to stream 

temperature and were found to have no effect or a slight beneficial effect from road decommissioning. 

3.3.7 Affected Environment – Stream Flows/Disturbance History

Projects involving timber harvest on the Willamette National Forest are analyzed for their cumulative 

impact on the quantity and timing of peak flows and water yields using an accounting methodology 

known as Aggregate Recovery Percentage or ARP, as specified by the Forest Plan. The ARP model 

compares the acres of an analysis area within the transient snow zone that is recovered against a threshold 

value (Midpoint) that was calibrated for the area during development of the Forest Plan. The midpoint 

values were developed based on the soil, geology, vegetation, climate, and stream channel conditions of 

each sub-watershed and are intended to represent a minimum safe level of vegetative recovery in the subwatersheds to prevent significant alteration of peak flow regimes as a result of management activities. 

Recovery generally occurs when stand diameters average more than 8 inches dbh (diameter breast high) 

and crown closures exceed 70 percent. The analysis is based on data extracted from the Forest’s VEGIS 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

database, which includes information about all past harvest activities in the sub-watershed. Currently, 

ARP levels in the South Fork watershed are far above the Forest Plan Midpoints.

3.3.8 Environmental Consequences – Stream Flows/Disturbance History

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Current ARP values are well above midpoint. Alternative 1, No Action, would result in no changes to 

existing peak flows based on vegetation removal. However, several miles of roads are in poor condition 

and funnel water to stream crossings or into alternative drainages. These alterations to stream flows 

would not be improved with the implementation of this Alternative due to the lack of road maintenance, 

storage, or decommissioning. However, the effect would be localized to a few yards down-stream in most 

cases.

Alternative 2 and 3

Table 21 summarizes levels of recovery immediately after implementation of the project for each of the 

alternatives. Completion of implementation is estimated to occur by 2022. The Midpoint ARP value 

varies by sub-watershed and ranges from 70-80. Since 80 would provide the highest protection, both 

action Alternatives are compared to that value rather than 70.

Table 21. Aggregate Recovery Percentage for the Green Mountain Project

S. Fork McKenzie Subwatersheds: 

170900040302, 170900040303, 

170900040304, 170900040307, 

170900040308

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Max Midpoint ARP

Pre-project (2014) 89.2 89.2 89.2 80

2020 Post-project Estimates 92.7 89.0 89.6 80

ARP levels are maintained above recommended values for all alternatives in the affected sub-watersheds 

even immediately after implementation when the potential for adverse impacts to vegetation would be 

greatest. Therefore, no altered peak stream flows are anticipated from implementation of the proposed 

actions. 

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

ARP levels will remain well above the midpoint so effects to peak flows throughout the watershed are not 

expected by vegetation removal. Each of the past and future projects listed in the Past, Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix F) were 

analyzed for effects to peak flow and were found to have no effect or a slight beneficial effect from road 

decommissioning. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 99

3.3.9 Affected Environment – Sedimentation

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The majority of the geologic terrain and soils within the Green Mountain project area are not inherently 

prone to extensive erosion unless disturbed as discussed in the Soils Specialist Report (located in the 

project file). Though much of the project area has stable geology, there are areas of earth flow terrain and 

other unstable geologic features. Roads on earth flows or the more deeply dissected slopes above the 

river terrace employed construction methods such as cut and fill that resulted in relatively unstable road 

beds. 

Since implementation of the Willamette National Forest Plan in 1990, road maintenance activities have 

worked to eliminate many of these 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 degrading old log 

culverts, sedimentation from old skid roads, failing culverts, and displacement from steep road cut-banks 

along the main-stem of the South Fork McKenzie. Other stream reaches have been completely covered 

by historic logging debris. The watersheds in the project area have road densities ranging from 0.1 to 2.5. 

These road densities were calculated using total road miles (open and closed roads) per subwatershed. 

Road densities over 3.5 miles of road per square mile are considered “Not Properly Functioning” 

(FEMAT 1993). Though road densities in Cougar, Rebel, and Roaring subwatersheds are high, they are 

still considered “Properly Functioning” (Table 22).

Table 22. Total Road Densities Across the South Fork McKenzie Watershed

Subwatershed Road Miles Subwatershed sq. mi. Density

Cougar 76.25 30.43 2.5

East Fork 27.95 20.21 1.4

French Pete 3.16 31.26 0.1

Rebel 61.57 26.51 2.3

Augusta 59.29 29.19 2.0

Elk 7.51 48.69 0.2

Roaring 46.58 19.98 2.3

In addition, past timber harvest methods resulted in compaction levels varying from 9 percent to 15 

percent for most of the units of harvested with ground based logging systems. However, a few 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.

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 260 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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.

3.3.10 Environmental Consequences – Sedimentation

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Rates of road related sediment yield were estimated to remain relatively constant under Alternative 1 (No 

Action), reflecting no specific changes due to the lack of road upgrades. Alternative 1 would not correct 

existing road erosion problems which result in chronic sedimentation to streams. Without timber harvest 

related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend would result in only the main roads being 

maintained. Culverts that are not maintained could plug and cause washouts. The resulting sediment 

plumes could be detrimental to fish and amphibians. Over several decades, these road issues would 

stabilize as the disturbed areas re-vegetates. However, no project-related storage or decommissioning 

would occur. Harvest activity on the portion of private land within the project area would continue, as 

would use of shared roads. Table 23 below 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. As 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 Green Mountain 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 providing for sediment barriers 

and flow bypass would minimize impacts on perennial streams. Flows in perennial streams are all 

expected to be less than 1.0 cubic feet per second when work occurs, based on personal observation 

during project reconnaissance. It is not possible to do this work without some sediment delivery, and 

accurate estimates are not predictable. Depending on weather behavior and other variable factors, 

sediment yields should fall between 0.5 and 1.5 cubic yards per installation based on professional 

experience. This sediment would settle out within a few feet and is not in amounts that would harm 

aquatic insects or amphibians.

An analysis of estimated sediment outputs from roads in the project area was completed using the roads 

module of the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. The same analysis was conducted 

for each alternative incorporating all project related road maintenance, temporary road construction 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 101

activities, and haul route activity. Results were calculated to estimate sediment production rates during 

the implementation of the project as well as conditions following completion of the project. Table 23

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 12-25 percent increased contribution of sediment that cumulatively adds to 

sediment already produced under the existing road system. Alternative 2 shows the highest increase 

during operations when there is increased traffic on haul routes and freshly established temporary roads. 

By implementing the activities associated with the Green Mountain project, overall human caused 

sediment input would decrease only slightly (< 5 percent) from current levels.

Table 23. Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for Green Mountain Project Area Roads

Alt 1 

(No Action)

Alt 2 (during 

harvest)

Alt 2 (after 

harvest)

Alt 3 (during 

harvest)

Alt 3 (after 

harvest)

Gross Sediment Yield (yrd3) 260 325 249 291 248

Net increase/decrease - 65 -11 185 142

% increase/decrease - 25 -4 12 -5

Approximately 10.3 miles of temporary road construction would occur with Alternative 2 and 8.6 would 

occur in Alternative 3. However, only 2.3 and 2.1 miles would be proposed within Riparian Reserves. 

These represents approximately 11 acres of ground disturbance. All temporary roads would be stabilized 

with erosion control measures as necessary for the wet season to minimize accumulation of runoff and

transport of sediment and would be fully decommissioned after the project is complete. In addition, 3.5 

miles of road decommissioning and 21.1 miles of storage are proposed in both action Alternatives and 

would reduce current sediment inputs. Decommissioning would include activities such as the removal of 

culverts, ripping or recontouring of the road surface, and revegetation. Based on professional experience, 

each fill removed would produce on average <1 cubic yard of fine sediment that would leave the fill 

removal site and settle out in the first 100 feet below the fill removal during the first winter.

Table 24 below provides a summary of the culvert replacements and the potential amount of stabilized fill 

material that would have a reduced risk of entering streams. It also estimates the amount of sediment 

produced from the culvert replacements. 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 170 cubic yards for Alternative 2. In comparison, 

the estimated volume of fill stabilized is 23,310 cubic yards for Alternative 2. While the maximum 

sediment yields for culvert replacements would be approximately 156 cubic yards, and 21,540 cubic yards 

for Alternative 3. Either Alternative 2 or 3 would reduce the potential for runoff effects and culvert 

failures that may affect Riparian Reserves or water quality.

Table 24. Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative for the 

Green Mountain Project

Stream 

Type

Number of Culverts 

Installed/Replaced/Removed

Cubic Yards of 

Fill Stabilized

Sediment Yields from 

Culvert Replacements 

(Cubic Yards)

Alternative 1 

(No Action) None 0 0 0

Alternative 2

Intermittent 65 12,350 32.5 - 97.5

Perennial 40 10,000 20.0 - 60.0

Log culvert 8 960 4.0 - 12.0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Stream 

Type

Number of Culverts 

Installed/Replaced/Removed

Cubic Yards of 

Fill Stabilized

Sediment Yields from 

Culvert Replacements 

(Cubic Yards)

Total 113 23,310 56.5 - 169.5

Alternative 3

Intermittent 57 10,830 28.5 - 85.5

Perennial 39 9,750 19.5 - 58.5

Log culvert 8 960 4.0 - 12.0

Total 104 21,540 52.0 - 156.0

Most harvest-related sediment input to streams comes from skid trails, historic roads that were poorly 

located, historic log culvert crossings, or historic skyline corridor crossings. Research has shown that by 

keeping these at least 33 feet from streams and following BMP guidelines, essentially all of the harvest 

related sediment is eliminated (Roshin 2006, Lakel 2010). In addition, as discussed in the Soils section of 

this document, soils in the project area have naturally high rates of infiltration and low potential for 

overland flow. The Design Features for Alternative 2 and 3 designates additional equipment exclusion 

zones around streams and wetlands will essentially eliminate any routing of water from the logging 

operations (see Appendix G). Likewise, sediment impacts from near-stream gap creation would be 

minimized by leaving bank-stability trees and using BMPs when designing the yarding of the cut trees 

into the outer portions of the Riparian Reserve.

The McKenzie River Sub-Basin, including the Green Mountain 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 Green Mountain Project that could adversely affect municipal water 

quality; but with the design features that restrict the location of skid roads and temporary roads as well as 

best management practices and the buffering effect of Cougar Reservoir, adverse effects are not 

anticipated. 

Natural annual pulses of sediment will continue. In some years the sediment input will be greater than in 

other years, but overall the sediment input levels are expected to remain near current levels until a large 

flood event occurs. However, the risk of road and fill failures during major storm events would be 

reduced. With the additional activities that would be part of the Green Mountain project, overall 

anthropogenic sediment input would decrease slightly across the 6th field watersheds. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

All recent and planned timber harvest, riparian habitat complexity development, and road 

decommissioning 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 

projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the Cumulative 

Effects Analysis (Appendix F) were analyzed for effects to sediment 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 Green Mountain project during timber haul and culvert replacement would not 

measurably contribute to impaired aquatic conditions.

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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 103

Oregon Forest Practice Rules which requires a different set of standards and BMPs to reduce 

sedimentation into the waterways.

3.4 Aquatic Resources (Fisheries and Aquatic Insects)

3.4.1 Scale of Analysis

Unless otherwise noted, the geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for 

fisheries and aquatic insects includes project activity units, the South Fork McKenzie River 5th field 

watershed and all the 6th field sub-watersheds in the South Fork. The reason for selecting these scales of 

analyses is that streams, and in turn fish and their aquatic habitat are directly connected to their riparian 

areas which in turn are connected to the hill slopes within the watershed. In addition, satellite imagery

was used to conduct a “hardwood analysis” for all the Riparian Reserves in the South Fork McKenzie 

River 5th field watershed.

3.4.2 Affected Environment

The Green Mountain project is distributed across the western and southern portions of the South Fork 

McKenzie River watershed and all units are upstream of Cougar Dam. Primary streams within the project 

area include the South Fork McKenzie River, Elk Creek, Roaring River, Augusta Creek, Grasshopper 

Creek, Loon Creek, Starr Creek, Hardy Creek, Buoy Creek, Ridge Creek, Rider Creek, and Boone Creek. 

There are also numerous non-fish bearing streams located in the project area.

A variety of fish species can be found in the South Fork McKenzie River as illustrated in Table 25 below.

Table 25. Fish Species of the South Fork McKenzie River and its Tributaries (USDA Forest Service 1994)

Common Name Scientific Name

spring Chinook salmon* Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

coastal cutthroat trout* Oncorhynchus clarki clarki

rainbow trout* Oncorhynchus mykiss

bull trout* Salvenlinus confluentus

mountain whitefish* Prosopium williamsoni

Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus

longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

speckled dace* Rhinichthys osculus

redside shiner* Richardsonius balteatus

largescale sucker* Catostomus macrocheilus

sculpin species* Cottus spp.

*confirmed sighting

Coastal cutthroat trout are ubiquitous in the project area. They can be found in small tributaries, in the 

South Fork McKenzie River, and in Hidden Lake. Rainbow trout tend to be seen in larger tributaries and 

in the South Fork McKenzie River. Spring Chinook salmon are primarily found in the South Fork but can 

also access lower Augusta Creek, lower Roaring River, and lower Elk Creek to use as spawning and 

rearing habitat. The only stream in the South Fork that is suitable for bull trout to use as spawning and 

early rearing habitat is Roaring River and this is because of its cold stream temperatures due to ground 

water inputs from springs. When bull trout get older (2 to 3 years old) they enter the South Fork to rear 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

and prey on other fish species. As adults (5 years and older), bull trout use the South Fork and Cougar 

Reservoir as rearing habitat.

Cougar Dam has acted as a migration barrier to fish since its construction in the early 1960’s. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed a “trap and haul” facility at the base of Cougar Dam in 

2010 and have been moving fish upstream of the dam since that time. The USACE and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) have a goal of moving a minimum of 600 adult spring Chinook 

salmon upstream of the dam. If less than 600 spring Chinook are captured at the dam, then ODFW will 

supplement with salmon captured at the McKenzie River Hatchery.

Presently there is not safe downstream passage at the dam. The USACE is studying downstream passage 

at the dam using a “portable floating fish collector.” The study will determine if this would be a safe and 

effective way to get juvenile salmon downstream of the dam.

Three aquatic insects found on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (SSL) have been documented 

on the Willamette National Forest. These aquatic insects are all caddisflies and little is known about them. 

In fact, the common name for all of these caddisflies is “A Caddisfly.” A short summary of the 

distribution and known habitat associations is provided below. For a more detailed discussion on these 

species, see the Fisheries Biological Evaluation (available in the project files upon request).

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 2012a). Elevations of known populations range from around 1219 to 

1700 m (4000 to 5600 ft.) in Oregon.

Rhyacophila leechi: In Oregon, Rhyacophila leechi is documented to occur on the Willamette National 

Forest and on Bureau of Land Management land in the Medford District. Rhyacophila leechi adults have 

been collected from springs and cold, spring-fed streams. This species appears to require colder water 

temperatures than the common and more widely distributed Rhyacophila. verrula, and is likely confined 

to smaller, headwater streams and springs (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 

2011). Oregon sites range in elevation from 440 to 980 m (1444 to 3210 ft.) (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011).

Namamyia plutonis: On National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands, documented 

occurrences are from the Rogue River-Siskiyou, Siuslaw, and Willamette National Forests (USDA Forest 

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). The majority of the documented occurrences are 

between 30 and 50 years old.

Sampling for aquatic insects (macroinvertebrates) has taken place in the South Fork McKenzie River 

watershed. In 2005 and 2006 samples were taken above Cougar Dam and below the dam. Members of the 

genus Rhyacophila were collected in both places but neither of the species found on the sensitive species 

list (SSL) was documented in those efforts. In 2004, samples were taken in the East Fork of the South 

Fork McKenzie River and in Walker Creek. As with the other samples Rhyacophila were collected but not 

the species on the SSL. No members of the genus Namamyia were found in any of these samples.

Despite not finding the species on the SSL the South Fork McKenzie River and Roaring River provide the 

type of habitat that Rhyacophila requires for survival (i.e. large spring-fed rivers) so that habitat is treated 

as potentially occupied. Namamyia plutonis tend to be found associated with small streams in densely 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 105

forested old growth or mature forest watersheds (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 2010). 

More information and description of the existing condition for Riparian Reserves can be found in the 

hydrology and soils section of this DEIS. In the project area Riparian Reserves can be found in variety of 

conditions from 29 year old stands of dense Douglas-fir monocultures (i.e. plantations) to mature and old 

growth stands that have a greater diversity of tree species and light availability to the stream ecosystem. 

Given the size of the project area, Riparian Reserves are found along a variety of water bodies including 

seasonal flowing streams, perennial flowing non-fish bearing streams, fish bearing tributaries and a small 

river (the South Fork), small ponds, and a large “sag pond” (Hidden Lake).

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). There are some plantations that have over 1,800 total trees per acre (i.e. all trees in the 

stand including those under 7 inches in diameter). Post-harvest thinning densities in Riparian Reserves

would range from a residual of approximately 50 trees per acre to approximately 111 trees per acre with 

the average stand having approximately 84 trees per acre. All Riparian Reserves where thinning is 

proposed would have a no cut buffer (see Appendix G for specific information on each unit) and thinning

would maintain 40 percent canopy cover in the rest of the reserve. The Riparian Reserves are thinned to a 

40% canopy cover in the treated portion (50% canopy closure). The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) 

model was used to determine the residual number of trees as a derivative of the crown width and desired 

canopy cover. The default FVS canopy equation was used rather than trying to compensate for overlap of 

crowns, which has resulted in canopy covers that typically exceed the desired condition. Stands with 

lower initial stand densities would have larger / wider crowns which would result in fewer trees necessary 

to attain the residual canopy cover of 40% in the Riparian Reserve. This is why there is such a range in 

residual trees per acre. 

Some Riparian Reserves in plantations have a good mix of hardwoods in the stand so no treatment was 

recommended in those areas. These stands appear to be on their way to achieving Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives without any need of silvicultural activities. As an example, the following units have 

non-fish bearing perennial streams in them and the Riparian Reserves stands have diverse vegetation so a 

180 foot no cut area is recommended on each side of the creek: 220, 230, 240, 290, 300, 310, 330, and 

350. These stands range in age from 30 to 42 years old and the stream systems drain into Cougar 

Reservoir.

Some Riparian Reserves in plantations did not have a good mix of hardwoods in the stand so silvicultural 

treatment is recommended in those areas. These stands are dense, dark plantations of almost pure 

Douglas-fir with either very few hardwoods in the Riparian Reserve or none at all and very little sunlight 

reaching the forest floor or the stream channels. These conditions were verified using satellite imagery 

and on the ground field investigations. In some cases thinning is recommended and in a few stands noncommercial “near stream gaps” are proposed. In these quarter acre gaps near the stream all trees would 

be felled and left on site. These sites would be monitored to ensure that hardwood trees colonized the site. 

It is expected that within 6 to 10 years there would be a stand of hardwood trees on the site. If necessary 

the gaps would be planted with hardwoods (i.e. vine maple, big leaf maple, and red alder). Units where 

near stream gaps are recommended are: 420, 430, 440, 500, 530, and 600. These stands range in age 

from 28 to 36 years old and the stream systems drain into Cougar Reservoir.

On two streams it is proposed to fall and leave trees in the channel. Table 27 summarizes where these 

proposed treatments would take place.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Table 26. Proposed Units with In-stream Fall-and-Leave Treatments

Stream Name/Class Unit Treatment Description

Pass Creek, Class 2

(Cutthroat trout stream)

5080 Fall conifers into channel every 50-100 feet alternating sides and 

5230 avoid bank trees

Elk Creek, Class 1

(Chinook salmon stream)

5420

Fall conifers into channel every 50-100 feet alternating and 

avoiding bank trees. Every 200-400 feet, fall 5-10 trees into the 

channel as a clump.

5440

5460

5470

Pass Creek is a tributary to Augusta Creek and is inhabited by coastal cutthroat trout. It is a relatively 

small stream and relatively steep (8 percent gradient and steeper). Elk Creek is a tributary to the South 

Fork McKenzie and is a larger system than Pass Creek. Its first two reaches are relatively flat (3 percent

to 4 percent gradient) and the valley is wide (500 feet wide). There was very little large woody material in 

Elk Creek (Table 27) and in the two reaches outside the wilderness there was evidence of salvage logging 

large trees that were in the creek. Surveyors observed numerous “root sprung” trees next to the creek but 

the tree had been cut from the rootwad and salvaged. Elk Creek is capable of providing habitat for 

cutthroat, rainbow, and Chinook salmon due to its cold stream temperatures but is lacking large woody 

material in the stream.

Table 27. Woody material counts for some streams in the Green Mountain Project Area

Stream Reach Wood/Mile

Small/Medium/Large

Wood/Mile

Medium/Large Only

Ridge Creek (1993) 1 441 334

Loon Creek (1994) 1 237 59

Hardy Creek (1998) 1 78 17

2 116 28

3 71 16

Buoy Creek (2001) 1 18 1

2 19 2

Augusta Creek (2003) 1 79 23

2 76 23

3 105 35

4 156 85

Elk Creek (2001) 1 27 0

2 30 1

3* 124 3

4* 18 0

*These reaches are in the Three Sisters Wilderness

Small – are at least 12 inches in diameter at 25 feet from the large end.

Medium – are 24 inches to 36 inches in diameter at 50 feet from the large end.

Large – are greater than 36 inches in diameter at 50 feet from the large end.

Projects to add large wood material to the South Fork McKenzie River channel have been implemented 

since 1995. Since that time 841 trees or logs have been placed between Augusta Creek and Elk Creek, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 107

and in lower Roaring River. As of 2014, most of this wood has accumulated into large log jams and is 

providing excellent rearing habitat for fish in the South Fork.

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences

Salmonid fishes (salmon, trout, chars, and whitefish) and the caddisflies on the sensitive species list can 

all be affected by changes in the supply and delivery of large woody material to the stream channel, 

changes in stream shade that can increase stream temperatures, changes to the sediment regime, and 

vegetative diversity in the Riparian Reserve especially diversity of trees. Therefore, these habitat 

attributes are analyzed to determine the effects of proposed activities to Salmonid fish (a management 

indicator species) and listed caddisflies.

Methods used for analysis included:

• field reviews of the units, 

• a review of stream surveys in the project area, 

• a review of the South Fork McKenzie River Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1994) for 

pertinent information, 

• a “hardwood analysis” at a landscape level for Riparian Reserves in the South Fork McKenzie 

River watershed. For this analysis satellite imagery (WorldView 2) collected on July 19, 2013

was utilized. See Appendix H for further discussion on methodology and results,

• a review of macroinvertebrate data collected in the South Fork McKenzie River watershed, 

• a review of other specialist reports, 

• project design features,

• the implementation of best management practices (BMPs)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 (No Action) would have no immediate effect on riparian conditions. However in the stands 

that are comprised of dense monocultures of Douglas-fir it would increase the risk of loss of riparian 

stands to fire, insect infestation, and disease – all carried more efficiently through dense riparian stands 

common in plantations. Relative to stands that are regenerated by fire these plantations are dense and 

without some sort of disturbance they will grow in tightly spaced conditions which will lead to tall 

spindly trees with limited crown development. In some plantations with diverse vegetation, ecological 

succession will continue and the stands will diversify structurally through time and eventually become old 

growth. In the fire regenerated stands where riparian conditions are better due to increased species 

diversity, fewer trees per acre, and structural diversity this habitat would be maintained. These Riparian 

Reserves will become old growth in time as well unless a natural disturbance (fire or flood) sets back 

ecological succession.

Nutritional energy becomes available to the stream community from two main sources: photosynthesis 

by aquatic plants in the stream itself (autochthonous sources) and decomposition of organic matter 

imported from outside the stream (allochthonous sources) (Murphy and Meehan 1991). The mix of energy 

sources has a major influence on the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Streamside vegetation 

provides large quantities of organic matter in the form of leaves, needles, and woody material. Leaves and 

needles usually contribute most of the readily usable organic matter in woodland streams (Table 28)

(Murphy and Meehan 1991).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Leaves decay in four phases: they are leached by water, conditioned by microbes, and shredded by 

invertebrates and physical abrasion. Then residual fine particles are recycled within the benthic food 

chain by microbes and invertebrates. Rate of decay depends on chemical composition and is directly 

related to temperature. Generally, the greater the nitrogen and phosphorus content, the faster leaves and 

needles decay (Murphy and Meehan 1991).

Most animals require food with a carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio less than 17:1(Murphy and Meehan 

1991). During the first few days after a leaf enters the stream ecosystem, leaves lose about 15 percent of 

their weight as soluble matter that is leached into the stream. With a C:N ratio less than 5:1 leachate is 

highly liable and about 80 percent is quickly assimilated by stream bacteria. Leachate is taken up faster 

from deciduous leaves than from coniferous needles. Almost all (98 percent) red alder leachate is 

removed from the water within two days, whereas only 35-60 percent of Douglas-fir is removed in that 

time. This means that most leaf leachate is retained and rapidly processed in headwater streams, but some 

moves downstream without much processing (Murphy and Meehan 1991).

Leaves and needles need to be conditioned by microbes for about 30 days before invertebrates 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 (Murphy and Meehan 1991). Almost all forms of 

allochthonous organic matter have a C:N ratio higher than 17:1 so they require microbial processing to 

enhance food quality. The quality of various forms of organic matter varies widely as measured by the 

C:N ratio or the percentage of lignin. At the low end of the spectrum are woody debris and conifer needles 

and at the high end are periphyton, macrophytes, and fast-decaying deciduous leaves (Murphy and 

Meehan 1991).

Table 28. Nutritional quality of various types of organic matter (from (Murphy and Meehan 1991) 

Type of organic matter C:N ratio Lignin ( percent)

Woody debris (Douglas-fir)

Twigs 235:1 34

Bark 324:1 10

Wood 1,343:1 48

Needles 97:1 14

Leaves

Red alder 23:1 10

Big-leaf maple 62:1 17

Vine maple 77:1 8

Aquatic macrophytes 8:1

Periphyton 1-11:1

In the plantation units that are heavily stocked with monocultures of Douglas-fir, Alternative 1 will 

perpetuate the continued delivery of organic material that is of lower quality than that provided by 

hardwoods. In plantation units where a mix of hardwoods and conifers was observed, and in fire 

regenerated stands, a beneficial variety of organic matter will continue to be delivered to streams. 

Relative to the Riparian Reserves where little or no hardwoods were observed, this variety of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 109

allochthonous material would provide a diverse set of materials available to the stream community as 

sources of energy.

The larval behavior and diet of Rhyacophila chandleri and Rhyacophila leechi are not known, but are 

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).

Not much is known about the specific life history of Namamyia plutonis. Most caddisflies are herbivorous 

and feed on algae, small pieces of plant material, and decaying plant tissue (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). The caddisflies on the SSL would benefit from a greater 

variety of organic material delivered to the stream that would be provided from near stream gaps.

Alternative 1 will have a range of effects on fish species and aquatic insects due to the effects of 

sediment. Rates of road related sediment yield remain constant under Alternative 1, reflecting no specific 

changes in ongoing road treatments or conditions. Alternative 1 would not correct existing road erosion 

problems or old log stream crossings that were found in some of the units reviewed. These old log 

crossings are acting as chronic sources of sediment to perennial non-fish bearing streams. For example, 

units 420 and 430 had numerous log crossings on the streams and one road without a culvert on a stream 

crossing. The non-fish bearing streams in turn were filled with fine sediment in these units. Without 

timber harvest related road maintenance and trust funds, the opportunity to remove old log stream 

crossings would be limited and adverse conditions would continue. The existing budgetary trend would 

result in only the main roads being maintained and makes it unlikely that funding would be available to 

support adequate road maintenance, which results in chronic sedimentation to streams. Culverts that are 

not maintained could plug and cause washouts. The resulting sediment plumes could be detrimental to 

fish and aquatic insects. Over several decades, these road issues would stabilize as the disturbed areas revegetate. However, no project-related storage or decommissioning would occur. Harvest activity on the 

portion of private land within the project area would continue, as would use of shared roads.

Depending on when and where road failures occurred it could have little direct effect on fish or adverse 

effects on fish and their habitat. For example, if the road failure was on a crossing adjacent to the South 

Fork McKenzie River it could impact spring Chinook redds directly if the road related sediment ends up 

on a redd (an egg nest constructed by a Salmonid fish). Even if it does not end up on a redd, it could 

indirectly impact spawning habitat for a season or more depending on the size of the failure. This impact 

would be to increase the amount of fine sediment in the redd which could adversely affect fish survival. 

However, the South Fork McKenzie does not appear to be sediment rich or have an aggraded channel. 

With the exception of large woody material levels the habitat is for the most part in great condition with 

spawning gravels well sorted on pool tail-outs and there does not appear to be so much fine sediment that 

salmonid redds are currently being adversely affected. 

Alternative 2

The hydrology and soils section of this DEIS provides a break down on acres and treatments proposed in 

Riparian Reserves in the project area. No treatments are prescribed for Riparian Reserve stands that are 

fire regenerated. A variety of treatments are prescribed for Riparian Reserves in plantations. These 

include: no treatment, thinning, gaps in the secondary shade zone, streamside adjacent gaps, and fall and 

leave in two fish bearing streams. The gaps that are adjacent to streams are non-commercial and all the 

trees would be felled and left on site. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

There is uncertainty in the scientific literature regarding management actions in Riparian Reserves

especially when it comes to coarse woody material. For example, if silvicultural treatments are needed to 

attain desired vegetation characteristic in order to achieve Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) 

objectives, what is the appropriate buffer width to protect aquatic organisms? Sweeney and Newbold 

(2014) conducted a scientific literature review that asked the question “how wide” a streamside forest 

should be to assure a natural setting for the stream, protect water quality, and enhance stream and river 

ecosystems and ecosystem services. In their review they were unable to find any publications addressing 

the issue of streamside forest width and the input of large woody debris to streams. They concluded that 

in lieu of direct studies bearing on this issue, they could infer at this time that a streamside forest can best 

provide a natural level of large woody debris to streams if its width is generally about 30 meters (98 feet) 

or equal to the height at maturity of the dominant streamside trees (Sweeney and Newbold 2014). The 

ACS bases Riparian Reserve widths on “site potential tree heights” and in the South Fork McKenzie 

River that is 180 feet for a Douglas-fir. 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 task is 

to review all the Riparian Reserves in the project area and at the landscape level to determine if treatment 

is warranted. Based on field investigations and a landscape level analysis of hardwoods in the South Fork 

McKenzie watershed recommendations were developed for each Riparian Reserve (Appendix G).

There are some studies that have looked at the effects of thinning and gaps on riparian and aquatic 

habitats. One study by Wilzbach and others (2005) looked at the production of resident fish (rainbow and 

cutthroat trout) by adding salmon carcasses and by removing all the red alder and other hardwoods on 

both sides of the stream along a 100 meter (328 feet) reach. One of their findings was that in light-limited 

settings where temperature gains associated with canopy opening are not problematic for aquatic 

resources, gains in salmonid production might be achieved by selective trimming of riparian hardwoods

(Wilzbach et. al. 2005). This is not what is being proposed in the Green Mountain project (i.e. removing 

all hardwoods). In fact, the concern with some of the Riparian Reserves in the project area is that there are 

little to no hardwoods and at the landscape level only 3.2 percent of the acres in the Riparian Reserve land 

allocation are “deciduous, and deciduous shrub” (see hardwood analysis in appendix H). By creating 

small gaps (e.g. a 1⁄4 acre) along certain streams we expect that hardwoods will colonize the site and if 

they did not, then hardwoods would be planted (e.g. red alder, vine maple, and big leaf maple) to improve 

the quality of allochthonous sources of energy for the aquatic community.

A recent study by Ruzicka and others (2014) looked at the management of riparian buffers and upslope 

thinning with downslope impacts. In their conclusion they write that they found an edge effect below 

upland thinning treatments that extended up to 15 meters (49 feet) into untreated riparian buffers. There 

was no similar edge effect for trees downslope of gaps. They speculated that this difference could be due 

to the understory, shrub, and subdominant canopy layers responding more strongly to gap creation than 

thinning. They stated that their study demonstrates that upland management can be used to influence 

riparian forests at the upland edge but only to a limited spatial extent. Such management practices may be 

enough to support the functional goals of riparian buffers such as maintaining potential in-stream coarse 

woody debris, stream temperature moderation, and nutrient uptake. Finally they found that maintaining 

lower tree densities directly above riparian areas may be especially beneficial if other methods to increase 

tree growth and vigor such as thinning are not allowed directly in riparian management areas.

Thinning and gaps in Riparian Reserves are being proposed to improve structural and vegetative diversity, 

not necessarily for improved tree growth in the no cut buffer as Ruzicka (2014) found. It would, however, 

be a benefit to some of the stands in very dense plantations where we have prescribed no cut buffers. The 

gaps they looked at in the study were circular and were 0.4 hectares (0.98 acres) in size and are bigger 

than what is being proposed in the Green Mountain Project. It is expected that there would be a deciduous 

and deciduous shrub response in the gaps that would be a 1⁄4 acre in size. This would be beneficial to the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 111

stream community by improving the quality of allochthonous sources of energy. It is not expect that 

stream temperatures would rise significantly because of the small size and limited number of the gaps, the 

steep gradient of the streams, the hyporheic activity caused by the complexity of cascade habitat, 

downstream stands where shade will aid in recovery, and the eventual establishment of a hardwood stand 

that would provide effective shade in 6 to 10 years. Monitoring strategies would be set up to ensure 

compliance with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) water temperature standards.

An older study looked at the effects of clear cutting stream side forests which is not being proposed in the 

Green Mountain project. Murphy and Hall (1981) looked at the varied effects of clear cut logging on 

aquatic predators and their habitat in small streams in the Blue River watershed and in the South Fork 

McKenzie River watershed (in Walker Creek). They found that effects associated with logging depended 

on stream size, gradient, and time after harvest. Clear cut sections where the stream was still exposed to 

sunlight (5- 17 years after logging) generally had greater biomass, density, and species richness of 

predators than old-growth (> 450-years-old) forested sections. Increases were greatest in small (firstorder), high gradient (10- 16 percent,) streams, where clear-cut sites had both greater periphyton 

production and coarser streambed sediment than old-growth sites of similar size and gradient. Effects on 

aquatic predators were mixed in larger, lower gradient streams, where clear-cut sites showed 

accumulation of sediment and relatively small increases in periphyton production. Second-growth logged 

sections (12- 35 years after logging), re-shaded by deciduous forest canopy, and had lower biomass of 

trout and fewer predator taxa than old-growth sites.

Murphy and Hall (1981) also noted a study in the Oregon Coast Range which found mixed effects of 

logging without streamside buffers on biomass of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), but consistent 

reductions in cutthroat trout populations. Thus clear-cutting may be a direct stimulus to secondary 

production in some regions if other detrimental effects, such as temperature increase, reduction in pool 

quality, or sedimentation, are not severe. They also hypothesized that the differences in geomorphology 

and sediment load may explain differing impacts of logging on stream communities. Logging impacts on 

trout, for example, differ between the Western Cascades and Coast Range in Oregon, perhaps because 

streams in the Coast Range are often lower gradient and carry more sediment than those in the Western 

Cascades.

One of the habitat elements that affect stream communities in natural gaps observed in old growth is the 

structural presence of down wood. The gaps in old growth can be caused by a few large trees blowing 

down. This leads to a stream gap that has both hardwood and coniferous trees in the gap and large wood 

in the channel and on the forest floor. The proposal is to emulate these natural gaps in specific plantations 

(Table 18).by falling and leaving all the trees in the created near stream gap. This will maintain structure 

in the gap, in the stream, and provide growing space for hardwoods. These changes would be beneficial to 

aquatic insects by increasing the amount light availability.

Alternative 2 would have limited direct effects on fish. The direct effects would be limited to fish in Pass 

Creek, and Elk Creek. In each of these creeks it is proposed to fall and leave trees into the stream channel 

(Table 17). This could adversely impact fish if we fall a tree and it hits a fish and harms or kills it. 

However, it is believe that mortality from trees falling is unlikely but it could happen. In Pass Creek 

coastal cutthroat trout inhabit those the stream so they would be the fish affected. In Elk Creek a wider 

range of fishes can be found including spring Chinook salmon and bull trout. In the short (1 to 10 years) 

and long term (10 to 50 years) the addition of these trees to the channel will have beneficial effects on fish 

habitat. Also, the small openings that are created should increase primary production at the site scale and 

eventually hardwood leaves would become more abundant in these streams providing higher quality 

nutritional material to the stream community. This would have beneficial effects on the aquatic insect 

community and eventually the fish community.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

There are no cut buffers of varying width (30 feet to 360 feet) prescribed for every stream in the project 

area. When conducting field investigations the no cut buffer was based on stream size, stream class, 

stream gradient, channel complexity, and how functional the existing coarse woody material was in the 

stream channel. It is expected that the amount of coarse woody material left behind in the no cut buffer 

and the remainder of the Riparian Reserve will be sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability 

of the stream channel. Fish bearing streams would have wider buffers (i.e. from 90 to 180 to 360 feet) so 

thinning in these Riparian Reserves would have limited beneficial effects on fish and caddisflies.

Thinning Riparian Reserves means that there will be an effect on the supply of coarse woody material and 

ACS objective 8 states that the Forest Service must maintain and restore supply amounts and distributions 

of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. The plantations where 

thinning is proposed are dense. The number of trees per acre (TPA) greater than or equal to 7 inches 

diameter breast height (dbh) ranges from 69 TPA (unit 1980) to 310 TPA (unit 5260). If you consider 

total trees per acre (TTPA) that includes trees less than 7 inches dbh the range is 315 TTPA (unit 1980) to 

1,189 TTPA (unit 5260). 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). Having a no cut buffer adjacent to every stream would maintain a 

high level of trees per acre compared to what has been found in these studies. In the thinned areas there 

would still be more trees per acre left after thinning than found in the studies. The previously harvested 

stands proposed for treatment in the Green Mountain project area were harvested and replanted using 

direction that pre-dates even the Willamette Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) and prior to the 

Northwest Forest Plan (1994). As a result, the majority of these forest stands were set on a managementinduced trajectory that has led to artificially dense, conifer-dominated stands, with tree densities above the 

range of natural variability expected in this area. 

At a watershed level, coarse woody debris levels will be maintained. There are 65,570 acres of Riparian 

Reserve in the project area. Alternative 2 and 3 would each thin approximately 1.4 percent of the Riparian 

Reserve acres in the project area. The action alternatives would create 3.9 acres of gaps which is 

approximately 0.006 percent of Riparian Reserve acres in the project area. These acreages are small so 

they would not cause adverse effects at the landscape scale but would have beneficial effects at the site 

scale.

Another way that fish could be affected directly is by road work. Table 29 shows culvert replacement sites 

on Forest Road 1900 that are within 150 feet of the South Fork McKenzie. Road 1900 parallels the South 

Fork McKenzie River and in one spot the road is directly next to the river.

Table 29. Culvert replacement needs on Forest Road 1900 within 150 feet of the South Fork McKenzie

New culvert diameter (min.) Stream Class Height of fill to be removed

36” Intermittent 7 ‘

18” Perennial 4’

18” Intermittent 7’

18” Intermittent 5’

18” Intermittent 5’

Since all but one of the streams is intermittent it is not expected that sediment from this work would have 

direct effects on fish in the South Fork. The perennial stream is very small and is all but a trickle during 

the summer and there is only 4 feet of fill that would be removed and replaced. Indirectly, there could be
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 113

short term (immediately after the first rain of the season) turbidity effect but larger juvenile and adult 

salmon and trout 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).

A bridge will need to be replaced over Hardy Creek on the 1980204 road. This bridge site is 350 feet 

away from the South Fork McKenzie, and lower Hardy Creek is designated as critical habitat for Upper 

Willamette spring Chinook salmon. A piece of equipment will have to cross the creek at least once for this 

work to happen. No instream work would need to occur and excavation would take place in the existing 

road prism. If the work is done during the instream work period (July 1 to August 15) there would be no 

adult Chinook salmon spawning in the stream systems during this period. There could be juvenile 

Chinook salmon in the South Fork or lower Hardy Creek during the summer period as well as cutthroat 

and rainbow trout. As discussed above, larger juvenile salmon and trout can handle short term turbidity 

effects and since excavation would take place in the existing road prism we do not expect turbidity to be 

an issue. If fish are in the path of an excavator while it crosses Hardy Creek, they would be harassed by 

the equipment but should be able to swim out of the way. Harassing fish listed on the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) is considered “take” and is prohibited without authorization. See the section below on 

compliance with other regulatory direction for additional information.

There are two activities proposed on Elk Creek that could harass listed fish. First, a temporary bridge 

would need to be placed over Elk Creek on the 1964480 road. An old hazardous bridge was removed 

from this site. Most work would be done on the approaches but there might be the need to have a piece of 

equipment in the channel. Second, falling and leaving trees into the channel would have the potential to 

have adverse effects in the short-term (days) and beneficial effects in the long-term (decades). These 

activities would be required to take place during the instream work period (July 1 to August 15) to 

minimize impacts on fish but the potential for “incidental take” under the ESA still exists so formal 

consultation will be required. See the section below on compliance with other regulatory direction for 

additional information.

Alternative 3 

The effects of Alternative 3 on fish and listed caddisflies would be the similar to Alternative 2. This is 

because the riparian treatments are similar and the difference between regeneration acres in the two 

alternatives is not significant enough to create different effects.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects analysis looks at past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in relation to the 

proposed actions and alternatives. The area of analysis for fish and aquatic insect cumulative effects is 

the South Fork McKenzie River watershed upstream of Cougar Dam. This is because this area of analysis 

is the most appropriate size when considering if cumulative effects are quantitatively relevant. The 

timeframes in cumulative analysis can be immediate (1 day) or long-term (a century or more). Specific 

will be defined below.

Alternative 2 and 3

Each of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions found in Appendix F were analyzed 

for effects to fish and aquatic insects on the Sensitive Species List. Past timber management projects, 

Road 19 Danger Tree Removal and Cascade Thin, had effects determinations on fish and caddisflies of 

“no effect”. The Hartz Reoffer forest management action was recently completed and the effects 

determination for that project was “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” spring Chinook salmon and 

bull trout. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Fish habitat enhancement and restoration actions have taken place in the South Fork McKenzie River 

upstream of Cougar Dam and Reservoir. These actions have taken place in the South Fork McKenzie 

between Augusta Creek and Elk Creek and in the lower 1⁄2 mile of Roaring River. These actions overlap 

in time and space with Green Mountain. Table 30 shows a summary of trees and logs added to the South 

Fork McKenzie River and lower Roaring River. 

Table 30. Trees and Logs Added to the South Fork McKenzie River and Lower Roaring River 

Number of trees or logs added to South Fork McKenzie River and 

lower Roaring River Year

191 1996

160 1998

40 key logs tipped into channel 2007

450 2008

841 TOTAL

The Green Mountain Project has an effects determination of “may affect, likely to adversely affect” spring 

Chinook salmon and bull trout. This is due to the potential for “take” (see section below about 

Endangered Species Act compliance) and not due to an adverse modification of critical habitat. Take 

could occur during bridge work on Elk Creek and Hardy Creek. This effect is expected to last “days” 

during bridge placement. Effects of this work would be minimized by doing in-stream work during the 

in-stream work period which is July 1 to August 15 in the South Fork McKenzie watershed. During this 

time it is highly unlikely that spring Chinook salmon or bull trout would be spawning during this period.

Because the “likely to adversely affect” determination is based on “take” and not on habitat modification, 

the Green Mountain project in association with past and present timber management projects in the South 

Fork McKenzie River would not push fish populations or listed caddisflies to a threshold where their 

continued existence would be jeopardized. 

The fall and leave treatment actions would overlap with past fish habitat restoration and enhancement 

project. As stated previously, these projects are considered to have short term adverse effects but long 

term beneficial effects. The addition of more trees into fish habitat, in relation to past projects, would 

have a beneficial cumulative effect on fish and aquatic insects.

3.5 Wildlife

3.5.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for snags and down wood

includes the project activity units and the South Fork McKenzie River 5th field Watershed. The 

geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for early seral wildlife habitat, 

sensitive species, migratory land birds, and terrestrial MIS species was the project activity units and the 

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 ten Elk 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. Only the 

northernmost Elk Emphasis Area, Cougar, includes some private land. Cumulative effects for each 

species or habitat type discussed below considered the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 115

shown in Appendix F. Projects that modified forested habitats continue to have ongoing effects on many 

wildlife species, especially those dependent on late-successional forests. 

General Disturbance Effects 

Mobile wildlife species would be temporarily displaced from the areas where logging, underburning, and 

other activities occur. Where habitat for the species is maintained, the animals are expected to return to 

the units soon after the activities cease. For example, deer may be displaced from a unit during the day 

when tree falling is occurring, but may return to forage in the unit at night. No wildlife species are 

expected to be displaced for longer than the project implementation timeframe, by temporary disturbance 

alone. Some species may be displaced long-term (50-100 years or more) when their habitat is removed 

by regeneration harvest and underburning. Retaining overstory leave trees, creating snags, and falling 

trees for sources of downed logs retains habitat components for some species so they can still persist in 

the harvest units, but at lower levels than if no treatment had occurred. For those species, the habitat is 

considered to be degraded rather than removed. Other species such as deer, elk, or the Western Bumble 

Bee may benefit from opening of the forest canopy because that would stimulate understory forage and 

flowering forb development.

3.5.2 Affected Environment – Early Seral Habitat

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 here as less than 15 years old to represent 

grass/forb thru sapling/pole habitat) is of key importance to an estimated 165 to 198 species of wildlife in 

the Westside/Montane Forests of Oregon and Washington (Johnson D.H, O’Neil T.A., 2001, p. 194). 

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 (removing stand and non-stand replacing fires) 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 Green Mountain project area is only partially effective (marginal) at providing 

quality diverse early seral habitat due to the lack of vertical and horizontal stand structure. 

The proposed project is needed to balance the age class and structural diversity in the proposed project 

area, providing benefits to vegetation, wildlife and overall health of the forest. The presence of all age 

classes, from the very young forests (0-15 years) to the very old forests (250+ years) is important for 

ecosystem health, ensuring that habitat needs of a multitude of plants and animals, is better situated to 

persist in the future despite uncertainties associated with climate change. The proposed project would 

help restore age class diversity with thinning, gap diversity, dominant tree release and skips.

A current analysis of stand ages shows that approximately 80 acres or 0.09 percent of the land managed 

by the Forest Service within the Green Mountain project area is 0-15 years of age. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences – Early Seral Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

With implementation of Alternative 1, the amount of diverse early seral habitat in the Green Mountain 

project area would continue to remain at very low levels below 0.1% of the project area. Most of the 

current early seral habitat is in the north end of the project area on private lands where 2014 aerial 

photography shows approximately 600 acres that were recently harvested. The quality of this early seral 

habitat is low because it lacks hardwoods, shrubs, or the naturally occurring structure of dead wood 

habitat components. Future natural tree mortality (insects, disease, wildfire, or blowdown) in the Green 

Mountain project area is not expected to be significant or likely to produce many openings in the shortterm (approximately 10 years) future, resulting in no noticeable increase in early seral habitat across the 

landscape. An exception is the private land outside the project area which is west of the northernmost 

area, which has several thousand acres of recently harvested stands that currently contain low quality 

early seral habitat.

Alternative 2

Treatments proposed in Alternative 2 would increase early seral habitat to approximately seven percent in 

the project area. Swanson (2012, pg. 4) stated that at any point in time, a given landscape would be 

composed of 5-20 percent early seral habitat. The historic forest age-class distribution, derived from A 

Landscape Plan Based on Historical Fire Regimes for a Managed Forest Ecosystem: the Augusta Creek 

Study (USDA 1998), states that approximately seven percent of the Green Mountain project would 

historically be in young, 0-15 year old stands. 

Diverse early seral habitat would be created by cutting approximately 320 acres of 1-to-3 acre gaps, and 

approximately 325 acres of regeneration harvest. DTR would result in additional 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 by approximately 935 acres on federal land in the Green Mountain project area 

(approximately 0.01 percent of the project area). These acres would be expected to provide early seral 

habitat for 15-20 years. Post-harvest underburning would improve shrub and forb development, and 

support the occurrence of more high quality early seral habitat. 

Commercial thinning on approximately 2,357 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 commercial thinning 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 

actions 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, sharp-shinned 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.

Alternative 3

The effects of Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2, with Alternative 3 having less acres proposed for 

gaps and dominant tree releases, and no shelterwood harvest. There would be less acres of diverse early 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 117

seral habitat created with Alternative 3. Early seral wildlife habitat would be created in approximately 261 

acres of gaps and approximately 206 acres of dominant tree releases which would increase the total acres 

of early seral habitat on federal lands by approximately 467 acres on federal land in the Green Mountain 

project area (approximately 0.005 percent of the project area). In addition 2,491 acres would be 

commercially thinned. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

The Green Mountain 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. About 261 acres of 

thinning projects have been implemented since 2000. The 2013-completed Cascade Thin project included 

approximately 10 acres of small gap treatments that created a small amount of early seral habitat. Much 

of the private lands in the Green Mountain project area have been cut over in the past 20 years. It is not 

reasonably foreseeable that other stands would be cut on private grounds at this time. The clearcuts on 

private lands are expected to provide low quality early seral habitat within the project area for the next 10-

20 years. 

3.5.4 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. Effects of the various proposed actions for the Green Mountain 

project were addressed by the Willamette Planning Province Level I Terrestrial Team (2012) and 

evaluated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the FY2013 Biological Opinion (BO) (FWS 

Reference Number 1EOFW00-2012-F-0158). This BO fulfills the Forest Service’s legal requirement 

with respect to Section 7 of ESA for the Green Mountain Project and is consistent with the June 26, 2013, 

order by Judge Leon in Swanson Group Mfg. LLC et al. vs. Jewell et al. (Case 1:10-cv-01843-RJL, 

Document 63). This DEIS incorporates by reference this BO, as well as the Biological Assessment and 

letter requesting conference conversion after the 2012 designation of Critical Habitat (USDA Forest 

Service 2012) (FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013—TA-0034) that supported the consultation. The 

analysis of effects to spotted owls in this DEIS is consistent with regional direction provided October 22, 

2013, and November 3, 2015 (Walter 2013, Peña 2015). A summary of the effects of the alternatives on 

the northern spotted owl is provided in this section. Consultation and coordination with USFWS was 

conducted for this project and, as relevant issues relating to recovery of the northern spotted owl were 

brought forth, the project was modified to address these. 

Effects to the northern spotted owl is 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 

potential owl sites. Five potential spotted owl sites were considered in this analysis based on habitat 

suitability, habitat quantity, and the distance to the next nearest owl site. This methodology was used in 

absence of current district spotted owl surveys, and is based on standard methods used in the Willamette 

Planning Province and supported by science (Willamette Planning Province 2015. Potential sites could 

support breeding spotted owl pairs and management of such areas is recommended in the Recovery Plan 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Potential site designation is based on guidance in the Recovery 

Plan, decades of knowledge acquired from spotted owl surveys, and the best commercial and scientific 

information available. Spotted owl habitat associations and habitat requirements for reproduction were 

considered. Potential site centers and their nest patches were located in the best available habitat likely to 

facilitate spotted owl nesting by providing suitable nest trees and foraging habitat for rearing of young. . 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

A total of twenty-five owl sites, both known and potential, were identified and occur in vicinity of the 

proposed Green Mountain harvest units. 

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 and 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 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. 

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, and thus none would be modified or removed for this project

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 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 119

3. Non-habitat refers to land which is capable of growing habitat, but does not currently function as 

either suitable or dispersal habitat.

The Green Mountain 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 2011 and 

2012. Owl habitat mapping estimates there are currently approximately 43,665 acres of suitable habitat

(44%), 14,850 acres of dispersal habitat (15%), and 38,084 acres of non-habitat (41%) in the Green 

Mountain project area (Table 31). In addition, there are 2,487 acres of private land in the upper northwest 

part of the Green Mountain project area. These private lands make-up 0.03 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 31 shown below.

Table 31. Green Mountain Project Area Spotted Owl Habitat Type Distribution by Acres and Percent

Green Mountain 

Project Area

Suitable Acres Dispersal Acres Non-Habitat Acres 1Total

43,665 or 44% 14,850 or 15% 38,084 or 41% 96,599

(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 Cougar Reservoir, large 

rock outcrops, or private lands.

Effects of habitat modification on individual northern spotted owl sites are assessed at three spatial scales: 

the home range, core area, and nest patch.

Home Range – A home range in the Oregon Cascades Province is a 1.2 mile radius circle (2,955 acres) 

around a known or potential spotted owl site (Thomas et al. 1990, Courtney et al 2004). It is used by 

northern spotted owls to obtain cover and food, and for reproduction and rearing of young. Home ranges 

of multiple northern spotted owl pairs may overlap with habitat shared between adjacent resident northern 

spotted owl pairs and dispersing northern spotted owls. These areas are important for the survival and 

productivity as northern spotted owls are non-migratory.

Core Area – Within the home range, the core area (500 acres) is a 0.5 mile radius circle centered on the 

activity center, representing the area most heavily used during the nesting season (Bingham and Noon 

1997). The core area is defended by territorial northern spotted owls and generally does not overlap the 

core areas of other northern spotted owl pairs.

Nest Patch – Within the core area, the nest patch (70 acres) is defined as a 300 meter radius circle around 

the activity center. This is based on habitat use of spotted owls within the Central Cascades Study Area, 

located on the Willamette National Forest. The two key elements of habitat within a nest patch are: (1) 

canopy closure of dominant, co-dominant, and intermediate conifer and hardwood trees and (2) the 

amount of down wood. Modification of habitat within this area is considered likely to affect the 

reproductive success of nesting northern spotted owls and is used in determination of incidental take. 

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. Within care 

areas, more than half of the high quality spotted owl territories had core areas comprised of 50 to 65 

percent older forest (Franklin et al. 2000). Bart (1995) calculated that spotted owl populations are stable 

when the average proportion of nesting, roosting, and forage habitat in the home range is 30 to 50 

percent). Owls may successfully fledge young when suitable habitat drops below these percentages, but 

the likelihood of this decreases as suitable habitat declines.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.5.5 Environmental Consequences – Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened)

The effects of the Green Mountain project on the northern spotted owl are described below by:

♦ Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

♦ Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

♦ Known Owl Sites

♦ Disruption

Direct and Indirect Effects - Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on spotted owls or their 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 with limited nesting 

opportunity within 40-50 years. The stands which are currently foraging habitat with some nesting 

opportunity would develop towards old growth conditions and start to become high quality owl suitable 

habitat fitting the Recovery Action 32 stand characteristics in approximately 50-100 years.

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would treat a mix of age classes with various treatments types to meet the purpose and need 

of the Green Mountain project. Table 32 displays Alternative 2 proposed treatments by age class, treated 

acres, and treatment type. It is important to note that more acres were consulted on for modification and 

removal than actual acres proposed for these treatments as consultation included “non-treated” areas in 

units such as skips and untreated areas of Riparian Reserves. In some cases, the effects on owls would be 

lessened by these “untouched areas” although this is somewhat dependent as to where they occur on the 

landscape and how they connect to other habitat types.

Table 32. Age Class Acres by Treatment Type – Alternative 2

Regeneration Harvest Age Class Acres of Regeneration Harvest by Age Class

(skips not included)

15-40 years of age 135

41-80 years of age 118

81-135 years age 71

Total 324

Thinning, Gaps, and Dominant Tree Release

Units Age Class

Acres of Treatment Thinning, Gaps, and Dominant Tree 

Release by Age Class

15-40 years of age 1951

41-80 years of age 776

81-144 years of age 276

Total 3,003

Table 33 below shows amount of acres proposed for treatment by spotted owl habitat type.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 121

Table 33. Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type

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 411 0 3,287 3,287 592 592

Treatments in Suitable Habitat: Alternative 2 would remove approximately 411 acres or 1 percent of 

suitable owl habitat in the Green Mountain project area, making the habitat unsuitable for spotted owls 

(Table 34). About half of these stands just over 80 years of age are currently marginally suitable owl 

habitat. In approximately 40 years post-harvest, these stands would develop into dispersal habitat. 

Retention of 25 large trees per acre would allow these stands to more rapidly develop into suitable habitat

compared to what would occur in a regeneration harvest without leave tree retention. The regenerating 

stands would become suitable owl habitat and may achieve stand characteristics that fit the Recovery 

Action 32 description after 80 to 140 years, 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.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat: About 3,287 acres of dispersal habitat would be moderately and 

heavily thinned, as well as regenerated, the latter two of which would remove dispersal habitat (Table 34).

Units proposed for moderate thinning would maintain an average of approximately 40 percent canopy 

cover and are expected to close their canopies back to pre-harvest conditions within 7-10 years. This 

would allow recovery of flying squirrel habitat conditions, benefitting the preybase of spotted owls. 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 approximately 40 

years post-harvest. Regeneration harvest treatments are on 377 acres or 11 percent of the dispersal habitat

in the project area. Thinning of dispersal habitat would benefit overall forest structural development and 

improve long-term (>20 years) spotted owl habitat conditions. If large snags and down wood habitat 

conditions are enhanced post-harvest, stand structure would improve even more for spotted owls and their 

prey in the long-term (>20 years).

Treatments in Non-Habitat: approximately 592 acres, or approximately 2 percent, of forest stands that 

are currently non-habitat for spotted owls in the Green Mountain project area would be thinned (Table 

34). This treatment would benefit spotted owls because forest structure would be improved over the 

current condition. Some of these forested stands characterized as “non-habitat” contain stand averages of 

trees with diameter breast heights of 11 inches, which is the lower size limit typically used to describe 

dispersal habitat. However, tree densities in these stands were judged to be too dense for owls to fly 

through, thus this habitat was determined to be non-habitat. Thinning of these stands would allow them to 

develop into dispersal habitat conditions faster than if they were left to develop naturally. Those stands 

which are currently too dense for owls to fly through and that would be thinned to leave an average 40 

percent or denser canopy cover, would meet dispersal habitat conditions after thinning. This would 

improve this habitat in the near future and longer term. Structural enhancements such as snag and down 

wood placement would further benefit spotted owl habitat quality. 

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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Table 34. Alternative 2 Spotted Owl Habitat Acres

Habitat Type Alternative 2 Post-treatment 

habitat type

Suitable habitat removed 411 Non-habitat

Dispersal habitat removed 1,337 Non-habitat

Dispersal habitat downgraded 1,949 Non-habitat

Non-habitat thinned 592 Non-habitat

Alternative 3

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 much less than those of Alternative 2. Table 35 below 

shows the amount of acres proposed for treatment by spotted owl habitat type. 

Treatments in Suitable Habitat: Alternative 3 does not harvest any suitable spotted owl habitat, treating 

only stands under 80 years of age (Table 35). Not harvesting the currently suitable owl habitat would 

maintain this habitat and the structural dead wood elements for use by foraging spotted owls and their 

flying squirrel prey.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat and Non-Habitat: Acres and effects of dispersal habitat treatments for 

Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2 described above. Acres and effects of non-habitat 

treatments for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2 described above (Table 35).

Table 35. Alternative 3 Spotted Owl Habitat Acres Proposed for Treatment

Habitat Type Alternative 3 Post-treatment 

habitat type

Suitable habitat removed 0 Non-habitat

Dispersal habitat removed 1,337 Non-habitat

Dispersal habitat downgraded 1,949 Non-habitat

Non-habitat thinned 592 Non-habitat

Alternative 3 would not preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls, and the landscape would still

support provide suitable and dispersal spotted owl habitat post-treatment.

Cumulative Effects - Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on spotted owl habitat, so there are no cumulative effects to be 

considered.

Alternative 2

Since 1990, about 1690 acres of older forests or suitable spotted owl habitat have been harvested in the 

Green Mountain project area (Appendix F). About 997 acres were thinning harvests, and most of that 

occurred in dispersal habitat for spotted owls. Other recently completed projects that removed forested 

habitat in the Green Mountain project area include loss of about 24 acres of dispersal habitat of large trees 

around meadow edges in the Chucksney Grasshopper project area in an effort to maintain these meadows. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 123

There are no other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects that would remove older forest habitat in 

the Green Mountain project area. 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. 

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

The Green Mountain Project was planned and consulted on prior to the release of the revised 2012 critical 

habitat boundaries. 

After the 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 4, which is approximately 29,830 acres. Conferencing was conducted on Proposed 

Revised Critical Habitat and effects to northern spotted owls (USDA Forest Service 2012). After the final 

revised Critical Habitat was determined, USFWS conferred that the Conference Opinion was the 

Biological Opinion for the purposes of consultation on revised Critical Habitat for the Green Mountain 

Project (FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013-TA-0034). Alternatives 2 and 3 were modified to reduce acres 

in Critical Habitat, and regeneration harvest treatments within critical habitat were dropped, reducing 

overall effects. The project was also modified to ensure that the final average canopy cover post-harvest 

for all thinning units proposed in current suitable and dispersal habitats (within critical habitat) would 

remain at least 40 percent and thus meet dispersal habitat requirements. The exception are the five 

proposed heavy thin units (5120, 5130, 5140, 5370, and 5380) located in the 9D Cascade Special Habitat 

Area.

In 2012, northern spotted owl critical habitat was designated and overlaps with the 9D Cascade Special 

Habitat Area. While the purpose of critical habitat is to aid in the recovery of the northern spotted owl, 

this designation also considers broader landscape management goals that encourage landscape-level 

planning and vegetation management that allow historical ecological processes, such as characteristic fire 

regimes and natural forest succession, to occur on these landscapes throughout the range of the spotted 

owl. This approach has the best chance of resulting in forests that are resilient to future changes that may 

arise due to climate change (USFWS 2012, p. 71881).

The Green Mountain project was planned at the landscape level and historic fire patterns were analyzed. 

It was determined that the overall project area is currently deficient in early seral habitats, which led to a 

project design of moving parts of the landscape towards the historic pattern and amounts. The critical 

habitat rule provides for “management actions within critical habitat that would restore or encourage early 

seral restoration where such habitat is underrepresented at the landscape ecosystem level and where the 

goal is to conserve landscape and biological diversity” (USFWS 2012 p. 269).

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct effect on spotted owl Critical Habitat. If left unthinned, non-habitat 

plantations within Critical Habitat totaling about 76 acres would develop into dispersal habitat in about 20 

years as the stands thin themselves with little structural diversity, compared to 10-15 years with thinning

treatments in Alternatives 2 and 3. Those stands which are currently dispersal habitat would develop into 

low quality foraging habitat within 40-50 years. While the timeframe to develop into foraging habitat is 

not expected to be any different as with thinning, the stand structure would be less diverse compared to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

with thinning treatments. More details about these changes are described in 3.1 Forest and Stand 

Structure. Stands that are currently foraging habitat would continue to remain in this habitat type.

Alternative 2

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 WCS4. It should be noted 

that some of these treatment acres and effects have been discussed previously, although those discussions 

encompassed additional acres and areas not within designated critical habitat.

Treatments in Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat: The project proposes to downgrade 57 acres 

by thinning suitable habitat. Post-thinning, these stands would continue to function as dispersal habitat

since the final average canopy cover would remain above 40 percent. Downgrading 57 acres of suitable 

habitat to dispersal habitat may affect, and is likely to adversely affect critical habitat.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat within Critical Habitat: This project proposes to thin 1,187 acres of 

dispersal habitat. All thinning units would maintain at least 40 percent average canopy cover after harvest 

across the stand which would maintain dispersal habitat conditions. Habitat would continue to function 

as dispersal habitat and thinning of these dense stands would accelerate the development of this dispersal 

habitat into suitable habitat. Therefore, thinning of these 1,187 acres of dispersal habitat may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect critical habitat.

Treatments in Non-Habitat within Critical Habitat: The project proposes to thin 76 acres of nonhabitat in two stands. While the average diameter breast height size of these stands exceed the minimum 

11 inches that is the typical definition used to describe dispersal habitat requirements, these stands were 

judged to be too dense for owl movement or provide dispersal habitat function. Thinning these stands 

would improve habitat structure for spotted owls in the longer term after approximately 10 years. 

Thinning treatments may accelerate the development of non-habitat conditions into dispersal and suitable 

habitat by thinning overstocked stands and/or providing additional structure to the stands. Because this is 

not currently functioning as spotted owl habitat, treatments may be beneficial, and thinning of these 

stands would improve habitat structure for spotted owls in the longer term after approximately 10 years. 

Thinning of these 76 acres of non-habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat, 

as the thinning would remove primary constituent elements of critical habitat i.e. trees.

Treatments to Known and Potential Sites within Critical Habitat: The impact of these forest proposed 

treatments which would downgrade dispersal or suitable habitat, on the 11 known and two potential sites 

in the area of the proposed units within critical habitat were analyzed (Willamette Planning Province 

Level 1 Terrestrial Team 2102). Additional analysis included using 30 hypothetical core areas (500-acre 

circles between other core areas) in order to assess the effects relative to habitat connectivity and its’ 

ability to provide for dispersing spotted owls and movement of owls between core areas. The original 

Green Mountain Project proposal would have removed 71 acres of suitable owl habitat in Critical Habitat. 

The project proposal has since been modified, as discussed previously, in order to reduce effects to 

spotted owls. Alternative 2 would downgrade 57 acres from suitable to dispersal habitat within Critical 

Habitat (Table 36). This would reduce the amount of suitable habitat spotted owls would have in one 0.5 

mile core area and within three owl pair home ranges. This could affect their ability to maintain their life 

functions and to provide for their reproductive capability. Additionally, these actions tend to fragment 

larger blocks of “continuous blocks of late-successional forest” (USFWS 2012, p.131). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 125

Table 36. Effects on Owl Sites within Critical Habitat – Alternative 2 

Owl Site Units

Suitable 

habitat acres 

downgraded 

within 0.5 

mile core 

area

0.5 mile 

core area 

suitable 

habitat

acres/% 

suitable

0.5 mile core 

area suitable 

habitat

acres postharvest/% 

suitable

Suitable 

habitat acres 

downgraded 

within 1.2 

mile home 

range radius

1.2 home 

range 

radius 

suitable 

habitat

acres/% 

suitable

1.2 home 

range radius 

suitable 

habitat

acres postharvest/% 

suitable

1413

1830

1840

1880

1890

3

0

3

0

352/70% 346/69%

9

14

3

31

1,760/60% 1,703/58%

2423

1830

1890

0

0

258/52% 258/52%

7

31

1,284/43% 1,246/42%

0858

1830

1840

1890

0

0

0

200/40% 200/40%

2

14

28

1,252/42% 1,208/42%

Owl site 1413: Six acres of suitable habitat are proposed to be downgraded by thinning within the 0.5 

mile core area.. This owl site currently has approximately 352 acres of suitable habitat within the core 

area which would be reduced to 346 acres. These acres in units 1830 and 1880 are not within a 300m 

nest patch. Both stands are approximately 144 years old and do not meet the criteria for RA32 habitat. 

Downgrading these six acres would still retain suitable habitat above threshold levels and maintain the 

functionality of the owl site for nesting and rearing young.

Owl site 1413 would also have suitable habitat within the 1.2 mile home range radius downgraded from 

1,760 to 1,703 acres. Downgrading these 57 acres would still retain suitable habitat above threshold 

levels and maintain the functionality of this owl site for nesting and rearing young. The proposed units 

are located to the south and west of the current and all past historic owl site centers since the 1980s. This 

area has been annually surveyed by the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit.

Owl site 2423 would have suitable habitat within the 1.2 mile home range radius downgraded from 1,284 

to 1,246 acres. Downgrading these 38 acres would still retain suitable habitat above threshold levels and 

maintain the functionality of the owl site for nesting and rearing young. 

Owl site 0858 had a nesting pair in 2015 which moved east and closer to some of the units that have 

suitable habitat, compared to the location the pair nested in when the Green Mountain project was initially 

planned. The owl site would have 44 acres of suitable habitat downgraded within the 1.2 mile home 

range radius, leaving 42 percent suitable owl habitat remaining. These acres are located on the very 

perimeter of this home range which is annually surveyed for spotted owls by the Oregon Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit. It is possible that the units to be thinned may be used as a dispersal habitat

corridor. Dispersal habitat is not limiting in the surrounding landscape. Downgrading these acres would 

still retain suitable habitat above threshold levels and maintain the functionality of the owl site for nesting 

and rearing young.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Alternative 3

This alternative would not thin the suitable habitat stands within Critical Habitat discussed above under 

Alternative 2, and thus, effects to spotted owl sites in Critical Habitat would be limited only to thinning of 

dispersal habitat. Similar to Alternative 2, considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, Alternative 

3 may affect and is likely to affect spotted owl critical habitat due to gap creation in dispersal habitat

within Critical Habitat, but would not adversely modify spotted owl critical habitat. Alternative 3 would 

not preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls and the landscape would still support nesting 

spotted owls and dispersal post-treatment. 

Cumulative Effects – Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effects to Critical Habitat from Alternative 1 and thus, no cumulative effects would 

occur.

Alternative 2

One Critical Habitat Subunit, WCS4, is affected by the proposed Green Mountain actions. The 

environmental baseline includes the habitat effects of all projects in that Subunit that the Forest Service is 

aware of having been consulted on at the time the FY2013 Willamette Planning Province Conference 

Opinion. The summary of activities in WCS 4 included: a) In suitable habitat, 308 acres of Harvest 

Habitat Removal, 112 aces of Harvest Habitat Downgrade, 580 acres of Habitat Maintained Prescribed 

Burning, and removal of 430 danger trees along roadsides and campgrounds; b) in dispersal habitat, 1,305 

acres of Harvest Habitat Removal, 288 acres of Harvest Habitat Maintained, and removal of 450 danger 

trees along road sides; and c) in non-habitat, 122 acres of Harvest Habitat Maintained and 3 acres of 

prescribed burning and special habitat restoration treatments. 

There are ongoing effects to suitable spotted owl habitat in WCS4 from past timber sale projects that were 

regeneration harvested in the Green Mountain project area since 1990 (Appendix F). It is estimated that 

about 1,000 acres of the total acres in the Green Mountain project area were harvested in WCS 4. Given 

the amount of suitable habitat and functional home ranges that would remain after implementation of the 

Green Mountain Project, WCS4 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 Alternative 2 would remove approximately 57 acres of suitable 

habitat and delay the development of foraging habitat on approximately 52 acres where gaps are created, 

this alternative may affect and is likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat. 

In considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the Green Mountain project may affect and is 

likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl critical habitat, but would not adversely modify spotted 

owl critical habitat. There are no other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects that would remove 

older forest critical habitat in the project area. USFWS considered the effects of the Green Mountain 

project on interspecific competition between barred owls and spotted owls in determining that the Green 

Mountain project would not jeopardize the continued existence of spotted owls or adversely modify their 

critical habitat.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would thin and harvest dispersal habitat only, which is not limiting on the landscape in 

WCS4. Because Alternative 3 would remove approximately 45 acres of gaps and only in spotted owl 

dispersal habitat, the effects would be reduced compared to Alternative 2. The dispersal habitat gaps
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 127

would delay the development of foraging habitat in those small areas and thus, this alternative may affect 

and is likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Known and Potential Owl Sites

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

Treatment of suitable and dispersal habitat within 300m nest patches: Alternative 2 would not 

harvest any suitable or dispersal habitat within a 300m nest patch. If any future spotted owl monitoring 

results in movement of owl nest patches near proposed units, those areas within 300m would be deleted 

from the units. In addition, possibly increased effects to owl sites would be analyzed and could result in 

additional changes to unit boundaries, as well as reinitiation of consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

While most of the Green Mountain project area is annually surveyed as part of the HJ Andrews Owl 

Demography Study, and many owl sites are known, there are other areas that have not been surveyed in 

the past or have very outdated survey data due to the time and expense of conducting these. In unsurveyed 

areas, two potential sites were identified based on the presence of suitable habitat and sufficient distance 

from known sites that there was a likelihood of additional nesting territories. 

Treatment of suitable habitat within the Core Area and Provincial Home Range: Alternative 2 is 

expected to cause harm and may likely adversely affect (LAA) two potential sites, 215 and 351, due to 

downgrading and removing suitable habitat within their core areas. Both potential sites currently already 

have less than the 50 percent suitable habitat “viability threshold” in their core areas, and post treatment 

they would drop further below the “viability threshold” (Table 37). 

Potential Site 215 contains 47 percent suitable habitat in the core area and 43 percent suitable habitat in 

the provincial home range. The core area is currently below the viability threshold of 50 percent suitable 

and removing 133 acres of suitable habitat in the area (core area) would reduce it to 21 percent. This 

action is expected to result in harm to potential owls at this site. 

Potential site 351 currently contains 29 percent suitable habitat in the core area and 35 percent suitable 

habitat in the provincial home range. This is a marginal owl site due to the limited suitable habitat. The 

potential site is currently below the viability threshold of 50 percent and 40 percent suitable habitat in the 

core area and provincial home range, respectively (Table 37 and Table 38). Alternative 2 proposes to 

remove 30 acres of suitable habitat by timber harvest, reducing the core area to 23 percent suitable 

habitat. It would also remove an additional 54 acres of suitable habitat within the home range. This would 

reduce the suitable habitat in the provincial home range to 33 percent. This action is expected to result in 

harm to this potential owl site core area habitat, but no harm within the home range habitat (Table 38). 

Take was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the two potential owl sites discussed above 

and shown in Table 37 (Willamette Planning Province 2012).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Table 37. Treatments in Suitable Habitat in the Core Area (CA) - Alternative 2

Potential

Site

LUA1 

of 

NSO 

site

Activity

Current 

Acres 

of 

Suitable 

Habitat 

in CA

% 

Suitable 

Habitat 

in CA

Treatment in 

Suitable 

Acres/ 

Trees

Functionality 

change

Acres 

Suitable 

Habitat 

after 

treatment

CA % 

Suitable 

after 

Treatment

Effect 

due to 

Habitat 

Modification

Harm

(y/n)

215 Matrix

Harvest 

Habitat 

Remove

238 47 

percent 133 Habitat 

Removed 105 21 

percent LAA Yes

351 Matrix

Harvest 

Habitat 

Remove

144 29 

percent 30 Habitat Removed 114 23 percent LAA Yes

Table 38. Proposed Activities in Suitable Habitat in the Provincial Home Range (HR) of Known and Potential

Owl Sites (USFWS 2012b) – Alternative 2

Known 

Site

Potential

Site Activity

Current 

Acres of 

Suitable 

Habitat

Current 

percent 

Suitable 

in HR

Treatment in 

Suitable 

Acres/ 

Trees

Functionality 

change

Acres 

Suitable 

Habitat 

after 

treatment

percent 

HR 

Suitable 

after 

Treatment

Effect 

due to 

Habitat 

Modification

Harm

(y/n)

1416

Harvest 

Habitat 

Downgrade

1129 39 percent 35

Suitable 

downgraded 

to dispersal

1094 38 

percent LAA No

351

Harvest 

Habitat 

Remove

1020 35 percent 54 Habitat 

removed 966 33

percent

LAA Yes

Treatment of suitable habitat within the Provincial Home Range: Owl site 1416: Alternative 2 

proposes to downgrade 33 acres of marginally suitable habitat in a 140-year old stand with little structural 

diversity in the core area. The unit was evaluated by the district biologist with respect to Recovery Action 

10 and would be designed as a diversity thinning treatment that would leave 40% canopy post-treatment 

with snag and downed wood creation. While the harvest treatment would reduce the amount of suitable 

owl habitat for about 20 years, in the longer term it is expected to benefit the future development of 

suitable habitat by increasing tree canopy development and structure. Because only 6 acres of marginal 

habitat are treated on the edge of the home range, this action is not expected to result in harm to the owls 

at this site. 

Recovery Action 10: This recovery action from the Revised 2011 Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan 

states, “Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic 

support to the spotted owl population.” Alternative 2 would remove approximately 11 acres of forest 

greater than 120 years of age within unit 5480. About nine acres are suitable spotted owl habitat and 

approximately two acres are on the southern edge of the unit and are non-habitat based on an existing 

canopy cover of less than 40 percent which is the threshold for dispersal habitat. These nine acres of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 129

suitable habitat fall within the home range radius of one known activity center (1990 nesting pair) and 

two potential sites. This minor loss in older forest would have an insignificant effect on spotted owl 

survival (Wiens 2012: Figure 3.2). The overall effect on spotted owls is thought to be minor because nine 

acres is only approximately 0.014 percent of the older forest over 120 years of age within the Green 

Mountain project area. This habitat does not fit the description of RA32 habitat or high quality nesting, 

roosting, and foraging. 

Alternative 3

Because Alternative 3 does not harvest suitable spotted owl habitat, there would be no changes to suitable 

habitat acres within any core areas or provincial home ranges. Alternative 3 would thin and shelterwood 

harvest dispersal and non-habitat for spotted owls. Dispersal habitat is distributed sufficiently across the 

landscape.

Treatment of suitable and dispersal habitat within 300m nest patches: Alternative 3 would not 

harvest any suitable or dispersal habitat within a 300m nest patch. If any future spotted owl monitoring 

results in movement of owl nest patches near proposed units, those areas within 300m would be deleted 

from the units. In addition, possibly increased effects to owl sites would be analyzed and could result in 

additional changes to unit boundaries, as well as reinitiation of consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Cumulative Effects – Known and Potential Owl Sites

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effects to known and potential owl sites from Alternative 1 and thus, no cumulative 

effects would occur.

Alternative 2

Past projects that have affected known and potential owl sites in the Green Mountain project area include 

about 6,048 acres of harvest since 1990, of which 1,690 acres were regeneration harvests and 3,361 acres 

of pre-commercial thinning. Only approximately 261 acres of harvest have occurred since 2000, none of 

which was regeneration harvest (Appendix F). These past timber sale projects have affected spotted owl 

distribution, habitat quantity and quality in the Green Mountain project area in the past. There are no 

other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects that would remove older forest habitat in the project 

area. In considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the Green Mountain 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

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 on known and potential owl sites in the Green Mountain project 

area are reduced compared to Alternative 2, because Alternative 3 would not harvest any suitable spotted 

owl habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Disruption

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effects to spotted owls from disruption from Alternative 1, because no activities would 

occur.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Alternative 2

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 potential nest patches, conducted 

outside the disruption period or implemented during years when survey protocol determines that nest sites 

are unoccupied (USFWS 2012b).

The Green Mountain project may use a Type 1 helicopter to log some units during the early nesting 

season due to scheduling difficulties for helicopters and economics. Because some of these units are 

located near known or historic owl sites, this potential use of helicopters was consulted on (USFWS 

2012). A summary of the USFWS consultation is shown in Table 39 which displays helicopter units, acres 

to be helicopter yarded, and owl sites that may be affected by noise disturbance during the nesting season. 

Acres shown are those proposed for helicopter yarding and not the total unit acres. Two owl sites are 

outside 440 yards, and use of a Type 1 helicopter during the critical nesting season is not likely to 

adversely affect (NLAA) these owl pairs if they are nesting due to noise disturbance. One additional owl 

site 2434 is located within 440 yards, however a nesting pair has not been located since 1992 and thus, it 

is unlikely that the site would be occupied with nesting owls. All three sites evaluated are annually 

surveyed by the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. For the entire Green Mountain project, 

effects of noise disturbance from using helicopters have been reduced since the consultation because field 

assessments resulted in less need to use helicopters.

Take was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for disturbance to two predicted owl sites for 

up to two operational seasons, however this take for the predicted sites is no longer needed because 

helicopters in those areas are not needed Willamette Planning Province 2012). A total of xx units were 

consulted on for disturbance effects to spotted owls (Willamette Planning Province 2012), however only 

the units displayed in Table 39 below are helicopter units that may operate during nesting season and 

could disturb nesting spotted owls. 

Table 39. Summary of USFWS Consultation for Helicopter Use Near Owl Nest Sites

Unit # Acres that would be 

helicopter yarded

Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) 

Owl Site

Not Likely to Adversely Affect

(NLAA) Owl Site

390 15 None 2434

1290 10 None None

1540 7 None 0863

1830 9 None 1413

1980 46 None None

5160 35 None None

The Green Mountain Design Features (Chapter 2) display all seasonal restrictions for spotted owls during 

the critical nesting season for additional areas near known activity centers, as well as unsurveyed areas 

near potential owl sites. Annual project monitoring reports would track the actual effects and report these 

back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ground-based operations as well as post-harvest understory 

burning seasonal restrictions within disruption distances would be followed. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 131

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have reduced effects of disturbance to spotted owls compared with Alternative 2. 

Unit 1830 is not included in Alternative 3, and thus there would be no disturbance effects to owl site 1413 

if the unit is harvested during the nesting season.

Cumulative Effects - Disruption

Alternative 1

There would be no cumulative effects to spotted owls from disruption from Alternative 1, because no 

activities would occur.

Alternative 2

Because most of the spotted owl pairs in the Green Mountain project area have been annually monitored 

since the beginning of the owl demography study in 1989, and the spotted owl has been a federally listed 

species since 1990 with protection, there has been little disruption during the critical breeding season 

from March 1-July 15 to nesting spotted owl pairs since that time. Some activities of limited duration, as 

well as other maintenance activities have been allowed to occur in unsurveyed habitat because it is judged 

that their effects would be very limited. There are no other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects 

that would disrupt nesting spotted owls, because these activities continue to be seasonally restricted where 

needed.

Alternative 3

Similar to Alternative 2, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternative 3 may affect and 

is likely to adversely affect owls, but would not jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. 

Adverse effects from helicopter noise are expected but limited to three owl sites. Both Alternative 2 and 

3 would not preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls and the landscape would still support owl 

dispersal post-treatment.

3.5.6. Affected Environment – Proposed Threatened and Forest Service 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

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 

incorporates by reference the analysis in the BE and provides a summary of the effects in Table 40 as 

shown below. Seven 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.

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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Fisher

It is unlikely that Pacific fishers occur in the project area. The analysis includes them and thus assumes 

their presence, or potential for reintroduction or establishment in the future. While there have been three 

Pacific Fisher sightings on the McKenzie River Ranger District that appear to be valid (Forest Service 

NRIS database), none of these have been verified with a photo or DNA. The last verified records of 

fishers on the Willamette National Forest were in the 1940s with the exception of a 2014 detection at the 

very south end of the Forest. This individual fisher may only be from a dispersing male from the recent 

fisher reintroduction at Crater Lake.

Townsend’s Big-Eared and Fringed Myotis Bats

These two bat species are known to roost in tree and snag cavities and under loose bark (Lacki et al. 

2007). On the west side of the Cascades, snags are thought to be the main roosting habitat for fringed 

myotis and a minor roosting component for Townsend’s big-eared bats (Ormsbee personal 

communication). No tree/snag roost sites have been documented by the Forest Service in the project area 

or on the Forest, but such sites are very difficult to detect.

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 Green Mountain units in 2011 and 2012. 

Currently there are about 58,935 acres of potential habitat for the butterfly species in the Green Mountain 

project area (or 60 percent), and 404,500 acres of potential habitat on the 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 westside 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 Green Mountain 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. Two sites have been 

found in the Green Mountain project area; one within a proposed unit and one outside a unit. These were 

found in 2003 while strategic surveys were being conducted. The one known location within a harvest 

unit would be protected with a 180-foot no harvest and no-burn buffer.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 133

3.5.7 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Threatened and Forest 

Service Sensitive Wildlife Species

Direct and Indirect Effects - All Proposed Threatened and Forest Service Sensitive 

Wildlife

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts 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 Bigeared 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 Green Mountain area would continue to develop towards oldgrowth, which should improve future habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak, fringed myotis, and Townsend’s 

big-eared bats. Potential habitat for the Pacific fisher would also improve over time in these stands.

Direct and Indirect Effects – American Peregrine Falcon

There would be no measurable effect impact on this species.

Alternative 2 and 3

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 would occur outside a peregrine falcon primary zone. Noise 

disturbance will be seasonally restricted for units within a secondary zone.

Cumulative Effects – American Peregrine Falcon

Other past and ongoing projects (Appendix F) have altered forest structure and composition in the Green 

Mountain project area, which has altered the species composition and availability of peregrine prey. The 

cumulative effects of these projects, combined with the Green Mountain project, would still provide for 

the foraging needs of peregrine falcons.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fisher

Alternative 2 and 3

Alternative 2 and 3 would retain sufficient habitat to provide for fishers should they reestablish in the area 

in the future. 

Alternative 2 may adversely impact potential fisher habitat due to older forest habitat modification, but 

would not contribute towards a trend toward federal listing. 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. In addition, the proposed year-round road closure as well as 

road storage and decommissioning would benefit fisher habitat quality. 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Because only one fisher location is currently known on the Willamette National Forest, and it is so 

unlikely that this species would occur in the Green Mountain project area, this project is judged to pose a 

No Effect to Fisher. Conferencing of Alternative 2 is only required if the action is likely to jeopardize the 

species. However, if the Pacific fisher is listed, the Forest Service would need to consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the Green Mountain Project on this species. There may be 

long-term benefits to habitat due to year-round road closures and possible large down wood

enhancement. The management recommendation to leave and/or create large down wood may ensure that 

habitat requirements of this species is met.

Cumulative Effects – Fisher

Alternative 2 and 3

Past timber sale activities in the Green Mountain project area have modified suitable habitat for fisher, 

however it is unknown if this has affected fisher because their presence in the project area has not been 

documented. There are no other reasonably foreseeable actions in the Green Mountain project area that 

would affect potential Pacific Fisher habitat and thus, no cumulative effects are expected to occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Townsend’s Big Eared and Fringed Myotis Bats

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 would create 932 and 473 acres, respectively, of open forested habitat with some 

larger trees and snags. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, an additional 3,003 and 2,987 acres would be thinned. 

The site-specific effect of this change on bat foraging habitat is uncertain and could range from adverse to 

beneficial. The project Biological Evaluation found that Alternative 2 would degrade about 0.8 percent of 

the estimated bat tree roosting habitat in the Green Mountain project area and 0.003 percent of the total 

habitat on the Willamette National Forest. The magnitude of the effects on foraging habitat at the 

landscape and forest level scales are insignificant because the action alternatives affect about 3 percent, of 

the Green Mountain project area, and less than 0.2 percent of the Willamette National Forest. Alternative 

3 would not remove any forested habitat older than 80 years of age, but would remove some potential 

haul route hazard trees over 80 years of age that could provide roosting habitat opportunities for bats.

Cumulative Effects - Townsend’s Big Eared and Fringed Myotis Bats 

The 2013 completed Road 19 Salvage Project cut approximately120 roadside danger trees which may 

have led to the loss of suitable bat roosting opportunities. In addition, there was some large tree mortality 

associated with the recently completed Chucksney Grasshopper and Murphy Meadow Restoration 

projects (Appendix F). There are no other reasonably foreseeable activities in the Green Mountain project 

area that would remove older forest habitat. Because viability would be maintained at the watershed level, 

the proposed actions are not expected to affect viability at the larger Forest scale. Alternatives 2 and 3 

may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the project area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

Alternative 2

If Johnson’s Hairstreak is present in the treatment units, they are most likely to inhabit the 447 acres of 

stands over 80 years that are being planned for harvest with Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would degrade 

0.7 percent of the estimated potential Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly habitat in the Green Mountain project 

area, and 0.1 percent of the total habitat on the Willamette National Forest. Dwarf mistletoe on western 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 135

hemlock, which is a host for the larval stage of Johnson’s hairstreak, has not been identified in the 

proposed older forest harvest units, thus these stands are currently considered marginal for the butterfly 

species.

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 thus the impacts would be immeasurable because the chances of these younger 

stands having any dwarf mistletoe are very low. Some individual trees containing dwarf mistletoe may be 

felled if they are hazard trees along the haul route. 

Cumulative Effects - Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

The other reasonably foreseeable harvest activity in the watershed is the Road 19 Hazard Tree Removal 

Project which would remove some old-growth trees that have become road safety hazards. 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 Green Mountain 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. Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in 

a loss of viability in the project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Cascade Axetail Slug

Alternative 2 and 3

The proposed Green Mountain action alternatives would not impact any known documented sites for 

Cascades axetail slugs. The 931 acres of regeneration harvest and underburning under Alternative 2 

would degrade habitat for Cascade Axetail slugs and may result in loss of the individuals at those sites;

although one individual was found at a site that was recently burned indicating an ability to persist after 

low severity fires (Doerr and Young, 2009). Temporary road construction and the bridge replacement in 

Alternative 2 would also degrade habitat for the Cascade axetail slugs and may result in loss of the 

species at those sites. It is unknown if localized populations may be temporarily impacted due to ground 

disturbance.

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. 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 South Fork McKenzie River Watershed and Green Mountain project area. Only a very 

small amount of the suitable Cascades Axetail Slug habitat on the forest and in the Green Mountain project 

area 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. 

Cumulative Effects – Cascade Axetail Slug

Other actions in the project area that may add, but are not expected to impact or lend towards cumulative

effects on the slug species is the ongoing Road 19 Hazard Tree Removal Project. This project would fall 

and remove about 120 individual trees along roadsides. While impacts to the Cascades axetail slug cannot 

be excluded, they are expected to be very minor and cannot be measured. Some impacts could occur 

from ground disturbance. Because the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Action Alternatives 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

would impact only a small percentage of the Cascades axetail slugs that occur in the Green Mountain 

project area, Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss 

of viability in the project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. 

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

Forest Service Sensitive 

Wildlife Species

Effect Determination For 

Alts. 2 and 3* Rationale For Determination

American Peregrine Falcon No Impact

No activities planned in primary home range. 

Seasonal restrictions recommended in secondary 

and tertiary home ranges during breeding season. 

Proposed harvest treatments would be neutral to 

falcon foraging habitat.

Pacific Fisher No Effect.

Long-term beneficial impact 

Fishers are unlikely to occur in the project area and 

the scale of the alternatives, which would impact 

between <1 percent to 8 percent of 3 hypothetical 

female home ranges, would not preclude them from 

reestablishing in the watershed, and effects to this 

species are unlikely to occur. In the long-term, 

potential Pacific Fisher habitat quality may benefit 

from year-round road closures, road storage and 

decommissioning, and possible large downwood 

enhancement.

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 Green Mountain Units currently have no 

identified dwarf mistletoe, which hosts larval stage.

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. 

Crater Lake Tightcoil No impact

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. The 

exception is the bridge replacement project on 

Hardy Creek which was surveyed in 2014, and no 

individuals were found. 

*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 Project area, nor cause as trend toward 

federal listing. See project Biological Evaluation for a more detailed analysis.

3.5.8 Affected Environment – Survey and Manage Wildlife Species

The Northwest Forest Plan was amended with standards and guidelines for conducting project surveys 

and managing known sites for certain rare or endemic species that were associated with late successional 

forest habitat (Forest Service and BLM 2001). Species covered by this direction are referred to here as 

“Survey and Manage” species. There are four wildlife Survey and Manage species on the Willamette 

National Forest: Oregon Megomphix snail, red tree vole, great gray owl, and Crater Lake tightcoil snail.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 137

With the exception of the Hardy Creek bridge replacement site, mollusk surveys were not required for the 

Green Mountain Project. Mollusk surveys were conducted at the Hardy Creek Bridge replacement work 

site in November and December 2014.

Oregon Megophix

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). The three Oregon Megomphix sites

that were found in 2001 are located in Unit 390 and would have 180-foot no-harvest and no-burn buffers. 

Oregon Megomphix is in S&M Category “A” in Linn County and this project is in Lane County, so 

surveys are not required, however the guidelines do require management of known sites as of 9/30/99. In 

western Oregon most Megomphix locations are between 500-1500 feet, with 2540 feet being the highest 

elevation at which this species has been found (Forest Service and BLM 1999). Unit 390 is at about 

3000’ elevation and thus, this elevation is being used as the Megomphix habitat upper elevational level. 

Red Tree Vole

Project surveys for the red tree vole were conducted in all proposed Alternative 2 stands over 80 years of 

age. Based on results of these surveys, units were dropped or buffers were placed around these sites 

according to management recommendations for this species (Forest Service and BLM 2000). Areas with 

red tree vole nests have been excluded from units in Alternative 2. If a nest tree was found, 100 meter 

intensive searches around these trees were conducted according to survey protocol guidelines (Forest 

Service and BLM, 2012). 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).” Stands that are planned for regeneration harvest were evaluated but do not 

meet the minimum quadratic mean diameters that trigger the need for a survey in the mesic zone as 

defined in the survey protocol.

These standards and guidelines 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 well-distributed 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

This species is most common in lodgepole pine forests adjacent to meadows, yet in some locations like 

the Willamette National Forest, shelterwood harvesting has also 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 pre-disturbance surveys 

are not required in suitable nesting habitat adjacent to man-made openings at this time (pg. 14, Survey 

Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan v3.0, January 12, 2004). 

The required habitat characteristics of suitable Great Gray Owl habitat include: (1) large diameter nest 

trees, (2) forest for roosting cover, and (3) proximity [within 600 feet] to openings that could be used as 

foraging areas (Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan

v3.0, January 12, 2004). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

NRIS, the Forest Service web-based wildlife sighting database, currently shows 24 records of Great Gray 

Owls in the Green Mountain project area. Great Gray Owl surveys conducted in the Green Mountain 

project area in 1998-2000 around clearcuts along Forest Road 1958, around Box Canyon Meadow and in 

the Skookum area detected 9, 3 and 5 occurrences, respectively. No nests were ever found during three 

years of survey effort at night and during the day. Most of the locations around the end of Forest Road 

1958 were clumped and a nest was suspected. Two of these detections were pairs, and 5 were females. 

While much of the clearcut foraging habitat that existed at that time has now grown into dense stands that 

are no longer suitable for foraging, some areas of suitable foraging habitat still exist and may be used. 

Surveys have not been conducted since 2000. Additional Great Gray Owl locations in the Green 

Mountain project area include three in the Augusta Creek area, two in Elk Creek, and two in the Mink 

Lake Basin in the wilderness. None of the latter locations are within disturbance distance of Green 

Mountain Alternative 2 units. 

The only larger meadow in the Green Mountain project area is at Box Canyon, and the nearest proposed 

harvest unit is over 700 feet away. There is a record of two sightings of Great Gray Owls at Box Canyon 

Meadow in 1997 and 1999. The recommended protection buffer distance from meadows over 10 acres is 

300 feet, and any nest around that meadow would be adequately protected because the distance to the 

nearest proposed unit is over 700 feet.

Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail

This species is associated with areas within 10 meters of perennial wetlands and riparian areas (Duncan et 

al. 2003). Protection buffers were placed around perennial wetlands where they occur near or in the 

proposed harvest units. Impacts to this species are limited to the Hardy Creek Bridge replacement 

location because all other suitable habitat would be adequately buffered by 10 meters following the 

management recommendations for this species (Forest Service and BLM, 2002). 

There is only one documented site of the Crater Lake tightcoil on the Willamette National Forest in the 

Hardy Creek drainage of the McKenzie River Ranger District, which is located within the Green 

Mountain project area. This site was found on October 24, 2005, and is over 0.5 miles from the nearest 

proposed Green Mountain unit. The proposed Hardy Creek bridge replacement is approximately3.5 miles 

downstream from the Crater Lake tightcoil location.

3.5.9 Environmental Consequences – Survey and Manage Species

Direct and Indirect Effects - All Survey and Manage Species

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 because no project activities would occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Oregon Megophix

Alternative 2

Impacts to this species may occur from ground disturbance and opening of the forest canopy which 

reduces moisture this species needs. Alternative 2 may impact suitable Oregon Megomphix habitat at low 

and moderate elevations below 3000’ on approximately 2,261 acres, which is approximately 12 percent of 

the suitable habitat in the Green Mountain project area (approximately 21,860 acres below 3000’).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 139

Alternative 3

The impacts of Alternative 3 on Megomphix habitat are somewhat less than Alternative 2, impacting 

about 2,231 acres of suitable habitat. This is about 10 percent of the suitable Megomphix snail habitat in 

the Green Mountain project area. 

Cumulative Effects - Oregon Megomphix

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Red Tree Vole

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would remove or thin 412 acres of red tree vole habitat in stands over 80 years of age, but 

would not affect any documented red tree vole nest areas. About 71 of these acres would be removed, and 

325 acres would be thinned. Suitable spotted owl habitat can be used to estimate the amount of higher 

quality red tree vole habitat. There are currently approximately 43,665 acres of higher quality red tree 

vole habitat in the Green Mountain project area, and Alternative 2 would remove or thin approximately1 

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 

approximately50-60 years. 

About 2,915 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 does not include any stands over 80 years of age and thus there would be no impacts to high 

quality red tree vole habitat. About 2,987 acres of lower quality red tree vole habitat in stands under 80 

years of age would be impacted.

Cumulative Effects - Red Tree Vole

Alternative 2 and 3

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 

Green Mountain project area. Since there are no impacts from Alternatives 2 and 3, there are no 

cumulative effects from the Green Mountain project that overlap in time or space with any other past, 

present or reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Great Gray Owl

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would create approximately 644 acres of open habitat with shelterwood reserve harvest and 

1-3 acre gaps, which may enhance opportunities for great gray owl foraging. On the west slope of the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Cascades, regeneration harvests initiate an early successional stage that can support small-mammal 

populations likely to be used by great gray owls up to approximately ten years post-harvest (QuintanaCoyer et al. 2004). 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 5510, 5530, and the area below road 1958 on units 5800 and 5810. 

This seasonal operating restriction is centered on the area where Great Gray Owls were observed in 1998-

2000, and would protect nesting birds and their young. 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). Based on the currently low 

amount of suitable foraging habitat in the area, there is a low probability that harvest of these units may 

affect a nest site.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 does not propose to harvest any of the stands identified as being near historic Great Gray 

Owl locations which may be near nest locations. Alternative 3 would create approximately 261 acres of 

open habitat from 1-3 acre gaps, which may enhance opportunities for Great Gray Owl foraging.

Cumulative Effects - Great Gray Owl

The Chucksney Grasshopper Ridge Meadow Restoration Project has maintained approximately50 acres, 

and Murphy Meadow Restoration treated approximately48 acres to maintain open habitat in the Green 

Mountain project area, which is high quality foraging habitat for the Great Gray Owl (Appendix F). 

Cascade Thin Project also cut approximately 10 acres of gaps within two stands that were thinned. There 

are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Green Mountain project area that 

would modify Great Gray Owl habitat. Considering the effects of all past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on Great Gray Owls in the Green Mountain project area, there are no concerns 

for future persistence or population viability. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail 

Alternatives 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. An exception to this is the proposed 

Hardy Creek bridge replacement on Forest Road 1980204 which would impact the riparian area. 

While the proposed Hardy Creek bridge replacement on Forest Road 1980204 would impact the riparian 

area within 10 meters of the stream, the Crater Lake Tightcoil was not found during 2014 surveys and 

thus, there would not be any impacts to this species which is extremely rare. Over 300 acres of mollusk 

surveys have been conducted in the Green Mountain Project area with only one Crater Lake Tightcoil 

location found (NRIS database 2014.

Cumulative Effects - Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail

Alternative 2 and 3

The McKenzie River Ranger District has generally used a policy of buffering all suitable perennial water 

habitat by at least 10m which is considered adequate to maintain habitat conditions for this species which 

occurred in past projects. One future project that will not apply stream buffers is the Upper South Fork 

McKenzie River Enhancement Project which would have short-term (approximately5 years) impacts 

directly in the floodplain until the area is restored. The risk is judged to be very low because only one 

Crater Lake Tightcoil location is known on the Willamette National Forest, and this species is so rare. In 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 141

the longer term (>5 years), additional habitat for the Crater Lake Tightcoil is likely to be created in future 

South Fork McKenzie River side channels, so the overall effects of the project would be beneficial. No 

impacts to the future persistence and viability of Crater Lake Tightcoil habitat are anticipated from the 

Green Mountain project.

3.5.10 Affected Environment – 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 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.

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 Green Mountain 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 redbreasted nuthatch, hairy woodpecker, and downy wood pecker and increasing population trends for 

pileated woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker (Sauer et al. 2012). A significant decline in northern 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 South Fork McKenzie River watershed was used to evaluate deadwood 

at the landscape level for this project. While the Green Mountain project area includes most of this 5th 

field watershed, it does not include the entire Three Sisters Wilderness, and also does not include areas 

below Cougar Dam. 

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 are at or higher than that value and about half the time they are at or lower than 

the value. Studies have indicated that fire frequency and severity varied considerably in the past due to 

substantial variability in weather conditions, and fire severity varied from century to century (Wimberley 

et al., 2000). Therefore, levels of dead wood have fluctuated considerably over time and plus or minus 50 

percent of the estimated median value was used to approximate the historic range of variability. 

DecAID evaluates deadwood levels by wildlife habitat type. The South Fork McKenzie River watershed 

contains five different wildlife habitat types (Table 42). The Green Mountain project area is made up 

mostly of Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest (WLCH_C), with some of the upper elevation 

units that are only in Alternative 2 in the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (MMC) habitat type. Most of 

the MMC habitat type is in the Three Sisters Wilderness and would therefore not be modified with 

Alternatives 2 or 3. The other three habitat types, WODF, EMC_ECB, and PARK, do not have any 

activities proposed in them, and are thus not further discussed.

Table 42. Wildlife Habitat Types in the South Fork McKenzie River Watershed

Wildlife Habitat Type Acres

Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forest (EMC_ECB) 1

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (MMC) 69,400

Open Parkland (PARK) 5

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest (WLCH_C) 54,410

Westside Douglas-fir Forest (WODF) 2,262

DecAID provides information on snag and down wood in three tolerance levels, 30%, 50%, and 80%. 

The 30% tolerance level is typically used when considering landscapes that have exhibited extensive 

harvest activity. The 50% tolerance level is typically used when considering matrix land allocations and 

80% 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 143

(April 2013). Table 43 displays the results by Wildlife Habitat Type for the South Fork McKenzie River 

5th field watershed and shows where we are currently outside the estimated range of natural variability for 

large snags. There are currently less acres in the tolerance level 80plus category compared to the 

estimated historic condition with a range of 10-30%. 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. 

Table 43. Current Percentages of Landscape in Large Snags (>20inches dbh) in the South Fork McKenzie 

River 5th Field Watershed for the MMC and WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Types

HUC_10 HU_10_NAME

Wildlife 

Habitat 

Type

tl0to30 tl30to50 tl50to80 tl80plus sumac

1709000403 South Fork 

McKenzie River MMC 40397 

(58%)

13998 

(20%)

10833 

(16%)

4171 

(6%) 69400

1709000403 South Fork 

McKenzie River WLCH_OCA 24711 

(45%)

10314 

(19%)

14971 

(28%)

4415 

(8%) 54410

Median Historic Condition for Willamette National 

Forest (historic variability in parentheses)

30

(15-45)

20

(10-30)

30

(15-45)

20

(10-30)

Those tolerance levels outside the range of historic variability are shaded.

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 South Fork 

McKenzie River and Green Mountain project area landscape that contain various per acre levels of large 

logs. For example, about 19% of the landscape would be expected to contain approximately2-4 large logs 

per acre for the 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 South Fork McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed for the MMC and 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 South Fork 

McKenzie River MMC 43% 24% 18% 8% 3% 3%

1709000403 South Fork 

McKenzie River WLCH_OCA 32% 22% 19% 13% 6% 7%

Table 46 shows the weighted snag/acre average of all Alternative 2 Green Mountain stands being 

harvested in 2016. Current 2014 snags/acre by size class is based on Green Mountain stand exams which 

were conducted in 2010 and 2011. A canopy cover of 38 percent was used, which is the average residual 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

for the entire project. The analysis assumed approximately15 percent of the existing snags would be cut 

or knocked down during harvest operations in 2016. Current snag numbers are those shown for 2014, 

2016 is pre-harvest and 2017 is post-harvest. After the projected harvest timeframe in 2017, snags/acre is 

shown for every decade for 100 years. This analysis does not consider the impacts of future harvest 

activities in the Green Mountain project area that are not reasonably foreseeable. Future harvest is also 

likely to result in the loss of some snag habitat.

Table 46. Average Snags per Acre in Stands Proposed in Alternative 2

Snags

YEAR All 0-13.9" 14-20.9" >=21"

2014 37.2 33.5 3.0 0.6

2016 47.3 42.6 3.8 0.7

2017 39.2 35.2 3.3 0.7

2026 63.2 58.5 3.9 0.8

2036 76.8 70.7 5.0 1.0

2046 85.3 77.6 6.1 1.5

2056 89.1 79.8 6.8 2.3

2066 91.2 80.5 7.2 3.3

2076 91.1 79.1 7.4 4.4

2086 89.8 76.8 7.4 5.4

2096 86.2 72.4 7.1 6.4

2106 81.9 67.6 6.9 7.2

2116 77.9 63.2 6.6 7.9

Snags in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Habitat Type

Most of the proposed Green Mountain Project activities are in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood 

Forest habitat of the Western Oregon Cascades (WLCH_OCA) which occurs on 54,410 acres in the South 

Fork McKenzie River watershed (Table 45). 

The snag analysis suggests that, for WLCH_OCA habitat, snags are below historic levels in the South 

Fork McKenzie River watershed for the eight percent of the watershed that historically contained high 

numbers of large snags/acre (Table 46). The median reference condition for total snags 20 inches dbh 

(diameter breast high) or larger is about 12/acre on approximately 20 percent of the watershed, compared 

to the current estimated landscape having these higher snag densities on approximately six percent of the 

watershed. The median reference condition for smaller and medium snags under 20 inches dbh or larger 

is approximately11/acre on that same six percent of the landscape. Currently, within the South Fork 

McKenzie River watershed, approximately58 percent of the WLCH_OCA habitat is estimated to have 

low levels of large snags (4/acre) compared to an estimate of 30 percent for the median historic condition. 

Within the Green Mountain stands being harvested, stand exam data shows current levels of snags over 20 

inches dbh to be at 0.6 /acre. The current lower density of snags and greater percentage of areas lacking 

higher levels of snags compared to historic conditions is mainly due to past clearcut harvesting that 

removed existing snags as well as the trees that could provide future snags. Fire suppression activities 

have also helped reduce deadwood abundance in the watershed.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 145

Snags in Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Habitat Type

About 69,400 acres of the South Fork McKenzie River 5th field watershed have the MMC wildlife habitat 

type (Table 45). The seven higher elevation units proposed in Alternative 2 are in this habitat type, which 

are units 5480, 5510, 5530, 5770, 5780, 5800, and 5810 which are also considered to be the higher quality 

marten habitat. None of these units are part of Alternative 3. 

Logs in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Habitat 

Types

Current levels of large down logs within these forest types within proposed Green Mountain stands are 

within historic levels. Field surveys of the Green Mountain proposed units during 2011 and 2012 

showed approximately38 percent of all proposed units with >6 down logs over 14 inches diameter/acre, 

58 percent had moderate levels of approximately3-6/ large logs acre, and approximately4 percent had 

under 3 large logs/acre. Many of the plantations showed relatively high levels of large down wood that 

was left from the original harvest, with some logs of quite large diameters over 40 inches, which will last 

many more decades.

Willamette National Forest Plan (LRMP) Standards and Guidelines for Regeneration Harvest

The Willamette LRMP specifies "Prescriptions should be developed prior to timber harvest to identify 

amount and distribution of CWD left after harvest and fuels treatment. Management practices to recruit 

CWD normally pertain only to regeneration harvest and occasionally commercial thinning in stands of 

sufficient size if needed based on wildlife habitat evaluation. The range of linear feet/acre of downed logs 

by plant association is: PSME/TSME (40-135 feet), TSHE/ABAM (105-320 feet), and ABGR (60-200). 

The prescribed range is based on site-specific considerations such as proximity to marten and spotted owl 

habitat and future recruitment on site. Individual pieces contributing to CWD >16 inches at the small end 

and >10' long (75% of the total must be >20’ long). In stands without the potential to have CWD of this 

size, the size of the CWD is based on the size of mature and dominant trees on that site. Further, at least 

50% of the CWD meeting the requirements should be in decay class 1, and the remainder in decay classes 

2 and 3. All decay class 4 and 5 logs should be left. At least 1 standing tree should be left as a potential 

source of CWD. If these trees are recruited for downed wood at a specified time after harvest, the trees 

contribute to the required linear feet of downed logs." (Amendment #6-7/13/91).

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Coarse Woody Debris in Matrix 

Management (C-40)

The Northwest Forest Plan specifies that for regeneration harvests, 240 linear feet of logs per acre greater 

than or equal to 20 inches in diameter would be left. Logs less than 20 feet in length cannot be counted 

towards this total, and only decay classes 1 and 2 would be counted. Down logs should reflect the species 

mix of the original stand. In areas of partial harvest, the same basic guidelines should be applied, but they 

should be modified to reflect the timing of stand development cycles where partial harvesting is practiced

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

146 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Under the 1990 Forest Plan, big game habitat objectives were established for specific Big Game 

Emphasis areas (BGEAs). The Green Mountain project area includes ten designated emphasis areas: 

Cougar, Green Ridge, Hardy, Starr, Rebel, Upper Augusta, Cascade, South Fork-Mink, Roaring River and 

Elk (Figure 26). Rebel, Cascade, South Fork-Mink and the Elk emphasis areas have high quality ratings, 

and lie mostly within the Three Sisters Wilderness. Five of the other areas are rated as moderate: Green 

Ridge, Hardy, Starr, Upper Augusta, and Roaring River. The Cougar emphasis area is managed for low 

elk habitat quality. All of these areas are managed for elk habitat under guidance from the Willamette 

Forest Plan Standards and guidelines (FW-137) with the assumption that providing high quality elk

habitat would adequately address the needs for black-tailed deer.

 

Figure 26. Green Mountain Project Area Elk Emphasis Areas

Elk Modeling for Green Mountain Project Area 

A Model to Evaluate Elk Habitat in Western Oregon (Wisdom 1986) has been the tool used to evaluate 

elk habitat on the Willamette National Forest since 1990. Regionally, the opinion among elk biologists in 

Oregon and Washington is that Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management elk management 

guidelines developed during the past few decades, such as those within the Willamette Forest Plan, are 

based on science that is outdated (Wisdom et al. 2007). Over the years, issues have surfaced with the use 

of this model, resulting in the development of a more recent modeling tool that incorporates the results of 

studies on elk nutrition. A drawback of the forage analysis in 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. The condition of the Green Mountain project area for elk was reviewed using the Wisdom 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 147

model to establish a baseline, as well as the newly validated Westside Elk Model (Rowland et al. 2013) 

which consists of two components: elk nutrition and elk habitat use.

Marten

Marten are members of the weasel family that prefer mature and old conifer-dominated forest habitat and 

use cavities in snags and logs for denning, resting, and natal sites. Although the Willamette Forest Plan

established 9c Marten Habitat Areas at strategic locations across the entire forest (Forest Service 1990), 

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). Most of the 

Green Mountain Project Units are in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat at 3500-4000’ 

elevation and are thought to be marginal marten habitat due to forest type and elevation. There are 

however some Alternative 2 units at higher elevations within montane conifer forests which may be more 

likely to be inhabited by marten (units 5480, 5510, 5530, 5770, 5780, 5800, and 5810). None of these 

units are part of Alternative 3. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.5.11 Environmental Consequences – Management Indicator Species

Direct and Indirect Effects - Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker, and Deadwood 

Abundance

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 as shown in Table c.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Snag abundance may initially decline on 4,405 and 3,961 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. Green Mountain design features (see Chapter 2) to create variable 

levels of snags ranging from 0-5 snags/acre, and protect existing snags where possible would mitigate this 

effect. 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. Acres with relatively higher levels of snags would also increase over time, especially within 

those units with a higher number recommendation. In the long-term over many decades, there would be 

fewer snags on these acres compared to Alternative 1, yet wildlife tree treatments would help improve this 

habitat. Recommended levels of wildlife tree treatments are shown in the Green Mountain Project design 

features (see Chapter 2). Those treatments in the regeneration harvest units are of a higher priority than 

those in previously managed stands. 

With the Green Mountain Project design features (See Chapter 2) 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 4,405 and 3,961 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, longterm over many decades 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 Green Mountain harvest alternatives would affect snags and downed logs on 

approximately4 percent of the Green Mountain project area. No other timber harvest is reasonably 

foreseeable on Forest Service lands in the Green Mountain project area. Clearcut harvesting is expected 

to continue on the 1,622 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 South Fork 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 initially remain below historic levels in the Westside 

Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat. Snag levels are expected to increase over time, however, and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 149

return to the range of historic variability 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 Green Mountain Project would 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 especially in the older stands above 80 years of age in Alternative 2 since they prefer large snags, 

forest edges, and open forest habitat, all of which would be created by the silviculture treatments. 

Pileated woodpeckers are 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 410 acres or 1 percent of 

this habitat in the Green Mountain project area. Alternative 3 would not treat any suitable spotted owl 

habitat and would thus not degrade any pileated woodpecker habitat. 

Cumulative Effects – Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker, and Deadwood 

Abundance

Alternatives 2 and 3Using 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 6 percent of the habitat in the Green Mountain project area. 

Hazard tree removal along the haul route is also expected to result in a very slight additional decrease in 

snag habitat within the project area. The Road 19 Salvage Project is a recently completed project that 

felled and removed 120 trees of variable diameters, some of which are currently snag habitat. The 2012 

and 2014 prescribed burn as part of the Chucksney Grasshopper Ridge Meadow Restoration Project 

created less than 30 acres of additional large snag habitat both within and along the edges of the treated 

meadows within the Green Mountain project area. An additional 48 acres of meadows were burned in 

2015 at Murphy Meadow which contributed additional large snag habitat for cavity nesters (Appendix F). 

No other regeneration harvest or thinning project is reasonably foreseeable in the Green Mountain project 

area on Forest Service lands. The private lands that make up 2 percent of the Green Mountain project area 

are expected to remain relatively low quality habitat for cavity excavator MIS and pileated woodpecker. 

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 Green 

Mountain project area and South Fork McKenzie River watershed, and would not contribute to any loss 

of viability of these species at the larger Forest scale.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Elk and Deer

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for elk habitat includes the ten 

Emphasis Areas within which management activities would occur (Figure 26). These emphasis areas 

were used for the scope of analysis because of established ratings and guidelines for elk habitat as 

described in the Willamette National Forest Plan. 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. These areas are managed for elk habitat 

under guidance from the Willamette Forest Plan Standards and guidelines (FW-137) with the assumption 

that providing quality elk habitat would adequately address the needs for black-tailed deer.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Wisdom Elk Model Variables for the Green Mountain Project Area

Size and Spacing of Forage: The size and spacing habitat effectiveness rating (HEs) for forage is not 

being met in all four high emphasis areas and the Roaring River moderate emphasis area. 

Road Density: Road densities currently meet and would continue to meet the Forest Plan standard in all 

but two moderate emphasis areas: Green Ridge and Hardy. Many road miles are currently not open or 

drivable due to gates, berms, or safety reasons. 

Cover: The habitat effectiveness values for cover (HEc) are low in all of the emphasis areas even within 

the Rebel and South Fork-Mink emphasis areas which are mostly in wilderness. This is due to the fact 

that much of this cover is not optimal thermal or older forested habitat. 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.

Forage: Forage quality habitat effectiveness ratings (HEf) for the Green Mountain project area were 

meeting Forest Plan standards in 2004, however forage quality is declining as past clearcuts regenerate 

into conifer regrowth. There has not been any heavy thinning, regeneration harvest or large fires within 

the project area within the past 15 years to create additional high quality forage.

Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI): Overall ratings of (HEI) indicate that two emphasis areas are 

currently above Forest Plan standards: Hardy (0.53), and Cougar (0.33). The overall HEI ratings for 

Rebel, Cascade, South Fork-Mink, Elk, Green Ridge, Starr, Upper Augusta, and Roaring River are below 

Forest Plan standards (Table 47).

Table 47. HEI Analysis for Elk Habitat in the Green Mountain Project Area (Current Condition)

Emphasis Area 

Name

Emphasis

Rating

Results for Each Model Variable

Year HEs HEr HEc HEf Overall 

HEI

Rebel High 2004 0.26 0.70 0.21 0.98 0.44

Cascade High 2004 0.31 0.52 0.21 0.83 0.41

South Fork-Mink High 2004 0.12 0.79 0.33 0.89 0.41

Elk High 2004 0.32 0.57 0.32 0.92 0.48

Green Ridge Moderate 2004 0.76 0.35 0.24 0.82 0.48

Hardy Moderate 2004 0.84 0.36 0.28 0.90 0.53

Starr Moderate 2004 0.59 0.41 0.16 0.94 0.44

Upper Augusta Moderate

2013 

(HEr); 

2004

0.44 0.45 0.17 0.93 0.43

Roaring River Moderate 2004 0.15 0.51 0.28 0.92 0.38

Cougar Low 2004 0.35 0.22 0.17 0.91 0.33

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. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 151

Values shown in gray shaded boxes are below recommended minimum threshold levels in the Willamette National Forest LRMP. 

Westside Elk Model for the Green Mountain Project Area

Recent research has found that the quality and quantity of summer and fall forage is of great importance 

to elk populations. An increase in summer and fall elk forage quality can directly increase calf weights 

prior to winter, overwinter calf survival, pregnancy rates, adult fall fat accumulation, and herd 

productivity (Cook et al. 2004). The benefits of increased summer forage quality that have been 

demonstrated for elk are also expected for deer. The Westside Elk Model was developed to estimate how 

silviculture treatments affect summer forage quality in western Oregon (Rowland et al. 2013). 

Elk Nutrition Model: The nutrition model predicts dietary digestible energy (DDE) that elk can acquire 

from each plant community during summer. Digestible energy levels in elk diets in summer are affected 

by nutritional adequacy of the various vegetation communities used by elk while foraging and are related 

to reproduction and survival in summer and subsequent seasons. The nutrition model predicts DDE for 

landscapes. There are four inputs to calculate dietary digestible energy: potential natural vegetation 

(PNV) zone, modeling region (1 of 3), canopy cover (%) of live trees, and proportion of total live trees 

(>2.5 cm diameter breast height) that are hardwoods. 

Elk Habitat Use Model: The key components that have been identified as important for predicting elk 

habitat use are: 1) dietary digestible energy (higher DDE, higher predicted elk use), 2) distance to roads 

open to public access (farther from roads, higher use), 3) percent slope;, and 4) distance to cover/forage 

edge (closer to edge, higher use). 

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 the few remaining open plantations would continue to grow 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 (over 50 years) foraging habitat condition. With 

Alternative 1, current elk effectiveness ratings would not change significantly within the next few 

decades.

In ten years, forage availability would be expected to decrease further in the Green Mountain project area. 

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% 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. 

The present high amount of poor and marginal quality forage is consistent with range conditions where 

declining big game abundance is likely (Cook et al. 2004). The results of the elk nutrition model analysis 

shows that all of the ten emphasis areas currently have most of their acres (46-93%) in Category 2 which 

is a marginal nutrition value. Six of the emphasis areas have a substantial proportion (20-44%) of their 

area in a poor nutritional value (Table 48). Each of the ten elk emphasis areas in the Green Mountain 

project area has a very small percentage of the area in a good to excellent condition, ranging from a total 

of 7% in the Upper Augusta elk emphasis area to only 1% in an excellent condition in the South Fork 

Mink elk emphasis area. The good to excellent forage appears to be distributed in small habitat patches 

throughout the Green Mountain project area. About 600 acres of private lands that occur in the Cougar 

emphasis area were not considered in this analysis. Much of that area has been clearcut and currently 

provides forage habitat although it is being managed for timber production and the shrub/hardwood/forb 

component which provides forage is likely low.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Alternative 2

With Alternative 2, the proportion of area the marginal DDE classes would increase due to acres within 

the poor DDE class being thinned (Table 48). In some cases i.e. the Roaring River elk emphasis area, the 

proportion of acres within the good DDE class doubles from 3% to 6% which is due to proposed 

shelterwood regeneration harvest. The Hardy emphasis area would also show a similar increase in the 

proportion of area that would be within a “good” DDE class from 2% to 6%. Some of the other elk 

emphasis areas do not show large improvements in the proportion of area in the “good” and “excellent” 

DDE classes which is due to less acres of treatment within their boundaries, as well as lighter thinning

treatments (Elk, Cougar, Starr, Cascade, South Fork Mink, and Rebel). 

Alternative 3

Since Alternative 3 does not include any regeneration harvest, the elk nutrition model shows little change 

from Alternative 1-No Action (Table 48). Notable are changes in the Hardy elk emphasis area where the 

proportion of habitat in the poor DDE class is reduced from 20% under Alternative 1, to 16% under 

Alternative 3 which is due to heavy thinning treatments that result in more forage availability than lighter 

thinning treatments. The proportion of DDE class “good” moves from 2% under Alternative 1 to 6% 

under Alternative 3 for the Hardy elk emphasis area. 

Table 48. 2016 Analysis of DDE Categories by Big Game Emphasis Area

Alternative 1 - Current Condition

DDE 

Class

Elk Greenridge Cougar Roaring 

River Hardy Starr Cascade

South 

Fork 

Mink

Upper 

August Rebel

Poor 4% 44% 32% 7% 20% 44% 34% 7% 14% 36%

Marginal 93% 46% 49% 87% 73% 51% 60% 90% 79% 59%

Good 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0% 4% 2%

Excellent 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2%

No Data 1% 5% 13% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 2%

Alternative 2

DDE 

Class

Elk Greenridge Cougar Roaring 

River Hardy Starr Cascade

South 

Fork 

Mink

Upper 

August Rebel

Poor 4% 32% 32% 7% 16% 38% 34% 7% 14% 36%

Marginal 93% 50% 49% 84% 73% 57% 59% 90% 79% 59%

Good 1% 9% 3% 6% 6% 2% 2% 0% 4% 2%

Excellent 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2%

No Data 1% 5% 13% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 2%

Alternative 3

DDE 

Class

Elk Greenridge Cougar Roaring 

River Hardy Starr Cascade

South 

Fork 

Mink

Upper 

August Rebel

Poor 4% 33% 32% 7% 16% 38% 34% 7% 14% 36%

Marginal 93% 50% 49% 87% 73% 57% 59% 90% 79% 59%

Good 1% 9% 3% 3% 6% 2% 2% 0% 4% 2%

Excellent 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2%

No Data 1% 5% 13% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 2%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 153

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Based on the elk nutritional model (Rowland et al. 2013), regeneration harvest and 1-3 acre gaps in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 should increase elk forage quality from “poor “to “higher-marginal” for 

approximately 20 years on approximately 932 and approximately 473 acres, respectively. The proximity 

to open roads would somewhat limit use in the units, especially for elk, but would not preclude foraging 

because the roads are overall lightly traveled by motorized vehicles, especially at night. Overall higher 

big game use would be expected after logging than is currently found in the units. In addition, acres that 

would be thinned would also respond with forage improvements, especially those units that are more 

heavily thinned. The two additional Elk Emphasis Areas Rebel and Cougar overlap the Green Mountain 

project area; however they do not have any harvest units proposed within their boundaries. Proposed 

harvest treatments would improve the eight BGEAs within which Green Mountain proposed harvest units 

occur as shown in Table 49.

Table 49. BGEA Improvements with Proposed Harvest Treatments

Emphasis Area Name Emphasis 

Area Rating Acres

Acres of 

Regen/% of 

BGEA1

Acres of 

Thinning/% of 

BGEA1

Total % BGEA 

Forage Quality 

Improved

Rebel High 6833 0 0 0

Cascade High 7769 0 266 3

South Fork-Mink High 21,958 0 45 0.2

Elk High 13,786 11 214 2

Green Ridge Moderate 8027 397 1514 24

Hardy Moderate 4902 90 689 16

Starr Moderate 5018 0 464 9

Upper Augusta Moderate 11,104 0 374 3

Roaring River Moderate 8836 76 268 4

Cougar Low 8141 0 0 0

1 Note these acres are the unit footprint acres and include skips.

Forage quality for elk would be most dramatically improved within the Green Ridge Elk Emphasis Area 

which would have 397 acres regeneration harvested under Alternative 2 (Table 49). Combined with the 

proposed thinning on approximately 1,514 acres, approximately 24 percent of the entire elk emphasis area 

would show improved forage conditions. The Hardy elk emphasis area would have forage conditions 

improved over 16 percent of its’ area. The difference in forage habitat for the Green Ridge and Hardy elk 

emphasis areas is expected to result in higher elk numbers and improved hunting success in those two 

areas over the next 10-15 years. The other elk emphasis areas would show more minor improvements in 

their forage habitat conditions. In addition to what is shown in the Table above, proposed gap treatments 

would also contribute to improved elk forage conditions on 318 and 261 acres for Alternatives 2 and 3, 

respectively. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

The changes in predicted elk habitat use for Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 3 are minor when 

considered at the scale of each elk emphasis area and the entire Green Mountain project area as 

determined by the elk habitat tool. The most noticeable change would be an approximately 12% increase 

in elk habitat in the Hardy elk emphasis area with Alternative 2, compared to an increase of 

approximately one percent with Alternative 3 Figure 27. 

Figure 27. Summary of Predicted Elk Habitat Use in Green Mountain Project Area by Alternative

While the Westside Elk Model does consider open road densities and the disturbance that open roads 

cause to elk, it does not calculate a road density value because this is already considered in the overall 

calculation. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would store or decommission Forest Service Roads that are 

currently open and drivable With the exception of the following, these road management changes are 

minor and consist of storing or decommissioning small spur roads under 0.5 miles in length (Appendix DRoad Treatment Proposals). 

Replacement of the currently closed Hardy Creek bridge on Forest Service Road 1980-204 would again 

open up approximately 5.5 miles of road in an approximately 1,000 acre area to vehicles that has been 

closed for about 6 years, which may reduce security for elk on winter range in the Starr moderate elk 

emphasis area. The open road density is currently approximately 1.6 miles of open road per square mile. 

Replacement of the Hardy Creek Bridge would result in an open road density of approximately 2.1 miles 

of open road per square mile, which is still above the 1990 Willamette LRMP standard for the road 

density variable (FW-151) of less than 2.9 miles of open road per square mile for moderate elk emphasis 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Elk Green

Ridge

Cougar Roaring

River

Hardy Starr Cascade South

Fork-Mink

Upper

Augusta

Rebel

Percent Change Predicted Use

BGEA Name

Percent Change, Predicted Habitat Use

Sum Alternative 2 Sum Alternative 3
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 155

areas. About 1.8 miles of road behind the Hardy Creek bridge gate is not being managed as an open road 

and is already brushy and non-drivable at this time or would be in the future (roads 1980255, 257, 260, 

266, 265, 213, and 214). Of these latter roads, approximately 1.5 miles would be opened for harvest 

activities with Alternatives 2 and 3. Upon completion of activities, these roads would be reclosed (stored) 

and put back into a lower maintenance level condition and not be drivable. 

Removing the seasonal winter closures of Forest Roads 1900-430 and 1900-431 (approximately 11.6 

miles) would allow future year-round access on approximately 7.4 miles of road. Up to 4.4 miles of this 

road system is planned for future storage level 1 and is planned to be closed to vehicle access once 

funding is obtained. Forest Road 1927-240 would have a year-round vehicle gate closure on the 

uppermost 3.7 miles, with the lower portion of this road open, compared to the current seasonal closure. 

The new year-round closure on the uppermost 1927240 road would benefit elk and many other wildlife 

species who need seclusion in the Upper Augusta elk emphasis area.

All of these road systems generally receive low use with the exception of the fall hunting season, so in 

total any impacts to elk and other wildlife from opening these road systems are judged to be minor. A 

seasonal road closure has not been counted in terms of road density calculations and a year-round closure 

would be more effective and easier to implement. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would decommission 

approximately two miles of road, and store approximately 21 miles. 

Table 50. Open Road Mileage for the Green Mountain Project

Forest Road Miles to be opened

Miles to be closed year-round by 

gate of maintenance level 1 

which is not drivable.

Miles difference

1980204 5.5 1.9 +5.5

1900430 and 431 11.6 - Current seasonal winter 

closure only 4.4 -4.4

1927240 Current seasonal closure only 3.7 -3.7

Elk Population Estimates

Past harvest activities have shaped the landscape in terms of the types of elk habitat. Harvest treatments 

were primarily regeneration, which included clearcuts and shelterwoods. These harvested units once 

provided a wealth of quality forage for elk but have since grown into hiding and thermal cover. No specific 

data is available for the local elk/deer populations within the ten Emphasis Areas that this project overlaps. 

Current ODFW biological data are not sufficient to provide an accurate estimate of the black-tailed deer 

population in western Oregon (ODFW 2002). Recent ODFW elk population estimates show that the state 

management unit in vicinity of the project area (McKenzie) has elk herds with population numbers near 

their current management objectives (Brian Wolfer, pers. com; ODFW 2014).

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) developed a statewide management plan for elk in 

2003 and for black-tailed deer (ODFW 2003; ODFW 2008). These plans, as well as the modeling and 

research efforts discussed above, are noting the need for improved quality forage areas on National Forest 

lands. With the cessation of large-scale clearcutting in Northwest National Forests, forage quality and 

populations have declined in the forest for both deer and elk as estimated from 1990-2010. This trend is 

continuing to the present.

Elk harvests and hunter success peaked in the late 1990s in the Wildlife Management Units (WMUs), and 

have declined since then (ODFW 2003). The estimation of elk numbers is not an exact science. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

professional conclusion 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 WMUs that overlap the 

Willamette National Forest are each substantially below State Population Management Objectives (Brian 

Wolfer, pers. com. 2014). 

Twenty units have design features to reduce the effects of road disturbance to elk by maintaining a visual 

screen along a 50 foot roadside buffer in which trees would not be thinned (Refer to Design Features in 

Chapter 2). These units were selected based on their current and expected future value to elk and 

specifically, foraging habitat. Reducing visual disturbance from vehicles increases elk security and may 

help reduce their energy needs.

Cumulative Effects – Elk and Deer

Alternative 1 – No Action

It is expected that with Alternative 1, most of the elk and deer forage habitat would continue to be created 

at the lower elevations in the Cougar elk emphasis area on private land. Combined with other recently 

completed projects such as the recently completed Cascade Thin, Murphy Meadow and Chucksney 

Grasshopper projects, overall forage habitat conditions would continue to remain at an overall low quality 

within the Green Mountain project area. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Past actions that have improved elk forage habitat in the Green Mountain project area include about 261 

acres of timber harvest that have occurred since about 2000 (Appendix F) which were all commercial 

thinning. Many of these stands have grown in considerably since then, however those that had more open 

canopies continue to function as improved foraging habitat. Cascade Thin was completed in 2013 and 

included thinning on approximately 45 acres, with an additional approximately 10 acres of gaps which 

currently provides high quality forage habitat. The Chucksney Grasshopper Ridge Meadow Restoration 

Project has maintained about 50 acres of early seral habitat in the Green Mountain project area, with an 

additional approximately 48 acres that were burned in upper and lower Murphy Meadow in 2015 which 

provides high quality elk and deer foraging habitat. There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable 

activities on National Forest System lands in the Green Mountain project area that would create high 

quality forage habitat for deer and elk. There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities on 

National Forest System lands in the Green Mountain project area that would create high quality forage 

habitat for deer and elk. Clearcut logging is expected to continue on private lands in the very northwest 

portion of the project area,

In the context of the Emphasis Areas and adjacent 5th field watersheds, the Green Mountain project effects 

would result in a minor contribution to cumulative effects. 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.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Marten

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would maintain the current forest habitat and the stands would continue to develop large 

diameter trees, large snags, and large downed logs as the stands progress into old growth forests. 

Structural features that marten prefer would continue to increase over time. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 157

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would adversely impact 236 acres of marten habitat in the montane forest type which 

appears to be a preferred forest type used by marten. Seventy-one acres which are proposed for 

regeneration harvest would be removed as marten habitat until the stands recover to late-successional 

habitat conditions in approximately 100 years or more. One hundred and sixty-five acres in the montane 

forest habitat type would be thinned, which would degrade this marten habitat for several decades. The 

recommended wildlife tree and large down wood habitat creation would improve these stands as marten 

habitat for about a century until the trees fall and the logs decay by providing habitat structures preferred 

by this species and their prey. 

Alternative 2 would adversely impact a total 412 acres of marten habitat in all forest habitat types in older 

stands over 80 years of age, until these stands regenerate. Seventy-one of these acres would be 

regeneration harvested, and 325 acres would be thinned which would have a lower impact on marten 

habitat quality. 

Low quality potential marten habitat may exist in the 3,960 acres of younger stands in Alternative 2 which 

would be degraded. Note, these stands include the total unit footprint which also includes skips which 

would not be harvested. With the recommended 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 Green Mountain Project would affect the preferred higher 

elevation montane mixed forest habitat, overall impacts to marten are judged to be discountable. With 

implementation of Alternative 2, the long-term (>50 years) viability of marten populations is expected to 

continue to persist across the Green Mountain project area in this habitat type.

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would neither include any regeneration harvest, nor would it include any units in higher 

quality montane forest wildlife habitat which appears to be preferred by marten. This alternative would 

include only thinning units. If harvest under this alternative is followed up with wildlife tree and down 

wood habitat creation, the abundance of some of the structural features that marten prefer would be 

improved, and they may benefit slightly on the 3,327 acres of this alternative. Over the next several 

decades, as these younger stands eventually grow older and the trees grow larger, marten habitat would 

continue to improve. 

Cumulative Effects - Marten

Alternative 2 and 3

No other future projects are reasonably foreseeable that would reduce the amount of older forest habitat in 

the Green Mountain project area. Because of the limited extent that the Green Mountain Project would 

affect higher elevation montane mixed forest habitat that marten prefer, the long-term viability of marten 

populations over the next several decades is expected to continue to persist across the project area. 

Effects to marten from actions proposed in the Green Mountain Project do not overlap in time and space 

with effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions and therefore, the Green 

Mountain Project has no cumulative effects on marten.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects – Migratory Birds

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1would have no direct effect on migratory bird habitat and would not increase habitat for 

early-seral species. The Green Mountain 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 approximately 71 acres over 80 and up to 135 years of age, and thin 

approximately 276 acres over 80 and up to 144 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. One goshawk was detected in one of these older 

stands, however a nest has not been found. 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 approximately 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 1 percent of the suitable 

goshawk habitat in the Green Mountain project area. 

Alternative 2 would allow natural regeneration to be used for DTRs, and approximately 210 acres of 1-3 

acre gaps would not be planted following harvest. This 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 

approximately 15 years at the lower and moderate elevations up to approximately 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 approximately 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. 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.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Both action alternatives are consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty MOU. Seasonal restrictions are 

recommended in the Green Mountain Design Features (Chapter 2) 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 raptors and 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 (Chapter 2) 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 159

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 932 and 473 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 approximately 20 years or until dense conifer regrowth reestablishes in the units. Species, such 

as olive-sided 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 (214 acres) of gaps would be created and left unplanted. Both 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would include underburning on approximately 795 and 282 acres, respectively, as 

well as slash burning on 2,532 and 2,705 acres, respectively. While fire managers are attempted to 

conduct more underburning and slash treatments in the fall, due to a very small suitable burning 

timeframe in the fall, most of this work would take place during the spring which may cause adverse 

effects to nesting migratory birds. The exception is the burning of slash piles which is generally 

scheduled for the fall.

Cumulative Effects - Migratory Birds

Alternative 2 and 3

The Green Mountain Project would be the first regeneration timber harvest in the Green Mountain project 

area since the late 1990s to early 2000s on FS lands, and no other regeneration harvest is reasonably 

foreseeable on the federal lands in this watershed. About 100 acres of complex early seral habitat has 

been created by wild fires in the Green Mountain project area in the past 50 years. Less than 50 acres of 

forest gaps in commercial thinning units have been created in the Green Mountain project area in the past 

30 years. The Chucksney Grasshopper Ridge Meadow Restoration Project has maintained approximately 

50 acres of early seral habitat at higher elevations in the Green Mountain project area, with an additional 

approximately 48 acres that were burned in upper and lower Murphy Meadow in 2015 (Appendix F) 

which will provide additional early seral habitat for migratory birds such as rufous hummingbird and 

purple finch. 

Cumulatively, these actions would provide early seral habitat in 1 percent (Alternative 2), and 0.6 percent 

(Alternative 3) of the Green Mountain 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 1.6 percent of the Green Mountain project 

area that is private timber lands would likely continue to provide some lower-quality early seral bird 

habitat where stands have been recently clearcut.

No other projects that remove older forest habitat are reasonably foreseeable in this watershed or project 

area. With Alternative 2, viable populations of goshawks and other migratory birds that use older conifer 

forests are expected to be maintained at the landscape level because approximately 59 % of the Green 

Mountain project area would remain older forested habitat. Alternative 3 would not modify any older 

forested habitat. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.6 Botany and Invasive Plants

3.6.1 Scale of Analysis

The scale of analysis for botanical resources is limited to the units proposed for treatment in the Green 

Mountain project area.

3.6.2 Affected Environment – Special Status Botanical Species

Current management mandates conservation of several categories of special status plants on the 

Willamette National Forest. These include species from the Regional Forester Sensitive and Strategic 

Plant lists. Special status species are protected by USDA Forest Service regulations and manual direction 

(FSM 2672.4). 

Numerous special status plants on the Regional Forester Special Status Species list for the Willamette 

National Forest have potential to occur in the Green Mountain project area, which encompasses a wide 

range of western Cascade forest habitats. These species are found in the Biological Evaluation in the 

Project file. 

The project area was reviewed summer 2011-2012, using intuitive controlled surveys, in which the 

surveyor traversed through the project area enough to see a representative cross section of all the major 

habitats and topographic features, looking for the target species 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. 

Although potential habitat occurs for special status fungi in the project area, no surveys for these species 

were conducted because they are deemed infeasible. 

Unit surveys resulted in the discovery of two species that are currently listed as sensitive within the 

project area (Table 51). 

Table 51. Special Status Botanical Species in the Green Mountain Project Area

Proposed Units Sensitive Species No-Disturbance Buffer

260, 580, 990 Blephasostoma archanoidium 180ft.

1680 Lobaria linita 180 ft.

• Blephasostoma archanoidium is a moss that grows on rotting wood at middle to higher 

elevations. It is listed as Region 6 sensitive and it known from California, Washington, and 

British Columbia. 

• Lobaria linita is a lichen that grows in trees from coastal Alaska to northwest Oregon and 

inland to western Montana.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 161

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences – Special Status Botanical Species

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative would have no effect on special status botanical species because habitat modification as a 

result of timber harvest would not occur in the project area. 

Alternative 2 and 3 

There would be no effect on special status lichens, bryophytes or vascular plants in the Green Mountain

project area from timer harvest under either action alternative because known sites would be buffered 

from harvest and ground-disturbing activites. These buffers would maintain microclimatic conditions (i.e. 

temperature and atmospheric moisture) as well as maintain suitable substrate sources for propagule 

dispersal. 

Lichenologists do not have a clear understanding of how smoke and atmospheric change affects lichens; 

they know many of these plants are sensitive to such changes and use them as indicators of air quality. 

Without knowing for certain, a change air quality may affect reproductive vigor of sensitive lichen 

species, even with the protection buffer. Lichen sites in units proposed for post-harvest underburning 

could be impacted by post-harvest fuels treatments (McCune and Geiser 1997). Higher than expected fire 

intensity from underburning could potentially consume a known population or mortally weaken the host 

tree.

Without knowing for certain the presence or absence of these fungi in the Green Mountain project area, a 

reasonable assumption is there will be some localized effects to individuals from activities proposed in 

the Green Mountain project. These potential localized effects are specific to fungi only.

Timber harvest could impact some fungi in the project area as a result of soil compaction and 

microclimatic change by increasing the effects of solar radiation through canopy removal (Griffiths and 

Swanson, 2001). The thinning and gap creation would have the same effect of regeneration harvest, but to 

a lesser degree based on spatial impact. Alteration of seral stage creates a a change in underground fungal 

species diversity and regeneration harvest does diminish the richness of ectomycorrhizal species (Byrd, et 

al., 2000). Logging intensity has also been shown to affect abundance and composition of 

ectomycorrhizal fungi (Durrall, et al., 2006). 

Both natural fuels and post-harvest under burning have potential to affect fungi species. Research 

indicates diversity in ectomycorrhizal species, live root biomass, and duff levels are significantly 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 will 

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). 

There could be effects from a loss of host trees as a result of timber harvest and there could be effects due 

to fuels treatments. Research 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 Green Mountain project proposes 320 acres of gaps under the Alternative 2. However, Alternative 2 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

proposes treatments (i.e. regeneration harvest) that would reduce tree retention in some stands closer to 

the 15% threshold where effects to sensitive fungi have been observed.

It is assumed timber harvesting would affect some fungi not known to occur in the project area through 

soil compaction and microclimatic change by increasing the effects of solar radiation through canopy 

removal (Griffiths and Swanson, 2001). The extent of this effect is not completely known, but the risk of 

adverse effects would be related the degree of the exisiting soil conditions. For more information about 

soils in relation to Forest Plan compaction thresholds, see the Soils Analysis section of the Green 

Mountain EIS. 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 fungi species potentially occurring in the project area by removing 

host trees of from their inoculum source. Ectomycorrhizal root tip density drops greatly when the distance 

from gap edge exceeds 10 meters (Berglund and Jonsson, 2003). No harvest areas (skips) would be 

retained in units with gaps and may allow for some level of mycelia retention. However, gaps greater than 

10 m (approximately 33 ft.) from the next skip should be assumed to have some impact on fungi 

propagation. 

Post-harvest underburning has potential to affect fungi species. Research indicates diversity in 

ectomycorrhizal species, live root biomass, and duff levels are significantly 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). 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). It should be assumed pile burning will likely have 

effects on some fungi in terms of radiant heat impacts; since concentrated burning can result in localized 

higher fire intensities and changes in fungal species diversity (Baar, et al., 1999). 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for Special Status lichens, bryophytes and vascular plants is the 

Green Mountain harvest units because there is potential habitat for these species and any cumulative 

effect from the proposed actions is expected to occur within the harvest boundary. There are two known 

sensitive plants in the Green Mountain project area and they would be protected with a no-disturbance 

buffer; therefore, there is no cumulative effect to these species

Cumulative effects to fungi habitat can be estimated for each action alternative. Alternative 2 proposes 

4,368 acres and Alternative 3 proposes 3,957 acres of harvest; while approximately 6,200 acres have been 

managed in the past. Alternative 2 would increase potential cumulative effects to fungi by approximately 

71%, while Alternative 3 would increase potential effects by nearly 64%. Therefore, Alternative 2 carries 

a higher risk of cumulative effects to Special Status fungi species. 

3.6.5 Affected Environment – Survey and Manage Botanical Species

This project is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

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

Guidelines.

This project utilizes the December 2003 species list. This list incorporates species changes and removals 

made as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews. The Green Mountain project area 

was surveyed during the summer of 2011 and 2012. The survey and manage tracking form is available in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 163

the project record. Survey and managed species found in the Green Mountain projet area are listed in 

Table 52 and described below.

Table 52. Survey and Manage Species in the Green Mountain Project Area

Proposed Unit Survey and Manage Species No-Disturbance Buffer

1890 Chaenotheca subroscida 30ft.

340, 380,200, 1500, 1861, 1940, 1930, 

1920, 1592, 1320 Peltigera pacifica **NA 

1861 Nephroma occultum 30ft.

1590 Rhizonium nudum 60ft.

1680 Lobaria linita 180ft.

• Chaenotheca subroscida – Lichen found in humid, inter-montane old growth forests at lower and mid 

elevations, mostly restricted to the bark of old trees.

• Peltigera pacifica – Lichen found from coastal Alaska to Oregon, mainly in the western Cascades on 

soil, moss, rocks, logs and tree boles in low elevation, moist forests. All of the Peltigera populations 

are riparian and will be protected with riparian buffers

• Nephroma occultum – Lichen found on western slopes of Cascades in Douglas fir and western 

hemlock forests. It is one of the species most restricted to old-growth forests, but it may occasionally 

be found in younger forests.

• Rhizomnium nudum – Moss occurring in coniferous forests mostly at mid to high elevations. 

Generally the locations are in seepy areas or along the edge of a pond, wet meadow, or small stream.

• Lobaria linita – An epiphytic lichen found from the arctic to northwest Oregon, inland to Montana in 

habitats with moist, coastal influence. 

3.6.6 Environmental Consequences – Survey and Manage Botanical 

Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative would have no effect on survey and manage species because habitat modification as a 

result of timber harvest would not occur in the project area.

Alternative 2 and 3 

These alternatives would have the same effect on survey and manage species as they would on sensitive 

species because they are the same lifeforms and co-exist in the same or similar habitat.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for survey and manage species is the Green Mountain harvest units 

because there is potential habitat for these species and any cumulative effect from the proposed actions is 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

expected to occur within the harvest boundary. There are five known sensitive plants in the Green 

Mountain project area and they would be protected with a no-disturbance buffer; therefore, there is no 

cumulative effect to these species

3.6.7 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 perpetual occupants of the sites, but also for 

those organisms who use them seasonally, or for only a portion of their life cycles. Numerous factors 

contribute to the creation or maintenance of special habitats. Among such factors, topography and 

hydrology often determine the microclimatic conditions at these sites. Some features, such as rock 

outcrops, are static and remain on the landscape. Wetland special habitats can be ephemeral or perennial 

depending on the water source. Meadows are unique because these features can be created by a natural 

disturbances and processes. Conversely, they can also be lost to natural processes such as encroachment. 

See Table 53 for special habitats in potential Green Mountain harvest units.

Table 53. Special Habitats in the Green Mountain Project Area

Proposed Units Special Habitat No-Disturbance Buffer

5150, 90, 5750, 5750, 1550 seep/rock outcrop *30 ft.

5160, 30, 150, 790, 5670, 840, 1090, 5470, 1482, 1450, 

1980, 1540, 1940, 1100, 1040, rock outcrop *30 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 *30 ft.

*No-disturbance buffer distance is based on Special Habitat Management Guide. 

**Buffers will be expanded if Aquatic Resource Specialists recommend increasing them in order to maintain hydrologic function.

3.6.8 Environmental Consequences – Special Habitats

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no measurable effect to any seep/rock outcrop, rock outcrop, wetland type or vine maple 

talus with selecting this alternative. 

The No-Action alternative may affect the meadow habitats in units 1280 and 5660 because it does not 

propose to harvest timber and would not remove adjacent seed sources that contribute to encroachment. 

Alternative 2 and 3

The action alternatives would have no impact on special habitats. Special habitats would be buffered from 

harvest and ground disturbing activities because these habitats are not as common as forested habitats and 

they support plant communities that are different from those of coniferous forest. These buffers would 

maintain the microclimate, hydrology, and prevent damage to the areas during project implementation. 

Without the no-disturbance mitigation, reduced cover could potentially decrease humidity and increase 

temperature earlier in the growing season, thus altering habitat viability. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 165

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for special habitat cumulative effects is the Green Mountain units in which they are 

documented. This area was chosen because activities outside the analysis area would have no effect on 

special habitats located within the project analysis area.

There would be no effect to special habitats in the Green Mountain project area because of the nodisturbance buffer mitigation; therefore, there would be no cumulative effect from the proposed actions.

Based on the analysis of this project, there will be no incremental change to existing populations of 

special habitats in the project area as a result of selecting any of the alternatives. There are no foreseeable 

future actions (e.g. burning, encroachment thinning) that would contribute additional cumulative effects 

to special habitats within the project area.

3.6.9 Affected Environment – Invasive Plants

Several populations of invasive plants are present in the Green Mountain project area (Table 54). 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 Green Mountain project area false brome and other known species are mainly found on road 

shoulders, but also occur in some proposed harvest units. Similar management actions in adjacent 

watersheds have contributed to the establishment of this plant in particular. Based on post-harvest 

observations of these other stands, it is assumed that false brome would likely become established in all 

suitable habitats adjacent to established populations in the Green Mountain project area. Best 

Management Practices, such as Early-Detection, Rapid-Response, equipment cleaning, and competitive 

seeding are effective at minimizing post-harvest effects on invasive plants. 

It should be noted, grasses and forbs are the first plants to colonize early seral habitats, with shrubs and 

trees becoming established later as the stand matures. Gaps and other created openings attract wildlife 

looking for forage. Though less palatable than native forage, false brome is browsed, and then passed 

through manure. The seed can also get embedded in their fur. Most foraging wildlife species cover large 

areas, as such, there is potential to increase the range invasive plants, even with established Best 

Management Practices.

Table 54. Invasive Plants in the Green Mountain Project Area

Invasive Species Proposed Unit

False Brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) 110, 150, 420, 300, 880

Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea strobe) 100,830, 800, 5290, 5410

Herb Robert (Geranium robertanium) 150, 5440
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Invasive Species Proposed Unit

Deptford Pink (Dianthus armeria) 100, 1481, 1482, 1450, 5230, 5370, 5410, 5680

Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armenicus) 290,400, 390, 840, 1490, 1861, 410

Cut-leaf Blackberry (Rubus lacinatus) 290,400, 390, 840, 1490, 1861, 410

3.6.10 Environmental Consequences – Invasive Plants

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effects to invasive plants with this alternative. Invasive plant populations would likely 

continue to spread at the current rate. Selecting this alternative would not create disturbed areas as a 

result of harvest, hauling, or fuel treatment activities. 

Since the No-Action alternative does not propose thinning, temporary road construction, or fuel 

treatments it would not create additional suitable habitat in terms of soil disturbance, temporary roads, 

gaps, or landings. However, natural vectors (i.e. wildlife and wind) would continue to spread invasive 

plants. New and potential invader plant populations documented in the Green Mountain 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. 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 eventually spread false brome into an additional 320 acres early seral habitat (gaps)

above and beyond the commercial thinning acres. This is also in addition to 324 acres regeneration 

harvest. Regeneration harvest will leave approximately 20 trees per acre depending on land allocation and 

will result in larger swaths of available ground for false brome establishment. False brome is known to 

establish along disturbed margins and spreads into adjacent habitats, invading successfully under a range 

of environmental conditions including shade and high nutrients (Holmes, et al. 2008). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 167

It is possible that 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. 

By comparison, Alternative 2 proposes to harvest more acres and modify more habitat in the Green 

Mountain project area than Alternative 3. Therefore Alternative 2 carries a higher risk of creating new 

habitat for weed invasion.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for invasive plants is the Green Mountain 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. 

The Green Mountain project proposes 4,398 acres of timber harvest. Past management action which has 

contributed to the current invasive plant condition, with approximately 6,103 acres of timber being 

harvested from 1990 through the present. This includes implementation of projects analyzed in Hartz 

Thin, Cascade Thin, and the Road 19 Danger Tree salvage project. 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.

Timber harvest is the greatest contributor in this project to cumulative impacts on invasive plant habitat 

just as it does to fungi habitat. Alternative 2 proposes 4,398 acres and Alternative 3 proposes 3,957 acres 

of harvest; while approximately 6,200 acres have been managed in the past. Alternative 2 would increase 

potential cumulative effects to invasive plant by approximately 71%, while Alternative 3 would increase 

potential effects by nearly 64%. Therefore, Alternative 2 carries a higher risk of cumulative effects to 

invasive plants. 

However, approximately 50% of these cumulative impacts can be mitigated through proper 

implementation of the design features included in Chapter 2, which includes a number of best 

management practices such as equipment cleaning, using weed-free rock, minimizing soil disturbance, 

and competitive seeding of temporary spurs and landings.

3.7 Heritage

3.7.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Heritage Resources 

includes the units proposed for treatment, road construction, landings, and hazardous fuel activities within 

the Green Mountain Project. All of these ground disturbing activities have the potential to affect the 

integrity of cultural resources. An archaeological survey of the Green Mountain project was conducted in 

order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other relevant 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

laws and regulations. A systematic surface pedestrian search is the principal manner for implementing the 

mandated goals.

3.7.2 Assessment Methodology

The field survey of Green Mountain project area was performed by eight crew members, utilized on 

different days, from May 18 through August 18, 2011 with late September follow-up visits to proposed 

road/landing locations May 29 through August 16, 2012. 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). A 

total of 2,895 acres were surveyed consisting of 2,297 high probability acres and 598 low probability 

acres.

3.7.3 Affected Environment

There are 31 recorded cultural sites within the Green Mountain project area that are considered eligible or 

potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and must be protected from project 

activities or evaluated to determine their eligibility to the NRHP. The proposed Green Mountain Project 

has the potential to affect nine of the thirty-one cultural sites , 06180100156, -177, -185, -240, -251, -

265, -292, -692, -699, -714.

The prehistory and history of the McKenzie River drainage have previously been summarized in the 

Cultural Resource Overview for the Willamette National Forest, Western Oregon (Minor and Pecor 1977) 

the ten-year update of the above overview (Minor 1987), Prehistory and History of B. L. M. Lands in 

West-Central Oregon: A Cultural Resource Overview (Minor, Beckman and Toepel 1981) Archaeology of 

Oregon (2nd Edition) (Aikens 1986), McKenzie River Valley History (Williams 1988), Prehistoric LandUse Patterns In the North Santiam Subbasin on the Western Slopes of the Oregon Cascade Range (Kelly 

2001); Prehistoric Land Use Patterns In The Central Oregon Cascade Range (Snyder 1987) and numerous 

other publications. These documents provide adequate detail of ethnographic and historic background for 

this report.

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. 

Most of what is known of the Molala comes from two of the three subgroups into which they are 

generally split: the Northern Molala located in the vicinity of Mount Hood’s drainage systems and the 

Southern Molala located west of the Klamath Lake area. Little is known of the third group, referred to as 

the Upper Santiam/Santiam band of Molala, who are thought to have inhabited Linn and Lane counties in 

the areas between the northern and southern groups. The Molala are also often culturally grouped with 

the Kalapuya who were based in the Willamette Valley, but probably made seasonal forays to the 

Cascades for large game and berries. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 169

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 area 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. During the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) era from 1930-1942, a workforce composed of young men maintained miles 

of trails including: Augusta, Chucksney, Grasshopper, Hiyu Ridge, Roaring Ridge and Indian Ridge trails. 

The CCC also constructed the Box Canyon Guard Station, the Box Canyon Road along the north bank of 

the South Fork and established small campgrounds at Homestead Forest Camp and Frissell Crossing. 

However, no permanent structures, such as shelters or fireplaces were constructed at these early Forest 

Service recreation sites. 

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Implementation of the no action alternative would not directly nor indirectly affect cultural resources 

since there would be no change to the integrity of cultural resource sites. 

Alternative 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in ground disturbance on 137 miles of road maintenance on 

haul routes, .5 miles of new road construction; 9.5 miles of temporary new road construction; and 2630 

acres of skyline harvest, 178 acres of helicopter harvest and 749 acres of ground based harvest for a total 

timber harvest of 3557 acres. Post-harvest activities include 856 acres of underburning slash and 

associated fireline construction, 2701 acres of pile and burn slash and 421 acres of conifer tree planting. 

Timber harvest, new and temporary road construction, ground base and skyline yarding and post-harvest 

fuel 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 and cultural site protection measures are already in place (see 

Design Measures Chapter 2), the potential direct effects to all other potentially eligible sites would be in 

the form of inadvertent damage to the integrity of the cultural resources which were not discovered during 

initial survey. Any sites uncovered during implementation of the project would require all earthdisturbing 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Therefore, contract clause BT6.24 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 ground disturbance on 17 less miles of road maintenance 

on haul routes, zero miles of new road construction; 9.5 miles of temporary new road construction; and 

367 less acres of timber harvest. Post-harvest activities include 518 less acres of underburning slash and 

associated fireline construction, 151 more acres of pile and burn slash and 368 less acres of conifer tree 

planting. 

Based on these numbers, Alternative 3 would result in less ground disturbance from harvest thinning

activities, thus less potential for inadvertent damage to the integrity of cultural resources which were not 

discovered during initial survey. Since appropriate and approved surveys and cultural site protection 

measures are already in place (see Design Measures Chapter 2), the potential direct effects to all other 

potentially eligible sites would be in the form of inadvertent damage to the integrity of the cultural 

resources which were not discovered during initial survey. Any sites uncovered during implementation of 

the project would require all earth-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find to be suspended, in 

accordance with federal regulations, and the zone archaeologist notified to evaluate the discovery and 

recommend subsequent courses of action. Therefore, contract clause BT6.24 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. 

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 landscape. There has been approximately 5,327 acres (11% of the project area) of harvest on 

federal grounds within the project area, and 87% of the treatments have been regeneration harvests. The 

earliest clear cut was harvested in the 1960’s. Some of these stands have since received thinning and 

some have not. 

Over the last 100 to 300 years, the Green Mountain project area has been shaped by fire, both natural and 

as a result of aboriginal under-burning (Soil and Geology Report for Green Mountain, 2012). The fire 

records show that, from 1970 to 2009 alone, 266 fires have occurred within the project area (Mei Lin 

Lantz, assistant fire management officer, personal communication). 

Some of the above activities exposed cultural sites and damaged the integrity 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 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 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992) (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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 171

discovered during the current Green Mountain project then project activities would be halted 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 F, there are no 

additional cumulative effects anticipated to occur to the known cultural sites from any of the proposed 

actions under the Green Mountain Project since appropriate and approved surveys and cultural site 

protection measures are already in place for this project (see Design Features in Chapter 2). 

3.8 Roads and Access

3.8.1 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 Green Mountain project area.

3.8.2 Affected Environment

The project area includes approximately 244.4 miles of existing roads. There are approximately 239.3 

miles of Forest Service system roads and 5.1 miles of private roads in the project area. There are no State 

or Federal Highways or County roads within the project area boundary. The Forest Road system consists 

of approximately 22.8 miles of arterial road, 42.9 miles of collector roads and 173.6 miles of local roads. 

In and near the Green Mountain project area past management activities have provided the current 

network of Forest Roads mainly from timber sales. The current system of roads provides access to the 

area for administration, fire protection, public recreation, and forest product utilization. Approximately 

26.2 miles of road are asphalt surfaced, 182.6 miles are surfaced with crushed aggregate, 6.8 miles are 

surfaced with improved native material, and 28.8 miles are native surfaced. Approximately 197 miles of 

road within the project area are currently open to mixed motorized use. (MVUM 2013). 

Oregon State Highway 126 is the primary transportation corridor serving the project area. Forest Road 19 

is the primary transportation corridor serving the project area from Oregon State Highway 126 and is the 

only road classified as an arterial within the project area. Road 19, known as Aufderheide Drive, is a 

double-lane asphalt surfaced road and serves as a segment of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway. 

Roads 1927 (Augusta Creek), 1958 (Roaring River Ridge), 1964 (Elk Creek), 1980 (Hardy Creek), 1985 

(Green Mountain) and 1986 (Rider Creek) are classified as collectors roads and provide the primary 

access to Road 19. These roads serve as major routes for fire and public access, silvicultural operations 

and haul routes for any commodity extraction activities along with important recreational access, for 

hunting, scenic driving, and dispersed recreation. 

There are 118.6 miles of “key” forest roads identified in the Roads Analysis Report (USDA 2003) within 

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. They are 

the priority roads that are typically maintained for vehicular traffic but may or may not be open to 

vehicular traffic based on forest management objectives. These key roads provide the long-term 

transportation network necessary to meet forest management objectives.

There are currently 73.1 miles of forest system roads in the project area that are closed. These roads are 

closed by means of gates, berms, or other physical barriers implemented through road management, or 

naturally by vegetative growth or blown down timber, or by administrative order. There are approximately 

8.0 miles of roads in the project area that have been decommissioned.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

The current road system allows the Forest Service administrative access to conduct a wide variety of 

forest management and fire protection activities in the area. Specifically, the forest roads provide access 

to Army Corps of Engineer facilities, six developed Forest Service campgrounds, 3 group campgrounds, 

two cabin rentals, Terwilliger Hot Springs, various boat ramps, numerous trailheads, lakes, and various 

dispersed camping sites. These roads also allow access for firewood and special forest products gathering.

The road system receives maintenance in accordance with established road management objectives. Over 

the last decade, a limitation on road maintenance funds on the Forest has resulted in a backlog of 

maintenance work including road side brushing, drainage and ditch cleanout, and road surface repair on 

many of the key and secondary roads in the project area. Under Alternative 2 and 3, there are drainage 

improvements which would 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.

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not change the use pattern of roads or correct existing road maintenance problems. 

Without treatment-related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend makes it unlikely that funding 

would be available to support adequate road maintenance. Brush and tree re-growth and associated 

reduced visibility, debris on road, and surface irregularities from OHV and other traffic could eventually 

result in unsafe traveling conditions for public and administrative traffic, as well as increasing resource 

damage associated with localized erosion. There is currently a backlog of road maintenance and some 

local roads are impassible due to fallen trees or brush encroachment. Culverts that are not maintained 

because of impassible roads may plug and cause washouts with sediment reaching into major drainages.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3

Road maintenance would occur on 130 miles of road with Alternative 2 and 115 miles 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 roadside 

brushing, road surface blading, ditch and culvert drainage maintenance, culvert replacement, surface 

rocking, asphalt patching and/or the installation of drainage dips and waterbars which will result in the 

proper drainage and safe use of the roads (see Design Features in Chapter 2). Roadside brushing would 

increase sight distance and increase visibility for safer driving. There are miscellaneous segments of low 

standard road identified as potential haul routes throughout the project area that would require minor road 

width adjustments and road surface rehabilitation to support commercial haul. 

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 approximately one to two seasons. Attention will 

be paid during road maintenance activities to minimize potential delivery to adjacent streams and Best 

Management Practices would be applied to prevent sedimentation to the greatest extent. Designated water 

sources for filling water tankers for surface blading, compaction and dust abatement operations would not 

significantly affect stream flows.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 173

Alternative 2 would provide necessary road maintenance on haul routes and roads used for other 

treatment activities. This would reverse the trend of declining road conditions across an estimated 135 

miles of road or approximately 55 percent of the project area’s road system. Alternative 3 would provide 

necessary road maintenance on haul routes and roads used for other treatment activities. The maintenance 

performed would reverse the trend of declining road conditions across an estimated 115 miles of road or 

approximately 47 percent of the project area’s road system. 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 would continue the backlog of needed road maintenance activities. The 

miles of road open to public access in both alternatives would be reduced. Maintenance activities would 

cause some short-term delays or detours for road users while roadwork is being performed. All OHV use 

on roads currently open to mixed use would be restricted while treatment activities are taking place. 

Alternative 2 and 3 would require the replacement of the Hardy Creek Bridge located on Road 1980204 

to provide safe access for all project activities located across Hardy Creek. The original 61 foot native log 

stringer bridge was constructed in 1963, and has had repairs and upgrades made to different structural 

components throughout its life span. The bridge is in a current state of disrepair and no longer provides 

safe access and is currently closed. The current bridge would be replaced with steel or a pre stressed 

concrete bridge approximately 90 feet in length.

Alternative 2 would have approximately 10.3 miles and Alternative 3 would have approximately 8.6 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. Temporary roads would be removed once activities are completed and would 

not change road miles or access in the long term. 

Portions of the original road system were constructed to accommodate large yarding towers that were 

used to log large tracts of land. Current thinning activity usually utilizes small, mobile, road-based 

yarders. Temporary spur road construction 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.

All currently closed system roads that would be re-opened and utilized for timber haul (approximately 22 

miles in Alternatives 2 and 3) would have maintenance performed prior to any haul. Upon the completion 

of project activities, these roads would then be physically blocked to traffic. All roads treated would be 

left in a hydrologically stable condition to drain properly and protect water quality. Future road 

maintenance costs would be reduced because roads would be re-closed to traffic and left with selfmaintaining water drainage features.

Both action Alternatives 2 and 3 would implement approximately 26 miles of system road closures or 

decommissioning within the project area (Figures 28 and 29). These roads would be closed through 

placement of various types of barriers. Roads identified for storage treatments may include any of the 

following treatments as needed; closure by physical barrier, non-drivable water bars, removal of culverts 

from stream channels with fills of shallow to moderate depth, reduction of fill depth for culverts in deep 

fill locations. Stored roads would include minimal disturbance to the roadbed because they may need to 

be reopened in the future for various management activities, including timber harvest and fire suppression 

activities. Roads identified for decommissioning may include any of the following treatments described 

with road storage but may also include removal of culverts from stream channels in deep fills, slope 

recontouring, and sub-soiling. System roads are decommissioned when it is has been determined they are 

no longer needed to provide access for management activities, these roads are removed from the road 

system. Roads closed by gate would maintain administrative access.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Proposed road closures with gates or earth berms would decrease vehicular access (public, administrative 

and commercial), decrease the current effective open road density, reduce existing road erosion problems, 

and reduce road maintenance costs. Roads closed by the project would be left in a hydrologically stable 

condition to protect water quality. There would be fewer roads for public and administrative vehicle 

access for recreation, reforestation, fire and noxious weed control. Removing berms to access roads for 

fires suppression would take additional time and equipment. 

Table 55 shows the proposed road activities associated with harvest and the miles for each alternative. 

Figures 28 and 29 illustrate the proposed road activities associated with harvest. 

Table 55. Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest

Activities Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

New Road Construction Miles 0 0 0

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 10.3 8.6

Roads Maintained Miles 0 130 115

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 2 2

Road Storage Miles 0 21.1 21.1

Seasonal Road Closure Removed Miles 0 6 6

Seasonal Road Closure Changed to 

Permanent Road Closure Miles 0 3 3

Bridge Replacement

(Hardy Creek) - No Yes Yes

Rock obtained from expanding existing 

quarries Cubic Yards 0 15,000 15,000

Cumulative Effects

Past management actions have created 239.3 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. Road maintenance and road closure treatments proposed under these 

alternatives would continue to improve the road system by reducing sedimentation increasing safety and 

reducing future maintenance costs.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 175

Figure 28. Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest (North)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 29. Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest (South)

3.9 Recreation

3.9.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the Green Mountain project 

on recreation are key recreational use corridors, travel routes, developed and dispersed recreation sites 

and trails within the Green Mountain project area.

3.9.2 Affected Environment

Visitor use in the project area is largely driven by seasonally directed activities and the area is popular for 

both developed and dispersed recreation including camping, hiking, horseback riding, scenic driving, 

fishing, bicycling, picnicking, berry picking, mushroom harvesting, hot spring soaking, viewing scenery, 

and hunting. Fishing, picnicking and camping along the South Fork of the McKenzie River are very 

popular activities. Cougar Reservoir supports recreational boating and fishing and Terwilliger (aka 

Cougar) Hot springs is a very popular day use area. An extensive trail system in the area supports a range 

of trail oriented activities including multi-day backpacking trips, day hiking, horseback riding and 

mountain biking. Numerous developed recreation facilities including campgrounds, day use areas, boat 

launches and rental cabins provide a wide array of developed recreation options for visitors.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 177

The Oregon Omnibus Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988 added segments of 40 rivers into the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It also designated seven rivers in Oregon eligible as National Study 

Rivers and called for their study in order to determine their suitability for inclusion into the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. A 25.7 mile stretch of the South Fork of the McKenzie River is included as 

one of those rivers and is within the project area.

Forest Road 19, also known as the Robert Aufderheide Memorial Drive, is the primary road in the project 

area and is a designated portion of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway. National Scenic Byways 

are defined as areas with archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities and are 

managed collaboratively to help recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United 

States. The highway consists of paved roads which carve a path through scenic forests, the historic 

logging community of Westfir, the Constitution Grove, Box Canyon Guard Station, the Aufderheide 

Memorial, Cougar Reservoir and the McKenzie Highway. The route follows the Middle and North Forks 

of the Willamette River, up Box Canyon and down the South Fork and main fork of the McKenzie River. 

Forest Road 19 is a popular route for road biking enthusiasts and efforts are being made by a variety of 

stakeholder groups and local government agencies to promote this route as a road biking destination.

Developed Recreation

There are nine developed campgrounds in the project area including Cougar Crossing, Sunnyside, Slide 

Creek, French Pete, Red Diamond, Hard Rock, Frissell Crossing, Roaring River and Box Canyon Horse 

Camp. Echo and Slide Creek boat launches provide access to Cougar Reservoir and four day use areas, 

Terwilliger Hotsprings, Slide Creek, Cougar Crossing, and Echo/East Fork Trailhead provide access to 

trails, picnic sites, swimming holes and hotsprings. Two reservation system cabins; Box Canyon Guard 

Station and Indian Ridge Lookout are popular renovated historic Forest Service buildings. Three 

developed trail heads; French Pete, Echo/East Fork, and Rebel Rock offer restroom facilities, parking 

spurs and wilderness entry stations. Box Canyon Horse Camp provides equestrian facilities and there are 

a range of smaller trail heads that appeal to both hikers and equestrian users. Terwilliger Hotsprings is a

very popular destination for hotsprings enthusiasts and is the highest grossing fee facility on the 

Willamette National Forest.

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation sites are places the public has historically used and continues to use for recreation 

and are not intensively managed. These sites range in frequency of use by season, and some high use 

sites may receive use several times per week or more during the summer. There are approximately 30 

high use dispersed recreation sites in the project area that are accessible by vehicle and are often 

associated with short, spur roads that access the South Fork of the McKenzie River, Cougar Reservoir or 

Hidden Lake. In addition there are also many, less used dispersed sites, on the secondary road system. 

These sites are typically associated with hunting camps and are often located at the ends of forest roads or 

at access points into preferred hunting areas. Some dispersed recreation sites are located within a 

restricted use corridor where camping is prohibited by a special forest order.

Trails

There are approximately 91 miles of managed, non-motorized, multiple use trails within the project area. 

Several of these trails have developed trail heads with paved access roads and parking spurs, restrooms, 

garbage service, Wilderness entry stations and stock facilities. Rebel Rock and Olallie trails provide 

access to historic fire lookouts that are no longer in use. French Pete trail is popular for day hiking 

because it is relatively close to highway 126 and is well known for providing a scenic hike along a 

cascading creek among old growth forest. There are other non-system trails (unofficial user created trails 

that are not maintained by the Forest Service) in the project area. These trails are primarily found adjacent 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

to Hidden Lake and in close proximity to developed campgrounds or along some portions of the South 

Fork of the McKenzie River.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

Since the early 1980’s, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been used as a framework for 

identifying, classifying, planning, and managing a range of recreation settings. Six distinct settings: 

urban, rural, roaded natural, semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive non-motorized and primitive are 

defined using specific physical, managerial and social criteria. Two ROS classes; Roaded Natural and 

Roaded Modified have treatments proposed in the project area. Table 56 describes the desired condition 

for each class and proposed timber treatment acres. Figures 30 and 31 show the management areas and 

associated ROS classes geographically within the project area. For detailed information on ROS 

categories and criteria refer to the ROS User Guide, 1982 USDA Handbook, and the ROS Primer and 

Field Guide, 1990 USDA, R6-REC-021-90. For additional information on applications, refer to FSM 

2311 and FSM 2330.

Table 56. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) definitions.

ROS Class Treatment 

Acres

Desired Condition for setting Desired Condition for Activities

Roaded Modified Alt 2: 

3,889

1) Opportunity to get away from 

others, but with easy access

2) Environment will appear 

substantially modified

3) Access and travel is conventional 

motorized vehicle

4)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: 

3,446

Roaded Natural Alt 2: 

530

1) Opportunity to affiliate with others 

but with some chance for privacy

2) Some obvious control of users

3) Mostly natural appearing setting

4) Vegetation modification done to 

maintain desired visual characteristics

Access for people with disabilities is 

difficult

No on site facilities except occasional 

Alt 3: signing site modification by users

527
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 179

Figure 30. Management Areas and Associated ROS for Alternative 2 (North)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 31. Management Areas and Associated ROS for Alternative 2 (South)

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No actions would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1. Potential benefits to scenic driving and 

access to dispersed camping opportunities due to improved road quality, opening closed roads and the 

replacement of the bridge on Forest Service Road 1980-204 would not occur. 

Alternative 2 and 3

Developed Recreation

No significant direct impacts as a result of timber harvest activity are expected for developed recreation. 

Harvest activities will not take place in or directly adjacent to developed recreation areas and no 

developed recreation sites are expected to be closed during project implementation. Indirect impacts to 

developed recreation areas would be temporary and generally of short duration and may include dust and 

noise associated with hauling and timber harvesting activities. Dust abatement measures would be used as 

necessary for haul on gravel roads. Because the majority of developed recreation sites are accessed by 

Forest Road 19 which is paved, dust is unlikely to affect most recreation areas and the additional traffic 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 181

associated with harvest activity will not be largely distinguishable nor add significantly to typical road use 

patterns by the public. Harvest activity generally takes place between the hours of 4AM-2PM due to high 

temperatures during the summer months further reducing the period when noise related impacts would 

occur. During the late summer and fall fire restrictions are typically implemented which requires all 

logging operations to stop at 1PM daily. Additionally, a .25 buffer around developed recreation sites will 

require no harvest activity between the hours of 10PM and 6AM. Most of the developed recreation sites 

in the project area are accessed by Forest Road 19 which will not be closed during project implementation 

and log hauling will not be permitted during weekends in the summer (mid-April through September).

Dispersed Recreation

Short term indirect impacts due to timber harvest such as dust and noise may affect some dispersed 

recreation in the project area, however no direct effects to any of the approximately 30 high use dispersed 

recreation sites are expected. Forest Road 19 is the primary access road for the majority of the high use 

dispersed recreation sites along the South Fork of the McKenzie River and this road will not be closed 

during harvest implementation and hauling will not be permitted on weekends during summer (mid-April 

through September). Forest Road 19 is paved and a popular travel route for the public and because of this 

noise associated with haul will not add significantly to impacts already associated with existing road use. 

Spur roads that access riverside dispersed recreation areas from Forest Road 19 will not be closed. Log 

hauling on secondary gravel roads may result in increased dust and noise for the few dispersed sites that 

are accessed by these roads. Signs will be posted at key road junctions to inform the public about the 

presence of log hauling operations.

Over the long term vehicle access to dispersed recreation areas will be improved due to maintenance of 

approximately 132 miles of road. Decommissioning of approximately 7.8 miles and storage of 

approximately 21.3 miles of road will eliminate vehicle access to dispersed sites in these road sections, 

however none of the proposed roads for decommissioning or storage are expected to affect any popular 

dispersed recreation sites. The seasonal closure of Forest Service Road 1900-430 and 1900-431 would be 

removed and would provide improved access to some dispersed camping and fishing opportunities along 

the southern banks of the South Fork of the McKenzie River. 

A gate on Forest Service Road 1927-240 will be relocated further up the road allowing year round vehicle 

access to the upper 2.5 miles of this road. The bridge on Forest Road 1980-204 will be replaced allowing 

improved access to this road and associated dispersed recreation sites. These associated actions of the 

Green Mountain Project will improve access into areas that are often used by hunters or anglers.

Trails

Short term impacts during harvest activity such as noise and temporary trail closures and/or reroutes will 

occur and pre and post-harvest impacts such as boundary markers, marked trees, slash piles, stumps and 

skid trails will affect 1.25 miles of Elk Creek, South Fork and Frissell trails collectively or approximately 

2% of the 91 total miles of trails in the project area (Figure 32). A Roaded Natural ROS category applies 

to trails and requires a mostly natural appearing physical setting with vegetation modifications done to 

maintain desired visual characteristics. Trails within Special Interest Areas (SIA’s) are required to be 

managed to meet the standards specified in an implementation guide. The South Fork McKenzie River 

Implementation Guide applies to Elk Creek, Frissell Crossing and the South Fork Trails and provides 

goals for desired future condition for recreation, trails, scenery and timber management. Goals for desired 

future conditions include: SIA environment will appear minimally affected by management activities; 

maintain old growth character, avoid removal of old growth habitat; and avoid off-road proliferation and 

off-road vehicle use.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

About .5 miles of the Elk Creek Trail, .5 miles of Frissell Crossing Trail and .25 miles of the South Fork 

Trail will be affected by timber treatments. These trails have class 3 designations requiring that activities 

within the trail corridor meet the physical setting for Roaded Natural ROS opportunities at a minimum. 

The forest plan further specifies that for trails passing through management areas with a more restrictive 

ROS class the more restrictive standard shall apply. In this case the ROS classification is the same as the 

applicable management area (5a Special Interest Area) that the trails pass through.

The primary direct effect of timber treatment activity on these trails will be the need to temporarily close 

or reroute hikers around portions of these trails during harvest treatment activity. Impacts such as noise 

and dust associated with helicopter hauling, timber harvest activities and truck hauling may be noticeable 

for hikers on trails that remain open in the vicinity of harvest activities. These impacts will be minimized 

due to a no haul requirement on weekends which is when the bulk of recreation use occurs.

Hikers on trails that pass through harvest units will notice marking associated with pre-sale preparation. 

During and after harvest activities slash piles, stumps and skid trails will be also be noticeable, however 

as vegetative recovery takes place (3-6 years), and post treatment mitigation measures are implemented, 

evidence of harvest activity will become largely unnoticeable. In the long term (6-10 years) the end result 

will be greater depth of views into the surrounding landscape due to decreased stand density, healthier and 

larger individual trees and less understory vegetation. 

The proposed timber treatments adjacent to Elk Creek, South Fork Trail and Frissell Crossing Trail will 

meet applicable standards and guidelines specified in the forest plan for management area 5a and will be 

consistent with desired future conditions described in the South Fork McKenzie Implementation Guide.

Design features such as a requirement to orient leave tree and other boundary markers away from trails, 

remove boundary markers after harvest activity and mitigate slash piles within 150ft. of trails have been 

established to protect trails in close proximity to harvest units. A recreation specialist will be integrated 

into the design and layout phase to further mitigate potential impacts to the trail tread, scenery and 

parking areas prior to project implementation and to make recommendations about ways to improve 

resource conditions where impacts have expanded at trailhead areas due to uncontrolled vehicle parking

To inform the public about potential disruptions to trail access information about project activities that 

will be posted at developed recreation sites, trail heads and information stations along Forest Road19 and 

at the district office. The Willamette National Forest website will also be updated with this information.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 183

Figure 32. Affected Trails in the Project Area –Alternative 2

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

There are two ongoing timber sale projects in the Green Mountain project area. The Forest Road 19 

Salvage Project, and the Hartz Reoffer Project. These projects are not expected to add cumulatively to 

impacts to recreation because the Forest Road 10 Salvage Project and Hartz Reoffer Project will not 

directly impact trails, dispersed or developed recreation sites and indirect impacts such as noise and/or 

dust associated with these projects will not add significantly to the indirect effects to recreation associated 

with the Green Mountain Project.

There are approximately 244 miles of Forest system roads in the project area, and approximately 73 miles 

have been closed with either gates, berms, or other structures in the past. Approximately eight miles of 

roads have been decommissioned in the past. Road maintenance activities will continue and may include 

felling danger trees, clearing and grubbing, replacing drainage structures, asphalt pavement patching, 

repairing holes in the roadbed, reconstructing ditches, and placement of aggregate surfacing on many of 

the primary and secondary roads in the project area.

Trail maintenance will continue to ensure trails are open for public use. Possible closure of some 

underutilized trails may take place in the foreseeable future. Recreation facility maintenance at developed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

recreation sites will continue. Conversion of the former Homestead Campground into a fish release site 

and day use interpretive area took place in 2013 and additional work at this site will continue. No new 

developed recreation facilities are planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. Increased use trends due 

to persistent promotion of the area by various private entities and by local, state and county government 

programs may increase use at developed and dispersed recreation sites and trails.

Dispersed use particularly adjacent to the South Fork of the McKenzie River, Cougar Reservoir and 

Hidden Lake area may increase due to continued promotion of the area. Many of these sites will continue 

to be managed as part of the Respect the River program and additional sites may be added in the future. 

Efforts to curtail impacts associated with long term residency on National Forest Lands have been 

implemented in the area in the form of a forest order that prohibits camping and in the future this order 

could be amended or expanded if deemed necessary to protect natural resources.

An effort is underway to identify Forest Road 19 as a state scenic bikeway by local governments and nongovernment organizations. This may increase use of the road and associated recreation facilities along 

this road corridor.

Some overlap in time and space with the specific projects already underway and potentially with 

reasonably foreseeable project work primarily related to trails are recognized, however there are no 

significant additional cumulative effects anticipated for recreation resources related to implementation of 

the Green Mountain project.

3.10 Scenic Quality

3.10.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for scenic quality is the Green 

Mountain project area and associated viewsheds which are composed of five 6th field watersheds. These 

watersheds are: South Fork McKenzie River/Cougar Reservoir, Rebel Creek, Augusta Creek, Roaring 

River and Elk Creek. Natural and human caused disturbances or modifications including fire, disease, 

timber harvest, fire suppression and roads are visible within and adjacent to the project area.

3.10.2 Methodology

The analysis methods used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on scenery were based on a review of 

the Forest Plan for consistency with applicable standards and guidelines and the Scenery Management 

System (SMS) handbook. Field reviews of proposed harvest units from key viewpoints in conjunction 

with GIS geo-spatial mapping and a digital perspective analysis tool using Google Earth was used to 

determine design features, mitigations and evaluate project effects on scenic quality.

3.10.2 Affected Environment

Existing Landscape

The landscape of the proposed Green Mountain project area is the landscape setting of the South Fork of 

the McKenzie River within the higher Western Cascades. 

The Western Cascades landscape is a characteristic type of northwest American landscape. It is,

“characterized by a general conformity in ridge crests separated by deep valleys with 

moderately steep, highly dissected, side slopes. In the southern portion (here) of this 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 185

type, the major valleys are V-shaped. Glacial features are evident, but not pronounced 

throughout the area. Some rock cliffs and rock outcrops exist.

Vegetation is characterized by dense stands of large trees including western hemlock, 

Douglas fir, grand fir and subalpine fir. Most areas have a continuous cover of over story 

and understory vegetation. Deciduous species of alder and maple are often intermixed 

along drainages. Some meadows are found in both lower and upper elevations.

Water bodies are abundant in the northern portion of the area, but occur less frequently in 

the southern portion. They consist of marshes, ponds, lakes, streams and major rivers, 

most of which drain into the Willamette basin.

A wide variety of rock formations exist in the area, but most are hidden by the dense 

vegetation cover. Some extensive bare rock ridges and volcanic plugs stand out above 

the vegetation and old volcanic lava flows are sparsely vegetated. “ (Pollock ,1981.)

The river is central to the landscape setting here, and central within the length of the proposed project 

area. The High Cascades are nearby to the east, and the upper river and creeks that flow into the Green 

Mountain area have a high Cascades character - of fast, cold mountain streams - a reminder of the high 

mountains nearby. The Green Mountain land area connects the high Cascades to the lower valley, is tied 

to the larger Willamette Valley in its land form, as part of the larger river and valley formation of the 

Mckenzie and Willamette. 

The forest is nearly continuous over the landscape here within the Green Mountain area. Distinctive in 

the landscape are the forms of ridgelines, close views of rushing water and pools, large conifer trees 

viewed close at hand, leafy creek and riverside vegetation, seasonal changes such as fall color at roadside 

and high on the ridges, high parklike grassy spaces with scattered trees. The landscape has distinct 

character areas related to elevation and land formation and associated cultural features. As one travels 

the corridor the landscape setting is more primitive in character and more towards alpine in the upper 

elevations. Here is a description of the character areas a person sees traveling through the area following 

the main river –creek corridor. The roadside landscape characterized represents a broader landscape seen 

along that portion of the corridor. 

Previous modifications of the Green Mountain landscape have included road construction, logging, and 

reservoir construction. The dam and created reservoir are within landscape views of the primitive 

Wilderness setting to the east and some of the natural river setting to the south. Large scale modifications 

include the modified appearance of the water with a modified edge – a cleared band – which extends a 

straight line through the setting, cut rock face to the east, constructed dam facilities.

Viewsheds

Viewsheds are characterized as those visible areas near important travel corridors where viewing scenery 

is an important component of the visitor experience. Running through the project area are 91 miles of 

non-motorized trails and numerous primary and secondary roads. Forest Road 19, also known as the 

Robert Aufderheide Memorial Drive is a part of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway and is the 

primary travel route for visitors in the project area. National Scenic Byways are areas with one or more 

archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities and are managed collaboratively 

to recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. Forest Road 19 is a paved 

road which carves a path through scenic forests and accesses the historic logging community of Westfir, 

the Constitution Old Growth Grove, Box Canyon Guard Station, the Aufderheide Memorial and Cougar 

Reservoir. The route follows the North Fork Middle Fork of the Willamette River, up to Box Canyon and 

down the South Fork and main fork of the McKenzie River to the junction of Highway 126. A number of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

interpretive sites are located along the Aufderheide Memorial Drive as well as numerous campgrounds, 

dispersed camping areas, trail heads, boat launches and day use areas. Box Canyon Guard Station and 

Indian Ridge Lookout are renovated, re-purposed historic buildings that can be rented by the public.

Two Special Interest Areas (SIAs) have timber harvest treatments proposed within them in the project 

area. The South Fork McKenzie SIA is recognized for its exceptional scenic, recreational, hydrological 

and biological characteristics. The Hidden/Lulu Lake SIA is a popular destination for fishing, nonmotorized boating, and sun-bathing and is recognized for its unique natural setting. Special Interest Areas 

are land allocations designated in the 1990 Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan because of special qualities, such as cultural, historic, geologic, botanical or other values. Scenery 

for both of these SIA’s have been analyzed separately in the SIA chapter of this document.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 187

Figure 33. Potentially Visible Areas and Viewpoints within the Green Mountain Project Area 

Visual Management System (VMS) and Scenery Management System (SMS)

The Visual Management System (VMS) was used to inventory and analyze aesthetic values on National 

Forest Lands until it was replaced by the Scenery Management System (SMS). The SMS evolved from 

the VMS and differs in that it has been expanded to reflect updated research findings. The current Land 

and Resource Management Plan for the Willamette National Forest remains tiered to the VMS system. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

For the purposes of this analysis both VMS and SMS terminologies have been referenced and used 

together to retain consistency with the forest plan while recognizing changes in systems used for 

analyzing scenery.

Landscape visibility is a function of many essential, interconnected considerations including the 

following: 1) context of viewers, 2) duration of view, 3) degree of discernable detail, 4) seasonal 

variations and 5) number of viewers. Existing travel ways and use areas (viewpoints) were identified and 

classified in order to determine which existing observer positions to use in the landscape visibility 

analysis. The viewpoints analyzed for this project were; Cougar Dam, Terwilliger Hotsprings, Echo Day 

Use Area, Cougar Crossing Campground, Slide Creek Campground, the junction of Forest Road 19 and 

Forest Road 1980 and several points from the surface waters of Cougar Reservoir (Figure 33. Effects on 

scenery from these viewpoints were analyzed according to viewing distance classifications described in 

the SMS handbook. These distances are:

• Immediate Foreground (0-300ft)

• Foreground (300ft-.5mile)

• Middleground (.5mile-4miles)

• Background (4miles-horizon)

The Forest Plan establishes VQO categories (VMS) to describe the degrees of acceptable alteration of the 

natural landscape when considering timber stand management (Forest Plan FEIS, 1990). The five VQO 

and corresponding SMS categories are provided below in bold type in Table 57 as well as definitions. 

Table 58 shows proposed timber treatment aces and associated management area designation and VQO’s.

Table 57. Visual Quality Objectives

Visual Quality Objectives (VQO’s) and Corresponding SMS Categories

VQO-Preservation/SMS-Very High: Provides for ecological change only (VMS). Landscape character is intact 

with only minute if any deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the 

highest possible level (SMS).

VQO-Retention/SMS-High: In general, human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor (VMS). 

Landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture and 

pattern common to the landscape character so completely that and at such a scale that they are not evident 

(SMS).

VQO-Partial Retention/SMS-Moderate: In general, human activities may be evident but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape (VMS). Landscape character appears slightly altered. Noticeable 

deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed (SMS).

VQO-Modification/SMS-Low: Human activities may dominate the characteristic landscape but must, at the 

same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture, and appear as natural occurrence when 

viewed in foreground or middle-ground distances. Landscape character appears moderately altered. Deviations 

begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, 

shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles outside the 

landscape the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape 

being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within.

VQO-Maximum Modification/SMS-Very Low: Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but 

should not appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background. Landscape character appears heavily 

altered. Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 189

Table 58. Visual Quality Objective Acres in Project

Management Allocation Visual Quality Objective (VQO)

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Acres in 

Alternative 2 

Treatment Units

Acres in 

Alternative

3 Treatment 

Units

Special Interest Areas–

(MA 5A) Retention 5,744 265 265

Wildlife Habitat – Special 

Areas (MA 9D) Retention 1,475 73 73

Matrix -(MA14A/MA11A) Scenic Modification 

Middleground 11,062 1,387 1,245

Matrix -(MA14A/MA11C) Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground 2,800 541 426

Matrix -(MA14A/MA11D) Scenic Partial Retention 

Foreground 889 3 0

Matrix -(MA14A/MA11F) Scenic Retention Foreground 71 3 3

Matrix (MA 14A) Max Modification 15,323 1,019 871

Riparian Reserves

(MA 15)1 65,570 1,786 1,764

Adaptive Management 

Reserve (MA 17) 

Scenic Modification 

Middleground 11A 2,975 788 755

Adaptive Management 

Reserve (MA 17)

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground 11C 684 151 151

Adaptive Management 

Reserve (MA 17)

Scenic Retention Foreground 

11F 1,264 19 19

Adaptive Management 

Reserve (MA 17) Max Modification 14A 615 152 149

Total 99,051 4,398 3,957

1 – Riparian Reserves overlay other land allocations and are therefore not included in the Total Land Allocations

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No timber harvest treatment would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1. All visually sensitive 

Management Areas would remain consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and VQO’s would 

be maintained. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on scenic quality in the 

project area. Potential benefits to scenery such as increased depth of view into the landscape along 

sections of trails and forest roads would not be realized under this alternative.

Alternative 2

Driving

Forest Road 19 (Aufderheide Drive) is part of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway and is a major 

travel route in the project area. Viewing scenery is a key component of the visitor experience for travelers 

on this route. While driving and viewing the landscape from Forest Road 19 some breaks in the forest 

along the road may provide short duration views (several seconds) of a few thinning harvest units in the 

project area. Because these units are thinning and not regeneration treatments, and are only intermittently 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

visible at longer viewing distances, evidence of timber harvest will be largely unnoticeable to the casual 

forest visitor. Additionally, these units will be in Management Area 11a which has a VQO of 

Modification-Middleground. This VQO requires that scenery be managed for a modest level of scenic 

quality where management activities may dominate the natural surroundings but must borrow from 

elements of the original landscape. Thinning treatments within this VQO class as viewed from Forest 

Road 19 will meet this standard and guideline. Proposed timber harvest units in management areas with 

more restrictive VQO classes of Retention and Partial-Retention that require a more natural scenic setting 

will not be visible from Forest Road 19 in the project area.

Secondary roads in the project area primarily provide access to developed and dispersed recreation sites 

and to preferred hunting areas or places where gathering forest products is common. Secondary forest 

roads are not considered major travel routes and therefor scenery is not required to be analyzed to the 

degree that is for major travel routes and developed recreation sites. For those visitors driving on 

secondary roads that pass through or by thinning treatments, short-term effects to visual quality would be 

limited to pre-sale marking, exposed stumps from harvested trees, less dense forest stands, slash piles and 

possibly dust from logging trucks on unpaved forest roads. Long-term effects would include fewer 

exposed stumps as vegetation regrows (3-6 years after treatment) and greater increases in crowns and 

diameters of residual trees. Thinning treatments would accelerate forest stand development toward a more 

natural range of conditions and provide greater depths of view into the forest. 

Regeneration harvest units will not be visible from Forest Road 19 or from developed recreation sites but 

will be visible from a variety of locations from secondary roads. Regeneration harvest would occur in 16 

units for a total of 324 acres in the proposed alternative. For those visitors driving secondary roads 

through or near regeneration harvest units there would be a noticeable change in forest texture when 

passing through these areas. These treatments will be mostly constrained to management area 14a or 11a 

which provide for a modest level of scenic quality as viewed from major travel routes and developed 

recreation sites. Because regeneration treatments will not be visible from major travel routes or developed 

recreation sites in these management areas and will be visible from secondary forest roads only, standards 

and guidelines for scenery will be consistent with forest plan direction.

Developed Sites 

No regeneration harvest units are expected to be visible from any developed recreation sites or major 

travel routes within the project area. Approximately 118 units are proposed for thinning treatments and 

four (330, 350, 890, and 860) are within foreground distance (300 feet -.5 mile) of Cougar Crossing 

Campground which is a key viewpoint. Because portions of unit 890 are within management area 11c 

which has a VQO of Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground and 11f which has a VQO of Retention 

foreground and can be seen from Forest Road 19 and Cougar Crossing Campground design features

would ensure scenery is maintained consistent with forest plan standards and guidelines. 

Unit 860 which has a VQO of Retention foreground is within foreground distance (300ft-.5mi) of Cougar 

Crossing Campground, however screening vegetation on the west side of the South Fork McKenzie River 

largely obscures views of the lower portions of this unit. The portion of the unit that is visible from the 

campground will be at the farther end of foreground distances (.25-.5miles). When viewed in context with 

the surrounding landscapes texture and landscape elements (previously thinned stands) the thinning

treatment proposed for this unit will maintain a high degree of visual quality. 

The remaining units analyzed for visibility from developed recreation areas fell into the farther end of 

middle-ground range (typically more than 2 miles). Field analysis revealed that in general views of these 

units are blocked by vegetation and topography. Portions of units 150 and 160 will be visible at middleground distance from Terwilliger Hot Springs parking lot. These units are in management area 11a which 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 191

has a VQO of Scenic-Modification Middleground. This VQO allows for a moderately altered visual 

landscape as viewed from middleground distances that is compatible with natural surroundings.

Trails

Elk Creek Trail (#3510), Frissell Crossing Trail (#3320) and South Fork Trail (#3327) pass through or 

near proposed timber harvest treatments. These trails have class 3 designations and must meet Roaded 

Natural ROS opportunities at a minimum and a VQO of Partial Retention. The forest plan further 

specifies that for trails passing through management areas with a more restrictive ROS class the more 

restrictive standard shall apply. In this case the VQO for these trails is Partial Retention however the VQO 

of Retention (a more restrictive standard) applies where harvest treatments are proposed because the 

affected portions of these trails are in Management Area 5a which is the South Fork McKenzie River SIA 

(Special Interest Area). The VQO of Retention requires that the landscape character appears unaltered or 

intact and that travel corridors, including trails, retain a natural or near natural setting (Fig 3.12d).

Approximately 1.25 miles of the 91 miles of system trails in the project area or slightly less than 2% of 

total trail miles will be affected by proposed timber treatments (Figure 34). This includes approximately 

.5 miles of the Elk Creek Trail, .25 miles of the South Fork Trail and .5 miles of Frissell Crossing Trail. 

Prior to harvest treatments hikers may see tree marking associated with pre-sale preparation although 

these markings will be required to be placed on the side of trees facing away from trails. Hikers on trails 

that pass through harvest units will notice slash piles, stumps and skid trails during and in the short term 

after harvest treatments have concluded. As vegetative recovery takes place (3-6 years), and post 

treatment mitigation measures are implemented, evidence of harvest activity will become largely 

unnoticeable. In the short term a near natural setting will be retained and in the long term (6-10 years) the 

end result will be a natural setting with greater depth of views into the surrounding landscape due to 

decreased stand density, healthier and larger individual trees and less understory vegetation.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 34. Trails Affected by Proposed Actions in the Green Mountain Project

Dispersed Sites

No significant effects to the 30 high use dispersed sites in the project area are expected as a result of 

timber treatments with Alternative 2 because timber harvest treatments are not proposed adjacent to any 

of these sites. Views into the surrounding landscape are constrained by nearby dense forest stands along 

the South Fork of the McKenzie River and views are additionally blocked by steep topography along the 

banks of the river. Some harvest units may be visible from the myriad of low use dispersed sites that can 

be found throughout the secondary road system however these sites are typically used by hunters 

primarily to access preferred hunting grounds and not for recreational activities where viewing scenery

from dispersed sites is a primary activity.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would treat approximately 4,001 acres of stands ranging in age from 26-76 years old. No 

regeneration harvest would occur under this alternative so impacts to scenery would be largely the same 

as the proposed alternative because regeneration units would not be visible from key viewpoints in the 

proposed alternative. Views of harvest units from secondary forest roads that change from regeneration to 

thinning treatments would be less obvious to the casual forest visitor in Alternative 3 because there would 

be a less abrupt change in forest stand texture as viewed from secondary forest roads.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 193

Alternative 2 and 3

Special Interest Areas

The Green Mountain project proposes to treat approximately 206 acres in the South Fork McKenzie SIA 

and approximately 59 acres in the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA in 39 units with thinning, gaps, and skips

in Alternative 2 and 3. Design criteria to minimize impact on the SIAs are included for all of these units 

and for minimizing impacts of temporary road construction.

Proposed units would be in foreground view from Hidden Lake which has a natural appearing, almost 

primitive scenic condition. The close view and slope of the land formation at Hidden Lake would have 

the result that the two proposed units would tend to be central in the view. With design features, these 

units are expected to meet retention, as the planned thinning would be expected to make forest vegetation 

texture and pattern - seen close at hand here - more continuous and natural appearing. Temporary road 

construction and restoration would follow design criteria to meet retention, particularly important for the 

temporary road segment proposed above Hidden Lake. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Previous impacts that have modified the scenic landscape in the project area have been road construction, 

timber harvest activities and wildfires. There has been approximately 5,327 acres (11% of the project 

area) of timber harvest on federal lands within the project area, and 87% of treatments have been 

regeneration harvests. The earliest regeneration harvest occurred in the 1960’s. Some of these stands have 

been thinned since the original harvest and some have not. There are two ongoing timber sale projects in 

the Green Mountain project area. The Forest Road 19 Salvage Project is currently underway in the project 

area and the Hartz Reoffer Project is planned for the near future. The Hartz reoffer project will not 

cumulatively add to scenery effects associated with the Green Mountain project. The Forest Road 19 

Salvage Project is not expected to add long term cumulative impacts to scenery because tree removals

will be widely dispersed along the road corridor and design features have been established to protect 

scenery.

Trail maintenance will continue to ensure they are open for public use. Recreation facility maintenance at 

developed recreation sites will also continue. Possible closures of some underutilized trails or trail 

segments may take place in the foreseeable future. Conversion of the former Homestead Campground 

into a fish release site and interpretive area took place in 2013 and additional work at this site will 

continue. No new developed recreation facilities are planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. Some 

overlap in time and space with the specific projects already underway and potential projects are 

recognized, however there are no significant additional cumulative effects anticipated for scenic resources 

as a result of implementation of the Green Mountain project.

3.11 Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)

3.11.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Wilderness and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas is the Green Mountain project area which is located in the following 6th field watersheds: 

South Fork McKenzie River/Cougar Reservoir, Rebel Creek, Augusta Creek, Roaring River and Elk 

Creek.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.11.2 Affected Environment - 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. The 283,630 acre Three 

Sisters Wilderness was established as part of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

44,909 acres of the Three Sisters Wilderness are within the Green Mountain project area. However, no 

treatments are proposed in the Three Sisters Wilderness. In general the portions of the Three Sisters 

Wilderness within the project area receives less use than those portions of the wilderness to the East 

which are accessed by the Pacific Crest National Recreation Trail and other popular system trails. Areas 

of higher use within the project area are French Pete Trail, Rebel Rock Trail and Crossing Way Trailhead. 

Numerous other smaller trailheads provide access to trails that connect to the more popular trails within 

the Three Sisters Wilderness trail system. 

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences - Wilderness

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

No treatments would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1 therefore no direct or indirect effects 

to the Three Sisters Wilderness would occur.

Alternative 2 and 3

No harvest or other connected actions would occur in the Three Sisters Wilderness. Units 5410 and 5420 

are in in close proximity to the Wilderness and are adjacent to trails that access the Wilderness. Harvest 

activities and connected actions may require the need to temporarily close trails or reroute hikers to other 

trails that access the Wilderness area. Design features such as a requirement to orient leave tree and other 

boundary markers away from trails, remove boundary markers after harvest activity and mitigate slash 

piles within 150ft. of trails have been established to protect trails (see Chapter 2). A recreation specialist 

will be integrated into the design and layout phase to further mitigate potential impacts prior to project 

implementation and to make recommendations about ways to improve resource conditions where impacts 

have expanded at trailhead areas due to uncontrolled vehicle parking. These design features and 

recommended improvements to the trails that access wilderness will indirectly protect and benefit 

wilderness by protecting and enhancing the trail system and associated parking areas that allow access to 

the wilderness. To inform the public about potential disruptions to trail access into the Three Sisters 

Wilderness, information about project activities will be posted at developed recreation sites, trail heads 

and information stations along Forest Road19 and at the district office. The Willamette National Forest 

website will also be updated with this information.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1, 2 and 3

Effects to Wilderness from the Green Mountain project do no overlap in time or space with any past, 

present, or reasonably forseeable future actions (Appendix F); therefore no cumulative effects on 

Wilderness will occur. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 195

3.11.4 Affected Environment – Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) 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.

Four IRAs are located in the Green Mountain project area: Chucksney Mountain (15,369 acres); French 

Pete A (1,668 acres); French Pete B (1,186) acres; and Roaring River (2,127 acres). These IRAs are 

illustrated in Figures 35 and 36.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 35. Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area (North)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 197

Figure 36. Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area (South)

3.11.5 Environmental Consequences – Inventoried Roadless Areas

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

No treatments would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1 therefore no direct or indirect effects 

to IRA’s would occur. 

Alternative 2 and 3 would have no effects on IRA’s because no timber harvest or associated activities 

would occur within IRA’s. 12 units in the Green Mountain project area are adjacent to an IRA (5120, 

5130, 5140, 5320, 5370, 5380, 5400, 5410, 5420, 5440, 5470, and 5800). These units will have boundary 

markers established during implementation to ensure all project activities are restricted to areas outside 

the IRA boundaries.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1, 2 and 3

No effects to IRA’s would occur with the Green Mountain project; therefore no cumulative effects on 

IRAs would occur. 

3.12 Unroaded Areas

3.12.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects to unroaded areas is the Green 

Mountain project area.

3.13.2 Affected Environment

Unroaded areas are isolated polygons of Forest Service land that have no roads and no evidence of past 

harvest activities. In the Green Mountain project area, approximately 19,220 acres have been identified 

as isolated polygons of unroaded areas that are at least one acre in size. Table 59 shows the number of 

polygons, size class, and the approximate acres of unroaded areas in the Green Mountain project area.

Table 59. Size Class and Acreage of Unroaded Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

171 1-99 acres 2,430

19 100-499 acres 4,037

3 500-999 acres 2,240

6 1000-4999 acres 10,513

0 5000+ acres 0

199 Total 19,220

These unroaded areas are not Wilderness, nor or they Inventoried Roadless Areas. There are no forestwide or management area standards specific to unroaded areas in the Willamette Forest Plan or the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Unroaded areas are managed consistent with forest-wide standards and guidelines 

and by designated Forest Plan management area allocations.

3.12.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

No treatments would implemented with selection of Alternative 1; therefore, no impacts to unroaded areas

would occur.

Alternative 2 and 3

Alternative 2 and 3 propose some level of activity in unroaded areas, varying only by the number of 

polygons and acres treated. Timber harvest and associated activities in Alternative 2 would occur in 31 

polygons on approximately 444 acres of unroaded areas. With implementation of Alternative 2, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 199

approximately 2.3 percent of the unroaded areas would be removed due to proposed harvest activities. 

Timber harvest and associated activities in Alternative 3 would occur in 13 polygons on approximately 75 

acres of unroaded areas. With implementation of Alternative 3, approximately 0.39 percent of the 

unroaded areas would be removed due to proposed harvest activities. Table 60 and 61 show the polygons 

and acreage unroaded areas before and after implementation of Alternative 2 and 3.

Table 60. Unroaded Areas in Green Mountain Project Area with Implementation of Alternative 2

Alternative 2

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

Before After -- Before After

171 175 1-99 acres 2,430 2,427

19 20 100-499 acres 4,037 4,098

3 3 500-999 acres 2,240 2,005

6 6 1000-4999 acres 10,513 10,246

0 0 5000+ acres 0 0

199 204 Total 19,220 18,776

Table 61. Unroaded Areas in Green Mountain Project Area with Implementation of Alternative 3

Alternative 3

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

Before After -- Before After

171 171 1-99 acres 2,430 2,456

19 19 100-499 acres 4,037 4,024

3 3 500-999 acres 2,240 2,240

6 6 1000-4999 acres 10,513 10,425

0 0 5000+ acres 0 0

199 199 Total 19,220 19,145

Effects to the physical and biological resources in the Green Mountain project area, including those in 

units proposed in unroaded areas, are disclosed in the applicable resource sections of the DEIS and are not 

reiterated here. Environmental effects to resources in unroaded areas due to the implementation of 

proposed project activities would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Plan

management area standards and guidelines.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1, 2 and 3

The effects to unroaded areas from the Green Mountain project do not overlap in time and space with 

effects from any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions (see Appendix F); therefore no 

cumulative effects to unroaded areas would occur.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.13 Wild and Scenic Study River

3.13.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the South Fork McKenzie 

River Wild and Scenic Study River (WSSR) is that portion of the river within the Green Mountain project 

area.

3.13.2 Affected Environment

The South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River is located on the McKenzie River Ranger 

District of the Willamette National Forest in Lane County, Oregon. The river roughly parallels Forest 

Road 19 which is part of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway for much of its course. The rivers 

origins are in the Three Sisters Wilderness and it flows in a roughly North-westerly direction terminating 

at its confluence with the main stem of the McKenzie River at approximately mile post 43 of the 

McKenzie Highway (Highway 126). 

In the Oregon Omnibus River Act of 1988, the South Fork McKenzie River was designated as a Wild and 

Scenic Study River to determine its eligibility for Wild and Scenic River designation. The study was 

initiated in 1989, and the South Fork was determined eligible, with plans to complete the study at revision 

of the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The 1990 Willamette Land and 

Resource Management Plan did not recommend designation as a Recreational River under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act; however, the river remained a Wild and Scenic Study River. An eligibility 

determination was completed in 1992 and four outstandingly remarkable values (ORV’s) were found to 

meet the criteria for eligibility. These ORV’s are Scenery, Recreation, Fish and Prehistoric. Management 

actions within the South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River may not diminish any of the 

outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was found eligible. The Wild and Scenic River 

System classifies designated rivers into three classifications; Wild, Scenic and Recreational. 

(1) Wild river areas – Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

(2) Scenic river areas – Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines 

or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

(3) Recreational river areas – Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or 

railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past.

The South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River corridor encompasses approximately 8,224 acres 

and is divided into three segments. Segment two and three are classified as Recreation while segment one

is classified as Wild. Segment 1 flows 5.2 miles from the headwaters of Beaver Marsh to the Three Sisters 

Wilderness Boundary. It is classified as Wild because it lies within the Three Sisters Wilderness, is only 

accessible by trail at its headwaters, is unpolluted, un-impounded and its shoreline is wholly undeveloped. 

Segment 2 flows 16 miles from the Wilderness boundary to Cougar Reservoir and lies within the South 

Fork Special Interest Area (SIA). It is classified as Recreational because it is paralleled by the 

Aufderheide National Scenic Byway and crossed by several bridges and several developed campgrounds 

and numerous dispersed recreation campsites are located near the rivers banks. Segment 3 flows 4.5 miles 

from below Cougar Dam to the rivers confluence with the McKenzie River. Its classification is 

Recreational because it is paralleled by the Aufderheide National Scenic Byway and Delta Campground 

and numerous dispersed campsites, access road spurs and trails are located within the river corridor. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 201

Evidence of timber harvest is predominant throughout this segment. Cougar Reservoir is not part of the 

South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic Study River.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV’s)

The Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988 added segments of 40 rivers to the national 

Wild and Scenic River system. It also called for the study of seven Oregon rivers to determine whether 

they are eligible and/or suitable for inclusion into the national system. A 25.7 mile stretch of the South 

Fork McKenzie River is one of the study rivers. In 1992, an eligibility study was conducted for the South 

Fork McKenzie River and it determined that the river was eligible for inclusion into the national system. 

In order for the river to be included, a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) would need to 

be completed to determine where the South Fork McKenzie River is “suitable” for designation as a Wild 

and Scenic River. Congress will ultimately decide if the river is designated. To qualify as an 

Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV) a river related value must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature 

significant at a regional or national level. The Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning 

Handbook, Chapter 8.21c states that “...such a value would be one that is a conspicuous example of a 

value from among a number of similar values that are themselves common or extraordinary”.

Scenery

Scenery was determined to meet the criteria as an ORV because the corridors mature and old growth 

vegetation, combined with the beauty of the river offer outstanding scenery to local visitors and many 

from outside the region. The area’s vegetative diversity (e.g. color, size and texture) creates a highly 

visual backdrop. The Aufderheide Drive National Scenic Byway, designated in 1988, is recognized 

outside the region for its scenery and the river and its corridor are its predominant features.

Recreation

Recreation was determined to meet the criteria as an ORV because the river and its corridor are regionally 

known for its diverse recreation opportunities and facilities. The river is especially known for its many 

undeveloped campsites in segment 2 and 3. Within a short distance of the river in segment 2, hikers can 

make day or overnight visits to the Three Sisters Wilderness. Below Cougar Dam in segment 3, spring 

chinook and steelhead runs exist, offering angling opportunities similar to the McKenzie River. 

Recreation as an ORV meets the criteria values for segments 2 and 3 due to the variety of recreational 

opportunities that exist. Segment 1, inside the Three Sisters Wilderness, does not meet the criteria for an 

ORV because the variety of recreational opportunities is limited. Anglers do fish segment 2 of the river 

primarily bank fishing or wading from access areas such as dispersed campsites or small roadside pull 

outs with associated undeveloped, user created trails to the river. Boating use is generally low in segment 

2 (Cougar Reservoir to the Wilderness Boundary) of the river, however it is moderate in the section 

between French Pete Campground and Cougar Reservoir. This section of the river requires moderate river 

running skills and has been highlighted in the book Soggy Sneakers Guide to Rivers which identifies the 

river as “...one of the most interesting rivers of the upper Willamette River system”. It further states that 

that river “offers a superb experts only run at flows above 2,000 cubic feet per second”. Boat based 

fishing is not a common occurrence above the reservoir due to the narrow, swift and technical character of 

the river and suitability for only small craft and because there are no developed boat launches. Segment 3 

(below Cougar Dam) is floated by rafts and drift boats typically in support of fishing but it is also run by 

kayakers. This section is frequently used by outfitters and guides and is also popular for bank fishing and 

wading anglers.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Fish

Fish was determined to meet the criteria as an ORV because the river’s overall diversity of fish, 

anadromous and bull trout populations, and existing and potential habitat, are exemplary compared to 

similar rivers within the SCORP region 8. Segment 3 contains anadromous runs of spring Chinook and 

summer steelhead. Resident fish in section 3 is nearly equal to that of the McKenzie River which is noted 

for its outstandingly remarkable fish populations. Populations within the South Fork McKenzie River 

include coastal cutthroat trout, hatchery and native rainbow trout, bull trout, mountain whitefish, and nongame species (e.g., sculpin, dace, and suckers). Segment 1 and segment 2 support populations of all the 

species above. All species are naturally reproducing with the exception of hatchery rainbow trout. 

Summer steelhead, first introduced in 1968, are either hatchery strays or are naturally reproducing. In 

1993, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) began releasing hatchery Chinook salmon 

above Cougar Reservoir to provide marine derived nutrients to the system and to provide bull trout with a 

more robust prey base.

Cultural (Pre-historic)

Knowledge of prehistoric use of the river drainage is incomplete. Three sites have been found to be 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and numerous other sites not 

eligible for inclusion to the NRHP have been recorded. Two undisturbed rock shelters have been found 

and are excellent examples of long-term, multi-occupancy dwellings. One structure represents the only 

tested and dated rock shelter within the McKenzie Basin. The South Fork McKenzie River is known to 

have been extensively used and occupied by aboriginal tribes. For these reasons prehistoric was found to 

meet the criteria as an ORV.

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects - Scenery

Alternative 1- No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects because it would not implement any 

timber harvest treatments in the South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic River Study Corridor.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The preferred alternative proposes to implement a total of 553 acres of timber harvest treatments within 

the Wild and Scenic Study River corridor. Treatments proposed include thinning, gaps and skips and 

would be exclusively within segment 2 (Recreational) and no treatments are proposed in segment 1 

(Wild) or segment 3 (Recreational). 

To evaluate potential effects to scenery along the South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River

viewsheds were identified and analyzed against the projects proposed actions and action alternatives. 

Viewsheds are characterized as those visible areas near important travel corridors where viewing scenery 

is an important component of the visitor experience. For the purposes of this analysis the viewsheds 

identified were the surface waters (area within the ordinary high water mark) of the South Fork McKenzie 

River and its banks. An emphasis was placed on areas where shoreline and wading for fishing are 

accessible by road or trail. Also analyzed is the portion of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway 

(Forest Road 19) within the Wild and Scenic Study River corridor. Within these viewsheds, specific 

viewpoints that provide longer duration views of the landscape were analyzed in more detail. Viewpoints 

were identified as areas such as bridges that cross the river and developed recreation sites that provide 

views into the river corridor. Viewing scenery from the surface waters and banks of the South Fork 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 203

McKenzie River is largely constrained by thick forest and riparian vegetation and is further reduced by 

steep banks and topography.

Views of the river and river corridor that can be of longer duration are particularly important for scenery 

and numerous points on Forest Road 19 provide these opportunities. These locations were identified as 

bridges, campgrounds, pullouts and dispersed recreation areas. Although the project area surrounds these 

locations the specific units proposed for treatments within the Wild and Scenic Study River corridor will 

generally not be visible from them. Treatments in these few visible units will reduce stand densities which 

will increase growth and vigor of larger trees and enhance vegetation diversity by increasing the 

productivity of hardwoods and shrubs. This will add complexity to the range and variety of color, form 

and texture of the forest and highlight the brilliant contrast in color between hardwoods and shrubs during 

the fall against the backdrop of evergreen forest. Thinning of overstocked stands will improve depth of 

view into the surrounding forested landscape which will serve to highlight mature, old growth trees. The 

characteristics of the river itself that are key elements for meeting the scenery criteria such as clear, swift 

flowing water with an interesting mix of pools, riffles and meandering channels as well as cascading falls 

and whitewater rapids will not be altered in any way as a result of project activities. For these reasons the 

action alternatives associated with the Green Mountain project will not diminish the scenery ORV.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Recreation

Alternative 1- No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects because it would not implement any 

timber harvest treatments in the South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic River Study Corridor.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic Study River eligibility determination found that 

recreation met the criteria as an ORV. The specific elements of this ORV are tied to recreational uses such 

as fishing, boating, hiking, camping and recreational driving. Actions proposed by the Green Mountain 

project must not diminish the components that comprise this ORV. Anglers will retain full historical 

access to spur roads, dispersed sites, roadside parking areas and trails that access the river. In some cases 

access to the river will be increased due to the opening of forest roads that were previously closed. The 

rivers structure and character will not change and fish populations will not be negatively impacted so 

there will be no negative effect to the availability of fish for recreational fishing. Boating will not be 

impeded in any way as a result of actions proposed by the project. Opportunities to access dispersed 

campsites and developed campgrounds will not be reduced and the landscape character as viewed from 

these locations will be maintained, and in some cases enhanced, due to vegetation treatments that will 

increase vegetation complexity and diversity in the nearby forest. Access to hiking trails will not be 

affected and the characteristics of the trails that make them attractive to visitors will not be altered. 

Recreational driving along the Aufderheide Drive National Scenic Byway will continue to offer “one of 

the best opportunities in the nation to view a variety of forest management activities” (National Forest 

Scenic Byways Guide, USDA Forest Service, 1989). Sightseers will continue to be able to view an array 

of colors, particularly during the fall season, where shrubs and hardwoods display a brilliant contrast to 

the dominant evergreen vegetation. In some cases scenic character will be enhanced due to treatments that 

will increase the presence of shrubs and hardwoods further highlighting this contrast. Views of the river 

will remain unchanged from points along Forest Road 19 and the river will retain its visually interesting 

mix of rapids, pools and clear water. For these reasons the action alternatives associated with the Green 

Mountain project will not diminish the recreation ORV.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects - Fish

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects because it would not implement any 

timber harvest treatments in the South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic River Study Corridor.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The direct and indirect effects to Alternatives 2 and 3 are the same. There is the potential for fish to be 

affected directly during bridge work over Hardy Creek. The bridge over Hardy Creek is approximately 

300 feet away from the South Fork McKenzie so it is within the WSSR corridor. In Hardy Creek, a piece 

of equipment (i.e. an excavator) would be required to cross the creek at least once in order to replace an 

existing bridge that is in disrepair. When the equipment crosses Hardy Creek there is the potential to 

harass, harm, or cause mortality to individual fish. The most likely fish to be found in lower Hardy Creek, 

based on Forest Service stream surveys, is the coastal cutthroat trout. The coastal cutthroat trout is 

ubiquitous in the WSSR corridor and the tributary streams entering the South Fork McKenzie. 

Fish could be directly affected by the “fall and leave” treatments in Elk Creek associated with unit 5420. 

It is proposed to fall trees into Elk Creek in order to enhance fish habitat conditions. Stream surveys 

indicated that woody material was lacking as a habitat feature in Elk Creek and this has adversely affected 

habitat conditions. When a tree is felled into the creek, there is the potential to harass, harm, or cause 

mortality to individual fish. Elk Creek could have spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, and 

coastal cutthroat trout in the system during project implementation.

The projects in Elk Creek and Hardy Creek have the potential to adversely affect individual fish during 

implementation. However, the impacts to individual fish would not be substantial enough to cause a 

degradation in the overall fish populations in the WSSR. Felling trees into Elk Creek would have the 

potential to adversely affect individual fish in the short-term (i.e. immediately when the tree hits the 

stream channel) but would enhance fish habitat in the WSSR in the long-term (i.e. decades).

It is proposed to thin 553 acres of previously harvested stands in the WSSR corridor. None of these units 

are directly adjacent to the South Fork McKenzie. That is, there is typically a vegetated buffer of mature 

to old growth trees between the units and the river. These younger stands are densely stocked so thinning

would enhance conditions within the WSSR corridor. However, these units are greater than one sitepotential tree height distant from the South Fork McKenzie so there would be no indirect effects to the 

fish ORV.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Cultural

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects because it would not implement any 

timber harvest treatments in the South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic River Study Corridor.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Timber harvest, new and temporary road construction, ground base and skyline yarding and post-harvest 

fuel 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. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 205

Since appropriate and approved surveys and cultural site protection measures are already in place (see 

Design Measures Chapter 2), the potential direct effects to all other potentially eligible sites would be in 

the form of inadvertent damage to the integrity of the cultural resources which were not discovered during 

initial survey. Any sites uncovered during implementation of the project would require all earthdisturbing 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 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

Cumulative Effects

The Cascade Thin project was completed in 2015 and thinned approximately 7.6 acres within the South 

Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic Study River corridor. The treatment acreages were on the northern 

edge of the WSSR corridor, north of the river and Forest Road 19. Because thinning treatments are 

consistent with the ORV’s of scenery and recreation and because these treatments are not visible from the 

river, Forest Road 19, system trails or any developed recreation sites the ORV’s of recreation and scenery 

would not be cumulatively affected. The treatments did not affect fish populations, water quality or 

archeological sites so the Cascade Thin project will not add cumulatively to the ORV’s of fish or prehistoric. 

The Forest Road 19 Hazard Tree Removal Salvage Project selectively removed approximately 120 trees 

adjacent to Forest Road 19. Because of this projects small scale it will not impact any of the four the 

ORV’s applicable to the Wild and Scenic Study River. The 410 Fuels reduction project has thinned and 

will continue to thin forest stands along the lower reaches of the Wild and Scenic Study River in segment 

3 which is categorized as Recreational. No treatments are proposed in segment 3 by the Green Mountain 

project and fuels thinning treatments are consistent with the recreational designation of that segment 

which recognizes that evidence of timber harvest is a predominant feature of the surrounding landscape. 

The recently proposed Roadside Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project would reduce the abundance of 

ladder fuels within road corridors and adjacent to the Three Sisters Wilderness with the goal of creating a 

firebreak to prevent catastrophic wildfire. This project proposes to cut all vegetation under 10” in 

diameter within a road prism of 100 feet on both sides of the road. Any areas that would have the 

potential to diminish the recreation, scenery, fish or Prehistoric ORV’s would either be dropped or 

modified during the project planning process to ensure consistency with Wild and Scenic Study River

management.

The proposed fall and leave treatments in Elk Creek overlap in time and space with the Upper South Fork 

McKenzie River Enhancement Project (2008). The cumulative effect of the project in Elk Creek would be 

to further enhance habitat conditions for the fish ORV within the WSSR.

Section 10 Determination – Finding

Based on the analysis detailed in this resource assessment it is determined that the proposed Green 

Mountain Project is consistent with Section 10 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The action alternatives 

will not diminish or degrade any of the characteristics which are central to the outstandingly remarkable 

values (ORV’s) that apply to the South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic Study River. The fish 

ORV will be enhanced by felling trees into Elk Creek and the free flowing condition and water quality of 

the South Fork McKenzie River will be maintained.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

3.14 Special Interest Areas

3.14.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the units in the South Fork 

McKenzie River Special Interest Area (SIA) and the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA in the Green Mountain 

project area.

3.14.2 Affected Environment

Special Interest Areas (SIAs) are land allocations designated in the 1990 Willamette National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan due to their special qualities, such as cultural, historic, geologic, 

botanical or scenic values. SIAs are identified as Management Area 5a in the Forest Plan.

The 1990 Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan requires preparation of an 

Implementation Guide to define management objectives for each SIA. Standard and Guideline MA-5a-01 

states that “(A)n Implementation Guide shall be prepared for each SIA describing the site specific

management objectives, enhancement programs, and other acceptable uses and activities. The extent of 

development within any area will be based on an analysis of the resource conditions and protection needs 

of the site. Site development plans will be prepared as part of the Implementation Guide, showing the 

design and location of proposed facilities”.

Two SIAs are located in the Green Mountain project area: South Fork McKenzie SIA and Hidden LakeLulu Lake SIA (Figure 37).

South Fork McKenzie River Special Interest Area

The 5,114 acre South Fork McKenzie River SIA is recognized for its exceptional scenic, recreational, 

hydrological and biological characteristics. The SIA lies in a broad, glaciated valley bottom and is 

characterized by stands of mature and old-growth Douglas-fir and river-oriented developed and dispersed 

recreation opportunities like driving for pleasure, camping, hiking, recreational boating, fishing, and 

wildlife viewing. The South Fork McKenzie SIA is located approximately 1/4 mile on either side of Rd. 

19 (West Cascades National Scenic Byway) beginning at the southern tip of Cougar Reservoir and 

continues south and east to Frissell Crossing where it divides into two forks. One fork continues east 

bordering the South Fork channel until it ends at the Three Sisters Wilderness boundary; while the second 

fork follows a south/southeasterly course to include perennial portions of the Roaring River channel, as 

well as McBee Creek, which flows to Box Canyon.

Management actions within the South Fork McKenzie SIA are designed to focus on protection of the 

area’s resources while fostering public use and enjoyment. Current resource conditions, desired future 

conditions, management objectives, and enhancement programs for the South Fork McKenzie 

SIA are described in detail in the South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis and the South Fork 

McKenzie Special Interest Area Implementation Guide which are available in the Green 

Mountain project record. 

Hidden Lake - Lulu Lake Special Interest Area

The Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA is approximately 597 acres in size. The variety of elevation, slopes, and 

soil types provides for a variety of habitats such as: lakes, wetlands, steep forested slopes, cliffs, and open 

talus slopes. Old-growth forest stands within the SIA consist of Douglas-fir, Pacific Silver Fir, and 

pockets of Alaska yellow cedar. These areas are distinguished not only by tree size, but by vegetative 

diversity and structural complexity (canopy gaps, saplings, snags, down wood, etc.). A few of the more 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 207

distinct habitats are large areas of dry talus slopes covered by mosses and lichens and talus slopes 

dominated by vine maple and Sitka alder. Large dry cliffs are scattered throughout the western half, 

particularly north and west of Hidden and Lulu Lakes. Overall, the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA supports 

a broad spectrum of vegetation, wildlife, and amphibian life; in addition to attracting many forest users.

Management actions within the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA focus on the protection of the area’s natural 

resources while fostering public use and enjoyment. Management will focus on the recreational aspect 

and botanical quality of the area. Current resource conditions, desired future conditions, management 

objectives, and enhancement programs for the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA are described in 

detail in the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake Implementation Guide which is available in the Green 

Mountain project record. 

Units Proposed for Harvest within the SIA

Approximately 265 acres of previously managed stands are proposed for harvest in SIAs under 

Alternative 2 and 3. 206 acres are proposed for harvest in the South Fork McKenzie River SIA and 59 in 

the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA. These stands are previously managed stands that have been harvested 

as recently as 1985. Little understory development and species diversity appears to be in the stands and 

they are characterized as dense, close-canopied, even-aged stands. These stands are in the stem 

exclusion stage (see Section 3.1.2 for additional information). 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. These previously managed stands have a Stand Density Index (SDI) averaging 347, over 58 

percent of SDImax a metric indicating that these stands are competing with each other and point of 

competition induced mortality (for a further discussion of SDI, please refer to Section 3.1.2). 

Table 62 displays the average stand characteristics for stands considered for harvest in the SIAs. Figure 

38 illustrates the current condition of the previously managed stands in the SIA proposed for harvest with 

the Green Mountain project.

Table 62. Average Stand Characteristics of Managed Stands Considered for Harvest in the SIAs

Stand Type

Total

Trees Per 

Acre

Trees per 

acres 

available 

for 

harvest1

Quadratic 

Mean 

Diameter1

Average 

Stand 

Height1

Canopy 

Cover 

Percent1

Average 

Age1

Basel 

Area1

Stand 

Density 

Index1

Managed 749 193 13 86 67 38 191 347

1

: Based on trees seven inches and greater DBH, because seven inches is the minimum DBH of a tree considered for harvest in the 

Green Mountain project.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 37. Special Interest Areas in the Green Mountain Project Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 209

Figure 38. Previously Managed Stand in SIA in Green Mountain Project Area

3.14.3 Proposed Forest Plan Amendment

Forest Plan Background

The Willamette National Forest Plan was authorized on July 31, 1990. The Willamette National Forest 

Plan provides a long-range strategy for managing the Willamette National Forest. 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).

Forest Plan Amendments

Plan amendments are intended to be an adaptive management tool to keep plans current, effective, and 

relevant between required plan revisions (every 15 years). Amendments help Responsible Officials adapt 

an existing plan to new information and changed conditions. Amendments may be broad or narrow in 

scope, depending on the need to change the plan. Amendments may be project-specific. If a proposed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

project is not consistent with the plan, the Responsible Official has the option to start a plan amendment 

that, if approved, would accommodate the project.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule (Title 36, CFR, Part 219–Planning) it states: 

36 CFR 219.13(a) Plan amendment. A plan may be amended at any time. Plan 

amendments may be broad or narrow, depending on the need for change, and should be 

used to keep plans current and help units adapt to new information or changing 

conditions. The responsible official has the discretion to determine whether and how to 

amend the plan. Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a plan amendment is 

required to add, modify, or remove one or more plan components, or to change how or 

where one or more plan components apply to all or part of the plan area (including 

management areas or geographic areas). 

The amendment process as described at 36 CFR 219.13(b) is: 

(1) Base an amendment on a preliminary identification of the need to change the plan. 

The preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on a new 

assessment; a monitoring report; or other documentation of new information, changed 

conditions, or changed circumstances. When a plan amendment is made together with,

and only applies to, a project or activity decision, the analysis prepared for the project or 

activity may serve as the documentation for the preliminary identification of the need to 

change the plan; 

(2) Provide opportunities for public participation as required in §219.4 and public 

notification as required in §219.16. The responsible official may combine processes and 

associated public notifications where appropriate, considering the scope and scale of the 

need to change the plan; and 

(3) Amend the plan consistent with Forest Service NEPA procedures. The appropriate 

NEPA documentation for an amendment may be an EIS, EA, or CE, depending upon the 

scope and scale of the amendment and its likely effects. A proposed amendment that may 

create a significant environmental effect and thus require preparation of an EIS is 

considered a significant change in the plan for the purposes of NFMA

Proposed Forest Plan Amendment

The Green Mountain project proposes to treat approximately 206 acres in the South Fork McKenzie SIA 

and approximately 59 acres in the Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA with thinning, gaps, and skips in 

Alternative 2 and 3. No programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area 

Standard and Guideline MA-5a-05: “No programmed harvest shall be scheduled.” 

Because no programmed timber harvest is currently allowed in SIAs per Management Area Standard and 

Guideline 5a-05, a one-time exception approved with a Forest Plan Amendment (#58) would be required. 

This one-time Forest Plan Amendment would allow the stands in the SIAs to be treated.

Need and Rationale for Amendment

As stated above in Section 3.14.2, stands proposed for harvest in the SIA are previously managed stands 

that have been harvested as recently as 1985. Little understory development and species diversity appears 

to be in the stands and they are characterized as dense, close-canopied, even-aged stands. These stands 

are in the stem exclusion stage. 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 211

to death of smaller trees and much or all of the understory vegetation. These previously managed stands 

have a Stand Density Index (SDI) averaging 347, over 58 percent of SDImax a metric indicating that 

these stands are competing with each other and point of competition induced mortality (for a further 

discussion of SDI, please refer to Section 3.1.2). 

If the stands in the SIAs are left untreated, these overstocked stands may have decreased tree growth, 

increased rates of mortality, higher risk for insect and disease attacks, and higher risk for stand replacing 

fires. Diameter growth would be low or would decline, and live crown ratios would get smaller. Trees 

within these stands would become less vigorous and more susceptible to insects and diseases. 

Competition-induced mortality would increase, thus increasing small diameter <15” snags and down 

wood. The down material would increase fuel loadings, fire risk and vulnerability of the stands to insect 

infestations. Low light levels in un-thinned stands would suppress development of shade-tolerant trees 

and limit understory vegetation. 

Implementation Guides for both SIAs include objectives and enhancement recommendations for 

managing second growth plantations to accelerate growth and more quickly attain attributes of older 

stands; implementing silvicultural treatments in stands where densities are high or showing a reduction of 

growth to improve tree and stand vigor; maintaining health and aesthetics while maintaining decadence of 

the forest through harvest of even-aged, previously managed stands; and accelerating late successional 

characteristics in young stands to enhance connectivity corridor between Late Successional Reserves. 

Treatments proposed in the SIAs would move stands towards achieving the objectives and enhancement 

recommendations listed above and described in further detail in the Implementation Guides. 

3.14.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the designated SIAs because it 

would not implement any timber harvest treatments in SIA. However, effects would occur to the stands in 

the SIAs proposed for treatment. If the stands in the SIAs are left untreated, these overstocked stands 

may have decreased tree growth, increased rates of mortality, higher risk for insect and disease attacks,

and higher risk for stand replacing fires. Diameter growth would be low or would decline, and live crown 

ratios would get smaller. Trees within these stands would become less vigorous and more susceptible to 

insects and diseases. Competition-induced mortality would increase, thus increasing small diameter <15” 

snags and down wood. The down material would increase fuel loadings, fire risk and vulnerability of the 

stands to insect infestations. Low light levels in un-thinned stands would suppress development of shadetolerant trees and limit understory vegetation. 

Alternative 2 and 3

The treatments proposed by the Green Mountain project would be consistent with applicable forest plan 

standards and guidelines, as amended by this project, and will serve to meet enhancement program 

objectives as described in the South Fork McKenzie and Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake Implementation Guides. 

Below is a description of how treatments proposed by the Green Mountain project would serve to meet 

objectives and enhancement program objectives while protecting other important resources in the SIAs.

Vegetation

Activities such as harvest to encourage diameter and height growth, and snag and down wood

enhancement, are desirable to accelerate the remaining trees “blending in” with the surrounding stands.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Active management to help development of characteristics similar to the unmanaged stands can be 

accelerated (Bauhus et al. 2008). As noted in Section 3.1 thinning in young uniform stands can improve 

horizontal and vertical stand diversity. 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).

The Green Mountain Project would remove conifer trees 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. These species may however 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.

Heavier thinning would likely promote rapid growth of trees with characteristics normally associated with 

old trees in old-growth stands. Many old trees grow rapidly when they are young (30-100 years), 

producing large stems and crowns. Evidence 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 (Franklin et 

al 1981, Tappeiner et al. 1997). Old-growth stands typically have multiple canopy layers, and thinning

promotes a second cohort by allowing for natural regeneration to occur (Tappeiner et al. 1997).

Some old-growth forests appear to have developed from relatively even-aged cohorts that have undergone 

long-term suppression mortality, little understory regeneration of Douglas-fir, and episodic release of 

established tolerant conifers (Winter et al 2002a 200b). Therefore, stand management can follow multiple 

routes that emulate natural processes to move dense young stands towards structure similar to old-growth 

forest.

Untreated skips would be left. Untreated areas within treated stands would provide diversity within a 

larger stand. These areas would be allowed to have natural processes take place such as inter-tree 

competition, which would create snags and down woody material. However, there would be an edge 

effect that could take place along the edge of the skip. Skips would be dispersed between riparian and 

non-riparian areas. Depending on the location and positioning of the skip, the edge effect could allow for 

more light to reach the trees along the edge and forest floor. This extra light could lead to greater growth 

of some of the individual trees, forbs, and shrubs along the edge.

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.

Scenery and Recreation

Management Area 5a (Special Interest Areas) have an ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) allocation 

class of Roaded Natural and an associated Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Retention. An ROS class of 

Roaded Natural provides for a social setting where there is an opportunity to affiliate with others but with 

some chance for privacy in a mostly natural environment. Physical controls may be in place such as 

campgrounds, day use areas, trails and vehicle barriers to protect resources but must blend with the 

natural surroundings. A VQO of Retention requires a mostly naturally appearing setting with vegetation 

modification done to maintain desired visual characteristics. Travel corridors must retain a natural or near 

natural setting and activities must be conducted so that they are completely subordinate to the character of 

the landscape and are not evident to the casual forest visitor. Further, any management activities should 

repeat form, line, color and texture of elements found in the natural landscape.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 213

The South Fork McKenzie SIA Implementation Guide identifies desired conditions for recreation and 

scenery in the following ways: maintain the integrity of viewshed, avoid degradation of scenery; manage 

for old growth “cathedral” character (large diameter older growth forest with minimal understory), 

maintain recreational driving, free flowing traffic, and public safety (e.g. restrictions on industrial traffic 

on weekends); avoid loss of dispersed recreation opportunities; provide opportunities for dispersed 

recreation; maintain dispersed recreation experiences by rehabilitating, reconstructing, or relocating sites; 

avoid road proliferation and off-road vehicle use; and enhance opportunities for stream-related recreation.

In addition, the Implementation Guide has identified management objectives to meet desired future 

conditions. These objectives are to be met through maintenance, restoration, monitoring and evaluation 

and consist of the following:

• The SIA will provide safe, quality dispersed and developed recreation opportunities for use and 

enjoyment of forest visitors

• The SIA will provide a range of recreation opportunities

• As you travel through the SIA, you will feel as though you are traveling through a natural area. 

The South Fork corridor will move from a moderately to slightly altered visual condition, with 

management activities less apparent to the casual visitor.

• The SIA will provide opportunity for interpretive experiences and will be compatible with the 

West Cascades National Scenic Byway Plan, and the South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic 

Study River.

• The SIA environment will appear minimally affected by management activities

Scenery

Viewsheds were identified and analyzed to determine effects to scenery in the South Fork McKenzie and 

Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA’s. Viewsheds are characterized as those visible areas near important travel 

corridors where viewing scenery is an important component of the visitor experience. For the purposes of 

this analysis, the viewsheds identified for the South Fork McKenzie River SIA are the surface waters 

(area within the ordinary highwater mark) of the South Fork McKenzie River and its banks. For the 

Hidden Lake-Lulu Lake SIA these areas are the banks and surface waters of Hidden Lake, access trails 

and the parking area. Within these viewsheds, specific viewpoints that provide longer duration views of 

the landscape were analyzed. Specific viewpoints were identified such as bridges that cross the South 

Fork McKenzie River, trails and developed recreation sites. 

Viewing scenery from the surface waters and banks of the South Fork McKenzie River is constrained by 

thick forest and riparian vegetation. Additionally, steep banks and topography further restrict views into 

the surrounding landscape. Boating use is very low in segment 2 of the river and is restricted to small, 

non-motorized craft such as kayaks and small inflatables. This section of the river requires advanced river 

running skills and is often filled with downed trees, further reducing boating use. Because of these 

constraints, visitors viewing the landscape from within the ordinary highwater mark (from the river) are 

primarily anglers. Anglers typically wade into the river from access points (often dispersed sites or 

campgrounds) and wade a short distance upstream or downstream to access fishing spots. The proposed 

harvest treatments within the South Fork McKenzie River SIA would not be visible from the banks or 

from the river and are not expected to impact scenic views from these viewing locations.

Proposed harvest treatments would not be visible to forest visitors traveling on Forest Road 19 (West 

Cascades National Scenic Byway) due to the prevalence of thick, roadside forest which obscures views 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

into the surrounding landscape and general lack of viewing locations (pull-outs) on this narrow, winding 

section of road. The exception is a unit near the South Fork Bridge at Cougar Crossing Campground. This 

thinning unit will be visible from the bridge and from the campground but dense forest between Forest 

Road 420 and the river obscures the view of the lower section of the unit. Two units would be visible to 

hikers on Frissell Trail and Elk Creek Trail. These units have had design features (Chapter 2) established 

to ensure consistency with SIA standards and guidelines. 

Several units are adjacent to Forest Road 431 which runs roughly parallel to the South Fork McKenzie 

River on the southern side of the river. This road is currently not accessible due to a road closure but 

implementation of the Green Mountain Project would open this road to vehicle use. This road is not a 

primary travel route and units proposed for treatments along secondary forest roads have been addressed 

in the Scenic Quality chapter (Section 3.10) of this DEIS. Viewing scenery from the surface waters, 

banks and parking area at Hidden Lake is constrained by thick forest and riparian vegetation. Boating, 

fishing and sunbathing are popular activities on the lake and the lakes surface and banks are the primary 

viewpoints into the surrounding landscape. 

Please refer to Section 3.10 – Scenic Quality for additional information and analysis of scenery in the 

Green Mountain project area.

Recreation

A Roaded Natural management allocation applies to both SIA’s. This ROS class provides for a desired 

social setting where there are opportunities to affiliate with others but some chance for privacy. There will 

be some obvious physical controls in place to protect natural resources however these controls will be 

consistent with a mostly naturally appearing environment. Effects to Recreation have been analyzed in 

detail for the Green Mountain project which includes both SIA’s in the Recreation chapter of this DEIS 

(3.9 Recreation). Effects to recreation are the same for both SIA’s and there are no anticipated significant 

long term direct or indirect effects to recreation expected due to the implementation of the Green 

Mountain project.

Wildlife

Treatments associated with the Green Mountain project would provide a late-successional forest corridor 

around the South Fork McKenzie River by increasing horizontal and vertical diversity in the SIA. 

Planned habitat enhancement activities would provide for high quality habitat conditions. By 

implementing gaps, the project would provide numerous benefits for many species. Gaps provide habitat 

for shrubland birds not present in mature forest (Chandler et al. 2009) while generally providing more 

fruit and more resource abundance due to a lower canopy and increased fruiting (Blake and Hoppes. 

1986). Generally, gaps provide more resources to herbs, shrubs, and broad-leaved plants which provide 

the foundation for food webs that contribute to many different trophic levels in Pacific Northwest conifer 

forests (Hagar, 2007).

Fish

Harvest units were field reviewed by aquatic specialists. Conditions of the Riparian Reserve and stream 

channel were taken into consideration when developing no-cut buffers, thinning treatments, gap 

treatments, and areas to “skip” harvest (i.e. no cut areas). These prescriptions along with design features

found in Chapter 2 of this document would protect fish and their habitat in the SIAs. Refer to the

Hydrology section (Section 3.3) and the Aquatic Resources section (Section 3.4) for additional analysis 

on the potential effects of this project.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 215

Cumulative Effects

There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects proposed in the South Fork McKenzie and 

Hidden-Lulu Lake SIAs. No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions have effects that 

overlap in time and space with the actions proposed in the Special Interest Areas with the Green 

Mountain project. No previous Forest Plan amendments have been approved for programmed harvest in 

the South Fork McKenzie and Hidden-Lulu Lake SIAs.

3.15 Special Habitat Areas

3.15.1 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the units in the Cascade 

Special Habitat Area in the Green Mountain project area.

3.15.2 Affected Environment

Special Habitat Areas (SHAs) are land allocations designated in the 1990 Willamette National Forest Plan

due to their unique wildlife habitats and botanical sites. 

Cascade Special Habitat Area

The Cascade Special Habitat Area (SHA) is located within the Green Mountain project area. The 

Cascade SHA is approximately 1,225 and designated as Management Area 9d in the Forest Plan with 

goals to protect or enhance unique wildlife habitats and botanical sites which are components of healthy, 

biologically diverse ecosystems. The northern edge of the boundary aligns with the Three Sisters 

Wilderness boundary on Rebel Rock Ridge; the southern boundary follows Forest Road 19. The 

boundaries of the Cascade SHA are also within the Cascade high emphasis area for elk (designated in the 

Forest Plan Standard and Guideline FW-135 to FW-153). The overall management emphasis for both the 

SHA and the high emphasis area for elk are to maintain elk calving refuge, cover, and forage, as well as 

limit open road densities. This can be maintained by the current gated road closures on the arterial roads 

within the 9D (1900-455, 425 and 429 roads), as well as providing a mix of habitat types that maintain 

high quality forage conditions for elk, interspersed with suitable optimal cover which consists of latesuccessional forest conditions.

3.15.3 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No timber harvest activities would occur with Alternative 1. The currently dense forest plantations would 

continue to provide hiding cover for elk, when disturbed or hunted, and some low quality forage. Over 

the next century or more, these plantations would grow towards older forested habitat conditions while 

continuing to provide hiding cover and some low quality forage for elk. As the stands naturally self-thin 

or natural disturbances such as fire creates gaps in the canopy, the emergence of forbs, shrubs, and grasses 

would provide a slight increase in quality and availability of forage for elk. Without active management 

or a large natural fire event, these forest stands would not be able to provide the young to mid-seral forest 

stage habitats that elk rely upon for quality forage that is critical for maintaining and growing healthy and 

robust elk populations. Recent research by the Starkey Ungulate Team at the PNW Starkey Experimental 

Forest has shown that nutrition drives everything from reproduction, productivity, recruitment, annual 

survival, and antler size and form (Cook et al. 2004). Thus, Alternative 1, no action, would not meet 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

management objectives for the 9D SHA, nor would it be consistent with goals outlined for the Cascade 

high emphasis elk area.

Alternative 2 and 3

Standard and Guideline MA-9d-08 and 09 prohibit scheduling programmed harvest; however, “vegetative

treatments, including commercial harvests, should be permitted if necessary to meet established wildlife 

objectives.” Treatments proposed with Alternative 2 and 3 would meet the established wildlife objectives 

for the Cascade SHA through management activities which would provide canopy openings sufficient in 

size to increase the quality and quantity of elk forage produced, while maintaining elk calving refuge and 

cover through retained areas, or skips. The proposed treatments would also provide for development of 

late-successional forest conditions in these stands, in a timelier manner than compared to no management. 

The road densities would be maintained under the action alternative as stated above.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have direct and indirect benefits on elk and their habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would harvest the same forest stands and number of acres, thus the effects would be the same. Both 

alternatives would treat five units in approximately 35-40 year old plantations, with a heavy thin harvest 

prescription, totaling approximately 74 acres within the Cascade SHA. This harvest would include gaps, 

which would provide more light to the forest floor than thinning alone, and thus improve conditions for 

growing high quality elk forage. The resulting early seral habitat conditions would also provide essential 

habitat features and plants needed by other early-mid-seral dependent (wildlife) species.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

The Cascade Thin project harvested about 55 acres with a heavy thinning treatment and 10 acres of gaps, 

within the Cascade Special Habitat Area in 2013. This led to a slight improvement in forage habitat 

conditions within the SHA. No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions have effects 

that overlap in time and space with the actions proposed in the Cascade SHA with the Green Mountain 

project. 

3.16 Fire and Fuels

3.16.1 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.

3.16.2 Affected Environment

Fire on the Landscape

Fire has been a dominant disturbance in the project area. Records indicate 316 fires occurred in the Green 

Mountain project area from 1970-2013. Due to fire suppression most fires were suppressed at less than 

five acres within a few days of ignition. Multiple researchers collected past fire data in and near the 

project area and categorized the fire regime as both mixed and high severity (Tepley et.al. 2013; Means, J. 

E. et.al. 1996).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 217

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. Fire regimes are 

described below. Figure 39 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

Figure 39. Fire Regimes in the Green Mountain Project Area

Mixed severity fires are not stand-replacing but rather create a patchy mosaic of different mortality (forest 

structure and diversity) across the landscape (Tepley et.al. 2013; Swanson 2008; Kertis et al. 2007; 

Weisberg 1998). From an aerial viewpoint the project area would look like a mosaic of different sized 

patches, from one to hundreds of acres, which have burned within the past 150 years. Some of the 

locations may just burn in the understory and not affect the canopy, or they may burn in the understory 

while individual or groups of trees torch. Mixed severity is characterized by varying degrees of fire 

intensity (heat) given the topography, vegetation, and the ability of trees to withstand the intensity (e.g. 

thick bark) thus creating different levels of mortality (severity) and wildfire size. With the removal of fire 

as a natural disturbance process the natural changes to the forest has been affected. Within the project 

area, Tepley et. al. (2013) conveys that non-stand replacing fires (i.e. fires that kill 70 percent of the 

overstory [Agee 1998]) have been eliminated, which affects the changes in cohorts over time. For 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

example, within the project area, sugar pine which is shade intolerant has not been able to regenerate due 

to lack of open spaces which mixed severity fires create. 

In addition to the frequency and severity, the departure from historic fire disturbance is categorized into 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) (NWCG Glossary). With 100+ years of suppression and forestry 

land management the key elements of mixed severity regimes are being lost, such as species 

composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings (Barrett et al. 2010 and Kertis 

et al. 2007; NWCG Glossary).

The Green Mountain project area is mostly categorized as a FRCC2, moderately altered from the 

historical range of variability for fire interval. There is a continued increased hazard of higher severity 

fire due to the continuity of horizontal and vertical fuels across the area; continuous canopy closure and 

increased fuel buildup due to fire suppression and human management create more of a potential for 

unnatural, severe wildfire. With the suppression of the last 300+ wildfires, processes in the forest systems 

are changing and hazards and risks increase with future wildfires.

Fuel Models

Dead needles, sticks and branches are the fuels that most often carry the fire and are measured by size as 

it relates to the amount of time for the fuel to dry: 1 hour fuels – 0-.25 inch diameter; 10 hour fuels - .25-1 

inches; 100 hour fuels – 1-3 inches (NWCG Glossary). Larger fuels, greater than 3 inches, contribute to 

residence time and play a role in fire behavior but they are not often used to model fire behavior. One, 10 

and 100 hour fuels are those estimated and used in fire behavior modeling and predictions. Most often 

the dead fuels available during a wildfire or prescribed fire are 1, 10, and 100 hour fuels (0-3 inch 

diameter) and lichen. One hour fuels fluctuate quickly during the course of a day and when 10 and 100 

hour fuels lose moisture fire can move more quickly. Surface fuel loading (the amount of fuels on the 

ground) and depth correlate to the fire behavior (Brown and Snell 1980). Fuel loading (measured in 

tons/acre) is used to model fire behavior within the units and varies with different aged stands. Horizontal 

or surface fuels refer to fuels on the ground, while vertical fuels refer to the ladder fuels such as limbs on 

the bole of larger trees, brush and younger trees within the stand. 

Fuel models are used to quantitatively describe surface fuel loading to calculate predicted fire behavior 

(Anderson 1982; Maxwell et.al. 1980). Fuel models are a quantitative way to describe surface fuel 

loading, arrangement, structure, and calculate predicted fire behavior (Maxwell and Franklin 1980). Fuels 

created post-harvest can be heavy or light given the number of trees cut, the method of harvest, the branch 

density of the crowns of trees and the amount of branch and top breakage. The fuel models (FM) 

identified for the project area are: 

• FM8 – young stands (20-80 years old) with light fuel loading of approximately 5 tons/acre of 

0-3 inch fuels and varying amounts of brush in the understory; low intensity fires with low 

severity (low mortality of dominant overstory vegetation). 

• FM10 – intermediate to older stands (>80 years old) with moderate to heavy fuels on the 

ground, ladder fuels and lichen in the trees; high fire intensity and severity including crown 

fire with mortality.

• FM11 – Light slash load resulting from light to moderate partial cuts or harvests which yard 

tops of trees attached to the last log. Fuel loading in the 0-3” diameter for live and dead fuel 

is <12 tons/acre. The continuity of the slash can increase fire behavior. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 219

Fire Behavior

Wildfires continue to occur naturally in this area. The Green Mountain project area averages 7.7 wildfires 

per year. Fire is a dynamic process influenced by fuel loading and multiple environmental factors such as 

wind, topography, temperature, and humidity and can burn under one or many of these elements. 

Modeling fire behavior helps to identify fires movement and impacts within the vegetation. Fuel models 

are used as inputs to the fire behavior models, as well as for firefighter’s reference when engaged in a 

wild or prescribed fire. 

Fire behavior was modeled using BehavePlus5 (NWCG Glossary) with fuels and topography inputs that 

correspond to the Green Mountain project area. Fire weather data used in the model represents actual 

summer conditions of hot and dry similar to 2010 and 2011. Weather conditions represent events when a 

wildfires rate of spread can escape initial attack and potentially threaten firefighters, the public, or 

resources. Firefighter safety is at risk when flame lengths (FL) exceeds the length of hand tools used by 

firefighters (>4 foot FL) and the rates of spread (ROS) exceeds the ability of firefighters to build 

handlines. Fire suppression operations would require mechanized suppression resources to safely 

suppress the fire when the FL or ROS exceed the firefighter’s ability to remain safe. Larger fuels, > 9” 

diameter, are not often thought of as the carrier of fire. Large 1000 hour fuel create longer lasting 

intensity, higher flame lengths and enable crown and high severity fires to progress. Crown fire creates 

spotting as the heat from the fire or the wind lofts embers into the air and ahead of the main fire. This 

increases ROS and severity/intensity as the main fire burns in to the new spots ahead (NWCG). 

Table 63. Modeled Wildfire behavior for Green Mountain Unitsa

Rate of Spread 

(chains/hour)

Flame Length 

(feet)

Percent

Mortality

Existing conditions inside and outside of units (FM10) 9 ch/hr 8 feet 45 percent

Post-harvest, NO fuels treatment (FM11)b 15 ch/hr 8 feet 50-90 percent

Post-fuels treatment (FM8) 3 ch/hr 1 feet 1 percent 

a – Prescription parameters used were hot, dry conditions similar to those at the peak of fire season. (80°, 10 mph 20 ft. wind, 

1,10,100 hour fuels 4,6,8% fuel moisture).

b – Fuel loading post-harvest can range depending on the method of harvest and would be surveyed or measured prior to fuels 

treatment.

Another element or fuel that affects wildfire behavior within the project area is lichen. Lichen grows on 

the boles of trees, and drapes throughout the branches. This fuel dries faster than 1 hour fuels, burns 

quickly, and carries fire into or through the crowns. When a small fire burns around a tree, lichen can 

easily carry fire up the bole of the tree into the canopy. Within the canopies fire can move easily from 

canopy to canopy even during fair weather, i.e. early in the summer season or cooler temperatures as seen 

on the McKenzie River Ranger District. Because lichen dries quickly and carries fire easily, lichen can 

foster tree crowns to burn even at the beginning of fire season when the live fuels are high (moisture level 

of green needles on conifers or brush). Live fuel moistures of herbs, shrubs, and trees decrease through 

the summer making them more burnable but with lichen the live fuel moisture do not play as big of a role. 

There are no fuel models representing lichen as a fuel and crown fire can be underestimated but local 

knowledge offers experience and adjustments to predictions.

Probability of ignition also plays a role when trees are torching or crown fire occurs due to the embers 

lofted into the air and igniting locations outside of the main fire perimeter. Probability of ignition helps to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

identify when spotting could become a problem and increase the ROS or add additional hazards during 

fire management especially if embers land in areas with more available fuel and closed canopy.

With suppression and forest management, wildfires have not played their natural disturbance role on the 

landscape. The departure from historic conditions affect the current wildfire behavior, fuels and the way 

forests move through seral stages, stand structure, spatial arrangements, species composition and 

successional roles. Using prescribed fire for slash reduction can offer changes to aim towards diversity 

and adding the ecological benefits (Means et.al. 1996).

The data and fuels modeling outputs used for this section can be found in the Green Mountain project 

record.

3.16.3 Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No post-harvest fuels treatments would occur with Alternative 1. Fire suppression would continue and 

vegetation would persist through successional pathways with no natural disturbance. Without changes to 

the structure of vegetation, through thinning and prescribed fire, the project area would continue to lose 

attributes associated with mixed severity fire regimes, such as structural stage, canopy closure and 

particular species like sugar pine. Without fire disturbance or changes to stand structure, wildfires would 

potentially burn more acres due to increases in fuel loading, homogenous stand conditions and ladder 

fuels if suppression is unsuccessful.

Alternative 2

Harvests created slash on 3,327 acres would increase the fuel loading, especially in the 1, 10 and 100 hour 

fuels. Following timber harvest the heavy fuel loading can persist about five years with red needles 

persisting over the first one to two years. Slash is lofty which allows air to funnel through creating a

productive burning environment, especially with red needles. The increase in fuels increases the potential 

for greater or more intense wildfire behavior. During a wildfire the rate of spread (ROS measured in 

chains per hour which is 66 feet) in slash can be greater than untreated existing conditions. 

The proposed fuels treatments in Alternative 2 would reduce harvest created slash through prescribed fire 

underburns, or hand or machine piling and burning. Harvest created slash would be treated 1-2 years 

post-harvest. The fuels treatments within each unit would help to improve firefighter and public safety 

during future wildfires, prepare units for planting, to create snags, help to increase vegetation diversity to 

the project area and offer a secondary benefit of returning the natural disturbance process of fire. 

Underburns would return the disturbance that creates changes to the soil, nutrients, vegetation species and 

regeneration (Swanson 2008) as well as simulate non-stand replacing wildfires (mixed severity) (Tepley 

2013, Barrett et al. 2010).

Post-harvest fuel loading was calculated for all units based on the stand exam data. The values are for 1, 

10, and 100 hour fuels (0-3 inch diameter fuels) measured in tons/acre and categorized by stand age 

classes. The average post-harvest fuel loading (without fuel treatments) is 16 tons/acre. Post-fuels 

treatment fuel loading would meet Design Features (<11 tons/acre). Modeling data was specific to each 

unit and can be referenced in the Fire/Fuels analysis file. Depending on the amount of trees removed, 

breakage during harvest and crushing of smaller trees and shrubs the fuel loading in the Green Mountain 

units range from 6.6 to 40 tons/acre. Prior to burning post-harvest fuels are surveyed to identify the 

specific amount of fuel. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 221

Fire behavior was modeled for existing fuel models and post-harvest with-and-without fuels treatments 

(Table 63). Weather parameters used for modeling were hot, dry conditions similar to those during the 

fire season with temperature of 80°F, 10 mph 20 ft. wind and 1, 10, 100 hour fuels at 4, 6, 8% fuel 

moisture, respectively.

In the event of a wildfire, fire behavior would be minimized with harvest (reducing canopy continuity) 

and fuels treatments (reducing fuel bed) by keeping fire more on the ground and not in the canopy thus 

improving suppression efforts. A more open canopy can allow the sun to quickly heat the vegetation and 

fuels on the ground, and with fewer trees the potential for wind within the stand can increase. Even 

though these modifications could result in faster rates of spread during a wildfire they would be lower

intensity (heat), duration and lower flame lengths compared to harvested stands with no fuels treatments. 

The harvest and fuels treatments also reduce ladder fuels (vertical and horizontal fuels) which would 

reduce the potential for tree torching or crown fire (Safford 2009; Lindh 2003; Agee 2002) reducing 

spotting in and out of the unit.

Wildfire and prescribed fire are dynamic processes influenced by multiple environmental factors such as 

wind, topography, temperature, and humidity. Due to these influential factors, which create and alter fire 

behavior, a chance exists to exceed underburn objective parameters. To reduce these factors, underburns 

would be conducted during optimal weather and fuels conditions, most likely in the spring or fall. The 

weather and fuels conditions would be specific to the unit’s location and fuel loading. Tempered speeds of 

ignition would also be identified to reduce mortality of residual canopy. In the event the fire behavior 

exceeds treatment objectives or burning operations, changes are evaluated immediately and adjustments 

are made to alter fire behavior. Containing fire in the units is important given firefighter and public 

safety, private property, project objectives and surrounding natural resources.

Post-harvest underburns may require firelines constructed around the perimeter. These are created prior 

to the burn and aid in containing the prescribed fire within the unit boundaries. Firelines are created 

around the unit by scraping fuel back to mineral soil (18” line) and scattering fuels that lie within 10 feet 

of the fireline. If needed, units on steep slopes can have waterbars within the fireline to reduce erosion. 

Also, firelines are rehabilitated to existing conditions if needed. 

Firelines are usually not built along skips or Riparian Reserves (shaded areas). During the post-harvest 

underburn these areas burn with less intensity due to lower temperatures and higher relative humidity 

from the thicker canopy cover. Fire often backs into the shade and behavior decreases to a smolder or 

extinguishes itself. 

Hand, grapple, and landing piles are covered with regulatory plastic following construction (Oregon 

Department of Forestry 1995). This creates a drier pocket of fuel in the middle of the pile and enables 

them to be burned in the late fall, winter or early spring when there is very low risk of fire spreading from 

the piles. Removing the plastic before burning is suggested in order to aid in reducing emissions from the 

plastic.

After treatments the fuel profile would aid in protecting private property near the northwest portion of the 

project area. Fuels treatments next to private property would aid in changing fire behavior moving from 

the project area to private and vice versa. Again, hazards to firefighters and public, property/structures, 

and resources would be decreased and suppression tactics and safety would improve. The proposed 

actions (harvests with fuels treatments) would make steps towards ecosystem diversity by returning the 

changes fire provides to the forest. 

Monitoring for McKenzie River fire and fuels would take place prior to, during and following the fuels 

treatments. Fuels treatments and data offer information to use in future projects.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have the same effects as Alternative 2 but on fewer acres because 136 fewer acres 

would be harvested. Fire as an ecological disturbance process in the project area would most likely not 

occur in these stands given fire suppression. These stands will continue through successional pathways 

without changes to structural diversity or natural ecological process that would be present with thinning

and prescribed fire. All fuels treatments described in Alternative 2 would apply to Alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the Green Mountain project alternatives were analyzed in the South Fork McKenzie 

5th field watershed. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable fuels treatments alter wildfire activity and 

fuel continuity across the landscape. The Wildfire Risk Reduction Fuels Thinning project is a reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the next five years affecting fuels treatments within the watershed. The 

project aims to reduce the abundance of ladder fuels within road corridors and adjacent to the Three 

Sisters Wilderness to improve wildfire containment or suppression in the event of a wildfire. 

Additionally, post-harvest pile burning associated with the Hartz EA would not affect fuels treatment in 

the Green Mountain Project. 

Alternative 1

Because this is no action, there would be no additional impact on the environment from this project when 

added to the impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR §1508.7). 

Fire suppression would continue thereby affecting the changes to the ecosystem with the continued 

removal of the natural disturbance.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3

No adverse effects on the fuel profile or on fire behavior would result from the proposed fuel treatments. 

The proposed actions in Alternative 2 and 3 would change the vegetation structure diversity and return a 

fire disturbance to the units through prescribed fire. The Hartz units that have been thinned with fuels 

treatments also add to changes in vegetation structure. The proposed Wildfire Risk Reduction Fuels 

Thinning project would aid in wildfire suppression efforts along roadsides with the fuels reduction. 

Given continued fire suppression, all of these projects help to change the vegetation that may have

occurred within the natural fire regimes of stand and non-stand replacing fires.

Continued fire suppression and timber management have different effects (on wildlife, habitat, aquatics,

soils and vegetation species) than having fire play its natural role. Many documents and researchers 

speak about the importance of fire in the forest ecosystem. As stated by Teensma (1996), “restoration and 

maintenance of fire as an ecosystem process is critical to retention of biological diversity and ecosystem 

sustainability.” Stand replacing and mixed fire severity regimes across the landscape is a component to 

maintain varying historic pathways (Tepley et al. 2013). Even if wildfire is not the sole disturbance, the 

thinning and prescribed fire would help to diversify the fuel profile across the landscape and return fires 

ecological process within the stands. The Green Mountain Project would help fire play a role in aiding the 

ecosystem processes when being applied to reduce post-harvest fuels.

3.17 Air Quality

3.17.1 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 locations of the 

Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas, Class I Airsheds, and local communities. To compare prescribed and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 223

wildfire smoke emissions the amount of fuel burned was from a fuels treatment underburn post-harvest 

and a non-fuels treated post-harvest unit in a wildfire. The model runs used a Douglas-fir vegetation 

model with slash fuel loading approximately 16 tons/acre. 

3.17.2 Affected Environment

Standards for ambient air quality are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are designed 

to protect human health and welfare. Air quality can be impacted by the presence of particulate matter 

(and other pollutants) produced by both prescribed burning and wildfire, although smoke from wildfire is 

considered a natural event by the EPA’s Natural Events Policy. Smoke generated from prescribed burning 

must meet federal and state air quality standards set forth in the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA section 160).

The State of Oregon has been delegated authority for attainment standards set by the 1990 and 1977 

Amendments of the Clean Air Act. To regulate these standards, Oregon developed the Oregon Clean Air 

Act State Implementation Plan (Oregon Department of Forestry 1995). These are guidelines and 

regulations for prescribed fire smoke emissions in Oregon. The Willamette National Forest has adopted 

this plan for emission controls (USDA Forest Service 1990).

Under the Oregon regulations for prescribed fire smoke emissions, visibility and particulate matter (PM) 

(PM2.5 and PM10 microns) are measured and regulated in designated areas including Smoke Sensitive 

Receptor Areas and Class I Airsheds. Priority areas near the Green Mountain Project:

• Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA) 

o Oakridge – 19 air miles southwest 

o Willamette Valley, eastern edge is Deerhorn – 25 air miles west 

o Bend – 40 air miles east 

• Class I Airsheds 

o Three Sisters Wilderness – Eastern boundary of project area

o Mt. Washington Wilderness – 13 miles northeast 

• McKenzie River communities (non-designated state areas)

o McKenzie Bridge – Four miles northeast 

o Blue River – Three miles northwest 

3.17.3 Environmental Consequences

Air quality is important and a concern for people and airsheds. During prescribed fire, smoke emissions 

are short term (1-2 days) and smoke should move through areas of concern during the day. Blue River

and other communities along the McKenzie River may receive smoke during the evening hours following 

the prescribed fires as diurnal wind patterns can carry smoke downhill or down the valley. Class 1 

Airshed guidelines would be met and coordinated with the Smoke Management Forecaster.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

If no management actions take place in the Green Mountain project area there would be no air quality 

impacts from fuels treatments. However, the risk of wildfire would still exist. Air quality impacts from 

wildfire are considerably higher than they are from prescribed fire. Greater consumption (burning) of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

debris on the ground and the canopy of trees occurs due to the hot weather and dry fuel. Smoke 

emissions are not short term and can often last for many weeks or months. The fire continues to spread 

and smolder in logs and heavy fuel continuing emissions, as demonstrated during Scott Mountain Fire in 

2010 and Shadow Lake Fire in 2011. Smoke emissions from wildfire are more likely to heavily impact 

communities and contribute to harmful, concentrated levels of PM2.5 and PM10 given the amount of fuel 

and time the fire burns. 

Alternative 2 and 3

Smoke emissions from post-harvest underburns and landing, grapple, or hand pile burning would be 

mitigated based on the timing of the burns, seasonality, forecasted winds and transport wind direction, and 

weather. The Oregon Smoke Management Plan requires scheduling prescribed fire on days which are 

suitable in relation to other Forest Service or private land owners burning, weather forecasts that carry the 

smoke and location of units to Class I Airsheds and communities. The importance of visibility in Class I 

Airsheds, such as Three Sisters Wilderness on the east side of the project area, is recognized and burn 

prescriptions and timing will be designed to minimize potential for smoke intrusion in these areas. 

Communities near the Green Mountain project area may be temporarily impacted by smoke from the 

post-harvest underburns or pile burning. The Oregon Smoke Management Plan states non-harmful 

concentrations of drift smoke are considered nuisance smoke (Oregon Department of Forestry 1995). 

However, smoke can settle into the valley during evening inversions and may be of greater amounts than 

drift smoke which may impact community members who are sensitive to smoke. The time span that 

smoke is emitted is short (approximately 1 – 2 days) and the impact on community members would be 

monitored. 

The local communities and public would be notified prior to burning. Additional guidance would be 

calling local community members, posting signs in the community areas, such as grocery stores, and 

signing along the road or near the treatment area. Prescribed fire notifications and implementation would 

also be designed to minimize the potential for impact to visitors in these areas within or bordering the 

project boundary:

• Delta Campground – Three miles north of Cougar Dam

• Terwilliger Hot Springs – along Road 19, three miles south of Cougar Dam

• Cougar Crossing Campground – 4.8 miles south of Cougar Dam

• Box Canyon Campground – 17 miles south of Cougar Dam at the southern boundary of the 

project area

Based on post-burn data and recon from previous fuels treatment underburns on the McKenzie River 

Ranger District the average fuels consumed are: 80 percent of the fine fuels 0-1 inch diameter (1 and 10 

hour fuels), 40-60 percent of the 1-3 inch fuels (100 hour fuels) and only about 20 percent of the 3-9 inch 

fuels (1000 hour fuels). The fuel moisture of large woody material (> 9 inches) is too high to burn and 

only the bark is charred. It is important to note all fuels treatments do not occur as a single event 

therefore the smoke emissions from all the harvested units do not occur at the same time. Prescribed fire 

treatments would be one or two underburns or one or two piled units burned in one day and underburning 

and pile burning usually occur during different seasons. In comparison, during hot, dry weather wildfire 

emission would occur over several days or months if it escaped initial attack. 

Smoke emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 was modeled and compared between a fuels treatment underburn 

post-harvest and a non-fuels treated post-harvest wildfire. Results identified wildfire emitting 

approximately two times more PM during one burn period. The fuels burned during a wildfire are greater 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 225

as it consumes large woody material and full tree crowns versus prescribed fire burning when less fuel is 

consumed due to weather conditions and higher fuel moisture. Additionally, wildfires continue to burn 

with the dry conditions and the majority of the litter and duff are consumed through smoldering which 

contributes greater amounts of emissions. The comparison for both fires used Douglas-fir forest 

vegetation classification with slash under weather conditions that characterize the parameters to burn for 

prescribed (moist) and wildfire (dry). Wildfires are modeled with no suppression, burning for only one 

burn day using hot, dry conditions. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3 

Impacts on air quality from smoke emissions would not exceed state mandated policy. Prescribed fire 

smoke emissions would be short duration (1-2 days). Prescribed fire burn prescription parameters would 

reduce the amount of slash burned and the quantity of emissions during the prescribed burns. Because 

smoke is of short duration and dissipates over the course of one or two days past management activities 

would not cumulatively add to air quality impacts from the proposed treatments. 

The Three Sisters Wilderness Wildfire Risk Reduction Fuels Treatment project is proposed within the 

Green Mountain project area over the next 5 years. The fuels treatments would be cutting, piling and 

burning trees less than 10 inches diameter breast height 150 feet off of Roads 1900, 1900500, 1964, 1958 

and 1958310. Other similar fuels treatments outside of the project area (Bridge EA, Goose EIS, Horse 

Creek EA and 13 Thin CE) may also contribute to smoke emissions if treatments occur within a day or 

two of Green Mountain fuel treatments. Approval to burn one or multiple units (underburns or piles) 

would need to be approved by Oregon Smoke Management. 

If two units are being burned in or outside of the project area in one day or multiple burns (private land or 

Forest Service) smoke management forecasters coordinate with other land agencies or owners so air 

quality can be monitored and treatments delayed in order to maintain acceptable air quality. This 

coordination would ensure this project meets guidelines and regulations through Oregon DEQ. No other 

foreseeable management activities would affect air quality or scheduled to occur in the Green Mountain 

project area or surrounding areas that could affect communities or wilderness. 

Past management activities do not cumulatively add to air quality impacts from the proposed treatments.

3.18 Climate Change

Alternative 2 would treat approximately 4,398 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 and post-harvest underburn.

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. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 Green Mountain 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). 

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). Alternative 2 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. Alternative 2 falls into this category.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 227

3.19 Economics

3.19.1 Scale of Analysis

The scale used to evaluate Economics associated with the Green Mountain 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.

3.19.2 Affected Environment

The Green Mountain project area is situated along National Forest Road 1900, Aufderheide Drive, south 

of Highway 126 between the communities of McKenzie Bridge and Blue River, Oregon. Highway 126, a 

major travel route for commercial and recreation traffic passing through this community, follows along 

the McKenzie River.

The economy of the local communities from the Springfield urban-growth boundary to McKenzie Bridge 

depends on a mixture of tourism, recreation, timber industry, and Forest Service jobs for stability. Local 

businesses that rely on tourism and recreation include: multiple inns and lodges, restaurants, stores, and 

gas stations, along with outfitters and guides. Forest industry jobs include the obvious logging and mill 

jobs, but also includes other natural resource specialist like wildlife biologist, botanist, hydrologist, 

archaeologist, and fisheries biologist. Tourism and recreational activities connected with National Forest 

lands have been on the increase in recent years for the upper McKenzie River area. Employment 

connected with tourism and recreation-related services has also increased.

The current level of timber harvesting on the Willamette National Forest has dropped substantially from 

the levels of the mid-1980s. This decrease has contributed to a decline in the number of local jobs 

associated with the wood products industry 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), and 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). 

3.19.3 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct economic effects of the alternatives are displayed in Table 64. 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

under this alternative. If the Green Mountain 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

Alternatives 2 and 3 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 Green Mountain project record at the McKenzie 

River Ranger District office. Based on the expected return to the Federal government plus the value of 

restoration activities potentially funded by stumpage shown in Table 64, Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

provide a beneficial benefit/cost ratio. 

In general, the primary effect on timber harvest-related employment would occur from commercial timber 

harvest associated with the action alternatives from an estimated selling year of 2018 through a final 

harvest year of 2025. As Table 64 indicates, both action alternatives would provide some opportunity for 

timber harvest-related employment, and higher revenues. Alternative 2 would provide a higher net value 

than Alternative 3. Table 64 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 Alternatives from the Green Mountain 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 approximately twice the revenue generated with Alternative 3.

Table 64. Estimated Economic Alternatives 1, 2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Net Timber volume 

produced (MMBF) 0 ~ 66 ~ 51 

Discounted Cost $0 $30,600,097 $25,071,242

Discounted 

Revenues $0 $36,074,207 $27,634,694

Net Present Value 

(NPV) --- $5,474,110 $2,563,452

NPV per acre --- $1,663 $867

Benefit/Cost Ratio --- 1.18 1.10

1 - Revenue based on the 2015 4st quarter Oregon Department of Forestry pond values that have been discounted at 4 percent from 

2015 until implementation.

2 - All values are for comparative purposes only. Actual values will be dependent on market values during time of sale and cost of 

associated activities at that time.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3 

Neither action alternative will have any economic cumulative effects, because there is no overlap in space 

and time with effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 229

3.20 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.

3.21 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.

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.).

3.22 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 (Section 2.6) were developed to 

reduce the environmental effects of the proposed activities and ensure project activities are implemented 

to comply with standards and guidelines, goals, objectives, conservation strategies and Best Management 

Practices.

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 231

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

232 - Green Mountain Project Draft 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 

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, and 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. 

Ramon Rivera –Fisheries Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District,

Contribution: Fisheries Analysis

Education / Experience: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (1990) with a double major: Fisheries 

Science and Wildlife Science and a minor in Biology. Diploma from New Mexico State University. 

Served 10 years on the Siskiyou National Forest as a District Fish Biologist and 17 years on the 

Willamette as a District Fish Biologist.

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. 
Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, Organizations, and Individuals Give Notice of Availability

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 233

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). A complete list of recipients, including names and 

contact information, is available in the Green Mountain 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

Oregon Hunters Association

Oregon Nordic Club, Willamette Chapter
Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, Organizations, and Individuals Give Notice of Availability

234 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 1,400 people, including interested parties, stakeholders, landowners, and individuals that provided 

comments during project scoping have been notified of the Notice of Availability and the DEIS 45-day 

comment period. A complete list of recipients, including names and contact information, is available in 

the Green Mountain project file at the McKenzie River Ranger District.
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 235

Appendix A – 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 Green Mountain DEIS 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.

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 Green Mountain project 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 DEIS 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

♦ Executive Order 13007 – Sacred Sites
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders

236 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 2011 and 2012. All known 

cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (project area) were protected by avoidance, resulting in a 

determination of “Historic Properties Avoided” on June 27, 2013. SHPO concurred with the Forest 

Service finding on January 27, 2015. Documentation has 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 Section 3.16 and 3.17).

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 DEIS, TMDL 

requirements for the McKenzie Basin would be met in each alternative (See Chapter 3.3).

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 actions 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) 

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

and Columbia River bull trout is currently in progress. The Biological Evaluation prepared for the Green 

Mountain project found that the project “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” Upper Willamette 

spring Chinook salmon and bull trout. This analysis also found that there would not be any adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat for either species. On October 14, 2014, the Green Mountain 

project was presented to the USFWS and NMFS and they concurred with the effects determination of 

“may affect, is likely to adversely effect.” A Biological Assessment is currently being prepared to enter 

into formal consultation with USFWS and NMFS. Consultation will be completed prior to publication of 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Green Mountain 

project. The Forest Service will be required to comply with the terms and conditions provided by the 

USFWS and NMFS in the Biological Opinion.

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

completed in 2012 and evaluated by the USFWS in the FY2013 Biological Opinion (FWS reference 

1EOFW00-2012-F-0158) signed October 29, 2012. Conferencing was conducted on Proposed Revised 

Critical Habitat and effects to northern spotted owls (USDA Forest Service 2012). After the final revised 

Critical Habitat was determined, USFWS conferred that the Conference Opinion was the Biological 

Opinion for the purposes of consultation on revised Critical Habitat for the Green Mountain Project (FWS 

reference: 01EOFW00-2013-TA-0034), signed January 3, 2013. 
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 237

Green Mountain Project May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect the 

Northern Spotted Owl due to Habitat Modification 

from Shelterwood Harvest with Reserves and 

Thinning in Suitable Owl Habitat. Incidental 

Take to 2 potential owl sites. 

Green Mountain Project Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence 

of the Spotted Owl

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 with 52 

acres of gaps

May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect 

Critical Habitat

Effects due to Disruption May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect. 

Disruption due to Helicopter Logging to 3 Owl 

Sites (2 are Likely to Adversely Affect, 1 is Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect due to increased 

distance to Owl Site)

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 1976 (MSA) – Essential fish habitat 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is designated in all areas except 

above impassible dams (Cougar Dam in the South Fork McKenzie River; and Blue River Dam), and 

natural migration barriers. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

reauthorization in 1996 established a new requirement for essential fish habitat that requires Federal 

agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on activities that may adversely affect 

essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat for the Pacific coast salmon fishery means those waters and 

substrate necessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and 

salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. The species designated in the McKenzie River is spring 

Chinook salmon.

Technically the South Fork above Cougar Dam is not considered EFH but since reauthorization of the act 

the USACE has constructed an adult fish collection facility and is actively transporting Chinook salmon 

above the dam. Therefore, the South Fork upstream of Cougar Dam is considered EFH by the Forest 

Service. This project would not adversely affect EFH because of the no cut buffers established along fish 

bearing streams, project design measures, and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

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 – Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless areas are both 

located in the project area, however, no actions will occur in these areas. 

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland – No prime farmland, rangeland, or forestland occurs 

within the project area. 
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders

238 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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. Salmonid fish are good indicators because they are 

predators in the stream ecosystem. This means that they are not only affected by the physical conditions 

of their habitat but also by the metabolic energy pathways in the watershed from primary production to 

decomposition. The most common salmonid sport fish for which there is habitat on the McKenzie River 

Ranger District are spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, and coastal cutthroat trout. The 

Green Mountain Project would maintain habitat conditions for aquatic management indicator species in 

the project area. Therefore, the Green Mountain Project would not contribute to a negative trend in 

viability on the Willamette National Forest for these management indicator fish 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 Green Mountain project would maintain 

habitat conditions for elk, deer, pileated woodpeckers, marten, bald eagles and peregrine falcons in the 

project area. The Green Mountain project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for any of 

the terrestrial wildlife management indicator species. 

Sensitive Species (Aquatic) - The biological evaluation found that the Green Mountain Project may have 

beneficial impacts to listed caddisflies. This is due to an improvement in the type of organic matter they 

consume. That is, a small increase of deciduous leaves due to the small gaps that would be created near 

streams where we do not expect significant increases in stream temperatures.

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 

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

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 239

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 Green Mountain Design Features (Chapter 2) 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 (Chapter 2) 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.

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
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders

240 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

“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.

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 B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 241

Appendix B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for 

the Action Alternatives

Proposed treatments for the Green Mountain project area are thinning, gaps, skips, Dominant Tree 

Release (DTR), regeneration harvest, 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 

openings ranging between 1/4-3 acres (see Gaps, and DTR description below) would be placed in many 

of the stands to promote vertical and horizontal diversity (see Appendix C 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, which is a stand ultimately with more than one age class, 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 yarding tops attached during harvest, 

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 for several reasons 

including aesthetics, 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.
Appendix B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

242 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 

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 Green Mountain 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 Green Mountain 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).
Appendix B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 243

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 (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 to provide for horizontal and vertical diversity, or in stands that have been 

identified as potentially higher quality early seral habitat areas by our district wildlife biologist. A 

thinning prescription would be applied to the area outside the gaps. 

Gaps would not be a conventional clear-cut treatment. Although not always, to provide diversity, 1-4 

green trees in either scattered pockets and/or scattered would be retained throughout the opening postharvest. 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 a dominant tree or group of five to ten 

trees to promote larger trees scattered throughout the stands. 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 pine, 

and white pine would not be cut in the DTR. 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. 
Appendix B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

244 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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. 

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 include no harvest 

buffer around Riparian Reserves, sensitive botanical species, or are areas that are randomly selected to 

allow for natural succession to take place. 

Regeneration Harvest - Shelterwood with Reserves

Regeneration harvest is the cutting or removing of trees to provide growing space for a new stand of trees. 

In the Green Mountain Project, these new trees will provide a sustainable supply of trees for the future. 

Shelterwood with Reserves is a method of regeneration harvest where you remove most of the trees, 

however you retain (reserve) some trees to provide a more suitable microclimate for the regenerating new 

trees. The intent of reserved trees is that they will not be cut in the future but will be used for other 

benefits such as to provide diversity for wildlife, aesthetics, or to provide future large natural snags and 

down wood. 

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 
Appendix B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 245

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. 

Fuels Treatments Description

Post-harvest fuels treatments are intended to reduce fuels following harvest. 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 

yarding tops, hand piling, mechanical treatments and/or 

underburning. 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 Treatment and Mechanical Treatments: Hand treatment 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. Hand, grapple, and landing piles are 

covered with approved plastic following construction and burned at a later date after the slash has 

sufficiently dried (1-2 years post-harvest). 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 surrounding the piles.

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 burning within a few years post-harvest. This treatment aids in reducing the postharvest 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. Underburning would comply with 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines in regards to consumption of fuels and maintaining down-woody 

material, duff cover, and snags. Underburns would be conducted during optimal weather and fuels 

conditions, most likely in the spring or fall. The weather and fuels conditions would be specific to the 

Guidelines for 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 B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

246 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

unit’s location and fuel loading and tempered speeds of ignition to reduce mortality of residual canopy. 

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 and would also aid in wildlife snag enhancement. 

Mortality trees that occur adjacent to roads may be removed for safety reasons.

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.

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.

System Road Storage and Decommissioning: Roads would be closed with a physical barrier and nondrivable water bars installed as needed. Culverts would be removed from stream channels with fills of 

shallow to moderate depth. Fill depth would be reduced for culverts in deep fill locations, and side cast 

material would be pulled back. Roads identified for decommissioning may include any of the following

treatments described with road storage but may also include removal of culverts from stream channels in 

deep fills, slope recontouring, and sub-soiling. These roads are no longer needed and will be removed 

from the transportation system.

Seasonal Road Closure Removed: Seasonal road closures on Forest Service roads 1900-430 and 1900-

431.

Seasonal Road Closure Changed to Permanent Road Closure: Seasonal road closure along Forest 

Service road 1900-240 will be modified to a year-round closure on the uppermost three miles. The 

existing seasonal gate located at M.P. 0.00 will be removed and a new gate will be installed at M.P 6.30. 

Bridge Replacement: Replace the Hardy Creek Bridge on Forest Service road 1980-204 as the existing 

bridge is failing.

Rock Obtained from Expanding Existing Quarries: The development of rock quarries is needed for 

maintaining roads accessing the Green Mountain project area. It is estimated that less than 15,000 cubic 

yards of crushed rock, rip rap and borrow material would be needed. Blasting would be required during 

rock quarry development, resulting in noise impacts on wildlife to be considered in the analysis. Rock 
Appendix B – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 247

quarry development could occur within five years of the project decision at the following six quarries: 

Lowell Pass (aka HiYu pit), Upper Green Mountain, Boro, Hidden Lake, Blue Starr and Indian Ridge.
Appendix C – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Preferred Alternative

248 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Appendix C – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit 

for the Preferred Alternative

Unit

Total 

Stand 

Acres

Age

Total 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Thinning

Acres

Riparian 

Reserve 

Thinning

Gap 

Acres

DTR 

Acres

Shelterwood 

w/ Reserves Skips

Skips in 

Riparian 

Reserve

Net 

MBF for 

Unit

Net 

MBF 

per 

Harvest 

Acre

40 25 108 1 17 0 5 2 0 1 1 753 31

41 10 125 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 384 38

60 21 30 11 7 9 0 3 0 11 2 222 12

70 55 46 4 34 3 12 5 0 4 1 1,237 23

80 24 36 0 13 0 6 3 0 0 0 373 17

130 61 45 17 0 13 0 0 34 17 4 1,481 32

140 15 33 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 299 21

150 38 26 3 29 2 0 6 0 3 1 445 12

160 16 40 0 14 0 0 2 0 0 0 358 22

200 37 35 0 21 0 9 5 0 0 0 629 18

220 16 30 11 2 0 0 1 0 11 11 38 13

230 26 40 11 9 2 2 4 0 11 9 289 17

240 18 36 8 5 0 3 1 0 8 8 174 19

250 14 34 3 8 2 0 3 0 3 1 205 16

260 10 34 5 3 0 0 2 0 5 5 126 25

290 38 37 15 0 0 0 0 17 15 15 476 28

300 66 33 15 33 1 9 6 0 15 14 980 20

310 22 42 5 10 0 0 6 0 5 5 462 29

320 36 48 0 18 0 6 4 0 0 0 901 32

330 25 37 9 10 0 3 3 0 9 9 391 24

350 14 38 6 5 1 0 3 0 6 5 150 17

380 40 32 7 22 6 3 6 0 7 1 632 17

390 57 43 12 30 9 9 4 0 12 3 1,159 22

400 22 29 5 13 3 3 1 0 5 2 230 11

410 34 33 14 11 9 6 2 0 14 5 420 15

420 53 45 16 23 3 9 3 0 16 13 1,070 28

430 29 33 11 13 6 0 5 0 11 5 624 26

440 25 32 3 12 2 6 3 0 3 1 633 28

500 17 28 10 2 6 0 2 0 10 4 173 17

530 12 30 8 2 5 2 0 0 8 3 121 13

580 45 34 31 8 20 3 1 0 31 11 824 26

600 92 36 29 35 21 21 4 0 29 8 2,123 26

610 39 35 3 0 2 0 0 30 3 1 857 27

630 14 38 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 309 26
Appendix C – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Proposed Action

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 249

Unit

Total 

Stand 

Acres

Age

Total 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Thinning

Acres

Riparian 

Reserve 

Thinning

Gap 

Acres

DTR 

Acres

Shelterwood 

w/ Reserves Skips

Skips in 

Riparian 

Reserve

Net 

MBF for 

Unit

Net 

MBF 

per 

Harvest 

Acre

640 45 36 6 24 4 9 4 0 6 2 610 15

650 19 34 9 0 5 0 0 7 9 4 269 22

680 33 31 8 19 6 3 3 0 8 2 538 17

690 81 41 42 19 30 18 0 0 42 12 1,187 18

720 24 38 12 0 7 0 0 8 12 5 314 21

740 43 43 10 0 0 0 0 27 10 10 435 16

750 28 31 1 17 0 6 3 0 1 1 447 17

760 29 34 10 12 5 3 3 0 10 5 311 14

770 43 32 22 12 17 6 2 0 22 5 549 15

780 35 49 10 20 4 0 4 0 10 6 528 19

790 45 33 20 15 11 6 3 0 20 9 484 14

800 19 46 7 7 5 0 4 0 7 2 305 19

820 32 44 15 10 2 3 3 0 15 13 672 37

830 33 30 10 0 6 0 0 18 10 4 604 25

840 36 31 29 4 9 0 3 0 29 20 300 19

850 35 35 12 0 9 0 0 18 12 3 896 33

860 53 48 19 20 13 9 3 0 19 6 838 19

890 19 63 3 11 2 4 1 0 3 1 490 27

980 48 36 12 22 10 10 3 0 12 2 747 17

990 41 45 15 15 10 6 3 0 15 5 563 17

1020 49 45 22 19 18 3 3 0 22 4 549 13

1030 33 29 3 0 2 0 0 25 3 1 480 18

1040 22 45 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 412 22

1060 79 35 13 41 9 15 5 0 13 4 1,289 18

1070 34 46 8 0 3 0 0 21 8 5 769 32

1090 17 31 7 8 2 0 2 0 7 5 130 11

1100 43 49 20 14 10 6 2 0 20 10 681 21

1110 14 33 6 6 5 0 2 0 6 1 279 21

1120 34 29 9 18 7 0 5 0 9 2 554 18

1130 35 46 12 0 8 0 0 17 12 4 464 19

1160 29 35 23 2 3 4 0 0 23 20 198 22

1190 7 51 6 1 5 0 0 0 6 1 162 27

1200 30 31 19 7 13 0 4 0 19 6 302 13

1240 39 32 8 22 5 3 3 0 8 3 429 13

1290 51 44 25 15 16 3 3 0 25 9 912 25

1310 34 36 18 7 14 0 5 0 18 4 396 15

1320 54 47 27 12 16 5 2 0 27 11 389 11
Appendix C – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Preferred Alternative

250 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Unit

Total 

Stand 

Acres

Age

Total 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Thinning

Acres

Riparian 

Reserve 

Thinning

Gap 

Acres

DTR 

Acres

Shelterwood 

w/ Reserves Skips

Skips in 

Riparian 

Reserve

Net 

MBF for 

Unit

Net 

MBF 

per 

Harvest 

Acre

1330 32 32 22 4 11 3 2 0 22 11 240 12

1340 8 39 5 2 2 0 0 0 5 3 78 19

1350 8 40 7 0 5 0 0 0 7 2 176 35

1360 10 39 1 7 1 0 2 0 1 0 222 22

1370 33 33 17 7 6 3 3 0 17 11 208 11

1380 19 47 10 5 9 0 2 0 10 1 342 21

1410 57 72 16 33 15 0 4 0 16 1 815 16

1430 27 33 15 9 13 0 2 0 15 2 325 14

1450 23 34 0 17 0 0 3 0 0 0 342 17

1490 29 34 18 4 6 3 2 0 18 12 243 16

1500 27 31 15 5 0 3 3 0 15 15 258 23

1540 58 43 13 32 6 6 2 0 13 7 579 13

1570 43 34 39 4 25 0 0 0 39 14 616 21

1610 18 27 14 2 8 0 1 0 14 6 122 11

1830 9 144 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 46

1840 14 144 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 523 48

1850 38 33 19 14 13 3 0 0 19 6 471 16

1880 2 144 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 40

1890 31 129 7 21 0 0 3 0 7 7 704 29

1910 17 40 4 9 0 0 3 0 4 4 326 27

1920 39 35 21 9 12 3 3 0 21 9 595 22

1930 36 36 27 5 12 0 3 0 27 15 230 11

1940 40 37 25 7 5 0 4 0 25 20 203 13

1950 44 35 23 12 17 3 3 0 23 6 615 18

1960 33 36 16 12 12 0 2 0 16 4 446 17

1980 46 41 17 17 5 6 3 0 17 12 653 21

5030 77 40 52 13 31 6 4 0 52 21 857 16

5040 36 38 5 26 4 0 3 0 5 1 914 28

5050 12 27 12 0 6 0 0 0 12 6 86 14

5080 25 38 22 2 15 0 1 0 22 7 487 27

5090 40 30 37 2 4 0 1 0 37 33 91 13

5120 18 36 5 9 4 0 2 0 5 1 230 15

5130 14 34 4 6 3 0 2 0 4 1 160 15

5140 30 36 4 22 3 0 2 0 4 1 386 14

5160 35 35 25 5 20 0 2 0 25 5 326 12

5170 34 34 12 13 2 0 6 0 12 10 332 16

5180 31 33 18 7 6 0 1 0 18 12 133 10
Appendix C – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Proposed Action

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 251

Unit

Total 

Stand 

Acres

Age

Total 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Thinning

Acres

Riparian 

Reserve 

Thinning

Gap 

Acres

DTR 

Acres

Shelterwood 

w/ Reserves Skips

Skips in 

Riparian 

Reserve

Net 

MBF for 

Unit

Net 

MBF 

per 

Harvest 

Acre

5230 58 36 51 4 31 0 1 0 51 20 497 14

5260 38 31 23 8 14 0 4 0 23 9 453 17

5320 35 33 21 8 16 3 3 0 21 5 333 11

5360 53 31 32 10 16 3 5 0 32 16 716 21

5370 10 38 6 4 5 0 0 0 6 1 120 13

5380 7 35 7 0 6 0 0 0 7 1 90 15

5390 52 34 28 14 20 3 3 0 28 8 448 11

5400 31 31 18 9 15 0 2 0 18 3 247 9

5410 23 34 13 7 10 0 2 0 13 3 267 14

5420 45 41 37 2 26 4 2 0 37 11 659 19

5430 20 27 12 4 0 0 3 0 12 12 138 20

5440 78 37 29 34 11 6 6 0 29 18 989 17

5450 34 33 16 11 4 0 5 0 16 12 480 24

5460 36 36 23 7 12 3 1 0 23 11 400 17

5470 24 37 15 5 10 0 3 0 15 5 339 19

5480 11 135 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 129 14

5510 14 93 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 284 32

5530 64 112 0 32 0 10 0 0 0 0 1,651 39

5710 17 117 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 13

5720 40 96 0 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 410 20

5730 41 97 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 293 17

5740 30 90 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 17

5770 41 110 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 939 28

5780 35 106 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 846 29

5800 44 139 12 25 8 3 4 0 12 4 2,005 50

5810 13 122 1 7 0 3 0 0 1 1 499 50

4,398 1,662 1,454 901 320 291 325 1,662 761 66,468 20
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

252 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Appendix D - Road Treatment Proposals

Road

Number

Length Haul

Route

Current

Status

Proposed Treatment

Alternative 2 and 3 Comment

1900425 1.03 Yes Open Storage

1900425 0.61 No Open Storage

1900427 0.71 Yes Open Storage

1900428 0.12 Yes Open Storage

1900428 0.48 No Open Storage Road currently closed by gate

1900429 0.70 No Open Storage Road currently closed by gate

1900432 0.50 Yes Open Storage

1900432 1.61 No Open Storage

1900432 0.32 No Open Storage

1900443 0.16 No Open Storage

1900444 0.14 No Open Storage

1900446 1.21 No Open Storage Road currently closed by gate

1900455 0.10 Yes Open Storage

1900458 0.20 No Open Storage Road currently closed by gate

1900459 0.56 No Open Storage Road currently closed by gate

1900745 0.07 Yes Open Storage

1900745 0.30 No Open Storage

1900766 0.10 Yes Open Storage

1900771 0.10 Yes Open Storage

1900772 0.12 Yes Open Storage

1900773 0.25 Yes Open Storage

1900774 0.40 No Open Storage

1900902 0.12 Yes Open Storage

1900902 0.08 No Open Storage

1900903 0.35 Yes Open Storage

1900919 0.22 No Open Storage

1900985 0.50 No Open Storage

1900987 0.34 No Open Storage
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 253

Road

Number

Length Haul

Route

Current

Status

Proposed Treatment

Alternative 2 and 3 Comment

1927101 0.11 Yes Open Storage

1927102 0.17 Yes Open Storage

1927102 0.04 No Open Storage

1927141 0.26 Yes Open Storage

1927141 0.13 No Open Storage Road currently closed by gate

1927142 0.44 Yes Open Storage

1927150 0.94 No Closed Storage

1927151 0.04 No Closed Storage

1927155 0.44 No Closed Storage

1927157 0.19 No Closed Storage

1927170 0.08 No Open Storage

1927199 0.20 Yes Closed Decommission

1927212 0.10 No Open Storage

1927230 0.06 Yes Open Storage

1927240 3.00 No Open N/A Relocate seasonal closure to 

permanent closure M.P. 6.30

1927283 0.19 No Open Storage

1927284 0.22 No Open Storage

1927287 0.07 No Open Storage

1927288 0.14 No Open Storage

1927290 0.09 No Open Storage

1927299 0.09 No Open Storage

1958301 1.35 Yes Open Storage

1958304 0.60 Yes Open Storage

1958315 0.58 No Open Storage

1958346 0.27 No Open Storage

1958350 0.20 Yes Open Storage

1958475 0.07 No Open Storage

1964414 0.17 No Open Storage

1980226 0.21 Yes Open Decommission

1980232 0.02 Yes Open Storage
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

254 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Road

Number

Length Haul

Route

Current

Status

Proposed Treatment

Alternative 2 and 3 Comment

1980250 0.10 No Open Storage

1980282 0.05 No Open Storage

1980299 0.03 Yes Open Storage

1980303 0.04 Yes Open Storage

1980316 0.38 Yes Open Storage

1980323 0.02 Yes Open Storage

1980324 0.03 Yes Open Storage

1980344 0.11 No Closed Decommission

1980346 0.10 No Open Storage

1980348 0.18 Yes Closed Decommission

1980372 0.30 Yes Closed Decommission

1980372 0.07 No Closed Decommission

1980374 0.12 No Closed Decommission

1980423 0.65 No Open Storage

1980480 0.09 Yes Open Storage

1985125 0.07 No Open Storage

1985127 0.09 No Open Storage

1985272 0.06 Yes Open Storage

1985290 0.55 Yes Closed Decommission

1985293 0.08 Yes Closed Decommission

1985295 0.13 Yes Closed Decommission

1986121 0.14 No Open Storage

1986126 0.38 Yes Open Storage

2618380 0.40 No Open Storage
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 255

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 and any associated standards and guidelines. A variety of 

tactics to accomplish these goals and objectives are incorporated into four primary components. These 

components are:

Riparian Reserves

Key Watersheds

Watershed Analysis

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).

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 South Fork McKenzie watershed totals over 65,570 acres which 

is over 47% of the entire land base (South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis 2010). The Watershed 

Analysis made no final recommendations to adjust Riparian Reserve widths for the streams in the 

watershed, retaining the initial reserve widths (based on site potential tree height) from the ROD for 

all streams.

During the analysis for the Green Mountain Project, no reductions of Riparian Reserve widths along 

any streams 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 3 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.
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

256 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 

to review all the Riparian Reserves in the project area and at the landscape level to determine if treatment 

is warranted. Based on field investigations and a landscape level analysis of hardwoods in the South Fork 

McKenzie watershed, recommendations were developed for each Riparian Reserve. Treatments within 

Riparian Reserves are proposed where are dense, overstocked, and 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. 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 riparian dependent 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 South Fork McKenzie River is designated as a Key Watershed. One of 

the important components of Key Watershed is that there must be no net gain in roads. If new roads need 

to be built, then an equivalent mileage must be decommissioned. 

Standards and Guidelines

No new permanent roads would be built in roadless areas in Key Watersheds.

The Green Mountain project is consistent with this S&G. No new permanent roads are proposed to be 

constructed in roadless areas. Temporary roads would be decommissioned upon completion of harvest 

activities. 

Timber harvest cannot occur in Key Watersheds prior to completing a watershed analysis.

A watershed analysis was completed for the South Fork McKenzie watershed in 1994 and was updated in 

2010.

Watershed Analysis and Watershed Restoration

South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis (WA) was prepared for the McKenzie River Ranger District in 

1994 and updated in 2010. 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 Green Mountain 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 activities seek to create 

vegetative patterns, late successional stand structures, and fuel loadings that would have been typical of 

this landscape under the natural disturbance regimes that historically occurred in the area. 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 257

Watershed restoration has been ongoing in the South Fork McKenzie River since 1994. For example, 

large wood placement project have been implemented since 1996 and 841 trees have been added to the 

channel upstream of Cougar Reservoir. Numerous dispersed campsites adjacent to the South Fork have 

been closed and rehabilitated as well as one developed campground (Homestead). Roads have been 

decommissioned and stored in the watershed and more roads are proposed for these treatments in the 

Green Mountain project.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

The previous discussions highlighted the consistency of the Green Mountain 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 

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 in dense, overstocked, coniferdominated stands with very little structural and species diversity and understory development until natural 

processes create openings and down wood.

This could take several decades or up to a century. Aquatic habitats would continue to experience a low 

volume of large in-stream wood. Until a fire or large flood disturbs the riparian habitat the South Fork 

will continue to have a low percentage of hardwood vegetation in the Riparian Reserves.

Alternative 2 – Proposed treatments would occur on 902 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 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

258 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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.

Additionally, over 64,300 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the South Fork 5th field would remain 

untreated.

Alternative 3 – The effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 with the exception that 894 

acres would be treated – 8 acres less. Likewise, 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.

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 – Riparian Reserves, as established by the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan

and re-assessed in the South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis have been incorporated into the design 

of all treatment units where streams occur. Active management is proposed within Riparian Reserves on 

approximately 902 acres, where it has 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 upgrade 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. A bridge would be replaced over Hardy Creek and would maintain migratory 

routes for all native fish species, amphibian, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. A temporary bridge would 

be placed over Elk Creek and removed when no longer needed. This bridge will maintain migratory 

routes for all native fish species, amphibians, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. 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 8 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 would remain low for several decades until natural processes occurred to create it. 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 259

Small wood levels would remain at normal to high levels as the stands develop. The ability of 

some streams to store gravels would be greatly reduced during this time which would continue to alter the 

channel morphology.

Alterative 2 – All proposed treatments were designed with channel stability in mind. All harvest 

activities restrict the use of ground disturbing equipment in and around streams, 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 streams to prevent disturbance of stream 

banks and channels. Trees cut for skyline corridors would be retained on site as down woody material.

Trees cut for the near stream gaps would all be maintained on site for down woody material. Stumps and 

their rootwads would maintain bank stability for a number of years. The duration is typically considered 5 

years but we have noted stumps along streams providing stability for a decade. In addition, hardwoods

would begin to colonize the gaps and their root systems would provide for bank stability. It is expected 

that hardwoods would be fully established in the gaps in six to ten years.

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 Green Mountain Project addresses 

this concern by minimizing permanent road construction and upgrading numerous culverts. 

Approximately 130 miles of maintenance and reconstruction of portions of the existing road network that 

are in poor repair, replacement of undersized or old culverts, drainage improvement, and application of 

aggregate where necessary, will reduce chronic, low amplitude sources of fine sediment from the existing 

transportation system, and the potential of crossing fill failures. This will reduce the possibility of gravels 

and cobbles becoming embedded in fine materials in the stream channel bottoms. Approximately 10.3 

miles of temporary roads will be constructed on stable locations which is around 51.5 acres of ground 

disturbance. Of those, only 2.3 miles (11 acres) are within Riparian Reserves. All of these will be 

obliterated following harvest activities. Additionally, approximately 3.5 miles of road would be 

decommissioned and 21.1 miles stored in a hydrologically stable condition.

There are 14 proposed temporary road crossings which 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.

Addition of in-stream large wood along 2.7 miles of stream (mostly fish-bearing) would occur. This 

would impact stream banks or beds by increasing a streams ability to store and sort gravels thus adding to 

the channel complexity.

Alterative 3 – Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with the 

exception of fewer road miles maintained (only 115 miles). This may result in impacts to the streams 

along roads not repaired. Fewer miles of temporary roads (only 8.6 miles which is about 43 acres) are 

proposed, and only about 2.1 miles (about 11 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. As stands continue to develop 

towards more natural conditions, conditions would improve also. Full water quality recovery could take 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

260 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 – 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 64,300 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the South Fork 5th field 

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% canopy 

closure (approximately 40% canopy cover) is preserved throughout the Riparian Reserve to help protect 

the secondary shade zone and maintain the microclimate. 

No-harvest buffers were developed to preserve the primary shade zone. Most of the class 3 and all of 

class 2 streams 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, see Chapter 2.

Where in-stream wood or near-stream gaps are proposed, analysis indicates that thermal loading is 

naturally low. The lengths of stream exposed to direct solar radiation are kept to a minimum to achieve 

resource objectives while providing shaded reaches to cool the stream immediately below the treatments. 

Additionally, the creation of in-stream wood improves gravel storage and pool formation which in turn 

increases hyporehic exchange and improving cold water influx to the channels. 

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 8 fewer acres 

proposed for thinning in Alternative 3. The acres Riparian Reserve gaps and the miles of in-stream wood 

creation are the same. 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) – Approximately 50% of the South Fork McKenzie 5th field watershed lies in 

designated wilderness. This 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 – Project design elements 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 design elements will also provide protection to water quality from the introduction 

of sediment into streams and resulting effects on stream turbidity.

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 Green Mountain Project addresses 

this concern by minimizing permanent road construction and upgrading numerous culverts. 

Approximately 130 miles of maintenance and reconstruction of portions of the existing road network that 

are in poor repair, replacement of undersized or old culverts, drainage improvement, and application of 

aggregate where necessary, will reduce chronic, low amplitude sources of fine sediment from the existing 

transportation system, and the potential of crossing fill failures. This will reduce the possibility of gravels 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 261

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 will 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 10.3 miles of 

temporary roads (about 51.5 acres) will be constructed on stable locations, and all of these will be 

obliterated following harvest activities. Of those, only 2.3 miles (11 acres) are within Riparian Reserves. 

Additionally, approximately 3.5 miles of road would be decommissioned, and 21.1 miles would be stored 

in a hydrologically stable state.

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 or the creation of overland flow due to high 

compaction levels. Where aerial yarding methods are prescribed, full suspension is required when 

yarding over 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 (8.6 miles which is about 43 acres) are 

proposed, and only about 2.1 miles (about 11 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) – Approximately 50% of the South Fork McKenzie 5th field watershed lies in 

designated wilderness. 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 – This alternative maintains current canopy cover at levels well above the maximum midpoint 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, approximately 50% of the South Fork 

McKenzie 5th field watershed lies in designated wilderness which helps provide for natural landscape 

processes Implementation of this alternative would maintain existing floodplain inundations and water 

table elevations.

Alternative 2 – Implementation of a landscape design that is intended to restore vegetative structures

within young dense stands, landscape patterns, and disturbance regimes to a more natural condition will 

result in watershed conditions that more closely resemble those under which historic stream flow 

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

262 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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. 

Addition of in-stream wood has the potential to alter floodplains. However, research has shown that this 

type of alteration usually leads in increased channel complexity and improved aquatic habitat.

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. 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 

thrive. This could take several decades. Aquatic habitats would continue to experience low volumes of 

in-stream and terrestrial down wood. However, small down wood levels would remain at normal to high 

levels as stands develop.

Current rates of 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 –Approximately 902 acres of Riparian Reserves are proposed for treatment 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. 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 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 263

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.

To develop stream-specific riparian treatments that attain the desired vegetative characteristics while 

providing for adequate down wood levels, 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, stream size, stream class, gradient, channel 

complexity, and how functional the existing coarse woody material was in the stream channel. 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 instream wood. 

The active management proposed in the treatment units would have the short term effect (years to a 

couple of decades) of reducing coarse woody material loading in the Riparian Reserve outside the noharvest buffer. However, current levels of large down logs within most of the treatment stands are within 

historic levels. Field surveys of the Green Mountain proposed units during 2011 and 2012 showed 

approximately 38% of all proposed units to have higher levels of large down logs (over 14” diameter)

over 6/acre, 58% had moderate levels of about 3-6/acre, and about 4% had low levels of large down logs 

under 3/acre. Many of the plantations showed relatively high levels of large down wood that was left 

from the original harvest, with quite large diameters over 40”, such that it will last many more decades. 

Where management is recommended in units with low down wood levels, dead and down wood

objectives would be met through leaving more of the residual stand or through supplemental fall-andleave treatments. The number of total trees per acre (i.e. this number includes trees less than 7 inches in 

diameter) range from 176 to 1,822. 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). Given the unnaturally over-stocked conditions of 

these managed stands, in the long term (decades to a century) there will still be adequate woody material 

to maintained volumes within the natural range of variability, and abundant overstory would be retained 

for future wood input sufficient to sustain physical complexity.

At present, most of the stands proposed for Riparian treatments are dense with a homogeneous overstory 

dominated by Douglas-fire. This forms a condition which shades out almost all light before it can reach 

the forest floor. Because of this, there are very little hardwoods or herbaceous vegetation on the forest 

floor. Thinning these stands outside of the streams primary shade zone will allow more sunlight to reach 

the forest floor and encourage greater vegetative diversity than currently exists. 

In many cases where ACS vegetation objectives were already being met, no silvicultural treatments were 

proposed with Riparian Reserves. Over 64,300 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the South Fork 5th

field would remain untreated and provide landscape-scale diversity. 

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. Near-stream gaps and large wood input 

will help improve the nutritional quality of organic matter delivered to streams and allow for increased 

primary productivity.

Use of low severity fire 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. 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

264 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 2.3 miles of temporary roads are proposed within the Riparian Reserves. This is 

approximately 11 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.

In summary, any proposed management of Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2 would not deter attainment 

of ACS Objectives but would help to accelerate attainment.

Alternative 3 - Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with the 

exception there are fewer acres (8 acres less) proposed for thinning in Alternative 3. Fewer miles of 

temporary roads (8.6 miles which is about 43 acres) are proposed, but only about 2.1 miles (about 11 

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 that 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 

thrive. This could take several decades. Meanwhile aquatic and terrestrial habitats would continue to 

experience low volumes of down wood and a lack of deciduous leaf litter in over 902 acres. 

Alternative 2 – Approximately 902 acres of Riparian Reserves are proposed for active treatment while 

over 64,300 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the project area would remain untreated. This 

variation would help provide landscape-scale diversity.

This project complies with the Northwest Forest Plan and all of its applicable standards and guidelines. 

Option 9 was 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. 

This would help to create a rich variety of habitats for native species. Adequate amounts of down woody 

debris will be retained on site.

The South Fork McKenzie and its numerous tributaries provide excellent habitat for native fish. This is 

due to the cold, clean water. This habitat would be maintained by the implementation of no-harvest 

buffers along fish bearing streams and the addition of in-stream wood. Additionally, upgrades to several 

culverts will provide better dispersal opportunities to aquatic invertebrates and salamanders. Roads that 

are decommissioned will restore stream channels so that there will be unobstructed passage at the former 

road crossing.

Alternative 3 - Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with the 

exception that Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres (8 acres less) of Riparian Reserve thinning and fewer 

miles of road maintenance/repairs (115 instead of 130 miles).
Appendix F – Past, Present, and Reasonably Future Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 265

Appendix F - Past, Present and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Activities 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 Green Mountain project and could contribute cumulative effects to the 

resources in the project area. 

Action Agency Description Resources Affected

Past Actions

Cascade Thin USFS

Timber harvest

Completed 2013

Approximately 55 acres

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Hartz Reoffer Thin USFS

Timber harvest

Completed 2015

Approximately 115 acres

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Road 19 Salvage USFS

Timber harvest

Completed 2014

Approximately 120 trees

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access

Management, Invasive 

Plants
Appendix F – Past, Present, and Reasonably Future Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

266 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Action Agency Description Resources Affected

Past Actions

Timber Harvest

1990-2015 USFS

Since 1990 only 6,048 acres of harvest 

have occurred on Forest Service lands in 

the project area, of which 1,690 acres were 

regeneration harvests and 3,361 acres of 

pre-commercial thinning. Only 

approximately 261 acres of harvest have 

occurred since 2000, none of which was 

regeneration harvest.

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Meadow Restoration 

and Maintenance USFS

About 50 acres in five individual meadows 

in the Green Mountain project area have 

had encroaching conifers under 12” dbh 

cut, followed up by a prescribed burn as 

part of the Chucksney Grasshopper Ridge 

Meadow Restoration Project between 

2006-2014. These burns have 

successfully killed larger trees within and 

along meadow edges, maintaining 

meadows and creating patches of snag 

and large down wood habitat. 

Murphy Meadow is a part of the larger 

Chucksney Grasshopper Meadow project 

area which had 48 acres of encroaching 

conifers cut in 2013 and 2014 in the Green 

Mountain project area. Both upper and 

lower Murphy Meadow had prescribed 

burns in the fall of 2015 which also met the 

project objectives by burning additional 

large tree patches outside the meadows.

Vegetation, Wildlife

The Upper South Fork 

McKenzie River 

Enhancement Project 

(EA)

USFS Tree placement in 8.5 miles of South Fork 

McKenzie River in 2007 and 2008

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Streamside 

Complexity Project USFS/OSU

Two 200m paired reaches will be 

established along 2 fish-bearing tributaries 

within the South Fork McKenzie River 5th 

field watershed (Augusta 6th field HUC).

See internal scoping form for additional 

details.

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries

Rebel Road and 

Walker Road

Decommissioning

USFS

Decommission approximately 5 miles road. 

See internal scoping form for additional 

details.

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Three Sisters Wildfire 

Risk Reduction Fuels 

Treatment

USFS

Reducing abundance of ladder fuels within 

road corridors and adjacent to the Three 

Sisters Wilderness. See internal scoping 

form for additional details.

Fire and Fuels, 

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access

Management, Invasive 
Appendix F – Past, Present, and Reasonably Future Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 267
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

268 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve 

Treatments

The following table details all the streams surveyed and summary of the rational for the recommended 

riparian treatments.

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

60 3 8/18/2011 Diversity 60 30

60 4 8/18/2011 Diversity 60 30

60 4 8/18/2011 Diversity while groundwater protection 60 30

70 3 8/18/2011 Density. Issue to avoid further compaction 30 46

70 3 8/18/2011 Density. Issue is to avoid further compaction 30 46

130 3 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater flow. Due to size of 

stream 90 feet instead of 60 feet. 90 45

130 3 8/18/2011

Diversity while protecting groundwater flow. Thin outside 

the no cut buffer to 40% canopy cover for vegetative 

diversity. There are no hardwoods along class 3 and 

minimal hardwoods along class 4.

90 45

130 4 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting effective shade 30 45

150 4 8/18/2011 No streams in unit but class 4 outside of unit 30 26

220 3 8/18/2011 Adjacent stand older and probable source of LWD. 180 30

220 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 30

230 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 40

230 3 8/18/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 40

230 4 8/18/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 40

240 3 8/18/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 36

250 4 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 30 34

260 3 8/18/2011 Adjacent stand older and probable source of LWD. 180 34

290 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 37

290 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 37

300 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 33

310 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 42

330 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 37

350 3 8/16/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 38

350 4 8/17/2011 Well on its way in meeting ACS objectives 180 38

380 3 8/18/2011 Diversity. Probably not naturally a class 3 60 32

380 4 8/18/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 32

380 4 8/18/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 32

390 3 8/18/2011 Northern Class 3 stream 180 foot no cut buffer and no burn 

buffer to protect Oregon Megomphix 180 43

390 3 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 60 43
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 269

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

390 4 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 60 43

390 4 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 30 43

400 3 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater in earthflow 60 29

410 3 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater in earthflow 60 33

410 3 8/18/2011 Stream is too marshy for gaps 60 33

420 3 8/18/2011

Douglas-fir monoculture but good large wood component. 

Gaps near stream to diversify vegetation and provide light 

for primary production in stream

180 45

420 4 8/18/2011 Diversity. Restoration of culvert blockage 30 45

430 3 8/18/2011 2, 0.25 acre fall-and-leave gaps to increase hardwood. 

Thinning Riparian Reserve to increase size. 60 33

430 3 8/18/2011

Stream flows through plantations. Protect near-stream 

wood while developing large component2, 0.25 acre falland-leave gaps to increase hardwood. Thinning RR to 

increase size

60 33

440 3 8/18/2011

Flows through plantations. Protect near-stream wood while 

developing large component.2, 0.25 acre fall-and-leave 

gaps to increase hardwood. Thinning RR to increase size

60 32

500 3 8/18/2011 Diversity w/ most of stream in plantations. Gaps for 

hardwoods and primary productivity 60 28

500 3 8/18/2011 Diversity w/ of most stream in plantations. Streamside gaps

for hardwood and LWD 60 28

530 3 8/10/2011 Understory diversity and hardwood component for primary 

productivity. Gaps in this unit. 60 30

530 4 8/11/2011 Understory diversity and hardwood component for primary 

productivity. Gaps in this unit. 30 30

530 4 8/10/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 30

580 3 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 60 34

580 3 8/18/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater in earthflow 60 34

580 3 8/18/2011 Diversity w/ most of stream in plantations. Gaps for 

hardwoods and primary productivity 60 34

580 4 8/18/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

580 4 8/18/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

600 3 8/10/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 36

600 3 8/10/2011 Understory diversity and hardwood component for primary 

productivity. Gap in this unit 60 36

600 3 8/10/2011 Understory and vegetative diversity 60 36

600 4 8/25/2011 Understory and vegetative diversity 30 36

600 4 8/25/2011 Understory and vegetative diversity 30 36

600 4 8/10/2011 Understory and vegetative diversity 30 36

610 4 8/25/2011 Protect groundwater. Diversity 30 35

640 3 8/25/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 36

650 3 8/26/2011 Protection of groundwater and wetland area 180 34
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

270 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

650 4 8/25/2011 Protection of groundwater and wetland area 100 34

680 3 8/25/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 31

680 4 8/25/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 31

690 3 8/25/2011

The protection buffer will only apply to the south side of the 

road because the location of the site in this unit is about 

100 feet from Forest Road 1985. 

60 41

690 3 8/25/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 41

690 4 8/25/2011 To protect a Cascades Axetail Slug site 180 41

690 4 8/25/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 41

690 4 8/25/11 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 41

690 4 8/25/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 41

690 4 8/25/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 41

720 3 9/8/2011 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources 180 38

720 4 9/27/2011 Vegetative diversity 30 38

740 3 9/8/2011 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources 180 43

760 3 8/30/2011 Stability of inner gorge. Development of future LWD while 

protecting near-stream sources 90 34

760 4 8/30/2011 Stability of inner gorge. Development of future LWD while 

protecting near-stream sources 90 34

760 4 8/31/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

770 3 9/8/2011

Recommend 60' NC on north side to increase tree 

growth/hardwoods/understory but protect shade; 180' NC 

on south side for stability

60 32

770 3 8/25/2011 Vegetative diversity 60 32

770 4 9/8/2011 Recommend 10' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity 10 32

770 4 9/9/2011 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity 30 32

780 2 9/8/2011 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources 180 49

790 2 9/9/2011

Recommend 90' NC on south side to increase tree 

growth/hardwoods/understory but protect shade; 300' NC 

on north side to protect unstable ground

90 and 

300 33

790 4 9/9/2011 Recommend 10' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity but protect bank trees 10 33

800 4 9/9/2011 Recommend 10' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity but protect bank trees 10 46

820 3 8/30/2011 Min. Mostly plantations. Diversity 60 44

820 3 9/8/2011 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources 180 44

820 4 9/17/2012 Diversity while protecting channel morphology 60 44

830 3 8/30/2011 Min. Mostly plantations. Diversity 60 30
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 271

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

830 4 8/27/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 30

840 2 9/16/2012 > RR No Cut for steep steam channel sides 360 31

840 4 9/17/2012 Diversity while protecting channel morphology 60 31

840 4 9/17/2012 Diversity while protecting channel morphology 60 31

840 4 9/17/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 31

840 4 8/27/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 31

850 4 8/27/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 35

860 3 8/30/2011 Protect draw while developing diversity 60 48

860 4 8/30/2011 Steep draw needs protecting 60 48

860 4 8/30/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 48

860 4 8/30/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 30 48

890 4 8/18/2011 Diversity and stability 60 63

980 4 9/28/2011 Plantation dominated. Diversity 30 36

980 4 9/29/2011 Plantation dominated. Diversity 30 36

980 4 9/18/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 36

990 3 8/30/2011 Diversity while protecting near-stream resources 90 45

990 4 9/27/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 45

1020 4 9/28/2011 Plantation dominated. Diversity 30 45

1020 4 9/26/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 45

1030 4 9/26/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 29

1060 3 8/27/2012 Thinning for future large tree structure 60 35

1060 3 8/27/2012 Thinning for future large tree structure and vegetative 

diversity 60 35

1060 4 8/27/2016

The Riparian Reserve for this creek overlaps the top of the 

unit and the creek itself is outside the unit. Thinning for 

future large tree structure and vegetative diversity

30 35

1070 3 8/27/2012 Thinning for future large tree structure and vegetative 

diversity 60 46

1090 4 8/27/2012 Thinning for future large tree structure and vegetative 

diversity 30 31

1100 2 8/26/2012 No treatment in RR 360 49

1100 3 8/27/2012 Thinning for future large tree structure 60 49

1100 3 10/29/2012 Thinning for future large tree structure and diversity. Leave 

higher amount of down wood in Riparian Reserve 60 49

1100 4 10/30/2012 Increase hardwoods and understory diversity 30 49

1100 4 10/31/2012 Increase hardwoods and understory diversity 30 49

1100 4 10/29/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 49

1100 4 10/29/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 49

1110 4 10/29/2012 Wildlife would like a quarter acre gap 30 33

1120 4 10/29/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 29
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

272 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

1130 3 10/29/2012 Thinning for wildlife and stand diversity 60 46

1130 4 10/29/2012 Thinning for wildlife and stand diversity 30 46

1130 4 10/29/2012 Thinning for wildlife and stand diversity 30 46

1160 2 10/29/2012 Soils issue recommends 360 NC buffer 360 35

1160 3 10/29/2012 Thinning for wildlife and stand diversity 60 35

1160 3 10/29/2012 For aquatic and soil protection 180 35

1190 4 10/29/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 51

1200 4 9/28/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 30 31

1200 4 9/28/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 30 31

1200 4 9/28/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 31

1200 4 9/28/2011 Diversity while protecting groundwater 30 31

1240 4 9/27/2011 Diversity. Stability 60 32

1290 3 10/31/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 90 44

1290 4 10/31/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 44

1290 4 10/31/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 44

1290 4 10/31/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 44

1310 3 9/19/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 36

1310 4 9/19/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 36

1320 2 9/19/2012 Keep 180 on class 2 180 47

1320 3 9/20/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 47

1320 4 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 47

1330 2 10/25/2012 Keep 180 on class 2 180 32

1330 3 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 32

1330 4 10/25/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 32

1330 4 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 32

1340 2 9/19/2012 Keep 180 on class 2 180 39

1340 4 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 39

1340 4 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 39

1350 4 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 40

1350 4 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 40

1370 2 9/19/2012 Keep 180 on class 2 180 32

1370 4 9/20/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 32

1380 4 9/21/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 47

1410 4 8/22/2011 Recommend 10' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity but protect bank trees 10 72

1410 4 8/22/2011 Recommend 10' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity but protect bank trees 10 72

1430 4 8/22/2011 Recommend 30' NC or top of terrace, whichever is greater 30 33
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 273

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

1430 4 8/22/2011 Recommend 10' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity but protect bank trees 10 33

1430 4 8/22/2011 Recommend 10' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity but protect bank trees 10 33

1430 4 8/22/2011 Recommend 30' NC or top of terrace, whichever is greater 30 33

1490 3 9/18/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 34

1490 3 9/18/2012 Keep 180 180 34

1490 4 9/18/2012 Keep 180 180 34

1500 3 9/18/2012 Keep 180 180 31

1500 3 9/18/2012 180 for aquatic and soil resources 180 31

1540 3 10/23/2012 Develop diversity while protecting channel 90 43

1570 2 9/19/2012 Keep 180 180 34

1570 3 9/13/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 34

1570 3 9/13/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 34

1570 3 9/13/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 60 34

1570 4 9/13/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

1570 4 9/14/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

1570 4 9/15/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

1570 4 9/13/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

1570 4 9/13/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

1570 4 9/13/2011 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 34

1610 3 6/21/2011 Develop future LWD and vegetative diversity while 

protecting near-stream sources 60 27

1850 3 8/6/2012 Diversity while protecting near-stream habitat 60 33

1850 4 8/6/2012 Stand development 30 33

1890 4 8/7/2012 ACS objectives being met 180 129

1890 4 8/6/2012 ACS objectives being met 180 129

1910 3 9/11/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30/60' for 

other resources

180 40

1920 2 9/12/2012 Thinning secondary for wildlife structure 180 35

1920 3 9/12/2012 Hardwood, understory, and tree growth 60 35

1920 3 9/12/2012 Thinning for wildlife structure 60 35

1930 2 9/12/2012 Thinning secondary for wildlife structure 180 36

1930 3 9/12/2012 Thinning for wildlife structure 60 36

1930 3 9/12/2012 Hardwood, understory, and tree growth 60 36

1930 3 9/12/2012 Thinning for wildlife structure 60 36

1930 3 9/12/2012 Thinning for wildlife structure 60 36

1930 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 36

1930 3 9/12/2012 To protect seeps 180 36
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

274 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

1930 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 36

1930 4 9/13/2012 Thin outside of RR for wildlife diversity 180 36

1930 4 9/12/2012 Keep 180 180 36

1940 2 9/12/2012 Thinning secondary for wildlife structure 180 37

1940 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 37

1940 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 37

1940 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 37

1940 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 37

1940 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 37

1940 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 37

1940 3 9/12/2012 For groundwater protection and wildlife needs 180 37

1940 4 9/12/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 37

1940 4 9/12/2012 Keep 180 NC 180 37

1940 4 9/12/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 37

1950 3 9/18/2012 Thin to 60' for wildlife and diversity 60

1950 3 9/18/2012 Thinning for wildlife diversity 60 35

1950 4 9/19/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 35

1950 4 9/18/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 35

1950 4 9/18/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 35

1950 4 9/18/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 35

1960 3 9/18/2012 Thin to 60' for wildlife and diversity 60 36

1960 4 9/18/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 36

1960 4 9/18/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 36

1960 4 9/18/2012 Minimal hardwoods in unit 30 36

1980 4 10/23/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 41

1980 4 10/24/2012 Structural and vegetative diversity 30 41

1980 4 10/23/2012 Promotes RR diversity while protecting soil and channel 180 41

5030 1 9/11/2012 Recommend 90' NC to increase tree growth but protect 

shade 90 40

5030 2 9/5/2012

Recommend 90' NC to increase tree growth but protect 

shade; thinning for wildlife in remainder of RR; fall and 

leave treatment This is the research stream

90 40

5030 4 9/11/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; 180 40

5030 4 9/11/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 40

5030 4 9/11/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 40

5030 4 9/12/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 40

5030 4 9/11/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 40

5030 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods and tree growth 30 40

5030 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods and tree growth 30 40
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 275

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

5030 4 9/6/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods and tree growth 30 40

5040 4 8/30/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods and tree growth 30 38

5050 2 9/5/2012 Keep 180 180 27

5050 4 9/6/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods and tree growth 30 27

5080 2 8/10/2012 Recommend 90' NC to increase tree growth 90 38

5080 3 8/10/2012 Recommend 60' NC to increase tree growth 60 38

5080 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 38

5080 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods 30 38

5080 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 38

5080 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 38

5090 1 8/10/2012 Recommend 90' NC to increase tree growth 90 30

5090 2 8/10/2012 Recommend 90' NC to increase tree growth 90 30

5090 2 8/10/2012 Recommend 180' NC to stay out of inner gorge; fall and 

leave within NC 180 30

5090 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 180' NC; OK to thin to 30' for other resources 180 30

5090 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; debris chute - min 60' for 

soil protection 180 30

5090 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 30

5090 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 30

5090 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 30

5090 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods 30 30

5090 4 9/5/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 30

5110 4 8/31/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 33

5110 4 8/31/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 33

5110 4 8/31/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 33

5110 4 8/31/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 33

5120 4 8/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 30 36

5120 4 8/2/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5130 4 8/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 30 34

5140 4 8/2/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

productivity 30 36

5160 4 8/30/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 35

5160 4 8/30/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 35

5160 4 8/30/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 35
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

276 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

5160 4 8/30/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods; keep out of 

terrace 30 35

5170 1 Recommend 180' NC to stay out of S. Fork floodplain below 

road 180 34

5170 3 8/29/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60/90 for 

other resources 180 34

5170 3 8/29/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60/90 for 

other resources 180 34

5180 3 8/29/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60/90 for 

other resources 180 33

5180 3 8/29/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60/90 for 

other resources 180 33

5180 4 8/29/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

productivity 30 33

5230 2 8/10/2012

Recommend 90' NC to increase tree growth but protect 

shade; fall and leave w/in 90' of stream; thinning outside NC 

for wildlife

90 36

5230 3 8/10/2012 Recommend 60' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth but 

protect shade 60 36

5230 3 8/10/2012 Recommend 60' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth but 

protect shade 60 36

5230 3 8/10/2012 Recommend 60' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth but 

protect shade 60 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30’ NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30’ NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5230 4 8/10/2012 Recommend 30’ NC to increase hardwoods/tree growth 30 36

5260 4 9/18/2012 Diversity while protecting stability 60

5260 4 9/18/2012 Diversity while protecting stability 60

5260 4 9/18/2012 Diversity while protecting stability 60

5260 4 9/18/2012 Diversity while protecting stability 60

5320 2 9/1/2014 Grasshopper Creek. No treatment needed for fisheries but 

ok to thin in second site potential tree height 180 33

5320 4 10/25/2012 Diversity 30 33

5320 4 10/25/2012 Diversity 30 33

5360 2 10/25/2012 Grasshopper Creek. No treatment needed. 180 31
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 277

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

5370 4 8/1/2012 Recommend 30' NC to inc hardwoods/understory for 

productivity 30 38

5370 4 8/19/2009 Recommend 30' NC to inc hardwoods/understory for 

productivity 30 38

5380 2 8/1/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources 60 35

5390 2 8/28/2012

Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources; thinning in second 90ft for wildlife/elk 

habitat. Research unit with gap.

90 34

5390 4 8/28/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 34

5400 3 8/28/2012 Recommend 60' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 60

5400 4 8/28/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5410 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 36

5420 1 7/2/2012 90' NC w/ group fall and leave near stream; outside the 90' 

NC, 2 ac gaps for wildlife 90 41

5420 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 41

5420 4 7/2/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 41

5420 4 6/12/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 41

5420 4 7/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 41

5420 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 41

5420 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 41

5420 4 7/27/2012 Recommend 30’ NC to increase hardwoods/understory 30 41

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180

5430 3 6/29/2012 Keep 180' 180
Appendix G – Recommended Riparian Reserve Treatments

278 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Unit Class Survey 

Date Rational No Cut Buffer

Stand 

Age

5440 1 6/12/2012 90' NC w/ group fall and leave near stream; outside the 90' 

NC, 2 ac gaps for wildlife 90 37

5440 3 6/12/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources to protect adjacent wet pockets 180 37

5440 4 7/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources to protect adjacent wet pockets 180 37

5440 4 7/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources to protect adjacent wet pockets 180 37

5440 4 7/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources to protect adjacent wet pockets 180 37

5440 4 7/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources to protect wet pockets 180 37

5440 4 7/2/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources to protect wet pockets 180 37

5450 3 6/27/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 33

5450 4 6/27/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity 30 33

5460 1 6/12/2012 90' NC w/ group fall and leave near stream; outside the 90' 

NC, 2 ac gaps for wildlife 90 36

5460 3 6/12/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 60' for 

other resources 180 36

5460 4 6/12/2012 Recommend 180' NC for aquatics; OK to thin to 30' for 

other resources 180 36

5460 4 02010612 Recommend 30' NC to increase tree growth/ 

hardwoods/understory 30 36

5470 1 6/12/2012 90' NC w/ group fall and leave near stream; outside the 90' 

NC, 2 ac gaps for wildlife 90 37

5470 3 6/12/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory but 

protect shade 30 37

5470 4 6/12/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity 30 37

5470 4 6/12/2012 Recommend 30' NC to increase hardwoods/understory for 

stream productivity 30 37

5600 3 9/20/2012 Protect actively unstable area while creating diversity for 

wildlife 90

5600 4 9/20/2012 Diversity 30

5800 3 9/4/2012 No treatment in RR 180 139
Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 279

Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

Deciduous leaves have a higher nutritional quality than coniferous needles. To better understand the 

current and future conditions of vegetation diversity, a “hardwood analysis” was conducted for all of the 

Riparian Reserves in the South Fork McKenzie River watershed. This analysis used satellite imagery 

(WorldView 2) collected on July 19, 2013 and Google Earth imagery. The analysis found that only 3.2% 

of the Riparian Reserves in the entire South Fork McKenzie had a deciduous and deciduous/shrub 

component (see Table H2 below). Upstream of Cougar Dam only 3.0% of the Riparian Reserve area is 

deciduous and deciduous/shrub. An analysis of the current coniferous versus hardwood component of the 

Riparian Reserves shows little difference between wilderness and non-wilderness. However, wildfires 

have been suppressed within the Wilderness for over 100 years which have also altered their riparian 

conditions. In addition, late-seral and old growth stands have numerous natural gaps which are frequently 

colonized by deciduous species (Warren 2013). 

Since the acres of old growth across the watershed have been reduced over the last century, it can be 

assumed that so has the deciduous component. These gaps would have created a mixed deciduous and 

conifer stand. Within Riparian Reserves of the South Fork McKenzie watershed, there is currently less 

than 5 percent combined deciduous tree and shrubs and mixed deciduous with conifer. Although an exact 

historic range of variability for deciduous composition is unknown at this time, a study of riparian plant 

communities in northwest Oregon (McCain 2004) provides some indication of “relatively unmanaged” 

conditions. The study describes riparian and upland plant communities based on geomorphic feature (e.g. 

in-channel, cobble bars, terraces, floodplain, etc.) and many of the Willamette study sites were located 

within the South Fork McKenzie watershed. On the steep banks/terraces and high terraces/major 

floodplain features, deciduous trees (red alder and big leaf maple) had typical percent cover values of 15-

64 percent (McCain 2004). 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 the distribution of hardwoods along these transects were fairly even (i.e. hardwoods were present 

throughout the 300-foot transect). Studies like this suggest that in “relatively unmanaged” riparian plant 

communities, there is typically a hardwood, shrub, and herb component. In many of the streams surveyed 

in the project area, there was an obvious lack of these components. The results of the analysis at the 

landscape scale 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.

South Fork McKenzie River Riparian Reserves Vegetation Classification Methodology

The following are modeling inputs and assumptions utilized during the analysis process:

Imagery 

WordView 2 imagery collected on July 19, 2013 was used for creating polygons and providing spectral 

information for the classification. Google Earth imagery in conjunction with the WorldView 2 imagery 

was used to interpret training polygons.

Polygon Generation

eCognition software was used to generate the polygon boundaries. All 8 bands of the 2 meter Worldview 

2 imagery were input. A scale parameter of 50 was used and the shape and compactness criterions were 

set at 0.8. 

Classes – trees were considered greater than 2 meters in height

Water = > 80% water
Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

280 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Deciduous = > 80% deciduous trees

Conifer = > 80% coniferous trees

Mix = all other forest stands

Deciduous Shrub 

Other = none of the above, including bare ground, forest regrowth, grass, etc.

Classification

The classification was performed in eCognition using a standard nearest neighbor algorithm using the 

spectral means for each polygon. Approximately 20 training sites were identified for each class. The 

classified polygons were then edited and dissolved for the final map. Most confusion occurred between 

conifer regrowth and deciduous forest, and conifer forest and mixed forest.

Figures 40 and 41 represent the various riparian vegetation classification outputs produced from the 

hardwood analysis. Figures 37-39 represent the approximate locations of the near-stream gaps and the 

corresponding vegetation classifications nearby.

Tables 62 and 63 below summarize the numerical results of the analysis. The results are solely within 

Riparian Reserves in the South Fork McKenzie River Watershed.

Table 65. Acres of Riparian Reserves within the South Fork McKenzie 5th Field Watershed

Total Acres Acres Above Cougar 

Dam

Acres in 

Wilderness

Acres in Non-Wilderness Above Cougar 

Dam

65,445 63,670 32,738 30,932

Table 66. Riparian Reserve vegetation classification outputs.

ACRES PERCENT

Decidu

ous

Deciduo

us 

shrub

Conif

er

Mix Other Water Decidu

ous

Decidu

ous 

shrub

Conifer Mix Other Water

5th Field 

Watershe

d 

Riparian 

Reserve

1249 828 57215 1243 3135 1775 1.9 1.3 87.4 1.9 4.8 2.7

Riparian 

Reserves

above 

Cougar 

Dam

1063 828 56053 989 3009 1728 1.7 1.3 88.0 1.6 4.7 2.7
Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 281

Figure 40. Riparian Reserve Vegetation Classification (North)
Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

282 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 41. Riparian Reserve Vegetation Classification (South)
Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 283

Figure 42. Hardwood Gaps #1
Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

284 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Figure 43. Hardwood Gaps #2
Appendix H – Hardwood Analysis

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 285

Figure 44. Hardwood Gaps #3
References

286 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

References

Agee, J.K., Wright, C.S., Williamson, N., Huff, M.H. 2002. Foliar moisture content of Pacific Northwest 

vegetation and its relation to wildland fire behavior. Forest Ecology Management. 176: 57-66.

Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington DC.

Aikens, C. Melvin 1977 Problems of Archaeological Survey in Heavily Forested Regions: Seeing the

Ground and Looking In Likely Places in the Woods of Western Oregon. Contributed paper at the 

42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana.

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., Larson, D. J., and Chan, S. S. (2007). Riparian buffer and density management 

influences on microclimate of young headwater forests of western Oregon. Forest Science, 53(2), 

254-269.

Andrews et al. 2005. Silvicultural Approaches to Develop Northern Spotted Owl Nesting Sites, Central 

Coast Ranges, Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry: 20(1).

Andrews, P. L., and R.C. Rothermel. 1982. Charts for Interpreting Wildland Fire Behavior Characteristics. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group, PMS 435-2, GTR INT-131, NFES 0274, Boise, Idaho. 22 

pp.

Ashcraft, Daryl. 1995. PredictDAS excel worksheet. Retired employee from Middle Fork RD, 

Willamette NF. 

Aubry, K. B., and J. C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in 

Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114: 

79-90.

Baar, J., T.R. Horton, A.M. Kretzer, and T.D. Bruns. 1999 Mycorrhizal colonization of Pinus muricata

from resistant propagules after a stand-replacing wildfire. New Phytologist 143: 409-418.

Bailey, J.D., and J.C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40-100 year old 

Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 108:99-113.
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 287

Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; Hutter, L.; 

and Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0 

[Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, US 

Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy]. http://www.frames.gov/partnersites/frcc/frcc-home/

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of Suitable Habitat and Viability of Northern Spotted Owls. Conservation 

Biology 9(4):943-946.

Bauhus, J.; Puettmann, K; Messier, C. 2009. Silivculture for old-growth attributes. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 258:525-537

Baxter, Paul W. 1986 Archaic Upland Adaptation In The Central Cascades. Ph.D. dissertation, University 

of Oregon, Eugene.

Beechie, T. J., Pess, G., Kennard, P., Bilby, R. E., and Bolton, S. (2000). Modeling recovery rates and 

pathways for woody debris recruitment in northwestern Washington streams. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management, 20(2), 436-452.

Benda, L and P. Bigelow. 2014. On the patterns and processes of wood in northern California streams.

Geomorphology, 209: 79-97.

Bergland, Eric O. Cultural Resource Review: Chucksney Mountain – Grasshopper Mountain – August 

Creek. On file at the McKenzie River Ranger District, McKenzie Bridge, Oregon.

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., Bilby, R. E., Brown, G. W., Holtby, L. B., and Hofstra, T. D. (1987). Stream 

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Streamside management: 

forestry and fishery interactions, 57, 191-232.

Bingham, B. and B.R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat take: Application to habitat conservation 

planning. Conservation Biology 11(1):127-139.

Bjorrn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19: 83-138.

Blake, G. and W.G. Hoppes. 1986. Influence of Resource Abundance on Use of Tree-Fall Gaps by Birds 

in an Isolated Woodlot. The Auk. 103(2):328-340 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4087086

Blakeley-Smith, Matt and Thomas N. Kaye. 2008. Mowing, Mulching, and Seeding to Control False 

brome on the Eugene District, BLM, Oregon. pg 18.

Boyd, R. (ed.).1999. Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, Oregon, 320 p. (ISBN 0-87071-459-7).

Brown, G. W., and Krygier, J. T. (1970). Effects of clear-cutting on stream temperature. Water 

resources research, 6(4), 1133-1139.
References

288 - Green Mountain Project Draft 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.

Brown, Martin J., Kertis, Jane., Huff, Mark H. 2013. Natural Tree Regeneration and Coarse Woody 

Debris Dynamics After a Forest Fire in the Western Cascade Range. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-592. 

Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

50 p.

Bruns, T.D., J. Baar, P. Grogan, T.R. Horton, A.M. Kretzer, D. Redecker, J. Tan, and D.L. Taylor, 2002. 

The Fungal Dimension to Bishop Pine’s Post-fire Success Following the Mt. Vision Fire. 

Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University California at Berkeley.

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 unmanged 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

CFR. 2012. CFR-2012-title36-vol2-sec219-11. (d)(7).

Chandler, R.B., D.I. King, and C.C. Chandler. 2009. Effects of management regime on the abundance 

and nest survival of shrubland birds in wildlife openings in northern New England, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 258(7):1669-1676.

Chan, S., Larson, D., Maas-Hebner, K., Emmingham, W., Johnston, S., and Mikowski, D. 2006 

Overstory and understory development in thinning and underplanted Oregon Coast Range 

Douglas-fir stands, Can J. For. Res. 36:2696-2711

Cissel, John H. et.al. 1998. A Landscape Plan Based on Historical Fire Regimes for a Managed Forest 

Ecosystem: the Augusta Creek Study. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. PNW-GTR-422.

Cole, David L. 1968 Archaeology of the Fall Creek Dam Reservoir. Final Report to the Museum of 

Natural History. University of Oregon, Eugene.

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.
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 289

Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest cover and 

condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife 

Monographs No. 141.

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.

Courtney, S., J. Blakesley, R. Bigley, M. Cody, J. Dumbacher, R. Fleischer, A. Franklin, J. Franklin, 

R. Gutierrez, J. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon

Cummins, K.W. 2002. Riparian-stream linkage paradigm. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein

Limnologie, 28: 49-58.

Curtis, R.O. 1982. A simple index for density of Douglas-fir. Forest Science. 28; 92-94.

Cushman, Kathleen and Rob Huff. 2007. Conservation Assessment for Fungi Included in Forest Service 

Regions 5 and 6 Sensitive and BLM California, Oregon and Washington Special Status Species 

Programs. Appendix I. Fungi species currently included in BLM CA or OR/WA Special Status 

or Forest Service Regions 5 or 6 Sensitive Species Programs, USDA, Forest Service, Region 6. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/#fungi

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.

Davis, Carl M. 1988 Willamette National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan. U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region.

DeBell, D.S., R.O. Curtis, C.A. Harrington, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Shaping stand development 

through silvicultural practices. P. 141-149 in Creating a Forestry for the 21st century: Science of 

ecosystem management. Kohm, K.A., and J.F. Franklin (eds.), Island Press, Washington, DC.

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, 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.
References

290 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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.

Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Protection Agency website. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/designations/basicinfo.htm

Feller, M.C. (1981). Effects of clearcutting and slashburning on stream temperatures in southwestern 

British Columbia. Watershed Resources Bulletin. 17: 863-867.

[FEMAT] Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management:An 

Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Portland (OR): US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1987 The Lithic Technology Of The East Lake Site, Newberry Crater, Oregon. 

Department of Agriculture, Deschutes National Forest.

Forest Service and 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. 

Forest Service and 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

Forest Service and 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-megomphix-hemphilli-2000.pdf

Forest Service and 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.

Forest Service and 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.

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.

Forest Service. 1990. Final environmental impact statement for Land and Resource Management Plan: 

Willamette National Forest. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. N.p.

Forest Service. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-285. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 533 p.

Forest Service. 2011. Monitoring and evaluation report: Willamette National Forest-Fiscal Year 2011. 

Supervisor’s Office, Springfield, Oregon. 86 pp.
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 291

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/].

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. 

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.

Franklin, J.F., K. Cromak Jr., W. Dension, A. McKee, C. Maser, J. Sedell, F. Swanson, and G. Juday. 

1981. Ecological Characteristics of Old-Growth Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service Gen 

tech Rep. PSW-118. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Research Station. Portland , OR.

FSH 1909.12- Land Management Planning Handbook, CH 70 Wilderness Evaluation. Amendment No. 

1909.12-2007-1

Gomi, T., Moore, R. D., and Dhakal, A. S. (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. 1991. An Ecosystem Perspective of 

Riparian Zones. BioScience, 41 (8): 540-551.

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.

Hagar, J.C., 2007. Wildlife species associated with non-coniferous vegetation in the Pacific Northwest 

coinfer forests – A review: Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 108-122

Hagar, J, and C. Friesen, 2009, Young stand thinning and diversity study: response of songbird 

community one decade post treatment: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1253, 20 

p.

Harr, R. D., and Fredriksen, R. L. (1988). Water quality after logging small watersheds within the Bull 

Run watershed, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin. 24(5): 1103-1111.

Harrington, C. A., Roberts, S. D., and Brodie, L. C. (2005). Tree and understory responses to variabledensity thinning in western Washington. United States Department Of Agriculture Forest Service 

General Technical Report PNW, 635, 97.

Hayes, J.P., S.S. Chen, W.H. Emmingham, J.C. Tappeiner, L.D. Kellog, and J.D. Bailey. 1997 

Wildlife responses to thinning young forest in the Pacific Northwest. J. For. 95(8):28-32

Hemstrom, Miles A., Sheila A. Logan, and Warren Pavlat 1987 Plant Association and Management 

Guide, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, R6-Ecol 257-B-86.

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.
References

292 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Hoover, T. M., Pinto, X., and Richardson, J. S. (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.

http:// www.appliedeco.org/invasive-species-resources-FBWG

Institute for Applied Ecology-False Brome Working Group, Oregon, USA. YEAR??

Janisch, J. E., Wondzell, S. M., and Ehinger, W. J. (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 Jones, J. A. (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., Bird, S. A., Hogan, D. L., and MacIsaac, E. A. (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.

Kelly, Cara McCulley 2001 Prehistoric Land-Use Patterns In the North Santiam Subbasin on the Western 

Slopes of the Oregon Cascade Range. A thesis submitted to Oregon State University in partial 

fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies.

McKenzie River District Cultural Resource files and maps.

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.

Lakel, W. A., Aust, W. M., Bolding, M. C., Dolloff, C. A., Keyser, P., and Feldt, R. (2010). Sediment 

trapping by streamside management zones of various widths after forest harvest and site 

preparation. Forest Science, 56(6), 541-551.

Landscape Aesthetics A Handbook for Scenery Management, United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook Number 701.

Legard, Harold A. and LeRoy C. Meyer 1973a Soil Resource Inventory: Atlas of Maps And Interpretive 

Tables. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

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

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 293

Levno, A., Rothacher, J. (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.

Lindh, Briana C. 2003. Understory herb and shrub responses to root trenching, pre-commercial thinning, 

and canopy closure in Douglas-fir forest of the western Cascades, Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis. 

Oregon State University. http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/30049 

Lippert, J. 2013. Effects of Commercial Thinning and Associated Activities on Habitat and Distribution 

of Fungi. At At http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/

Lippert, Jennifer, Cindy McCain, et al. 2010. Willamette National Forest Special Habitat Management 

Guide. Pacific Northwest Region.

Liquori, M., L. Benda, D. Ganz, D. Martin, 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.

Long, J.N. 1985. A Practical Approach to Density Management. For. Chron. 61:23-27.

Luoma, D.L., J.L. Eberhar, R.Molina, and M.P. Amaranthus. 2004. Response of ectomycorrhizal fungus 

sporocarp production to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Forest Ecology and 

Management 2002: 337-354.

Macdonald, J. S., MacIsaac, E. A., and Herunter, H. E. (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.

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.Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1979. Oregon 

Visibility Protection Plan. OAR 340-200-0040. 

McAlister, Jeff 1992 Box Canyon Guard Station: Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

McAllister, Jeff 1992 Phase I testing report 01-085I. Blue River Ranger District, Willamette National 

Forest. On file at the McKenzie River Ranger District.

McCain, C. 2004. Riparian plant communities of northwest Oregon: streamside plant communities. 

USDA Forest Service Technical Paper.

McCune, Bruce and Linda Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Introduction page x.

McDade, M. H., Swanson, F. J., McKee, W. A., Franklin, J. F., and Sickle, J. V. (1990). Source 

distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 20(3), 326-330.
References

294 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

McGuire, D.A., J.A. Kershaw, and D.W. Hann. 1991. Predicting the effects of silvicultural regime on 

branch size and crown wood core in Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 37(5):409-428.

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., Gregory, S. V., and Bolte, J. P. 2003. Implications of riparian management strategies 

on wood in streams of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications, 13(5), 1212-1221.

Memorandum of Understanding between State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, signed January 13, 2014. 17 pp.

Miller, M., and B. Emmingham, 2001. Can selection thinning convert even-aged Douglas-fir stands to 

uneven-age structures? West. J. Appl. For. 16(1):35-43

Minor, Rick and Audrey Frances Pecor. 1977. Cultural Resource Overview of the Willamette National 

Forest Western Oregon. Report submitted to the Willamette National Forest, Eugene Oregon. 

University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 12.

Minor, Rick et al. 1987 Cultural Resource Overview of The Willamette National Forest: A 10-Year 

Update. Heritage Research Associates Report 60, Eugene, Oregon.

Minor, Rick, Stephen Dow Beckham, and Kathryn Anne Toepel 1981 Prehistory and History of the Upper 

Willamette Valley, Oregon: Research Questions and approaches. Report submitted to the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 9, Eugene, 

Oregon.

Moran, Kevin. 2014. Personal communication with a Silvicultural Technician who has over 30 years of 

experience on the McKenzie River Ranger District with reforestation and timber stand 

improvement activities such as precommercial thinning and pruning.

Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.

Muir, P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner, J.D. Bailey, W.E. Elliot, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, E.B. 

Peterson, and E.E. Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forest of 

western Oregon. US Geol. Survey, Biol. Resource. Div., Biological Sci. Rept. 

USGS/BRD/BSR-20020006. Corvallis, OR. 76 pages.

Murphy, M.L. and J.D. Hall. 1981. Varied effects of clear-cut logging on predators and their habitat in 

small streams of the Cascade Range, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 38:137-145.

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.
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 295

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation 

Biological Opinion and Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential 

Fish Habitat Consultation. Consultation on the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project. 

NMFS. Portland, Oregon.

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. US Forest 

Service. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 332 p.

Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy, Evaluation of the Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy, United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management, May 25, 2012. 35 pp.

NWCG Glossary. National Wildfire Coordination Group. http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/i.htm

OFRI. 2012. The 2012 Forest Report, An Economic Assessment of Oregon’s Forest and Wood Products 

Manufacturing Sector. Oregon Forest Resource Institute. 

http://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/OFRI_Forest_Report_2012_0.pdf 

Ohmann, Janet L., et al. 2011. Mapping Gradients of Community Composition with Nearest-Neighbour 

Imputation: Extending Plot Data for Landscape Analysis. Journal of Vegetation Science 22:660-

676.

Oliver, C. D., Larson B.D. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

OMB A-94. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094

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. 2004/2006. 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. Willamette Basin Total Maximum Daily Load, 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, Sept 29, 2006.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan February 2003. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Oregon Black-Tailed Deer Management Plan November 

14, 2008. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and USDA Forest Service. ND. Ongoing carnivore detection 

study in the Mt. Jefferson, Mt.Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas 

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1995. Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Amended. ORS 

477.515. 
References

296 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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

Pauchard, A., and 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.

Pausas, Juli G., Keeley, Jon E. 2009. A Burning Story: The Role of Fire in the History of Life. 

BioScience, Vol. 59, No. 7, pp. 593-601.

Peña, James. "Swanson Litigation and Continued Direction Regarding Owl Estimation Methodology 

(OEM)." Letter to Forest Supervisor's: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Olympic, 

Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Hood, Willamette, Siuslaw, Rogue River-Siskiyou, Umpqua, FremontWinema and Deschutes National Forests; CRGNSA Manager. Nov. 3, 2015. MS. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

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., and 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.

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 Resources 32: 1232-1243.

Pollock, J.W., Landscape Character Types of the National Forests in Oregon and Washington, Portland, 

OR: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1981.

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.

Potito, A.P., and Beatty, S.W. 2005. Impacts of recreation trails on exotic and ruderal species distributions 

in grassland areas along Colorado Front Range. Environmental Management, 36, 230-236.

Priest, G.R., G.L. Black, N.M. Woller, and E.M. Taylor. 1988 Geologic map of the McKenzie Bridge 

Quadrangle. Lane County, Oregon.

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. 
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 297

Rashin, E. B., Clishe, C. J., Loch, A. T., and Bell, J. M. (2006). Effectiveness of timber harvest 

practices for controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. October. 1307-1327.

Reineke, L.H. 1933 Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged forests. J. Agric. Res. 46:627-638

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / 

Rules and Regulations

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.

Rowland, M., et. al. 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.

Ruzicha, K.J. Jr., K.J. Pueltmann, D.H. Olson. (2014 in press). Management of Riparian Buffers: 

Upslope Thinning with Downslope Impacts. Forest Science.

Ryan, Kevin C., et. al. 2013. Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: history, current 

practice, and challenges. In Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: e15–e24. 

Ryan, M.G., M. E. Harmon, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, 

D. C. McKinley, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. SkogRyan. 2010. A 

Synthesis of the Science on Forests and Carbon for U.S. Forests. Issues in Ecology (13).

Safford, Hugh D. et al. 2009. Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in an area of wildland-urban 

interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. In Fire Ecology and Management 258. 

773-787.

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. US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. 

[accessed 8/21/2013 from http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs.html] 

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.

Shank, Douglas C. 2012 Soil and Geology Report for the Green Mountain/Cascade Environmental 

Assessment. McKenzie River Ranger District, Oregon.

Sharrod, D.R. 1991 Geologic map of part of the Cascade Range between latitudes 43-44 dg. 

Miscellaneous Investigation Series, Map I – 1893, U.S. Geological Survey, Central Oregon.
References

298 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Shaw, George C. 1909 The Chinook Jargon and How to Use it. A complete and Exhaustive Lexicon of the 

Oldest Trade Language of the American Continent. Rainier Printing Company, Inc. 116 Third 

Avenue So. Seattle, Washington 98104. Facsimile Reproduction 1965 The Shorey Book Store 

815 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104, SJS #65.

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

Snyder, Sandra L. 1987 Prehistoric Land Use Patterns In The Central Oregon Cascade Range. 

Dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene.

Society of American Foresters (SAF). 2008. The Dictionary of Forestry. 

http://www.dictionaryofforestry.org/

South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis. (1994, revised in 2011). Willamette National Forest.

Spies, T., Pollock, M., Reeves, G., and Beechie, T. (2013). Effects of riparian thinning on wood 

recruitment: A scientific synthesis. Science Review Team Wood Recruitment Subgroup.

Stovall, J. P., Keeton, W. S., and Kraft, C. E. (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, Fred. April 2008. Personal email. 

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: earlysuccessional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers Ecological Environment 2010: 

doi:10.1890/090157. 

Swanson, M.E. 2012. Early Seral Forest in the Pacific Northwest: A Literature Review and Synthesis of 

Current Science. Central Cascade Adaptive Management Partnership.

Sweeney, B.W. and J.D. Nubold. 2014. Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water 

quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. Journal of American Water Resources 

Association 50: 560-584.

Swift Jr, L. W., and Messer, J. B. (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.A. McGuire, T. Harrington. 2007. Silviculture and Ecology of Western U.S. Forests. 

Oregon State University Press, 500 Kerr Administration, Corvallis OR. 97331-2122.

Tappeiner, J.C., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T.A. Spies, and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Density, ages, and 

growth rates in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 

27(5):638-648.
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 299

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.

Tepley, Alan. April 2006. Non-Stand-Replacing Fire in the Blue River Area. Personal document

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.

Thomas, Edward Harper. 1970 Chinook: A History and Dictionary. Binfords and Mort, Publishers, 

Portland.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C.Meslow, B.R. Noon and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation 

strategy for the northern spotted owl: Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address 

the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service: USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. 427 pp.

Throop, Elizabeth Gail. 1986 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation 

Form: USDA Forest Service Administration Buildings in the States of Oregon and Washington. 

USDA Forest Service, Region Six, Portland, Oregon.

[TMDL] Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy: Evaluation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy 2012. USFS and BLM.

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.

U.S. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol 77, No. 

233, Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Rules and Regulations, pp. 71876-72068.

U.S. 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. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion Regarding the 

Effects of Habitat Modification Activities on the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina) and its Crtical Habitat, and Proposed Critical Habitat within the Willamette Province, FY 

2013, Proposed by the Eugene District, Bureau of Land Management; Salem District, Bureau of 

Land Management; Mt. Hood National Forest; Willamette National Forest, and the Columbia 

River Gorge National Scenic Area (FWS Reference Number 01EOFW00-2012-F-F0158). 193 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture. 2005. Field guide to riparian plant communities in 

northwestern Oregon. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. January 2005. Page 70-94.
References

300 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

US 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/]

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. 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. 

U.S. Forest Service 1986 Draft of Regional Management Strategy for Identification and Treatment of 

Lithic Scatters Archaeological Sites on the Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, 

Wallowa-Whitman, and Winema National Forests.

U.S. Forest Service 1912, 1921 and 1925 Cascade National Forest 1937 and 1950 Willamette National 

Forest.

U.S. Forest Service. 1994. South Fork McKenzie River Watershed Analysis. Blue River Ranger District, 

Blue River, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Eligibility determination for South Fork McKenzie River. Willamette 

National Forest. McKenzie River Ranger District. McKenzie Bridge, Oregon

USDA Strategic Plan. FY 2014-2018. http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-

2018.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. 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. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental 

impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Final supplemental environmental 

impact statement for amendment to the survey and manage, protection for and other mitigation 

measures, standards and guidelines. Volume I. 516 p

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000a. Management recommendations 

for the Oregon red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus, Version 2.0. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 

25 p.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Federal Register. 66:751. January 

4, 2001.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Memo signed by all of the 

Northwest Forest Plan agency executives.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 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.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Memo.
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 301

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Sporocarp Survey Protocol for 

Macrofungi, Version 1.0. Van Norman, K., J. Lippert, D. Pankratz, R. Holmes and C. 

Mayrsohn. At http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/inventories/inv-sp-fu-ver1-2008-

12.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Implementation guide South Fork McKenzie Special Interest 

Area. Willamette National Forest. McKenzie River Ranger District. McKenzie Bridge, Oregon

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Species Fact Sheet: Namamyia 

plutonis. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Implementation Guide, Hidden/Lulu Lake Special Interest 

Area. Willamette National Forest. McKenzie River Ranger District. McKenzie Bridge, Oregon

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. 2012. Survey protocol for the red tree 

vole, Arborimus longicaudus, Version 3.0. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 51 p.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2012a. Species Fact Sheet: Rhyacophila 

chandleri. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

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. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. 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. 

USDA Forest Service, Umpqua and Willamette National Forests, April 2008. Willamette Basin Water 

Quality Restoration Plan for North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, Middle Fork and Coast 

Fork Sub-basins. 144 pp.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Regional Ecosystem Office Memo 

clarifying direction for adaptive management areas

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 Forest Service. 1986. Interim definition for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed conifer forest in 

the Pacific Northwest and California. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research 

Note PNW-477.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final environmental impact statement for Land and Resource Management 

Plan: Willamette National Forest. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest.
References

302 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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. 1992. Forest Service Handbook 2409. Chapter 30, section 32.1

USDA Forest Service. 1994b. South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis. Unpublished report available 

from the Willamette National Forest. Springfield, Oregon. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/willamette/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5389545

USDA Forest Service. 1998. A Landscape Plan Based on Historic Fire Regimes for a Managed Forest 

Ecosystem: the Augusta Creek Study. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-422. Region 6, 

Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Roads Analysis Report, Willamette National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Programmatic Agreement among USDA FS PNW Region (Region 6), the 

ACHP and the Oregon SHPO regarding Cultural Resources Management in the State of Oregon 

by the USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12. Chapter 60, section 61.3

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Forest Service Handbook 1920. Chapter 21, section 12f

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Handbook 2320. Section 2320.3 #5, p. 8

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Vegetation Simulator, April 2014 version 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Monitoring and evaluation report: Willamette National Forest-Fiscal Year 

2011. Supervisor’s Office, Springfield, Oregon. 86 p.

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. 2012. Mycorrhizal fungi: Biological/ecological information and effects of 

selected types of forest management actions. At http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planningtools/

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest.

USDA. 2005. Field guide to riparian plant communities in northwestern Oregon. Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region. January 2005. Page 70-94.

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.

Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, 

Berkeley. 668 p. 

Walker, G., and R. Duncan. 1893 Geologic map of the Salem 1 by 2 dg. Quadrangle, Western Oregon.
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 303

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.

Walter, Jeff. "Use of Owl Estimation Methodology Ends October 2, 2013 Amended Court Order, 

Swanson Group Mfg v. Jewell, Civ. No. 10-1843-RJL (D.D.C., July 25, 2013)." Letter to Forest 

Supervisor's: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Olympic, Gifford Pinchot, Mt. 

Hood, Willamette, Siuslaw, Rogue River-Siskiyou, Umpqua, Fremont-Winema and Deschutes 

National Forests; CRGNSA Manager. Oct. 22, 2013. MS. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

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. 

Webster, J. R. and E. F. Benfield. 1986. Vascular Plant Breakdown in Freshwater Ecosystems. Annual

Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 17:567-94

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.

Weisberg, Peter J. 1998. Fire History, Fire Regimes, and Development of Forest Structure in the Central 

Western Oregon Cascades. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State University. 

Weisberg, Peter J., Swanson, Fred. 2003. Regional synchroneity in fire regimes of western Oregon and 

Washington, USA. Fire Ecology and Management 172 (2003). pgs 17-28.

Weisburg, P.J. 1998 Blue River fire regime analysis and description. PhD Thesis

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.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Section 7, October 2004. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Willamette Planning Province Terrestrial Level I Team. 2012. Biological Assessment of LAA Projects 

with the Potential to Modify the Habitat and/or Disrupt Northern Spotted Owls. 199 p.

Willamette Planning Province Terrestrial Level I Team. 2015. Appendix F. Potential Spotted Owl Site 

Considerations. Biological Assessment of LAA Projects with the Potential to Modify the Habitat 

and/or Disrupt Northern Spotted Owls. 285 p.

Williams, Gerald 1988 McKenzie River Names, A Listing of Social, Historic, and Geographic Place 

Names. Manuscript for the O.H.S. Eugene, Oregon. On file at McKenzie River Ranger Station.

Wilson, J.S. 1981 Landforms of the McKenzie River Basin, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon.

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.
References

304 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

Winter, L.E., L.B. Brubaker, J.F. Franklin, E.A. Miller, and D.Q. DeWitt. 2002a. Initiation of an oldgrowth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. For. Res. 32(6):1039-1056.

Winter, L.E., L.B. Brubaker, J.F. Franklin, E.A. Miller, and D.Q. DeWitt. 2002b. Canopy disturbances 

over the five centuries lifetime of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest. Can. 

J. For. Res. 32(6):1057-1070.

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.

Wisdom, M., L.R. Bright, C.G. Carey, W.W. Hines, R.J. Pedersen, D.A. Smithey, J.W. Thomas, and G.W. 

Witmer. 1986. A model to evaluate elk habitat in western Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region Report R6-FandWL-216-1986. March 1986.

Wright, Pamela. 2014. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Total Maximum Daily Load 

Program. McKenzie Basin Coordinator. Personal conversations.

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/species-index/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] 
References

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 305

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. 

(FSH 7709.54, no longer in print)

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.

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.
Glossary

306 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 and 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% of owl reproducing 

season activity occurred in about 20% 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 and Noon 1997, Wagner and

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 – 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; and • Recognizes 

that these protections are meant to work in 

concert with other recovery actions, such as 

barred owl management.

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 unevenaged 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 will 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.
Glossary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 307

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.

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 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 coarsescale 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 

leave 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
Glossary

308 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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).

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

Incidental Take (ESA) – Take that is incidental 

to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an 

otherwise lawful activity

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. A known site may be determined to

be inactive only in accordance with the

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

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 309

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 will have a positive or negative return on 

investment.

Noxious Weeds (Invasive species) - Nonnative 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 a diet consisting 

of animal flesh. 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 percents 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 will 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.

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 will cause an ignition when it lands 

on receptive fuels.
Glossary

310 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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 will 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 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, Douglasfir, snowbrush, fireweed, etc. They are generally 

shade intolerant species. 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.
Glossary

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 311

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%); 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. A-10).

At a minimum, 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 coniferhardwood 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 will 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 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, 
Glossary

312 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

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.

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.

V

Vegetation Recovery- Period of time that 

allows for sufficient re-growth in harvested 

areas to make evidence of harvest activity 

largely unnoticeable to the casual observer.

W

Woody Debris - Dead pieces of woody 

vegetation such as stems, limbs, or leaves which 

are on a site.
Index

Green Mountain Project Draft EIS - 313

Index

A

ACS. See Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Air Quality, viii, 6, 56, 222, 232, 236, 305

Aquatic Conservation Strategy, iii, viii, 17, 88, 92, 

105, 110, 235, 255, 257, 295, 299

B

Barred Owl, 118, 306

Botany, vii, 53, 160, 231, 288, 290

C

Caddisflies, 104, 107, 109, 112, 113, 114, 238

Climate Change, 1, 18, 115, 123, 225, 226, 306

Compaction, 73, 75, 244

D

Design Features, 28, 29, 47, 76, 77, 92, 97, 102, 107, 

148, 156, 167, 184, 190, 193, 194, 214, 229, 238

Dispersal Habitat, 8, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 

123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 237, 308, 311

Dominant Tree Release, iii, ix, 2, 31, 38, 44, 69, 72, 

120, 241, 243, 244

Down Wood, 1, 3, 8, 9, 18, 32, 39, 46, 51, 57, 59, 60, 

66, 68, 70, 73, 78, 85, 86, 88, 111, 114, 119, 121, 

133, 134, 142, 143, 145, 148, 149, 157, 206, 211, 

244, 257, 262, 263, 264, 266, 271, 291, 302

DTR. See Dominant Tree Release

E

Early seral habitat, 10, 18, 66, 69, 115, 116, 117, 147, 

156, 158, 159, 166, 216, 239, 243

Economics, viii, 7, 227

F

Fire and Fuels, iv, viii, 5, 56, 63, 71, 95, 216, 232, 

266

Forest and Stand Structure, vii, 5, 47, 62, 74, 124, 

232, 245

Forest Plan, i, iv, vii, ix, 1, 2, 4, 5, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 

23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 37, 39, 46, 56, 60, 73, 80, 85, 

93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 110, 112, 114, 136, 137, 145, 

146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 162, 184, 188, 189, 194, 

195, 198, 199, 206, 209, 210, 215, 229, 235, 238, 

239,241, 244, 245, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 264, 

289, 295, 296, 299, 300

Forest Plan Amendment, i, 1, 4, 20, 32, 39, 46, 209, 

210

G

Gaps, ix, x, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 20, 30, 31, 32, 37, 

38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 50, 55, 68, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 105, 109, 110, 111, 112, 

116, 117, 120, 126, 139, 140, 148, 153, 156, 158, 

159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 193, 202, 206, 

210,214, 215, 216, 226, 237, 238, 241, 242, 243, 

259, 260, 263, 269, 277, 278, 279, 280, 283, 284, 

285, 287

H

Hardwoods, 18, 71, 80, 84, 105, 108, 110, 111, 116, 

151, 203, 256, 259, 262, 263, 264, 268, 269, 270, 

271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 307

Heritage, vii, 6, 27, 54, 167, 231, 236, 239, 294

I

In-streamWood, 85, 86, 262

Invasive Plants, vii, xi, 6, 21, 160, 165, 166, 265, 266

Inventoried Roadless Areas, viii, ix, 56, 193, 195, 

196, 197, 198, 237

K

Known Owl Sites, 127

N

Northern Spotted Owl, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 126, 

141, 236, 238, 290, 299, 300, 306, 309

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat, 44, 120, 123, 

124, 126

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat, 120, 122

Northwest Forest Plan, 17, 18, 21, 95, 137, 198, 209, 

229, 235, 239, 244, 295, 299

P

Probable Sale Quantity, 1, 17

PSQ. See Probably Sale Quantity

R

Recovery Action 32, 118, 120, 121, 289

Recreation, iv, vii, xi, 6, 25, 55, 176, 177, 178, 180, 

181, 183, 193, 194, 200, 201, 203, 212, 214, 231, 

233, 309

Regeneration Harvest, 1, 6, 13, 18, 20, 28, 30, 37, 44, 

57, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 115, 116, 121, 123, 

129, 135, 137, 145, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 157, 
Index

314 - Green Mountain Project Draft EIS

159, 161, 162, 166, 167, 190, 192, 193, 225, 235, 

241, 244, 258, 266

Riparian Reserves, ix, xi, 2, 4, 18, 21, 22, 26, 31, 32, 

38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 57, 68, 72, 77, 80, 81, 

82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97, 101, 

103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 120, 148, 189, 

209, 221, 235, 238, 239, 244, 255, 256, 257, 258, 

259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 279, 280

Roads and Access, vii, 171, 232, 265, 266

S

Scenic Quality, viii, 55, 184, 214

SDI. See Stand Density Index

Sedimentation, 5, 47, 48, 50, 53, 99, 100, 103, 109, 

111, 172, 174

SIA. See Special Interest Areas

Skips, i, 1, 3, 4, 18, 20, 30, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 51, 

70, 71, 72, 115, 120, 148, 153, 157, 162, 193, 202, 

210, 212, 216, 221, 225, 241, 242, 244

Snags, 1, 3, 5, 10, 18, 32, 46, 51, 57, 63, 66, 68, 70, 

73, 89, 114, 115, 118, 121, 132, 134, 141, 142, 

143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 156, 158, 159, 206, 211, 

212, 220, 239, 241, 244, 245, 291, 302, 311

Soil, 5, 47, 49, 50, 53, 55, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 

89, 91, 96, 97, 161, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 170, 

173, 206, 220, 221, 229, 235, 243, 246, 262, 265, 

266, 272, 273, 274, 275, 291, 292, 297, 298, 309, 

310

Special Interest Areas, viii, ix, 1, 20, 22, 25, 30, 37, 

181, 186, 189, 193, 206, 208, 212, 215

Spring Chinook salmon, 103

Stand Density Index, iv, v, 64, 65, 66, 207, 211, 242, 

311

Suitable Habitat, 8, 9, 10, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 

125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 134, 136, 138, 139, 

166, 308, 311

T

Thinning, ix, 1, 2, 10, 13, 18, 20, 30, 31, 37, 38, 44, 

51, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 76, 77, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 

91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 105, 109, 110, 112, 115, 116, 

117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 135, 145, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 156, 

157, 159, 161, 165, 166, 170, 173, 189, 190, 192, 

193, 202, 203, 204, 205, 210, 212, 214, 216, 220, 

222, 225, 226, 235, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 

248, 258, 260, 262, 263, 264, 266, 269, 271, 272, 

273, 274, 276, 277, 286, 288, 291, 293, 294, 297, 

298, 303, 308, 311, 312

U

Unroaded Areas, 198, 199

W

Water Quality, 5, 76, 240, 301

Wild and Scenic Study River, viii, 7, 200, 202, 203, 

205, 213

Wilderness, viii, 7, 13, 25, 80, 81, 93, 94, 106, 142, 

146, 147, 177, 185, 193, 194, 198, 200, 201, 205, 

206, 215, 222, 223, 224, 225, 231, 234, 237, 266, 

279, 280, 291, 295, 309