Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

viii

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

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

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

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action.................................................................................................................16

1.3 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................................20

1.4 Forest Plan and Management Direction ..............................................................................................23

1.6 Tribal Consultation ..................................................................................................................................28

1.7 Public Involvement Efforts......................................................................................................................28

1.8 Consultation with other Agencies..........................................................................................................30

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

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

Chapter 2 - Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 32

2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action........................................................................................................................32

2.2 Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative.....................................................................................................32

2.3 Alternative 3 – No Harvest in Fire Regenerated Stands....................................................................37

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ...............................................................................................42

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................................42

2.6 Project Design Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ..............................................................47

2.7 Mitigation and Enhancement Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 .......................................................62

2.8 Monitoring Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 .......................................................................................63

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................... 65

3.1 Forest Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................68

3.2 Fire and Fuels ..........................................................................................................................................88

3.3 Soils...........................................................................................................................................................97

3.4 Hydrology................................................................................................................................................109

3.5 Fisheries .................................................................................................................................................144

3.6 Wildlife.....................................................................................................................................................158

3.7 Botany and Invasive Plants..................................................................................................................200

3.8 Transportation........................................................................................................................................216

3.9 Heritage ..................................................................................................................................................221

3.10 Scenic Quality ........................................................................................................................................226

3.11 Recreation ..............................................................................................................................................240

3.13 Wilderness..............................................................................................................................................252

3.14 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) ......................................................................................................261

3.15 Noise .......................................................................................................................................................264

3.16 Economics ..............................................................................................................................................269

3.17 Climate Change.....................................................................................................................................273

3.18 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................................274

3.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..............................................................274

3.20 Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Productivity .........................................................................275

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers.............................................................................................. 276

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

Notice of Availability ............................................................................................................. 279

Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives .......281

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

..................................................................................................................................................... 286
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

ix

Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders............ 291

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

to the Cumulative Effects Analysis................................................................................... 297

Appendix E - An Evaluation of Activities Authorized by the Hwy 46 Project FEIS

for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy........................................... 299

Appendix F – DecAID Analysis........................................................................................... 312

Effects of fires of 2017 on snag densities in the Breitenbush River watershed....................................................320

Appendix G – Riparian Reserve Treatment Detail......................................................... 328

Appendix H – Road Status and Anticipated Road Work Activities .......................... 338

Appendix I – Unit Restriction Table .................................................................................. 366

Appendix J – Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS).................................................................................................................... 374

Appendix K – Changes from Draft to Final Hwy 46 Project Environmental Impact 

Statement................................................................................................................................. 425

References............................................................................................................................... 428

Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 441

Index.......................................................................................................................................... 447

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparison of the Alternatives........................................................................................................................4

Table 2 Summary of Direct Effects on Resources for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 ..................................................5

Table 3 Preferred Action Treatments and Connected Actions...........................................................................21

Table 4 Land Management Areas in Project Area and Proposed Treatment Acres (Alternative 2).............26

Table 5 Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions - Alternative 2 ...................................................32

Table 6 Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres - Alternative 2............................................................35

Table 7 Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions - Alternative 3 ...................................................37

Table 8 Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres - Alternative 3............................................................40

Table 9 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................42

Table 10 Riparian Reserve Acres Proposed for Treatment..........................................................................................44

Table 11 Proposed Wildlife and DTR Gaps Within Outer Riparian Reserves for Alternatives 2 and 3 ........................45

Table 12 Proposed Streamside Treatments for Alternatives 2 and 3..........................................................................46

Table 13 Design Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 3.......................................................................................47

Table 14 Snag and Down Wood Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ..............................................62

Table 15 Survey and Manage Species Buffer Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ..........................62

Table 16 Special Habitat Buffer Mitigation Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 .............................62

Table 17 Historic Seral Stage Distribution Breitenbush Watershed ............................................................................69

Table 18 Current Seral Stage Distribution Breitenbush Watershed ............................................................................70

Table 19 Stand Replacing Disturbance ........................................................................................................................71
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

x

Table 20 Alternative 2 and 3 Units by Category ..........................................................................................................72

Table 21 Stand Range of Conditions............................................................................................................................72

Table 22 Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................85

Table 23 Comparison of Fuels Treatments by Alternative ..........................................................................................96

Table 24 Management Indicators for Assessing Effects to Soils................................................................................101

Table 25 Post Fire Management Indicators...............................................................................................................102

Table 26 Aggregate Recovery Percentages Threshold of Concern............................................................................112

Table 27 Vegetation Class of Riparian Reserves within the Project Area..................................................................117

Table 28 Road Densities by Sub-watershed ..............................................................................................................122

Table 29 Aggregate Recovery Percentages by Sub-watershed .................................................................................125

Table 31 Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative......................140

Table 32 Comparison of GRAIP-lite Modeled Road Sediment Delivery by Alternative .............................................141

Table 33 Fish Species of the Breitenbush Watershed ...............................................................................................146

Table 34 Woody Material Counts for Some Streams in the Project Area .................................................................151

Table 35 Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Willamette National Forest.............................................176

Table 36 Potential Population Levels in Planning Subdrainages (base year 2016)....................................................179

Table 37 Snag Levels by Alternative ..........................................................................................................................179

Table 38 Down Wood levels by Alternative..............................................................................................................181

Table 39 Estimated Snag Population Potential for the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood and Montane Mixed 

Conifer Wildlife Habitat Types in the Breitenbush River Watershed and in the Willamette National Forest..182

Table 40 Elk Forage Classes Relative to DDE Values..................................................................................................184

Table 41 Elk Forage Class Distribution 1993 and 2013, Willamette National Forest ................................................185

Table 42 Changes in Elk Forage Distributions 1993 to 2012, Willamette National Forest ........................................185

Table 43 Elk Forage Class Distribution in 1993 and 2012 and for Alt 2 and 3 in the Hwy 46 Project........................186

Table 44 Changes in Elk Forage Class Distributions from 1993 to 2012 in the Hwy 46 Project Analysis Area ..........187

Table 45 Comparison of MVUM Open Road Density to Forest Plan Elk Road Density Standards and Guideline by Big 

Game Emphasis Area in the Hwy 46 Project Analysis Area ..............................................................................187

Table 46 Changes in Elk Forage Class Distributions in the Hwy 46 Project Analysis Area Due to Alternative 2........194

Table 47 Changes in Elk Forage Class Distributions Due to Alternative 3 .................................................................195

Table 48 Percent of Watershed within Project Area .................................................................................................206

Table 49 Special Habitats in the Hwy 46 Project Area...............................................................................................211

Table 50 Acres Affected by Weeds (in Acres)............................................................................................................215

Table 51 Key Forest Roads.........................................................................................................................................217

Table 52 Road Realignments .....................................................................................................................................220

Table 53 VMS/SMS Objectives and Proposed Treatments........................................................................................230

Table 54 Viewshed Thresholds..................................................................................................................................232

Table 55 Management Areas and ROS Allocations....................................................................................................242

Table 56 Hwy 46 Project Area ROS Allocation Summary and Desired Conditions ....................................................242

Table 57 Noise in dB of Different Logging Systems at Indicated Distances...............................................................256

Table 58 Acres potentially affected by helicopter noise ...........................................................................................258

Table 59 Noise Produced by Various Logging Equipment .........................................................................................265

Table 60 Noise Attenuation at Increasing Distances.................................................................................................266

Table 61 Units with Potential Noise Impacts.............................................................................................................268
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

xi

Table 62 North Santiam Canyon Employment ..........................................................................................................270

Table 63 Estimated Economic Alternatives ...............................................................................................................272

Table 64 Road Status within Hwy 46 Planning Area ................................................................................................339

List of Figures

Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................................14

Figure 2 Hwy 46 Project Area ......................................................................................................................................15

Figure 3 6th Field Watersheds within the Project Area...............................................................................................15

Figure 4 Willamette Forest Plan Management Areas in the Hwy 46 Project Area......................................................24

Figure 5 Northwest Forest Plan Management Areas in the Hwy 46 Project Area.......................................................25

Figure 6 Map of Alternative 2......................................................................................................................................36

Figure 7 Map of Alternative 3......................................................................................................................................41

Figure 8 Location of 2017 Fires within Project area ....................................................................................................67

Figure 9 Project Area and Breitenbush 5th Field Watershed ......................................................................................69

Figure 10 Stand Age Distribution in the Hwy 46 Project Area.....................................................................................71

Figure 11 Douglas-fir plantations. Left: Stem exclusion stage in unit 47. Right: Competing crowns in Unit 140........73

Figure 12 Douglas-fir/hemlock Stands. Stem exclusion stage on the left. Stand re-initiation stage on the right.......73

Figure 13 Left: Unit 50 Douglas-fir/hemlock. Right: Unit 97 Douglas-fir/noble fir. ...................................................74

Figure 14 Examples of a Douglas-fir plantation from the 1920s that was never thinned ..........................................75

Figure 15 Left: Example of recent thinning in an 80-90 year old fire regenerated stand. Right: Example of recent 

thinning in a 40-50 year old plantation ..............................................................................................................76

Figure 16 Western hemlock growing into the mid-story approximately 30 years after thinning. ..............................77

Figure 17 Graphic representation of thinning with skips and DTR gaps......................................................................78

Figure 18 Google Earth image of recently created dominant tree release (DTR) gaps in a thinned stand .................78

Figure 19 Left: Sugar pine competing with other conifers in Unit 83. Right: Previously treated sugar pine stand 

within the project area. ......................................................................................................................................81

Figure 20 Left: Meadow portion of Unit 73. Right: Encroached meadow in Unit 32a. ...............................................82

Figure 21 Stream in Unit 430 in need of hardwood restoration. ................................................................................83

Figure 22 Examples of very low intensity ground fire in units 95 (left) and 83 (right) with little mortality expected.87

Figure 23 Example of low intensity fire initial effects in unit 13 with mixed species..................................................87

Figure 24 Left: Example of isolated crown mortality in low severity burn in unit 12. Right: Mixed severity burn in 

the Little Devils fire. No Hwy 46 units are visible in the Little Devils photo. ......................................................87

Figure 25 Fire Regime Classification Hwy 46 Planning Area........................................................................................90

Figure 26 Within and around the Breitenbush and Devils Creek summer homes areas of dense vegetation exist 

that may contribute to increased fire intensity making protection of structure in a wildfire difficult. .............91

Figure 27 Areas that have received hazardous fuel treatments such as this can help reduce fire intensity and 

provide for a safer environment to suppress wildfires and provide structure protection.................................91

Figure 28 Fuel Model 5 Figure 29 Fuel Model 8 ..................................................................................................92

Figure 30 Fuel Model 10 Figure 31 Fuel Model 12 ..............................................................................................92

Figure 32 Post-harvest underburning will create a mosaic of burned and unburned areas throughout stands........94

Figure 33 Underburns will be timed to ensure adequate duff and down wood retention .........................................95

Figure 34 Vegetation classification of the Breitenbush Watershed using high resolution satellite imagery 

(Worldview) and eCognition software..............................................................................................................115
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

xii

Figure 35 Vegetation classification within the Riparian Reserves of the project area and sub-watersheds using highresolution satellite imagery (Worldview) and eCognition software.................................................................116

Figure 36 Example of overstocked, conifer dominant stand lacking structural and species diversity within Riparian 

Reserves (Unit 520)...........................................................................................................................................118

Figure 37 Recent Short Creek debris flow, about mid-way up. Photo by J. Sheahan Alonso, 5/27/2016.................121

Figure 38 Source Distance Curves for Study Area (Benda and Bigelow 2014) ..........................................................130

Figure 39 From Burton et al (2016) Effect of wood volume recruitment to small channels by width of no-harvest 

buffer................................................................................................................................................................131

Figure 40 Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species documented within the project area.....................................202

Figure 41 Special Habitats .........................................................................................................................................212

Figure 42 Weed infestations......................................................................................................................................214

Figure 43 Hwy 46 Visual Quality Objectives for Alternative 2 ...................................................................................228

Figure 44 Hwy 46 Visual Quality Objectives for Alternative 3 ...................................................................................229

Figure 45 Fox Creek Group Site. Current conditions, ................................................................................................233

Figure 46 Fox Creek Group Site. Photoshop simulation of thinning..........................................................................234

Figure 47 Breitenbush View of Devils Ridge from Footbridge, left. View from Breitenbush Middle Pool, right. .....234

Figure 48 View from Gold Butte Lookout 9-27-16.....................................................................................................236

Figure 49 GoogleEarth view from Gold Butte facing SE towards project area..........................................................237

Figure 50 Photoshop simulation of proposed treatments in Alternative 2 from Gold Butte....................................237

Figure 51 Photoshop simulation of 1/2 acre gaps and thinning in units 28 and 30 in Alternative 2.........................238

Figure 52 Conditions of Powerline Corridor..............................................................................................................238

Figure 53: Unit 69 visual enhancement treatment....................................................................................................239

Figure 54 Recreation Uses in Hwy 46 Project area....................................................................................................241

Figure 55 Viewshed from Firecamp Lakes vicinity.....................................................................................................254

Figure 56 Viewshed from Triangulation Peak vicinity ...............................................................................................255

Figure 57 Area (in green) with expected impacts from helicopter operations .........................................................259

Figure 58 Map of Unit 520.........................................................................................................................................262

Figure 59 Unit 520 Current Conditions......................................................................................................................262

Figure 60 Hwy 46 Units Visibility from Breitenbush Resort and Conference Center ................................................268

Figure 61.DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic downed wood for the Breitenbush River 

watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker 2015)...........................................313

Figure 62 DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter downed wood for the 

Breitenbush River watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker 2015)313

Figure 63. DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic downed wood for the Breitenbush River 

watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker 2015)............................................................................314

Figure 64. DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic snags for the Breitenbush River watershed in 

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker 2015).................................................................315

Figure 65. DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large snags for the Breitenbush River watershed 

in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker 2015).............................................................316

Figure 66. DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic snags for the Breitenbush River watershed in 

Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker 2015)..................................................................................................316

Figure 67. DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic snags for the Breitenbush River watershed in 

Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker 2015)..................................................................................................317
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

xiii

This page left intentionally blank.
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

1

Summary

The Detroit Ranger District is proposing to improve stand growth, diversity and structure; move stand 

structure from an overabundance of mid-seral stands to increase both early and late seral stand structure 

within the watershed; reduce hazardous fuels; restore sugar pine and encourage sugar pine 

regeneration; treat powerline visuals; restore riparian, understory and meadow habitats; and restore 

hydrologic processes in the Short Lake area. This project would also provide a sustainable yield of 

timber for commercial products to local and regional economies. Treatments would occur on about 

4,060 acres on the Willamette National Forest. 

Purpose and Need

Improve Stand Growth, Diversity and Structure and Move Stand Structure 

from an Overabundance of Mid-seral Stands

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

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

Increase Stand Health and Vigor: All of the stands in which overstory management is proposed have a 

high continuous overstory canopy cover, most averaging 80% or more. The trees are competing for 

sunlight, water, and nutrients causing reduced tree growth and vigor as well as limiting understory 

vegetation. The understory is mostly limited to shrubs with few small trees scattered throughout resulting 

in single-storied stands in the plantations. The fire regenerated stands are similar to the plantations in that 

there is high competition between the overstory trees and suppression in the regeneration.

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

gaps, and dominant tree release. Thinning the overstocked stands would make more growing space and 

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

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

sooner, accelerating the development of some late successional characteristics. Tree species, age, and 

structure diversity would be maintained or enhanced.

Plantations are generally characterized by dense monocultures of Douglas-fir. Competition is high with 

mortality occurring in many of the stands. Crown ratios are small, leading to reduced diameter growth. 

Although fairly well established on some of the northerly slopes, regeneration is suppressed by the 

overstory and growing slowly. Fire regenerated stands are older than the plantations in this project, and 

tend to have larger trees. Species composition in the overstory varies for pure Douglas-fir to mixed 

Douglas-fir with noble fir, western white pine, western hemlock, western redcedar, pacific silver fir, and 

sugar pine. Understory regeneration is variable and is predominantly western hemlock with western 

redcedar, grand fir, pacific yew, and mountain hemlock at the higher elevations. These stands are similar 

to the plantations in that there is high competition between the overstory trees and suppression in the 

regeneration.

Increase the Amount of 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. Early seral habitat (defined as less than 20 years old) is of key importance to an estimated 

156 species of wildlife in the central Oregon Cascades (O’Neil et al 2001). 
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

2

With the cessation of clear-cut logging twenty years ago and continued fire suppression, early seral 

habitat has been substantially reduced within the project area. Prior to the fires of 2017, the powerline 

corridor contained most of the early seral habitat in the project area, encompassing less than 1% of the 

acreage in the project area. It is estimated that 521 acres (1.6%) of early seral habitat was created in the 

project area as a result of the 2017 fires. Historically, the Breitenbush watershed maintained about 9% 

early seral due to wildfire (USDA 1996, 2014). Patches of early seral habitat contribute to landscape 

heterogeneity and provide habitat for large herbivores, song birds, cavity nesters, and pollinators.

Increase the Amount of Late Seral Habitat: Age class diversity in forest stands is important as some 

species of animals and plants depend on older stages of forest development for their feeding, nesting, 

breeding and cover requirements such as flying squirrels, spotted owls, and many lichens and mosses. 

Historically, the Breitenbush watershed maintained about 60% of closed canopy late seral stands. 

Currently, the watershed has about 48% closed canopy late seral stands. There is currently a need to 

enhance, create, and maintain stands of trees in the Breitenbush watershed with late seral characteristics.

Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) are to be managed to protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessional and old-growth forest ecosystems. Silviculture treatments are to benefit the creation and 

maintenance of late-successional forest conditions and are subject to review by the Regional Ecosystem 

Office (REO). In the Hwy 46 Project, there are 38 units that are either completely within or have a portion 

within the LSR, totaling 1,018 acres. Of this, 35 units encompassing 808 acres are prescribed for 

commercial thinning. These stands are previously managed, densely stocked plantations, less than 80 

years old.

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

stands in Riparian Reserves would maintain adequate shade and accelerate the ability of Riparian 

Reserves to provide adequate root strength and bank stability, sediment filtration and nutrient cycling, 

large wood supply to waterbodies and floodplains, organic matter input, and habitat for ripariandependent wildlife.

Strategically Reduce Hazardous Fuels

The project area surrounds both the Breitenbush Hot Springs Retreat and Conference Center and the 

Breitenbush and Devils Creek summer home tracts. These areas have been identified as communities at 

risk in the Marion County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Much of the area that surrounds the 

structures within these communities is dense older forest with heavy fuel loadings and narrow road access 

that could inhibit fire suppression activities in the event of a wildfire.

During 2017, fire suppression work was done within the Breitenbush and Devils Creek summer home 

tracks to improve defensible space, however due to the amount of fuel loading and narrow access and 

egress the structures were classified as “prep and leave” and determined to be non-defensible. Additional 

fuels reduction work may make these structures easier and safer to defend in the event of another wildfire 

threatening this community.

Restore Sugar Pine

The primary range of sugar pine extends from northern Mexico, through the Sierra Nevada, Northern 

California, and Southern Oregon. The very northern extent of its range is in the Hwy 46 project area. 

Sugar pines are moderately shade tolerant, particularly when they are young, needing some protection 

from the sun as they establish. As they get older their tolerance for competition decreases, and other 

species can out-compete them if lower intensity disturbances, primarily wildfire, do not thin stand 
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

3

densities. Fire suppression in the watershed has limited natural sugar pine regeneration, and the 

population has declined over time.

Treat Powerline Visuals

The Hwy 46 project area encompasses the Breitenbush viewshed corridor. This viewshed is an important 

scenic asset as it surrounds the Breitenbush Hot Springs Retreat and Conference Center and includes 

travel corridors that are considered sensitive to scenic quality. A powerline corridor bisects the watershed 

and the straight lines of the powerline corridor do not appear natural on the landscape. 

Restore Riparian and Understory Habitats, Meadows and Hydrologic 

Processes

The previously managed stands in the Hwy 46 Project Area were harvested and replanted using direction 

that pre-dates 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 management-induced 

trajectory that has led to artificially dense, conifer-dominated stands, with tree densities above the range 

of natural variability expected in this area, suppressing shrub and forb diversity in the understory. 

Analysis found that 4.6% of the Riparian Reserves in the Hwy 46 project area had a deciduous and 

deciduous/shrub component. Deciduous leaves have a higher nutritional quality than coniferous needles

with regard to contributions to the aquatic food web. 

With the exclusion of fire, meadow habitat within the project area has been declining. A high elevation 

meadow has been encroached upon by conifers, resulting in a decline in plant diversity, pollinator habitat, 

and wildlife forage.

The current alignment of FS road 46-059 has disrupted the hydrology of the Short Lake Area. This road 

accesses Short Lake, a popular destination for dispersed recreation camping, as well as fishing, birding, 

boating and wildlife viewing. Rerouting the road would reduce sediment delivery to streams in the project 

area, improve water quality, and reduce road maintenance.

Provide Forest Products to the Local Economy

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 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.

Alternatives

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

alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3). The alternatives vary by the amount of treatment (Table 1). Alternative 

2 is the proposed action and preferred alternative.
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

4

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 1785.45 1343.95

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 703 528

Quality Early Seral Creation Acres 0 43 14

Sugar Pine Shelterwood Acres 0 92 9

Gaps Acres 0 47.8 28.8

Dominant Tree Release Acres 0 72.75 61.25

Skips Acres 0 910 689

Meadow Restoration Acres 0 8 0

Total Acres 0 3662 2674

Estimated Volume MMBF 0 ~40 ~24

Non-commercial treatments

Understory Habitat Enhancements Acres 0 155 155

Streamside treatments Acres 0 20 20

Hazardous Fuels Treatment Acres 0 229 193

Total Acres 0 398 368

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments )2 Acres 0 886 799

Post-Harvest Underburn 3 Acres 0 1102 586

Connected Actions

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 0 317 56

Skyline Acres 0 1510 1163

Ground Acres 0 926 766

Transportation

Temporary Roads Reconstruction Miles 0 4.01 3.3

Temporary Roads Construction Miles 0 5.11 3

Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 0 108 98

Road Realignment Miles 0 1 1

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 8.88 8.88

Road Storage Miles 0 4.07 4.07
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

5

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Rock Pit Management Each 0 10 10

Post-Harvest Planting

Early Seral Planting Acres 0 43 14

Shelterwood Planting Acres 0 92 9

Gap Planting Acres 0 47.8 28.8

Dominant Tree Release Planting Acres 0 Up to 72.75 Up to 61.25

Key Issues

Fire regenerated stands harvested Acres 0 767 0

1: Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. Post-harvest fuels treatments would occur in timber harvest units; 

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

2: Mechanical treatment may include: grapple piling in slash concentrations, yarding tops attached, mastication, or any other mechanical device). 

3: These acres are possible underburn acres due to dbh and location, not all acreage may be underburned. Acreage not underburned may have other post-harvest 

fuels treatments assigned before implementation.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

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

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Forest and Stand 

Structure

High stocking density and 

canopy covers would 

continue to restrict 

regeneration and slow tree 

growth. Sugar pine presence 

would decline on the 

landscape as would early 

seral habitat.

3519 acres would be treated 

by thinning, skips, and gap 

creation. Inter-tree 

competition within the 

thinned portions of the 

stands would be reduced.

This would increase vigor, 

allowing the remaining trees 

to grow in diameter at a 

faster rate than without 

thinning. Shade tolerant tree 

species such as western 

hemlock and western 

redcedar would be released 

to grow further into the mid 

and overstory. Skips, clumps, 

and the creation of dominant 

tree release gaps would add 

to the structural 

heterogeneity of the stands 

as well as increase species 

diversity. One to three acre 

wildlife gaps would increase 

the amount of grass-forb 

stage habitat within the 

project area.

2651 acres would be treated 

by thinning, skips, and gap 

creation. Inter-tree 

competition within the 

thinned portions of the 

stands would be reduced. 

This would increase vigor, 

allowing the remaining trees 

to grow in diameter at a 

faster rate than without 

thinning. Shade tolerant tree 

species such as western 

hemlock and western 

redcedar would be released 

to grow further into the mid 

and overstory. Skips, clumps, 

and the creation of dominant 

tree release gaps would add 

to the structural 

heterogeneity of the stands 

as well as increase species 

diversity. One to three acre 

wildlife gaps would increase 

the amount of grass-forb 

stage habitat within the 

project area.
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

6

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Sugar Pine Sugar pine on the landscape 

would continue to decline.

92 acres of sugar pine

habitat would be restored 

The existing sugar pine 

population would benefit from 

reduced competition was well 

as the establishment of a 

new rust resistant cohort, 

ensuring the continued 

presence of the species.

9 acres of sugar pine habitat 

would be restored. The 

opportunity to restore sugar 

pine habitat on 83 acres 

would be missed.

Early seral habitat

No acres of quality early 

seral habitat would be 

created, the amount of grassforb stage in the project area 

would decline.

43 acres of quality early seral 

habitat would be created, 

increasing the amount of 

grass-forb stage habitat 

within the project area. A 

wide variety of species would 

benefit, including deer, elk, 

songbirds, and numerous 

pollinators.

14 acres of quality early seral 

habitat would be created, 

benefitting several wildlife 

species.

Late Successional 

Reserves

Stands within the Late 

Successional Reserve would 

continue to develop at the 

current rate.

Structural and species 

diversity would be increased 

on 808 acres, resulting in 

these stands attaining late 

seral characteristics sooner 

than if left untreated.

Structural and species 

diversity would be increased 

on 808 acres, resulting in 

these stands attaining late 

seral characteristics sooner 

than if left untreated.

Meadow restoration

Conifers would continue to 

encroach upon the high 

elevation meadow.

8 acres of conifers would be 

removed from the high 

elevation meadow, promoting 

both wet site plants and early 

seral obligate species.

Conifers would continue to 

encroach upon the high 

elevation meadow.

Fire and Fuels

Effects of fire suppression 

and past management 

activities would continue. 

Lack of fire disturbance 

would prevent the creation of 

new early seral conditions 

and inhibit the establishment 

of new sugar pine. Fuels

would continue to 

accumulate in the 

Breitenbush Summer Homes 

and Hot Springs Resort area.

Hazardous fuels on 193

acres in the Breitenbush WUI 

would be reduced. Timber 

harvest slash would follow 

Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines FW-212 and FW252 guidance. Returning fire 

would increase stand 

diversity and structure.

Hazardous fuels on 193

acres in Breitenbush WUI

would be reduced. Timber 

harvest slash would follow 

Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines FW-212 and FW252 guidance. Returning fire 

would increase stand 

diversity and structure.

Soil Productivity No effect

Nutrient availability and 

compaction would remain 

within the limits outlined in 

the standard and guidelines 

of the forest plan.

Nutrient availability and 

compaction would remain 

within the limits outlined in 

the standard and guidelines 

of the forest plan.

Water Quality and 

Quantity No effect

Water quality would be 

protected. Treatment of 

riparian vegetation would 

meet TMDL requirements for 

temperature and sediment. 

No increased flood flows are 

anticipated due to this 

project.

Water quality would be 

protected. Treatment of 

riparian vegetation would 

meet TMDL requirements for 

temperature and sediment. 

No increased flood flows are 

anticipated due to this 

project.
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

7

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Upper Willamette 

River 

ChinookSalmon 

(Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit-ESU) 

No effect May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Upper Willamette 

River Chinook 

Salmon 

(Critical Habitat)

No effect No effect No effect

Upper Willamette 

River 

ChinookSalmon 

(Essential Habitat)

No effect No effect No effect

Caddisflies -

Rhyacophila 

chandleri, 

Rhyacophila leechi, 

Namamyia plutonis

(R6 Sensitive)

No effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect

Northern Spotted 

Owl (ESA Threatened 

and Management 

Indicator Species)

No effect

May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect spotted owls 

by habitat modification. May 

affect and is not likely to 

adversely affect spotted owls 

by disturbance.

May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect spotted owls 

by habitat modification. May 

affect and is not likely to 

adversely affect spotted owls 

by disturbance.

American Peregrine 

Falcon (R6 Sensitive 

and Management 

Indicator Species) 

No impact No impact No impact

Harlequin Duck (R6 

Sensitive) No impact

No impact. All project 

activities with potential to 

impact harlequin ducks are 

restricted from March 15 to 

July 15 to avoid disturbance 

to nesting harlequin ducks.

No impact. All project 

activities with potential to 

impact harlequin ducks are 

restricted from March 15 to 

July 15 to avoid disturbance 

to nesting harlequin ducks.
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

8

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Fisher 

(Proposed 

Threatened) 

No effect

Unlikely to occur in the 

project area and not 

expected to be affected by 

proposed activities.

Unlikely to occur in the 

project area and not 

expected to be affected by 

proposed activities.

Fringed Myotis and 

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat (R6 

Sensitive)

No impact

May be affected if trees 

which have potential to be 

used for nursery colonies are 

felled as hazards during 

harvest operations 

Subsequent snag creation 

may offset this impact.

May be affected if trees 

which have potential to be 

used for nursery colonies are 

felled as hazards during 

harvest operations 

Subsequent snag creation 

may offset this impact.

Johnson’s Hairstreak 

(R6 Sensitive) No impact Minimal effect Minimal effect

Western Bumble Bee No impact Beneficial effect, due to 

meadow restoration No effect

Crater Lake Tightcoil 

(R6 Sensitive and 

Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact No effect No effect

Oregon Megomphix 

(Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact No effect No effect
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

9

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Red Tree Vole 

(Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact No effect No effect

Great Gray Owl 

(Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact No effect No effect

Cavity Excavators 

(Management 

Indicator Species) 

No impact

Snag abundance may initially 

decline on 3515 acres, then

increase with post-harvest 

mitigation and enhancement.

Snag abundance may initially 

decline on 2652 acres, then

increase with post-harvest 

mitigation and enhancement.

Elk and Deer 

(Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact

About 1,747 acres of poor 

quality foraging areas would 

be converted to low-marginal 

(1,575 acres), high-marginal 

(164 acres) or good (8 acres) 

foraging habitat.

About 1,179 acres of poor 

quality foraging areas would 

be converted to low-marginal 

(1,096 acres) or highmarginal (83 acres) foraging 

habitat.

Pileated Woodpecker 

(Management 

Indicator Species) 

No impact No effect No Effect
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

10

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Marten

(Management 

Indicator Species

No impact

About 4.5% to 12.5% of the 

habitat in three potential 

marten home ranges would 

be degraded. This level of 

impact is not expected to 

result in a loss of functional 

home ranges for marten, but 

shifting of use within 

territories and minor changes 

to the size of the territory to 

compensate for the impacts 

on the habitat would likely 

occur. Understory habitat 

enhancement in older stands 

may slightly benefit marten 

habitat in two potential home 

ranges.

About 4.5% to 7.9% of the 

habitat in two potential 

marten home ranges would 

be degraded. This level of 

impact is not expected to 

result in a loss of functional 

home ranges for marten, but 

shifting of use within 

territories and minor changes 

to the size of the territory to 

compensate for the impacts 

on the habitat would likely 

occur. Understory habitat 

enhancement in older stands 

may slightly benefit marten 

habitat in two potential home 

ranges.

Bald Eagle 

(Management 

Indicator Species 

No impact No effect No effect

Sensitive Botanical 

Species No effect

No direct or indirect effect on 

sensitive vascular plants, 

lichens or bryophytes. 

However, since single year 

surveys were deemed 

infeasible for fungi, there 

could be effects to these 

species.

No direct or indirect effect on 

sensitive vascular plants, 

lichens or bryophytes. 

However, since single year 

surveys were deemed 

infeasible for fungi, there 

could be effects to these 

species.

Survey and Manage

Botanical Species No effect

Direct effects may include 

compaction and loss of host 

trees in timber harvest 

treatment areas

Direct effects may include 

compaction and loss of host 

trees in timber harvest 

treatment areas

Special Habitats No effect

Restoration of high elevation 

meadow habitat. All other 

special habitats will be 

protected by buffers or 

avoidance.

No effect due to buffers and 

avoidance

Invasive Plants No effect

A 9% increase in habitat for 

invasive plant species are 

expected. Project design 

features would be used to 

mitigate some increases in 

populations of invasive plants 

due to ground disturbance; 

weed increases will be 

minimized to the extent 

possible. 

A 6% increase in habitat for 

invasive plant species are 

expected. Project design 

features would be used to 

mitigate some increases in 

populations of invasive plants 

due to ground disturbance; 

weed increases will be 

minimized to the extent 

possible.

Roads

Continued decline in road 

conditions on the 108 miles 

of roads associated with the 

project.

Would improve declining 

road conditions on an 

estimated 108 miles of road.

8.88 miles of road would be 

decommissioned.4.07 miles 

of road would be closed or 

stored. The Short Lake road 

Would improve declining 

road conditions on an 

estimated 98 miles of road.

8.88 miles of road would be 

decommissioned.4.07 miles 

of road would be closed or 

stored. The Short Lake road 
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

11

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

would be realigned, restoring 

hydrologic processes and 

decreasing road generated 

sediment deliver to streams 

in the project area. 

would be realigned, restoring 

hydrologic processes and 

decreasing road generated 

sediment deliver to streams 

in the project area.

Heritage No effect Not likely to affect Not likely to affect

Scenic Quality No effect

The proposed actions would 

provide benefits to visuals 

along the powerline corridor 

and would enhance the view 

of Mt. Jefferson from the 

West Cascades National 

Scenic Byway. The proposed 

actions would not have any 

long term adverse effects to 

visually sensitive 

management areas, and 

proposed treatments would 

be consistent with standards 

and guidelines set by the 

Forest Plan.

The proposed actions would 

provide benefits to visuals 

along the powerline corridor 

and would enhance the view 

of Mt. Jefferson from the 

West Cascades National 

Scenic Byway. The proposed 

actions would not have any 

long term adverse effects to 

visually sensitive 

management areas, and 

proposed treatments would 

be consistent with standards 

and guidelines set by the 

Forest Plan.

Recreation No effect

Temporary adverse effects 

due to trail closures, 

increased noise and dust and 

log truck traffic during 

harvest activity. Benefits of 

timber harvest activity would 

include improved access to 

dispersed recreation areas 

due to road maintenance, 

improved scenery from 

secondary forest roads and 

an enlarged and improved 

trailhead parking area at the 

South Breitenbush Trail.

Temporary adverse effects 

due to trail closures, 

increased noise and dust and 

log truck traffic during 

harvest activity. Benefits of 

timber harvest activity would 

include improved access to 

dispersed recreation areas 

due to road maintenance, 

improved scenery from 

secondary forest roads and 

an enlarged and improved 

trailhead parking area at the 

South Breitenbush Trail.

Eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

There will be no impact to the 

free flowing status or the 

ORVs of each river and their 

eligibility for inclusion in the 

national Wild and Scenic 

River system will be 

maintained.

The actions proposed will not 

affect the eligibility of either 

the Breitenbush River or 

South Fork Breitenbush 

River for inclusion in the 

national Wild and Scenic 

River System. 

The actions proposed will not 

affect the eligibility of either 

the Breitenbush River or 

South Fork Breitenbush 

River for inclusion in the 

national Wild and Scenic 

River System.

Wilderness No effect

Temporary adverse effects to 

wilderness character due to 

increased noise during 

harvest activity.

Temporary adverse effects to 

wilderness character due to 

increased noise during 

harvest activity.

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (IRA) No effect

Approximately 14 acres 

would be thinned. Roadless 

characteristics would 

continue to be met in the 

IRA.

Approximately 14 acres 

would be thinned. Roadless 

characteristics would 

continue to be met in the 

IRA.
Hwy 46 Project Final EIS

12

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Air Quality No effect

Impacts on air quality from 

smoke emissions would not 

exceed state mandated 

policy.

Impacts on air quality from 

smoke emissions would not 

exceed state mandated 

policy.

Economics

No contribution to local 

economy, forest sector jobs, 

or the National Forest Fund 

(NFF) would result. If not 

replaced by another project, 

Alternative 1 could contribute 

to a continued decline in 

forestry and milling related 

jobs.

Approximately 40 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 24 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.