HWY 46

SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

DRAFT

May 19, 2017

PREPARED BY 

MARK LEIS

DETROIT DISTRICT SILVICULTURIST

Unit 410
2

Table of Contents

Analysis Methods.........................................................................................................................................4

Basis for Characterizing Conditions ..........................................................................................................4

Models and Methodologies Used.............................................................................................................4

Management Direction................................................................................................................................5

Willamette Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines ...................................................................................5

Willamette Forest Plan Management Areas (See Figure 12 in Appendices) ..........................................5

Northwest Forest Plan Allocations ...........................................................................................................7

Critical Habitat Rule (2012).......................................................................................................................7

Roadless Rule (2001) - Inventoried Roadless Areas..................................................................................7

Watershed Analysis...................................................................................................................................8

Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) Assessment...........................................................................................9

Purpose and Need.....................................................................................................................................9

Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................................................10

Location...................................................................................................................................................10

Landscape Conditions – Breigtenbush Watershed.................................................................................10

Landscape Conditions – Hwy 46 Project Area ........................................................................................11

Stand Conditions.....................................................................................................................................12

Desired Future Conditions.........................................................................................................................17

Silvicultural Treatments.............................................................................................................................18

Commercial Thinning ..............................................................................................................................18

Skips and Dominant Tree Release (DTR) Gaps........................................................................................19

Variable Retention Regeneration – Quality Early Seral Habitat .............................................................20

Wildlife Gaps...........................................................................................................................................20

Sugar Pine Restoration............................................................................................................................21

Understory Habitat Enhancement..........................................................................................................22

Riparian Treatments ...............................................................................................................................22

Visual Enhancement Gaps.......................................................................................................................23

Fuels Treatments ....................................................................................................................................23

Silvicultural Treatments – Post Harvest ....................................................................................................23

Fuels Treatments ....................................................................................................................................23

Whip falling .............................................................................................................................................24

Planting ...................................................................................................................................................24
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

3

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement................................................................................................................24

Implementation Guidelines.......................................................................................................................24

Tree Selection .........................................................................................................................................24

General Marking Guidelines for Thinning...............................................................................................24

Wildlife Gap Creation Guidelines............................................................................................................25

Dominant Tree Release (DTR) Gap Creation Guidelines.........................................................................25

Clumps ....................................................................................................................................................26

Sugar Pine Shelterwoods with Reserves.................................................................................................26

View Enhancement Gaps........................................................................................................................26

Consistency with Direction and Regulations.............................................................................................26

Monitoring..................................................................................................................................................29

References Cited.........................................................................................................................................30

Appendices.................................................................................................................................................32
4

Analysis Methods 

Basis for Characterizing Conditions 

The preliminary analysis of the vegetation conditions were completed using the GIS stand layer 

linked to the historic VEGIS database. Year of origin was used to select stands between 30 and 

130 years old within the project area and these stands were field verified by the Logging Systems 

specialist to determine merchantability of the trees and logging feasibility of the unit. Numerous 

stands were dropped from consideration at this phase, mainly due to the immaturity of the trees 

or operational difficulties. Other units were identified for understory vegetation enhancement or 

meadow restoration by the district botanist, while most of the sugar pine restoration units were 

proposed by the fuels specialist.

All stands were walked through and reviewed by the silviculturist as well as other specialists and 

discussed during the district Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meetings. Based on these discussions, 

several more units were removed from further consideration based economic feasibility, wildlife 

concerns, land allocation, etc. Prescriptions for stand treatment were also discussed, with some 

changes made based on IDT input.

Models and Methodologies Used 

Stand examination was performed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 by both contractors and 

Forest Service employees. Units 170 and 210 received walk through exams by the silviculturist. 

With the exception of these two fuels treatment units, all exams followed the “extensive”

protocols (CSE User’s Guide, 2015) and were conducted using nested variable plot/fixed plot or 

fixed plot/fixed plot configurations. Sampling intensities were generally based on the following:

Table 1. Plot sampling intensity

Acres Plots

1 to 9 3

10 to 25 4

26 to 59 5

60 or greater 1 per 10 ac

Plot locations in stands that were collected from 2011 to 2013 were determined by the contractor 

based on a grid spacing. For stands sampled after 2013, plot placement was generated in GIS 

using Geospatial Modeling Environment software. Minor adjustments were made to plot 

locations that landed in open roads or within one chain of the stand boundary. Plot centers were 

located on the ground using handheld GPS units.

Data collected was stored in the FSVeg Database. The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) 

(USDA, 2011) was used to determine current condition metrics as well as post treatment 

conditions and future growth. ArcGIS v. 10.0 was used for mapping analysis.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

5

Management Direction 

Management direction for activities for this project area is driven by the 1990 Willamette 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 1994 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA, 1990; USDA, 1994). Recommendations from the 1996

Breitenbush Watershed Analysis (updated in 2014) and the 1998 Mid-Willamette LateSuccessional Reserves Assessment (USDA/USDI, 1998) are also considered within the context 

of how they meet management direction. In addition, the IDT developed a Purpose and Need as 

disclosed in the January 13, 2016 Hwy 46 Project Initiation Letter.

Willamette Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

Applicable Forest-wide Standard and Guidelines related to timber management: 

• FW-181 - Regulated timber harvest shall occur only on suitable lands for timber 

production and NFMA

• FW-182 - Timber should not be harvested until it has reached or surpassed 95% of 

culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) in cubic feet. (Exception made for 

commercial thinning and to meet other resource objectives)

• FW-184- A silvicultural prescription shall be prepared, or approved after field review, by 

a Region 6 certified silviculturist.

• FW-185 – Silvicultural prescriptions shall be based on the site potential as indicated by 

plant associations.

• FW-188 - Timber harvesting shall be done in such a way that there is assurance that each 

area can be adequately restocked within 5 years after the final harvest for clearcutting and 

selection cutting. 

• FW-190 - Tree species used to planting harvest units should be based on the potential of 

the site as indicated by plant associations and adjacent stand conditions. Stands should 

be regenerated to maintain a mixture of hardwood and conifer species, as appropriate for 

maintaining diversity on the site.

• FW-192 - Prior to removal of woody plants to increase growth of timber crop trees, a 

prescription shall be developed that ensures no native species should be eliminated from 

the site

• FW-193 – Forest openings created by even-aged silviculture should not exceed 60 acres

unless otherwise justified.

Willamette Forest Plan Management Areas (See Figure 12 in Appendices) 

General Forest - MA-14a

The primary goal of General Forest is to produce an optimum and sustainable yield of timber that 

is compatible with multiple use objectives. 
6

Scenic – Modification Middleground. MA - 11a

The goal of this management area is 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, retaining natural features of the forest landscape when viewed 

from 1⁄4 of a mile to 5 miles away.. This area will also be managed for other resource goals 

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

wildlife habitat. Although management activities may visually dominate the natural 

surroundings, alterations will borrow from established form, line, color, and texture elements of 

the original landscape. Regeneration harvest units should not exceed 30 acres.

Scenic – Partial Retention Middleground. MA - 11c

The goal of this management area is 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, maintaining a near natural setting when viewed from 1⁄4 of a 

mile to 5 miles away. This area will also be managed for other resource goals including timber 

production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitat. 

Resource treatments will be conducted in such a way that they are visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape. Alterations will remain subordinate by repeating the form, line, color 

and texture elements which are characteristic of the landscape. Visual contrast will be minimized 

through shape, edge effect, scale, and distribution of resource treatments. Regeneration harvest 

units should not exceed 15 acres.

Scenic – Retention Foreground. MA - 11f

The goal of this management area is to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the 

forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes will be managed for a 

high visual quality, maintaining a natural or near natural setting in the foreground up to 1⁄2 mile 

distant. Manipulations to forest vegetation will repeat the form, line, color, and texture elements 

which are commonly found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, 

amount, intensity, direction, and pattern will not be evident to the casual observer. Regeneration 

harvest should not exceed 5 acres, 2 acres along roads.

Dispersed Recreation - Lakeside Areas – Wildlife Habitat and Recreation - MA-10f

The goal of this management area is to provide roaded natural recreation experiences while 

maintaining the diversity of wildlife habitats that are provided in the lakeside areas. No 

programmed harvest shall be scheduled.

Special Use Permits - MA-13a

The goal of this management area is to provide safe and efficient sites for permitted facilities and 

improvements to promote the public welfare in an environmentally sound manner. The 
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

7

improvements include highway right-of-ways, communication towers, and power transmission 

lines.

Northwest Forest Plan Allocations 

The proposed units fall into Matrix, Riparian Reserves, and Late-Successional Reserve land 

allocations. Matrix stands can be managed for commodity production and perform an important 

role in maintaining biodiversity. Silvicultural treatments can provide for retention of old-growth 

components such as large green trees, snags and down logs, and diversity of species.

Riparian Reserves are areas where riparian-dependent species receive primary emphasis. The 

reserves are a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) which was developed to 

restore and maintain the long-term ecological health of the watershed and aquatic ecosystems. 

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

structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas. Standard and Guideline TM-1 

prohibits timber harvest in Riparian Reserves, except when silvicultural practices are applied to 

control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics 

needed to attain the ACS objectives.

Late-Successional Reserves (MA-16a and 16b) are to be managed to protect and enhance 

conditions of late-successional 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). Exemption criteria from REO review for 

commercial thinning were established in 1996 (REIC 1996a and 1996b) and projects that fully 

meet these criteria do not require a project review. 

Critical Habitat Rule (2012) 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service designated certain areas in which they encourage land 

managers to consider implementation of forest management practices to restore natural 

ecological processes where they have been disrupted or suppressed, and the application of 

ecological forestry management practices within critical habitat to reduce the potential for 

adverse impacts associated with commercial timber harvest when such harvest is planned within 

or adjacent to critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not change land use 

allocations or Standards and Guidelines for management under the NWFP, nor does this rule 

establish any management plan or prescriptions for the management of critical habitat. (USDI, 

2012).

Roadless Rule (2001) - Inventoried Roadless Areas 

These areas were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of inventoried 

roadless area maps along with a final decision set forth in the Federal Register in 2001. Areas 

designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) prohibit both road construction or re-
8

construction, as well as timber cutting, sale, and removal. Exceptions to the timber harvesting 

portion may apply in certain situations as long the activity is infrequent and the timber cut is 

generally of small diameter. These situations include: management will improve threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; harvesting will maintain or restore the 

characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire effects; the harvesting is incidental to the implementation of a 

management activity not otherwise prohibited by the Roadless Rule; cutting is for personal or 

administrative use (Christmas trees, materials for trail construction, etc.); management is in an 

area where roadless characteristics have been substantially altered due to road construction and 

timber harvest since the 1984 Roadless Rule was established (USDA, 2001).

Watershed Analysis 

The project area is within the Breitenbush Watershed. . In 1996, an analysis of the Breitenbush

was conducted to develop and document a scientifically based understand of the processes and 

interactions occurring within this fifth-field watershed. The document was updated in 2014 to 

reflect new information and recommendations to achieve management objectives. The 

watershed analysis identifies a desired future condition and objectives for the vegetation below.

Breitenbush Watershed Desired Future Condition for Vegetation

Vegetation is managed to conserve natural resources, promote vigorous long-term productivity, 

sustain yield, increase ecological diversity, and enhance environmental quality. Forest 

vegetation is distributed across the landscape in a variety of structural stages, emulating natural 

historic disturbance patterns. Early, mid, and late-seral stands exist in similar proportions to 

what they were pre-settlement. Snags and down wood are restored to the quantity and size class 

distribution more historically appropriate for the seral stage (USDA, 1996, 2014).

Objectives

1. Maintain and enhance growth and health of managed and natural stands.

2. Increase ecological diversity by increasing vegetation species richness, diversifying stand 

structure, and creating quality early-seral and late-seral habitat.

3. Maintain and restore meadow features.

4. Provide a variety of forest products.

5. Provide a sustainable timber supply.

6. Reduce the density of overstocked young stands.

7. Accelerate stands toward late-seral stand characteristics in the Late Successional Reserve.

8. Increase snag and down woody densities in the desired size class distributions in stands where 

appropriate.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

9

9. Integrated program objectives are incorporated into silvicultural prescriptions.

Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) Assessment 

The Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment was completed in 1998. The assessment was reviewed 

and signed by the Regional Ecosystem Office on August 24, 1998. This document assessed the 

conditions and functions for eleven LSR’s within the Willamette National Forest, Salem BLM 

District, and Eugene BLM District as a basis for evaluating future management activities. 

Approximately 14,872 acres of the Hwy 46 project area lies within the lower southwest portion 

of the 40,016-acre Jefferson LSR. Activities are proposed in approximately 1,040 acres of this 

LSR.

The Assessment identified key issues, triggers, and treatment criteria at three levels to ensure that 

LSR objectives are met: the landscape level, within the specific LSR, and at the stand level. At 

the landscape level, an overall lack of late-successional habitat was identified as a key issue in 

the Jefferson LSR. Within LSR’s, landscape blocks were delineated based on similar patterns of 

seral stages and patch sizes. The affected Hwy 46 units fall within Landscape Block D with 

recommended objectives including treating non-functioning mid seral stands to create larger 

patches of late-successional habitat in the short to mid-term. The Assessment identified this 

Block as having the highest priority for treating densely stocked mid seral stands (USDA/USDI, 

1998).

Purpose and Need 

Items in the Purpose and Need related to vegetation management include:

1. Improve stand growth, diversity, and structure.

2. Move stand structure from an overabundance of mid seral stands to increase both early 

and late seral stand structure in the watershed.

4. Restore sugar pine stands to encourage sugar pine regeneration.

5. Treat powerline visuals in this high priority viewshed.

6. Riparian restoration.

7. Meadow restoration and enhancement

9. Contribute timber products in an economically viable and sustainable manner to meet the 

needs of the local market.
10

Existing Conditions 

Location 

The Hwy 46 project area is located approximately 6 miles northeast of the town of Detroit, 

Oregon, in Marion County. The legal description of the area is T 9 S, R 6 E, sections 1, 11 – 15, 

21 – 28, 35 and 36, T 9 S, R 7 E, sections 3 – 36, T 9 S, R 8 E, sections 7, 18, 19, 30 and 31, T 

10 S, R7 E, sections 1 – 6 and 8 – 12, T 10 S, R 8 E, section 6.

Figure 1. Project Area and Breitenbush 5th Field Watershed 

Landscape Conditions – Breitenbush Watershed 

The project area is within the 69,461 acre North Fork Breitenbush River fifth field watershed.

Of this, 61,428 acres (88%) are on the Detroit Ranger District. The District portion of the 

Breitenbush Watershed has 14,872 acres (24%) LSR, and 10,872 acres (18%) Wilderness.

The Breitenbush Watershed Analysis indicates that the historical distribution of seral stages (preEuropean) were as follows:
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

11

Table 2. Historic Seral Stage Distribution.

Seral Stage Precentage of area.

Early, post-disturbance 9.0%

Mid seral, closed canopy 17.0%

Mid seral, open canopy 5.2%

Late seral, open canopy 8.4%

Late seral, closed canopy 60.4%

Total 100.0%

Analysis by Lisa Helmig and Jane Kurtis indicates that the seral stages in the Breitenbush

Watershed are currently distributed as follows:

Table 3. Current Seral Stage Distribution

Seral Stage Precentage of area.

Early, post-disturbance 4%

Mid seral, closed canopy 29%

Mid seral, open canopy 8%

Late seral, open canopy 11%

Late seral, closed canopy 48%

Total 100%

Data from GNN. Combined potential veg group, qmd of tallest 25 trees and canopy cover into coarse seral stages.

Landscape Conditions – Hwy 46 Project Area 

Stand replacing disturbance has been at work in this area for thousands of years. Historically, 

large scale disturbances have been from infrequent, high intensity fires. Stand ages from the 

FEGIS GIS layer indicate that fires burned large portions of the 31,295 acre project area between 

1600 and 1800. Approximately 40% of the stands within the project area were initiated during 

this time. Another round of fires burned portions of the landscape around the turn of the 

twentieth century, particularly in the northern part of the project area, with approximately 21% of 

the project area in this age class. Although commercial logging started in the area shortly after 

that, it did not ramp up until the 1960’s with even-aged management. Since the mid-1990s, there 

has been virtually no stand replacing disturbance. 

Table 4. Stand Replacing Disturbance.

Time Period Primary Disturbance Acres % of Project

Prior 1600 Fire 1,914 6%

1600-1800 Fire 12,436 40%

1800-1916 Fire 6,700 21%

1917-1959 Fire/Timber harvest 790 3%

1960-1996 Timber harvest 9,392 30%

1997- present Timber harvest 20 < 0.1%

No data 43

Totals 31,295 100
12

Stand Conditions 

Stand History

The stands proposed for management with this project fall under three general categories, 

plantations, naturally regenerated Douglas-fir stands, and naturally regenerated pacific silver fir 

stands. Plantations are the result of past clear-cut harvesting, broadcast burning, planting of 

Douglas-fir, fertilizing, pre-commercial thinning, and sometimes pruning. Naturally regenerated 

Douglas-fir stands are the result of intense wildfires in the late 1800’s which seeded in naturally. 

Naturally regenerated pacific silver stands are high elevation and variable in age.

Table 5. Units by Category.

Category Unit Numbers Total Acres

Plantation 1-3, 5-7, 11, 19, 20, 23, 26, 30, 33-35, 38, 42, 44-49, 51-53, 55-

64, 69-78, 80, 100-140a, 160, 180-200, 220, 240-490, 510-540, 

560, 570

2,738

Natural 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 32a, 39, 40, 

41, 50, 54, 81-84, 87, 89, 92, 94-97, 150, 210

1,345

Table 6. Stand Range of Conditions

Category Stand Age Overstory avg. 

diameter

Overstory trees 

per acre

Overstory 

canopy cover

Plantations 20 - 56 9.5 - 18.2” 105 - 397 60 - 95%

Natural 93 - 145 12.1 - 27.2” 86 - 293 40 - 95%

Plantations are generally characterized by dense monocultures of Douglas-fir. On southern 

aspects these plantations have very little understory regeneration and varying amounts of 

vegetation. Some of the more northerly aspects tend to have more naturally occurring 

regeneration underneath them, composed primarily of western hemlock with smaller amounts of 

western redcedar, grand fir, and pacific yew. 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.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

13

Examples of Plantations

Figure 2. Unit 55 (southerly aspect) Figure 3. Unit 110 (northerly aspect)

Naturally 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. A few of these natural stands have relic older trees scattered within them that are 

remnants from before the fire that regenerated the stand. 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.

Examples of naturally regenerated stands

Figure 4. Unit 16 Figure 5. Unit 22

All of the plantation stands are considered to be in the stem exclusion stage (Oliver and Larson, 

1990). Stem exclusion stands have a dense overstory canopy cover that blocks out light to the 

forest floor and limits understory development. All of the stands in which overstory 

management is proposed have a high continuous overstory canopy cover, most averaging 80% or 
14

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.

Most of the older natural stands are also in the stem exclusion stage with several beginning to 

transition into the understory re-initiation stage (Oliver and Larson, 1990) due to previous 

commercial thinning. The latter is characterized by dense overstory canopies with an understory 

of climax seedlings and saplings, predominantly composed of western hemlock with smaller 

amounts of western redcedar and occasional grand fir and pacific yew. 

Plant Association and Understory Vegetation

The proposed stands range in mid-point elevation from 1,900 feet to 4,700. The majority of the 

area is within the western hemlock series type and the rest are in the Pacific silver fir series or 

the mountain hemlock series. Table 7 summarizes the various plant associations found within 

Table 7. Units by Plant Association

Plant Association Units % of acreage

Western Hemlock series:

Western hemlock/dwarf 

Oregon grape

2, 6, 12-21, 23-29, 31, 33, 34, 38-40, 42, 46-51, 53, 56-

61, 63, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 84, 93-96, 140a, 150, 180-

200, 250-300,320-400,420, 450-530

57%

Western hemlock/dwarf 

Oregon grape-dry 3, 30, 35, 44, 45, 62, 64, 72, 81, 83, 87 8%

Western hemlock/vine 

maple/sword fern 11, 69, 310 1%

Western hemlock/dwarf 

Oregon grape/vanilla leaf 22, 440 2%

Western hemlock/dwarf 

Oregon grape/salal 5, 7, 240 3%

Western hemlock/

rhododendron/beargrass 74, 110, 120, 220 6%

Western hemlock/

rhododendron/dwarf Oregon 

grape

41, 52, 73, 76, 100, 140, 160, 410, 430 8%

Western hemlock/ 

rhododendron/salal 1, 6 1%

Western hemlock/ 

rhododendron/Alaska 

huckleberry/Oregon oxalis

80 1%

Pacific silver fir series:

Pacific silver fir/Cascade 

azalea/beargrass 560 1%

Pacific silver fir/blue 

huckleberry/queencup beadlily 32 2%
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

15

Plant Association Units % of acreage

Pacific silver fir/blue 

huckleberry/beargrass 54, 55, 82 2%

Pacific silver fir/dwarf Oregon 

grape

97 1%

Pacific silver fir-western 

hemlock/rhododendron/salal 540 1%

Pacific silver 

fir/rhododendron/beargrass 130 1%

Mountain hemlock series:

Mountain hemlock/big 

huckleberry/beargrass 89, 92 1%

Not classified 32a, 170, 210, 570 5%

the project units. Understory vegetation throughout the project area generally consists of dwarf 

Oregon grape, vine maple, salal, rhododendron, beargrass, bracken fern, western sword fern, 

twin flower, bunchberry dogwood, California hazel, vanilla leaf, red huckleberry, and blue 

huckleberry in the higher elevations. Scattered hardwoods include red alder along some of the 

steams, chinquapin on drier slopes, and scattered big-leaf maple. 

Plant association types and understory vegetation are influenced by elevation, aspect, soil, 

temperature, and moisture regimes. The amount of available sunlight also influences the variety 

and abundance of the plants. Generally speaking, stands with a more open overstory have 

vegetation with increased species diversity, density, and height (Bailey et al, 1998, Bailey and 

Tappeiner, 1997). Many of the dense plantations have residual decadent plants (rhododendron or 

snow brush) that have shaded out by the overstory, leaving minimal vegetation in many cases.

Insects, Disease, and Animal Damage

Insects, disease, and animals are active in the area although not a significant impact to mortality, 

particularly in the younger plantations. Insect activity observed was primarily Douglas-fir beetle 

(Dendroctonus pseudotsugae). The extent was limited to just a few trees in small pockets, often 

associated with root rot. Units where Douglas-fir beetle activity was observed include 12, 31, 

41, 96, and 140a. The predominant disease currently active in the area is laminated root rot 

(Phellinus weirii). Pockets were found in several stands including Units 14, 21, 22, 34, 56, 140a, 

180, 380, 410, 420, and 520. Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense –tsugense) is active in 

western hemlock in a few units, including 6, 40, 49, 81, and 270. White pine blister rust 

(Cronartium ribicola) was observed in sugar pine in units 83 and 84. Basal scaring from black 

bears has caused some mortality in units 16, 20, 48, 51, and 55 (Goheen and Willhite, 2006).
16

Density

Density is one of the key factors in the decision making process to determine if a stand needs 

treatment. Density is measured for timber stands using a wide variety of methods. The two key 

components of stand density are the number of trees and the diameter of the trees. These 

measurements are derived from stand exam plots and are averaged at the stand level. Most of the 

stands within this project are uniformly dense throughout the stand, while others are varied in 

their density. These stands appear to have low densities when the data is averaged, but, in fact, 

have thick areas within the stand that are not well represented by the data. Several density 

measurements are discussed below and how they relate to the stands within the project.

Trees per Acre (tpa). The number of trees in an acres is a very easy concept to 

understand, but this metric alone is not always reflective of how dense a stand is. Tree 

size is also a factor. As the trees in a stand with a given number of trees per acre increase 

in diameter, the stand becomes denser. This is because the larger a tree is, the more space 

it needs to grow. A stand with 200 tpa of trees that are only 4” diameter breast height 

(dbh) would be considered a low density stand, the trees would be free to grow and there 

would be very little competition between them. However, once those trees reach 15” 

dbh, some will begin to die due to the intense competition with the other trees. Tpa for 

trees over 7” dbh within the units in Hwy 46 range from 86 to 397.

Basal Area (BA). If a tree were cut perpendicular to the bole at 4.5’ above the ground, the 

area of the surface of the cut is equivalent to the basal area, measured in square feet. If 

all of the trees in an acre were cut the same way and all of the individual tree basal areas 

were added up, this would be the stand basal area. Stand basal area is a better indicator 

of stand density than trees per acre because both the number of trees and the size of those 

trees have an influence on the measurement. The shortcoming of BA is that it does not 

indicate how big the trees are or how many there are. A stand with a lot of small trees 

could have the same basal area as a stand with a few big trees. Generally, stands with 

bigger trees can hold greater basal area (relative to competition) compared to stands of 

the same basal area with smaller trees. Stand basal areas for trees 7” dbh and greater 

within the project area range from 83 ft2 to 392ft2.

Relative Density (RD). Relative density is a metric described by Curtis (1982) for West 

Cascades Douglas-fir which uses basal area and quadratic mean diameter (QMD) to 

calculate an index. Relative densities of 50 or greater are indicative of stocking levels 

sufficient to cause competition mortality and reduce growth and vigor in stands. RD 

ranges from 24 to 103 for trees greater than 7” dbh within the project area.

Stand Density Index (SDI). The Stand Density Index is a qualitative measure of tree 

competition within a stand, using TPA and QMD to calculate an index that can be 

compared to other stands with different stocking levels and sizes. 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 
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

17

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 SDI 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. SDI ranges 

from 143 to 522 and averages 322 for all stands being considered for treatment in the 

Hwy 46 project area.

Desired Future Conditions 

The desired future condition for the previously managed plantations located in Matrix is to have 

healthy, vigorous stands which are diverse in species as well as vertical and horizontal structure. 

These stands will be able to provide timber products in the future as well as meet the needs of 

Scenic allocations and Critical Habitat.

Figure 6. Plantation recently thinned.

Naturally regenerated stands will increase their health and vigor for the dominant trees while 

increasing the species and structural diversity of the overstory. With Forest Plan revision on the 

horizon, the future management allocations of these stands is uncertain. However, treatments 

proposed in this project will set them up for a variety of possible objectives in the following 

decades.

Sugar pine and early seral habitat will improve in its quantity and quality compared to current 

conditions. Sugar pine will be restored closer to historic levels on the landscape with continued 

regeneration. Habitat for early seral dependent species will persist, maintaining or increasing the 

presence of these species in the area.

Within the Jefferson Late-Successional Reserve, stands will be on an accelerated trajectory for 

developing late-successional conditions by developing multiple canopy layers and larger trees

with deeper crown development. Within Riparian Reserves, stand treatments will be consistent 
18

with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ACSO) and watershed restoration goals by 

increasing structural diversity and developing large conifers.

Silvicultural Treatments 

Treatments are designed to meet the purpose and need, achieve desired conditions, as well as 

fulfill several watershed analysis and LSR assessment recommendations. These treatments 

include commercial thinning, regenerations harvesting, gap creation, understory vegetation 

enhancement, sugar pine restoration, meadow restoration, visual enhancements, fuel treatments, 

and tree planting.

 Figure 7 – Units by prescription.

Commercial Thinning 

The silvicultural prescriptions are designed to reduce tree density and inter-tree competition 

which will result in:

• Maintenance or improvement of stand health and vigor.

• Acceleration of large diameter tree development due to enhanced growth.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

19

• Increase structural and species diversity by allowing advanced regeneration to release 

into the mid and overstory.

• Increased shrub and herbaceous growth developing more understory complexity.

• Provide timber products to the local economy.

Most of the commercial thinning will be implemented using a Designation by Description (DxD) 

prescription. With this method, trees are designated as cut trees if they are within a given 

spacing of trees larger in diameter. For example, in a 15 foot DxD prescription, all smaller trees 

within 15 feet of the largest trees will be cut, leaving the largest trees spaced between 15 to 30 

feet apart. This is essentially a “thin from below”, favoring the largest and most vigorous trees 

in the stand. Desired residual trees per acre as well as average diameter are used to calculate the 

spacing. Maximum diameter cut limits and species retention can be identified to protect relic old 

trees or minor species components.

A variety of thinning intensities are prescribed in this project. These intensities are generally 

based on average tree diameter and stocking levels. Heavier thinnings of 40-60 residual tpa are 

prescribed for stands with larger trees, as these trees need more space to grow than smaller ones. 

Most of the plantations are of similar age and structure and are prescribed thinnings to 70-90 tpa

A few of the youngest plantations will receive a thinning ranging from 80-110 residual tpa to 

allow the trees room to grow without lowering the canopy cover below 40%.

Thinning to 40-100 tpa is prescribed to provide a wide range of canopy covers within the stands 

while still maximizing areas of stand and individual tree growth. This treatment is prescribed for 

some of the older stands that already have some species and structural diversity and will be 

applied with individual tree marking to ensure diversity retention and to allow for clumpiness 

desired for these stands. Unit 150 is prescribed a 60-100 thin due to its smaller average diameter 

and varied structure.

See Table 12 in the Appendices for individual unit prescriptions and Table 14 for post treatment 

conditions.

Skips and Dominant Tree Release (DTR) Gaps 

None treatment areas, called skips, are proposed within the stands to promote complexity by 

providing variable density within and among stands. Skips can be areas left untreated due to 1) 

resource considerations such as protection buffers adjacent to streams and special habitat areas, 

2) logistical considerations such as logging feasibility, 3) areas not in need of thinning or 4) 

leaving untreated areas embedded within a stand to promote complexity. This combination of 

treatment and no treatment will result in skips within the stands to promote variable density both 

at the stand scale and across the landscape.

Dominant tree release gaps (DTR) are also proposed as a tool to promote complexity by 

providing variable density within stands, allowing for maximum tree growth, increased crown 

depth and expansion, enhanced species growth into the mid and overstory, as well as allowing 

for understory development. One or more dominant trees are left and all other trees within a 
20

radius of these tree(s) are removed, creating either a 1⁄4 acre gap or a 1⁄2 acre gap around the 

tree(s). If desirable advanced regeneration is present in the opening, than it is released by the 

treatment and grows into the overstory at a faster rate. If no advanced regeneration is present, 

than the appropriate species is planted. Generally for this project, 1⁄4 acre DTRs are created on 

northerly slopes where climax species such as western hemlock and western redcedar are present

(planted if not present); while 1⁄2 acre gaps are created on southerly slopes and planted with seral 

species such as sugar pine, western white pine, or incense cedar. Climax species may be planted 

in the shady (southern) portions of these gaps as well. Stand selection for DTR placement is 

based on a variety of factors including plant association, stand structure, and land allocation.

Quality Early Seral Habitat 

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. The powerline corridor 

contains most of the early seral habitat, and it encompasses less than 1% of the acreage in the 

project area. 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.

The Proposed Action Alternative identifies four units for variable early seral habitat (Units 14, 

17, 59, and 63). These units were selected because they best met all of the characteristics 

identified by the wildlife biologist for big game forage. These characteristics include:

• Gentle slopes, generally southerly in aspect

• Suitable plant association types favoring vine maple

• Avoiding plant associations that favor rhododendron or beargrass

• Limited vehicle access

• Not in Late Succession Reserve

The proposed regeneration harvesting will meet all Green Tree Retention guidelines outlined 

within the Northwest Forest Plan providing a minimum of 15% of each unit uncut in a 

combination of clumps and scattered trees (USDA, 1994). An average of 7-8 tpa of live larger 

trees will be left for snag recruitment. Units 14 and 17 are mature stands and will provide the 

largest potential snags for quality early seral habitat. All four units will be broadcast burned, 

planted at 150-200 tpa. of seral species, and seeded with native grass species for big game 

forage. Some snags may also be created from the residual trees.

Wildlife Gaps 

Gaps one to three acres in size are proposed to be located in twelve units (Units 6, 16, 18, 21, 22, 

23, 28, 32, 35, 47, 180, and 200). These gaps will contribute to the quality early seral habitat as 

described in Quality Early Seral Habitat above as well as adding species and structural 

complexity at both the stand and landscape level. Three to five trees per acre of residual trees 

will be left in each gap. Gaps will be broadcast burned where practical and all will be planted 

with seral conifers. 
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

21

Sugar Pine Restoration 

Sugar pines primary range 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 densities. These wildfires not only help prolong the existence of the 

established sugar pine, they are also essential for their regeneration (Sugihara and McBride, 

1992) (Garza, 1995). Fire suppression over the last 100 years, extensive logging, and the 

introduction of white pine blister rust at the turn of the 20th century have reduced the population 

across its range (Waring and Angell, 2011). Most of the sugar pine found in the project area are 

lone big trees surrounded by dense Douglas-fir stands. Only one area of naturally regenerating 

sugar pine was found during project reconnaissance. The presence of these trees means that 

sugar pine has been part of this landscape for a long time and now appears to be losing its place 

in the ecosystem due to lack of disturbance allowing it to regenerate.

Proposed treatments aim to both protect and reinvigorate existing sugar pine as well as reestablishing it in areas suitable to its prolonged existence. Prescriptions will include shelterwood

with reserve cuts, broadcast burning, planting of rust resistant stock, and pre-commercial 

regeneration release. Ten units have been selected for this treatment which include: 6, 12, 33, 

39, 40, 83, and 93-96. Sugar pine will also be planted in other units in gaps created for early 

seral or in DTRs created for species diversity along with other seral species. See appendices for 

more detailed prescriptions and a prescription map of unit 83.

Figure 8. Sugar pine competing with other conifers in Unit 83.

 
22

Understory Habitat Enhancement 

These treatments include enhancement of understory vegetation and meadow restoration. Units 

54, 82, 89, 92, and 560 will thin conifers less than 7” dbh to reduce shading of ground 

vegetation. No commercial harvest of conifers is proposed for these units.

Unit 32a is a high elevation meadow that has been encroached by conifers since the last severe 

fire there around the turn of the twentieth century. Historic aerial photos and field surveys 

indicate that this meadow once contained much more moisture and meadow vegetation, which is 

now being shaded out. The proposed treatment is to cut and remove most of the conifers within 

the boundaries of the historic meadow, leaving 3-5 tpa of larger live trees and retaining any relic 

conifers from before the fire. The reduction in water uptake by the trees currently there should 

help to restore moisture to portions of the meadow as well as reduce shade, allowing meadow 

plants to re-establish.

The northwest portion of unit 73 is a dry meadow being encroached by Douglas-fir. Restoration 

would involve falling and leaving the encroaching trees.

Figure 9. Meadow portion of unit 73.

Riparian Treatments 

The project area is deficient in hardwoods along streams. Past silvicultural practices harvested 

timber to the edge of many streams and planted Douglas-fir along the streamside. Foliage from 

hardwoods provide nutrients for macro-invertebrates which provide food for fish down steam. 

Thinning the Douglas-fir will allow more sunlight to hit the ground, encouraging hardwoods 

such as red alder and vine maple to re-establish along the stream banks. Several reaches within 

five different plantation units have been identified for treatment. Units 6, 100, 190, 430, and 520

would have conifers thinned to the stream bank for some the portions of streams. In addition, 

small gaps (less than 1⁄4 acre in size) would be created within these treatment areas in locations 

where it would be the most beneficial to hardwood release. Total acres of these gaps would not 

exceed 4 acres. All portions within the no-harvest buffers will be felled and left. Thinning 
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

23

intensities will match the prescription for the rest of the unit. A total of approximately 20 acres 

of riparian treatment is proposed.

Figure 10. Stream in unit 430 in need of hardwood restoration.

Visual Enhancement Gaps 

To enhance scenic views, three gaps have been proposed in this project. Units 27 and 30 would 

each have a 1⁄2 acre “scallop” along the powerline corridor with residual overstory to soften the 

view of the straight line of the corridor. Unit 69 would have a 1/3 acre gap below road 46 to 

increase the view of Mt. Jefferson from the summit pull-out.

 

Fuels Treatments 

Several stands adjacent to the Breitenbush Resort property and summer home area have been 

identified as needing understory fuels treatments to reduce the risk of wildfire. Units include 

170, 210, and 270. Proposed treatments include thinning conifers less than 7” dbh to a 15 foot 

spacing, pruning, brushing, chipping, hand piling, and pile burning. 

Silvicultural Treatments – Post Harvest 

See Table 13 in the Appendices for individual unit treatments.

Fuels Treatments 

Slash from logging would be reduced with a variety of methods. 

• Underburning: this will include both broadcast burning and jackpot burning. Variable 

retention regeneration and sugar pine restoration units would be treated with 

underburning as well as some of the wildlife gaps. Units with sugar pine in them should 

be protected from damage by pulling back slash and debris from the bole and by burning 

only in the fall.
24

• Grapple piling: a machine grapple is commonly used in ground based units to concentrate 

slash in piles away from standing trees. These piles are burned in the fall.

• Hand pile: this labor intensive treatment will generally be reserved for fuels treatment 

units adjacent to private property and other visually sensitive areas.

• Chipping: another slash disposal method used in visually sensitive areas and around 

structures.

Whip falling 

Sub-merchantable trees of poor form, low vigor, or undesirable species would be cut in some of 

the treatment units. In units in which early seral habitat is the objective, most of the sapling 

sized trees will be cut to keep the unit in the brush/forb stage as long as possible. In units that 

are to be underburned, whip falling should only be needed if fuel loads are insufficient to 

effectively reduce the stocking of these trees.

Planting 

Variable retention regeneration units as well as gaps and some DTRs will be planted with the 

appropriate species. Spacing in units/gaps where early seral habitat is the objective will be 

planted at a wider spacing to keep the unit in the brush/forb stage as long as possible while still 

meeting the Willamette Forest Plan guidelines requiring a minimum of 150 trees per acre 

stocking after five years. DTRs will be planted if adequate advanced regeneration is not present 

after harvest.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement 

Some or all of the variable retention regeneration units as well as wildlife gaps would receive 

wildlife habitat enhancement treatments to improve their suitability for a variety of early seral 

obligate species. This may include native grass seeding and snag creation from the residual 

overstory.

Implementation Guidelines 

Tree Selection 

Selection of trees for cut and leave in commercial harvest units will be completed using two 

methods, 1) DxD spacing, and 2) Individual Tree Marking (ITM). As described under 

Silvicultural Treatments above, DxD prescriptions favor the larger trees in the stand, effectively 

resulting in a “thin from below” prescription. ITM will be used in some older stands where 

current diversity is desired to be maintained and in gaps, DTRs, and variable retention 

regeneration stands to identify leave trees. Understory habitat enhancement and fuels treatments 

will select leave trees based on spacing, species, and tree vigor.

General Marking Guidelines for Thinning 
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

25

The following guidelines refer to all thinning units. Refer to individual unit prescriptions in the 

Appendices for unit specific details.

• All legacy trees from the previous stand (≥ 30” dbh) should not be cut and included in 

spacing. In LSR, the maximum diameter limit is 20” dbh. If cutting is required due to 

operational or safety concerns, trees shall be left on site in the unit. These trees must be 

approved by the Forest Service prior to cutting and would only be approved if no other 

reasonable option is available. Any cutting of legacy trees should be a rare occurrence, as 

these trees are an important part of the ecosystem. 

• All hardwoods ≥ 7” dbh should be retained and ignored in the spacing. 

• Retain all western white pine, sugar pine, and incense cedar and count in spacing. 

• All snags and coarse woody debris should be retained unless it is a safety concern.

Wildlife Gap Creation Guidelines 

• Refer to individual unit prescriptions in the Appendices for gap size and other details.

• Do not place gaps in riparian reserves.

• Do not place gaps in “no gap” or “no harvest” buffers of Shabs or TSE species.

• Locate all gaps at least 100 feet from system roads and from each other.

• Use an irregular gap pattern that mimics a natural pattern across the landscape unless 

otherwise noted. Vary gap placement so they are not linear or in a grid-like pattern.

• Vary gap shape to fit the landform, to make it appear natural. Avoid having long straight 

edges or 90o angles. If visuals are a concern, make the shape more oblong across the 

slope.

• For wildlife gaps, leave 7-8 trees per acre in each gap. Favor sugar pine, western white 

pine, incense cedar, noble fir, or western redcedar if available. Leave trees should be 

dispersed across the unit, in small clumps of 2-3 and individually. Large trees are best. 

Large trees with top or bole damage are a good choice, as they make great snags. Leave 

trees should not be cut if they receive damage during logging operations. Do not cut 

sugar pine or any legacy trees to make a gap.

• Cut all other trees ≥ 7” dbh within gap. Do not cut trees exceeding the unit maximum 

diameter limit. Douglas-fir less than 7” dbh may need to be felled as well depending on 

their condition, how many there are, and if they will interfere with the objectives of the 

gap.

Dominant Tree Release (DTR) Gap Creation Guidelines 

• Refer to individual unit prescriptions in the Appendices for gap size and other details.

• Do not place DTRs in “no gap” or “no harvest” buffers of Shabs or TSE species.

• Do not place DTRs in riparian reserves (See maps for exceptions for units 320, 350, 380, 

and 400).

• Locate all DTRs at least 100 feet from system roads and from each other.

• Use an irregular gap pattern that mimics a natural pattern across the landscape unless 

otherwise noted. Vary DTR placement so they are not linear or in a grid-like pattern.
26

• Designate the center of the DTRs by marking and retaining at least one dominant tree at 

the center.

• For units in LSR, designate at least 2-3 trees, close together, for the center in half of the 

DTRs for the unit.

• In LSR, trees over 20”dbh may be felled in DTRs, but they must be left in place. Do not 

cut legacy trees in DTRs.

Clumps 

• Create clumps in LSR units only.

• Create the same number of clumps as there are DTRs prescribed.

• Create clumps in thinned portion of unit, not in skips or gaps.

• Clumps are groups of 2-5 trees immediately adjacent to each other and can contain one or 

more species

• Trees selected should be larger, more dominant trees. Not all trees in clump need to be 

dominant, but they should be healthy enough to be released. Disperse clumps across unit. 

Favor areas already clumpy.

Sugar Pine Shelterwoods with Reserves 

• Thin to 20-30(unit 83E) trees per acre, leaving the largest trees.

• Leave trees should be spread across treatment area, in small clumps of 2-3 and 

individually.

• Sugar pine or legacy trees should not be cut and count towards leave tree count.

• Diameter limit for cutting is 30” dbh unless for safety or operational concerns. Any trees 

that must be felled over 30” dbh must be left on site in their entirety where they fall.

View Enhancement Gaps 

• Individually tree mark scallops in units 27 and 30, consult recreation for placement. Goal 

is to leave a “feathered” look, leaving less trees closer to the powerline.

• Unit 69 gap is below road 46 and will cut all trees to point that allows view of Mt. 

Jefferson from pull-out. These trees cannot be skidded and there can be no other ground 

disturbance in the gap. Fall and leave if no harvest options are available.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations 

Willamette Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

Proposed treatments are consistent with the following Willamette Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines:

FW-181: All timber harvest is occurring on suitable lands.

FW-182: All units being harvested are either being commercially thinned or have other resource 

objectives other than just timber.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

27

FW-184: The silvicultural prescription was prepared by a R6 certified silviculturist.

FW-185: Plant associations and site potential were considered when developing all prescriptions. 

FW-188: All areas planned for regeneration harvest should be able to be restocked within 5 

years.

FW-190: All species planned for planting are appropriate for the plant association and will 

increase the diversity of the sites they are planted in.

FW-192: Species and diameter restrictions in the prescription assure that no native species will 

be eliminated from the site.

FW-193: All portions of units prescribed for regeneration or heavy thin are less than 60 acres.

Willamette Forest Plan Management Areas

Prescriptions meet the visual quality objectives for MA-14a General Forest; MA-11a Scenic 

Modification Middleground; and Scenic Partial Retention Middleground. Additional mitigations 

for stump height, marking, and slash treatment have been identified for all units falling within 

MA-11f Scenic Retention Foreground areas to meet the specific concerns of this visual quality 

objective.

Northwest Forest Plan Allocations

The proposed treatments are consistent with the following standard and guidelines for Matrix 

and Riparian Reserves:

• Providing coarse woody debris and emphasizing green-tree and snag retention in 

accordance with the Standards and Guidelines found on pages C-40 through C-42 of the 

Northwest Forest Plan

• Applying silviculture practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and 

manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics need to attain Aquatic 

conservation Strategy objectives (TM-1)

Critical Habitat Rule

Prescriptions for thinning in Critical Habitat will increase stand structure and species diversity, 

accelerating these stands into suitable foraging and nesting habitat.

Roadless Rule

Only a portion of one unit is in roadless designation, #520. This area has been previously 

clearcut with a ground based system and planted with Douglas-fir. Commercial thinning will

improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat by increasing structural 

and species diversity as well as increase growth, which also will restore the characteristics of 
28

ecosystem composition and structure. Another plantation to the southeast was eliminated from 

consideration for treatment due to the fact that road building is prohibited in roadless.

Watershed Analysis

Commercial thinning, gaps, DTRs, and meadow restoration proposed in this project meet all of 

the objectives set forth in the Breitenbush Watershed Analysis by increasing growth, species 

diversity, and producing timber products.

Late-Successional Reserve Assessment

The silvicultural treatment proposed for units within the Jefferson LSR are consistent with the 

NWFP Standards and Guidelines within Late-Successional Reserves (S&G C-12). This is based 

on utilizing the consistency review steps identified by the LSR workgroup on August 5, 2009; 

the exemption criteria identified in the 1996 Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) memos 694 and 

801 (REIC, 1996a and REIC 1996b); and the Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment. The consistency 

is based upon:

• An LSR Assessment was completed and reviewed by the REO in 1998,

• Since 1998, ecological conditions within the South Santiam LSR have not changed to the 

extent they would alter the management proposed in the Assessment,

• The purpose of the proposed treatment is to accelerate the rate of development of latesuccessional conditions and reduce the risk of large-scale disturbance,

• Timber volume production is only incidental,

• The proposed stand for commercial thinning is less than 80 years old, overstocked, and 

not structurally complex,

• A proposed treatment is an intermediate treatment resulting in 10% or more of the stands’ 

acreage in unthinned patches and 3-10% in small openings (1/4-acre).

• Trees >20” dbh shall not be cut except for the purpose of creating openings, providing 

other habitat structure, elimination of a hazard, or cutting yarding corridors.

• Snag objectives are included by designing prescriptions that include developing large 

trees for potential future snag recruitment, retaining agents of mortality or damage, 

retention of snags, and leaving skips to allow currently competition mortality processes to 

naturally continue.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

29

Monitoring 

A monitoring plan was developed to evaluate the key elements of the prescriptions and provide 

contingencies.

Table 8. Monitoring plan

Key Prescription 

Element

Monitoring Threshold Contingency Plan

Stocking Level – DxD

prescriptions

Residual trees per acre shall 

not deviate from the range 

indicated in the prescription 

table.

The Presale lead will monitor residual 

tree stocking during cruising and may 

adjust DxD spacing to meet 

prescribed tpa with approval of the 

Silviculturist. TSA will monitor the DxD 

spacing during harvest.

Stocking Level – ITM 

prescriptions

Residual trees per acre shall 

not deviate from the range 

indicated in the prescription 

table.

The Silviculturist will review all ITM 

marking on the ground and conduct 

test plots to ensure the prescription is 

met. The TSA will monitor harvest to 

ensure only designated trees are cut.

No-harvest Buffers

No trees cut within designated 

stream and special habitat 

buffers

The TSA, Silviculturist, and project 

resource specialists will monitor the 

unit layout maps to ensure all buffers 

have been excluded from the units 

during layout. The TSA will monitor 

operations to ensure that all 

boundaries are intact.

Gaps Gap size, location and other 

specifications are met

The Silviculturist, Hydrologist, and 

Wildlife Biologist will monitor presale 

operations to ensure gap 

specifications are met during sale 

prep. The TSA will monitor harvest 

operations to make sure gap 

prescriptions are met.

LSR Requirements

No harvesting trees ≥ 20” dbh, 

10%+ in no cut areas; 3-10% 

in gaps ≤1/4-acre or in heavy 

thin

The Silviculturist will review layout 

prior to sale and work with the TSA to 

ensure specifications are met.

Green Tree Retention 

Requirements (QES

units only).

Aggregate and dispersed 

green tree retention 

requirements met in 15% of 

Matrix ground

The Silviculturist will review layout 

prior to sale and work with the TSA to 

ensure specifications are met.
30

References Cited 

Goheen and Willhite. 2006. Field Guide to the Common Diseases and Insect Pests of Oregon 

and Washington Conifers. R6-NR-FID-PR-01-06. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region. 

Curtis, R. O. 1982. A simple index for density of Douglas-fir. Forest Science, 28; 92-94.

McCain, C., and N. Diaz. 2002. A field guide to the forested plant associations of the Westside 

central Cascades of Northwest Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-02-02. 403 pp. 

Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson.1990. Forest Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. 467 pp.

REIC 1996a. Criteria to exempt specific silvicultural activities in late-successional reserves and 

managed late-successional areas from regional ecosystem office review. Memo 694. Regional 

Interagency Executive Committee. Portland Oregon.

REIC 1996b. Amendment to criteria to exempt specific silvicultural activities in latesuccessional reserves and managed late-successional areas from regional ecosystem office 

review. Memo 801. Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Portland Oregon.

USDA, 1990. Final environmental impact statement – land and resource management plan, 

Willamette National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA, 1994. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for 

late-successional and old-growth related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA, 1996. Breintenbush Watershed Analysis. Detroit Ranger District, Willamette National 

Forest. US Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA/USDI. 1998. Mid-Willamette late-successional reserve assessment. USDA Willamette 

National Forest, USDI Salem District BLM, and USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 198 pp.

USDA, 2014. Breitenbush Watershed Analysis Update. Detroit Ranger District, Willamette 

National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA, 2008. Common stand exam users guide. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA, 2011. Westside Cascades variant of the forest vegetation simulator. WO-Forest 

Management Service Center, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 68 pp.

USDI, 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical 

Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register, 

Vol. 77, No. 233.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

31

USDA, 2001. Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation. USDA Forest Service, Federal 

Register. Vol. 66, No. 9.

Bailey, John D. et al., 1998. Understory vegetation in old and young Douglas-fir forests of 

western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 112. 289-302.

Bailey, J.D., Tappeiner, J.C., 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40-100-yearold Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 108, 99-113.

Goheen, E.M. and E.A. Willhite. 2006. Field Guide to Common Diseases and Insect Pests of 

Oregon and Washington Conifers. R6-NR-FID-PR-01-06. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. 327p.

Reineke, L.H., 1933. Perfecting a Stand-Density Index for Even-aged Forests. Jour. Agr. 

Research. Washington, D.C. Vol. 46, No. 7 p. 622-638.

Long, James N., 1985. A Practical Approach to Density Management. The Forestry Chronicle. 

5p.

Sugihara, N.G. and J.R. McBride, 1992. Dynamics of Sugar Pine and Associated Species 

Following Non-Stand-Replacing Fires in White Fir-Dominated Mixed-Conifer Forests. Sugar 

Pine Status, Values, and Roles in Ecosystems. University of California. p. 39-44.

Waring, K. and N. Angell. 2011. Restoring Sugar Pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Regeneration 

Ecology and Recruitment Dynamics of Sugar Pine under Various Stand Structures. Unpublished 

report.
32

Appendices 

Table 9. - Unit Origin and Land Allocations 

Table 10. – Unit Physical Data

Table 11. – Unit Current Conditions

Table 12. – Unit Prescriptions – Proposed Action

Table 13. – Post Harvest Activities – Proposed Action

Table 14. – Projected Post Treatment Conditions for the Proposed Action

Table 15. – Comparison of Alternatives

Unit 83 Sugar Pine Restoration and Commercial Thinning

Figure 12. – Units and Land Allocations

Unit Detail Maps 1 - 16
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

33

Table 9. Unit Origin and Land Allocation

Unit Origin NWFP 

Allocation

WNF LRMP 

Allocation

Critical 

Habitat

1 Plantation Matrix 11a N

2 Plantation Matrix 11a,11f,13a N

3 Plantation Matrix 11f.13a N

5 Plantation Matrix 14a Y

6 Plantation Matrix 11a,14a Y/N

7 Plantation Matrix 11f,13a N

11 Plantation Matrix 11f,13a Y

12 Natural Matrix 11a Y

13 Natural Matrix 11f Y

14 Natural Matrix 14a Y

16 Natural Matrix 14a,11a Y

17 Natural Matrix 11a Y

18 Natural Matrix 14a,11a Y

19 Plantation Matrix 14a,11a Y

20 Plantation Matrix 14a Y

21 Natural Matrix 11a,14a Y

22 Natural Matrix 11a,10f Y

23 Plantation Matrix 11a,11c Y

24 Natural Matrix 11a,11c Y

25 Plan/Nat. Matrix 11a,13a Y

26 Plantation Matrix 11a,11c,13a Y

27 Natural Matrix 11c Y

28 Natural Matrix 11f,11c Y

29 Natural Matrix 11c Y

30 Plantation Matrix 11f, 13a Y

31 Natural Matrix 11f Y

32 Natural Matrix 14a Y

32a Natural Matrix Y

33 Plantation Matrix 14a Y

34 Plantation Matrix 11a,14a Y

35 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

38 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

39 Natural Matrix 11a Y

40 Natural Matrix 11c Y

41 Natural Matrix 11c Y

42 Plantation Matrix 11c,11f Y

44 Plantation Matrix 16a,13a Y

45 Plantation Matrix 11f,16a,13a Y

46 Plantation Matrix 11c,11f Y

47 Plantation Matrix 11c,11a Y

48 Plantation Matrix 11c Y

49 Plantation Matrix 11c Y

50 Natural Matrix 11a,11c Y

51 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

52 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

53 Plantation Matrix 11a,14a Y

54 Natural Matrix 14a Y

55 Plantation Matrix 11a,14a Y

56 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

57 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

58 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

59 Plantation Matrix 11a Y
34

Table 9. Unit Origin and Land Allocation (continued)

Unit Origin NWFP 

Allocation

LRMP 

Allocation

Critical 

Habitat

60 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

61 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

62 Plantation Matrix 16b,11c Y

63 Plantation Matrix 11c Y

64 Plantation Matrix 11f,13a,16a Y

69 Plantation Matrix 16a Y

70 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

71 Plantation Matrix 14a,9b Y/N

72 Plantation Matrix 14a N

73 Plantation Matrix 14a N

74 Plantation Matrix 14a N

75 Plantation Matrix 14a N

76 Plantation Matrix 14a N

77 Plantation Matrix 14a,11a Y/N

78 Plantation Matrix 14a,11a N

80 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

81 Natural Matrix 11a Y

82 Natural Matrix 14a Y

83 Natural Matrix 11a,14a Y

84 Natural Matrix 11a Y

87 Natural Matrix 11a Y

89 Natural Matrix Y

92 Natural Matrix Y

93 Natural Matrix 11a,14a Y

94 Natural Matrix 11a,14a Y

95 Natural Matrix 11a,14a Y

96 Natural Matrix 11a,14a Y

97 Natural Matrix 14a Y

100 Plantation Matrix 11a,14a Y

110 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

120 Plantation Matrix 11a Y

130 Plantation Matrix 14a Y

140 Plantation Matrix 11a,11c Y

140A Plantation Matrix Y

150 Natural Matrix 11F Y

160 Plantation Matrix 14A Y

170 Natural

180 Plantation Matrix 11A Y

190 Plantation Matrix/LSR 11A/14A/16A Y

200 Plantation Matrix/LSR 11A,11C,16A Y

210 Natural

220 Plantation Matrix/LSR 14A/16A Y

240 Plantation LSR 16A/11C Y

250 Plantation LSR 16A Y

260 Plantation LSR 16A Y

270 Natural Matrix/LSR 16A/11F Y

280 Plantation Matrix/LSR 16A/11C Y

290 Plantation LSR 16A Y

300 Plantation LSR 16A Y

310 Plantation LSR 16A Y

320 Plantation LSR 16A Y

340 Plantation LSR 16A Y
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

35

Table 9. Unit Origin and Land Allocation (continued)

Unit Origin NWFP 

Allocation

LRMP 

Allocation

Critical 

Habitat

350 Plantation LSR 16A Y

360 Plantation LSR 16A Y

370 Plantation LSR 16A Y

380 Plantation LSR 16A Y

390 Plantation LSR 16A Y

400 Plantation LSR 16A Y

410 Plantation LSR 16A Y

420 Plantation LSR 16A/11C Y

430 Plantation LSR 16A/11F Y

440 Plantation LSR 16A/11C Y

450 Plantation LSR 16A/11A Y

460 Plantation LSR 16A/11F Y

470 Plantation LSR 16A/11F N

480 Plantation LSR 16A/11C N

490 Plantation LSR 16A/11C N

510 Plantation LSR 16A/11C/11F Y

520 Plantation LSR 16A/11C Y

530 Plantation LSR 16A N

540 Plantation LSR 16A N

560 Plantation LSR 16A N

570 Plantation
36

Table 10. Unit Physical Data

Unit Acres Location Site Aspect Slope Elevation Plant Association

1 43 9509000 3037 315 56 2500 TSHE/RHMA/GASH

2 33 9510402 3095 132 66 2400 TSHE/MANE 

3 13 9510000 1512 160 61 1900 TSHE/MANE-DRY

5 39 9509000 2461 300 26 2100 TSHE/MANE-GASH

6 66 9510499 2864 140 40 2400 TSHE/MANE-TSHE/RHMA-GASH

7 19 9510000 3104 145 27 2000 TSHE/MANE-GASH

11 17 9510000 1745 flat 0 2000 TSHE/ACCI/POMU

12 24 9510400 2093 270 50 3300 TSHE/MANE

13 31 9510000 3031 170 56 2200 TSHE/MANE

14 15 9510000 2251 230 50 3200 TSHE/MANE

16 64 9510000 2481 270 35 2900 TSHE/MANE

17 20 9510000 2511 140 20 3000 TSHE/MANE

18 46 9510000 2495 200 28 3200 TSHE/MANE

19 71 9510000 2201 135 20 3400 TSHE/MANE

20 13 9510000 9104 90 45 3500 TSHE/MANE

21 59 9510000 2175 135 40 3300 TSHE/MANE

22 56 9510000 9204 100 35 3000 TSHE/MANE/ACTR

23 41 9510000 2446 110 15 2700 TSHE/MANE

24 47 9510000 9284 135 35 2900 TSHE/MANE

25 23 9510000 4008 225 32 2900 TSHE/MANE

26 10 9510000 9310 170 35 2600 TSHE/MANE

27 31 9510000 2832 80 30 2600 TSHE/MANE

28 31 9510000 9244 100 40 2400 TSHE/MANE

29 8 9510000 2691 TSHE/MANE

30 8 9510000 2990 155 45 2400 TSHE/MANE-dry

31 22 9510000 2843 160 5 2300 TSHE/MANE

32 63 9510000 1292 215 42 4300 ABAM/VAME/CLUN

32a 11 9510400 1348

33 39 9510000 1854 230 47 3300 TSHE/MANE

34 13 9510000 2018 135 37 3200 TSHE/MANE

35 24 9510000 1975 rolly 30 3200 TSHE/MANE-dry

38 15 9510000 9202 170 35 3000 TSHE/MANE

39 5 9510000 2459 240 37 3000 TSHE/MANE

40 6 9510000 2695 250 66 2800 TSHE/MANE

41 16 9510000 9232 100 35 2700 TSHE/RHMA-MANE

42 27 9510000 2681 250 30 2900 TSHE/MANE

44 12 9510000 2928 180 8 2300 TSHE/MANE-dry

45 26 9511000 2814 180 26 2600 TSHE/MANE-dry

46 7 9511000 2729 190 28 2500 TSHE/MANE

47 71 9511000 2635 180 50 2900 TSHE/MANE

48 23 9511000 2553 180 27 3200 TSHE/MANE

49 13 9511000 2469 165 45 3400 TSHE/MANE

50 21 9510000 2308 320 60 3200 TSHE/MANE

51 38 9511000 2232 130 35 3600 TSHE/MANE

52 17 9510000 2008 270 45 3600 TSHE/RHMA-MANE

53 24 9510000 1932 300 45 3600 TSHE/MANE

54 25 9510000 1170 ABAM/VAME/XETE

55 34 9511000 1963 180 40 4100 ABAM/VAME/XETE

56 24 9511000 2429 180 30 3300 TSHE/MANE

57 4 9511000 4622 190 35 3300 TSHE/MANE

58 10 9511000 4620 125 25 3200 TSHE/MANE

59 5 9511000 4621 300 15 3100 TSHE/MANE
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

37

Table 10. Unit Physical Data (continued)

Unit Acres Location Site Aspect Slope Elevation Plant Association

60 11 9511000 2509 225 40 3100 TSHE/MANE

61 43 9511000 2332 180 20 3300 TSHE/MANE

62 29 9511000 2813 170 20 2700 TSHE/MANE-dry

63 14 9511000 2512 180 20 2900 TSHE/MANE

64 68 9511000 2278 150 25 2600 TSHE/MANE-dry

69 10 9511000 2914 180 17 3300 TSHE/ACCI/POMU

70 15 9510000 3568 350 17 3000 TSHE/MANE

71 44 9510000 4132 360 50 3400 TSHE/MANE

72 17 9513000 4358 230 47 3500 TSHE/MANE-dry

73 63 9513000 4457 300 22 3900 TSHE/RHMA-MANE

74 83 9510000 4092 270 25 3600 TSHE/RHMA/XETE

75 26 9510000 4011 90 29 3600 TSHE/MANE

76 8 9510000 1907 60 14 3800 TSHE/RHMA-MANE

77 31 9510000 3781 110 32 3300 TSHE/MANE

78 25 9510000 1926 100 25 3600 TSHE/MANE

80 43 9510000 3508 360 20 2600 TSHE/RHMA-VAAL/COCA

81 2 9510400 2697 170 25 3000 TSHE/MANE-dry

82 25 9510000 2613 ABAM/VAME/XETE

83 107 9510000 2809 225 60 2600 TSHE/MANE-dry

84 83 9510000 2584 270 58 2800 TSHE/MANE

87 1 9510000 2685 100 25 3000 TSHE/MANE-dry

89 17 9510000 2610 TSME/VAME/XETE-NW

92 43 9510000 1622 TSME/VAME/XETE-NW

93 47 9510000 2049 161 63 3500 TSHE/MANE

94 40 9510000 2391 271 48 3400 TSHE/MANE

95 90 9510000 5057 165 64 3300 TSHE/MANE

96 25 9510000 5047 250 51 3400 TSHE/MANE

97 20 9510000 1370 215 71 4700 ABAM/MANE

100 90 9510000 3977 360 40 3400 TSHE/RHAMA-MANE

110 60 9510000 3798 360 25 2900 TSHE/RHMA/XETE

120 21 9510000 2316 360 40 3100 TSHE/RHMA/XETE

130 45 9511000 3001 25 35 3200 ABAM/RHMA/XETE

140 63 9510000 3592 45 40 2600 TSHE/RHAMA-MANE

140A 19 9510000 3514 360 15 2500 TSHE/MANE

150 33 9510000 9336 180 5 2300 TSHE/MANE

160 19 9510000 3012 15 15 3200 TSHE/RHAMA-MANE

170 160

180 31 9510000 3738 280 25 2900 TSHE/MANE

190 51 9510000 3882 300 20 3100 TSHE/MANE

200 55 9510000 7808 45 35 2900 TSHE/MANE

210 4

220 75 9510000 4280 300 25 3300 TSHE/RHMA/XETE

240 28 9517000 3611 45 25 2800 TSHE/MANE-GASH

250 11 9517000 3934 40 10 2900 TSHE/MANE

260 27 9517000 3812 50 20 2850 TSHE/MANE

270 35 9511000 3007 200 8 2400 TSHE/MANE

280 52 9517000 3721 70 30 2700 TSHE/MANE

290 90 9517000 4497 360 40 3200 TSHE/MANE

300 51 9517000 9548 70 55 3300 TSHE/MANE

310 12 9517402 6075 90 60 3400 TSHE/ACCI/POMU

320 28 9517000 9760 100 45 3500 TSHE/MANE

340 30 9517000 4001 280 30 2800 TSHE/MANE
38

Table 10. Unit Physical Data (continued)

Unit Acres Location Site Aspect Slope Elevation Plant Association

350 16 9517000 4220 45 46 2800 TSHE/MANE

360 16 9517400 4346 230 35 2900 TSHE/MANE

370 32 9517000 9670 230 40 3100 TSHE/MANE

380 27 9517000 5054 265 60 3200 TSHE/MANE

390 13 9517000 4382 210 35 3400 TSHE/MANE

400 26 9517000 5210 220 20 3100 TSHE/MANE

410 34 9511000 3299 293 40 2600 TSHE/RHAMA-MANE

420 11 9511000 2954 330 34 2600 TSHE/MANE

430 17 9511000 2623 350 30 2800 TSHE/RHAMA-MANE

440 17 9511000 2421 360 20 2800 TSHE/MANE/ACTR

450 27 9517000 3472 211 29 3500 TSHE/MANE

460 8 9517000 3909 200 48 2900 TSHE/MANE

470 9 9517000 4101 250 26 3000 TSHE/MANE

480 37 9517000 4219 192 42 3300 TSHE/MANE

490 18 9517000 4810 220 46 3100 TSHE/MANE

510 8 9517000 4471 228 25 3100 TSHE/MANE

520 43 9517000 9590 280 14 3300 TSHE/MANE

530 26 9517000 3850 190 56 4200 TSHE/MANE

540 48 9517000 3575 219 19 4400 ABAM-TSHE/RHMA-GASH

560 45 9517000 5791 123 20 4700 ABAM/RHAL/XETE

570 24 9510000 4965 45 50 4800 No data

Total 4,048
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

39

Table 11. Unit Current Condition

Unit Acres Age 1) TPA≥7” BA≥7” QMD≥7” Avg. Hgt.

≥7” SDI≥7”2) RD≥7” CC≥7”3) BF Vol/Ac

1 43 41 188 116 10.7 71 207 36 85 18,256

2 33 54 135 128 13.2 71 210 35 80 18,955

3 13 53 142 158 14.3 85 251 42 85 31,475

5 39 45 155 144 13.1 83 237 40 85 26,548

6 66 48 241 160 11.1 71 282 48 80 26,500

7 19 54 275 215 12.0 81 367 62 85 37,863

11 17 56 100 180 18.2 100 260 42 65 41,408

12 24 123 156 340 20.0 108 472 76 75 87,440

13 31 131 160 382 20.9 96 522 84 80 88,704

14 15 114 101 264 21.9 126 354 56 80 70,008

16 64 115 156 276 18.0 113 400 65 75 67,915

17 20 110 98 156 17.1 85 231 38 75 37,535

18 46 120 121 227 18.5 103 325 53 80 51,466

19 71 39 144 158 14.2 74 252 42 60 26,505

20 13 30 200 147 11.6 74 254 43 85 22,219

21 59 113 215 266 15.1 94 414 69 75 59,029

22 56 115 210 334 17.1 114 495 81 75 84,426

23 41 36 293 240 12.3 89 406 69 75 42,583

24 47 120 140 240 17.8 108 350 57 75 56,627

25 23 105 105 114 14.1 75 182 30 80 18,595

26 10 50 166 218 15.5 104 336 55 80 47,018

27 31 122 222 248 14.3 88 394 66 75 55,241

28 31 117 206 274 15.6 95 421 69 85 61,061

29 8 93 158 165 13.8 71 266 44 70 36,183

30 8 50 142 184 15.4 105 284 47 80 39,050

31 22 114 212 215 13.7 86 349 58 80 41,411

32 63 112 132 280 19.7 100 391 63 85 70,624

32a 11 96 88 270 23.7 102 350 55 65 56,696

33 39 36 200 213 14.0 82 341 57 80 36,001

34 13 31 200 148 11.7 72 256 43 70 22,992

35 24 30 270 189 11.3 72 330 56 80 29,836

38 15 34 189 201 14.0 71 323 54 75 30,419

39 5 121 192 202 13.9 91 324 54 85 42,842

40 6 80 183 240 15.5 77 370 61 75 48,000

41 16 108 293 239 12.2 80 404 68 95 45,213

42 27 44 231 214 13.0 93 353 59 80 40,575

44 12 51 167 211 15.2 82 327 54 70 40,083

45 26 55 250 278 14.3 102 442 73 85 58,629

46 7 42 175 182 13.8 85 293 49 85 32,550

47 71 44 186 197 13.9 94 316 53 80 37,746

48 23 26 158 120 11.8 72 206 35 80 18,783

49 13 27 183 111 10.5 70 199 34 85 15,392

50 21 116 184 173 13.1 89 284 48 80 33,976

51 38 42 105 119 14.4 90 188 31 65 22,110

52 17 28 306 151 9.5 77 282 49 95 22,644

53 24 40 131 141 14.1 85 226 38 80 26,081

54 25 165 106 112 13.9 56 180 30 40 20,388

55 34 43 217 211 13.4 83 345 58 85 35,952

56 24 34 140 136 13.4 85 223 37 75 24,203

57 4 41 117 137 14.7 84 215 36 75 23,417

58 10 42 327 318 13.4 86 519 87 95 57,505

59 5 50 183 220 14.8 93 344 57 80 42,033
40

Table 11. Unit Current Condition (continued)

Unit Acres Age 1) TPA≥7” BA≥7” QMD≥7” Avg. Hgt.

≥7” SDI≥7”2) RD≥7” CC≥7”3) BF Vol/Ac

60 11 29 397 203 9.7 67 377 65 85 28,373

61 43 39 192 203 13.9 82 326 54 80 35,417

62 29 41 188 189 13.6 84 306 51 80 34,869

63 14 31 225 164 11.6 67 284 48 80 24,180

64 68 52 225 264 14.7 87 416 69 85 49,696

69 10 54 350 392 14.3 85 622 103 85 71,476

70 15 35 175 152 12.6 74 254 43 80 23,588

71 44 37 160 149 13.1 71 245 41 75 22,445

72 17 33 156 177 14.4 69 280 47 80 25,181

73 63 48 155 190 15.0 79 297 49 70 31,902

74 83 50 125 167 15.7 88 255 42 75 30,835

75 26 33 330 185 10.1 61 337 58 80 26,438

76 8 40 192 138 11.5 62 239 41 70 19,783

77 31 31 260 183 11.4 63 318 54 90 26,505

78 25 32 207 193 13.1 70 318 53 80 29,298

80 43 34 219 153 11.3 71 267 46 75 24,525

81 2 105 192 178 13.1 72 293 49 70 31,571

82 25 67 131 215 17.3 56 316 52 75 46,626

83 107 115 239 191 12.1 71 324 55 80 32,282

84 83 125 228 237 13.8 81 382 64 80 47,850

87 1 105 163 225 15.9 67 343 56 75 51,575

89 17 450 163 217 15.6 52 332 55 75 40,439

92 43 160-200 115 120 13.9 62 194 32 65 19,739

93 47 140 137 187 15.8 78 285 47 60 37,302

94 40 105 163 232 16.2 90 351 58 75 50,165

95 90 110 93 204 20.1 109 283 46 70 47,777

96 25 145 149 338 20.4 105 465 75 65 76,955

97 20 135 86 345 27.2 95 424 66 85 68,535

100 90 45 190 173 12.9 84 286 48 80 26,410

110 60 40 133 127 13.2 83 208 35 80 19,088

120 21 45 173 118 11.2 64 206 35 75 14,753

130 45 47 170 124 11.5 70 214 36 70 16,549

140 63 47 225 216 13.3 97 354 59 85 41,171

140A 19 32 240 188 12.0 80 321 54 85 26,595

150 33 118 240 208 12.6 98 347 59 85 43,480

160 19 45 225 209 13.1 89 345 58 90 35,505

170 160 No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

180 31 35 252 160 10.8 78 284 49 70 23,166

190 51 45 211 190 12.9 91 316 53 80 31,491

200 55 45 290 244 12.4 89 410 69 85 43,008

210 4 No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

220 75 45 329 255 11.9 77 435 74 90 35,071

240 28 37 348 172 9.5 75 321 56 85 23,424

250 11 44 225 231 13.7 87 373 62 65 34,515

260 27 35 240 175 11.6 80 302 51 85 24,235

270 35 275 105 372 25.5 89 470 74 80 71,158

280 52 46 216 253 14.7 91 399 66 80 41,971

290 90 47 208 149 11.5 82 259 44 80 24,075

300 51 40 235 187 12.1 70 318 54 85 23,628

310 12 50 113 83 11.6 62 143 24 65 8,156

320 28 30 230 170 11.7 71 293 50 85 19,972

340 30 45 304 256 12.4 89 431 73 90 39,906
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

41

Table 11. Unit Current Condition (continued)

Unit Acres Age 1) TPA≥7” BA≥7” QMD≥7” Avg. Hgt.

≥7” SDI≥7”2) RD≥7” CC≥7”3) BF Vol/Ac

350 16 39 256 164 10.8 80 292 50 85 24,525

360 16 40 263 226 12.6 67 378 64 75 25,256

370 32 34 314 222 11.4 68 386 66 85 25,478

380 27 39 269 235 12.7 76 393 66 85 30,099

390 13 37 213 195 13.0 73 322 54 80 24,512

400 26 47 156 195 15.1 86 303 50 80 28,821

410 34 42 195 240 15.0 91 374 62 85 38,960

420 11 40 175 175 13.5 81 284 47 85 23,756

430 17 40 275 217 12.0 77 370 63 90 29,438

440 17 35 187 150 12.1 98 254 58 85 43,480

450 27 34 180 166 13.0 73 275 46 70 20,205

460 8 43 250 219 12.7 87 365 61 90 34,308

470 9 44 208 199 13.2 87 326 55 85 32,513

480 37 43 220 248 14.4 88 394 65 90 40,038

490 18 45 294 233 12.1 79 396 67 85 34,202

510 8 40 242 211 12.7 83 352 59 80 32,652

520 43 45 220 201 12.9 86 332 56 90 32,635

530 26 39 255 253 13.5 80 411 69 75 34,580

540 48 40 238 171 11.5 63 297 50 85 18,809

560 45 20 75 51 11.1 48 89 15 25 5,915

570 24 No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

Total 4,048

1) Age based on field measurements at dbh

2) SDI calculation based on Long, 1985.

3) Current canopy cover derived from a combination of FVS calculations with and without overlap, aerial photo 

comparison to percent cover diagrams, field recognizance, and canopy photos taken during field recognizance.
42

Table 12. Unit Prescriptions – Proposed Action

Unit Silv 

Rx 4)

Resid.

TPA

DxD 

Spac.

Cut 

Species5)

SPP incl. in 

spacing

Dia. Restc.

(no cut) dbh

# of Gaps

(Size)

Gap 

Acres

# of DTRs 

(Size)

DTR 

Acres

SPSW6)

#(Size)

SPSW

Acres

Skip 

Acres # 

Clumps

Visuals

*

Logging

Sys.7)

1 CT 70-90 18 DF DF All >30” 19 SL 

2 CT 70-90 18 DF DF All >30” 3 (1 ac.) 3 0 Gaps SL

3 CT 70-90 18 DF DF All >30” 0 FR H

5 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 19 SL

6 CT 70-90 16 DF,WH DF, SP All >30” 1 (3 ac) 3 1 (2ac.) 2 8 SL/GB

7 CT 70-90/ITM 15 DF DF All >30” 3 SL/GB

11 CT 60-80 15 DF DF All >30” 1 FR GB 

12 CT 40-60 21 DF DF All >30” 1 (2 ac.) 2 1 H

13 CT 40-60 22 DF,WH DF, WH All >30” 11 FR H

14 QES 7-8 ITM DF N/A All >30” 2 SL

16 CT 40-60 20 DF, WH DF, WH All >30”,WH>14” 1 (3 ac.) 3 3 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.75 14 SL/GB

17 QES 7-8 ITM DF, WH N/A All >30” 3 GB

18 CT 40-60 20 DF, WH DF, WH All >30”,WH>14” 1 (2 ac.) 2 3 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.75 9 SL/GB

19 CT 70-90 16 DF DF, WP All >30” 54 GB

20 CT 80-100 15 DF DF All >30” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 1 SL

21 CT 50-70 18 DF, WH DF, WH All >30”,WH>14” 1 (3 ac.) 3 6 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.5 4 SL/GB

22 CT 40-60 20 DF DF, WH All >30” 1 (3 ac.) 3 2 (1⁄2 ac.) 1 17 SL/GB

23 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >30” 1 (3 ac.) 3 24 SL/GB

24 CT 40-60 21 DF DF All > 30” 6 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.5 16 H/SL/GB

25 CT 50,70-90 16 DF DF All > 30” 4 SL/GB

26 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All > 30” 1 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.25 5 SL

27 CT 60-80 16 DF DF All > 30” 1 (1/2 ac.) 0.5 2 (1⁄2 ac.) 1 9 SL/GB

28 CT 40-100 ITM DF N/A All >30” 1 (3 ac.) 3 14 SL/GB

29 FL ? N/A 4 GB

30 CT Var. ITM DF DF All >30” 1 (1/2 ac.) 0.5 0 FR GB

31 CT 40-60 19 DF DF All >30” 7 FR GB

32 CT ? DF, NF DF, NF All >30” 1 (3 ac.) 3 3 (1⁄2 ac.) 1.5 6 H

32a MR 3-5 ITM DF, NF N/A All >30” 3 H

33 CT 70-90 17 DF DF All >30” 4 (1 ac.) 4 2 SL/GB

34 CT 80-90 15 DF DF All >30” 2 SL

35 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 2 (3 ac.) 6 9 GB

38 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 1 (1⁄2 ac.) 0.5 5 SL

39 CT 40-60 20 DF DF All >30” 1 (2 ac.) 2 0 GB

40 CT 70-90 18 DF DF All>30” 1 (5 ac.) 5 0 SL

41 CT 70-90 16 DF,WH DF WH>15” stmpdia 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 2 SL/GB

42 CT 70-90 16 DF DF, NF All >30” 2 (1⁄2 ac.) 1 3 FR SL/GB

44 CT 60-80 15 DF DF All >30” 3 GB

45 CT 60-80 17 DF DF All >30” 8 FR GB
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

43

Table 12. Unit Prescriptions – Proposed Action (continued)

Unit Silv 

Rx4)

Resid. 

TPA

DxD 

Spac.

Cut 

Species5)

SPP incl. in 

spacing

Dia. Restc.

(no cut) dbh

# of Gaps

(Size)

Gap 

Acres

# of DTRs 

(Size)

DTR 

Acres

SPSW6)

#(Size)

SPSW

Acres

Skip 

Acres # 

Clumps

Visuals

*

Logging

Sys.7)

46 CT 60-80 17 DF, NF DF, NF All >30”, NF>10”dbh 0 FR GB

47 CT 70-90 17 DF DF All >30” 3 (1 & 3 ac) 7 3 (1⁄2 ac.) 1.5 15 Gaps SL/GB

48 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 3 (1⁄2 ac.) 1.5 3 SL

49 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 2 (1⁄2 ac.) 1 0 SL/GB

50 CT 70-90 18 DF, WH DF, WH All >30”, WH>12” 0 SL

51 CT 60-80 17 All DF All >30” 3 (1⁄2 ac.) 1.5 2 SL/GB

52 CT 80-100 15 All DF All >30” 2 (1⁄2 & 1⁄4 ac.) 0.75 2 SL

53 CT 70-90 16 DF, WH DF, WH WH>10”, >30” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 9 SL

54 UHE 190-220 N/A PS All ALL >7” 0 na

55 CT 70-90 16 DF DF, NF All >30” 4 SL/GB

56 CT 70-90 16 All DF All >30” 2 (1⁄2 ac.) 1 12 SL/GB

57 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 0 SL

58 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >30” 1 (1⁄2 ac.) 0.5 0 SL/GB

59 QES 7-8 ITM All All >30” 0.5 GB

60 CT 90-110 14 All DF All >30” 1 (1⁄2 ac.) 0.5 0 SL/GB

61 CT 70-90 15 DF, NF DF, NF All >30” 3 (1⁄2 ac.) 1.5 2 SL/GB

62 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >30” 8 GB

63 QES 7-8 ITM All All >30” 2 GB

64 CT 70-90 14 All DF All >30” 19 FR GB

69 CT 55-75 17 DF DF All >30” 1 (1/3 ac.) 0.3 5 Gaps SL/GB

70 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >30” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 0 GB

71 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >30” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 1 SL/GB

72 CT 70-90 17 DF DF All >30” 3 (1⁄2 ac.) 1.5 0 SL/GB

73 CT 60-80 16 DF DF, NF All >30” 3 (1⁄2 ac.) 1.5 11 GB

74 CT 60-80 16 DF DF All >30” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 13 SL/GB

75 CT 70-90 16 DF, NF DF, NF All >30” 12 SL/GB

76 CT 70-90 N/A All DF, NF, WRC All >30” 4 SL/GB

77 CT 70-90 16 All DF, NF All >30” 2 (1⁄2), 2(1⁄4) 1.5 1 SL/GB

78 CT 70-90 15 All DF All >30” 2 (1⁄2), 4(1⁄4) 2 0 SL

80 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >30” 2 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.5 0 GB

81 CT 50-70 17 DF,WH DF, WH All >30”, WH>15” 0 GB

82 UHE 190-220 N/A PS All >7” 0 NA

83 CT/SPR variable ITM All >30” 2 (1⁄2 ac.) 1 1(32 ac) 32 13 SL/GB

84 CT/SPR 40-60 22 DF DF All >30” 4 (3 ac.) 12 23 SL

87 CT 40-60 N/A DF DF All >30” 0 SL/GB

89 UHE 190-220 N/A PS ALL >7” 0 NA

92 UHE 190-220 N/A PS,MH ALL >7” 0 NA
44

Table 12. Unit Prescriptions – Proposed Action (Continued)

Unit

Silv 

Rx4)

Resid. 

TPA

DxD 

Spac.

Cut 

Species5)

SPP incl. in 

spacing

Dia. Restc.

(no cut) dbh

# of Gaps

(Size)

Gap 

Acres

# of DTRs 

(Size)

DTR 

Acres

SPSW6)

#(Size)

SPSW

Acres

Skip 

Acres # 

Clumps

Visuals

*

Logging

Sys.7)

93 CT/SPR 40-70 22 DF DF All >30” 3 (1 & 3 ac.) 5 5 H

94 CT/SPR 40-70 21 DF DF All >30” 6 (1 ac.) 6 5 SL/GB

95 CT/SPR 40-70 22 DF DF All >30” 8 (1 & 3 ac.) 16 21 SL/GB

96 CT/SPR 40-70 21 DF DF All >30” 4 (1 ac.) 4 1 SL/GB

97 CT 50 ? DF, NF DF, NF All >30” 0 skyline

100 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 2 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.5 27 SL/GB

110 CT 70-90 16 DF DF, NF All >30” 2 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.5 13 SL/GB

120 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >30” 4 SL

130 CT 70-90 16 DF, PS DF All >30” 12 SL

140 CT 70-90 16 DF DF, WRC All >30” 14 (1⁄4 ac.) 3.5 20 GB

140A CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >30” 4 GB

150 CT 80-100 14 DF, WH DF,WH All >30”,WH>12” 6 (1⁄2 ac.) 3 4 FR GB

160 CT 70-90 15 DF DF, WRC All >30” 5 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.25 1 GB/H

170 FT N/A All na All >7” 27 NA

180 CT 70-100 15 DF DF All >30” 2 (3 ac.) 6 2 GB

190 CT 70-90 15 DF DF, WRC All >30” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 16 SL/GB

200 CT 70-90 16 DF DF >30”, >20” LSR 1 (3 ac.) 3 3 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.75 6 SL/GB

210 FT N/A All >7” 0 NA

220 CT 70-90 16 DF DF,WRC All >30”/>20” 5 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.25 31 1 GB

240 CT 80-100 15 DF DF All >20” 6 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.5 0 6 SL/GB

250 CT 70-90 15 DF DF, WRC All >20” 2 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.5 2 2 GB

260 CT 70-90 15 All DF All >20” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 3 4 SL/GB

270 FT N/A All >7” 3 FR N/A

280 CT 70-90 16 DF, WH All >20”, WH>12” 7 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.75 5 7 GBS

290 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 8 (1⁄4 ac.) 2 48 8 SL/GB

300 CT 70-90 18 DF DF All >20” 6 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.5 20 6 SL/H

310 CT 70-90 18 DF DF All >20” 2 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.5 1 2 H

320 CT 70-90 17 DF DF, WRC All >20” 6 (1⁄4 ac.)^ 1.5 9 6 SL

340 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 5 4 SL

350 CT 70-90 17 DF DF All >20” 2 (1⁄4 ac.)^ 0.5 6 2 SL

360 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 2 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.5 3 2 SL/GB

370 CT 70-90 16 DF DF, WRC All >20” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 7 4 GB

380 CT 70-90 18 DF DF, NF All >20” 4 (1⁄4 ac.)^ 1 7 4 SL

390 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 2 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.5 4 2 SL

400 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >20” 3 (1⁄4 ac.)^ 0.75 10 3 SL

410 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 6 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.5 4 6 SL/GB

420 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 3 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.75 1 3 GB
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

45

Table 12. Unit Prescriptions – Proposed Action (Continued)

Unit Silv 

Rx4)

Resid. 

TPA

DxD 

Spac.

Cut 

Species5)

SPP incl. in 

spacing

Dia. Restc.

(no cut) dbh

# of Gaps

(Size)

Gap 

Acres

# of DTRs 

(Size)

DTR 

Acres

SPSW6)

#(Size)

SPSW

Acres

Skip 

Acres # 

Clumps

Visuals

*

Logging

Sys.7)

430 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 3 4 FR SL/GB

440 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >20” 1 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.25 10 1 SL

450 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 4 (1⁄4 ac.) 1 4 4 SL/GB

460 CT 70-90 17 DF DF All >20” 1 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.25 1 1 FR H

470 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 1 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.25 4 1 FR GB

480 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 10 (1⁄4 ac.) 2.5 4 10 SL/GB

490 CT 70-90 17 DF DF All >20” 3 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.75 2 3 SL

510 CT 70-90 16 DF DF All >20” 1 (1⁄4 ac.) 0.25 1 1 FR SL/GB

520 CT 70-90 15 DF DF All >20” 6 (1⁄4 ac.) 1.5 14 6 GB

530 CT 70-90 18 DF DF All >20” 8 (1⁄4 ac.) 2 3 8 SL

540 CT 70-90 15 DF, NF All All >20” 6 1⁄4 ac.) 1.5 5 6 GB

560 UHE 190-220 PS, MH All All >7” 0 NA

570 VM8) variable All All >7” 0 NA

Totals 46.3 76.25 93 845 117

4) CT = commercial thin; QES = quality early seral; MR = meadow restoration; UHE = understory habitat enhancement; FT = fuels treatment; SPR = sugar pine restoration; FL = fish logs only;

VM = view maintenance

5) Species codes: DF = Douglas-fir; NF = noble fir; WH = western hemlock; WR = western redcedar; PS = pacific silver fir; WP = western white pine; SP = sugar pine; MH = mountain hemlock; 

IC = incense cedar

6) SPSW = Sugar pine shelterwood

7) Logging System codes: GB = ground based; SL = Skyline; H = Helicopter; GBS = ground based swing

8) Trees <7”dbh felled to maintain view from fire lookout area on Gale Hill.

*Visuals: FT = Visual Quality Objective is Full Retention Foreground. Visuals is a concern in these units. The following mitigations apply: low stumping to 4” high side; mark cut trees or 

mark leave trees on face away from road only; chunking of slash piles.

Gaps = consult with Rec/LA for placement of gaps

^ See maps for dtr locations in riparian reserve.
46

Table 13. Post Harvest Activities – Proposed Acton

Unit Whipfall

SPP

Fuels 

Treat.9) Gaps and QES Plant SPP PlantSpacing DTR Plant SPP PlantSpacing

Wildlife

Treatments

Riparian Treatment/ 

Comments

1 UB

2 All saps in gaps UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x

3 HP

5 GP

6 All saps in gaps and SW UB SP 50%, WRC25%, WP25% 10x/13x WR 10x - if needed10) Seed, snag in WL gap 1 ac. Riparian treat.

7 GP

11 GP

12 All saps in SW UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x Plant SW only

13 HP

14 All saps UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag unit

16 All saps in large gaps UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x WH, WR 10x - if needed Seed, snag in WL gap

17 All saps UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag in unit

18 All saps in large gaps UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x WH, WR 10x - if needed Seed, snag in WL gap

19 GP

20 All saps in gaps none WH 50%, WRC 50% 10x

21 All saps in large gaps UB GP SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x WH, WR 10x - if needed Seed, snag in WL gap

22 All saps in large gaps UB GP SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x WH, WR 10x - if needed Seed, snag in WL gap

23 All saps in gaps GP SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag in WL gap

24 none WH, WR 10x - if needed

25 GP

26 GP WH, WR 10x

27 UB SP 50%, WP 50% 10x

28 All saps in gaps HP SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag in WL gap

29 none

30 GP

31 GP

32 none NF 50%, WP 50% 13x ? Seed, snag in WL gap

32a Saps in meadow none

33 All saps in SW UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x

34 GP

35 All saps in gaps UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag in WL gap

38 GP WH, WR 10x

39 All saps in SW except SP GP SP 50%, IC25%, WP25%

40 All saps in SW except SP UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x Plant SW only

41 GP WH, WR 10x

42 GP SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x Plant WH in shade

44 GP

45 GP
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

47

Table 13. Post Harvest Activities – Proposed Acton (continued)

Unit Whipfall

SPP

Fuels 

Treat.9) Gaps and QES Plant SPP PlantSpacing DTR Plant SPP PlantSpacing

Wildlife

Treatments

Riparian Treatment/ 

Comments

46 GP

47 All saps in large gaps UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x Seed, snag in WL gap Plant WH in shade

48 RGP SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x Plant WH in shade

49 GP SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x Plant WH in shade

50 none

51 UB GP SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x Plant WH in shade

52 none SP, WP, WH, WR 10x - if needed SP,WP in 1/2ac gap

53 none WH, WR 10x - if needed

54 none

55 GP

56 GP SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x Plant WH in shade

57 none

58 GP SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x - if needed Plant WH in shade

59 All saps in unit UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag in unit

60 GP SP 50%, WP 25%, WH 25% 10x Plant WH in shade

61 GP NF 50%, SP 25%, WH 25% 10x Plant WH in shade

62 GP

63 All saps in unit UB SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag in unit

64 GP

69 GP

70 GP WH, WR 10x - if needed

71 GP WH, WR 10x - if needed

72 UB WP, WR, WH 10x - if needed Plant WH in shade

73 UB WP, WR, WH 10x - if needed WP west asp., rest NW

74 UB WH, WR 10x - if needed

75 none

76 GP

77 GP WP, WR, WH 10x - if needed WP in 1⁄2 ac gap

78 GP WP, WR, WH 10x - if needed WP in 1⁄2 ac gap

80 GP WH, WR 10x - if needed

81 HP

82 UB

83 See Unit 83 Treatments UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x

84 All saps in SW except SP UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x Plant SW only

87 GP

89 HP

92 HP
48

Table 13. Post Harvest Activities – Proposed Acton (continued)

Unit Whipfall

SPP

Fuels 

Treat.9) Gaps and QES Plant SPP PlantSpacing DTR Plant SPP PlantSpacing

Wildlife

Treatments

Riparian Treatment/ 

Comments

93 All saps in SW except SP UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x Plant SW only

94 All saps in SW except SP UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x Plant SW only

95 All saps in SW except SP UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x Plant SW only

96 All saps in SW except SP UB SP 50%, IC25%, WP25% 10x Plant SW only

97 none

100 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed 9 ac. Riparian treat.

110 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

120 GP

130 GP

140 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

140A GP

150 All DF< 7”dbh. GP WP,IC 10x

160 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

170 HP

180 All saps in gaps GP SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x Seed, snag in WL gap

190 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed 4 ac. Riparian treat.

200 All saps in large gaps GP SP 33%, WP 33%, WRC 33% 13x WH, WR 15x – if needed Seed, snag in WL gap

210 HP

220 UB, GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

240 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

250 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

260 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

270 HP

280 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

290 UB, GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

300 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

310 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

320 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

340 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

350 UB WH, WR 15x – if needed

360 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

370 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

380 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

390 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

400 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

410 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

420 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

Table 13. Post Harvest Activities – Proposed Acton (continued)
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

49

Unit Whipfall

SPP

Fuels 

Treat.9) Gaps and QES Plant SPP PlantSpacing DTR Plant SPP PlantSpacing

Wildlife

Treatments

Riparian Treatment/ 

Comments

430 UB WH, WR 15x – if needed 1 ac. Riparian treat.

440 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

450 GP, HP WH, WR 15x – if needed

460 none WH, WR 15x – if needed

470 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

480 UB WH, WR 15x – if needed

490 UB WH, WR 15x – if needed

510 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

520 UB, GP WH, WR 15x – if needed 4 ac. Riparian treat.

530 UB WH, WR 15x – if needed

540 GP WH, WR 15x – if needed

560 HP

570 none

9) Fuels Treatment: UB = underburn(broadcast burn); GP = grapple pile; HP = hand pile; RGP = roadside grapple pile only

10) For DTRs, only plant with WH, WR if less than 150 t.p.a. present of viable WH, WR, or other climax spp.

SW= shelterwood
50

Table 14. Projected Post Treatment Conditions for the Proposed Action.

Unit Rx Resid. TPA TPA≥7”13) BA≥7”13) QMD≥7”13) SDI≥7”2)13) RD≥7”13) CC≥7”11)13)

1 70-90 126 90 11.8 156 27 65

2 70-90 80 96 14.9 151 25 55

3 70-90 81 134 17.4 197 32 64

5 70-90 117 124 14.2 198 33 69

6 70-90 96 92 13.8 150 25 58

7 70-90 113 126 15.1 199 33 57

11 60-80 71 163 20.5 224 36 60

12 40-60 53 211 25.2 260 41 51

13 40-60 89 288 26.4 367 58 78

14 3-5 26 96 29.1 121 19 27

16 40-60 70 172 23.1 232 37 52

17 3-5 23 58 27.7 76 12 23

18 40-60 61 147 22.1 200 32 58

19 70-90 128 150 14.9 236 39 60

20 80-100 96 86 13.2 142 24 53

21 50-70 63 132 21.1 184 30 49

22 40-60 96 194 21.7 272 44 57

23 70-90 198 173 13.6 288 49 61

24 40-60 78 175 21.7 240 39 57

25 50,70-90 84 104 15.1 161 27 66

26 70-90 119 184 17.6 273 45 74

27 60-80 113 185 19.5 269 44 63

28 40-100 127 204 19.6 300 49 73

29 fishlogs 82 85 7.1 137 23 36

30 70-90 77 129 16.5 189 31 50

31 40-60 147 168 14.6 265 44 66

32 40-60 57 190 25.9 242 38 53

32a 3-5 34 131 32.1 160 17 31

33 70-90 77 100 15.6 154 25 47

34 80-90 104 91 12.8 152 26 55

35 70-90 129 103 13.8 174 30 48

38 70-90 113 140 15.6 217 36 61

39 40-60/15 31 71 12.7 98 16 21

40 70-90/15 12 34 4.7 45 7 15

41 70-90 98 134 17.6 202 33 66

42 70-90 93 112 15.2 175 29 57

44 60-80 95 174 19.2 249 40 64

45 60-80 121 169 17.1 256 42 62

46 60-80 70 124 18.0 179 29 61

47 70-90 93 122 16.3 187 31 59

48 70-90 85 76 13.0 127 21 52

49 70-90 74 62 12.6 105 18 46

50 50-90 80 110 15.9 167 28 54

51 60-80 69 93 15.9 142 23 52

52 80-100 106 69 11.3 122 21 47

53 70-90 96 119 15.5 185 31 65

54 UHE 106 112 13.9 180 30 41

55 70-90 98 127 15.8 195 32 64

56 70-90 106 111 14.1 179 30 63

57 70-90 80 111 16.0 169 28 64

58 70-90 76 114 16.6 170 28 59

59 3-5 47 60 19.7 93 15 22
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

51

Table 14. Projected Post Treatment Conditions for the Proposed Action (continued).

Unit Rx Resid. TPA TPA≥7”13) BA≥7”13) QMD≥7”13) SDI≥7”2)13) RD≥7”13) CC≥7”11)13)

60 90-110 99 73 11.9 127 18 50

61 70-90 82 121 16.6 182 30 74

62 70-90 109 147 16.3 224 37 64

63 3-5 43 34 15.9 58 10 17

64 70-90 120 187 17.8 276 45 68

69 55-75 196 249 17.1 384 66 67

70 70-90 75 86 14.8 136 23 53

71 70-90 80 96 15.0 151 25 56

72 70-90 73 103 16.3 156 26 58

73 60-80 83 126 17.1 187 31 54

74 60-80 78 125 17.4 185 30 56

75 70-90 195 122 11.5 217 37 56

76 70-90 127 109 13.0 182 31 63

77 70-90 84 82 13.6 134 22 48

78 70-90 74 95 15.6 146 24 51

80 70-90 79 92 14.6 145 24 55

81 50-70 60 89 16.5 196 22 40

82 UHE12) No change No change No change No change No change No change

83 variable 20-90 variable variable variable variable variable

84 40-60 104 176 19.9 252 41 54

87 40-60 63 182 23.1 239 38 64

89 UHE12) No change No change No change No change No change No change

92 UHE12) No change No change No change No change No change No change

93 40-70 62 150 22.4 202 32 45

94 40-70 65 147 21.4 202 32 45

95 40-70 65 177 22.7 235 37 58

96 40-70 57 177 24.0 228 36 54

97 40-50 46 237 30.8 277 43 54

100 70-90 113 121 14.5 193 32 64

110 70-90 91 99 14.3 158 26 64

120 70-90 99 83 12.7 139 23 55

130 70-90 103 89 12.8 149 25 55

140 70-90 122 143 15.7 224 37 64

140A 70-90 114 106 13.5 175 29 64

150 80-100 99 127 16.4 201 32 71

160 70-90 86 98 14.9 155 26 56

170 FT12) No change No change No change No change No change No change

180 70-100 78 64 12.9 109 18 44

190 70-90 120 124 14.3 199 33 62

200 70-90 98 121 15.9 188 31 63

210 FT12) No change No change No change No change No change No change

220 70-90 181 152 13.1 256 43 71

240 80-100 85 63 11.7 108 18 46

250 70-90 97 125 15.0 192 32 67

260 70-90 93 91 13.9 148 25 53

270 FT12) No change No change No change No change No change No change

280 70-90 91 123 16.2 188 31 64

290 70-90 147 110 12.1 189 32 66

300 70-90 139 122 13.3 203 34 67

310 70-90 80 67 11.9 113 19 48

320 70-90 125 109 13.4 181 31 59

340 70-90 119 125 14.7 200 33 55
52

Table 14. Projected Post Treatment Conditions for the Proposed Action (continued).

Unit Rx Resid. TPA TPA≥7”13) BA≥7”13) QMD≥7”13) SDI≥7”2)13) RD≥7”13) CC≥7”11)13)

350 70-90 147 111 12.1 190 32 58

360 70-90 117 127 14.3 203 34 59

370 70-90 130 113 13.0 189 32 63

380 70-90 124 133 14.2 213 35 65

390 70-90 120 139 15.5 218 36 64

400 70-90 108 155 16.7 233 38 72

410 70-90 91 138 17.2 206 34 54

420 70-90 85 95 14.8 151 25 55

430 70-90 109 116 14.9 185 31 53

440 70-90 141 125 13.2 207 44 68

450 70-90 92 116 15.0 179 30 51

460 70-90 108 119 14.8 189 32 53

470 70-90 136 149 14.8 237 39 64

480 70-90 91 139 17.5 207 34 53

490 70-90 100 104 14.4 167 28 49

510 70-90 100 111 14.8 176 29 45

520 70-90 123 135 15.1 215 36 58

530 70-90 94 122 16.1 188 31 47

540 70-90 94 92 13.4 150 25 44

560 U.H.E. 12) 75 51 11.1 89 15 25

570 View maint 12) No change No change No change No change No change No change

11) Post treatment canopy cover calculated using FVS with no correction for overlap.

12) FT and U.H.E. only affect trees less than 7” dbh

13) TPA, BA, QMD, SDI, RD, and CC are calculated as an average for the unit. Thin, gap, and skip areas were calculated 

separately and averaged, weighted by acres of treatment.
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

53

Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 2. Proposed Action Alternative 3. Plantation Treatment Only

Unit Acres Rx Sugar Pine 

Rest. Acres

Early Seral 

Acres

Estimated 

MBF14) Rx Sugar Pine Rest. Acres

Early Seral 

Acres

Estimated 

MBF14)

1 43 CT 0 0 115 CT 0 0 115

2 33 CT 0 0 117 CT 0 0 117

3 13 CT 0 0 36 CT 0 0 36

5 39 CT 0 0 95 CT 0 0 95

6 66 CT 2 3 463 CT 0 3 463

7 19 CT 0 0 207 CT 0 0 207

11 17 CT 0 0 49 CT 0 0 49

12 24 CT/SPR 2 0 533 No harvest 0 0 0

13 31 CT 0 0 612 No harvest 0 0 0

14 15 QES 0 15 679 No harvest 0 0 0

16 64 CT 0 3 1371 No harvest 0 0 0

17 20 QES 0 20 519 No harvest 0 0 0

18 46 CT 0 2 473 No harvest 0 0 0

19 71 CT 0 0 68 CT 0 0 68

20 13 CT 0 0 102 CT 0 0 102

21 59 CT 0 3 1386 No harvest 0 0 0

22 56 CT 0 3 1913 No harvest 0 0 0

23 41 CT 0 3 448 CT 0 3 448

24 47 CT 0 0 524 No harvest 0 0 0

25 23 CT 0 0 25 CT 0 0 25

26 10 CT 0 0 78 CT 0 0 78

27 31 CT 0 0 289 No harvest 0 0 0

28 31 CT 0 3 364 No harvest 0 0 0

29 8 FL 0 0 0 No harvest 0 0 0

30 8 CT 0 0 30 CT 0 0 30

31 22 CT 0 0 199 No harvest 0 0 0

32 63 CT 0 3 1045 No harvest 0 0 0

32a 11 MR 0 0 315 No harvest 0 0 0

33 39 CT/SPR 4 0 560 CT/SPR 4 0 560

34 13 CT 0 0 75 CT 0 0 75

35 24 CT 0 6 248 CT 0 6 248

38 15 CT 0 0 99 CT 0 0 99

39 5 CT 0 0 94 No harvest 0 0 0

40 6 CT 0 0 129 No harvest 0 0 0

41 16 CT 0 0 214 No harvest 0 0 0

42 27 CT 0 0 396 CT 0 0 396

44 12 CT 0 0 47 CT 0 0 47

45 26 CT 0 0 528 CT 0 0 528

46 7 CT 0 0 68 CT 0 0 68

47 71 CT 0 7 946 CT 0 7 946

48 23 CT 0 0 105 CT 0 0 105

49 13 CT 0 0 76 CT 0 0 76

50 21 CT 0 0 187 No harvest 0 0 0

51 38 CT 0 0 143 CT 0 0 143

52 17 CT 0 0 193 CT 0 0 193

53 24 CT 0 0 74 CT 0 0 74

54 25 UHE 0 0 0 UHE 0 0 0

55 34 CT 0 0 398 CT 0 0 398

56 24 CT 0 0 86 CT 0 0 86

57 4 CT 0 0 14 CT 0 0 14
54

Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives (continued)

Alternative 2. Proposed Action Alternative 3. Plantation Treatment Only

Unit Acres Rx Sugar Pine 

Rest. Acres

Early Seral 

Acres

Estimated 

MBF14) Rx Sugar Pine Rest. Acres

Early Seral 

Acres

Estimated 

MBF14)

58 10 CT 0 0 301 CT 0 0 301

59 5 QES 0 5 71 QES 0 5 71

60 11 CT 0 0 147 CT 0 0 147

61 43 CT 0 0 474 CT 0 0 474

62 29 CT 0 0 171 CT 0 0 171

63 14 QES 0 14 200 QES 0 14 200

64 68 CT 0 0 557 CT 0 0 557

69 10 CT 0 0 243 CT 0 0 243

70 15 CT 0 0 107 CT 0 0 107

71 44 CT 0 0 251 CT 0 0 251

72 17 CT 0 0 117 CT 0 0 117

73 63 CT 0 0 480 CT 0 0 480

74 83 CT 0 0 430 CT 0 0 430

75 26 CT 0 0 161 CT 0 0 161

76 8 CT 0 0 22 CT 0 0 22

77 31 CT 0 0 310 CT 0 0 310

78 25 CT 0 0 249 CT 0 0 249

80 43 CT 0 0 281 CT 0 0 281

81 2 CT 0 0 27 No harvest 0 0 0

82 25 UHE 0 0 0 UHE 0 0 0

83 107 CT/SPR 51 0 963 No harvest 0 0 0

84 83 CT/SPR 12 0 782 No harvest 0 0 0

87 1 CT 0 0 4 No harvest 0 0 0

89 17 UHE 0 0 0 UHE 0 0 0

92 43 UHE 0 0 0 UHE 0 0 0

93 47 CT/SPR 5 0 199 No harvest 0 0 0

94 40 CT/SPR 6 0 708 No harvest 0 0 0

95 90 CT/SPR 16 0 772 No harvest 0 0 0

96 25 CT/SPR 4 0 463 No harvest 0 0 0

97 20 CT 0 0 413 No harvest 0 0 0

100 90 CT 0 0 625 CT 0 0 625

110 60 CT 0 0 222 CT 0 0 222

120 21 CT 0 0 76 CT 0 0 76

130 45 CT 0 0 182 CT 0 0 182

140 63 CT 0 0 796 CT 0 0 796

140A 19 CT 0 0 216 CT 0 0 216

150 33 CT 0 0 486 No harvest 0 0 0

160 19 CT 0 0 341 CT 0 0 341

170 160 FT 0 0 0 FT 0 0 0

180 31 CT 0 6 414 CT 0 6 414

190 51 CT 0 0 591 CT 0 0 591

200 55 CT 0 3 1060 CT 0 3 1060

210 4 FT 0 0 0 FT 0 0 0

220 75 CT 0 0 941 CT 0 0 941

240 28 CT 0 0 414 CT 0 0 414

250 11 CT 0 0 175 CT 0 0 175

260 27 CT 0 0 287 CT 0 0 287

270 35 FT 0 0 0 FT 0 0 0

280 52 CT 0 0 1114 CT 0 0 1114

290 90 CT 0 0 555 CT 0 0 555
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

55

Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives (continued)

Alternative 2. Proposed Action Alternative 3. Plantation Treatment Only

Unit Acres Rx Sugar Pine 

Rest. Acres

Early Seral 

Acres

Estimated 

MBF14) Rx Sugar Pine Rest. Acres

Early Seral 

Acres

Estimated 

MBF14)

300 51 CT 0 0 392 CT 0 0 392

310 12 CT 0 0 13 CT 0 0 13

320 28 CT 0 0 194 CT 0 0 194

340 30 CT 0 0 599 CT 0 0 599

350 16 CT 0 0 72 CT 0 0 72

360 16 CT 0 0 156 CT 0 0 156

370 32 CT 0 0 357 CT 0 0 357

380 27 CT 0 0 314 CT 0 0 314

390 13 CT 0 0 79 CT 0 0 79

400 26 CT 0 0 139 CT 0 0 139

410 34 CT 0 0 530 CT 0 0 530

420 11 CT 0 0 125 CT 0 0 125

430 17 CT 0 0 218 CT 0 0 218

440 17 CT 0 0 45 CT 0 0 45

450 27 CT 0 0 130 CT 0 0 130

460 8 CT 0 0 117 CT 0 0 117

470 9 CT 0 0 63 CT 0 0 63

480 37 CT 0 0 665 CT 0 0 665

490 18 CT 0 0 317 CT 0 0 317

510 8 CT 0 0 124 CT 0 0 124

520 43 CT 0 0 414 CT 0 0 414

530 26 CT 0 0 433 CT 0 0 433

540 48 CT 0 0 350 CT 0 0 350

560 45 UHE 0 0 0 UHE 0 0 0

570 24 VM 0 0 0 VM 0 0 0

4,048 102 110 39,975 4 41 24,313

14) MBF = Thousand boardfeet
56

Unit 83 – Sugar Pine Restoration and Commercial Thinning 
HWY 46 SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION

57

Figure 11. Unit 83 Sub-units.

Unit 83 is actually an assembly of several different stands. For ease of the prescription, this unit 

has been broken out into several sub-units so that each individual prescription would best suit the 

conditions.

A – (14 acres) This area does not appear to be particularly good sugar pine habitat. It is a mature 

stand with good structure. Trees may be harvested for operational purposes. Avoid cutting 

legacy trees.

B – (13 acres) Portions of this area are dense, very slow growing DF with a few SP scattered. 

Soil has a lot of loose rock and it appears to be a poor growing site. The economics of 

harvesting this area is marginal. If treated, shoot for leaving 70-90 tpa. DxD spacing about 18’. 

Leave as many branches and tops in this part for soil nutrient recycling.

C – (16 acres) Area C appears to have had a low intensity fire in it in the last few decades. Stand 

is primarily composed of large DF and SP overstory with also IC seen. Understory is 

regenerating well with DF and SP. This portion would be precommercial thinned only, cutting 

trees less than 7” dbh. Release SP regen with a 15’ spacing. Do not cut any SP regen.

D – (8 acres) This section is comprised of DF and RC. No SP seen and probably not the best 

habitat for it so that is not the focus. Thin to 70-90 tpa, recommend 16’ DxD, cut only DF, 

ignore western redcedar in spacing. No burning.

E – (32 acres) Sugar pine restoration is the primary focus within this area. Currently scattered 

with large DF, SP, and IC but most of the trees are DF 12” dbh or smaller. This area will receive 

a shelterwood cut leaving 20-30 tpa of the largest trees. Legacy trees should not be cut, 

especially SP. Whipfall all DF < 7” dbh. Pull slash back from SP and legacy trees prior to 

burning. Area will be broadcast burned in the fall only and then planted with SP 50%, IC25%, 

and WP 25%. Use rust resistant SP and WP stock for planting.

F – (12 acres) This area has dense smaller trees and is most likely not of any economic value. A 

few scattered SP with a lot of smaller RC, WH, and DF. Possible precommercial thinning to 

increase stand health and vigor. No burning.

G – (7 acres) This is a mature stand of DF with some WH regen. Prescription is similar to other 

stands like this in this project: Thin to 40-60 tpa, recommended DxD spacing is 19’. Cut DF 

only and ignore western hemlock in spacing. Two 1⁄2 acre DTRs will be planted with SP 50%, 

IC25%, and WP 25%

H – (3 acres) Area has scattered large DF and SP with dense sub-merch dog-hair DF 

underneath. Sub-merch DF is to be thinned with whipfalling to create fuel layer to burn this 

section. Pull back from residual trees and burn in fall only. Plant with SP 50%, IC25%, and WP 

25%.
58

Figure 12. Units and Land Allocations
59

Unit Detail Map #1
60

Unit Detail Map #2
61

Unit Detail Map #3
62

Unit Detail Map #4
63

Unit Detail Map #5
64

Unit Detail Map #6
65

Unit Detail Map #7
66

Unit Detail Map #8
67

Unit Detail Map #9
68

Unit Detail Map #10
69

Unit Detail Map #11
70

Unit Detail Map #12
71

Unit Detail Map #13
72

Unit Detail Map #14
73

Unit Detail Map #15
74

Unit Detail Map #16