Trout Creek

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Sweet Home Ranger District, Willamette National Forest

Linn County, Oregon

Legal Location: T12S R04E Sec: 34; T13S R03E Sec: 11-15, 22-27, 34-36; T13S R04E Sec: 2-11, 14-36; 

T14S R03E Sec: 1-3, 12; T14S R04E Sec: 1-20. Willamette Meridian

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific 

Northwest

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

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

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

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

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

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 

795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - i

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Trout Creek

Willamette National Forest Service

Linn County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: NICOLA SWANSON

District Ranger

Sweet Home Ranger District

4431 Highway 20

Sweet Home, OR 97386

541-367-3145

For Information Contact: JOANIE SCHMIDGALL

NEPA Planner

Sweet Home Ranger District

4431 Highway 20

Sweet Home, OR 97386

541-367-3809

Website:

Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains the Sweet Home Ranger District’s 

proposal to promote forest health, species diversity and complexity, provide a sustainable supply of 

timber products, mimic historic mixed severity fire at a landscape scale, improve fire resiliency and 

manage hazardous fuels and enhance hardwood habitat and diversity on 1,670 acres in the 

Willamette National Forest. The proposed project is located north and south of Highway 20 

approximately 22 miles east of Sweet Home, Oregon. Four alternatives were analyzed in this DEIS; a no 

action alternative (Alternative 1) and three action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4). Alternative 2 

proposes 1,670 acres of treatment (including skips); Alternative 3 proposes 1,016 acres of treatment

(including skips). Alternative 4 proposes 1,670 acres of treatment, but a greater volume of harvest than 

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is the Forest Service preferred alternative.

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

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

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

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

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

the Willamette National Forest’s Web site: (http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46279)

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

webpage will be created when project is initiated)

Or send comments to:

Joanie Schmidgall, NEPA Planner

Sweet Home Ranger District

4431 Highway 20

Sweet Home, OR 97386
Reader’s Guide

ii – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Reader’s Guide

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

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

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

impacts that would result from the proposed actions and alternatives. The document is organized as 

outlined below:

• Summary

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

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

• Chapter 2. This section describes the alternative methods for achieving the project’s purpose.

Alternatives are designed to meet the project’s purpose and need and to address one or more 

significant issues related to the proposed actions. This chapter also includes mitigation 

measures and a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative.

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

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

consequences of implementing the alternatives. The analysis is organized by resource area.

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

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

for preparing the environmental impact statement. 

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

sent

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

presented in the draft environmental impact statement.

• References

• Glossary

• Index

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

the project planning record located at the Sweet Home Ranger District Office on the Willamette National 

Forest.
List of Acronyms

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - iii

List of Acronyms

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

ASCO................... Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

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

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

ATP.....................Area to Protect

BA.......................Biological Assessment

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

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

BGEA.................. Big Game Emphasis Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FSM ..................Forest Service Manual
List of Acronyms

iv – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

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

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

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

GNN................... Gradient Nearest Neighbor

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

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

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

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

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

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

LRMP ................Land and Resource Management Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OHV..................Off-Highway Vehicle
List of Acronyms

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - v

ORV....................Off-Road Vehicle

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

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

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

PSQ..................... Probable Sale Quantity

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

RDI...................... Relative Density Index

RIS...................... Road Investment Strategy

RMO................... Road Management Objectives

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

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

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

SDI ....................Stand Density Index

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

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

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

TESP................... Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Proposed

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

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

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

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

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

VQO..................Visual Quality Objective

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

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

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

WQRP................ Water Quality Restoration Plans
vi – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table of Contents

Reader’s Guide.................................................................................................................................ii

List of Acronyms..............................................................................................................................iii

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

Purpose and Need.....................................................................................................................................1

Alternatives...............................................................................................................................................2

Summary of Environmental Consequences..............................................................................................4

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need..................................................................................................... 11

1.01 Introduction ................................................................................................................................11

1.02 Forest Plan and Management Direction.....................................................................................15

1.03 Purpose and Need for Action......................................................................................................21

1.04 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................................28

1.05 Tribal Consultation......................................................................................................................32

1.06 Public Involvement Efforts..........................................................................................................33

1.07 Consultation with other Agencies...............................................................................................34

1.08 Issues Derived from Public Comments.......................................................................................35

1.09 Decision Framework ...................................................................................................................35

Chapter 2 – Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 37

2.01 Alternative 1 – No Action............................................................................................................37

2.02 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative.......................................................37

2.03 Alternative 3 – No Regeneration Harvest and No Treatment in Stands Over 80 Years Old.......43

2.04 Alternative 4 – Additional Gap Creation and Increased Harvest Intensity in Unit 56 ................47

2.05 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated.....................................................................................51

2.06 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................51

2.07 Design Features...........................................................................................................................54

2.08 Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.............67

2.09 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................67

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................ 69

Cumulative Effects Analysis....................................................................................................................69

3.01 Forest and Stand Structure .........................................................................................................71

3.02 Soils.............................................................................................................................................99

3.03 Aquatics (Hydrology and Fisheries)...........................................................................................109
Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - vii

3.04 Wildlife......................................................................................................................................135

3.05 Botany and Invasive Plants .......................................................................................................179

3.06 Roads and Access......................................................................................................................192

3.07 Fire and Fuels............................................................................................................................201

3.08 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................211

3.09 Economics.................................................................................................................................213

3.10 Recreation.................................................................................................................................218

3.11 Scenic Quality............................................................................................................................223

3.12 Wilderness ................................................................................................................................237

3.13 Proposed Wild and Scenic River ...............................................................................................251

3.14 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)..............................................................................................254

3.15 Climate Change .........................................................................................................................258

3.16 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................................................................259

3.17 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.......................................................259

3.18 Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Productivity ..................................................................260

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers....................................................................................................... 261

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

Availability................................................................................................................................... 264

Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders.................................. 266

Appendix B – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy ................... 272

Appendix C – Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................................................... 276

Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals ................................................................................... 279

Road Status within Trout Creek Project Area .......................................................................................280

Trout Creek Haul Roads and Anticipated Road Work Activities...........................................................284

Rock Pits................................................................................................................................................287

Temporary Roads..................................................................................................................................287

Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities.......................................................................... 288

Commercial Treatments .......................................................................................................................288

Non-Commercial and Fuel Treatments.................................................................................................291

References................................................................................................................................... 296

Chapters 1 and 2 ...................................................................................................................................296

Forest Stand and Structure...................................................................................................................297
viii – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Soils.......................................................................................................................................................299

Aquatics.................................................................................................................................................300

Wildlife..................................................................................................................................................303

Botany ...................................................................................................................................................304

Transportation ......................................................................................................................................305

Fire and Fuels........................................................................................................................................306

Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................306

Economics.............................................................................................................................................306

Scenic Quality........................................................................................................................................306

Wilderness ............................................................................................................................................306

Climate Change .....................................................................................................................................307

Appendix D............................................................................................................................................308

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

Index..................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Trout Creek Vicinity Map..............................................................................................................................12

Figure 2: Map of the Proposed Action in the Trout Creek Project Area ...................................................................13

Figure 3: 6th field watersheds in the Trout Creek project area ................................................................................14

Figure 4: Willamette National Forest Plan management allocations in the Trout Creek Project area .....................19

Figure 5: Northwest Forest Plan management allocation in the Trout Creek project area......................................20

Figure 6: Unit 28........................................................................................................................................................21

Figure 7: A recent commercial thinning unit in a different project area ..................................................................22

Figure 8: Unit 56........................................................................................................................................................25

Figure 9: A "before" picture of a fuels treatment area on the Willamette National Forest .....................................26

Figure 10: An "after" photo of a fuels treatment area on the Willamette National Forest........................................27

Figure 11: A stand where Alder would be treated......................................................................................................28

Figure 12: Map of Alternative 2...................................................................................................................................42

Figure 13: Map of Alternative 3...................................................................................................................................46

Figure 14: Map of Alternative 4...................................................................................................................................50

Figure 15: White-crowned Sparrow (Photo credit: Will Elder, National Park Service) ...............................................80

Figure 16: Landscape-scale Spatial Heterogeneity Created by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire in Alternative 2 ........87

Figure 17: Visualization of Complex Early Seral Habitat Created in Alternative 2 in Unit 56......................................88
Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - ix

Figure 18: Comparison of Landscape-scale Heterogeneity between Alternatives 2 and 4 (top) versus Alternative 3 

(bottom).....................................................................................................................................................91

Figure 19: Comparison of Complex Early Seral Habitat Created in Alternative 2 (left) and Alternative 4 (right) in 

Unit 56 .......................................................................................................................................................93

Figure 20: Waterbodies and 6th Field Sub-watersheds within the Project Area......................................................110

Figure 21: An example of Riparian Reserves with typical young overstocked plantations in the project area ........111

Figure 22: Existing condition for older Riparian Reserves, typical of fire regenerated stands in the project area...112

Figure 23: Map of ARP levels post treatment for Alternative 4................................................................................122

Figure 24: Foster Dam blocks anadromous fish passage upstream and makes downstream passage treacherous for 

the juveniles out-migrating to the ocean ................................................................................................130

Figure 25: Fish Passage Barriers in the project area .................................................................................................132

Figure 26: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic downed wood for the South Santiam River 

watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015) .................................163

Figure 27: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter downed wood for the South 

Santiam River watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015)..........164

Figure 28: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic downed wood for the South Santiam River 

watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015)..................................................................164

Figure 29: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter downed wood for the South 

Santiam River watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015)...........................................165

Figure 30: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic snags for the South Santiam River watershed in 

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015).......................................................165

Figure 31: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter snags for the South Santiam 

River watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015)........................166

Figure 32: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic snags for the South Santiam River watershed in 

Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015)........................................................................................167

Figure 33: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter snags for the South Santiam 

River watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015).........................................................167

Figure 34: System Roads and Temporary Non-System Roads in the Trout Creek project for Alternative 2 (Map 1)197

Figure 35: System Roads and Temporary Non-System Roads in the Trout Creek project for Alternative 2 (Map 2)198

Figure 36: Fire Regime Classification of the Trout Creek Planning Area...................................................................202

Figure 37: Fuel Model 5 (left) and Fuel Model 8 (Right) ...........................................................................................203

Figure 38: Fuel Model 10 (left) and Fuel Model 12 (right)........................................................................................204

Figure 39: Post-harvest underburning would create a mosaic of burned and unburned areas throughout stands 205

Figure 40: Underburns would be timed to ensure adequate duff and down wood retention.................................206

Figure 41: Example of post burn mortality pockets in mixed severity underburning...............................................207

Figure 42: Trout Creek units adjacent to private land and wilderness in Alternatives 2 and 4 ................................208

Figure 43: Trout Creek units adjacent to private land and wilderness in Alternative 3............................................209

Figure 44: Trout Creek Project Area Recreation Sites...............................................................................................219

Figure 45: South Santiam Highway Viewshed...........................................................................................................224
x – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 46: Visual Quality Objectives and Alternative 2 and 4 Units..........................................................................226

Figure 47: Visual Quality Objectives and Alternative 3 Units....................................................................................227

Figure 48: Trout Creek Project Area Key Observation Points ...................................................................................231

Figure 49: Conditions of Rooster Rock Trailhead, October 2016..............................................................................232

Figure 50: Photos taken from Panorama Point looking toward treatment area (Unit 20), fall 2016 .......................233

Figure 51: Conditions from Rooster Rock Summit, November 2016 ........................................................................233

Figure 52: Google Earth and Photoshop simulation of proposed treatments (Unit 20) from Panorama Point looking 

north ........................................................................................................................................................234

Figure 53: Google Earth view from Panorama Point looking north..........................................................................234

Figure 54: Wilderness Resource Spectrum classes for the Menagerie Wilderness..................................................239

Figure 55: Wilderness potentially affected by activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4 ......................................245

Figure 56: Wilderness potentially affected by activities proposed in Alternative 3..................................................246

Figure 57: Location of South Santiam Wild & Scenic River corridor .........................................................................252

Figure 58: Roadless Areas in the Trout Creek project area.......................................................................................255

Table of Tables

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

Table 2: Summary of Direct Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................4

Table 3: Land Management Allocations within the Trout Creek project area.........................................................17

Table 4: Acres of proposed commercial timber harvest treatments and non-commercial treatments by 

Management Area (MA)............................................................................................................................18

Table 5: Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 2 .............................................39

Table 6: Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres– Alternative 2 .......................................................41

Table 7: Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 3 .............................................43

Table 8: Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 3 ......................................................45

Table 9: Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 4 .............................................47

Table 10: Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 4 ......................................................49

Table 11: Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................................51

Table 12: Riparian Reserve Acres Proposed for Treatment.......................................................................................53

Table 13: Proposed Riparian Reserve Treatments.....................................................................................................54

Table 14: Design Features Common to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4.............................................54

Table 15: Wildlife Tree and Large Down Wood Creation Recommendations for Alternatives 2 and 4.....................67

Table 16: Comparison of Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects by Objective..........................................................71

Table 17: Current and Historic Seral Stage Distribution in South Santiam Watershed .............................................75

Table 18: Current Conditions of Managed Stands Proposed for Treatment .............................................................76

Table 19: Current Conditions of Fire-Origin Stands Proposed for Treatment ...........................................................77
Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - xi

Table 20: Direct and Indirect Effects Resource Indicators and Measures by Objective ............................................81

Table 21: Comparison of Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects by Objective........................................................94

Table 22: Cumulative Change in Seral Stage Percentage on NFS Land in the South Santiam Fifth-field Watershed 

by Alternative ............................................................................................................................................96

Table 23: Unstable areas within Trout Creek project ..............................................................................................103

Table 24: Management/Measurement Indicators for assessing effects.................................................................103

Table 25: Riparian Reserve Commercial Thinning in the Project Area ....................................................................116

Table 26: Preferred temperature limits and ranges for salmonids (degrees Fahrenheit).......................................117

Table 27: Stream Temperature in the Trout Creek Project Area .............................................................................117

Table 28: Current and post treatment Aggregate Recovery Percentages (ARP) in the project area.......................121

Table 29: Road Maintenance and Reconstruction (Road Work) with number of culvert replacements and distance 

to LFH (Source Daniel Matthews, Engineering) .......................................................................................127

Table 30: Estimated sediment produced short term and stabilized long term by culvert replacements at 

road/stream crossings by alternative ......................................................................................................128

Table 31: Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for the Trout Creek Project Area ............................................129

Table 32: Fish Passage Barriers in the Trout Creek Project Area .............................................................................131

Table 33: Age Class Acres by Treatment Type – Alternative 2.................................................................................139

Table 34: Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat and Treatment............................................................................140

Table 35: Summary of effects of by alternative on seven sensitive species that occur or have potential habitat in 

the Trout Creek project area ...................................................................................................................148

Table 36: List of Survey and Manage Species associated with the Sweet Home Ranger District and their occurrence 

in the project area ...................................................................................................................................157

Table 37: Wildlife management indicator species for the Willamette National Forest ..........................................161

Table 38: Estimated Snag Population Potential for the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood (WLCH) and Montane 

Mixed Conifer (MMC) Wildlife Habitat Types in the South Santiam River Watershed and in Willamette 

National Forest ........................................................................................................................................168

Table 39: Elk Forage Classes Relative to DDE values ...............................................................................................171

Table 40: Elk Forage Class Distribution in 1993 and 2012 and for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 in the Big Game Project

.................................................................................................................................................................172

Table 41: Comparison of MVUM Open Road Density to Forest Plan Elk Road Density Standards and Guidelines by 

Big Game Emphasis Area in the Project Analysis Area ............................................................................173

Table 42: 2001 ROD Survey and Manage Categories...............................................................................................180

Table 43: Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species in the Trout Creek Planning Area .........................................181

Table 44: Special Habitats in Trout Creek Units.......................................................................................................186

Table 45: Risk Matrix – Comparison of Invasive Weed Introduction Potential by Alternative................................189

Table 46: Key Forest Roads......................................................................................................................................193

Table 47: Road Status Summary Table (all values reported in miles)......................................................................194

Table 48: Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest....................................................................................199
xii – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table 49: Comparison of Post-harvest Fuels Treatments by Alternative ................................................................208

Table 50: Particulate Matter Emissions from Burning by Alternative .....................................................................212

Table 51: Economic Efficiency Analysis (Alternative 2)............................................................................................214

Table 52: Economic Efficiency Analysis (Alternative 3)............................................................................................215

Table 53: Economic Efficiency Analysis (Alternative 4)............................................................................................216

Table 54: Economic Comparison of Alternatives.....................................................................................................216

Table 55: VMS/SMS Objectives and Proposed Treatment Acreage.........................................................................228

Table 56: Scenic-Emphasis Management Area Thresholds .....................................................................................229

Table 57: Indicators and measures for the natural quality......................................................................................240

Table 58: Indicators and measures for the outstanding opportunities quality .......................................................243

Table 59: Summary of effects to wilderness character .............................................................................................247
Summary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 1

Summary

The Sweet Home Ranger District is proposing to 1) Encourage stand health, vigor, species diversity and 

structural complexity in the Matrix, Adaptive Management Area (AMA), and Riparian Reserves; 2) 

Contribute a variety of sustainable forest products to local markets; 3) Increase spatial heterogeneity, 

including complex early seral habitat, at a landscape scale by mimicking mixed severity fire; 4) Improve 

fire resiliency and strategically manage hazardous fuels in high risk areas that could adversely affect the 

integrity of privately owned lands, Late Successional Reserves (LSR), Matrix, AMA, and Riparian Reserve 

lands; 5) Enhance and create hardwood habitat and diversity.

The proposed project is located off Highway 20, approximately 22 miles east of the town of Sweet 

Home, Oregon.

Purpose and Need

Encourage stand health, vigor, species diversity and structural complexity in the 

Matrix, Adaptive Management Area (AMA), and Riparian Reserves.

The Trout Creek project proposes to treat densely stocked, structurally similar stands with a variety of 

treatments including commercial thinning, gap creation, aggregate retention harvest and skips. These 

treatments would result in the development of structural complexity and associated biological diversity

contributing to overall forest health. There are two categories of stands proposed for treatments to 

address this objective: managed stands that are about 40-60 years old and fire-origin stands that are 

about 100-150 years old.

Contribute a variety of sustainable forest products to local markets.

One of the strategic goals of the Forest Service is to provide and sustain benefits to the American 

people. To accomplish this goal, one of the objectives is to provide a reliable supply of forest products 

over time consistent with achieving the desired conditions on National Forest System (NFS) lands and to 

maintain or create processing capacity and infrastructure in local communities. Through implementation 

of the proposed actions, the Sweet Home Ranger District would contribute approximately 12 million 

board feet (MMBF) to the local forest products market over a 3 year period (approximately 2-8 MMBF 

per year).

Increase spatial heterogeneity, including complex early seral habitat, at a 

landscape scale by mimicking mixed severity fire.

Over the last several decades, fires in the South Santiam Watershed have been actively suppressed. 

There are private landholdings adjacent to the project area. Most of the existing early seral habitat in 

the project area resulted from timber harvest rather than from natural disturbances. These lands do not 

see mixed severity fire or contain all of the attributes of complex early seral habitat that a disturbance 

such as a mixed-severity fire might create. Harvest in selected areas would be designed to create 

structural elements similar to those that would be found in high-severity patches created by a mixedseverity fire or other disturbance.
Summary

2 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Improve fire resiliency and strategically manage hazardous fuels in high risk 

areas to reduce the potential for large-scale fires that could adversely affect the 

integrity of privately owned lands, Late Successional Reserves (LSR), Matrix, 

AMA, and Riparian Reserve lands.

This project presents an opportunity to address these concerns by reducing the risk of fires spreading 

within the checkerboard ownership through strategically-placed fuel treatments. The interface of public 

and private checkerboard ownership adjacent to the Trout Creek project area has resulted in 

neighboring parcels of land with differing management objectives and fuels loads. Fuel treatments along 

ridge tops and road corridors would create defensible areas that can be safely and effectively used

during fire suppression. Hardwood fuel breaks and the underplanting of fire and drought tolerant 

species would increase fire resiliency on the landscape in key areas.

Enhance and create hardwood habitat and diversity.

The Sweet Home Ranger District has few large patches of hardwood trees in its conifer dominated 

landscape. Treatment of alder areas combined with oak and madrone restoration would help maintain

hardwood populations in the project area.

Alternatives

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

alternatives (Alternative 2, 3 and 4). The alternatives vary by the amount of treatment and the specific 

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

alternative.

Table 1: Comparison of the Alternatives

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 624 520 603.5

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 109 109 109

Aggregate Retention (early seral 

creation) Acres 0 101 0 101

Gaps Acres 0 35 43 55.5

Skips Acres 0 489 344 489

Total Acres 0 1,358 1,016 1,358

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/ or 

hand treatments) Acres 0 157 94 157

Post-Harvest Underburn Acres 0 278 229 278

Road Activities Associated with Harvest

New Road Construction Miles 0 1 1 1

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 2.1 1.3 2.1

Temporary Road Re-Open Miles 0 2.3 2.0 2.3

Roads Maintained Miles 0 48 46 48

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 6 10 10

Road Storage Miles 0 32 32 32

Culvert Replacement Amount 0 260 248 260
Summary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 3

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Rock obtained from expanding 

existing quarries Cubic Yards 0 20,000 20,000 20,000

Rock obtained from new quarries Cubic Yards 0 40,000 0 40,000

Acres by Harvest System

Skyline Harvest Acres 0 537 429 537

Ground-based Harvest Acres 0 328 239 328

Harvest Associated (Non-Commercial Treatments) Planting, Snags, and Down Wood

Planting in Aggregate Retention 

Harvest Acres 0 101 0 101

Planting in Gaps Acres 0 32 43 55.5

Plant/regenerate Huckleberries Acres 0 14 6 14

Plant Hazel, camas or other plants 

for tribal use Acres 0 8 8 8

Plant Tall Bugbane Acres 0 5 0 5

Underplant hardwoods Acres 0 237 154 237

Underplant Incense Cedar and/or 

Western Redcedar (including in the 

riparian reserves)

Acres 0 303 0 303

Dry Meadow Restoration Acres 0 2 2 2

Maple Restoration Acres 0 3 3 3

Fall and Leave in Areas Unsuitable 

For Logging Acres 0 3 3 3

Fall and Leave Conifers in Riparian 

Reserves Acres 0 9 7 9

Fall and Leave Alder, underplant 

with Western Red Cedar and Big 

Leaf Maple in Riparian Reserves

Acres 0 1 1 1

Underplant Oregon Ash and 

Western Redcedar in Alder Area of 

Riparian Reserves

Acres 0 1 1 1

Pre-Commercial Thin (including

Riparian Reserves) to favor 

hardwood trees

Acres 0 7 7 7

Create Snags and Down Wood

(occurs in Aggregate Retention 

units)

Snags or 

Down Trees 

per Acre

0 At least 7 At least 7 At least 7

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 0 109 0 109

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated Acres 0 141 141 141

NSO Non- Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated Acres 0 77 77 77

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated

(including skips) Acres 0 142 0 142

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated

(including skips) Acres 0 226 226 226

NSO Non-Habitat Treated (including 

skips) Acres 0 103 103 103

Key Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4
Summary

4 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1. Harvest treatments in stands 

over 80 years of age Acres 0 647 0 647

2. No Aggregate Retention 

harvest Acres 0 101 0 101

3. More early seral creation and 

larger gap cuts Acres 0 136 43 156.5

4. Increase harvest intensity for 

thinning units MMBF 0 12.7 8.4 15.8

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table 2: Summary of Direct Environmental Consequences

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Forest and 

Stand Structure

Competition for 

sunlight, water and 

nutrients would 

continue to increase. 

Health and vigor would 

decrease, resulting in 

reduced resiliency to 

disturbances such as 

drought. There would 

be a lack of diversity 

and high level of 

competition between 

trees. In fire-origin 

units, remnant trees 

would continue to be 

shaded out and 

experience mortality. 

No acres would be 

planted with 

hardwoods or drought 

tolerant species. The 

hardwood component 

in the project area 

would continue to 

decline.

Thinning would improve 

stand health and vigor, 

as well as create 

conditions for successful 

hardwood fuelbreaks and 

understory hardwood 

tree planting. Tree 

planting and gaps would 

increase tree species 

diversity of droughttolerant species and 

conifer bough species. 

Gaps would improve 

structural complexity by 

releasing dominant trees 

to develop complex 

crown structure and 

initiating a second tree 

cohort. Skips would 

improve structural 

complexity by allowing 

inter-tree competition to 

occur at levels that 

continuously creates 

snags, which become 

down wood. Aggregate 

retention harvest would 

create complex early 

seral habitat.

Same as Alternative 2 

except no landscapescale areas would be 

treated, resulting in zero 

acres of landscape areas 

mimicking mixed severity 

fire. Complex early seral 

habitat and late seralopen habitat would 

continue to decline as 

canopy cover increases 

in these stands. Thinning 

would improve stand 

health and vigor, as well 

as create conditions for 

successful hardwood 

fuelbreaks and 

understory hardwood 

tree planting. 

Same as Alternative 2

Fire and Fuels No fuels would be 

treated in the project 

area. Plantations 

would remain at their 

current stocking levels 

and short-term 

impacts to fire danger 

would be avoided as 

no resulting slash 

would be created 

during harvest 

operations. Over time, 

these stands would

begin to self-thin either 

through competition, 

Overall, risk from wildfire 

would be reduced 

through reduction of fuel 

densities in strategic 

areas such as roads 

corridors and areas 

adjacent to private lands 

in stands following postharvest fuel treatments. 

Immediately following 

timber harvest activities 

an increase in potential 

fire intensity would exist

until fuels treatments are 

completed.

Same as Alternative 2 

except in unit 56, no 

harvest activities would 

take place and no mixed 

severity fire 

underburning would take 

place. Risk of fire spread 

outside the Menagerie 

wilderness to private 

timber land would 

continue to increase.

Same as Alternative 2 

except the removal of the 

additional volume from 

unit 56 would decrease 

the amount of residual 

snags left in the unit and 

the post burn structural 

complexity.
Summary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 5

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

insect damage, 

disease, or a 

combination of 

environmental factors. 

Fuel loadings and fire 

danger would increase 

as a result of this selfthinning, similar to that 

following commercial 

harvest, but without 

any mitigating fuels 

treatments.

Soil Productivity No effect Nutrient availability and 

compaction would 

remain within the limits 

outlined in the standard 

and guidelines of the 

Forest Plan

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Water Quality No effect Reduction in risk of 

sedimentation and road 

failures post-treatment. 

Benefit to long-term large 

woody debris and water 

temperatures. No 

measurable adverse 

effects to water quality

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Rare Plants No effect No effect No effect No effect

Rare Fungi No effect Commercial harvest,

burning, gaps, and 

aggregate retention 

harvest may impact

sensitive fungi 

individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely 

contribute to a trend 

towards Federal listing or 

cause a loss of viability 

to the population or 

species.

Same as Alternative 2 

except there would be no 

effects from aggregate 

retention harvest as that 

treatment was eliminated 

from this Alternative. 

Same as Alternative 2

Special Habitats No effect No effect No effect No effect

Invasive Plants No effect The project has a high 

risk of introducing or 

spreading known 

populations of invasive 

weeds due to harvest 

activities and temporary 

road construction. 

The project has a low to 

moderate risk of 

introducing or spreading 

known populations of 

invasive weeds due to 

harvest activity and 

temporary road 

construction.

Same as Alternative 2

Roads No change in the use 

pattern of roads or 

correction of existing 

road maintenance 

problems. Brush and 

tree re-growth and 

associated reduced 

visibility, debris on 

road, and surface 

irregularities from OHV 

and other traffic could 

The project would 

reverse declining road 

conditions on about 48

miles of road. The 

project would reduce the 

open road density by 

36.8 miles leaving stored 

and decommissioned 

roads in a hydrologically 

stable condition reducing 

the miles of road 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Summary

6 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

eventually result in 

unsafe traveling 

conditions for public 

and administrative 

traffic, as well as 

increasing resource 

damage associated 

with localized erosion.

maintenance and 

reducing the risk of 

sediment.

Air Quality No effect Effects on air quality 

from smoke emissions 

would not exceed state 

mandated policy.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Heritage No effect There are no effects to 

heritage resources. Any 

new or existing heritage 

sites would be avoided 

and protected. See 

Appendix A for 

consistency and 

compliance with heritage 

direction.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Recreation No effect. No road 

maintenance activities 

would take place in the 

project area and could 

negatively impact 

access and dispersed 

recreation 

opportunities. 

Short-term noise, dust or 

smoke disturbances from 

logging and fuels

activities. Access to 

wilderness and 

trailheads would remain 

open. Road maintenance 

due to harvest activity 

may benefit conditions 

for scenic driving and 

dispersed recreation 

opportunities.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Economics No contribution to local 

economy or forest 

sector jobs would 

occur. If not replaced 

by another project, 

Alternative 1 could 

contribute to a 

continued decline in 

forestry and milling 

related jobs.

Approximately 12.7

million board feet of 

timber would be 

contributed to local 

economy, forest sector 

jobs, and county 

governments via timber 

revenue. Jobs 

associated with timber 

harvest and production 

would contribute to the 

local economy with direct 

and indirect jobs and 

increased tax revenue to 

the government from 

those jobs.

Approximately 8.4 million 

board feet of timber 

would be contributed to 

local economy, forest 

sector jobs, and county 

governments via timber 

revenue. Jobs 

associated with timber 

harvest and production 

would contribute to the 

local economy with direct 

and indirect jobs and 

increased tax revenue to 

the government from 

those jobs.

Approximately 15.8

million board feet of 

timber would be 

contributed to local 

economy, forest sector 

jobs, and county 

governments via timber 

revenue. Jobs 

associated with timber 

harvest and production 

would contribute to the 

local economy with direct 

and indirect jobs and 

increased tax revenue to 

the government from 

those jobs.

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

No effect No effect No effect No effect

Wilderness

(Untrammelled 

Character)

No effect No effect No effect No effect

Wilderness

(Natural 

Character)

No effect No effect to rare 

botanical species. High 

risk of indirect long term 

adverse effects from 

invasive botanical 

Same as Alternative 2. 

Indirect beneficial long 

term effect to 

biodiversity, but less than 

Alternative 2 or 4.

Same as Alternative 2. 

Indirect beneficial long 

term effect to 

biodiversity, but less than 

Alternative 2.
Summary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 7

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

species. Direct short 

term noise disturbance 

effects possible to the 

northern spotted owl and 

peregrine falcon. Indirect 

long term habitat 

disturbance effects 

possible to the northern 

spotted owl. Direct 

beneficial long term 

effects to aquatic 

organism passage. No 

effect to in stream large 

wood. Indirect beneficial 

long term effect to 

biodiversity.

Wilderness 

(Undeveloped 

Character)

No effect No effect No effect No effect

Wilderness 

(Solitude or 

Primitive 

Character)

No effect Direct medium to long 

term adverse effects 

resulting from visible 

human activity. Direct 

medium term (about 5 

years) adverse effects 

resulting from sounds of 

human activity. No effect 

to recreational access.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

No effect There are no effects to 

ORVs, water quality, or 

the free flowing status of 

the South Santiam River; 

and therefore, no effects 

to its continued eligibility 

for inclusion in the 

national Wild and Scenic 

Rivers system.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Northern 

Spotted Owl 

(Threatened and 

Management 

Indicator 

Species)

No effect Likely to Adversely Affect 

due to suitable habitat 

removal.

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect due to 

removal of dispersal 

habitat.

Likely to Adversely Affect 

due to suitable and 

removal of dispersal

habitat.

Northern 

Spotted Owl 

(Critical Habitat)

No effect Likely to Adversely Affect 

due to suitable and 

dispersal habitat removal 

within designated critical 

habitat subunit WCS3.

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect due to 

removal of dispersal 

habitat.

Same as Alternative 2

American 

Peregrine 

Falcon 

(R6 Sensitive 

and 

Management 

Indicator 

Species)

No effect May impact individuals 

due to harvest activities 

proposed in peregrine 

habitat/management 

zones. However,

activities would not likely 

result in a loss of viability 

in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Summary

8 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Harlequin Duck 

(R6 Sensitive)

No effect No effect with seasonal 

restrictions applied

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Lewis 

Woodpecker (R6 

Sensitive)

No effect May adversely impact 

individuals due to 

treatments proposed in 

managed and natural 

stands with potential 

foraging habitat. Harvest 

would degrade habitat by 

reducing future snags. 

Prescribed burning 

would likely provide 

some benefit to this 

species by creating 

snags and open areas 

that would attract insects 

that this species would 

forage on. Treatments 

would not likely result in 

a loss of viability in the 

planning area.

May adversely impact 

individuals due to 

harvest proposed in 

managed stands with 

potential marginal 

foraging habitat.

Treatments would not 

likely result in a loss of 

viability in the planning 

area.

Same as Alternative 2

Fringed Myotis 

and Townsend’s 

Big-eared Bat 

(R6 Sensitive)

No effect May adversely impact 

individuals due to the 

removal of potential 

foraging and roosting 

habitat, but would not 

result in a loss of viability 

in the project area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing.

May adversely impact 

individuals, but would not 

result in a loss of viability 

in the project area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing.

Same as Alternative 2

Johnson’s 

Hairstreak 

(R6 Sensitive)

No effect May adversely impact 

individuals, but would not 

result in a loss of viability 

in the project area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing. A 

negligible amount of 

western hemlock habitat 

would be affected by 

proposed project 

activities. In addition, the 

project area is 

considered low-quality 

habitat.

No effect. Harvest is 

proposed on young 

managed stands under 

80 years old. The 

chances of these

younger stands having 

any dwarf mistletoe are 

very low.

Same as Alternative 2

Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox

(R6 Sensitive) 

No effect May adversely impact 

individuals, but would not 

result in a loss of viability 

in the project area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing. A 

negligible amount of the 

species potential habitat 

would be affected and 

some proposed 

treatments may be 

beneficial.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Crater Lake 

Tightcoil 

(R6 Sensitive 

and Survey and 

No effect Protection buffers would 

be placed around 

perennial wetland areas. 

Therefore, no impacts 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Summary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 9

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Manage 

Species) 

are expected to occur to 

this species.

Oregon 

Megomphix 

(Survey and 

Manage 

Species)

No effect A one acre no-harvest 

buffer has been placed 

around sites in units 170 

and 190 following 

management 

recommendations. 

Therefore, no impacts 

are expected to occur to 

this species.

A one acre no-harvest 

buffer has been placed 

around sites in unit 170 

following management 

recommendations. 

Therefore, no impacts 

are expected to occur to 

this species.

Same as Alternative 2

Red Tree Vole 

(Survey and 

Manage 

Species)

No effect Proposed activities are 

expected to occur 

outside of known red tree 

vole active sites and 

such proposed activities 

may impact individuals of 

the population by 

reducing canopy cover, 

connectivity and canopy 

complexity. In the active 

red tree vole areas, 

dispersal would be 

difficult and suitable 

habitat would be 

restricted to riparian and 

suitable habitat corridors 

until the area recovers to 

mature stand conditions. 

Therefore, the proposed 

project may impact 

individuals or their 

habitat temporarily, but 

the actions would 

maintain species 

persistence and viability. 

There are no other 

reasonably foreseeable 

or ongoing projects that 

would impact red tree 

voles or their habitat.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Great Gray Owl 

(Survey and 

Manage 

Species) 

No effect There are no known 

great grey owl nest sites 

in the project area. This 

alternative proposes 101 

acres of early seral 

creation and 35 acres of 

gaps which may 

enhance opportunities 

for great grey owl 

foraging. The proposed 

actions would maintain 

species persistence and 

viability.

There are no known 

great grey owl nest sites 

in the project area. This 

alternative proposes 43 

acres of gaps which may 

enhance opportunities 

for great grey owl 

foraging. The proposed 

actions would maintain 

species persistence and 

viability.

There are no known 

great grey owl nest sites 

in the project area. This 

alternative proposes 101 

acres of early seral 

creation and 55 acres of 

gaps which may 

enhance opportunities 

for great grey owl 

foraging. The proposed 

actions would maintain 

species persistence and 

viability.

Cavity 

Excavators 

(Management 

Indicator 

Species)

No effect Snag abundance may 

initially decline on 1,359 

acres but may increase 

with post-harvest 

mitigation and 

enhancement. This 

Snag abundance may 

initially decline on 1,016 

acres but may increase 

with post-harvest 

mitigation and 

enhancement.

Same as Alternative 2
Summary

10 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

alternative would 

degrade 218 acres, or 

less than 1%, of this 

habitat in the Trout 

Creek project area.

Elk and Deer 

(Management 

Indicator 

Species)

No effect Regeneration harvest 

and small gaps may 

increase elk forage 

quality from “poor” to 

“higher-marginal” for 

about 20 years on 

approximately 127 acres. 

Thinning would improve 

forage on approximately 

733 acres.

Small gaps should 

increase elk forage 

quality from “poor” to 

“higher-marginal” for 

about 20 years on 

approximately 43 acres. 

Thinning would improve 

forage on approximately 

629 acres.

Regeneration harvest 

and small gaps should 

increase elk forage 

quality from “poor” to 

“higher-marginal” for 

about 20 years on 

approximately 156 acres. 

Thinning would improve 

forage on approximately 

712 acres.

Spring Chinook 

Salmon -- Upper 

Willamette River 

(UWR)

No effect Likely to Adversely Affect 

(LAA)

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Critical Habitat –

UWR Spring 

Chinook Salmon

No effect Likely to Adversely Affect 

(LAA)

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Essential Fish 

Habitat –

Chinook Salmon

No effect May Adversely Affect Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Winter 

Steelhead –

Upper 

Willamette River 

(UWR)

No effect Likely to Adversely Affect 

(LAA)

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Critical Habitat –

UWR Winter 

Steelhead

No effect Likely to Adversely Affect 

(LAA)

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 11

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

1.01 Introduction

The Sweet Home Ranger District is proposing to use a combination of non-commercial treatments and 

commercial timber sales to encourage forest health, species diversity and structural complexity. These 

actions would contribute a variety of sustainable forest products to local markets and increase spatial 

heterogeneity, including complex early seral habitat at a landscape scale by mimicking mixed severity 

fire. These treatments would also improve fire resiliency and strategically manage hazardous fuels in 

high risk areas that could adversely affect the integrity of privately owned lands and National Forest 

System (NFS) lands. Additionally, the proposed commercial and non-commercial treatments would

enhance hardwood habitat and diversity. Treatments would occur on about 1,670 acres on the 

Willamette National Forest.

The project area encompasses approximately 37,344 acres, including 29,142 acres of NFS lands and 

8,202 acres of private lands, and is located roughly 22 miles east of Sweet Home, Oregon in Linn 

County (Figure 1). Highway 20 snakes through the center of the project area and units are located 

both on the north and south side of the highway (Figure 2). The project is located primarily in the 

South Santiam 5th field watershed and contains portions of the Bear Creek-Middle Santiam, Soda Fork, 

Moose Creek, Trout Creek, and Lower Canyon Creek 6th field watersheds (Figure 3). The legal 

description of the area is T12S, R4E, Section 34, T13S, R3E, Sections 11-15, 22-27, 34-36, T13S, R4E, 

Sections 2-11, 14-36, T14S, R3E, Sections 1-3, 12. T14S, R4E, Sections 1-20.

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

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

the forested stands in the project area are overstocked from a silvicultural perspective. Additionally, the 

project area includes a portion of the Menagerie Wilderness, is bisected by the South Santiam River and 

is in close proximity to a large swath of private land. This interface of public and private ownership has 

resulted in neighboring parcels of land with differing management objectives, forest structure, and fuels 

loads.

Fire has historically been the dominant natural disturbance in the project area. There is evidence that 

the project area was historically subject to mixed severity fire disturbance with a frequency of 50 to 200 

years depending on topography. High severity-stand replacing fire would occur less frequently. Most of 

the fire-origin stands in the project area originated from a stand-replacing fire that burned in the late 

1800s. Records indicate 65 naturally occurring (lightning strike) fires in the South Santiam watershed 

from 1970-2013. Given the close proximity to private timber lands, all fires were suppressed with the 

average fire being 0.7 acres in size. Timber harvest, including thinning, partial cut, and regeneration 

harvest has been the dominant disturbance in the project area since the 1950s.

The Trout Creek project area is a popular destination for a wide range of both developed and dispersed 

recreation activities. The most popular activities include camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, whitewater 

boating, rock climbing, and scenic driving. There is also limited equestrian and winter recreation use.

There is a small network of official and user created trails accessing the Menagerie Wilderness and the 

area is popular with day-use hikers and rock climbers. Several developed campgrounds sit adjacent to 

Highway 20 that provide access to the South Santiam River. Scenic views of the South Santiam River and 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

12 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

the adjacent forest are a significant recreational attraction. The South Santiam River runs through the 

project area and is designated as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.

Figure 1: Trout Creek Vicinity Map
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 13

Figure 2: Map of the Proposed Action in the Trout Creek Project Area
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

14 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 3: 6th field watersheds in the Trout Creek project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 15

1.02 Forest Plan and Management Direction

This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is tiered to the following environmental impact 

statements and plans, which are incorporated by reference:

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

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

“LRMP”).

• The Forest Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan and Record of Decision and 

Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth 

Related Species with the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, 1994a; referred to as the “Northwest Forest Plan”).

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

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

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

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

Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

The Forest Plan “guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management 

standards and guidelines for the Willamette National Forest. It describes resource management 

practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for 

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

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

The Forest Plan was amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994), which established additional 

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

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

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

Figure 5 illustrate the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan management areas. Table 3 displays Forest 

Plan management areas, Northwest Forest Plan land management areas and acres of each within the 

project area.

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

in the project area.

Forest Plan

Special Interest Areas (5a) within the project area include the Shelter Falls, Camas Prairie, Santiam 

Wagon Road, and Cougar Rock Special Interest Areas (SIA). Treatments are proposed within the Cougar 

Rock SIA and adjacent to the Camas Prairie SIA. The purpose of Special Interest Area is to preserve lands 

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

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

implemented for treatments that maintain or enhance the values identified in the Implementation 

Guides for these areas.

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

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

ecosystems. Timber management may not be implemented for the purpose of programmed harvests, 

but it may be implemented for treatments if necessary to meet established wildlife objectives.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

16 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (10e) are areas characterized by predominately or natural appearing 

environment of moderate to large size. The interaction between users is low and the area is managed 

with minimum on-site control and limited to signage, sanitary and safety needs. There is the high 

probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, challenge and risk. Access and 

travel is non-motorized. Vegetative alterations would be small and widely dispersed. 

Dispersed Recreation- Lakeside habitats (10f) this management area provides of the management of 

forest lakeside areas for their wildlife habitat and scenic values.

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

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

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

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

wildlife habitats.

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

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

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

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

and maintenance of wildlife habitats.

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

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

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

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

and maintenance of wildlife habitats.

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

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

would be managed for a high level of scenic quality. This area would also be managed for other 

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

maintenance of wildlife habitats.

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

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

that is compatible with multiple use objectives.

Riparian Areas (15) this management area applies to rivers, streams, small wetlands, lakes and the 

adjacent riparian areas. The emphasis in this area is to maintain the role and function of riparian areas in

the overall landscape ecology.

Northwest Forest Plan

General Forest-Matrix Lands (MA 14a) consist of areas outside of other Northwest Forest Plan land 

allocation categories where most of the timber treatments occur to produce an optimum and 

sustainable yield of timber production that is compatible with multiple use objectives.

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

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

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

health of the aquatic system and its dependent species.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 17

Late Successional Reserves (MA 16A and 16B) are managed to protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessional and old-growth forest ecosystems. The purpose of silvicultural treatments is to benefit the 

creations and maintenance of late-successional forest conditions.

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

approaches to integrate and achieve ecological, economic, and other social and community objectives.

Table 3: Land Management Allocations within the Trout Creek project area

1990 Forest Plan Management Areas (MA) Northwest Forest Plan Management Areas (MA) Acres

Wilderness (1) 4,319

Special Interest Areas (5a) Administratively Withdrawn 46

Special Interest Areas (5a) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 114

Special Interest Areas (5a) Adaptive Management Area (17) 126

Wildlife Habitat- Marten (9c) Administratively Withdrawn 58

Wildlife Habitat – Marten (9c) Adaptive Management Area (17) 112

Wildlife Habitat – Special Areas (9d) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 524

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized-(MA 10e) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 638

Dispersed Recreation – Lakeside Setting (10f) Adaptive Management Area (17) 115

Scenic Modification Middleground (11a) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 4,214

Scenic Modification Middleground (11a) Adaptive Management Area (17) 749

Scenic Partial Retention Middleground (11c) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 608

Scenic Retention Middleground (11d) Late Successional Reserve (16A/16b) 171

Scenic Retention Middleground (11d) Adaptive Management Area (17) 364

Scenic Retention Foreground (11f) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 852

Scenic Retention Foreground (11f) Adaptive Management Area (17) 3,665

General Forest (14a) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 1,979

General Forest (14a) Adaptive Management Area (17) 8,712

General Forest (14a) Matrix (14a) 1,749

Riparian Areas (15) Riparian Reserves (15) 16,431

Critical Habitat 16,520

Inventoried Roadless Areas 10,054

Private Land (not a land allocation) 8,202

Total* 37,344

*

Does not include Riparian Reserves or Critical Habitat which overlay other allocations. Does not include Proposed Wild and Scenic Corridor 

(approximately 15 river miles in the project area). Refer to Section 3.13, Proposed Wild and Scenic River in Chapter 3 for further analysis. 

Refer to the 1990 Forest Plan. FEIS, LRMP, Appendix E (E-66) for information concerning The Proposed Wild and Scenic designation of 

Segment 3 of the South Santiam River.

The Proposed Action includes about 1,670 acres (4% of the project area) of commercial timber harvest 

treatments and non-commercial treatments with associated design features on NFS lands within the 

Trout Creek project area. A detailed description of proposed treatments for each unit is located in the 

Integrated Prescriptions which are a part of the project record kept on file at the Sweet Home Ranger 

District. Table 4 summarizes the acres of proposed commercial timber harvest and non-commercial 

treatments by land management allocation. No treatments are proposed within Wilderness or 

Inventoried Roadless Areas.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

18 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table 4: Acres of proposed commercial timber harvest treatments and non-commercial treatments by 

Management Area (MA)

Forest Plan MA Northwest Forest Plan MA CTH NCT Total

Special Interest Areas (5a) Adaptive Management Area (17) 4 0 4

Scenic Modification Middleground (11a) Adaptive Management Area (17) 115 3 118

Scenic Retention Middleground (11d) Adaptive Management Area (17) 83 0 83

Scenic Retention Foreground (11f) Late Successional Reserve (16a/16b) 14 7 21

Scenic Retention Foreground (11f) Adaptive Management Area (17) 363 247 610

General Forest (14a) Adaptive Management Area (17) 216 79 295

General Forest (14a) Matrix (14a) 522 17 539

Riparian Areas (15) Riparian Reserves (15) 109 0 73

Critical Habitat 471 2 473

Total* 1,317 352 1,670

CTH = commercial timber harvest; NCT = non-commercial treatments

*Does not include Riparian Reserves or Critical Habitat which overlay other allocations

Roads Analysis

Identify Minimum Road System based on Forest-level Travel Analysis Report (TAR) known as the 

Willamette National Forest Road Investment Strategy (RIS, 2015). It is a forest level analysis completed 

in 2015. This TAR included recommendations for a road system that could be maintained to protect 

resources and provide access for administrative and public use for the long term. National and regional 

direction instructed Forests to analyze these recommendations at the project level. Please refer to 

Appendix D for more detailed information concerning the roads analysis and anticipated road work 

activities. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 19

Figure 4: Willamette National Forest Plan management allocations in the Trout Creek Project area
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

20 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 5: Northwest Forest Plan management allocation in the Trout Creek project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 21

1.03 Purpose and Need for Action

1. Encourage stand health, vigor, species diversity and structural complexity in 

the Matrix, Adaptive Management Area (AMA), and Riparian Reserves.

Existing Condition: There are two categories of stands proposed for treatments to address this objective: 

plantations or managed stands that are about 40-60 years old and fire-origin stands that are about 100-

150 years old.

The 40-60 year old, plantations proposed for treatment with this project are typically densely-stocked 

with limited understory development and structural complexity. Figure 6 shows unit 28, a 40-60 year old 

over stocked managed stand with a single layer canopy and limited understory development. These 

plantations are located in Matrix, Matrix-Scenic, Adaptive Management Area (AMA) and Riparian 

Reserve management allocations.

The fire-origin stands proposed for treatment are generally between 100 and 150 years old and are 

located in Matrix, Matrix-Scenic and AMA. Many of these stands have received light thinning treatments 

in the past, when they were about 80-90 years old. These treatments removed some intermediate and 

suppressed trees, but did little to reduce competition in the overstory or increase structural complexity.

Why Consider Taking Action: The 40-60 year old plantations are considered to be in the stem-exclusion 

stage of development (Oliver and Larson, 1990). As inter-tree competition for light, water, and nutrients 

increases, growth rates slow and the stands become less vigorous and more susceptible to insects, 

diseases, and drought.

Figure 6: Unit 28
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

22 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Despite some of the older fire-origin stands receiving previous thinning treatments, many are densely 

stocked with limited structural complexity and low tree species diversity. Due to the level of competition 

and lack of species diversity, they are highly susceptible to insects and disease, as well as drought.

Structural complexity in many stands is lacking due to an absence of abundant gaps, dead wood, 

secondary canopy layers, and dominant trees with full crowns and large branches.

There are some fire-origin stands proposed for non-commercial diversity under-planting of trees. The 

conditions in these stands are variable, but generally some received a moderate thin at about 80-90 

years of age. These stands have developed a limited secondary canopy layer, consisting primarily of 

western hemlock and occasionally bigleaf maple. Due to the lack of species diversity they are also 

susceptible to insects, disease and drought. In the fire-origin stands proposed for harvest and underplanting, the plantings would take place after all harvest activities have been complete. These fire-origin 

stands are located in Matrix, Adaptive Management Area and Riparian Reserve management allocations.

Desired Condition: The desired condition for the 40-60 year old plantations, as stated in the Willamette 

National Forest Plan, is: “Young stands would be managed to maintain vigor and growth” using various 

stand treatments such as “pre-commercial and commercial thinning and protection from insects, 

diseases, and damage” (Forest Plan, MA14a Desired Future Condition, p. IV-227). “Stands of various 

conifer species would predominate depending on growing sites; although the natural variety of 

hardwoods, shrubs, and forbs will continue to be components of the ecosystem with fluctuations 

occurring as stands progress through the seral stages.” (Forest Plan, MA14a Desired Future Condition, p. 

IV-227).

Figure 7: A recent commercial thinning unit in a different project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 23

Stands would retain moderate levels of ecologically-valuable structural components such as snags, logs 

and relatively large green trees and increase ecological diversity by providing early-successional habitat 

(Northwest Forest Plan, pp. B-5 and B-6). The young, uniform stands can be diversified by early thinning 

(DeBell et al., 1997; Hayes et al., 1997). Early commercial thinning has been shown to be beneficial to 

the future development of understories, the promotion of natural regeneration, and in enhancing 

biodiversity (Muir et al., 2002). Structural complexity and biological diversity would be enhanced in 

dense, even-aged, single-storied stands. Figure 7 shows an example of a recent commercial thinning unit 

in a different project on the Willamette National Forest.

The desired condition of the stands in the 100-150 year old age range is decreased competition of 

overstory trees, increased structural complexity, and increased species diversity. One goal of the 

Northwest Forest Plan is to maintain biological diversity associated with native species and ecosystems 

(Northwest Forest Plan, p. B-1). Treatments in these stands would result in the development of 

structural complexity and associated biological diversity through gap creation, dominant-tree-release 

gaps, and the planting of another tree cohort focusing on drought- and fire-tolerant tree species. Noharvest skips would provide areas where future snags would occur due to competition, primarily in 

Riparian Reserves. This would be achieved primarily through variable density thinning with some

aggregate retention harvest.

2. Contribute a variety of sustainable forest products to local markets.

Existing Condition: Commercial timber products such as sawlogs are an important component of the 

local and regional economy. In recent years, the sale target of the Willamette National Forest has been 

70 to 80 MMBF. The majority of timber sales are purchased and harvested by mills or timber companies

within a 50 mile radius of the Willamette National Forest. 

Why Consider Taking Action: Several laws direct and allow the Forest Service to provide the sustainable 

harvest of trees from the Nation’s forests including Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976. One of the strategic goals of the Forest Service is to provide 

and sustain benefits to the people of the United States and the world. To accomplish this goal, one of 

the objectives is to provide a reliable supply of forest products over time consistent with achieving the 

desired conditions on NFS lands and to maintain or create processing capacity and infrastructure in local 

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

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

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

economies, and contribute valuable resources to the national economy on a predictable and long-term 

basis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

direction.

Desired Condition: Through implementation of the proposed actions, the Sweet Home Ranger District 

would contribute approximately 12 MMBF to the Willamette National Forest PSQ target over a 3 year 

period (approximately 2-8 MMBF per year).
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

24 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

3. Increase spatial heterogeneity, including complex early seral habitat, at a 

landscape scale by mimicking mixed severity fire.

Existing Condition: Since 1970 there have been 65 lightening fires in the South Santiam watershed (an 

average of about 1.5 per year). Those fires were all suppressed, with the average fire being 0.7 acres in 

size. In that timespan, 47 acres total burned. While not all of those lightening fires would have become 

larger fire events, some likely would have without suppression. Historically in the central west 

Cascades, the most common disturbance to create spatial heterogeneity was mixed-severity fire 

(Tepley, 2013). Historic mixed severity fire burned at a scale of hundreds to thousands of acres 

(Morrison and Swanson, 1990; Cissel et al., 1998). Mixed severity fires have been suppressed in the last 

50 to 100 years due to a multitude of resources-at-risk on the Sweet Home Ranger District as well as to 

protect adjacent private land.

A 2012 Gradient Nearest Neighbor analysis of all ownerships shows that about 5% of the South Santiam 

fifth-field watershed is quality early seral habitat. This includes private land. Most of the existing early 

seral habitat in the project area resulted from timber harvest rather than from natural disturbances. 

Early seral habitat exists on the landscape, but on land that is intensively managed as industrial 

forestland. These lands do not see mixed severity fire or contain all of the attributes of complex early 

seral habitat that a disturbance such as a mixed-severity fire might create. 

Why Consider Taking Action: One goal of the Northwest Forest Plan is to maintain biological diversity 

associated with native species and ecosystems (Northwest Forest Plan, p. B-1). Within Matrix 

management areas, ecological diversity can be improved through providing high-quality, long-lasting, 

and more diverse early-successional habitat (Northwest Forest Plan, p. B-2). 

In the absence of fire suppression, more than 47 acres would have burned since 1970 in the Trout Creek 

area, creating more of a mosaic across the landscape. Mixed severity fires contribute to habitat creation 

and variety on the landscape, from high severity patches where most trees are killed to low severity 

patches where few trees are killed. Due to fire suppression, this landscape-scale disturbance is 

becoming rare, resulting in a loss of larger-scale spatial heterogeneity (Tepley, 2013). In particular, high 

severity patches of mixed severity fire would leave behind complex early seral habitat. Within the 

project area there is a lack of diversity in early seral habitats such as legacy trees (large, stand 

dominating trees), snags, down wood, shrubs, grasses, and herbs.

Desired Condition: The desired condition is a landscape with a variety of habitats ranging from very open 

areas with herb and grass cover; to shrub-covered openings; to open areas with low tree densities that 

provide structural components such as legacy trees, snags and down wood; to areas with moderate 

amounts of legacy trees, snags, and down wood; to areas with very little disturbance. It is also desirable 

to operate as close to the scale of a mixed severity fire event as possible (at least hundreds of acres). 

According to Swanson et al. (2011) attributes of complex early seral habitat include:

• Greater variety of environmental conditions (light, temperature and moisture).

• Increased diversity of surviving organisms in the soil (also including organic matter, seeds, 

rootstock, etc.)

• Structural complexity (surviving live trees, snags, downed wood, perennial shrubs, annual forbs).

• Spatial heterogeneity (for example, a wildfire burns at different intensities, resulting in different 

levels of surviving trees from no survivors to many survivors).

To increase spatial heterogeneity, the desire is to not only design treatments that create complex early 

seral habitat similar to that described by Swanson et al. (2011), but to also move the proportion of 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 25

complex early seral habitat in the watershed to within the range of natural conditions. LANDFIRE BioPhysical Setting (BpS) models provide an estimate of landscape forest structure that occurred 

historically based on the vegetation and disturbance regime that existed prior to European settlement 

(LANDFIRE, 2009). In the South Santiam fifth-field watershed, analysis of LANDFIRE BpS models shows 

that the historic average of complex early seral habitat was 8% (compared to the existing condition of 

5%, of which most is non-complex early seral habitat on intensively managed land). Complex early seral 

habitat is important to many animals (such as elk, small mammals, and their associated predators), birds 

(such as woodpeckers and bluebirds), and insects (especially butterflies and moths) that benefit from 

the combination of diverse plant communities and surviving structures characteristic of this habitat 

(Swanson et al., 2011). 

Figure 8 shows unit 56, a 100-150 year-old fire origin unit in the Matrix that is in close proximity to the 

Menagerie Wilderness. The current proposal would retain over half of the unit in no-harvest skips to 

mimic a low-severity/unburned patch. Treated areas would be commercially thinned, followed by a 

prescribed underburn, and snag creation to mimic a high-severity fire patch.

Figure 8: Unit 56
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

26 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

4. Improve fire resiliency and strategically manage hazardous fuels in high risk 

areas to reduce the potential for large-scale fires that could adversely affect 

the integrity of privately owned lands, Late Successional Reserves (LSR), 

Matrix, AMA, and Riparian Reserve lands.

Existing Condition: The Trout Creek project area is directly adjacent to private lands and contains 

portions of the Menagerie Wilderness. This interface of public and private checkerboard ownership has 

resulted in neighboring parcels of land with differing management objectives and fuels loads. 

Why Consider Taking Action: The public has raised concerns about fire moving across ownership 

boundaries due to high fuel loading on NFS lands, including the Menagerie Wilderness. This project 

presents an opportunity to address these concerns by reducing the risk of fires spreading within the 

checkerboard ownership through strategically-placed fuel treatments.

Desired Condition: Fuel treatments along ridge tops and road corridors would create defensible areas 

that can be utilized during fire suppression. The reduced fuel loadings and altered fuel profiles in 

treatment areas can moderate fire behavior, improve the effectiveness of ground and aerial fire 

suppression resources, and provide a safer area for personnel to operate in.

One proposed treatment is hardwood fuel breaks. The treatment would commercially remove all 

merchantable understory trees to remove ladder fuels and thin the overstory to reduce crown fire 

behavior and create sufficient light in the understory to underplant hardwood species such as red alder 

and big leaf maple. These hardwood species are less flammable than conifer species and would

moderate fire behavior. Once the hardwood trees are established, the fuel break would be effective 

with no maintenance for the lifespan of the trees (approximately 60 to 70 years for red alder and 100 to 

200 years for big leaf maple). The patchy, aggregate retention treatment in followed by a prescribed

underburn in unit 56 would also enhance a fuel break along the 850 road in-between private 

timberlands and the Menagerie Wilderness.

Figure 9: A "before" picture of a fuels treatment area on the Willamette National Forest
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 27

Figure 9 and Figure 10 were taken on the Willamette National Forest in an area with similar fuel loading 

as the areas proposed for fuel breaks in the Trout Creek project. The “before” and “after” images are 

representative of current conditions and expected outcomes (before hardwood tree establishment) for 

the Trout Creek project.

5. Enhance and create hardwood habitat.

Existing Condition: The Sweet Home Ranger District has few large patches of hardwood trees in its 

conifer dominated landscape. Two of the largest patches are in the project area, with only one of these 

being accessible for treatment. Red alder is the dominant species and is currently about 50 years old.

Hardwood patches occupy an important but uncommon niche in the Trout Creek project area.

Hardwoods are significant components of forest diversity and habitat (Eskelson et al., 2009). Hardwoods 

are important to a variety of songbird species, bats, and small mammals and provides key sources of 

food and cover for bird habitat (Ellis and Betts, 2011).

Why Consider Taking Action: Red alder is a short lived hardwood species and the stands of hardwood in 

the project area would start experiencing mortality in the next ten to twenty years. In the future, as the 

red alder dies these areas would likely convert to conifer species. Figure 11 shows a stand where alder 

would be cut and replanted to stimulate a new cohort of growth and contribute to overall forest health. 

Tall bugbane, a formerly sensitive species, is a perennial herbaceous plant that is in general decline on 

the Sweet Home Ranger District. Tall bugbane prefers the cool, moist habitat found in the vicinity of 

hardwood trees such as bigleaf maple.

Oak and madrone dominated stands, historically maintained by fire disturbance, are rare on the 

landscape of the western Cascades. A lack of fire disturbance has resulted in existing patches of oak and 

madrone becoming overtopped by conifer tree species.

Figure 10: An "after" photo of a fuels treatment area on the Willamette National Forest
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

28 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Desired Condition: One goal of the Northwest Forest Plan is to maintain biological diversity associated 

with native species and ecosystems (Northwest Forest Plan, p. B-1). Generally, it is desirable to maintain 

and increase the biological diversity represented by hardwood habitats.

The desired condition for the accessible large hardwood stand in the project area is to provide a range 

of age classes of hardwood trees and prevent a loss of hardwood habitat in the stand. This would 

provide current and future habitat for some species of birds as well as other wildlife species that rely on 

this habitat (Betts et al., 2010; Hagar, 2007).

The desired condition for tall bugbane is to maintain and increase its presence in the project area. 

Treatments that favor or establish bigleaf maple would provide conditions favorable to tall bugbane.

It is desired to maintain existing oak and madrone patches on the landscape, as well as establish more 

oak in the vicinity of Camas Prairie. Treatments that release oak and madrone from existing conifer 

competition would maintain existing patches, and aggregate retention treatment would be used to 

establish more oak trees around Camas Prairie.

1.04 Proposed Action

The proposed action (Alternative 2) would treat approximately 1,670 acres (or approximately 4% of the 

project area) in the Trout Creek Project. Harvest treatments proposed include commercial thinning, 

Figure 11: A stand where Alder would be treated
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 29

variable density thinning, aggregate retention, gap creation, hazardous fuels treatments, and skips. A 

detailed description of the actions proposed under each Alternatives and maps are included in Chapter 

2.

The different commercial timber harvest treatments and non-commercial treatments are briefly 

described here. Depending on the existing and desired conditions of a particular stand, a variety of 

treatment combinations may be proposed. Treatment combinations could range from only

underplanting to a combination of several commercial and non-commercial treatments. For example, 

thinning with skips and no gaps may be proposed in one stand, while thinning, aggregate retention, gaps 

and skips followed by prescribed underburning and underplanting may be proposed in another stand. 

Refer to Appendix E for the specific combination of treatments proposed in each treatment unit.

Commercial Timber Harvest Treatments

Commercial timber harvest treatments would use a combination of ground and skyline harvest systems. 

Ground harvest systems include a combination of hand and mechanical tree falling and rubber tired

grapple skidders to yard trees to landings for processing. Skyline harvest systems would fall trees by 

hand and yard trees to a landing using a suspended cable system. Depending on the current stand age 

and other existing conditions, one or a combination of the following timber harvest treatments would 

be used in each stand to achieve desired conditions. Refer to the Integrated Prescriptions which are a 

part of the project record kept on file at the Sweet Home Ranger District for detailed treatment 

descriptions for each unit. In general, the goal of using a combination of the following treatments is to 

mimic mixed-severity fire on a landscape scale, increase residual tree vigor and resilience to disturbance 

such a drought, reduce ladder and canopy fuels, influence species composition, and increase structural 

complexity. The following treatments are prescribed for all Alternatives, however, acres are noted for 

only Alternative 2 (the proposed action) in the following descriptions.

Commercial Thinning

Commercial thinning treatments are proposed on 733 acres, 109 of which are in the Riparian Reserves.

This treatment would focus on removing intermediate and suppressed trees to improve the growth and 

vigor of the larger, more dominant leave trees. Leave trees would be selected using a variety of spacing 

criteria to create stands with variable densities (i.e., variable density thinning). Residual tree species 

composition would also be a factor that influences which trees are selected for harvest.

Aggregate Retention Harvest

Aggregate retention harvest (101 acres) is a form of regeneration harvest designed to create structural 

elements similar to those that would be found in high-severity patches created by a mixed-severity fire

or other disturbance. Unlike traditional regeneration harvest systems such as clearcutting, aggregate 

retention harvest creates comparatively smaller regeneration openings of irregular shape, retains 

groups of trees (or aggregates) of 1⁄2 acre and larger in size, and retains up to 9 trees per acre in the 

openings. Some retention trees may then be killed during prescribed underburning or girdled to provide 

structural elements characteristic of complex early seral habitat. Aggregate retention harvest is 

proposed in 4 plantations and 2 fire-origin stands. The proportion of aggregate retention harvest would 

vary by unit, impacting no more than a total of 9 to 42% of a single stand.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

30 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Gaps

Gaps (35 acres total) are created by cutting most trees in a small area ranging from a quarter-acre to 

one acre in size. Species such as pine, cedar, and hardwoods would be retained in order to maintain 

species diversity. Proposed gaps would comprise 26 acres in plantations and 9 acres in the fire-origin 

stands. Depending on the desired condition in a particular stand and the size of the gap, up to three 

large trees may be retained in a single gap in addition to the retained species mentioned above. These 

large trees would be expected to use the increased access to light to build large crowns and branches, 

increasing their likelihood of becoming future nest/den trees for wildlife. Gaps would be planted 

primarily with pine and cedar species in order to further increase tree species diversity, especially of 

drought-tolerant species. The total area of gaps within any given stand would not exceed 15% of the 

stand area, but would increase structural complexity, increase species diversity, reduce crown 

continuity, and provide more areas suitable for sun-loving plants and animals. 

Skips

Skips (489 acres) are areas within a stand where no harvest activities take place. This serves to mimic 

unburned or low-severity patches of a mixed-severity fire. With the exception of a single 5-acre stand 

that is prescribed for thinning, skips are prescribed in all stands proposed for timber harvest. In total, 

proposed skips would comprise 362 acres in plantations and 127 acres in the fire-origin stands. In 

addition to mimicking low-severity areas where tree density remains high, skips are often used to help 

buffer and protect streams, cultural sites, sensitive areas or other special features (e.g., clumps of legacy 

trees, snags and down wood). Skips are areas where high levels of tree competition would result in snag 

and down wood creation.

Non-Commercial Treatments

Non-commercial treatments typically focus on reducing or rearranging surface and ladder fuels, 

influencing species composition with planting, or improving the transportation system. In some 

instances these treatments are prescribed as a stand-alone treatment to achieve a desired condition, a 

post-harvest treatment, or an action connected with commercial harvest treatments.

Post-harvest Fuels Treatments

Post-harvest fuels treatments mitigate activity fuels created during harvest operations.

Pile and burn treatments (157 acres) would primarily follow commercial thinning treatments where

prescribed underburning may result in high mortality of residual trees or may be difficult to control. 

Surface fuels would be piled by hand or machine and then burned. Large down wood would not be piled 

to ensure it remains on site following pile burning to meet wildlife and soils objectives.

Prescribed underburning (278 acres) would primarily be used following aggregate retention harvest. This 

fuels treatment is the intentional burning of vegetation and surface fuels under favorable conditions, to 

reduce the fire hazard and also mimic ground conditions that would be present following a mixed 

severity fire. Prescribed underburning would also serve to prepare sites for planting tree seedlings by 

reducing competing vegetation and exposing patches of mineral soil.

Dry Meadow Restoration

There is a 2-acre dry meadow in Unit 20 that was the result of the original timber harvest. This area has 

slowly been filling in with trees. To maintain this rare habitat, merchantable trees would be harvested as 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 31

part of an aggregate retention treatment. Sub-merchantable trees would be cut and piled. The piles and 

the meadow area would be burned as part of the aggregate retention underburning. The dry meadow 

would then be excluded from tree planting. This would result in maintaining this area as a dry meadow 

for the next 20 to 30 years

Maple Restoration

There is a 3-acre portion of Unit 30 that was stocked primarily with bigleaf maple prior to the original 

harvest. These trees were cut in the original harvest, resulting in a vigorous stump sprouting. This 

treatment would thin the maple sprouts to release the dominant maple stems. This would be a fall and 

leave treatment which may result in firewood opportunities if the cut sprouts are of a suitable size.

Underplanting

Underplanting is proposed for 704 acres throughout the Trout Creek project for a variety of reasons and 

purposes. On 101 acres of aggregate retention and 32 gap acres, underplanting would follow a 

treatment such as timber harvest, or prescribed underburn. These treatments prepare the site for 

planting by disturbing the soil, increasing available light, and reducing other vegetation (e.g., shrubs and 

grass) that would compete with the seedlings for nutrients and water. Planting trees in aggregate 

retention openings and gaps helps to establish a new cohort of trees, while also increasing species 

diversity and promoting species that are well suited to future climate conditions such as increased and 

more intense droughts. No herbicide treatments are proposed. On the remaining 642 acres, a variety of 

different conifer, hardwood and shrub species are proposed for planting to achieve different objectives. 

In some stands, underplanting would not follow commercial timber harvest, but is proposed to increase

species diversity. Western Redcedar and Incense Cedar is proposed for underplanting both in and 

outside of Riparian Reserves across 303 acres. Species, such as huckleberry, camas, and hazel, are 

proposed for planting because they are culturally important species to local Tribes. Tall bugbane, a rare 

plant, would be planted in a 5 acre unit where it is present, but declining. Underplanting of hardwoods is 

prescribed across 237 acres to maintain hardwood habitat, create low maintenance fuel breaks, increase 

the variability of a stand and provide for forest health in the Riparian Reserves. 

Fall and Leave Treatments

Fall and leave treatments are proposed for 16 acres in the Trout Creek project. On 1 acre, the planting of 

Western Redcedar and Big Leaf Maple is proposed following a fall and leave Alder treatment to promote 

long-lived species for stream shading. Another 6 acre unit has proposed fall and leave thinning in 2 acres 

of Douglas-fir plantation that is not feasible to log. Another three acre fall and leave thinning treatment 

is prescribed for a 3 acre area below a cliff band that is unreachable by logging equipment. Fall and leave 

of conifers in Riparian Areas is proposed for an additional 10 acres across the project area. All of the 

trees would be left on site. 

Transportation

Temporary Road Construction: Temporary roads would be created in all action alternatives. These 

roads would be placed in areas to minimize impacts to resources and impacted areas would be repaired 

and rehabilitated after use. Previously disturbed sites would be utilized where possible. The initial 

effects of the construction would be compacted soils; however those effects would be offset by 

decommissioning. The effects of the repair and rehabilitation work would be the same as subsoiling, and 

is generally beneficial to the residual stand because of reduced compaction, so increased growth is 

possible along skid trails and landings that have treatment.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

32 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Temporary Road Re-open: These are temporary roads that involve the re-opening of an existing nonsystem road bed. The same repair and rehabilitation requirements as Temporary Road Construction 

apply. 

Maintenance: About 48 miles (Alternatives 2 and 4) and 46 miles (Alternative 3) of forest roads would 

be repaired and maintained to improve structural strength and road surfaces to a level that would 

support commercial timber haul, safely accommodate mixed commercial and noncommercial use, and 

meet the desired condition.

Road maintenance associated with haul routes would result in decreased maintenance cost, improved 

safety, and reduced potential for resource damage related to degraded roads that would be needed for 

current and future resource management. Road maintenance activities may include felling danger trees, 

clearing and grubbing, replacing drainage structures, asphalt pavement patching, repairing holes in the 

roadbed, reconstructing ditches, application of dust abatement material, and placement of aggregate 

surfacing. Alternatives 2 and 4 would include the installation or replacement of approximately 260 

culverts and Alternative would include the installation or replacement of approximately 248 culverts. 

Storage (Maintenance Level 1): About 32 miles of unused roads would be stored. Storing a road 

involves physically closing a route to all motor vehicle traffic using barriers such as boulders, water bars 

or berms, but leaving the road in the National Forest Transportation System. These roads are expected 

to be used intermittently when needed for project or fire access, but kept closed for periods of years 

between uses. During the storage process, actions (e.g., removing all or some culverts and fills from 

stream channels) and construction of durable drainage features (e.g., water bars) would be performed 

to prevent erosion during long periods without maintenance and to make the road hydrologically 

neutral. While closed to all motor vehicle traffic, system roads would be categorized as being in 

Maintenance Level 1 (ML1).

Decommission: About 6 miles under Alternative 2 and 9 miles under Alternatives 3 and 4 of existing 

unused forest roads would be decommissioned. These roads are determined to be no longer needed for 

management activities, closed to all vehicle traffic, and taken off the Forest’s road inventory.

Decommissioning involves restoring an unneeded route to a more natural state. Motor vehicle traffic 

would be eliminated by construction of barriers and the route would be stabilized, much like roads 

being closed for storage (i.e., Maintenance Level 1). Unlike road storage, however, decommissioned 

routes are not expected to be reopened in the future. In addition to blocking with barriers, removing 

culverts and constructing water bars, other actions may be taken to further reduce hydrological impacts, 

such as subsoiling, outsloping, recontouring and mulching. The barriers may be augmented with 

techniques such as camouflaging with brush or slash and recontouring the segment of road or trail 

visible from its entrance. A route that is on the National Forest Transportation System would be 

removed from that system when decommissioned.

Rock Quarry: Gaps of two acres in size are prescribed in two fire-origin units, one where a rock quarry 

would be created and one where an existing rock quarry would be expanded. The rock quarry creation 

and expansion would include stripping, blasting, and site and access improvement. All trees would be 

cut in these gaps to facilitate rock removal. For each pit, development and use would impact 

approximately 3 acres or less. 

1.05 Tribal Consultation

Tribal consultation for the Trout Creek project began in 2014, where it was presented at several annual 

and individual Tribal meetings. Tribes involved included the Klamath Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of 

Grand Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 33

Updates to the timeline of planning were identified every year at annual meetings through 2017. On 

November 22, 2016, the Tribes listed above received a consultation package that included information 

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

letter from the Warm Springs Tribe was received. The Tribe expressed support for the project as long as 

impacts to cultural sites are mitigated. The Tribe was especially supportive of the huckleberry planting in 

the Cougar Rock area. 

1.06 Public Involvement Efforts

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

scoping letters, and publication of the project in the Federal Register, Willamette National Forest 

Schedule of Proposed Actions and Willamette National Forest website. Below is a timeline illustrating 

public involvement efforts for the Trout Creek project:

• May 2014: A Knowledge Transfer was held over three non-consecutive days to share 

educational information and enable various groups and the public to share their opinions 

concerning the project. Groups that participated were the Sweet Home Ranger District staff, US 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Woodlands Coop, 

Guistina, Cascade Timber Company, Rosboro, South Santiam Watershed Council, Linn County 

Parks, Oregon State University, the Siletz Tribe and the Grand Ronde tribe.

• July 17, 2014; September 4, 2014; September 9, 2016: Public field trips held in the Trout Creek 

project area to view and discuss the project.

• February 5, 2015; December 11, 2015, August 4, 2016: public meetings in Sweet Home, Oregon

• April 1, 2015: Project published in the Willamette National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions

• January 23, 2017: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS published in the Federal Register

• January 23, 2017: Scoping letter and background information mailed to members of the public, 

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

information on District projects

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

and concerns about the Trout Creek project during the public scoping comment period from January 

23rd through February 14th, 2017. Seven scoping letters were received. Three of these letters were in 

support of the project, two letters were opposed or partially opposed to the project, and two letters 

provided general comments. Scoping comments received varied from those that wanted more 

clarification on proposed activities to specific suggestions for project implementation. Scoping 

comments were used to help develop planning issues, alternatives, and effects analyses for the DEIS. A 

complete record of all letters, including names and addresses of individuals, agencies, and organizations 

that submitted a letter during the scoping period, is available online in the Trout Creek Public Reading 

Room at (https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=46279). 

All correspondence and comments are also available in the Project Record at the Sweet Home Ranger 

District office.

While preparing this DEIS for publication, the Forest Service was made aware that interested individuals 

are conducting red tree vole surveys in proposed treatment units located above 3,500 feet in elevation. 

Pre-disturbance surveys were not required or conducted by the Forest Service in units above 3,500 feet 

(Forest Plan, 2001). Forest Service specialists are currently validating results as they are provided. 

Should active red tree vole nests be confirmed, additional red tree vole protections would be required, 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

34 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

which may result in changes to unit boundaries and treatment acres. Similarly, ongoing northern 

spotted owl surveys may result in additional changes to unit boundaries and treatment acres. Changes 

to the project will be tracked, updated, and considered prior to the publication of the final EIS and draft 

Record of Decision.

1.07 Consultation with other Agencies

United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service

Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon and Upper Willamette River Steelhead

Endangered Species Act (ESA) informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

for Upper Willamette River (UWR) spring Chinook salmon and UWR Winter Steelhead is currently in 

progress. The Biological Analysis prepared for the Trout Creek project found that the project “may 

affect, and is likely to adversely affect” UWR spring Chinook salmon and UWR Winter Steelhead. On 

February 14, 2017, the Trout Creek project was presented to the NMFS and they concurred with the 

effects determination of “may affect, is likely to adversely effect.” The Biological Analysis was submitted 

for formal consultation on February 17th, 2017 by the Forest Supervisor. A Biological Opinion was

prepared for the Trout Creek Project on August 31, 2017. Consultation will be completed prior to 

publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Draft Record of Decision (DROD) for 

the Trout Creek project. The Forest Service will be required to comply with the terms and conditions 

provided by NMFS in the Biological Opinion.

Northern Spotted Owl

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

initiated in 2016 and final evaluation by the USFWS and a Biological Opinion was received in August of 

2017. Effects of the various proposed actions for the Trout Creek project were addressed by the 

Willamette Planning Province Level I Terrestrial Team (2017) and evaluated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) in the FY2018 Biological Opinion (BO) (FWS Reference Number 01EOFW00-2017-F0555). This BO fulfills the Forest Service’s legal requirement with respect to Section 7 of ESA for the 

Trout Creek Project. This EIS incorporates by reference this BO, as well as the Biological Assessment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

This letter was reviewed and recommendations incorporated as appropriate. Per Forest Service 

regulations, this DEIS will be filed with the EPA’s Office of Federal Activities in Washington, DC, who will 

publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register.

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

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

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

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

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

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

2014 to 2016. All known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (project area) were protected by 

avoidance, resulting in a determination of “Historic Properties Avoided” on (June 7, 2017). SHPO had no 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 35

comments regarding the Forest Service finding. Documentation has been retained in the Willamette 

National Forest and Sweet Home Ranger District Heritage files.

1.08 Issues Derived from Public Comments

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

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

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

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

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

issues, and “out of scope” issues.

Key Issues

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

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

to formulate alternatives and focus the analysis of environmental effects. 

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

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

Key Issue #2: No regeneration harvest should occur and no early seral creation is necessary

Key Issue #3: Increase harvest intensity for thinning units

Key Issue #4: More creation of early seral and larger gap cuts

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

treatments in stands over 80 years of age and eliminates regeneration harvest. Alternative 4 was 

developed in response to issues 3 and 4. This alternative increases gap creation and harvest intensities 

in several units. 

Other Issues and Out of Scope Issues

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

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

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

streams). 

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

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

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

made; and/or issues that are conjectural or not supported by scientific evidence.

1.09 Decision Framework

The Responsible Official for this proposal is the District Ranger on the Sweet Home Ranger District of the 

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

environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:

• Whether to implement the proposed actions or another alternative

• What specific design features are needed
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

36 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

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

implemented and effective

• What if any modifications would be made to the proposed actions and alternatives

The decision will be based on: 

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

• How well the selected alternative responds to analysis issues
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 37

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Trout Creek project. It includes 

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

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

choice by the decision maker.

Four alternatives have been analyzed in detail for this project: Alternative 1 - No-Action; Alternative 2 –

Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative; Alternative 3 - No regeneration harvest and no treatment in 

stands over 80 years old; and Alternative 4 – Additional gap creation and increased thinning intensity in 

Unit 56. Chapter 2.05 describes another alternative considered, but eliminated from detailed study. 

Appendix E provides detailed information related to the specific treatment units in each action 

alternative.

2.01 Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, assesses the current condition and expected future condition of 

the affected environment should an action or action alternatives not be implemented (73 Federal 

Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099). Under Alternative 1, commercial timber harvest and noncommercial treatments would not be implemented. The No Action Alternative should not be confused 

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

point in time, the No Action Alternative considers what effects would occur to forest ecosystems and 

resources in the project area if no action is taken. The purpose and need of the proposed actions would 

not be met under Alternative 1, as none of the proposed actions would be implemented.

2.02 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative

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

project. Alternative 2 proposes to treat approximately 1,670 acres in the project area (Figure 12). 

Alternative 2 would thin roughly 733 acres (about 2% of the project area) and approximately 101 acres 

(less than 1% of the project area) would undergo aggregate retention harvest. Some thinning treatments 

would incorporate some untreated areas (skips) and create gaps from 1⁄4 acre to one acre in size (2-acre 

gaps for rock quarries) with variable spacing of remaining trees. The aggregate retention harvest would 

be designed to create complex early seral habitat, increase forest-age diversity and increase structural 

complexity across the project area.

Approximately 576 acres of thinning and 52 acres of aggregate retention is proposed in plantations

(about 40-60 years of age). About 157 acres of thinning and 49 acres of aggregate retention harvest is 

proposed in fire origin stands over 80 years old (about 100-150 years of age). These actions would

provide roughly 12.7 MMBF of timber products to the local economy. A total of 109 acres of Riparian 

Reserves are proposed for thinning in plantations to increase in-stream productivity by increasing 

hardwood species, increased conifer growth and light availability. No thinning is proposed in the 

Riparian Reserves in the fire origin stands. About 3 acres of fall and leave treatments are also proposed 

to improve hardwood diversity and structure in the Riparian Reserves in the fire-origin stands.

Alternative 2 also aims to increase spatial heterogeneity and complex early seral habitat by mimicking 

mixed severity fire on a landscape scale. On 309 acres of plantations a combination of thinning, 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

38 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

aggregate retention harvest, gap creation and controlled burn would result in a diverse landscape of 

green trees and openings. The treatments would vary by unit, but in total there would be 52 acres of 

openings with individual tree retention, 12.5 acres of gaps, 132 acres of thinning to various spacing and 

densities, and 112 acres of no-harvest skips.

Aggregate retention harvest is proposed in two fire-origin stands. In unit 67 (9 acres), aggregate 

retention is proposed to enhance oak habitat. Treatments would include harvesting all merchantable 

trees except Oregon white oak in 2 acres, planting the harvested area with oak, and leaving 7 acres in 

untreated skips. Unit 56 is proposed for aggregate retention harvest to mimic mixed severity fire and 

plant drought resistant species (e.g., incense cedar and pine) on dryer south and west facing slopes. Unit 

56 is 112 acres, but high severity fire patches would be replicated on only 47 acres using a combination 

of commercial thinning, underburning and varying levels of tree girdling. Unburned areas or low severity 

fire patches would be simulated by leaving 65 acres of untreated skips. Unit 56 is located to the north of 

the Menagerie Wilderness (Figure 12). Situated in a relatively isolated portion of designated Matrix 

between the wilderness boundary and private timber land, unit 56 provides an opportunity to create 

conditions where wildfire could be controlled and stopped from spreading onto private land should a 

fire start in the Menagerie Wilderness. Fire suppression tactics in designated Wilderness are limited and 

often require special permissions to implement. Given the relatively small size of the Menagerie 

Wilderness, a high intensity fire burning under severe wildfire weather conditions could potentially 

spread to adjacent lands before suppression efforts could effectively slow fire progression, putting 

private land at risk. Aggregate retention harvest is intended to create open areas where crown fire could 

effectively be controlled and, in conjunction with a proposed fuelbreak along the adjacent 850 road, 

increase the probability of fire suppression efforts successfully preventing fire from spreading from the 

wilderness onto private land. Additionally, the regeneration openings would be located on south and 

west-facing slopes where high-severity fire would likely occur in the absence of fire suppression. The 

south and west-facing slopes are also dryer than north-facing slopes, so drought tolerant conifer species 

would be planted. Refer to the Chapter 3.01, Forest and Stand Structure for further details and

Appendix E and the Integrated Prescriptions for detailed prescriptions.

Hardwood fuel breaks, where conifers would be thinned heavily and hardwood species would be underplanted, are proposed on about 35 acres of plantations and 76 acres of fire origin stands. This would

help curb the volume of hazardous fuels in these stands, provide a long term option for managing 

wildfires in the area, and further improve fire resiliency in and adjacent to the project area. A 14 acre 

plantation (unit 72) in Late Successional Reserve is also proposed to be treated in this way to help 

protect an Oregon Department of Transportation facility.

Additionally, approximately 370 acres of non-commercial treatments are proposed across the project 

area. These include the fall and leave treatments; snag creation of conifers for oak and madrone 

restoration; the planting of special forest products and plants important for tribal use; and the 

restoration of a 2-acre meadow.

Native conifers such as western redcedar, incense cedar, sugar pine, noble fir and other minor species

such as hazel, huckleberries and bugbane would be planted on about 400 acres. Plantings would take 

place after harvest in gaps and in aggregate retention openings, and additionally as underplanting in 

units that are not proposed for commercial harvest. About 38 acres would be planted with desirable 

conifer bough species for future bough harvest. Hardwood trees would be under-planted on 237 acres 

as part of variable density thinning in existing hardwood stands, fuelbreak treatments, and creation of 

habitat for tall bugbane or Oregon white oak. While not adding commercial value, these actions would

restore and maintain hardwood populations, increase forest diversity and structure, and contribute to 

overall landscape health in the project area.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 39

The removal of forest products would include associated road work across the project area. Alternative 

2 would require 48 miles of road maintenance or reconstruction that would include the installation of 

approximately 260 culverts (primarily replacements). There would be less than 1 mile of new road 

construction. Construction or reopening of non-system temporary road access would be approximately 

4.4 miles. These temporary roads would be decommissioned and returned to their original condition at 

the conclusion of project activities.

Alternative 2 also proposes to decommission and hydrologically stabilize approximately 6 miles of road

and the storage of approximately 32 miles of road. The impacted roads would be existing Forest Service 

roads 2000-011, 017, 2000-632, 636, 641, and 643, 2032-308 and 419 and 2027-539, 541 and 830. Most 

of these roads or sections thereof are currently inaccessible to vehicle traffic. A rock pit would be 

developed near the 2027-825 road junction and an existing rock pit would be expanded on the 2027 

road. A detailed description of road work including decommissioning and mile posts is available in 

Appendix D.

Table 5 includes a summary of treatments and connected actions proposed under Alternative 2. A 

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

list of treatments for individual units is listed in the Integrated Prescriptions which are a part of the 

project record kept on file at the Sweet Home Ranger District.

Table 5: Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 2

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Timber Harvest Treatments (commercial)

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 624 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 109 1, 2, 5

Aggregate Retention (early seral creation) Acres 101 1, 2, 3

Gaps Acres 35 1, 2, 3

Skips Acres 489 1,3

Total Acres 1,358 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF 12.7 2

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units2,3

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand treatments ) Acres 157 4

Post-Harvest Underburn Acres 278 4

Transportation

New Road Construction Miles 1 -

Temporary Road Construction Miles 2.1 -

Temporary Road Re-Open Miles 2.3 -

Roads Maintained Miles 48 -

Road Decommissioning Miles 6 -

Road Storage Miles 32 -

Culvert Replacement Amount 260 -

Rock Obtained From Existing Quarries Cubic Yards 20,000 -

Rock Obtained From New Quarries Cubic Yards 40,000 -

Harvest System

Skyline Acres 537 -

Ground-based Acres 328 -
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

40 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Harvest Associated (Non-Commercial Treatments) Planting, Snags, and Down Wood 2, 4, 5

Planting in Aggregate Retention Harvest Acres 101 1

Planting in Gaps Acres 32 1

Plant/regenerate Huckleberries Acres 14 1

Plant Hazel, camas or other plants for tribal use Acres 8 1

Plant Tall Bugbane Acres 5 1

Underplant hardwoods Acres 237 1, 4, 5

Underplant Incense Cedar and/or Western Redcedar (including 

in the riparian reserves) Acres 303 1

Dry Meadow Restoration Acres 2 1

Maple Restoration Acres 3 1, 5

Fall and Leave in Areas Unsuitable for Logging Acres 3 1

Fall and Leave Conifers in Riparian Reserves Acres 9 1, 5

Fall and Leave Alder, underplant with Western Redcedar and 

Big Leaf Maple in Riparian Reserves Acres 1 1, 5

Underplant Oregon Ash and Western Redcedar in Alder Area of 

Riparian Reserves Acres 1 1, 5

Pre-Commercial Thin (including Riparian Reserves) to favor 

hardwood trees Acres 7 1, 5

Create Snags and Down Wood (occurs in aggregate retention

units)

Snags or 

Down Trees 

per Acre

At least 7 1

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 109 1

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 141 1

NSO Non-Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 77 1

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 142 1

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 226 1

NSO Non-Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 103 1

1 1 – Encourage stand health, vigor, species diversity and structural complexity; 2 – Contribute a variety of sustainable forest products to local 

markets; 3 – Increase spatial heterogeneity and complex early seral habitat by mimicking mixed severity fire; 4 – Improve fire resiliency and 

manage hazardous fuels to reduce the potential for spread of large scale fires; 5 – Enhance and create hardwood habitat and diversity. 2 Some of these acres are not included in the total because they are accounted for under “Timber Harvest Treatments”. 3 Mechanical treatment may include: grapple piling in slash concentrations, yarding tops attached, mastication, or any other mechanical device. 

Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. 4 Many of these actions are non-commercial and are subject to funding availability and may be dependent on Knudson-Vandenberg (KV) 

revenue generated by timber sales from the Trout Creek project. 5 For specific planting prescriptions, please see the Integrated Prescriptions which are a part of the project record kept on file at the Sweet 

Home Ranger District.

Commercial harvest and non-commercial treatments would occur in stands ranging from 32-150 years 

old. Approximately 647 acres proposed for commercial harvest and non-commercial treatments are in 

stands over 80 years old and 1,016 acres proposed for treatments are in stands under 80 years old. 

Table 6 provides a summary of forest age classes and treatment acres for Alternative 2.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 41

Table 6: Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres– Alternative 2

Item <80 years old >80 years old Total

Unit Acres (including skips) 1016 647 1,663

Acres Proposed for Commercial Treatment (excluding skips) 654 215 869

Acres Proposed for Non-Commercial Treatment (including overlap 

with commercial treatment acres in some units) 49 311 360

Average Age 44 126 -
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

42 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 12: Map of Alternative 2
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 43

2.03 Alternative 3 – No Regeneration Harvest and No Treatment 

in Stands Over 80 Years Old

During the EIS scoping process, four key issues were identified from comments and two of these issues 

are addressed in Alternative 3:

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

Key Issue #2: No regeneration harvest should occur and no early seral creation is necessary

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

treatments in stands over 80 years of age. Any non-commercial treatments in stands over 80 were also 

eliminated. Additionally, Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 in that any aggregate retention harvest 

proposed in stands under 80 years of age was altered to thinning treatments with gaps; therefore, 

Alternative 3 has fewer acres of commercial harvest, but more acres of thinning in managed stands and 

gap creation when compared to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 proposes to treat approximately 1,016 acres in the project area (Figure 13). Harvest 

treatments proposed include thinning, gap creation, and skips. Harvest treatments would yield an 

estimated gross 8.4 million board feet of timber. Post-harvest fuels treatments would include pile and 

burn and post-harvest underburn.

Alternative 3 would require about 3.3 miles of temporary road construction or reconstruction, 46 miles 

of existing road maintenance and would replace approximately 248 culverts. Temporary roads would be 

decommissioned and returned to their original condition at the conclusion of project activities. There 

would be no rock quarry creation in Alternative 3.

This alternative proposes to decommission and hydrologically stabilize an additional 4 miles of NFTS 

road for a total of 10 miles of road decommissioning. The impacted roads would be existing Forest 

Service roads 2000-013, 2032-315, 317, 410, 452, 456, 2027-707, 709, 801, and 817. Most of these roads 

or sections of road are currently inaccessible to vehicle traffic. Some roads only have a portion proposed 

for decommissioning. A detailed description of road work including decommissioning and mile posts is 

available in Appendix D.

Table 7 includes a summary of treatments and connected actions proposed under Alternative 3. A 

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

list of treatments for individual units is listed the in Integrated Prescriptions which are a part of the 

project record kept on file at the Sweet Home Ranger District.

Table 7: Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 3

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 3 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Timber Harvest Treatments (commercial)

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 520 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 109 1, 2, 5

Aggregate Retention (early seral creation) Acres 0 1, 2, 3

Gaps Acres 43 1, 2, 3

Skips Acres 344 1, 3

Total Acres 1,016 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF 8.4 2
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

44 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 3 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units2,3

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand treatments ) Acres 94 4

Post-Harvest Underburn Acres 229 4

Transportation

New Road Construction Miles 1 -

Temporary Road Construction Miles 1.3 -

Temporary Road Re-Open Miles 2.0 -

Roads Maintained Miles 46 -

Road Decommissioning Miles 10 -

Culvert Replacements Amount 248 -

Road Storage Miles 32 -

Rock Obtained From Existing Quarries Cubic Yards 20,000 -

Rock Obtained From New Quarries Cubic Yards 0 -

Harvest System

Skyline Acres 429 -

Ground-based Acres 239 -

Harvest Associated (Non-Commercial Treatments) Planting, Snags, and Down Wood2, 4, 5

Planting in Aggregate Retention Harvest Acres 0 1

Planting in Gaps Acres 43 1

Plant/regenerate Huckleberries Acres 6 1

Plant Hazel, camas or other plants for tribal use Acres 8 1

Plant Tall Bugbane Acres 0 1

Underplant hardwoods Acres 154 1, 4, 5

Underplant Incense Cedar and/or Western Redcedar (including in 

the riparian reserves) Acres 0 1

Dry Meadow Restoration Acres 2 1

Maple Restoration Acres 3 1, 5

Fall and Leave in Areas Unsuitable for Logging Acres 3 1

Fall and Leave Conifers in Riparian Reserves Acres 7 1, 5

Fall and Leave Alder, underplant with Western Redcedar and Big 

Leaf Maple in Riparian Reserves Acres 1 1, 5

Underplant Oregon Ash and Western Redcedar in Alder Area of 

Riparian Reserves Acres 1 1, 5

Pre-Commercial Thin (including Riparian Reserves) to favor 

hardwood trees Acres 7 1, 5

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 0 1

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 141 1

NSO Non-Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 77 1

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 0 1

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 226 1

NSO Non-Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 103 1

1 1 – Encourage stand health, vigor, species diversity and structural complexity; 2 – Contribute a variety of sustainable forest products to local 

markets; 3 – Increase spatial heterogeneity and complex early seral habitat by mimicking mixed severity fire; 4 – Improve fire resiliency and 

manage hazardous fuels to reduce the potential for spread of large scale fires; 5 – Enhance and create hardwood habitat and diversity. 2 Some of these acres are not included in the total because they are accounted for in under “Timber Harvest Treatments”.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 45

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

Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. 4 Many of these actions are non-commercial and are subject to funding availability and may be dependent on Knudson-Vandenberg (KV) 

revenue generated by timber sales from the Trout Creek project 5 For specific planting prescriptions, please see the Integrated Prescriptions which are a part of the project record kept on file at the Sweet 

Home Ranger District.

Harvest treatments would occur in stands ranging from about 32-65 years old. No harvest would occur 

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

Alternative 3.

Table 8: Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 3

Item <80 years old >80 years old Total

Unit Acres (including skips) 1016 0 1,016

Acres Proposed for Commercial Treatment (excluding skips) 672 0 672

Acres Proposed for Non-Commercial Treatment (including 

overlap with commercial treatment acres in some units 41 0 41

Average Age 44 - -
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

46 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 13: Map of Alternative 3
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 47

2.04 Alternative 4 – Additional Gap Creation and Increased 

Harvest Intensity in Unit 56

Alternative 4 was developed in response to Key Issues 3 and 4:

Key Issue #3: Increase harvest intensity for thinning units

Key Issue #4: More creation of early seral and larger gap cuts

Alternative 4 proposes to treat approximately 1,670 acres in the project area (Figure 14). Harvest 

treatments proposed include thinning, aggregate retention, gap creation, dominant tree release, and 

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

Alternative 4 increases gap cuts in some managed stands and fire-origin units. Approximately 562 acres 

of thinning and 52 acres of aggregate retention would take place in managed stands. Approximately 151

acres of thinning and 49 acres of regeneration harvest would take place in fire-origin stands.

Alternative 4 increases the harvest intensity in unit 56 compared to Alternative 2. As a result, fewer 

snags would be created because more trees would be harvested. Alternative 4 has equivalent acres of 

commercial harvest, but more acres of gap creation and increased harvest intensity when compared to 

Alternative 2. These actions would provide roughly 15.8 MMBF of timber products to the local 

community.

Mileage for road maintenance, reconstruction, and temporary road construction and reconstruction

would be identical to Alternative 2. Alternative 4 proposes the same increased mileage of road 

decommissioning as in Alternative 3. Rock pit development is consistent across all Alternatives. A 

detailed description of road work including decommissioning and mile posts is available in Appendix D.

Table 9 includes a summary of treatments and connected actions proposed under Alternative 4. A 

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

list of treatments for individual units is listed in the Integrated Prescriptions which are a part of the 

project record kept on file at the Sweet Home Ranger District.

Table 9: Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 4

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 4 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Timber Harvest Treatments (commercial)

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 603.5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 109 1, 2, 5

Aggregate Retention (early seral creation) Acres 101 1, 2, 3

Gaps Acres 55.5 1, 2, 3

Skips Acres 489 1, 3

Total Acres 1,358 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF 15.8 2

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units2,3

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand treatments ) Acres 157 4

Post-Harvest Underburn Acres 278 4

Transportation

New Road Construction Miles 1 -

Temporary Road Construction Miles 2.1 -
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

48 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 4 Purpose – Need Addressed1

Temporary Road Re-Open Miles 2.3 -

Roads Maintained Miles 48 -

Road Decommissioning Miles 9 -

Culvert Replacements Amount 260 -

Road Storage Miles 32 -

Rock Obtained From Existing Quarries Cubic Yards 20,000 -

Rock Obtained From New Quarries Cubic Yards 40,000 -

Harvest System

Skyline Acres 537 -

Ground-based Acres 328 -

Harvest Associated (Non-Commercial Treatments) Planting, Snags, and Down Wood2, 4, 5

Planting in Aggregate Retention Harvest Acres 101 1

Planting in Gaps Acres 55.5 1

Plant/regenerate Huckleberries Acres 14 1

Plant Hazel, camas or other plants for tribal use Acres 8 1

Plant Tall Bugbane Acres 5 1

Underplant Hardwoods Acres 237 1, 4, 5

Underplant Incense Cedar and/or Western Redcedar (including in 

the riparian reserves) Acres 303 1

Dry Meadow Restoration Acres 2 1

Maple Restoration Acres 3 1, 5

Fall and Leave in Areas Unsuitable for Logging Acres 3 1

Fall and Leave Conifers in Riparian Reserves Acres 9 1, 5

Fall and Leave Alder, underplant with Western Redcedar and Big 

leaf Maple in Riparian Reserves Acres 1 1, 5

Underplant Oregon Ash and Western Redcedar in Alder Area of 

Riparian Reserves Acres 1 1, 5

Pre-Commercial Thin (including Riparian Reserves) to favor 

hardwoods Acres 7 1, 5

Snags and Down Wood (occurs in aggregate retention units)

Snags or 

Down Trees 

per Acre

At least 7 1

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 109 1

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 141 1

NSO Non-Habitat in Critical Habitat Treated Acres 77 1

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 142 1

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 226 1

NSO Non-Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 103 1

1 1 – Encourage stand health, vigor, species diversity and structural complexity; 2 – Contribute a variety of sustainable forest products to local 

markets; 3 – Increase spatial heterogeneity and complex early seral habitat by mimicking mixed severity fire; 4 – Improve fire resiliency and 

manage hazardous fuels to reduce the potential for spread of large scale fires; 5 – Enhance and create hardwood habitat and diversity. 2 Some of these acres are not included in the total because they are accounted for in under “Timber Harvest Treatments”.

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

Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. 4 Many of these actions are non-commercial and are subject to funding availability and may be dependent on Knudson-Vandenberg (KV) 

revenue generated by timber sales from the Trout Creek project

5 For specific planting prescriptions, please see the Integrated Prescriptions which are a part of the project record kept on file at the Sweet 

Home Ranger District.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 49

Commercial harvest and non-commercial treatments would occur in stands ranging from 32-150 years 

old. Approximately 647 acres proposed for commercial harvest and non-commercial treatments are in 

stands over 80 years old and 1,016 acres proposed for treatments are in stands under 80 years old. 

Table 10 provides a summary of forest age classes and treatment acres for Alternative 4.

Table 10: Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 4 

<80 years old >80 years old Total

Unit Acres (including skips) 1016 647 1,663

Acres Proposed for Commercial Treatment (excluding skips) 654 215 869

Acres Proposed for Non-Commercial Treatment (including overlap 

with commercial treatment in some units) 49 305 354

Average Age 44 126 -
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

50 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 14: Map of Alternative 4
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 51

2.05 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated

Alternative that Includes Increased Acreage and Regeneration Harvest in Fire 

Origin Stands 100-150 Years Old

The original Proposed Action included an additional 1,416 acres of treatment, both thinning and early 

seral creation, in fire-origin stands. These acres were dropped from the project due to the presence of 

red tree voles. The red tree vole (RTV), a small tree dwelling mammal, is a Survey and Manage Species. 

During the summers of 2014 and 2015, Forest Service employees conducted extensive RTV surveys in 

any stand proposed for treatment over 80 years of age and that met habitat requirements. Due to the 

Survey and Manage regulations, a buffer of 10 acres must be established around each active RTV nest. 

RTV nests were found abundantly in many of the fire-origin stands resulting in a patchwork of buffered 

and unbuffered areas. Consequently, many of the fire-origin units were not commercially viable.

The original proposed action was modified (see Alternative 2) to include only 324 acres of harvest in the 

fire-origin stands.

2.06 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 11 summarizes and compares treatments and connected actions that would occur under each 

alternative.

Table 11: Comparison of Alternatives

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 624 520 603.5

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 109 109 109

Aggregate Retention (early seral 

creation) Acres 0 101 0 101

Gaps Acres 0 35 43 55.5

Skips Acres 0 489 344 489

Total Acres 0 1,358 1,016 1,358

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/ or 

hand treatments) Acres 0 157 94 157

Post-Harvest Underburn Acres 0 278 229 278

Road Activities Associated with Harvest

New Road Construction Miles 0 1 1 1

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 2.1 1.3 2.1

Temporary Road Re-Open Miles 0 2.3 2.0 2.3

Roads Maintained Miles 0 50 46 50

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 6 9 9

Road Storage Miles 0 32 32 32

Culvert Replacements Amount 0 260 248 260

Rock obtained from expanding 

existing quarries Cubic Yards 0 20,000 20,000 20,000

Rock obtained from new quarries Cubic Yards 0 40,000 0 40,000

Acres by Harvest System
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

52 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Skyline Harvest Acres 0 537 429 537

Ground-based Harvest Acres 0 328 239 328

Harvest Associated (Non-Commercial Treatments) Planting, Snags, and Down Wood

Planting in Aggregate Retention 

Harvest Acres 0 101 0 101

Planting in Gaps Acres 0 32 43 55.5

Plant/regenerate Huckleberries Acres 0 14 6 14

Plant Hazel, camas or other plants for 

tribal use Acres 0 8 8 8

Plant Tall Bugbane Acres 0 5 0 5

Underplant hardwoods Acres 0 237 154 237

Underplant Incense Cedar and/or 

Western Redcedar (including in the 

riparian reserves)

Acres 0 303 0 303

Dry Meadow Restoration Acres 0 2 2 2

Maple Restoration Acres 0 3 3 3

Fall and Leave in Areas Unsuitable 

For Logging Acres 0 3 3 3

Fall and Leave Conifers in Riparian 

Reserves Acres 0 9 7 9

Fall and Leave Alder, underplant with 

Western Red Cedar and Big Leaf 

Maple in Riparian Reserves

Acres 0 1 1 1

Underplant Oregon Ash and Western 

Redcedar in Alder Area of Riparian 

Reserves

Acres 0 1 1 1

Pre-Commercial Thin (including 

Riparian Reserves) to favor hardwood 

trees

Acres 0 7 7 7

Snags and Down Wood (occurs in 

Aggregate Retention units)

Snags or 

Down Trees 

per Acre

0 At least 7 At least 7 At least 7

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

NSO Suitable Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated (including skips) Acres 0 109 0 109

NSO Dispersal Habitat in Critical 

Habitat Treated Acres 0 141 141 141

NSO Non-Habitat in Critical Habitat 

Treated Acres 0 77 77 77

NSO Suitable Habitat Treated 

(including skips) Acres 0 142 0 142

NSO Dispersal Habitat Treated 

(including skips) Acres 0 226 226 226

NSO Non-Habitat Treated (including 

skips) Acres 0 103 103 103

Key Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4

1. Harvest treatments in stands over 

80 years of age Acres 0 647 0 647

2. No Aggregate Retention harvest Acres 0 101 0 101

3. More early seral creation and 

larger gap cuts Acres 0 136 43 156.5

4. Increase harvest intensity for 

thinning units MMBF 0 12.7 8.4 15.8
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 53

Comparison of Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves for Alternatives 2, 3

and 4.

The treatments proposed in Riparian Reserves for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are described and displayed 

below in Table 12 and Table 13. All units were surveyed by fisheries, hydrology, wildlife, and botany 

specialists.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose both active and passive management of Riparian Reserves: thinning, 

down wood augmentation, and no treatment (Table 12). No aggregate retention harvest or gap creation

would occur in Riparian Reserve areas, and no commercial harvest would occur in Riparian Reserves in 

fire-origin stands. In commercial thinning in managed stands there would be no harvest buffers of a 

minimum of 75 feet on perennial streams. There would generally be a 50 foot buffer on intermittent 

streams, but there is one exception in unit 73 with only a 25 foot no harvest buffer on intermittent 

streams that have no riparian vegetation. Within Riparian Reserves, stand-specific treatments were 

prescribed by the Silviculturist in consultation with the District Hydrologist and Fish Biologist and are

consistent with the upland treatments in the remainder of the unit. The Riparian Reserve commercial

treatments are intended to meet the same desired future condition as the upland portion of the unit.

Table 12: Riparian Reserve Acres Proposed for Treatment

Activity1 Riparian Reserve Acres Proposed for Treatment

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Stand Type2 N/A Managed 

Stands

FireOriginManaged 

Stands

FireOrigin

Managed 

Stands

FireOrigin

Commercial Thinning3 0 109 0 109 0 109 0

Non-commercial

Treatment3 0 18 3 18 0 18 3

Total Treatment 0 127 3 127 0 127 3

No Harvest N/A 362 127 344 0 362 127

Total Riparian Reserves 

in proposed units N/A 489 130 471 0 489 130

Percent of Riparian 

Reserve Treated in Trout 

Creek Project Area (%)4

N/A 2.9 0.1 2.8 0 2.8 0.1

Percent of Riparian 

Reserve Treated in 

South Santiam 5th Field 

Watershed (%)5

N/A 2.9 0.1 2.8 0 2.9 0.1

1 There is no gap creation or aggregate retention (early seral creation) in the Riparian Reserves in the Trout Creek project. 2 Managed stands consist of stands that are 40-65 years old. Fire origin stands consist of stands that are 100-150 years of age. 3 Only Riparian Reserve treatments are represented in this table. Underplanting is not included. 4 Percent based on a total of 16,909 acres of Riparian Reserves in the Trout Creek project area.

5 Percent based on a total of 16,621 acres in the South Santiam 5th Field Watershed. About 30 acres of the project area are located in the 

Middle Santiam 5th Field Watershed. No treatments in the Riparian Reserve are proposed in the Middle Santiam Watershed.

Several Riparian Reserve areas were identified during field surveys to have a potential to be thinned to 

provide in-stream large wood, lack of riparian diversity, and/or opportunity for hardwood release. 

Selected Riparian Reserves for treatment were chosen for their vegetation characteristics at the stream 

catchment scale and at the site-specific scale. Riparian Reserve stands along streams in units 30, 33, 34, 

67 and 95 are in need of non-commercial treatment and are proposed for fall and leave treatments. In 

these five units, fall and leave treatment would occur in approximately 20% to 75% of the units’ no-
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

54 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

harvest buffers to reduce densities, open the canopies, increase growth and vigor of remaining trees, 

and add medium to large wood to forest floor and stream channels. These treatments would not result 

in reduction of canopy cover below 70% in Riparian Reserves. Refer to Table 13 for details.

Table 13: Proposed Riparian Reserve Treatments

Unit1 Treatment Description Estimated Acres

30 Thin maple sprouts to favor dominate maple stems in the Riparian Reserves. 3

33 Fall and leave thinning an alder patch in the Riparian Reserves. This area would be 

replanted with western redcedar and bigleaf maple to promote stream shading. 1

34 Fall and leave, staying above 70% canopy cover in Riparian Reserves to promote instream structure to improve hydrologic function. 5

67 Fall and leave to release existing oak trees from competition. 55 trees would be felled 

in the Riparian Reserves. 1

87

Fall and leave thinning in a portion of a Douglas-fir plantation cut off by wetland from 

logging operation (1 acre). Underplant an alder area with Oregon Ash and western 

redcedar to promote long-lived species (1 acre). 

2

95 Snag creation and fall and leave treatments to release existing oak and madrone trees 

from competition. 5 trees in the Riparian Reserves would be felled. 1

170 Pre-commercial thin by clearing 14 feet around existing hardwood trees. 35 foot 

buffer on perennial streams and no buffer on intermittent streams. 7

1 Treatment in units 67 and 95 would drop if Alternative 3 is selected. All other units are treated under all alternatives. 

2.07 Design Features

The design features in Table 14 were developed to reduce the environmental effects of the proposed 

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

objectives, conservation strategies and Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Table 14: Design Features Common to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

Silviculture

All units Retain structural 

components for 

wildlife

1. Legacy trees would be retained unless removal is required 

during logging operations to meet safety requirements. Legacy 

trees are defined as trees left from previous stands that are 

typically larger than trees in the cohort that currently dominates 

stocking. Upper limits on the size of tree eligible for harvest 

would be in place in units that have legacy trees. See 

Integrated Prescriptions for details in specific units and legacy 

tree diameter. If cut, legacy trees would remain on site for 

down wood.

2. Existing coarse woody debris (≥10-inch diameter snags, ≥6-

inch diameter down wood) would be retained and protected

from disturbance where operationally feasible.

3. Logging damaged trees would not be removed without Forest 

Service approval. These trees offer an opportunity to enhance 

coarse woody debris development.

14, 15, 20, 

27, 28, 29, 

30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 41, 

42, 44, 50, 

57, 58, 59, 

60, 61, 62, 

63, 68, 72, 

73, 87, 89, 

Decrease intertree competition 

while maintaining 

minor species in 

stands

4. Species targeted for release in these units are some 

combination of western redcedar, bigleaf maple, bitter cherry, 

and pine species. See Integrated Prescriptions for details in 

specific units.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 55

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

100, 120, 

140, 170, 

190, 200

15, 27, 32, 

33, 44, 58, 

62, 63, 200

Reduce 

disturbance to 

wildlife using gaps

5. If operationally feasible, locate gaps at least 100 feet from 

system roads. If gaps need to be placed closer than 100 feet 

due to feasibility, place as far from the road as is feasible. 

Mimic disturbance 

patterns of fire and 

insects/disease

6. 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.

Maintain stream 

shade

7. No gaps would be placed within Riparian Reserves (within 150 

or 172 feet of streams).

Create complex 

branch structure in 

retained trees for 

future wildlife 

nesting/denning

8. Designate the center of the gaps by marking and retaining one 

dominant tree in 0.5-acre gaps and one to three dominant 

trees in 1-acre gaps. Retained tree(s) would be healthy and 

have at least 40% live crown ratio to reduce risk of blowdown. 

Favor selecting pine, Douglas-fir, or western redcedar as the 

leave tree(s). Avoid selecting true fir as the dominant tree(s) 

because of their high risk of sunscald and lower fire resiliency.

Maintain minor 

species in gaps for 

species diversity; 

Create structural 

complexity and 

species diversity

9. Cedar, pine, hardwoods, and Pacific yew would be retained in 

all harvest gaps.

44, 57, 89 Maintain road 

system

10.Gaps to develop a new rock source, expand an existing rock 

source, and expand an existing waste area to assist in ongoing 

road maintenance would be located with assistance of Forest 

Service engineers. See Integrated Prescriptions for details in 

specific units.

11.All merchantable trees ≥ 7 inches DBH would be cut in these 

three gaps.

14, 15, 20, 

56

Meet requirements 

for reforestation as 

directed by 

National Forest 

Management Act 

and LRMP; 

increase species 

diversity

12.These units/portions of units would be reforested to meet 

required stocking levels of 150 trees per acre. See Integrated 

Prescriptions for details in specific units.

13.Planting would occur at a rate of 170 to 300 trees per acre. 

Species planted would be noble fir, western white pine, sugar 

pine, western redcedar, and incense cedar. Composition 

varies by unit. See Integrated Prescriptions for details in 

specific units. Container stock would be preferred, although 

other stock could be used if necessary. Planted trees would be 

sheltered from harsh growing conditions by using stumps, 

slash, and other natural features (microsites) located in the 

stand.

14, 15, 20, 

56

Maintain stream 

shade

Structural 

complexity; mimic 

fire disturbance 

(apply to the 

remainder of this 

list)

14.Early seral creation would not occur in Riparian Reserves.

15.At least 15% of each early seral creation unit, outside of 

Riparian Reserves, shall meet green tree retention guidelines 

from the Northwest Forest Plan (about 70% in aggregates of 

0.5 acres in size or greater and 30% as dispersed structures 

such as individual trees or aggregates smaller than 0.5 acres). 

16.Areas with large down woody debris or rock outcrops would be 

priorities for green tree retention.

17.In the harvest areas, the largest Douglas-fir would be retained 

at the rate of nine to fifteen trees per acre as dispersed 

structures.

18.Underburn in the spring or fall to reduce fuels, prepare the site 

for planting, and create snags in the fire-intolerant species 

retained in the harvest area (such as true fir and hemlock). Pull 

slash away from the base of retained Douglas-fir if necessary 

for them to survive the burn.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

56 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

a. Monitor early seral creation area for snags post-harvest 

and burn. If burn does not meet Forest Plan Standard and 

Guidelines, create 2 snags and 5 down trees per treated 

acre from trees in Green Tree Retention.

b. Unit 56 would include additional snag creation for site 

preparation and to meet objectives of mimicking fire 

disturbance.

67 Maintain and 

increase the 

Oregon white oak 

component 

adjacent to Camas 

Prairie; increase 

trees/plants 

traditionally used 

by tribes

19.In harvest areas, all existing Oregon white oak would be 

retained.

20.All other merchantable trees under 35 inches DBH would be 

cut.

21.Underburn in the spring or fall to reduce fuels and prepare the 

site for planting. Pull slash away from the base of retained 

Oregon white oak if necessary for them to survive the burn.

22.Oregon white oak would be planted at 75 trees per acre using 

a cluster pattern to create an oak savanna. This would 

enhance the Camas Prairie Special Interest Area.

23. Outside of harvest areas, existing Oregon white oak would be 

released via fall and leave treatment. See Integrated 

Prescription for more details.

43, 55, 66, 

74, 92

Increase species

diversity

24.These units would be underplanted, as funding allows, with 

shade tolerant cedar species at low levels. See Integrated 

Prescription for details in specific units.

95 Maintain species 

diversity

25.Existing Oregon white oak and madrone would be released 

from competition. See Integrated Prescription for details.

Fuels/Air Quality

All units Air Quality 1. Prescribed fire and fuels treatment implementation would be 

conducted in accordance with the Oregon State Management 

Plan. 

Wilderness 

20, 56 Protection of 

Wilderness 

Character:

recreational 

access;

Maintain access 

for recreating 

public

1. Maintain recreational access to the Menagerie Wilderness 

while treatment activities are occurring from August 1 to 

January 15 or until roads become impassable due to snow.

August 1 

through 

January 15

33, 72, 89 Protection of 

Wilderness 

Character: 

recreational 

access

2. Maintain recreational access to the Menagerie Wilderness 

while treatment activities are occurring.

3. Trail guard is necessary to protect public safety crossing 

treatment units.

Year round

20, 72, 89, 

120, 140

Protection of 

Wilderness 

Character: 

mitigate noise 

impacts from noncommercial units 

and activities

4. Restrict to weekdays from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

5. Accomplish treatment with non-motorized equipment when

feasible.

6. Expedite activities to the extent possible.

Memorial Day 

to Labor Day

15, 20, 33, 

44, 56, 72, 

120, 140

Protection of 

Wilderness 

Character: 

mitigate noise 

from Commercial 

Harvest Units

7. Expedite harvest activities to the extent practicable.

44, 57, 89 Protection of 

Wilderness 

Character: 

8. Utilize available technologies to minimize sound travel from 

blasting (i.e., foams, etc.) to the extent possible.

Year round
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 57

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

mitigate noise 

from blasting

Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers

20, 56 Maintain access 

for recreating 

public

1. Forest road 856 to remain open to public access while harvest 

activities occur (access to northern boundary of Menagerie 

Wilderness).

2. Implement traffic control to inform public accessing wilderness 

from Forest Road 856.

3. Trail guard is necessary to protect public safety crossing unit 

20.

41, 42, 50, 

67, 68 (within 

1⁄4 of river), 

72, 87

Protection of Wild 

& Scenic River 

values (MA-6c-20)

4. Retain at least 10 live green trees per acre in all harvest units. 

These trees would be dominant or co-dominant conifers within 

the stand.

41, 50 Protection of Wild 

& Scenic River 

values (MA-6c-11)

5. Do not exceed 3 acres in size of even-aged regeneration 

harvest units (gaps). Shape and blend harvest units, or gaps,

in a manner that would maintain or enhance the area’s scenic 

quality by minimizing contrast in form, line, color, and texture.

41, 42, 50, 

67, 68 (within 

1⁄4 mile of 

river), 72, 87

Protection of Wild 

& Scenic River 

values (MA-6c-13)

6. Reshape landings to blend with the landscape and reestablished ground cover. Preferred slash disposal methods 

include chip/disperse, chip/remove, truckload remove, hand 

pile/burn.

41, 42, 50, 

67, 68 (within 

1⁄4 mile of 

river), 72, 87

Protection of Wild 

& Scenic River 

values (MA-6c-15)

7. Maintain the appearance of an old-growth forest condition 

throughout the corridor, particularly along the river and its 

immediate environment. Overstory trees maintained in the oldgrowth seral stage should exhibit diameter, bark texture, color,

branching habitat, height, and crown characteristics typical of 

each species type and growing site.

50 Reduce impacts to 

recreating public

8. Keep road 2032 open to vehicle traffic from its origin with 

highway 20 to the turn off to Longbow group from May 1

through October 31.

72 Reduce impacts to 

recreating public

9. Maintain vehicle access and existing parking to Rooster Rock 

trailhead during all treatment activities to allow for access to 

the hiking trail. Parking lot and trailhead to remain open for 

use. Any physical impacts due to harvest activity to the 

trailhead or parking area would be repaired and returned to 

pre-harvest activity condition.

All units Reduce impacts to 

recreating public

10.No hauling on Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day 

holidays. Notify Public Affairs Office to coordinate public 

information updates (temporary road closures, delays) with two 

weeks prior notice.

Memorial Day 

to Labor Day

43, 67, 68, 

28, 92, 87, 

42, 50, 41, 

72

Reduce impacts to 

recreating public

11.No weekend operations from Memorial Day through Labor Day 

on Friday 6 pm through Sunday. No operations on Memorial 

Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day holidays. No operations the 

week of the 4th of July if the day falls on Tuesday-Thursday.

Memorial Day 

to Labor Day

All units Reduce impacts to 

dispersed site 

creation and 

expansion

12.Rehabilitate all landings to prevent site from becoming a new 

dispersed site. Place natural obstacles such as down wood 

and rock in a natural arrangement to prevent creation of new 

dispersed sites where they do not presently exist. Bury 

boulders 1/3 of the way in the ground where possible.

All units Reduce impacts to 

dispersed site 

creation and 

expansion

13.In units where proposed landings are currently dispersed sites, 

rehabilitation of sites would be necessary to restore site to 

desired condition for continued use as a dispersed site or to 

return it to a naturalized state. Consultation with a recreation 

specialist would be required in the design phase for units in or 

adjacent to these areas. Rehabilitation may include: Placing 

natural obstacles such as down wood and rock in a natural 

arrangement to prevent expansion of dispersed sites. Burying 

boulders 1/3 of the way in the ground where possible.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

58 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

All units Reduce impacts to 

dispersed site 

creation and 

expansion

14.Close temporary roads to traffic and rehabilitate to prevent 

new off road recreation use. Subsoil road surface of temporary 

roads to prevent new road creation where appropriate. Place 

natural obstacles such as down wood and rock in a natural 

arrangement to prevent creation of new dispersed sites where 

they don’t presently exist. Bury boulders 1/3 of the way in the 

ground where possible.

All units Reduce impacts to 

recreating public

15.No operations on opening weekends of Cascade elk and deer 

rifle seasons; restriction is limited to the opening weekend of 

each hunt.

All units Reduce impacts to 

recreating public

16.Commercial hauling on a road open to all vehicles (mixed 

used, levels 2-5 road), must use a warning sign indicating 

“Trucks” or “Log Haul”, in order to prohibit OHV use on roads 

beyond those signs. Notify Public Affairs Office to coordinate 

public information updates (temporary road closures, delays) 

with two weeks prior notice.

All units Reduce impacts to 

recreating public

17.Inform public of mixed use road closures, due to operations, 

on Forest Service websites, two weeks prior to harvest activity. 

Notify Public Affairs Office to coordinate public information 

updates (temporary road closures, delays) with two weeks 

prior notice.

Scenic Quality

50, 72 Minimize impacts 

to scenery along 

Scenic Byway 

(Hwy 20)

1. Any regeneration stock protective devices (animal damage 

protection tubes) would be brown or similar in color to blend 

with the natural surroundings (avoid white and other bright 

colors).

72 Minimize impacts 

to scenery along 

Scenic Byway 

(Hwy 20)

2. Do not cut trees within 30 feet on either side of Rooster Rock 

Trail. Trees should be marked on the side away from the road 

or trail.

20, 32, 89, 

140, 56

Minimize impacts 

to scenery viewed 

from Key 

Observation 

Points in the 

Menagerie 

Wilderness

3. Unit and gap edges would be feathered and skips would be left 

in organic, non-geometric shapes in a variety of sizes.

4. Prioritize leave trees that are along unit boundaries that also 

meet wildlife requirements.

5. Avoid widely spaced trees that are silhouetted along the 

skyline.

50, 72 Minimize impacts 

to scenery along 

Scenic Byway 

(Hwy 20)

6. Slash would be chipped, removed, dispersed or piled and 

burned.

28, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 

41, 42, 60, 

67, 68, 87, 

89, 140

Minimize impacts 

to scenery in 

Scenic, Retention, 

Foreground and 

Scenic, Partial 

Retention, 

Foreground 

Management 

Areas

7. Slash would be chipped and dispersed or piled and burned.

28, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 

41, 42, 50, 

60, 67, 68, 

72, 87, 89, 

140

Minimize impacts 

to scenery in 

Scenic, Retention, 

Foreground and 

Scenic, Partial 

Retention, 

Foreground 

Management 

Areas

8. Visible landings would be shaped to blend with the landscape 

and ground cover to be reestablished
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 59

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

33, 42, 50, 

68

Minimize impacts 

to scenery in 

Scenic, Retention, 

Foreground 

Management 

Areas

9. New temporary haul roads would be designed to blend into the 

surrounding topography and follow natural patterns to 

decrease apparentness on the landscape. If significant grade 

changes are necessary in construction of roads, the area 

would be returned to original grade when obliterated.

Wildlife

All units Protect Northern 

Spotted Owl

1. In the event an owl nest is discovered during layout or 

implementation, no proposed activities shall take place within 

the 300 meter nest patch.

2. Haul is restricted on roads within 65 yards of all 300 meter owl 

nest patches.

Year Round

60, 61, 73 Protect Northern 

Spotted Owl

3. No proposed activities shall take place within the 300 meter 

nest patch.

4. Consult with wildlife biologist prior to layout.

Year Round

73, 60, 61, 

63, 59, 42, 

50, 14, 100, 

170, 200

Protect Northern 

Spotted Owl, 

Great Grey Owl 

and Migratory 

Birds

5. No proposed activities, including road maintenance, are to 

take place during critical nesting bird season this includes 

aerial activities.

6. No blasting or burning within 0.25 miles of a known 300 meter 

owl nest patch.

3/1 to 7/15

73, 60, 61, 

63, 59, 42,

50, 14, 100, 

170, 200

Protect Northern 

Spotted Owl,

Great Grey Owl 

and Migratory 

Birds

7. No blasting or burning within 100 yards of a known 300 meter 

owl nest patch.

7/16 to 9/30

72 Protect Northern 

Spotted Owl

8. Only the south side of the unit, in unsuitable habitat, shall be 

harvested.

Year Round

50, 41 Protect Harlequin 

Duck

9. No proposed activities shall take place during nesting bird 

season.

03/01 to 07/15

All units Species of 

Concern

10.If previously undocumented raptor nests are found during 

layout or sale administration, project modifications would be 

made as needed to protect the nest site and reduce harm to 

birds.

Year Round

170, 190 Megomphix 

hemphillia

11.A one acre no-harvest or prescribed burning buffer within unit 

170 shall be established on 3 MEHE sites north of the unit and 

on 2 sites on the south side of unit 190.

Year Round

30, 170, 190 Megomphix 

hemphillia

12.Only cool patchy under burning allowed. Year Round

20, 56, 120, 

15

Peregrine Falcon 13.No proposed activities shall take place during nesting season, 

including burning, aerial activities, or blasting.

02/01 to 08/15

20, 56, 120, 

89, 140, 32, 

33, 34, 44, 

27, 72, 62, 

15

Peregrine Falcon 14.No aerial activities shall take place during falcon nesting 

season.

02/01 to 08/15

20, 56, 120, 

89, 140, 33, 

34, 200, 32, 

74, 44, 27, 

72, 62, 15

Peregrine Falcon 15.No blasting shall take place during falcon nesting season. 02/01 to 08/15

All units Johnson’s 

Hairstreak

16.During layout retain any Western Hemlock that are identified 

as having dwarf mistletoe where feasible.

Year Round

28, 170 Red Tree Vole 17.A 10 acre no-harvest buffer within unit 170 shall be established 

on 2 RTV sites south of the unit and on one site on the north 

side of unit 28.

Year Round

All units Protect Fisher, 

Fringed Myotis, 

Pileated 

Woodpecker and 

18.Retain all snags, regardless of DBH, unless they must be 

dropped for safety or operation concerns. If a snag must be 

dropped, leave snag in the unit.

Year Round
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

60 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

other Cavity 

Nesters, American 

Marten

19.Retain defective trees with cavities or sloughing bark to the 

greatest extent feasible to serve as wildlife habitat

20.Retain all existing down wood. In addition, ensure that future 

coarse woody debris habitat is provided for as prescribed.

14, 15, 20, 

56, 67

Protect Fisher, 

Fringed Myotis, 

Pileated 

Woodpecker and 

other Cavity 

Nesters, American 

Marten

21.An assessment of snag levels shall be conducted postprescribed burning to ensure that Forest Plan standards of 

maintaining or creating 2 snags/acre and 240 linear feet of 

down wood are met. If the assessment concludes that, postburn, Plan standards were not met, additional dead wood 

would be created.

Year Round

All units Protect Fringed 

Myotis and 

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat

22.Buffer any cave habitat by 250 feet from proposed activities. Year Round

Units 

adjacent to 

streams

Protect Crater 

Lake Tightcoil

23.Protect perennial streams and riparian areas with vegetation 

that have year-round water access with a minimum 10 meter 

(30 foot) no harvest buffer.

Year Round

Botany

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

1. All road construction and harvest equipment would be 

pressure washed prior to working in the project area.

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

2. Obtain gravel for road construction and reconstruction from a 

weed-free rock source. Rock sources would be inspected by 

the District Botanist.

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

3. Minimize areas of soil disturbance during all phases of harvest 

activities including spur road construction, reopening existing 

temporary roads, fuels treatment, etc.

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

4. Seed all disturbed areas with weed-free native grass seed, 

including landings, subsoiled skid roads, culverts, and 

temporary roads to reduce weed establishment.

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

5. Berm, gate, rip and seed any new temporary and re-opened 

roads to reduce disturbance and incoming weed seed on 

vehicular traffic.

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

6. Roads to be closed or decommissioned would be treated for 

invasive weeds prior to closing.

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

7. Pretreat existing weed sites in and adjacent to harvest units 

and associated roads.

All units with 

gaps

Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

8. Gaps would be placed to avoid known weed infestations.

All units Reduce the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

9. If possible, Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) trust funds would be 

retained from the proposed timber sale to survey and control 

invasive weeds on all harvest units, landings, and roads in the 

planning area.

14 ,20, 56 Protect integrity of 

sensitive species 

and its habitat

10. Buffer Bridgeoporus nobilissimus by 150 feet.

100 Protect integrity of 

sensitive species 

11. If necessary, adjust eastern portion of stand to protect 

Eucephalis gormanii at Cougar Rock.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 61

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

and its habitat; 

protect integrity of 

special habitat

12. Consult district botanist during sale preparation.

13. Cougar Rock is an Area to Protect (ATP).

67 Protect integrity of 

sensitive species 

and its habitat; 

protect integrity of 

special habitat

14. Buffer Hypotrachyna riparia by 150 feet.

15. Active oak management in Camas Prairie and wetland special 

habitat.

29, 59 Protect integrity of 

survey and 

manage species 

and its habitat

16. Buffer Peltigera pacifica by 75 feet.

15 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

17. Vine maple/talus is an Area to Protect (ATP).

20, 27 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

18. Rock outcrop/rock garden is an ATP.

19. Buffer seep or wet area by 150 feet.

32, 42 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

20. Red alter patch and rock garden are ATPs.

33, 55 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

21. Alter wetland is an ATP.

22. Small wet meadow is an ATP.

41, 58 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

23. Rock outcrops and oceanspray patches are ATPs.

44 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

24. Talus and rock outcrops are ATP.

50 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

25. Buffer alder/mannagras wetland by 75 feet.

26. Rock outcrop is an ATP.

56 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

27. Buffer sphagnum wetlands by 150 feet.

28. Rock outcrop on ridge is an ATP.

57 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

29. Buffer seep by 50 feet.

59, 95 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

30. Rock garden or outcrop is an ATP; manage for oak and 

madrone.

60, 62, 98 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

31. Rock garden or rock outcrop is an ATP.

72, 87 Protect integrity of 

special habitat

32. Buffer carex pond/wetland (weedy) by 75 feet.

Transportation

Roads 

2027720, 

2027730, 

2027732, 

2027755, 

2027760

Minimize erosion 

and sedimentation

1. Haul routes are not suitable for wet weather haul. These roads 

are not covered under fisheries consultation.

All units Minimize erosion 

and sedimentation

2. Aggregate surfacing must be durable rock (AASHTO T210). 

No more than 15% fines (#200 sieve).

All units Minimize erosion 

and sedimentation

3. All disturbed sites related to reconstruction and or 

maintenance such as waste area sites and culvert 

replacements would require erosion control methods.

All units Minimize erosion 

and sedimentation

4. Newly installed culverts would meet current sizing 

requirements on perennial streams.

All units Minimize erosion 

and sedimentation

5. All non-paved roads used for wet weather haul would be 

rocked with at least 4 inches of aggregate material, with 

minimum size determined by road slope and proximity to 

streams.

All units 6. All work done to or on a road would be consistent with the 

Road Management Objective for that road.

All units 7. Right of Way Authorizations and/or Land Use Agreements with 

the State of Oregon required to provide legal access would be 

obtained prior to harvest activities.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

62 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

All units 8. All road work and activities to follow the Willamette National 

Forest Commercial Road Rules (Dec 2016).

Aquatics (Fish and Hydrology) 

All units and 

haul routes 

Protect fish and 

other aquatic 

species and their 

habitat

1. Include stream protection mitigation measures and design 

criteria referenced in the fisheries consultation documents 

(Biological Assessment and Letter of Concurrence from the 

National Marine Fisheries Service expected before the 

Decision Notice is signed).

2. Ensure that seeding and mulching of bare soil is implemented 

where any ditch clean out occurs. This would also reduce 

erosion and prevent weed establishment.

3. Waste material from road work would be placed in a stable 

designated area outside of Riparian Reserves.

Apply seed in 

the fall

Units with 

Commercial 

Thinning in 

Riparian 

Reserves

Reduce potential 

for stream 

temperature 

increases, 

minimize sediment 

delivery to 

streams, and 

maintain bank 

stability. Protect 

various aquatic 

and terrestrial 

wildlife and plant 

species.

4. Commercial thinning in Riparian Reserves would leave no-cut 

buffers along streams that vary according to required 

protection measures. The primary shade zones on perennial 

streams would be left intact to ensure adequate stream shade 

to maintain desirable stream temperatures.

5. No-cut buffers on streams would ensure maintaining future 

large wood sources and contribute to terrestrial biodiversity 

(See table below for minimum no-harvest buffer widths. All 

buffers are measured from the trees nearest the stream rather 

than the water’s edge).

Stream Class No-harvest buffer width

Class 4 stream (intermittent) 50 feet 

Class 3 stream (perennial) – year 

round and no fish are present

75 feet (primary shade zone)

Class 2 stream (fish) 100 feet 

Class 1 stream (anadromous fish) 120 feet 

All units Widths of Riparian 

Reserves

6. Site-potential tree heights to determine Riparian Reserve 

widths are 172 and 150 feet (see unit prescriptions). This 

includes all streams, unstable or potentially unstable areas 

such as earthflows, and wetlands less than one acre.

All units with 

thinning in 

Riparian 

Reserves

Maintain Aquatic 

Conservation 

Strategy 

Objectives, 

including maintain 

potential for future 

down wood

7. The thinned portion of the Riparian Reserves would be at least 

50% canopy cover after thinning.

8. Logging system changes would not reduce average canopy 

cover in thinned portion of Riparian Reserves to below 50%.

All haul 

routes

Protect water 

quality, fish, and 

other aquatic 

species and their 

habitat

9. Any culvert replacement on perennial streams would be done 

during the in-stream work window between July 15 and August 

31.

10. Wet weather haul would be immediately stopped if the timber 

sale administrator notices the potential for sediment delivery 

from road surfacing to live streams. Haul would not be 

resumed until road surfaces sufficiently dry out, potential 

sediment delivery is stopped or the cause is repaired. 

July 15th to 

August 31st

Temporary 

Roads

Protect water 

quality and 

prevent increased 

peak flows

11. Native surface temporary roads would be dry season only. If 

waivers are requested to operate on native surface temporary 

roads during the wet season, the operator would be required to 

rock the road. The rock would be removed when operations 

are complete, but before decommissioning the road after use. 

12. Native surface, temporary roads that spur off of roads not 

permitted for wet weather haul (2027720, 2027730, 2027732, 

2027755, and 2027760) would be dry season only.

Soils
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 63

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

All harvest 

units

Minimize 

compaction, 

disturbance levels 

and for soil 

productivity during 

project 

implementation

1. Ground-based equipment is limited to slopes less than 30%, 

unless otherwise directed by a Soil Scientist/Hydrologist.

2. Ground-based equipment may be allowed on slopes greater 

than 30% but less than 40% in a few selected instances 

where it is determined that skidding on these steeper slopes 

is more beneficial to the various resources than implementing 

some other logging system. Decisions to operate on 30-40% 

slopes would be based on weather conditions, hillslope 

profile, soil properties, and presence of instability, type of 

equipment and the ability of the operator/contractor to 

implement the work successfully and safely. 

3. Where practical ground-based equipment should travel on a 

slash mat to reduce off site soil erosion and soil compaction. 

Slash mat cover depth should range from 6-18 inches 

depending on slope gradient hillslope morphology (slope 

location).

15, 27, 34, 

59, 54, 48, 

56, 65, 67

Minimize 

disturbance levels 

and promote long 

term slope 

stability.

4. Buffer/avoid unstable-unsuitable areas or consider an 

alternative prescription, logging system.

All harvest 

units and 

associated 

access.

Minimize 

compaction, 

disturbance levels

during project 

implementation

5. Predesigned skid trails and landings are required in all 

ground-based skidding units and would be approved by the 

sale administrator in advance of use. Skid trails shall be 

located outside of the no-cut buffers. 

a. Consult with soil scientist if new skidtrails are 

proposed in areas under high clay potential and 

referred to soil design criteria # 22 for potential units 

6. Preexisting skid trails and temporary roads should always be 

used before new skid trails locations are approved. They 

should not exceed 15 feet in width, and the objective is to 

maintain a minimum of 10 feet to an average of 12-foot width 

throughout the length.

7. Space skid trails a minimum of 50 feet apart for

processor/forwarder operations.

Units 

mentioned in 

Soils design 

criteria # 2, 

9, 22

Protect soil 

resources

8. Limit the amount of adverse skidding to as little area as is 

feasible within a unit, including less number of passes. Locate 

skid trails to avoid concentrating runoff and provide breaks in 

grade. Limit or avoid the grade of constructed skid trails on 

geologically unstable, saturated, highly erodible, or easily 

compacted soils.

All harvest 

units /Skyline 

operations

Protect soil 

resources

9. Skyline corridors shall be as narrow as practical, no more 

than 12 feet and spaced approximately 150 feet apart.

10. A minimum of one end suspension of logs is required for all 

logging systems. Partial or one end suspension is required on 

skyline units, except at tail trees and landings.

14, 20, 27, 

29, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 41, 

42, 44, 50, 

55, 58, 59, 

61, 62, 67, 

68, 72, 73, 

74, 87, 89, 

95, 100, 140, 

170, 190

Protect soil 

resources

11. No pre-bunching allowed.

15, 34, 120, 

200

Protect soil 

resources

12. Some pre-bunching is allowed with soil scientist consultation.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

64 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

28, 43, 56, 

57, 60, 63, 

66, 92

Protect soil 

resources

13. Pre-bunching is allowed in surveyed areas up to 45% slope. 

These are areas with suitable terrain and available acceptable 

access.

14. All pre-bunching areas have the same site location restriction 

and access requirements that ground-based logging and 

review/approval of activities outside of standard season of 

operation.

All harvest 

units and 

associated 

access.

Minimize 

Displacement, 

maintain effective 

soil productivity 

nutrient levels

15. Retain existing duff percentages and woody material in 

accordance with Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines, stated 

in the

Table of Unit Specific duff retention Integrated Prescriptions

16. Duff retention would be monitored by soil scientist as part of 

any activity that may affect the soil resource, such as 

harvesting, pile burning, or under burning.

17. Where operable, harvested trees should be topped and 

limbed in the units in order to provide small limbs and needles 

for nutrient recycling. This objective has to be tempered with 

the need to reduce fuel loading to control potential wild fires, 

and to meet site specific standards for slash loadings. 

18. Where temporary roads, skidtrails or crossings used by the 

sale are being decommissioned, or where system roads are 

being decommissioned and taken off the system, pull 

available slash into treated areas with open soil to dissipate 

surface erosion and reduce sun exposure.

19. Material piling may occur by hand or with a grapple machine. 

Grapple piling requires only one pass of the machine across 

the landscape, and the machine works while sitting on slash. 

No grapple piling should occur during winter or wet weather 

seasons. Recommend grapple piling activities within flat 

areas, and road prisms.

Standard 

Operation 

Season and 

Outside 

standard 

season - Wet 

Weather 

Management

All applicable 

areas within 

harvested 

units

Minimize erosion 

and sedimentation

20. Construction or reconstruction of roads and landings would be 

done during the dry period (June 1-October 31) and not when 

soils are saturated or run-off occurs. Restrict winter haul 

maintenance to period of dry season. Unclassified or 

temporary roads used outside the standard operating season, 

should be rocked, snow covered, or frozen to reduce the 

potential for erosion and applied prior to the wet haul/winter 

season in order to prevent sediment delivery.

21. If needed, open temporary roads, skid trails and landings 

should be storm proofed with water bars or drain dips if they 

have to set through extended periods of wet weather 

(Temporary seasonal closure - winterize) or under predicted 

high precipitation events..

22. In general, water bar location should occur where local terrain 

facilitates effective drainage while avoiding soil disturbance 

and sediment delivery. Construct water bars every 100’ on 

slopes <15% and 50’ on slopes >15%. Water bars shall be 

keyed into the cut bank and have a clear outlet on the 

downhill side. Water bars may be limited on skid trails when 

sufficiently covered with slash to minimize soil compaction 

and erosion. Specific water bar designs would be provided 

within soil resources report.

23. The Timber Sale Administrator would monitor wet weather 

haul, and as needed, consult resource specialists. When 

necessary, haul may be suspended during rainfall to prevent 

off-site movement of sediment into drainage courses. 

Conditions for suspensions as stated in soil design criteria # 

22. 

Wet Weather 

Management, 

Winter over 

snow 

management
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 65

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

All harvest 

units and 

associated 

access.

Reduce soil 

compaction and 

displacement

24. Ground-based equipment should operate during standard 

seasons of operation in the dry season (from June 1– October 

31).21. If high/long precipitation events occur during the 

standard operating season, ideal soil conditions criteria’s

(#21) would be assess and follow to resume operations. The 

soil scientist would be available for consultation if re-routing or 

restrictions become necessary.

Standard 

Operating

Season and 

Outside 

standard 

season - Wet 

Weather 

Management

Units with 

potential wet 

weather 

management 

limitations

are:

20, 28, 29, 

30, 31, 41, 

42, 43, 50, 

55, 56, 57, 

58, 59, 60, 

61, 63, 66, 

67, 68, 72, 

74, 87, 89, 

92, 95, 120, 

170, 190

Reduce soil 

compaction and 

displacement

25. Ideal site conditions criteria for ground-based operations

would be monitor in the mentioned units with potential wet 

weather management limitations for:

a. Expected Dominant Soil Conditions: 

i. No soil saturation 

ii. No clay soils. In general, dominant coarse and 

moderately coarse texture soils. 

iii. No off-site movement of sediment within ditch and 

drainages, no trenching or rutting before and during 

harvesting operations.

iv. None to minimal water pooling (standing water or wet 

zones) within area.

v. Minimal existing exposed soils and area disturbance.

vi. None to minimal existing soil compaction 

b. Potential Weather Conditions

i. Weather conditions should be assessed by sale 

administrator knowledge of project area (before and 

during operations). Assess soil conditions when 

weather conditions within project area have reached

more than 1 inch precipitation during a 24-hour period.

c. Equipment available and other management activities

i. Like use low ground pressure equipment when 

practicable, 

ii. Other effective re-routes and recommendations from 

soil scientist (e.g., slash mats).

26. Request for operations outside the standard operating season 

would be assessed following ideal site conditions criteria #22 

including other resources recommendations.

Standard 

Operating

Season and 

Outside 

standard 

season - Wet 

Weather 

Management

All applicable 

areas within 

harvested 

units

Reduce 

compaction levels 

and improve 

overall 

productivity.

27. Subsoiling Efforts: subsoiling all landings, primary skid trails 

within identified units; temporary roads used in the sale area 

as part of the logging operations and possibly in road 

decommission projects.

i. Subsoiling needs to be considered in light of the potential 

for root pruning, damage to existing regeneration, and the 

increased amount of soil disturbance. Consequently, 

“munching” or bucket ripping is the preferred style of 

subsoiling. Ideal subsoiling occurs when soils are mostly 

dry.

ii. Subsoiling is defined as the decompaction of the soil 

surface to a depth of 20 to 24 inches. Mulching, seeding 

and slash application should occur following subsoiling 

operations to aid soil productivity and protect open soils 

from direct rain impact in disturbed areas.

28. Up to 20 acres of enhancement, subsoiling is suggested

within the project area.

All harvest 

units

29. Ground-based equipment operation over Snow/frozen soil or 

over a deep, solid snow pack may occur in the following 

conditions:

30. 0 inches of frozen soil − Need at least 18 inches of settled 

snow or up to 24 inches of dense snow.

31. 4 inches of frozen soil − Need at least 9 inches of settled 

snow.

Winter over 

the snow 

operations
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

66 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

32. 6 inches of frozen soil − No snow cover necessary/plus 2 

inches of snow (pack/settle) per archaeology concerns.

33. When necessary, and to reduce loosing dense snow pack, 

pre-pack snow on designated routes before work 

commences. This allows soil to freeze and the snow road to 

solidify.

34. Over snow, operations would be suspended or re-routed if 

thawing, soil exposure or uneven snow pack occurs during

operations. Maintain these standards when reducing snow 

pack within skid trail areas to not lose dense snow pack, 

especially during short warming periods.

35. Suspend logging operations if continuous warming 

temperatures reduce packed and dense snow below values 

stated above. 

36. Haul roads used outside the standard operating season, 

should generally be rocked, snow covered, or frozen to 

reduce the potential for erosion, unless other mitigating or 

extenuating circumstances are present. A minimum of 2 

inches of snow over/frozen ground and or road prisms.

37. During thawing and melting events maintain drainage for 

reduction of runoff from any thawing, and snow storage 

melting.

Pile burning, 

under 

burning

Minimize 

Displacement, 

maintain effective 

soil productivity 

nutrient levels

38. Conduct prescribed fire and pile burns to minimize the 

residence time on the soil while meeting the burn objectives. 

Burn when the duff and soil moisture conditions are high and 

where complete consumption of organic materials is not 

expected.

39. Conduct prescribed fire and pile burning in order to retain soil 

duff/litter and woody material using these criteria:

a. Retain existing duff percentages and litter/woody 

material in accordance to the percentage stated in 

the integrated prescriptions for unit specifics table.

b. Retained some down woody (large and snags) 

material within prescribed and pile burning sites. 

Large logs, greater than 16 inches diameter and 

greater than 10 feet long in a variety of good 

decomposition classes are preferred.

40. Fire line would be constructed with appropriate water 

drainage using natural contours and waterbars to shunt water. 

Rehabilitate constructed fire lines by installing water bars, 

raking topsoil back over the line, covering exposed mineral 

soil with duff and other organic matter or other mulch 

materials, or seeding, if recommended by the botanist, to help 

prevent weed/non-native invasion.

41. Upon completion of pile, burning operations consider 

dispersing partially burnt material to meet ground cover 

requirements.

Heritage

All units Heritage resource 

protection

1. Information specific to heritage resource location and content 

is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information 

Act (FSM 6271.2). In order to facilitate the decision-maker, the 

information would be made available to him/her.

2. All National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible sites 

and potentially eligible sites must be avoided during all project 

activities.

3. Changes to the current unit configurations and/or the addition 

of any new units, would require consultation with the District 

Archaeologist in order to protect known and unknown heritage 

resources.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 67

Unit # Reason Design Feature Dates

4. Project activities planned outside of the area defined in the 

heritage resource inventory schema must be coordinated with 

the District Archaeologist prior to initiation. This includes the 

establishment of harvest landings, guy-line equipment 

anchors, equipment staging areas, and rock storage areas, 

slash burning and silvicultural treatments.

5. Prior to cultivating/ripping skid roads post-harvest a re-entry 

survey must be conducted in those areas deemed high 

probability for the occurrence of heritage resources. 

Coordination with the District Archaeologist is essential to 

ensure the protection of heritage resources.

6. In order to extend protection to heritage resources which have 

not yet been discovered, but which may be uncovered during 

the course of project activities, include contract clause in all 

project prospectus and contracts that outline the procedures to 

follow in the event heritage resources are inadvertently 

discovered or disturbed during project activities. If cultural 

material is inadvertently discovered, suspend operations and 

consult the District Archaeologist to allow for development of 

the proper course of action.

27 and 44 Heritage resource 

protection

7. Consult with District Archeologist if equipment would be staged 

at the junction of the 2027 and 2027-750 roads

89 Heritage resource 

protection

8. No staging of equipment on the 840 road on private land. 

Consult with archeologist during layout and contract writing 

process.

2.08 Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common 

to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Table 15 provides a list of mitigation and enhancement recommendations for wildlife trees and down 

wood common to Alternatives 2 and 4. Units proposed for aggregate retention would have snag/large 

down wood creation as a mitigation measure. Since there is no aggregate retention proposed for 

Alternative 3, there would be no down wood or snag creation. Some units have habitat mitigation 

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

recommended as an enhancement measure and implementation is dependent on funding. Tree 

mitigation and enhancement techniques may include topping or girdling.

Table 15: Wildlife Tree and Large Down Wood Creation Recommendations for Alternatives 2 and 4

Unit Acres of aggregate 

retention

Trees to be left/felled for large 

down wood (5 per acre) 

Snag creation

(2 per acre)

Total leave trees for snags 

and down wood

14 10 50 20 70

15 6 30 12 42

20 36 180 72 252

56 47 235 941 329

1 This is for Alternative 4 only. Unit 56 is already prescribed for snag creation in excess of 2 snags per acre as part of site preparation and

mimicking mixed severity fire.

2.09 Monitoring

Operations: Contract administrators would monitor treatments during implementation to ensure 

contractors are in compliance with their contract. Contract elements monitored would include harvest 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

68 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

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

of designated skid trails.

Fuels Treatments: The Sweet Home Ranger District fire and fuels personnel would monitor fuel loading 

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

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

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

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

may include review of aquatic management zones, erosion prevention and control measures, cable and 

ground-based yarding operation effects, and site treatment.

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

completed. Identified weed populations would be treated.

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

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

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

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

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

Reforestation: Ensure aggregate retention stands are sufficiently stocked (at least 150 trees pre acre)

within five years of site preparation. Forest Service Manual direction is to conduct first and third year 

stocking surveys to determine if the site can be certified as sufficiently stocked.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 69

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

Cumulative Effects Analysis

This section of the DEIS considers the environmental consequences of implementation of the various 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

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

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

and therefore may vary in physical and temporal scale.

Interdisciplinary Team

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) includes Forest specialists for each discipline (Chapter 4, for team 

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

affected environment and expected environmental consequences of the proposed actions and 

alternatives of the Trout Creek project. Others wrote their analysis directly to the EIS. All reports and 

related documents are maintained in the project file, located at the Sweet Home Ranger District in 

Sweet Home, Oregon. In some cases, this chapter provides a summary of the report and may only 

reference technical data upon which conclusions were based. When deemed appropriate, those parts of 

specialist reports that are not included in this DEIS are incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.41).

Role of Science

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

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

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

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

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

best available science.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects

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

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

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

individual past actions.”

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

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

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

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

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)

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

area that could contribute potential cumulative effects to the environment along with the Trout Creek 

project.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 71

3.01 Forest and Stand Structure

Summary of Effects Analysis

This section details the effects on forest vegetation and structure of proposed silvicultural treatments to 

meet the objectives of the Trout Creek project. Stand exams and field reconnaissance yielded data that 

was used to model forest growth and effects of treatments.

Treatments are proposed in a mix of managed stands and fire-origin stands to meet project objectives. 

These treatments would include thinning of varying intensities, gap creation, retention of unharvested 

forest in skips, snag creation, and aggregate retention harvest (see Appendix E for unit-specific 

treatments by alternative). Thinning would improve stand health and vigor, as well as create conditions 

for successful hardwood fuelbreaks and understory hardwood tree planting. Tree planting in aggregate 

retention areas and gaps would increase tree species diversity of drought-tolerant species and conifer 

bough species. Gaps would improve structural complexity by releasing dominant trees to develop 

complex crown structure and initiating a second tree cohort. Skips would improve structural complexity 

by allowing inter-tree competition to occur at levels that continuously creates snags, which become 

down wood. Aggregate retention harvest would create complex early seral habitat. A mix of these 

treatments coordinated together and combined with prescribed burning would mimic the effects of 

mixed severity fire on a landscape scale (defined as ~136 acres or greater in size of coordinated 

treatments) in two areas within the project area. Many of these treatments would contribute timber 

products to local markets.

Four alternatives were analyzed to determine their direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Alternative 1 

is the No Action alternative. Alternative 2 is the proposed action. Alternative 3 would not create 

complex early seral habitat or propose treatments in fire-origin stands. Alternative 4 would increase the 

acres of gaps and would increase the harvest intensity in complex early seral habitat treatments. Table 

16 details the differences in alternatives by objective.

Table 16: Comparison of Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects by Objective

Objective1 Resource Indicator Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

1

Level of competition for 

sunlight, water, and 

nutrients 

Acres of thinning 0 733 629 711

1

Tree species composition 

of drought-tolerant 

species

Acres planted to western 

white pine, sugar pine, 

incense cedar, or Oregon 

white oak

0 439 43 461

1 Restoration of sugar pine 

and western white pine

Acres planted with blister 

rust-resistant stock 0 136 43 158

1 Canopy gaps present Acres of gaps 0 35 43 57

1 Skips present Acres of skips 0 489 344 489

2 Timber to local markets Amount of timber in MMBF 

(million board feet) 0 12 8 15

2 Opportunity for future 

conifer bough collection

Acres planted that include 

noble fir 0 38 0 38
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Objective1 Resource Indicator Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

3

Landscape area 

approximates the size of 

a mixed severity fire event 

(about 136 acres or more 

treated) 

Acres treated in each

landscape area 0

1 area of 

296 

acres & 

1 area of 

125 

acres

1 area 

of 184 

acres & 

1 area 

of 125 

acres

1 area of 

296 

acres & 

1 area of 

125 

acres

3 Complex early seral 

habitat present 

Acres of complex early 

seral habitat 0 101 0 101

4 Opportunities for wildfire 

management

Acres of long-lasting, 

minimal-maintenance 

fuelbreaks

0 119 43 119

5

Presence of hardwooddominated areas in the 

project area

Acres planted to red alder, 

bigleaf maple, madrone, or 

Oregon white oak

0 238 155 238

Cumulatively, these actions would result in seral stage changes measured in the tenths of a percent at 

the scale of the South Santiam fifth-field watershed.

Scale of Analysis

Direct and Indirect Effects

The scale of analysis used for the direct and indirect effects is the project area. The project area 

provides a site specific location to evaluate changes caused by project activities. The changes analyzed 

are predictable, quantifiable, and linked to cause and effect relationships. The effects are described in 

terms of the magnitude (the amount of change –extent, duration, direction, and speed) of the action 

changing the stand conditions.

Cumulative Effects

The scale of the cumulative effects analysis is National Forest System (NFS) lands within the South 

Santiam fifth-field watershed. Small portions of the project area, containing 31 acres of proposed 

thinning treatments, are in the Headwaters of the Middle Santiam fifth-field watershed. Those 31 acres 

were lumped into the South Santiam fifth-field watershed to simplify analysis. The South Santiam fifthfield watershed encompasses the treatment areas and provides an appropriately sized area to reflect 

the scale where cumulative effects become stable. The area is large enough to bound the effects both 

spatially and temporally, relates well to cause and effect relationships of the treatments, is site specific 

to the location, and measures the change that is occurring to the stands.

The cumulative effects analysis is based on NFS lands, as management on private lands cannot be 

accurately predicted. There are 33,575 acres of private land in the South Santiam 5th-field watershed 

(about 33% of the watershed). In general, it can be assumed that management on private land will result 

in stands being in the early seral and mid seral-closed stages, but seral stage change cannot be predicted 

in terms of spatial or temporal arrangement. Appendix C includes an estimation of private land harvest 

for a five year period in the project area, but is subject to change due to timber market fluctuations.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 73

Data Sources

Stand data collection occurred with stand exam contracts in 2012 and 2013, with additional stand exams 

being accomplished by Forest Service personnel in 2015. The stand exams were converted to a Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS)-ready file type for growth and yield modeling. Some stands did not receive 

any stand exam plots. These units were sampled during field reconnaissance with quick plots, collecting 

basic information. This information was entered into a Microsoft Access database for use in FVS.

Stand treatment options were analyzed in FVS (Suppose Version 2.06). FVS variants for the Westside 

Cascades and Pacific Northwest Coast were updated in June of 2015 to replace the individual tree 

mortality equations with those from the Oregon Growth Analysis and Projection (ORGANON) model, 

which more accurately reflects snag recruitment over time (FVS bulletin 734-062615). FVS analyses in 

this report were done using the updated version (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 

2002).

ArcGIS 10-3-1 was used to do GIS analyses and mapping.

Affected Environment

General

The project area is about 37,344 acres in size. Of these acres, 29,142 are managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service, and the remaining 8,202 acres are privately owned. The project area is primarily located within 

the South Santiam fifth-field watershed. The watershed is approximately 101,917 acres in size, with 

68,342 of these acres managed by the U.S. Forest Service and 33,575 acres of private land that is 

primarily managed as high production industrial forest. Elevation ranges from 940 feet at the west end 

of the watershed to 5,440 feet at the top of Iron Mountain at the east end of the watershed. Elevation 

of proposed units ranges from 1,020 to 4,460 feet.

Disturbance History

The current forest vegetation is a result of past fire and logging disturbance. Fire was the main 

disturbance agent prior to effective fire suppression efforts in the early to mid-1900s. Many of the 

stands in the South Santiam watershed date back to a large stand-replacing fire event that occurred in 

the late 1850s (USDA, 2006). After this fire, many areas re-burned in the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

Remnant trees predating these fire events are rare, and tend to occur in clumps. The clumps are often 

associated with landscape features that sheltered them from intense fire, such as rock outcrops and 

cliffs or north-facing slopes with abundant moisture. Forests that resulted from these fires are evenaged and densely stocked. Species composition varies depending on aspect and elevation. Douglas-fir 

typically dominates lower elevations and warmer aspects while true fir (primarily noble fir) dominates 

higher elevations and cooler aspects. Although stand ages range from 100 to 170 years old, many 

remain rather even-aged and lack the structural complexity often associated with late seral forest. Due 

to this, tree species diversity is low and dominated by the initial shade-intolerant cohorts with little in 

the way of further cohort development. This uncharacteristically slow transition from an even-aged to 

uneven-age structural condition can partially be traced to fire suppression. Intermediate, mixed severity 

fire disturbances can accelerate stand structure by causing single-tree and group mortality, letting more 

light reach the forest floor, stimulating development of another cohort of trees (as well as shrubs and 

forbs), and inducing epicormic (new sprouting) branch development in surviving Douglas-fir (Tepley et 

al., 2013; Weisberg, 2004). Mixed severity fires tend to occur under less extreme weather conditions 

than stand-replacement fires, and are therefore more successfully suppressed. As a result, mixed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

severity fires are becoming rare (Tepley et al., 2013). Lightning fires would be the primary cause of 

mixed severity fire today. There have been 66 lightning fires in the South Santiam watershed since the 

1970s, when detailed recordkeeping began (GIS analysis). These 66 fires have only burned 47 acres total 

(an average of 0.7 acres per fire) due to successful fire suppression.

Logging became the dominant disturbance beginning in the 1950s. Since the 1950s there has been 

about 14,183 acres of regeneration harvesting on NFS lands within the South Santiam fifth-field 

watershed, most of which occurred prior to the mid-1990s. The regeneration harvests generally created 

patches on the landscape that are 5 to 90 acres in size. These patches have resulted in fragmentation of 

mature forests, although large patches of mature forest are still present in much of the watershed. The 

large patches of mature forest are concentrated in the Menagerie Wilderness Area (about 4,319 acres) 

and several Inventoried Roadless Areas (about 14,313 acres) that are located in the northwest and 

south-central area of the watershed (note that no treatments are proposed in these areas). These 

Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless areas account for 18% of watershed acres.

Since the early 2000s, silvicultural practices on NFS lands have focused on thinning in existing managed 

stands. On private lands industrial forestry practices of clearcutting, herbicide site preparation, and 

dense planting are commonly implemented. At this time most private land has been converted to 

plantation management with rotation ages of 40 to 60 years.

Seral Stage Distribution

The current and historic seral stage distribution is characterized using LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting 

descriptions (LANDFIRE, 2007). The Biophysical Settings split forest conditions into six different classes 

based on their structure. These classes are:

• Class A = Early seral

• Class B = Closed canopy mid seral structure

• Class C = Open canopy mid seral structure

• Class D = Open canopy late seral structure

• Class E = Closed canopy late seral structure

• Class NF = Non-forested areas (Water features, highways, meadows, rock features, etc.)

The Forest Service Northwest Oregon Ecology Group analyzed 2012 Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) 

vegetation data to arrive at the current composition of Biophysical Setting classes throughout western 

Oregon. This data was clipped to the NFS portion of the South Santiam fifth-field watershed to ascertain 

the current Biophysical Setting class distribution. It was also clipped to all ownerships in the watershed 

to provide a picture of the overall seral stage distribution (note that this updated analysis replaces the 

analysis in the project scoping letter, which used 2005 GNN data).

The Biophysical Setting descriptions document average historic percentages of five classes of vegetation 

development (A through E) for each setting. Major Biophysical Settings in the South Santiam watershed 

are: 

• North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest (1,494 acres)

• North Pacific Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland-Wet (1,759 acres)

• North Pacific Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest (6,696 acres)

• North Pacific Dry-Mesic Silver Fir-Western Hemlock-Douglas-fir Forest (25,120 acres)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 75

• North Pacific Maritime Mesic-Wet Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest (66,416 acres)

These settings account for 101,485 acres of the 101,917 total watershed acres. The average historic 

percentage of each class was weighted by the percent acreage its parent Biophysical Setting represents 

in the watershed. This was done for each class of each Biophysical Setting to arrive at an overall 

weighted average of each class’s historic average representation in the watershed.

Results comparing historic averages to the current condition on NFS land, as well as the watershed as a 

whole, are displayed in Table 17.

Table 17: Current and Historic Seral Stage Distribution in South Santiam Watershed

Class Historic Weighted 

Average (%)

Current Average –

NFS Ownership (%)

Current Average –

All Ownerships (%)

A – Early Seral 8 1.3 5

B – Mid Seral-Closed 17 23.4 34

C – Mid Seral-Open 5 3.3 5

D – Late Seral-Open 7 1.2 1

E – Late Seral-Closed 63 69.5 54

NF - Non-Forested N/A 1.3 1

Stand Conditions – Proposed Treatment Stands

Relative Density Index

Relative Density Index (RDI) is a measure of stand density that compares the Stand Density Index (SDI) of 

a stand to the maximum SDI for a specific species. SDI is calculated based on the density of stocking (as 

represented by average trees per acre) and the size of trees (as represented by quadratic mean 

diameter) in a stand. The maximum SDI for the Westside of the Cascade Range is typically 595, 

established for use with even-aged Douglas-fir (Long, 1985). Some stands are dominated by noble fir, 

and in this case a maximum SDI of 815 was used (from Forest Vegetation Simulator documentation). 

Stand SDI is divided by the maximum SDI and then expressed as a percentage as RDI. Generally, crown 

closure occurs by the time a stand reaches 30% RDI. Management is generally recommended to occur 

when RDI approaches 40%, and prior to reaching 55%. Competition-induced mortality begins at about 

55% RDI (Tappeiner II et al., 2015). RDI values are presented and referenced in following sections.

Managed Stands

These managed stands are the result of clearcut regeneration harvest that occurred on NFS lands from 

the 1950s to about the mid-1990s. After clearcut harvest these stands were typically broadcast burned 

for site preparation and then densely planted to achieve full stocking. Planting was focused primarily on 

Douglas-fir. Pre-commercial thinning often occurred to reduce competition in young stands when they 

were 15 to 20 years of age. Current conditions of managed stands proposed for treatment are presented 

in Table 18.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table 18: Current Conditions of Managed Stands Proposed for Treatment

Stand Age 

(in 2017)

Trees Per 

Acre1

Canopy 

Cover1 (%)

Quadratic Mean 

Diameter (in)1

Basal Area (sq 

ft per acre)1

Average 

Height (ft)1

Relative 

Density 

Index (%)1

Average 44 203 73 12.6 168 78 48

Range 32-65 83-400 45-88 9-19 51-390 55-109 16-96

1 Data is from trees 7 inches DBH and greater. The minimum DBH of a tree considered for harvest in the Trout Creek project 7 inches.

Managed stands proposed for treatment range from those that have not been commercially thinned, to 

those that were commercially thinned relatively recently (in the last 10 years). The recently thinned 

stands generally account for the larger quadratic mean diameter, larger average height, lower trees per 

acre, lower canopy cover, and lower RDI of the ranges in Table 18. Stands that have not been 

commercially thinned generally account for the smaller quadratic mean diameter, smaller average 

height, higher trees per acre, higher canopy cover, higher basal area, and higher RDI of the ranges in 

Table 18.

Fire-Origin Stands

Fire-origin stands are the result of fires that occurred in the late 1800s, as described in the Disturbance 

History section. Many of these stands are densely stocked, and dominated by the initial cohort of trees 

that established from seed immediately after the fires (Douglas-fir in lower elevations and noble fir in 

higher elevations).

Remnant trees that existed prior to the fire disturbance are rare, but scattered remnant Douglas-fir can 

be found in some stands. These remnant Douglas-fir are larger in diameter than the dominant cohort of 

trees, with more deeply fissured bark. Due to increased exposure to the elements after the fires of the 

late 1800s, most lost their tops to wind or snow and ice. Douglas-fir’s ability to sprout new branches and 

re-build existing ones in a light-filled environment allowed these trees to persist even after losing their 

tops (Van Pelt and Sillett, 2008). Presently, the cohort of trees that initiated following the late 1800s fire 

disturbance has reached or surpassed the height of the remnant trees, and the remnant trees are 

starting to experience mortality from being shaded out. 

Some stands have been commercially thinned in the past, while many have not. The distinctions in 

existing condition between stands that have been previously thinned and those that have not, as 

determined by stand exams and field reconnaissance, is presented below.

Fire-Origin Stands Previously Thinned

Some of the lower elevation Douglas-fir dominated stands easily accessible from mainline roads were 

commercially thinned in the 1970s, when they were 80 to 90 years old (according to microfiche records 

at the Sweet Home Ranger District office). Thinning treatments ranged from low intensity salvage 

harvest to moderate intensity thinning designed to reduce competition. The treatments accelerated 

growth of remaining trees in the initial cohort, and initiated a new cohort of shade-tolerant western 

hemlock with vigorous vine maple growth in many areas. However, due to the time elapsed since those 

thinning treatments, canopy cover has closed again in many areas, resulting in stagnated growth of the 

western hemlock and vine maple in the understory.

Fire-Origin Stands with No Previous Management

Most noble fir-dominated stands, as well as the lower elevation difficult-to-access Douglas-fir stands, 

are still densely stocked with the initial cohort of trees that regenerated after fire disturbance. As 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 77

described in the Disturbance History section, there has been little intermediate disturbance that would 

serve to diversify these stands’ structure and tree species composition. Pockets of some noble firdominated stands regenerated to Pacific silver fir, and these pockets have experienced mortality, 

resulting in gaps in these stands. In some of the Douglas-fir stands, laminated root rot pockets have 

created expanding gaps. This has been the extent of stand development since initiation.

Current Conditions of Stands Proposed for Commercial Treatment

Table 19 summarizes the current conditions of fire-origin stands proposed for treatment. Stand ages 

have a relatively tight range, illustrating that these stands regenerated at about the same time. The low 

end of the range of the trees per acre and canopy cover column is represented by a stand that has a 

laminated root rot pocket. The proposed treatment for this stand (Unit 190) is to emphasize bigleaf 

maple for tall bugbane habitat (a plant that is in decline on the district according to monitoring by the 

district botanist), with the root rot pocket being an opportunity to establish maple by planting. The low 

end of the range of the quadratic mean diameter and average height is a result of two stands. One of 

these stands (Unit 27) contains areas of densely stocked (280 trees per acre) true fir and western 

hemlock that have resulted in suppressed growth. The other stand (Unit 67) is adjacent to Camas Prairie, 

and was more savanna-like according to aerial photos from the 1940s. This stand has since filled in with 

densely stocked, small diameter Douglas-fir. The low end of the range of average height, in addition to 

the two stands described above, is represented by two other stands (Unit 89 and 140) that were 

moderately thinned, resulting in the initiation of young western hemlock that are shorter than overstory 

trees and lower the average as a result. The low end of the range of RDI is represented by Unit 27, and is 

a function of the relatively small quadratic mean diameter of the stand. Refer to Figure 12 for unit 

locations.

Table 19: Current Conditions of Fire-Origin Stands Proposed for Treatment

Stand Age 

(in 2017)

Trees Per 

Acre1

Canopy 

Cover1 (%)

Quadratic Mean 

Diameter (in)1

Basal Area (sq. 

ft per acre)1

Average 

Height (ft)1

Relative 

Density 

Index (%)1

Average 126 141 67 18.0 241 94 57

Range 117-137 92-192 59-75 13.0-21.5 129-345 76-115 36-79

1 Data is from trees 7 inches DBH and greater. The minimum DBH of a tree considered for harvest in the Trout Creek project 7 inches.

Purpose and Need Objectives - Existing Conditions

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

Health and Vigor

Relative Density Index (RDI) is a measure that can be used to represent stand health and vigor. For 

maximum health and vigor, treatment would typically be scheduled when a stand is at about 40% RDI 

and before it reaches 55% RDI. This would ensure that trees remaining after treatment would have 

adequate access to water, nutrient, and light resources to maintain a high rate of growth and canopy 

development. The average RDI for managed stands is 48%, which indicates that they are ready for 

treatment. The average RDI for fire-origin stands is 57%, which is past the level when treatment would 

be recommended. Many of these stands are experiencing low health and vigor as a result. Trees in these 

stands have access to fewer resources when trying to survive a drought, insect, or disease event.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Species Diversity

Species diversity is low in most stands. Managed stand stocking is dominated by planted Douglas-fir 

(83% of stocking by basal area), and fire-origin stands are dominated by the initial cohort of either 

Douglas-fir or noble fir (68% of stocking by basal area combined). Shade-tolerant western hemlock exists 

in most stands in minor to moderate amounts, especially in fire-origin stands that were previously

thinned. Other species present in stands in minor amounts include Pacific silver fir, western redcedar, 

western white pine, bigleaf maple, red alder, madrone and Oregon white oak. Of the species present, 

Douglas-fir, western white pine, madrone, and Oregon white oak have traits that make them resilient to 

drought disturbances.

Tree species diversity in this area has been affected by blister rust, a disease originating in Asia and 

imported to North America in contaminated planting stock from Europe in the early 1900s. Blister rust 

affects five-needle pines, primarily by girdling and killing young trees. Five-needle pine species being 

impacted by blister rust in the project area include western white pine, and possibly sugar pine. Seed 

orchards that produce blister-rust resistant planting stock have been developed for these species. This 

stock is being used to restore these pine species to areas where they are having difficulty regenerating.

Structural Complexity

Structural complexity is represented by gaps and skips. Gaps are areas where light-loving plants can 

thrive and where a few dominant Douglas-fir trees can be retained in order to develop deep crowns and 

large branches characteristic of trees growing in open light conditions (Weiskittel et al., 2007). Gaps 

provide opportunities for shade-tolerant to moderately shade-tolerant tree species to regenerate or be 

planted to provide a multi-layered canopy. Skips are areas where shade-loving plants thrive and where 

intense inter-tree competition for water, nutrient, and light resources result in continuous snag and 

down wood creation.

Managed stands have few existing gaps. Gaps in fire-origin stands are limited to scattered pockets of 

Pacific silver fir mortality or laminated root rot disease centers. Skips pre-dominate in most managed

and fire-origin stands. As a result, understory plant diversity is limited to shade-loving plants, understory 

tree regeneration consists solely of shade-tolerant species that are struggling to reach the canopy, 

crowns of mature trees are small and lack large branches, and snag and down wood creation is occurring 

throughout stands.

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

Harvesting and processing timber contributes to the local economy. Many treatments prescribed to 

address ecological objectives could result in trees of commercial size being harvested and processed in 

local mills. Most of the stands proposed for treatment have trees of a size that could provide timber 

products to local markets.

Conifer boughs are another forest product commonly harvested in mid to high elevations of the project 

area. Noble fir, typically under 35 years of age is the preferred conifer species for this activity. The 

project area contains some managed stands with a component of noble fir that are still young enough 

(under 35 years old) to have boughs accessible to bough harvesters on the ground. However, 

opportunities for conifer bough harvest are declining as the managed stands age.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 79

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape 

Scale by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

Mixed severity fire is the most common disturbance agent that would create spatial heterogeneity and 

complex early seral habitat on the Willamette National Forest (Tepley et al., 2013; Takaoka and F. 

Swanson, 2008). According to Morrison and F. Swanson (1990), mixed severity fire produces a mosaic of 

disturbance on the landscape. Low severity patches result from surface fire with occasional single-tree 

torching and would include areas where few trees are killed, 0-30% tree mortality. Moderate severity 

patches are the result of more intense fire that may include group torching and would include areas 

from 30.1-70% mortality. High severity patches are typically the result of crown fires that result in the 

death of most trees, greater than 70% mortality. In addition to weather and fuel conditions, slope and 

aspect typically play a role in the severity of a burned patch. For instance, a steep south-facing slope is 

more likely to become a high severity patch than a gentle north-facing slope.

The scale of disturbance of historical fire events ranged from hundreds to thousands of acres. Morrison 

and F. Swanson (1990) reconstructed fire history from the years 1150 to 1985, and documented that the 

smallest mixed severity fire size they studied on the Willamette National Forest was about 550 acres. 

Cissel et al. (1998) synthesized several fire history reconstructions from the central west-side Cascades, 

and documented a smallest fire size of 136 acres with a mean of 1,624 acres.

After a mixed severity fire, high severity patches would display the characteristics of complex early seral 

habitat. According to M. Swanson et al. (2010), attributes of complex early seral habitat include:

1. More extreme environmental conditions (light, temperature and moisture).

2. Surviving organisms (individuals, seeds, rootstock, eggs, etc.).

3. Structural complexity (surviving live trees, snags, downed wood, perennial shrubs, annual forbs).

4. Spatial heterogeneity (e.g., a wildfire burns at different intensities, resulting in different levels of 

surviving trees from no survivors to many survivors).

Given the proximity to private land and other resources at risk, fire suppression has been a priority in 

the project area. As a result, the 66 lightning fires that have started dating back to the 1970s have all 

been extinguished and 47 total acres have burned from these fires. This has led to a lack of spatial 

heterogeneity and complex early seral habitat on NFS land. This is reflected in the disparity between the 

historic levels of early seral habitat (8%) compared to the current level (1%), as well as the disparity 

between the historic levels of late seral-open habitat (7%) compared to the current level (1%). The 

current condition is unlike the historic condition in scale of disturbance as well. According to GNN data, 

the early seral patches on NFS land have an average size of 0.4 acres, with the largest patch being 13

acres.

Consequences of a lack of complex early seral habitat can be characterized by declines in several bird 

species that rely on this habitat for nesting and foraging. For example, rufous hummingbirds are 

experiencing range-wide population declines of 2.7% per year and orange-crowned warblers are

declining across their range at the rate of 3.5% per year. White-crowned sparrows, as shown in Figure 

15, are declining range-wide at 3.9% per year (Rivers, 2014).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

While typical harvest practices on private lands result in stands that would be grouped in the early seral 

stage, they would not display many of the characteristics of complex early seral habitat as defined by M. 

Swanson et al. (2010). Complex early seral characteristics typically are not goals of private land 

management. Harvest practices on private land would not be expected to result in structural complexity 

or spatial heterogeneity. Private land regeneration practices such as dense planting and herbicide 

spraying result in fewer shrubs and forbs. As a result, complex early seral habitat is lacking in the 

watershed across all ownerships.

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

The project area is directly adjacent to private lands and contains portions of the Menagerie Wilderness. 

This interface of public and private checkerboard ownership has resulted in neighboring parcels of land 

with differing management objectives and fuel loads. Concerns have been raised in public meetings 

about fire hazards due to fuel loading on NFS lands, including the Menagerie Wilderness, with the 

potential of wildfire to move across ownership boundaries.

Currently, there are few places in the project area where a wildfire could be safely managed. Roads are 

typical features used in fire management due to access. However, few roads in the project area could be

safely used for fire management without first being cleared to create an emergency fuelbreak. This is 

due to infrequent use and maintenance of roads, and the tendency of roadsides to quickly and densely 

fill in with shrubs and young conifer trees.

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

Hardwood patches occupy an important but uncommon niche in the conifer-dominated forests of the 

project area. In addition to tree species diversity, hardwood trees provide habitat and food sources for 

song birds, bats and small mammals (Betts et al., 2010; Hagar, 2007).

Hardwood tree species present in the project area include bigleaf maple, red alder, Oregon white oak, 

and madrone. Bigleaf maple is found in minor amounts, primarily in late seral stands, in low to midelevations of the project area. Red alder is commonly found where past soil disturbance created a 

suitable seedbed and abundant light conditions. Oregon white oak is typically found as scattered single 

trees or small patches of trees on dry rock outcrops in the lower elevations of the project area. One 

notable exception to that habitat description is a grove of mature Oregon white oak directly adjacent to 

Camas Prairie. Madrone, like Oregon white oak, is typically found on dry rock outcrops, but can also 

rarely be found growing in dry late seral forests.

Figure 15: White-crowned Sparrow (Photo credit: Will Elder, National Park Service)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 81

The Sweet Home Ranger District has few large stands of hardwood trees in its conifer dominated 

landscape. Two of the largest stands are in the project area, and resulted from ground-disturbing 

clearcut harvest about 50 years ago when in private ownership. Red alder is the dominant species, with 

bigleaf maple a minor component. Red alder is a short lived hardwood species and the alder-dominated 

stands in the project area will start experiencing mortality in the next ten to twenty years. 

Tall bugbane, a formerly sensitive species, is a perennial herbaceous plant that is in general decline on 

the Sweet Home Ranger District. Tall bugbane prefers the cool, moist habitat found in the vicinity of 

hardwood trees such as bigleaf maple.

Oak and madrone were historically maintained on the landscape by frequent low intensity fire 

disturbance that prevented conifer seedlings from surviving. A lack of this fire disturbance has resulted 

in existing patches of oak and madrone becoming overtopped by conifer tree species.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Indicators and Measures

The Purpose and Need objectives of the project are:

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape Scale by 

Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

Indicators and measures, by objective, used to quantify direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 

20. Appendix E contain tables of unit-specific treatments by alternative, and may be useful to reference 

while reading this section.

Table 20: Direct and Indirect Effects Resource Indicators and Measures by Objective

Objective1 Resource Indicator Measure

1 Level of competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients Acres of thinning 

1 Tree species composition of drought-tolerant species Acres planted to western white pine, sugar pine, 

incense cedar, or Oregon white oak

1 Restoration of sugar pine and western white pine Acres planted with blister rust-resistant stock

1 Canopy gaps present Acres of gaps

1 Skips present Acres of skips

2 Timber to local markets Amount of timber in MMBF (million board feet)

2 Opportunity for future conifer bough collection Acres planted that include noble fir

3 Landscape area approximates the size of a mixed 

severity fire event (about 136 acres or more treated) Acres treated in each landscape area

3 Complex early seral habitat present Acres of complex early seral habitat

4 Opportunities for wildfire management Acres of long-lasting, minimal-maintenance 

fuelbreaks

5 Presence of hardwood-dominated areas in the project 

area

Acres planted to red alder, bigleaf maple, 

madrone, or Oregon white oak
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

1 Objective corresponds to the Purpose and Need objectives for the Trout Creek project shown above.

Alternative 1 – No Action

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

Health and Vigor

Under Alternative 1, the “no action” Alternative, there would be zero acres of thinning. Competition for 

sunlight, water and nutrients would continue to increase. Health and vigor would decrease, resulting in 

reduced resiliency to disturbances such as drought. This can be illustrated using Relative Density Index 

(RDI). The current average RDI of the fire-origin stands is 57%, already over the 55% threshold for 

competition-induced tree mortality. This average would continue to rise as the RDI of individual fireorigin stands increases. The current average RDI for managed stands is 48%. Unit 58 was modelled in 

FVS to obtain RDI figures under Alternative 1 (Unit 58 is representative of the managed units proposed 

for thinning). With no action, in 25 years the RDI of Unit 58 would increase from a current level of 46% 

to 63%. This figure is above the level (55%) where competition for water, nutrients, and light is so 

intense that mortality occurs under typical conditions. When additional stressors such as drought 

become factors, trees have few resources to survive the stressor, leading to low resiliency and loss of 

forest cover.

In fire-origin units with remnant trees, the remnant trees would continue to be shaded out and 

experience mortality. While they would not persist as living green trees, they would become large 

diameter snags and eventually large down wood.

Species Diversity

In Alternative 1, zero acres would be planted with drought-tolerant species such as western white pine, 

sugar pine, incense cedar, madrone, or Oregon white oak (species that currently occur on the Sweet 

Home Ranger District in low numbers). Current trends and future projections for the Pacific Northwest 

include increased frequency, duration and intensity of droughts (Luce and Holden, 2009; Chmura et al., 

2011; Devine et al., 2012; Restaino et al., 2016). Environmental Protection Agency data from long-term 

weather stations located in the project area indicate that over the last two decades, soil temperatures at 

15 cm (about 6 inches) soil depth have increased 2.6 degrees Celsius (about 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit) in 

the months of August through October (R. Waschmann, personal communication, March 2, 2017). This 

decreases soil moisture, which increases moisture stress on trees.

Stands would lack a diversity of species capable of responding to drought stress, and would be more 

susceptible to drought mortality as well as associated insect and disease events. In particular, an insect 

and disease outbreak that affected Douglas-fir (which would continue to dominate the overstory tree 

composition in this alternative) would result in the loss of overstory forest cover. Douglas-fir bark 

beetle, in conjunction with laminated root rot, targets Douglas-fir. Currently, Douglas-fir bark beetle and 

laminated root rot cause low amounts of localized mortality in Douglas-fir. However, future droughts 

may exacerbate or cause outbreaks of greater severity of both Douglas-fir bark beetle and root rots such 

as laminated root rot (Kolb et al., 2016).

Blister rust-resistant sugar pine and western white pine would not be planted. Western white pine 

would continue its ongoing decline due to blister rust in the project area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 83

Structural Complexity

Under Alternative 1, no gaps would be created. Light-loving plants would not be present in the stands. 

Single-tree mortality and wind may create small gaps, but generally these would not be large enough for 

light-loving species to thrive. For example, Fahey and Puettmann (2008) found that in gaps of 1⁄4-acre 

(0.1 hectare) in size, plant response occurred over a smaller area than the physical gap opening due to 

edge effects, resulting in few light-loving species colonizing the gap. They suggest that smaller gaps have 

limited effectiveness in promoting understory plant diversity. Also, planting of drought-tolerant species 

(including sugar pine and western white pine) in gaps would not occur, reducing resiliency to drought 

disturbances.

Alternative 1 would offer the largest acreage of skips. Shade-loving plants would thrive over most of the 

area. Understory plant diversity would be low due to this fact; limited to only shade-loving species. 

Shade tolerant trees would not be able to reach the mid or overstory, resulting in a continuation of the 

single-storied stand condition. Resiliency would be low due to the lack of diversity and high level of 

competition between trees. However, the high level of competition between trees would result in 

continuous snag creation throughout the stands in the project area.

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

Alternative 1 would not provide any timber products to local markets. More information on the effects 

of timber products to local economies can be found in the Economics section of chapter 3.

There would be zero acres planted with noble fir. As existing younger stands with a component of noble 

fir continue to age, opportunities for conifer bough collection would decrease. Within approximately 20 

years, there would be no areas suitable for conifer bough collection in the project area.

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape Scale 

by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

No landscape-scale areas (approximately 136 acres or more of coordinated treatments) would be 

treated, resulting in zero acres of landscape areas mimicking mixed severity fire. Due to this there would 

continue to be a lack of spatial heterogeneity of forest habitats. In particular, complex early seral habitat 

and late seral-open habitat would continue to decline as canopy cover increases in these stands. While 

maintaining closed-canopy conditions may benefit shade-loving plant and animal species, it would 

negatively impact species of plants and animals that prefer more open habitats. Additionally, 

opportunities to increase drought-tolerant tree species diversity (including sugar pine and western 

white pine) through planting in treated areas would be lost. 

Stands currently in the early seral stage on NFS lands were all harvested between 1997 and 2004 (34 

stands totaling about 495 acres, averaging 14 acres per stand). These stands were fully planted, and 

would therefore be expected to be in the early seral stage for about 20 years. The stands were 

harvested under the Northwest Forest Plan, and as a result of requirements for more structural 

retention in harvests covered by the plan, they would have some of the attributes of complex early seral 

habitat. As canopies close in these stands in the next seven years, complex early seral habitat would 

decrease. 

Early seral acres are expected to remain fairly constant on private lands. As previously stated, however, 

private harvest practices would not result in the creation of complex early seral habitat. Wildfire events 

may create this habitat, but are less likely to happen in the project area because fire suppression is a 

priority due to interspersed public and private ownership and the presence of Late Successional 

Reserves. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

Alternative 1 would establish zero acres of fuelbreaks. The risk of wildfire moving across ownership 

boundaries would remain at current levels, or increase as down wood accumulation accelerates as a 

function of increasing snag creation in stands with high levels of inter-tree competition for water, 

nutrients, and light (as illustrated by increasing RDI numbers).

In order to safely use roads for wildfire management, the roads would need to be cleared of vegetation 

to create a fuelbreak on an emergency basis. 

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

Under Alternative 1, zero acres would be planted with hardwood species. The stands dominated by red 

alder would start to experience mortality. While current regeneration is low in the understory of these 

stands, it is dominated by western hemlock. As the red alder dies, it would likely be replaced by western 

hemlock, and the stands would become conifer-dominated. Bigleaf maple would persist in some late 

seral stands, but no additional bigleaf maple would be planted. As a result, tall bugbane would continue 

to decline in the project area. Existing Oregon white oak and madrone that are becoming overtopped by 

conifers would continue to be shaded out and experience mortality. 

The overall result of no action on the hardwood component in the project area would be a decline in 

hardwood composition. This would have negative effects on wildlife species that rely on habitats where 

hardwood trees are present.

Alternative 2

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

Health and Vigor

Thinning would be the treatment prescribed to increase health and vigor of residual trees. Alternative 2 

would thin 733 acres (576 acres managed stands, 157 acres fire-origin stands), the most of any 

alternative. Trees would be removed across diameter classes, but removals would primarily consist of 

the less dominate trees. Trees remaining after thinning would experience less competition for sunlight, 

water and nutrients. Resiliency to disturbances such as drought would increase, as there would be less 

competition for soil water (Vose et al., 2016). The decrease in competition can be illustrated using RDI. 

For example, Unit 58 was modelled in FVS to obtain RDI figures after a thin to 50% canopy cover (Unit 58 

is representative of the managed units proposed for thinning). Immediately after thinning the RDI would 

decrease to 28%, with this effect lasting for about 25 years before RDI would be at 40% and 

management would be considered again. For fire-origin stands, Unit 44 (representative of fire-origin 

units proposed for thinning) would have an RDI of 36% immediately after thinning. This effect would 

also last about 25 years before RDI would again reach 40%. This is consistent with findings by Latham & 

Tappeiner (2002) and Williamson (1982) that showed positive effects of thinning to growth of the 

remaining trees in fire-origin stands lasted for about 20 years.

Thinning has a positive effect on understory plant richness (after a recovery period of about five years 

following harvest operations), as well as understory tree establishment and growth (Bailey and

Tappeiner, 1998; Muir et al., 2002; Chan et al., 2006). Thinning has short term negative effects on fungi 

such as chanterelles, with the negative effect dissipating after about six years (Pilz et al., 2006).

Thinning prescriptions would retain all remnant trees in fire-origin stands. Adjacent younger trees that 

are overtopping the remnant trees would be removed, increasing the amount of light to the remnant 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 85

trees. Access to more light would allow remnant trees to re-build and increase their crowns, and persist 

as live green trees for about the next 25 to 50 years. Large, live trees are important to many wildlife 

species, particularly if the trees contain cavities due to localized rot or broken tops (Bunnell et al., 1999).

Species Diversity

Alternative 2 plants drought-tolerant species on 439 acres. More than 60% of those acres are 

underplanting of incense cedar in previously thinned fire-origin stands. Treatments would increase 

resiliency to drought stress through an increase in stocking and diversity of drought-tolerant tree 

species. By focusing on species other than Douglas-fir, if an insect or disease outbreak that primarily 

affected Douglas-fir occurred there would be several other drought-tolerant species present to retain 

forest cover. 

The proportion of tree species composition of drought-tolerant species such as western white pine, 

sugar pine, incense cedar, madrone, and Oregon white oak would be increased by several methods. The 

primary method would be creation of gaps and aggregate retention openings planted to a combination 

of the species listed above (among others). Gap size would be large enough that species of intermediate 

shade tolerance (such as western white pine and sugar pine) would persist and reach the canopy prior 

to gap closure. Planting blister rust-resistant sugar pine and western white pine would increase the 

healthy component of these drought-tolerant species.

Also proposed is underplanting of shade-tolerant incense cedar in fire-origin stands that had been 

previously thinned. This would occur at low levels, because the current canopy cover of many of these 

stands is not optimal for understory tree growth (Chan et al., 2006). 

Structural Complexity

Alternative 2 has the least acres of gaps at 35 acres. Creating gaps of one-half acre to one acre in size 

would increase structural diversity. Retaining one to three dominant trees per acre would increase the 

structural complexity of gaps. Providing full light exposure around these dominant trees would promote 

development of large crowns and branches, increasing their future suitability for wildlife species that 

prefer these characteristics for nesting and roosting. Gap size would be large enough to see a response 

in light-loving plants (Fahey and Puettmann, 2008), resulting in an increase in plant species diversity. 

Skips would also be a component of increasing structural diversity. Alternatives 2 would offer the most 

acres of skips, at about 489 acres (36% of proposed unit acres). Shade-loving plants would thrive in 

skips, allowing them to persist in treated areas. Competition between trees would remain high, resulting 

in continuous snag creation, which would in turn become down wood. For example, according to FVS 

modelling of Unit 58 (representative of managed units) snags greater than 7 inches DBH would be 

present in skips at the level of 1 snag per acre immediately after harvest, and would increase through 

the next 25 years to about 7 snags per acre. In skips in fire-origin stands, snags greater than 7 inches 

DBH would range from a fairly constant level of 1 to 2 snags per acre over the next 25 years in Unit 120, 

while Unit 56 would start at about 50 snags per acre and decrease to 35 snags per acre over the next 25 

years. Skips would allow wildlife species that rely on snags and down wood for nesting and foraging to 

utilize these stands into the future.

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

Alternative 2 is in the middle of the three action alternatives at 12 MMBF of timber provided to local 

markets. More information on the effects of timber products to local economies can be found in the 

Economics section of chapter 3.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Alternatives 2 proposes 38 acres of aggregate retention harvest where noble fir would be included as a 

component of the post-harvest planting. These areas would provide opportunities for conifer bough 

collection in the next 20 to 40 years, helping the conifer bough product industry (such as wreathmaking) maintain itself in the area. 

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape Scale 

by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

Alternative 2 would offer the greatest amount of spatial heterogeneity (including mimicking all three fire 

severities – low, moderate, and high) and would also offer the most complexity in early seral habitat. As 

a result, Alternative 2 would best mimic mixed severity fire and provide the most benefit to a wide 

range of wildlife and insect species.

Alternative 2 would produce the most spatial heterogeneity on the landscape. This alternative would 

treat two landscape areas (one area of 296 acres and one area of 125 acres). This alternative would also 

offer patches that mimic all three levels of fire severity (high, moderate, and low). Aspect and 

topography would guide the placement of different severity patches on the landscape to mimic mixed 

severity fire. Drier south-facing slopes, west-facing slopes, and ridgetops would be treated to mimic 

moderate to high severity patches. Some north-facing slopes and east-facing slopes would be treated to 

mimic low to moderate severity patches. Riparian areas and some north-facing slopes would be skips 

and would mimic low severity patches.

Areas representing high severity patches would be treated with an aggregate retention harvest, 

retaining individual trees dispersed in loose clumps throughout the area to provide structural complexity 

in the form of live trees, snags and down wood. These areas would be underburned following harvest 

and then planted to a mix of drought-tolerant species, with conifer bough species also included in the 

planting mix in some units. Skips (aggregate retention), representing low severity patches, would be 

placed primarily on north-facing slopes and Riparian Reserves. Areas representing moderate severity 

patches would be thinned to 30 to 50% canopy cover, with gaps ranging from one-half to one acre in 

size. Snag creation would occur in all aggregate retention harvest units, but would be focused in greater 

numbers in units that have trees capable of providing a range of snag sizes, particularly large snags 

(Bunnell et al., 1999). Snag creation would occur by prescribed fire for fire-intolerant species such as 

western hemlock and Pacific silver fir, and by girdling for more fire-resistant species such as Douglas-fir. 

Figure 16 displays the spatial heterogeneity that would be created by mimicking a range of fire severity 

patches in one of the landscape-scale areas.

Harvest activities are obviously unable to exactly mimic the outcome of a wildfire. For example, removal 

of merchantable trees during harvest would leave fewer snags in a harvested area compared to an unharvested burned area of high severity. However, by varying harvest and snag creation intensities 

throughout a chosen landscape-area, the effects of mixed severity fire can be approximated. This 

increases the amount of spatial heterogeneity on a landscape scale, providing a range of wildlife 

habitats from closed-canopy forest to very open complex early seral habitat. Alternative 2 would offer 

the greatest variety of wildlife habitat due to treating the most acres and including patches of all three 

fire severities. It would offer the most cohesion and connectivity of treated units at a landscape scale, 

best mimicking a discrete, continuous fire event.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 87

Complex early seral habitat would be created in aggregate retention harvest areas. Alternative 2 would 

create the greatest amount of complex early seral habitat, at 101 acres. The aggregate retention 

treatment would include all of the elements of complex early seral habitat as defined by M. Swanson et 

al. (2010). The harvest and burn would create openings with more extreme environmental conditions; 

surviving organisms would include seeds of forbs, rootstocks of sprouting shrubs, and individual trees; 

structural complexity would occur with the aggregate and individual tree retention, along with snag and 

down wood creation; and spatial heterogeneity would be achieved through the different patterns of 

aggregate (using topography as a guide) and individual tree retention. This would create habitat for bird 

species (such as rufous hummingbirds, orange-crowned warblers, and white-crowned sparrows) that 

rely on complex early seral conditions. Many animals (such as small mammals and their associated 

predators), other birds (such as woodpeckers and bluebirds), and insects (especially butterflies and 

moths) would benefit from the combination of diverse plant communities and surviving structures 

characteristic of complex early seral habitat (M. Swanson et al., 2010; M. Swanson et al., 2014). This 

habitat would likely last for about 30 years before tree canopies closed and the stand transitions to a 

mid-seral stage.

Figure 16: Landscape-scale Spatial Heterogeneity Created by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire in Alternative 2
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Alternative 2 would offer the greatest amount of complexity in the early seral habitat created in Unit 56 

(fire-origin stand). Alternative 2 would offer the greatest amount of live tree retention (15 trees per 

acre) and the most snag creation in the treated area (45 snags per acre greater than 7 inches DBH) of 

Unit 56. As a result, in Alternative 2, Unit 56 would most closely mimic a high severity fire patch due to

the greater number and size range of snags created. Figure 17 is a visual approximation of the 

treatments in Unit 56. Alternative 2 would create early seral habitat of the greatest complexity to 

benefit the many wildlife and insect species that rely upon it. In particular woodpeckers (including blackbacked woodpeckers) would be expected to benefit from the number and size range of snags created in 

Alternative 2.

While aggregate retention harvesting is proposed in some units that have not reached or surpassed 

culmination of mean annual increment in cubic feet of volume, the Willamette Forest Plan states: 

“Exceptions may be made for commercial thinning, or where special resource considerations require 

earlier harvest (36 CFR 219.16(a)(2)(iii)).” Forest Service Manual 1921.12f also states: “Exceptions may 

also occur as a result of project-level analysis if decision-making includes appropriate public disclosure 

and opportunity to comment.” Units proposed for aggregate retention harvest in this project would be 

a project-level exception. Appropriate public disclosure and opportunity to comment has occurred in 

the form of public field trips and public scoping prior to writing the draft Environmental Impact 

Statement.

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

Alternatives 2 would offer the greatest acreage of hardwood fuelbreak creation (119 acres). The 

prescription for fuelbreaks would begin by thinning the overstory conifer canopy cover to 30%. This 

would be followed by underburning or mechanical removal of small non-merchantable conifer trees 

(less than 7 inches DBH), and completed with an underplanting of hardwood species such as red alder 

and bigleaf maple.

The risk of wildfire moving across ownership boundaries would decrease, because the high moisture 

content of hardwood leaves and litter would moderate fire behavior. This is illustrated by modelling in 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). In a fire event occurring under severe conditions (70 degrees

Fahrenheit temperature, 20 miles per hour wind, and low fuel moisture), fire behavior in the fuelbreaks 

was predicted to be a surface fire, which is the lowest intensity fire in the model. This would make the 

fuelbreaks and their associated roads safe places from which to manage fire. An associated positive 

effect would be an increase in hardwood habitat. These effects would last for the length of the average 

lifespan of the hardwood species planted (i.e., about 70 years for red alder, and about 150 years for 

bigleaf maple).

Figure 17: Visualization of Complex Early Seral Habitat Created in Alternative 2 in Unit 56
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 89

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

Alternative 2 would offer the greatest acreage of areas planted to hardwood species (238 acres). In 

addition, this alternative would include release of existing Oregon white oak and madrone that are being 

overtopped by conifer species. Proposed treatments would create and enhance hardwood habitat in 

several ways. 

The existing stand dominated by red alder would receive a variable density thinning, which would create 

conditions suitable for underplanting the next generation of red alder. This would maintain the stand as 

hardwood habitat for the next 60 to 70 years.

Bigleaf maple would be favored for release in the thinning prescription of Unit 190, with additional 

bigleaf maple being underplanted following treatment. This would create more favorable habitat for tall 

bugbane, potentially increasing its population in this area.

Existing Oregon white oak and madrone that are becoming overtopped by conifers would be released by 

removal of conifers through timber harvest or by girdling the conifers. In addition, regeneration harvest 

would be prescribed for a portion of Unit 67, adjacent to Camas Prairie. This area would be burned for 

site preparation and planted at low levels with Oregon white oak to create savanna habitat that would 

be managed in conjunction with Camas Prairie. This would create hardwood habitat while also providing 

for use by Native American tribes. Use by tribes is the focus of the Camas Prairie Special Interest Area, 

where Unit 67 is located.

The overall result of these actions, along with the hardwood fuelbreaks described above, would be an 

increase in hardwood abundance, vigor, and longevity within the project area. This would have positive 

effects on wildlife species that rely on hardwood habitats, with these effects lasting for the lifespan of 

these trees (60 to 150 years).

Alternative 3 

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

Health and Vigor

Alternative 3 would thin 629 acres (629 acres managed stands, 0 acres fire-origin stands), the least of 

any action alternative. Alternative 3 would be least effective in decreasing competition for sunlight, 

water and nutrients; increasing understory plant richness; and increasing understory tree establishment 

and growth.

Alternative 3 would not treat fire-origin stands, so the remnant trees in these stands would be more 

likely to die and become large snags. As a result, in Alternative 3 large live trees of similar size would not 

be present as habitat elements in these stands for about 100 to 200 years into the future.

Species Diversity

Alternative 3 would offer 43 acres of planting of drought-tolerant species in gaps, the least of any action 

alternative. This is a result of excluding fire-origin stands from treatment of any kind, as well as 

eliminating aggregate retention harvest. Alternative 3 would be least effective in increasing the 

resiliency of stands to drought disturbance through an increase in stocking and diversity of droughttolerant tree species. It would also offer the least amount of acres planted with blister rust-resistant 

western white pine and sugar pine, doing the least to increase the healthy component of these droughttolerant species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Structural Complexity

Alternative 3 has 43 acres of gaps, which is in the middle of the three action alternatives. The increased 

acres of gaps in Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2 is due to gaps being added to the thinning 

prescriptions in Alternative 3 that replaced aggregate retention harvest in managed stands in Alternative 

2. Compared to Alternative 2, this alternative would offer a greater number of dominant trees released 

and more acres where light-loving plants would thrive within thinned stands.

Alternative 3 has the least acres of skips as part of treatments (344 acres, 34% of stand acres) due to 

being restricted to managed units. There would be less structural complexity in the project area, as 

fewer stands would have a combination of gaps, skips, and thinned areas.

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

Alternative 3 would offer the least amount of timber products to local markets, at 8 MMBF. More 

information on the effects of timber products to local economies can be found in the Economics section 

of chapter 3.

Alternative 3 does not provide any acres of noble fir planting due to aggregate retention harvest being 

excluded from consideration. This alternative would have a negative effect on the conifer bough product 

industry maintaining itself in the area.

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape Scale 

by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

Alternative 3 would have the least spatial heterogeneity at a landscape level, and be least effective at

mimicking mixed severity fire.

Alternative 3 would treat the fewest acres due to fire-origin stands being excluded from treatment. It 

would still have two landscape areas, but one of the areas would be 184 acres rather than 296 acres. It 

would also only have two levels of fire severity, moderate and low, due to aggregate retention harvest 

being excluded as a treatment (Figure 18). In addition, the exclusion from consideration of aggregate 

retention harvest would result in no creation of complex early seral habitat.

The 184-acre treatment area in Alternative 3 would also lack cohesion on a landscape scale as compared 

to the 296-acre treatment area in Alternatives 2 and 4, as there would be an untreated area of about 

one-half mile between treated units (Figure 18). This would not mimic a continuous mixed severity fire 

event as well as Alternatives 2 and 4.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 91

Figure 18: Comparison of Landscape-scale Heterogeneity between Alternatives 2 and 4 (top) versus

Alternative 3 (bottom)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Alternative 3 would not include as much spatial heterogeneity as Alternatives 2 and 4 (due to lacking 

areas where high severity patches are mimicked), would not offer cohesion and connectivity of treated 

units at a landscape scale, and would not create complex early seral habitat. As a result, Alternative 3 

would least effectively mimic mixed severity fire and provide the least benefit to a wide range of wildlife 

and insect species.

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

Alternative 3 would offer 43 acres of hardwood fuelbreak creation, the fewest of any action alternative. 

This is due to fire-origin stands being excluded from consideration for treatment. Alternative 3 would be 

least effective in decreasing the risk of wildfire moving across ownership boundaries, and would provide 

the fewest number of safe areas from which to manage wildfire.

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

Alternative 3 would offer the fewest acres planted to hardwood species (155 acres). Also, Alternative 3 

would not release existing Oregon white oak and madrone from overtopping conifers, create oak 

savanna adjacent to Camas Prairie, or enhance tall bugbane habitat. This is due to fire-origin stands 

being excluded from consideration for treatment in this alternative. Alternative 3 would be least 

effective of any action alternative in providing hardwood habitat for use by wildlife and insect species 

(particularly songbirds).

Alternative 4 

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

Health and Vigor

Alternative 4 would thin 711 acres (560 acres managed stands, 151 acres fire-origin stands). This is more 

than Alternative 3, but fewer than Alternative 2. In Alternative 4 the difference in thin acres from 

Alternative 2 is due to increased acreage of gaps in Alternative 4. Compared to Alternative 3, Alternative 

4 would offer a greater decrease in competition for sunlight, water and nutrients; greater increase in 

understory plant richness; and greater increase in understory tree establishment and growth. This would 

make these stands more resilient to disturbances such as drought.

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would release remnant trees in fire-origin stands from competition, 

increasing the likelihood they remain in the stand as live green trees.

Species Diversity

Alternative 4 offers the most planting of drought-tolerant species such as western white pine, sugar 

pine, incense cedar, madrone, and Oregon white oak (461 acres). This is due to the increased acreage of 

gaps compared to Alternative 2. As in Alternative 2, more than 60% of the acres are underplanting of 

incense cedar in previously thinned fire-origin stands.

Alternative 4 would go the furthest toward increasing the resiliency of stands to drought disturbance 

through an increase in stocking and diversity of drought-tolerant tree species. It would also offer the 

most acres planted with blister rust-resistant western white pine and sugar pine, doing the most to 

increase the healthy component of these drought-tolerant species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 93

Structural Complexity

Alternative 4 would create 57 acres of gaps, the most of any alternative. This alternative would offer the 

largest number of dominant trees released and the most acres where light-loving plants would thrive. 

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would offer 489 acres of skips (about 36% of proposed unit acres). 

Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would offer the most acreage of skips embedded in treated areas, 

where shade-loving plants would be able to thrive and snag creation through inter-tree competition 

would occur.

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

Alternative 4 offers the most timber products to local markets at 15 MMBF. More information on the 

effects of timber products to local economies can be found in the Economics section of chapter 3.

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would propose 38 acres of aggregate retention harvest where noble fir 

would be included as a component of the post-harvest planting. Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would 

be most effective in maintaining the conifer bough product industry in the area.

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape Scale 

by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

Alternative 4 would offer similar spatial heterogeneity at a landscape level as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 

would be more effective than Alternative 3 at mimicking mixed severity fire, but less effective than 

Alternative 2.

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would produce the most spatial heterogeneity on the landscape. Both of 

these alternatives would treat two landscape areas (one area of 296 acres and one area of 125 acres). 

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would offer patches that mimic all three levels of fire severity (high, 

moderate, and low).

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would create 101 acres of complex early seral habitat. However, 

Alternative 4 would have a lower level of complexity in the early seral habitat created in Unit 56 (fireorigin stand). In Unit 56, Alternative 4 would have less live tree retention as well as less snag creation in 

the treated area (2 snags per acre greater than 7 inches DBH) as compared to Alternative 2 (45 snags per 

acre greater than 7 inches DBH). As a result, Alternative 4 would less closely mimic a high severity fire 

patch due to fewer numbers and size range of snags created, and would offer less complexity in the 

early seral habitat created. As a result, Alternative 4 would benefit fewer of the wildlife and insect 

Figure 19: Comparison of Complex Early Seral Habitat Created in Alternative 2 (left) and Alternative 4 

(right) in Unit 56
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

species that rely upon complex early seral habitat. Figure 19 is a visual comparison of the treatments in 

Unit 56.

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would offer 119 acres of hardwood fuelbreak creation. Alternative 4, 

like Alternative 2, would be most effective at decreasing the risk of wildfire moving across ownership 

boundaries, as well as providing the greatest number of safe areas from which to manage wildfire.

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would offer 238 acres of areas planted to hardwood species. Also like 

Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would include release of existing Oregon white oak and madrone that are 

being overtopped by conifer species, creation of oak savanna adjacent to Camas Prairie, and 

enhancement of tall bugbane habitat.

Alternative 4, like Alternative 2, would result in the greatest increase of hardwood species composition 

in the project area, and the greatest positive effects to wildlife and insect species that use hardwood 

habitat (particularly songbirds).

Comparison of Alternatives by Resource Indicator and Measures

The Purpose and Need objectives of the project are:

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape Scale by 

Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

The direct and indirect effects of the alternatives are compared using the established indicators and 

measures, by objective, in Table 21.

Table 21: Comparison of Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects by Objective

Objective1 Resource Indicator Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

1

Level of competition for 

sunlight, water, and 

nutrients 

Acres of thinning 0 733 629 711

1

Tree species composition 

of drought-tolerant 

species

Acres planted to western 

white pine, sugar pine, 

incense cedar, or Oregon 

white oak

0 439 43 461

1 Restoration of sugar pine 

and western white pine

Acres planted with blister 

rust-resistant stock 0 136 43 158

1 Canopy gaps present Acres of gaps 0 35 43 57

1 Skips present Acres of skips 0 489 344 489

2 Timber to local markets Amount of timber in MMBF 

(million board feet) 0 12 8 15
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 95

Objective1 Resource Indicator Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

2 Opportunity for future 

conifer bough collection

Acres planted that include 

noble fir 0 38 0 38

3

Landscape area 

approximates the size of 

a mixed severity fire event 

(about 136 acres or more 

treated) 

Acres treated in each

landscape area 0

1 area of 

296 

acres & 

1 area of 

125 

acres

1 area 

of 184 

acres & 

1 area 

of 125 

acres

1 area of 

296 

acres & 

1 area of 

125 

acres

3 Complex early seral 

habitat present 

Acres of complex early 

seral habitat 0 101 0 101

4 Opportunities for wildfire 

management

Acres of long-lasting, 

minimal-maintenance 

fuelbreaks

0 119 43 119

5

Presence of hardwooddominated areas in the 

project area

Acres planted to red alder, 

bigleaf maple, madrone, or 

Oregon white oak

0 238 155 238

1 Objective corresponds to the Purpose and Need objectives for the Trout Creek project shown above.

Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Cumulative effects occur for vegetation as a result of stands changing seral stages. This occurs as forest 

vegetation grows and ages, or when a disturbance (such as wildfire or regeneration harvest) returns the 

forest vegetation to a younger seral stage, or changes it from a closed to an open stage. Each measure 

was evaluated using the change in seral stage standard at the level of the South Santiam fifth-field 

watershed. Effects of past activities were incorporated in the existing condition assessment. Reasonably 

foreseeable actions in the South Santiam fifth-field watershed included approximately 63 acres of 

regeneration harvest from the Cool Soda project and approximately 5 acres of regeneration harvest in 

the Jude Ridge project. The Cool Soda project also included 9 acres of fuelbreak thinning. 

Alternative 1 (No Action)

No cumulative effects to seral stages would occur, as the effects of Alternative 1 do not overlap in time 

and space with effects from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

1. Encourage Forest Health, Species Diversity and Structural Complexity

The prescribed treatment for addressing stand health and vigor is thinning. Thinning would not result in 

a stand changing seral stages.

Increasing tree species diversity and restoring sugar pine and western white pine would not in itself 

result in a stand changing seral stages.

Gaps and skips would be components of thinning prescriptions. They would not be large enough to be 

tracked as separate stands, and would therefore not result in a change in seral stages.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

2. Contribute a Variety of Sustainable Forest Products to Local Markets

Providing forest products to local economies would not in itself result in a stand changing seral stages.

3. Increase Spatial Heterogeneity, Including Complex Early Seral Habitat, at a Landscape Scale 

by Mimicking Mixed Severity Fire

Aggregate retention harvest creating complex early seral habitat would result in a change of seral 

stages. In Alternatives 2 and 4 there would be 52 acres removed from the mid seral-closed stage and 47 

acres removed from the late seral-closed stage, for a total of 101 acres returned to the early seral stage. 

The resulting change is quantified in Table 22 at the level of the South Santiam fifth-field watershed, 

including the regeneration harvest from the Cool Soda and Jude Ridge projects (mid seral-closed to early 

seral). Table 22 also compares these levels to the historic average for the South Santiam fifth-field 

watershed calculated from the LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting models.

4. Improve Fire Resiliency and Strategically Manage Hazardous Fuels in High Risk Areas

The prescribed treatment for addressing this objective is thinning to 30% canopy cover. In Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 this thinning would move 43 acres from the mid seral-closed to the mid seral-open seral 

stage. Additionally, in Alternatives 2 and 4 the thinning would move 76 acres from late seral-closed to 

late seral-open. The resulting change is quantified in Table 22 at the level of the South Santiam fifth-field 

watershed, including the fuelbreak treatments from the Cool Soda project (mid seral-closed to mid 

seral-open). Table 22 also compares these levels to the historic average for the South Santiam fifth-field 

watershed calculated from the LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting models.

5. Enhance and Create Hardwood Habitat and Diversity

Most of the treatments prescribed for this objective are thinning or release treatments which would not 

result in a change of seral stage. However, Alternatives 2 and 4 include 2 acres of harvest to create an 

oak savanna adjacent to Camas Prairie. This would take 2 acres from the late seral-closed stage and 

return it to the early seral stage. The resulting change is quantified in Table 22 at the level of the South 

Santiam fifth-field watershed. Table 22 also compares these levels to the historic average for the South 

Santiam fifth-field watershed calculated from the LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting models.

Table 22: Cumulative Change in Seral Stage Percentage on NFS Land in the South Santiam Fifth-field 

Watershed by Alternative

Class Historic Weighted 

Average (%)

Current Average –

NFS Ownership (%) Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

A – Early Seral 8 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.6

B – Mid Seral-Closed 17 23.4 23.1 23.2 23.1

C – Mid Seral-Open 5 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4

D – Late Seral-Open 7 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3

E – Late Seral-Closed 63 69.5 69.3 69.5 69.3

NF - Non-Forested N/A 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Conclusion

The only proposed treatments that would result in a seral stage change is complex early seral habitat 

creation and hardwood fuelbreak creation. However, these treatments would result in changes in seral 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 97

stage of the magnitude of tenths of a percent in the South Santiam fifth-field watershed. Therefore 

there is no cumulative effect.

Connected Actions

Post-harvest Tree Planting

Reforestation would occur in all action alternatives. Alternative 2 would require planting on 101 acres of 

aggregate retention harvest, and provide opportunities to plant 35 acres of gaps, 2 acres of Riparian 

Reserve (underplant), and 303 acres of previously thinned fire-origin stands (underplant). Alternative 3 

would provide opportunities to plant 43 acres of gaps and 2 acres of Riparian Reserve (underplant). 

Alternative 4 would require planting on 101 acres of aggregate retention harvest, and would provide 

opportunities to plant 55 acres of gaps, 2 acres of Riparian Reserve (underplant), and 303 acres of 

previously thinned fire-origin stands (underplant). Regeneration from seed would also be expected to 

occur in aggregate retention areas and gaps, with Douglas-fir and western hemlock the most likely 

species to grow from seed. To enhance the likelihood of seedling survival, logging slash and other large 

woody debris likely to persist through site preparation prescribed burning would be used to provide 

shade and some protection from browsing by ungulates. The planting would diversify species 

composition of stands, particularly of drought-tolerant and conifer bough species, and would ensure 

minimum Forest Plan stocking requirements are achieved in aggregate retention harvest areas.

Snag Creation

All action alternatives would provide opportunities for snag creation for wildlife purposes. Additional 

snag creation would occur in Alternative 2 on 61 acres and in Alternative 4 on 14 acres to mimic mixed 

severity fire, in units where there are trees large enough to make snags of the greatest value to wildlife. 

Prescribed fire and girdling would be used to create snags.

Fall and Leave

All action alternatives would provide opportunities for fall and leave to occur in some Riparian Reserves. 

There would be opportunities for additional fall and leave in all action alternatives on 5 acres in two 

managed stands. These managed stands contain areas that are inaccessible by logging equipment due to 

a cliff and a wetland (the areas are too small to consider helicopter logging). One other managed stand

has opportunities for fall and leave thinning on 3 acres dominated by sprouted bigleaf maple stems. The 

fall and leave thinning would achieve similar benefits as commercial thinning, such as improving health 

and vigor of the remaining trees.

Shrub and Forb Planting

All action alternatives would provide opportunities to plant shrubs and forbs. In Alternatives 2 and 4, 

there would be opportunities for 27 acres of planting to increase plants for tribal use (huckleberries and 

hazel) or to increase rare plants on the district (tall bugbane). In Alternative 3, there would be 

opportunities for 15 acres of planting to increase plants for tribal use.

Dry Meadow Restoration

In all action alternatives, there would be an opportunity to restore a two acre dry meadow in Unit 20. 

Sub-merchantable conifers would be cut, piled, and burned. This would reduce conifer encroachment 

into the meadow, allowing meadow forbs to thrive.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Pre-commercial Thinning for Fuelbreak & Ground and Ladder Fuel Treatment

In all action alternatives, there would be an opportunity for pre-commercial thinning in young managed 

stands in Unit 170. Trees would be thinned to wider spacing than typical pre-commercial thinning to 

delay the onset of continuous crown cover. The pre-commercial thin would also favor hardwood species 

in order to promote less flammable fuels in the fuel profile. In Unit 56, the fuelbreak treatment on the 

2027-850 road would be extended by treating ground and ladder fuels within 50 feet of the road. 

Ground and ladder fuels (trees less than 7 inches DBH) would be removed to reduce the chance of a 

wildfire spreading from the ground into the crowns of overstory trees.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 99

3.02 Soils

Summary of Effects Analysis

The major short-term impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity, as discussed in the Willamette 

National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 1990) include displacement, compaction, 

nutrient loss, and instability. Preventing soil impacts is the most effective and feasible way of ensuring 

long-term soil productivity. The total area of cumulative detrimental soil conditions would not exceed 

20% of the total acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings. 

Recommendations for closure or decommission of some forest system roads in the Trout Creek project 

area were completed following the Willamette National Forest road investment strategy. The 

recommendations stated in this report relate only to the soil/geology benefits.

The field investigation indicated that no unit approached or exceeded the Willamette National Forest 

Standard (FW-081) of 20% of an activity area impacted by compaction. All the potential units were 

below or well below the Forest standard. There was no evidence to indicate long-term detrimental soil 

displacement, off-site soil movement, or substantive loss of productivity

Soil and geology resource concerns related to management activities proposed for this project are

mitigated with the following general items: 

• The soils design criteria/mitigation measures are designed to maintain long-term soil 

productivity and provide a level of erosion control that is consistent with the standards and 

guidelines of the Willamette National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) and 

Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality guidelines. 

• Standard contract language should provide sufficient erosion control measures during timber 

sale operations. 

• Restoration and revegetation of areas disturbed by harvest activities (such as landings, 

temporary roads, and equipment storage areas) through subsoiling techniques and appropriate 

seed mix applications.

With proper project implementation and use of the design features, no adverse or long-term effects to 

soil resources are expected.

Scale of Analysis

For the soil resource, the scale of analysis for both direct/indirect and cumulative effects is almost 

always the unit. A unit is the stand polygon or activity area proposed for silvicultural treatment. The unit 

of measure for evaluating those effects is the percent of the “unit” affected. Potential impacts are 

evaluated on a unit-by-unit basis. Transects are used to described and measure current conditions and 

previous management activity impacts such as the amount of compacted ground within a proposed unit. 

In some cases, multiple transects were walked in different directions in order to provide more 

information or to monitor and evaluate the initial results for accuracy. In many units, no formal 

transects were taken as it was readily apparent that existing compaction amounts were no more than a 

small percentage of the unit area. Transects were usually about 500 to 1000 feet in length. The total 

width of past but currently visible skid roads, landings or other disturbed areas was used taken to 

determine the numerical extent of existing disturbance/compaction, as a percentage of the transect 

distance.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Intensive field reconnaissance of proposed units including terrain surrounding the units and appropriate 

field data with measurement indicators was used to evaluate soil resource impacts under the no action,

the proposed action (Alternative 2) and other action Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4).

The Measurement Indicators used to describe the changes to existing conditions for each alternative are 

stated in the Willamette National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 1990). These 

measurement indicators are displacement, compaction, nutrient loss, and instability. The level of change 

for analysis within each indicator is described below. Analysis of the measurement indicators provides 

the duration (short to long-term effect) and the intensity of potential impacts between or among 

alternatives.

Duration

Short-term: The effects last for a few weeks to one or two years; 

Intermediate: The effects last from one or two years to about a decade:

Long-term: The effects last approximately 10 years or longer.

Intensity

Low, negligible, little or no, minimal, minor: The impacts are essentially zero, at the lowest levels of 

detection, or very slight but still noticeable.

Moderate, reasonable: The impacts are readily apparent, but meet standards and guides.

Excessive, substantive, major, critical: The impact is moderately severe and likely approaches the upper 

limits of standards and guides. 

Significant, unacceptable: The impacts are severe, and likely exceed standards and guides or do not 

meet Best Management Practices.

Affected Environment

Geology

The project area is located within the Western Cascades physiographic region. Most of the units, 

especially those at the lower elevations, are located on a strata that were once called the Little Butte 

Sequence. Walker and Duncan (1998) have since remapped and classified the area as “Tu”. Undivided 

Miocene and Oligocene sedimentary rocks, basalt flows, tuffs, and breccias form the foundation for 

these drainages (Figure 1). Radiometric potassium/argon dates on parts of this formation are mostly 32 

to 17 million years old (Walker and Duncan, 1989). 

Overlying these older formations, some proposed units at higher elevations are located on flows and 

flow breccias of olivine andesite, basaltic andesite, and some basalt. Their potassium-argon age dates 

range from about 17 to 10 million years old. (Walker and Duncan, 1989). These rocks, the “Tba” of 

Walker and Duncan (1989), have previously been designated as the Sardine Formation by some authors. 

Underlying these upland volcanic deposits are basaltic and basaltic andesite lava flows, label as “Tub” 

formation by Walker and Duncan (1989). “Tub” formation is part of the Little Butte Volcanic Formations. 

The formation is dominant in the proposed units on the western side of the Trout Creek project area 

(Walker and Duncan, 1989). Younger Silicic vent complexes, mapped as “Tsv” formation, occurs within 

the East section of the project. These formations are areas in the Cascade Range that commonly include 

multiple intrusions and associated silicic eruptive breccia and erosional debris and some flows.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 101

In the last several million years, these rock formations have been extensively modified by stream 

erosion, mountain glaciation and slope instability. The surface expression of these rock formations has 

been extensively altered by erosion since late Pliocene time, especially with glacial activity and large 

scale slope instability. The South Santiam drainage was likely not affected to any degree by the large ice 

cap glaciers that covered the High Cascade platform many miles to the east of this watershed. 

The complex, relatively recent geologic history has produced a myriad of diverse landforms and soils. 

The rocks and strata of some of the older Tertiary volcanic deposits sometimes weather to form deep 

colluvial and residual soils that can give rise to unstable soils. Stabilized slump-earth flow features, such 

as sag ponds, bench, and scarp topography, and disrupted drainages are common in many parts of this 

project area. It seems likely that slump and earthflow instability has been a significant factor in slope 

development and stream channel morphology for the last several thousand years. However, large-scale

slope instability from debris chutes, slump, and earthflow complexes have been relatively inactive in the 

last 500 to 1000 years or more, except in some localized areas. 

The 1973 Soil Resources Inventory (SRI) of the Willamette National Forest mapped and described forest 

landforms and soils characteristics for management interpretations. The SRI mapping units are landtype 

delineations. Landtype units are field verified and described to identify potential unsuitable areas and 

indicators properties. Unsuited and unmanageable landtypes are delineated within the project area as 

part of the landtype mapping process. 

Soil Resources (Landtypes)

A major portion of the field investigation was directed at distinguishing the various identifiable landtype

components within the units and surrounding area (as applicable). Some of the landtype analysis 

referenced in this report was originally conducted for previous planning activities. In general, the field 

investigation confirmed most of the original 1973 SRI designations and the previously mapped work. 

However, more detailed work was conducted in some areas. The major portion of the field work 

involved site-specific evaluation of existing conditions within most of the units. 

Project field Investigations were conducted intermittently through the field seasons of 2012, 2013, 2014 

and 2015. Field assessment consisted of reconnaissance of potential harvest units and surrounding 

areas for the proposed planned project area in order to help implement Willamette National Forest 

program direction. Specific field dates are stated in the primary soil and geology resources report. The 

primary soil and geology resources report was reviewed by the current Forest Soil Scientist in order to 

update and verify that provided field descriptions relate to any updated proposed actions and other 

activities.

Soil and geology site-specific recommendations, design criteria, and mitigations are based on landtypes

field investigation, their specific attributes, and the determination of the impacts from prior 

management activities. Unsuited, unregenerable landtypes, such as cliffs and rock outcrops, critical 

rocky areas, or wetlands and dry meadows were mapped as part of the field reconnaissance. 

Based on the field landtype assessments; soils on these side slopes have been stable and productive for 

at least several hundred years. Soils either formed directly on the underlying volcanic bedrock, on the 

more limited glacial deposits, or on jumbled combinations of the two in the slump complexes. Both 

types have similar size gradations that range from loam, silt loams to gravelly or cobbly sandy loams. 

Depth to bedrock is highly variable and can range from 5 to 10 feet to many times that amount. The 

various landtypes are generally well drained where permeability is rapid in the surface soils and rapid to 

slow in the subsoil. Because of high infiltration rates, overland flow is generally uncommon. In the 

proposed units, side slopes range from near zero to about 80% but are generally less than 60%. Offsite 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

erosion is generally not a concern because of the extensive vegetative ground cover and the gentle to 

moderate side slopes in much of the area. 

Field assessments existent conditions:

Nutrient loss / Duff Retention

• Little physical evidence can be found in any unit to indicate whether past timber management 

activities resulted in significant, long-term detrimental soil displacement, off-site soil movement, 

or substantive loss of productivity.

• A wide variation also exists in the amount of decomposing organic matter now found in the 

units. Many of the natural stands in this project area have had an active fire history in the last 

100 to 150 years. Many of the more recent fires, bug kill, and snow down, have created areas 

with considerable down timber. As a result, a wide range in the above ground tonnage of 

decomposing organic matter exists. Existing decomposing organic matter have a variable range 

depending on aspect, side slopes, slopes, and management requirement. 

• Stand ages in this project area are highly variable, but most natural stands in the Moose and 

South Santiam drainages indicate that natural or human-caused fires were very prevalent in the 

last 90 to 150 years. There is also evidence that significant under burning happened in older 

stands when stand replacement fires occurred in nearby areas. As a result, natural 

accumulations of down woody debris are often limited and highly variable across many areas. 

• Some of the older managed stands with lower utilization standards retained considerable large 

down woody debris. Younger managed stands, with PUM yarding and higher utilization 

standards, removed much of this type of material and slash burns consumed considerable 

amounts of the above ground organic matter. 

Compaction

• Field reconnaissance of the proposed units shows some level of existing compaction, primarily 

associated to past harvest within the existing managed stands. The levels range from 0 up to 

15%. Evidence of compaction from previous entry is very minor in the natural stands. Field 

reconnaissance of the proposed units shows little compaction associated with prior harvest and 

indicated that no ground-based unit approached the Willamette National Forest FW-081 

Standard of 20% of an activity area impacted, in this case by compaction. All the potential units 

were well below the Forest standard.

• The field investigation indicated that no ground-based unit approached or exceeded the 

Willamette National Forest FW-081 Standard of 20% of an activity area impacted, in this case by 

compaction. All the potential units were below to well below the Forest standard.

• Field work in skyline areas on side slopes from 25 to 50%, as well as extensive field 

reconnaissance of the steeper ground in almost all other units, indicates that these units had 

relatively low existing compaction levels, or compaction was essentially non-existent.

Instability

Potentially unstable conditions are found in three units within managed areas and two units within 

natural (fire-origin) stands (Table 23).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 103

Table 23: Unstable areas within Trout Creek project

Unit 

Number Instability/Unsuited Description

15

An area of four or five acres below (west of) Rd 857 occurs in the middle of this unit. It contains 

a relatively recent debris chute (post-2000) and evidence of older failures. The recent slide 

dropped about 250 feet and stopped on a slope break, as did the older sites. Recommend longterm slope stability treatment.

27 The unsuitable wet area at Mile Post 13.5 - south-west corner should be deleted during the 

layout phase of the project.

34

Several small slump/debris chute type failures exist in this unit, north of the south slope break 

into the creek that runs, generally east / west through the unit. Recommend long-term slope 

stability treatment.

59 A stabilized landslide exists along the northwest boundary below (west of) Rd 2022. This site 

failed 25 years ago. Recommend long-term slope stability treatment.

44 The rocky unsuited area along the south boundary and at the northeast corner should be 

deleted during the layout phase of the project.

48 The unsuited rocky areas along the west and south boundary should be deleted during the

layout phase of the project.

56 The west boundary above Rd 850 should avoid the rocky unsuited area and stay east of the 

actively unstable earthflow.

65 The rocky unsuited area along the west boundary should be deleted during the layout phase of 

the project. 

67 The unsuitable wet area should be deleted during the layout phase of the project.

Other unsuited areas

As mentioned on Table 23, the mapped unstable and unsuitable areas within units 27, 44, 48, 56, 65, 67 

will be avoided and dropped for project activities during the layout operation phase. 

Environmental Consequences

The desired soil and geology conditions for the project area are determined by the Willamette National 

Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 1990). Land management activities should be 

planned and conducted to maintain or enhance soil productivity and stability. The total areas of 

cumulative detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 20% of the total acreage within the activity 

area, including roads and landing. These desired conditions depend on the levels of displacement, 

nutrient loss, compaction, and instability potential occurring after the implementation of the project 

and applicable mitigations. Table 24 summarizes soil management and measurement indicators for 

assessing effects.

Table 24: Management/Measurement Indicators for assessing effects

Issue Management/Measurement Indicator Justification

Displacement 50% of topsoil or humus enriched soil horizons are removed from an 

area of 100 square feet that is at least 5 feet in width. FW-081

Compaction Increase in soil bulk density by at least 15% and/or a reduction in 

macropore space of 50% over the undisturbed soil. FW-081

Nutrient Loss Insufficient duff retention or large woody material to ensure adequate 

nutrient cycling. FW-085

Instability Increase in size, intensity or number of slope failures. FW-086

1 Willamette National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS, 1990) - Chapter IV of the Willamette Forest Plan, Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

In areas already compacted or disturbed by the initial entries, the soil building process will continue to 

return the soil to near pre-harvest conditions in the longer term but low soil productivity in a short term. 

Short-term to intermediate-term impacts from harvest, such as soil disturbance, dust or mud, slash 

accumulation and disposal, and longer-term impacts such as compaction and nutrient loss would not 

occur. 

Slope instability is a geologic process that is currently active in parts of this project area and can 

potentially affect some proposed units. Most potentially actively unstable or potentially highly unstable 

soils were deleted from the units in the action alternatives. Consequently, in the short or intermediate 

term, no effects to slope instability are anticipated whether the units are managed or not. In the long 

term, loss of stand integrity with disease, storm or fire might cause an increase in slope failure. 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Displacement

Displacement can occur with timber management during road or landing construction, yarding, or the 

mechanical treatment of slash, such as machine piling. Erosion control practices stated in the contract

requirements and design criteria would reduce or eliminate displacement within all the proposed 

logging systems

Areas with a higher surface erosion potential or overland flow with ground-based activities are present 

in less than 28% of the project area. Less than 7% of those acres are adjacent to class 1 and 2 Riparian 

Reserves. Any displacement effects will be none to minimal and short-term by following applicable 

Riparian Reserve buffer (all stream classes), ground cover requirement (duff retention), low impact 

logging systems and other erosion control practices.

The logging suspension requirement for a proposed unit is mandated in the Land and Resource 

Management Plan to protect the soil from excessive disturbance or displacement. With cable systems, 

the area near tail trees and landings (usually about 100 feet) is excluded from this suspension constraint.

Unless otherwise stated or mitigated, all designated streams require full suspension or yarding away 

from the stream course during the yarding process. Most of the units with steeper ground have little or 

no existing disturbance levels. 

Prebunching occurs when processor felling is used to cut and orient fallen timber so that skyline logging 

systems can more efficiently bring the wood to the landing. Prebunching is allowed only on side slopes 

less than 45%. All prebunching areas have the same site location restriction and access requirements 

that ground-based logging and require review and approval of activities outside of normal operation 

period. 

By applying all mentioned design criteria, disturbance from harvest activities (ground-base and skyline) 

will be well within the Regional and Forest standards and significant adverse impacts are not 

anticipated. With appropriate implementation, soil disturbance is minimal and off-site erosion is 

essentially non-existent. During harvest, the retention of stream adjacent trees (Riparian Reserve 

buffers) and the requirement of full suspension yarding over or away from stream courses will minimize 

or eliminate off-site erosion.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 105

Compaction

The major source of compaction is ground-based skidding equipment. The field investigation indicated 

that no ground-based unit approached or exceeded the Willamette National Forest FW-081 Standard of 

20%.

Skidding equipment is restricted to predesignated skid roads. Extensive monitoring over many years has 

shown that when designated skid roads are properly utilized in conjunction with line pulling and 

directional felling, compaction from ground-based tractor operations generally remains at about 9 to 

13%. In units with existing compaction, when old skid roads are reused and some subsoiling is 

implemented, monitoring has shown that overall compaction levels at the completion of management 

activities generally remain around 12 to 15%.

Reducing the effective weight of the type of equipment and reducing the number of trips over a piece of 

ground are means to reduce the risk of soil compaction and displacement. For example, using a 

processor or forwarder system, the skid roads are usually about 50 to 60 feet apart, but the number of 

trips and shorting the skidding distance for each individual road are substantially less than with skidding.

Ground-based equipment operation over snow or frozen soil or over a deep, solid snow pack (24 inches 

of dense snow or equivalent) substantially reduces soil disturbance and compaction. Over-the-snow 

operations are encouraged for any of these units, as long as other resource objectives can be achieved 

and sufficient snow accumulation is available. Monitoring of previous over-the-snow operations on

various Districts has shown that essentially no displacement or compaction occurs when it is properly 

implemented. 

Piling may occur by hand or with a grapple machine. Post-harvest activities such as grapple piling 

requires only one pass of the machine across the landscape, and the machine works while sitting on 

slash. Extensive monitoring of grapple machine piling operations indicate that little or no additional 

compaction or displacement occurs when properly implemented.

One of the goals with entry into any of the ground-based units is to provide the opportunity to subsoil 

the created skid roads and landings in order to keep compaction to very low levels. As part of the 

primary subsoiling efforts, the purchaser is responsible for subsoiling all landings, primary skid trails 

within identified units, and existing and new temporary roads used in the sale area. Additional subsoiling 

efforts (enhancement subsoiling) are recommended for a total of 20 acres to further reduce 

compaction. Units will be monitored as needed during project implementation, and any units with a 

high increase to the initial compaction levels will be the highest priority for post-sale subsoiling 

activities.

Ground-based equipment would operate in the dry season, usually considered from May to October, 

unless otherwise restricted by other resource concerns or waived by soil scientist or hydrologist, due to 

wet weather management mitigations. The wet weather management standards are applicable to all 

proposed project activities and operations within and outside of the normal operation season.

In summary, with the use of designated and skid roads and landings, the reuse of the existing skid road 

system (if present), the subsoiling of landings and primary skid roads, following wet weather 

management standards and other mitigations, compaction is anticipated to be below the 15% level. 

Therefore, it will not be cumulatively significant at the completion of harvest activities.

Nutrient Loss

In most situations, preventing soil impacts is the most effective and feasible way of ensuring long-term 

soil productivity. Soil productivity/nutrient loss would be short-term by potential displacement of the
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

organic surface horizon and duff-litter covers. This reduction will be minimal by requiring unit by unit 

duff retention (ground cover) percent during and after harvest activities. 

Duff retention is the amount of duff thickness and woody material (slash) remaining after management 

activities are completed. Retention objectives are based on several factors that include slope percent, 

surface soil type, erosion hazard potential, and existing pre-management duff thickness. Extensive 

monitoring and field reconnaissance in recent years has shown that the ground cover in thinned units is 

considerable because of the accumulation of slash and the release of brush and forbs with increased 

sunlight.

Management activities will be planned to maintain enough large woody debris (dead and down) to 

provide for a healthy forest ecosystem and ensure adequate nutrient cycling. The preservation of a live 

conifer root mat with thinning and the intention to maintain some duff retention will reduce any 

possible longer term impacts to the ectomycorrhizal web. Concentrations of larger down logs that were 

produced naturally or with the initial harvest should be left undisturbed as much as possible. For all 

action alternatives, the slash will either be scattered or broadcast in the units, piled and burned or under 

burned.

Actual duff retention measurements on under burns (both natural and management directed) on 

various Districts in the last few years indicate that the “broadcast burn” standards for duff retention are 

usually approached or achieved, even if they are not specifically required. Consequently, they serve as a 

good goal and are recommended as a desired objective for the units in this report.

On typical thinning, hand piles number about 40 per acre and occupy about 20 square feet per pile for a 

total of about 800 square feet per acre or about 1.8% per acre. Machine piles are substantively less in 

number, larger in size which maintained values about 1.8 to 2%. In many cases, only a few acres of any 

particular unit are hand piled or machine piled. Burning the piled slash may develop sufficient heat to 

affect the underlying soil. Pile burning is usually done in the fall or winter months when duff and soil 

moistures are higher and this helps reduce the downward heat effects to the soil. Consequently, pile 

burning is considered a minor effect and not cumulative because of the limited overall acreage involved.

Duff retention objectives will be provided on a unit-by-unit basis. With the retention of adequate duff 

and woody debris, potential adverse impacts to long-term soil productivity are not anticipated.

Instability

For the proposed units, the potentially highly unstable or actively unstable terrain were mapped and 

these areas will be avoided and dropped for project activities during the layout operation phase. 

Consequently, potential slope instability with proposed management in these units is not considered a 

concern.

Within some unstable areas and depending on terrain, thinning activities can enhance the growth of 

leave trees and promote a healthier stand with firmer roots and greater evapotranspiration activity that 

contributes towards a long term slope stability. After field assessment, it was determined that 

harvesting activities within units 15, 34 and 59 would achieve the maintenance of long-term slope 

stability.

Thinning is recommended in the three units to establish a stand of well dispersed larger trees at about 

50% canopy closure. No gaps should be located in those areas. In the last unit, logging would be 

accomplished with a sky line system, and no slash burning is recommended, except for hand piles 

immediately adjacent to the road corridor. Approximately a 50% canopy closure would be maintained 

after thinning. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 107

The removal of trees from these units could in the short to intermediate term, reduce 

evapotranspiration as compared to the current condition and avoid longer term changes to the local 

ground water regime.. This is not considered a critical concern for three reasons: 

1) These changes are anticipated to be within levels that are similar to natural rainfall amounts at two to 

ten-year storm events;

2) If no action occurs, suppression will result in the stands losing trees or growth with a similar loss in 

evapotranspiration in not much longer time frames; and

3) Monitoring of commercial thinning harvest implemented on potentially highly unstable or actively 

unstable terrain has shown good release and not exacerbated slope instability.

Field review of previously thinned units in the past several years on both stable and unstable landtypes

has shown no increase in either slope instability or erosion in either uplands or riparian reserves. 

Thinning within those units with potentially highly unstable or actively unstable terrain will not 

immediately promote greater slope stability. However, thinning will create healthier stands with bigger 

trees that have larger crowns and more roots. Larger trees tend to increase slope stability, and if failures 

do occur, they provide larger wood for down slope riparian areas. As a long term condition, the 

recommended thinning (in those few units) will improve slope stability and reduce the potential for 

adverse off-site effects from future failures. 

Comparison of Effects from Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

As part of the vegetation management activities, all action alternatives (the proposed action, 

Alternatives 3 and 4) have the same basic effects and the same soil protection measures, as described 

on a unit-by-unit basis.

The additional activity proposed within Alternative 3 and 4 is due to the sustainable road analysis within 

the Trout Creek Project area as part of the Willamette Road Investment Strategy. 

Analysis and recommendations to road status for soil and geology resources are based on landtype

information (following the Soil Resources Inventory), topography, and stability history and project field 

assessment.

The road analysis determined that 82% of the investment strategy within the project area shows no 

detrimental impacts to soil and geology resources. 74% of these roads are recommended to remain 

open as part of the sustainable road analysis. The additional 8 % is recommended for closure or 

decommission. No impact will be expected by adhering to forest service standards, maintenance 

standards and soil/geology mitigation and additional beneficial impacts (increase in productivity, natural 

reclamation, reduction in traffic, etc.) would be added with decommissioning and closure of segments.

There are 8.51 miles recommended for decommissioning. More than 80% of these roads show some 

potential soil and geology concerns (such as erosion potential, stability potential). The decommissioning

of these segments is beneficial by reducing road density, increasing productivity by providing ground 

cover, increasing infiltration potential (drainage), increasing natural revegetation and resulting in 

appropriate restoration to reduce the risk of potential sediment movement.

Road segments closures are recommended temporarily by using berms or gates and long-term by 

maintaining currently closed roads. These roads represent less than 10% of segments with soil and 

geology concerns. A complete restoration of hydrologic connectivity, soil productivity and nutrient 

increase will occur slowly and in a long-term capacity by closing these areas. This action is also beneficial 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

as it reduces traffic effects allowing natural reclamation and regeneration within some areas and 

increasing resource protections (stability, increase in ground cover). 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1- No Action

Stands (within managed and natural stand) will continue to develop. Plant diversity would diminish as 

well as soil biota because of the lack of sunlight. Intermediate and suppressed trees would slowly be 

removed from the stand through mortality and decay. In areas of heavy stocking, stands would stagnate. 

Blow down and snow down would continue to increase fuel loading in the short to intermediate term. 

The likelihood of a stand replacement fire would increase.

Soil productivity will be low within current compacted areas (including non-decommission or close 

roads), as natural revegetation is slow and none continuous.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Future cumulative effects from existing compaction and proposed harvest activities are not anticipated 

for any unit by implementing subsoiling (decompaction) practices, erosion control techniques and wet 

weather management mitigations.

Potential past cumulative effects from displacement, nutrient loss, and instability above forest 

standards; with previous management were not observed to any degree in the field reconnaissance, and 

their cumulative area is not considered significant for any unit.

With proper project implementation, and mitigation, unacceptable cumulative effects (present) on the 

soils resource are not anticipated from any of the action alternatives. The utilization of soil protection 

measures and best management practices will preclude the need for additional cumulative effects 

analysis. Deviations from the standards and guidelines would be the primary trigger for a cumulative 

effects review, and no deviations are planned.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 109

3.03 Aquatics (Hydrology and Fisheries)

Summary of Effects Analysis 

Aquatic ecosystem effects of the Trout Creek project are compared to an ecosystem impacted by past 

stream cleaning of large wood, the building of an extensive road network, and past logging practices 

that left little to no stream side trees. These past actions have converted naturally diverse ecosystems 

characterized by abundant large decaying trees, both on the ground and in the stream network, into 

cleared out streams and monoculture Douglas-fir plantations in about 35% of the project area. Some 

recovery has occurred since original impacts, but legacy effects to forest stands and streams are 

common.

In the no action alternative, and in units where no harvest is planned in Riparian Reserves, the 

conditions will slowly improve over time as Riparian Reserves established under the Northwest Forest 

Plan provide protected areas where recovery of diverse riparian forest can occur.

In the action alternatives where managed stand thinning in Riparian Reserves is planned, no harvest 

stream buffers will protect over 90% of the potential future in-stream wood, prevent increases in stream 

temperature, and ensure logging operations have no measurable impact to fine sediment and 

management indicators species for fisheries.

Road reconstruction, that would replace 17 failing live stream culverts (260 total culverts including ditch 

relief for Alternative 2), will have short term fine sediment impacts to fish species, including ESA listed 

fish (Likely to Adversely Affect fisheries consultation result), but will have long term benefits to aquatic 

ecosystems, and will not decrease the viability of any populations of fish. Road decommissioning will 

have short term fine sediment impacts, but will also protect hydrology and fisheries in the long term, 

including removing a current fish passage barrier.

Action alternatives would not reduce ARP values below forest plan standards.

Scale of Analysis

Unless otherwise noted, the geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 

aquatic resources for this project includes: the timber sale units; the action area (defined as the Moose 

Creek, Trout Creek, and Lower Canyon Creek subwatersheds); or the project area. The project area 

includes the action area (excluding areas outside the forest boundary) and a small portion of the project 

overlapping the ridgelines in Soda Fork and Bear Creek - Middle Santiam River subwatersheds (Figure 

20). These slight ridgeline overlaps in the project area would have no measurable direct or indirect 

aquatic effects and are excluded from aquatic resources analysis in most of the analysis below.

Assessment Methodology

Data on current and historic watershed condition was gathered from the South Santiam Watershed 

Analysis (1995 and revised in 2005) and through GIS analysis of a Forest Service GIS data on streams, 

roads and vegetation. Recent stream condition information was determined through review of stream 

surveys in the project area. Field review of roads and streams in the general project area were explored 

until a general understanding of the field conditions of the area was gained.

Proposed treatment units were more intensively surveyed for streams, springs, wetlands, and 

information on riparian conditions. Riparian Reserves in older natural fire regenerated units were 

surveyed for any potential treatment needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

(ACSOs). Based on vegetative characteristics, the Fisheries, Hydrology, Wildlife, Silviculture and Botany 

specialists developed recommendations for the need to treat Riparian Reserves in the timber sale units.

Figure 20: Waterbodies and 6th Field Sub-watersheds within the Project Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 111

Affected Environment – Riparian Reserves

Analysis of Riparian Reserves for this project will discuss the current condition of the reserves, and 

disclose the effects of silvicultural treatments within the reserves needed to attain Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives (ACSOs). The Northwest Forest Plan included the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(ACS) to protect the ecological health of the watershed and aquatic ecosystems on public lands. Meeting 

the intent of the ACS and restoration of habitat for federally-listed species is an important aspect of 

vegetation treatment projects on the Willamette National Forest. Properly functioning Riparian Reserves 

are important to the recovery of listed species.

Timber harvest in the project area started in the 1930s, and accelerated after World War II up into the 

1970s and 80s prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. The harvest techniques resulted in 

removal of all riparian vegetation that provided large wood and shade to the small tributary streams in 

the project area. Small areas scattered across the landscape were clear-cut and replanted with Douglasfir with the objective of future timber production. As a result, most of these plantations, or managed 

stands, are artificially dense, Douglas-fir dominated stands (Figure 21). There are approximately 4,800 

acres of managed stands on Forest Service land in the project area. Additionally there are about 8,200 

acres of private land in the project area that is managed making the total area in managed stands about 

35% of the 37,000 acre project area.

In the younger managed units, instream large wood counts are not known since few are fish-bearing and 

are not typically surveyed using the standard USFS protocol. However, since stream clean out was 

typically part of logging operations until the 1980s, most of the streams in previous clear cuts were 

cleared of any existing large wood. It is likely that at the unit scale the streams are devoid of historical 

quantities of pool forming large wood.

Figure 21: An example of Riparian Reserves with typical young overstocked plantations in the project area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Recent forest research in the Coast Range and Western Cascades indicates that existing old growth 

stands developed with natural stand densities of 40 to 60 conifers per acre (Poage and Tappeiner, 2002; 

Tappeiner et al., 1997). Stand densities in managed stands on Forest Service land in the project area 

average about 205 trees per acre (for trees > 7 inches dbh). These stands exhibit a lack of complexity 

and diversity that may be limiting nutrient cycling, deciduous organic matter input to waterbodies, and 

habitat for riparian dependent wildlife.

Older (>80 years) naturally established fire regenerated areas that developed after stand replacement 

fires typically develop a more open canopy structure, including sufficient down and standing dead wood, 

in-stream down wood, and have multi-story diverse vegetation throughout the stand (Pollock et al., 

2012). Similarly, in the older fire regenerated stands in the project area, Riparian Reserves are 

exhibiting complex structure and species diversity, including down and standing dead wood and in 

stream wood. The units in this project include approximately 320 acres in older naturally established 

stands where existing condition of Riparian Reserves indicate complexity and diversity, and no need for 

treatment to attain ACSOs.

Riparian Reserves within the older stands in the project area have higher structural and species diversity 

and are providing adequate stream shade, root strength and bank stability, sediment filtration and 

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

waterbodies, and habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife. Figure 22 illustrates properly functioning 

conditions within older Riparian Reserves in the project area.

Figure 22: Existing condition for older Riparian Reserves, typical of fire regenerated stands in the project 

area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 113

The desired condition within Riparian Reserves includes: large conifers; complex habitat structure 

representative of that which would result from natural disturbance patterns; diverse species 

composition; snags and logs on the forest floor and large wood for streams (USDA, 1994). This condition 

is important to be maintained for the benefit of aquatic plants, aquatic organisms, and terrestrial 

wildlife.

Environmental Consequences – Riparian Reserves

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Current rates of large wood recruitment, provided by tree mortality from competition, disease, and 

bank erosion, would be maintained. No action would provide a slightly higher rate of in-stream wood 

recruitment compared to the action alternatives, because the action alternative would remove some of 

the future mortality expected from competition.

The No Action alternative would not accelerate desired vegetation conditions. Desired riparian 

conditions of high species and structural diversity, with large dead and down wood, would slowly 

develop over time (several decades) and result from natural thinning. Without thinning to increase the 

abundance of deciduous and herbaceous vegetation in dense, conifer-dominant stands, ecosystem 

productivity would remain at relatively lower levels until natural thinning took place.

Accelerated restoration of riparian stands that currently do not meet ACSOs would not be accomplished. 

Alternative 1 would perpetuate the impacts of homogenous, densely stocked stand conditions longer 

into the future. The dense riparian stands would be at greater risk from wild fire, insect infestation, and 

disease, especially under expected future climate change scenarios (Vose et al., 2016).

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) prohibits timber harvest in Riparian Reserves except as needed to 

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

to attain ACS Objectives (NWFP Standards and Guides, TM-1(c)). Based on data gathered through 

landscape and stream reach assessments, it was determined that current conditions in some portions of 

the Riparian Reserves are outside the natural range of variability and are not meeting desired vegetation 

characteristics needed to attain ACS Objectives. Therefore, there is a need to treat parts of the Riparian 

Reserves to accelerate attainment of desired conditions. Other areas, however, are currently meeting 

desired vegetation characteristics and treatment is not necessary.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose both active and passive management of Riparian Reserves. This analysis 

includes Riparian Reserve thinning for restoration, fall and leave treatments, prescribed fire and 

temporary roads. It explores the potential for effects of these actions and the potential impacts they 

could have on Riparian Reserves as a resource area. Riparian Reserve treatments are the same for each 

of the action alternatives.

Thinning in Riparian Reserves

The body of literature on the effects of thinning on stream and forest ecosystems is quite extensive. 

Several key factors in determining where this type of treatment would be beneficial for the attainment 

of ACS objectives were considered. In-stream wood recruitment, upland down woody material levels, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

stand structure, and species composition are described below. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would thin 

approximately 71 acres within the 16,431 acres of Riparian Reserves in the project area, or about 0.4%.

In-Stream Wood

In-stream wood is important to the health of aquatic habitats, and many researchers have studied the 

areas along streams where wood recruitment typically occurs. Wood source areas are highly variable, 

but are strongly correlated to tree height and the dominant wood recruitment process for each stream 

reach (Spies et al., 2013). The dominant source area distance from streams ranges based on delivery 

mechanism and tree height and time of recruitment. According to Benda and Bigelow (2014), in the 

Douglas-fir plantations of the Cascades, bank erosion and tree mortality are the dominant processes 

(Benda and Bigelow, 2014). In these stream reaches, 90% of the wood is recruited from within 8 meters 

(26 feet), and the remaining 10% from within a distance equivalent to tree height (Benda and Bigelow, 

2014).

In all of the proposed riparian thinning stands, an area near the stream was designated as a no-harvest 

buffer to protect wood recruitment zones, and other resource concerns such as temperature. The 

overall goal for protecting wood recruitment zones was to protect at least 90% of trees that could 

potentially be recruited to the stream channel. This level of future wood input is thought to be at 

sufficient levels to sustain physical complexity and stability required by the ACS Objectives. No-harvest 

buffers range in width depending on stream type (i.e., 50 feet on intermittent streams, 75 feet on 

perennial non-fish bearing streams, and 120 feet on fish bearing streams). In unit 50, adjacent to Listed 

Fish Habitat (LFH) on the South Santiam River, there is no proposed thinning in Riparian Reserves (344 

feet from the river). These no harvest buffers are expected to protect 90% of the future in stream wood 

recruitment in the 71 acres of Riparian Reserves where silvicultural treatment is planned, which is 

sufficient to sustain large wood in streams in treatment units.

Stand Structure and Species Composition

Based on an extensive literature review paired with extensive modeling, Spies et al. (2013) found that 

the “greatest potential ecological benefits of thinning to accelerate the development of older forest 

structure (e.g., large trees, large dead trees, spatial structure and compositional heterogeneity, etc.) 

come in dense uniform managed stands less than 80 years and especially less than 50 years old.”

In Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, all of the stands where Riparian Reserve thinning would occur are under 80 

years old. The Riparian Reserves in fire regenerated stands over 80 years old were surveyed, but they 

were found to already contain multiple canopies and species diversity. In short, they were already 

meeting ACS Objectives and there was no need to treat them in order to attain ACS Objectives.

There is currently a great deal of emphasis on protecting and restoring riparian forest reserves in order 

to protect both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. There are tradeoffs associated with thinning in 

Riparian Reserves where some species benefit from thinning and others are better off with more shade 

and dead down wood. Pollock, et al., 2012 found that young conifer stands like the ones proposed for 

treatment in this project would, if left untreated, develop the desired forest structure found in older 

forest reference conditions. On the other hand, treated stands would also follow a trajectory toward 

desired older forest structure, but along the outside limits of reference conditions (Pollock et al., 2012). 

Reference conditions were considered to have mature, late-successional conifer dominated stands with 

abundant large trees in the overstory, abundant large snags, down wood in streams, and a welldeveloped understory of shade-tolerant trees. It is also known that thinning increases shrub cover and 

greatly increases within-stand variability where shrub cover is absent before treatment (Harrington et 

al., 2005). Riparian Reserve thinning may also accelerate the development of late successional forest 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 115

attributes of value to some riparian and upland-associated species (Harrington et al., 2005). According 

to Pollock and Beechie (2014), more terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates utilize deadwood than live trees, 

and allowing Riparian Reserves to develop naturally may lead to the most rapid development of forest 

structures important to the most vertebrates, and be best for biodiversity in general.

In this project, a minimum of 50% canopy closure would be maintained in the thinned portions of 

Riparian Reserves in the project. Overall, the proposed thinning in Riparian Reserves is a compromise 

between active and passive restoration techniques, which implement some important active restoration 

such as shrub establishment, while protecting 90% future large wood input. Where Riparian Reserve 

thinning is proposed, increases in abundance of understory vegetation, species diversity, stand 

structural diversity, and tree growth are expected. With only 0.4% of the Riparian Reserves planned for 

thinning, and the no -harvest buffers established along stream channels, the effects to stand structure 

and species composition at the watershed scale will be within the range of natural variability.

Other Treatments

Within some treatment units, the introduction of low severity fire into patches of Riparian Reserves is 

anticipated during fuels treatments. Fire would be allowed to back into the Reserves and burn in a 

mosaic pattern rather than requiring a fire line around the Reserves which would potentially result in 

erosion. At low burn severities, large wood would not be removed from the Reserves. The net results, 

though localized, would be increased plant species and stand structural diversity, with a closer 

resemblance to historic stand condition than managed stands without fuels treatments.

Fall and leave thinning is proposed for 12 acres in Riparian Reserves in 5 units throughout the project 

area to accelerate down wood, release under represented tree species, increase shrub component to 

the stand, and add in stream down wood (See Table 5, Non-commercial treatment units). For the same 

reasons as described above these treatments are well within the range of natural variability at the 

watershed scale and are expected to benefit the target restoration objectives identified at the unit scale.

Wherever possible, new temporary roads would be located outside of Riparian Reserves, and existing 

non-system roads would be used before new ones are planned. There are approximately 240 feet of 

new temporary road proposed within the Riparian Reserves that would be located at least 100 feet from 

any live streams. There are no temporary road stream crossings that could impact the Riparian 

Reserves. Typical rates of re-vegetation start occurring within 2 decades from natural regeneration if 

the disturbed area is not replanted. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after treatment 

activities are completed.

In summary, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would thin approximately 71 acres within Riparian Reserves (Table 

25). The adverse impacts of thinning on in-stream large wood and future recruitment would be very 

minor at the watershed, project, and reach scales. Only approximately 0.4% of Riparian Reserves in the 

project area would be thinned, and within those units approximately 90% of the wood recruitment 

zones would be protected with stream side no-harvest buffers of 50 feet on intermittent streams and 75 

feet on perennial streams. The minor reduction in wood recruitment would occur at a very slow rate 

due to the naturally slow rate of the dominant wood recruitment processes (bank erosion and tree 

mortality) of streams in the project area. The beneficial impacts of thinning to accelerate tree growth, 

riparian forest structure and shrub diversity would be very minor at all scales due to the relatively small 

area treated and slow rates of tree growth. Table 25 summarizes the acres of Riparian Reserves affected 

by the proposed thinning. The proposed management of Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2, 3 and 4 is 

needed to attain ACS Objectives. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy compliance document (Appendix B) 

explains how each Objective is maintained or improved. With only 0.4% of the Riparian Reserves 

planned for commercial thinning, and the no-harvest buffers established along stream channels, the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

effects to stand structure and species composition at the watershed scale will be within the range of 

natural variability.

Table 25: Riparian Reserve Commercial Thinning in the Project Area

Total Riparian Reserve Acres 

within the Project Area 

Unit Acres Overlapping 

Riparian Reserves Activity

Acres Proposed for 

Silvicultural Treatment

Alternative 

1

Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4

16,431 109 Thinning 0 71

Cumulative Effects

All recent and planned timber harvest projects were and will be designed with similar protection

measures, design features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects to water quality and 

aquatic resources. Each of the projects are listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix C) were analyzed for effects to riparian 

condition and were found to have no effect, negligible effect, or beneficial effect. The negligible or 

beneficial effects combined with the minor impacts expected from the Trout Creek project would not 

measurably contribute to impaired riparian conditions.

The Canyon Thin project overlaps the Trout Creek –South Santiam subwatershed and the Lower Canyon 

Creek subwatershed. Additional impacts from Canyon Thin to Riparian Reserves are similar as the same 

no-harvest buffers are applied to protect 90% of the potential future in-stream wood recruitment. The 

effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions would not change the effects analysis for the 

Trout Creek project. The effects to Riparian Reserves would still be well within the range of natural 

variability.

Private timber lands are present on approximately 8,200 acres in the project area. The Oregon Forest 

Practices Act, which governs the way private land is managed, does not include Riparian Reserves 

(Oregon Forest Practices Act, 1971). On private land there may be commercial harvest that effects the 

connection between Riparian Reserves across the landscape in the short, medium and long term. 

Because Riparian Reserve treatments are only occurring in managed stands, primary shade zones are 

being protected, and a minimum of 50% canopy cover is being maintained, negative cumulative effects 

to Riparian Reserves at the watershed scale are not anticipated.

Affected Environment – Stream Shade and Temperature

Major road construction and timber harvest began in the project area in the 1940s, peaking in the 1970s 

and 80s. Much of the activities that occurred prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan 

resulted in removal of riparian vegetation that provided shade for streams.

Human-caused thermal degradation of streams has been shown to be caused by reducing riparian 

vegetation, reducing groundwater discharge into the stream, simplified alluvial system and channel 

structure, simplified channel morphology, and reduced stream and tributary flow during low flow 

periods. These can be caused by past riparian and upland management, increased peak flows, removal 

of in-stream structural components such as large wood, stream confinement by roads, and summer 

water withdrawals (Poole, 2001).

Thermal degradation through reduced base flow is caused by converting native forest to managed stand

management. Based on recent findings in a similar climatic and geologic condition to the project area, 

past conversion to industrial timber management has impacted base flows (Perry and Jones, 2016). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 117

Assuming that all private industrial timber land has been converted into plantation management, 

approximately 35% of the project area has been converted to plantation management. With base flow 

potentially reduced by over 20% from historical conditions there is likely pronounced changes in base 

flow in the action area, resulting in increased stream temperatures in the action area. In the future, 

climate change will likely influence base flows and further impair their functioning (Mantua, 2010).

Preferred temperatures for salmon and steelhead in the project area are listed in Table 26. The state 

water quality standards for temperature in these streams is set to maintain suitability for spawning, 

rearing and migrating salmonid fish.

Table 26: Preferred temperature limits and ranges for salmonids (degrees Fahrenheit)

DEQ Standard for core 

cold water habitat

Preferred Juvenile 

Temperature Range

Preferred Adult 

Migration/Spawning

Lethal Limit

64 50-60 46-55 77

Stream temperature data were collected at various locations in the project area during the summer 

months (June through September) for a minimum of five years between 2006 and 2016. Summarized 

yearly data is in Table 27. The data is used to assess the stream temperature relative to water quality 

standards.

Table 27: Stream Temperature in the Trout Creek Project Area

Streams Lowest 7-Day Average Daily 

Max Temp. °F1

Highest 7-Day Average Daily 

Max Temp. °F1 Average Value °F

Moose Creek 63 65 64

Trout Creek 62 68 64

South Santiam River 64 70 67

Lower Canyon Creek 66 73 68

1 Yearly data collected from 2007 to 2016.

Existing condition for stream temperature in the project area is generally not meeting state standards. 

Changes in the range of maximum temperatures from one water year to the next are attributable to 

inter-annual differences in precipitation and stream flows. The annual timing of the maximum 

temperature occurred between July and August in all instances. This suggests that any past 

management impacted only the increased value for maximum temperature and has not affected interannual variability or annual timing of peak temperatures. 

Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states are required to develop lists of impaired 

waters. According to the current 303(d) list report the Moose Creek and South Santiam River within the 

project are listed as impaired for temperature. The criteria is for salmon and steelhead spawning and 

rearing and core cold water habitat (Oregon DEQ., 2010. 303(d) List of Impaired Waters). Canyon Creek 

is lacking enough DEQ data to be officially listed, but it is temperature impaired. Trout Creek is not 

listed. Trout Creek flows out of the Managerie Wilderness and does not have human caused thermal 

degradation. Streams that are listed have recently been moved from being impaired and having an 

approved TMDL Water Quality Restoration Plan (Category 3a) to needing a TMDL Water Quality 

Restoration Plan (Category 5) due to recent and still pending litigation.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Environmental Consequences – Stream Shade and Temperature

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No harvest activities would occur so there would be no direct and indirect effects on stream shade or 

stream temperature. Riparian vegetation near perennial streams would continue to grow and provide 

stream shade on Federal land.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

The U.S. Forest Service (FS) develops Water Quality Restoration Plans (WQRPs) to address temperature 

limited streams on FS administered lands. Development and implementation of WQRPs are required by 

State law under the TMDL rule in Oregon. The Willamette National Forest submitted a Water Quality 

Management Plan to the Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) in 2008, which was approved, but is 

no longer valid because of a lawsuit. As a result, streams that are listed as water quality limited for 

temperature have recently been moved from being impaired and having an approved TMDL Water 

Quality Restoration Plan (Category 3a) to needing a TMDL Water Quality Restoration Plan (Category 5). 

Many of the WQRPs completed for the NWFP area found that management of riparian areas as required 

by the NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) can provide sufficient stream shade to protect or 

recover stream temperature in waters listed as impaired for temperature on the State’s 303(d) list. For 

all project elements in all action alternatives, treatments near riparian areas have been designed to 

comply with Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy (2012) for 

water quality limited streams, and are not expected to impact shade on federal land within the project 

area.

A shade protection no-harvest buffer of at least 75 feet would be retained on all perennial streams to 

maintain effective shade within thinning units. Intermittent (Class 4) streams are dry during the summer 

when elevated temperatures occur. However, a minimum of 50 foot buffer would provide substantial 

shade on intermittent streams. Much of the stream-influenced microclimate would also be preserved 

since the gradients are strongest within the first 20-30 feet (Anderson, 2007) and a portion of the 

canopy cover throughout the rest of the Riparian Reserve will be maintained.

There is timber felling proposed near streams to restore large wood to the stream as well as thin 

managed stands and restore oak habitat. Proposed fall and leave treatments near streams would only 

reduce canopy cover to 70%. In unit 67 where 55 Douglas-fir trees are proposed to be felled in Riparian 

Reserves to restore Oak habitat, there are no perennial streams present. Because of these design 

criteria there will be very little increase in direct solar radiation. Because of the minute increase in solar 

radiation to perennial streams, there will be an immeasurable effect to stream temperature due to fall 

and leave.

No skyline or groundbased yarding corridor crossings are proposed over streams. Therefore, timber 

yarding would have no impact to stream temperature and shade.

Findings from the Riparian Elevation Science Review Team indicate that removal of over-story canopy 

within 150 feet of perennial stream channels has the potential to reduce effective shade (Leinenbach et 

al., 2013). There is no timber harvest in Riparian Reserves in naturally fire regenerated stands where 

Riparian Reserve widths are generally 172 feet on perennial and intermittent streams. Therefore, no 

reduction in effective shade or increases in stream temperature would occur in the treated natural 

stands.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 119

No-harvest buffers on perennial streams in the managed stand thinning units are at least 75 feet. 

Several papers have been published recently indicating that hyporheic flow has a significant influence on 

stream temperature. Janishch et al. (2012) found that that the canopy cover of “buffers” was not a 

strong predictor for temperature in small (<7feet wide) headwater streams. Streams with coarsetextured streambeds tended to be thermally unresponsive as compared with fine-textured streambeds 

or those with small, near-stream wetland areas. Rapid cooling has been observed after an extensive 

exposure to the sun after water re-entered forest cover in Australia (Rutherford et al., 2004), and, in 

Idaho, warming of headwater streams with no buffers did not lead to warming of fish-bearing streams 

downstream (Gravelle and Link, 2007). Zwieniecki and Newton (1999) indicated that stream 

temperature increases from harvesting activity were frequently lost within 150–300 m beneath 

downstream cover. This re-emphasizes the important role gravel and large wood play in channels. 

The no-harvest buffer widths are based on the width of the primary shade zone as modeled in the

Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies (2012). By protecting the 

vegetation in the primary shade zone and thinning only in the secondary shade zone, existing shade can 

be maintained, and no reduction to stream shade will occur (NWFP TMDL, 2012). Research has shown 

that in many cases significant changes in stream temperature are not observed with partial no-harvest 

buffers within the Riparian Reserve width (Levno, 1967; Macdonald, 2003). Often, buffer distances less 

than one site potential tree have been shown to protect water temperature. Gomi and others (2006) 

reported maximum daily temperatures in headwater streams did not increase significantly when 30- and 

90-foot buffers were applied. In dense riparian stands, optimum shade can be provided by the primary 

shade zone alone, and the secondary shade zone may contribute little to no shade since trees in the 

primary shade zone are already blocking the sun’s solar radiation. Typically the primary shade zone is 

half of the site potential tree height. Some of the streams in the Action Area are less than 3 feet wide, 

and the primary shade zone is typically less for these streams. 

Wilkerson et al. (2006) reported maximum increases of 1.0-1.4 degrees C with 11m buffers and 

negligible increases with 23m or partially cut buffers in Maine. DeWalle (2010) theorized that at least 

80% shade could be attained with 12m wide buffers on small (<6 meters wide) streams. In western 

Oregon, Zwieniecki and Newton (1999) reported that the presence of near continuous shade from an 

uncut buffer positioned on the south side of water led to protection from the effect of solar radiation. 

Groom et al. (2011a) found a 40% probability of exceedance of the Protecting Cold Water criterion on 

privately owned lands (0-21 meters) and a 5% probability of exceedance on lands managed to the more 

stringent state standard (0-52 meters).

Accurately predicting the magnitude of stream temperature increases on a highly variable landscape is 

extremely difficult. However, the research cited above supports the conclusion that while there may be 

a decrease in effective shade, localized increases in stream temperature are likely to be too small to 

differentiate from background variability. If localized increases in stream temperature occur, they will 

likely be less than 1 degree Celcius and are unlikely to be measurable in larger streams with fish present. 

The tributary streams that flow through the harvest units are small in size (<1-2 cfs in most cases). 

Research has shown that the magnitude of temperature effect is a function of the amount of water 

entering the stream relative to the stream discharge, and the difference in temperature between the 

stream and the inflowing water (Johnson and Jones, 2000; Wondzell, 2006; Wondzell, 2012). Therefore, 

any localized increase in stream temperature would be immeasurable in the South Santiam, Moose 

Creek, or Canyon Creek given the volume of water that these main channels carry.

Based on site specific geomorphic and hydrologic conditions, and no-harvest buffers, the magnitude of 

timber falling in managed units affecting the stream temperature is immeasurable. Proposed fall and 

leave near streams will only reduce canopy to 70%. In unit 67 where 55 Douglas-fir trees are proposed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

to be felled in Riparian Reserves to restore Oak habitat, there are no perennial streams present. Because 

of these design criteria there will be very little increase in direct solar radiation, especially in proximity of 

fish that the temperature criteria is designed to protect. Because of the minute increase in solar 

radiation to perennial streams, there will be an immeasurable effect to stream temperature.

Based on implementation of the design criteria outlined in the preceding discussion and field 

observations during project reconnaissance, no measurable direct or indirect effects on stream 

temperature are anticipated within the project area, as a result of the action alternatives. Riparian 

vegetation near perennial streams would continue to grow and provide stream shade on Federal land.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

All recent and planned timber harvest and hazardous fuels reduction projects were and will be designed 

with similar protection measures, design features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects 

to water quality and aquatic resources. Each of the projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix C) were analyzed for effects 

to stream temperature and were found to have no effect, negligible effect, or beneficial effect. The 

negligible or beneficial effects combined with the minor impacts expected from the Trout Creek project 

would not measurably contribute to impaired stream shade or temperature.

Activities that cumulatively affect stream-shading vegetation include private timber harvest in the 

primary shade zone. The Oregon Forest Practices Act, which governs the way private land is managed, 

does not protect stream shade to the level protected on federal land (Oregon Forest Practices Act, 

1971). On private land there may be commercial harvest that effects stream shade and thus stream 

temperature in the short, medium and long term. Because there are no direct or indirect effects to 

stream temperature from the Trout Creek project there will be no cumulative effects from this project.

Affected Environment – Stream Flows/Disturbance History

Projects involving timber harvest were analyzed for their cumulative impact on the quantity and timing 

of peak flows and water yields using an accounting methodology known as Aggregate Recovery 

Percentage (ARP), as specified by the 1990 Willamette National Forest LRMP (Forest Plan). Following 

forest plan procedures, the analysis is done in the planning sub-drainages (P-Subs), defined in the 1990 

Forest Plan. The ARP model compares the amount of an analysis area within the transient snow zone 

that is recovered, against a threshold value (Midpoint) that was calibrated for the sub-drainage during 

development of the Forest Plan. The midpoint values were developed based on the soil, geology, 

vegetation, climate, and stream channel conditions of each sub-watershed. They are intended to 

represent a minimum level of vegetative recovery in the sub-watersheds to prevent increases in peak 

flows that will cause excessive bank erosion and degrade stream ecosystems. Recovery generally occurs 

when stands are over 35 years old and crown closures exceed 70%. The transient snow zone is 

considered to include land between the elevations of 1,500 and 4,000 feet. The analysis is based on 

stand age data extracted from the Forest’s VEGIS database for Forest Service land. In the Trout Creek 

planning area, private land makes calculation of ARP values based solely on VEGIS very skewed because 

stand age on private land is generally not known. On private land and in gaps in Forest Service land 

data, satellite data was used to estimate stand age and canopy cover using the Gradient Nearest 

Neighbor (GNN) data method. Stand age and canopy cover obtained by this method were then used to 

fill in the gaps and complete the ARP analysis for P-subs in the project area (Table 28).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 121

Environmental Consequences – Stream Flows/Disturbance History

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No Action would result in no immediate changes to existing peak flows, having no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects on stream flow in the project area. 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Table 28 lists ARP values for current and recovery immediately after implementation of the project for 

alternative 4, which removes more canopy cover than any of the other alternatives. This is compared to 

midpoint ARP required by the LRMP as shown in the table. Alternatives 2 and 3, being less extractive, 

will have less effect to ARP. Completion of implementation is estimated to occur in 2019.

Table 28: Current and post treatment Aggregate Recovery Percentages (ARP) in the project area

Planning Sub-Drainage Current Condition Post Treatment Alternative 4 

(Most Extractive)

Midpoint ARP from 1990 

Willamette NF LRMP

Hensley 95.09 95.68 80

Moose 83.12 80.09 75

Lower South Santiam 91.49 85.46 70

Trout 94.65 91.06 75

Boulder 97.70 97.95 75

Lower Canyon 92.96 88.98 75

Black 93.96 93.54 65

Middle Canyon 71.88 72.33 80

ARP levels are maintained above recommended midpoint values for Alternative 4, except in Middle 

Canyon P-sub, but there are no units in the Middle Canyon P-sub so this project has no effect in this Psub. This ARP analysis includes all lands within the P-subs, including private land. For all P-subs with 

timber harvest units, ARP values are maintained above midpoint values for all alternatives, even 

immediately after implementation when the potential for adverse impacts to vegetation would be 

greatest. Therefore, no altered peak stream flows are anticipated from implementation of the proposed 

actions. The map below shows the ARP levels immediately after harvest in 2019. Figure 23 is a Map of 

ARP levels post treatment for Alternative 4.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 23: Map of ARP levels post treatment for Alternative 4
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 123

Cumulative Effects

Each of the projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix C) were analyzed for effects to ARP. They were already included 

in the analysis (past timber sales), or found to have no effect.

Private timber harvest could cumulatively degrade ARP values in the future, but that is not predictable. 

The Oregon Forest Practices Act, which governs the way private land is managed, does not protect 

exacerbated rain on snow related bank erosion to the level protected on federal land (Oregon Forest 

Practices Act, 1971). This potential bank erosion related sedimentation could impact aquatic 

ecosystems in the short, medium and long term.

The Trout Creek Project has no direct or indirect effects to ARP values; and therefore, has no cumulative 

effects on peak flows.

Affected Environment – Sedimentation and Roads

As described in the Soils section, this project area is located within the Western Cascades physiographic 

region. The soils of the project area are complex but are for the most part well drained. They have 

moderate to high infiltration rates that reduce overland flow and they have low susceptibility to soil 

erosion. Side slopes are generally less than 60%. Offsite erosion is generally not a concern because of 

the extensive vegetative ground cover and the gentle to moderate side slopes.

Turbidity measurements are not available, but roads are considered the main contributor to human 

caused increases in fine sediment and turbidity in streams. Road development in the action area is 

moderate (approximately 2.23 miles per square mile). Most major road systems were constructed in the 

1950s to the 1970s with older road construction standards when few location and construction controls 

were in place. Some of these roads were built on steep side slopes with side cast construction 

standards, where excavated material was pushed over the edge onto the steep side slopes below. The 

remnants of this side cast are still evident, and failing side cast continues to be a source of 

sedimentation into streams in the action area. Road failure sites temporarily increase turbidity levels, 

causing displacement of fish, reduced feeding success, and other negative behavioral changes. Roads 

continue to be a substantial source of human caused sedimentation in the action area. However, this 

area has a very high background level of suspended sediment and turbidity due to the natural earth 

flows actively moving in the area and the flashy flows resulting from common rain on snow events.

Because road maintenance in the area is shared with industrial timber companies, the majority of the 

road system is well maintained, has good drainage culverts and ditches that are vegetated so little 

sediment enters streams during regular storm events. However, major storm events cause substantially 

more sedimentation, and often during heavy rain events the larger streams in the project area have

naturally high turbidity (dark brown opaque appearance) for a day or two before clearing up again.

The major routes in the project area (roads 2022, 2032 and 2027) are well maintained roads used by 

timber companies and the public. Road 2022 is a popular public road for access to Canyon Creek. Road 

2032 (Gordon Road) is a popular public road used to access campgrounds and trailheads. Road 2027 

(Moose Mountain Road) is used extensively by timber companies and the public for access to hunting. 

Previous work on aquatic risk roads analysis has identified several roads in the project area that are 

posing high risk to aquatic environments (Gatchell, 2010).

Based on observations of existing road conditions during field reconnaissance for the project, and local 

climatic data, sediment outputs from roads were estimated using the roads module of the Watershed 

Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. The current sediment yield from roads is estimated at about 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

332 cubic yards per year for the action area. Actual yields cannot be accurately calculated since there 

are numerous annual and inter-annual variations that would need to be considered including weather 

conditions, timing of peak flow events and site specific road condition information that is not available. 

Research comparing WEPP estimated sediment rates to actual rates has shown the model to overestimate values, and that it is not reliably accurate. Therefore sediment predictions using WEPP 

modeling should only be used for relative comparisons rather than actual values expected to be 

produced.

In 2008, a legacy road project in the Moose Creek subwatershed identified and treated approximately 

12 miles of aquatic risk roads. The treatments were primarily storm damage risk reduction treatments 

that did not prevent driving on the roads (theoretically), but reduced chronic road related erosion and 

the potential for catastrophic failure. Treatments involved installing waterbars and drivable drain dips 

over stream culverts. Roads treated included the 2025, 2025-518 (and spurs), 2025-580 (and spurs), 

2027-705, 2027-810, 2027-812, 2027-813 and 2027-816. These treatments reduced the road related 

erosion in the project area and continue to ensure the roads are in stable condition in the event of 

major flooding threatening the road system. These roads can be seen on the subwatersheds map in 

Figure 20.

In 2010, the Canyon Thin Aquatic Risk Roads Analysis was completed for the Canyon Thin project, which 

identified approximately 21 miles of aquatic risk roads in the Lower Canyon and Trout sub-watersheds 

(Gatchell, 2010). Treatment recommendations included road decommissioning, road storage and storm 

damage risk reduction. Some of these treatments have been completed by the Upper Canyon Road 

Storage Project and the Gordon Spurs Road Storage Project. The Stewart Road Hydrologic Stabilization 

project has also implemented some of the treatments identified in this 2010 analysis. Post sale road 

treatments are planned for the Canyon Thin EA timber sales, which are still in process. The highest 

aquatic risk roads identified in this analysis were the Vine Maple Road (2000-011 and 2000-013) and 

Stewart Road (2000-600, 2000-632, 2000-636, 2000-641, and 2000-643). These two roads are proposed 

for decommissioning in this Trout Creek project. The 2032-315 and 2032-317 are also proposed for 

decommissioning in this project although they have already been treated by the Gordon Spurs project.

Between the Canyon Thin project and the Moose Creek legacy roads project, all the roads in the Trout 

Creek project area have previously been analyzed for aquatic risk and a majority of the recommended 

treatments have been implemented. With the final 9 miles of roads identified as high aquatic risk being 

decommissioned, the Trout Creek project area will have aquatic risk roads identified and treated.

The Willamette National Forest has published their Road Investment Strategy (RIS, 2015), used to 

identify the Minimum Road System needed for administrative and public access. The Road Investment 

Strategy (RIS) directs the forest to evaluate whether roads are needed and gives recommendations for 

road closure or decommissioning. The aquatic risk roads analyses previously completed for this project 

area was used to determine treatment of roads as the IDT completed the RIS roads analysis for the 

project area. 

Environmental Consequences – Sedimentation and Roads

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Rates of road related sediment yield would be expected to remain the same under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 1 would not correct existing road erosion problems which result in chronic sedimentation to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 125

streams. Without timber harvest related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend would result 

in only the main roads being maintained. Culverts that are not maintained could plug and cause 

washouts. The resulting sediment plumes could be detrimental to fish and amphibians. Over several 

decades, these road issues would stabilize as the disturbed areas re-vegetate. However, no projectrelated road storage or decommissioning would occur. Harvest activity on the portion of private land 

within the project area would continue. For all of the action alternatives, annual sediment yield 

increases during harvest activities because of increased haul, and decreases after project 

implementation because of reduced road miles from decommissioning. There is slightly less net 

increase in sediment in Alternative 3 compared to Alternatives 2 and 4, because there is 46 miles of haul 

routes instead 49 miles, but the slight increase is still about 2% in all alternatives. The decrease of about 

5% in alternative 2 compared to approximately 7% decrease in Alternatives 3 and 4 is due to 

decommissioning more miles of road in Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would decommission about 7 

miles of road, and Alternatives 3 and 4 would decommission about 9 miles.

Table 31 provides a comparison of sediment outputs between all alternatives.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Abandoned and unmaintained forest roads are common across the Trout Creek project area, and pose a 

threat to aquatic ecosystems, including habitat for threatened and endangered species (Madej, 2001; 

Luce and Wemple, 2001). This is partially a result of old road building practices and current lack of 

maintenance on existing roads. Analysis and treatment of aquatic risk roads is an important aspect of 

watershed restoration. The Road Investment Strategy final recommendation included analyzing 2.1 

miles for decommissioning. Using this document as a guide, this project has identified 9.4 miles of road 

that are not needed and are proposed for decommissioning. Additionally, approximately 32 miles of 

road would be closed (changed from high clearance open roads to closed). The roads that would be 

closed are generally already closed on the ground, and closed aquatic risk roads have generally had the 

stream culverts removed with previous treatments, or will have them removed as funding becomes 

available. The closures mostly update the maintenance level (Maintenance Level 1) in the INFRA 

database to current condition. As required by Forest Service Handbook (FSH 7709.59_60), drainage 

maintenance would continue on any stream culverts not removed to prevent aquatic resource damage. 

Ideally all closed roads will have the stream culverts removed so that continued maintenance is not 

required. No closed roads will be expected to be used for administrative use (FSH 7709.59_60).

Forest roads can be a significant source of sediment entering streams (Megahan and Kidd, 1972; 

Wemple et al., 2001). Steep slopes with road cuts have potential to induce sideslope failures resulting in 

exacerbation of fine sediment delivery to stream habitat. Swanson and Dyrness (1975) found landslide 

occurrence was 30 times greater along roads than on unroaded forested areas in old cascade geology. 

Road cuts can intercept groundwater flow and decrease groundwater storage by bringing it to the 

surface, which in turn increases surface water during rain events and decreases summer low flows (e.g., 

Luce, 2002). Roads near streams can interfere with flood plain connection and storage, alter channel 

form, reduce riparian shading, and can introduce exotic species and pathogens (Luce et al., 2001). Loss 

of floodplain connection decreases groundwater storage and can lead to decreasing summer low flows. 

Road drainage structures can alter natural drainage patterns particularly when they plug and divert 

water to unchannelled hillslopes and interfere with large wood delivery downstream (Roni et al., 2002; 

Wemple et al., 1996).

Timber harvest would not be expected to increase fine sediment in stream channels. Several studies 

document the ability of buffer strips to reduce erosion and sediment delivery related to timber harvest. 

Rashin and others (2006) looked at 21 harvest sites that had a variety of treatments ranging from no 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

buffers to buffers up to 66 meters (216.5 feet) wide. They found that, “Of 157 individual erosion 

features determined to deliver sediment to streams during either the first or second year following 

timber harvest, 94% were located within 10 meters (33 feet) of the stream. Conversely, 74% of the 248 

erosion features with no evidence of sediment delivery were greater than 10 m from streams. Results 

indicate that when erosion is initiated by ground disturbing activities within 10 meters (slope distance) 

of a stream, delivery of sediment was more likely than not.” Lakel et al. (2010) looked at the 

effectiveness of a variety of treated and untreated buffers in trapping sediment adjacent to timber 

harvest units. They concluded that streamside management zones (buffers) between 25 feet and 100 

feet were effective in trapping sediment before it could enter streams. These streamside management 

zones consisted of both treated and untreated areas. Therefore, harvest units that do not have 

corridors crossing streams should not result in sedimentation to streams in the project units due to the 

equipment setback distances and the no-harvest buffers that are similar to the studies cited above.

In Alternatives 2 and 4, there are approximately 4.3 miles of temporary (non-system) spur roads 

proposed for use in the project. Approximately 2 miles are new temporary spur roads and 

approximately 2.3 miles are existing spur roads that will be re-opened. In Riparian Reserves, there will 

be approximately 240 feet of new temporary spur road constructed and approximately 1.4 miles of the 

existing temporary spur roads re-opened. In alternative 3 there will be slightly less miles of temporary 

spur road. None of these temporary roads cross streams. These roads are seasonally restricted to 

operation during the dry season, May 31st through October 1st, to minimize soil erosion and 

compaction. If waivers are requested to operate on the native surface temporary roads during the wet 

season, then the operator will be required to place rock during the dry season and then remove the rock 

when operations are complete, before de-compacting the road after use. All temporary spur roads 

would be fully decommissioned after the project is complete. Decommissioning would include the 

removal of all stream crossings, subsoiling the compacted surface, and revegetating with native species. 

Since none of the temporary roads cross streams, there is not expected to be measurable sedimentation 

effects for temporary roads in the Trout Creek project.

This project would include maintenance of proper drainage through maintaining and repairing existing 

road structures, including ditch-relief and stream culverts that are currently in poor condition. Road 

work associated with the Trout Creek project would include replacement of 260 culverts (17 live stream) 

that are currently in poor repair or inadequately sized to pass 100-year flood flows. These culverts 

currently pose an elevated risk of fill failure. Discussion with engineering personnel indicated that the 

average fill volume on live streams is about 50 cubic yards. An estimated 850 cubic yards of potential fill 

failure is at risk of entering the streams if the existing live stream culverts fail.

Culvert replacement would require in-stream work that would be done during the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife instream work window of July 15th to August 31st. Best Management Practices such 

as sediment barriers and flow bypass would minimize impacts on perennial streams. Flows in perennial 

streams are all expected to be less than 10 cubic feet per second when work occurs, based on personal 

observation during project reconnaissance. It is not possible to do this work without some sediment 

delivery, and accurate estimates are not predictable. Depending on weather behavior and other variable 

factors, sediment yields should average 1 cubic yard or less per installation based on professional 

experience. This sediment would settle out within a 1000 feet (Foltz, 2007).

As seen in Table 29, the proposed action would replace approximately 260 culverts, with 17 live stream 

(perennial and intermittent) culverts. Approximately 243 ditch relief culverts will be replaced. Ditch 

relief culverts help disperse water onto vegetated hillsides, preventing sediment laden ditch water from 

entering streams. These culverts reduce road related sedimentation of streams.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 127

Table 29: Road Maintenance and Reconstruction (Road Work) with number of culvert replacements and 

distance to LFH (Source Daniel Matthews, Engineering)

Road 

number

Road Maintenance

(miles)

Live stream (LS) and ditch 

relief culvert replacements

Culvert Replacements 

within 1000 feet of LFH 

Nearest Distance 

to LFH/CH (feet)

2022000 1.34 6 (0 LS) 2 (0 LS) 300

2022107 1.79 15 (0 LS) 1 (0 LS) 850

2027000 12.17 40 (4 LS) 0 1,500

2027537 0.30 2 (0 LS) 0 1,900

2027720 4.25 16 (1 LS) 0 2,700

2027730 2.40 12 (1 LS) 0 6,500

2027732 2.60 12 (1 LS) 0 9,300

2027752 0.95 8 (0 LS) 0 19,100

2027755 2.61 12 (0 LS) 0 17,300

2027760 1.25 9 (1 LS) 0 19,500

2027801 0.16 3 (0 LS) 3 (0 LS) 800

2027803 0.47 5 (0 LS) 0 1,300

2027805 1.31 10 (1 LS) 1 (0 LS) 800

2027810 0.43 4 (0 LS) 0 4,100

2027812 0.29 3 (0 LS) 0 3,300

2027813 0.66 5 (0 LS) 0 2,300

2027825 1.06 8 (0 LS) 0 5,300

2027830 0.17 1 (0 LS) 0 8,800

2027840 1.49 10 (0 LS) 0 5,500

2027850 2.35 18 (1 LS) 0 8,900

2027856 0.64 5 (0 LS) 0 12,300

2027857 1.95 12 (1 LS) 0 9,000

2032000 3.32 14 (5 LS) 12 (4 LS) 130

2032417 1.55 12 (1 LS) 0 3,200

2032418 1.71 10 (0 LS) 0 2,600

2032419 0.48 3 (0 LS) 0 2,600

2032421 0.39 2 (0 LS) 0 2,500

2032444 0.33 2 (0 LS) 0 4,300

2032456 0.11 1 (0 LS) 0 2,800

Total 48.5 260 (17 LS) 19 (4 LS) N/A

The 17 live stream culvert replacements will cause sedimentation to streams and at the same time 

prevent future catastrophic failures resulting from the eventual collapse of degraded culverts.

A properly functioning system of ditch relief culverts and properly sized stream culverts is beneficial to 

water quality and aquatic biota (USDA Forest Service, 2012). The proposal to upgrade and replace the 

culverts identified in this project would be beneficial to aquatics. In order to implement the culvert 

replacements the sale of timber is required to pay for the needed upgrades. It is estimated that 

alternative 2 and alternative 4 would both adequately fund the culvert replacements identified in Table 

29. However, alternative 3, could only replace about 30% of the culverts identified as needing replaced.

Table 30 provides a summary of the culvert replacements and the potential amount of stabilized fill 

material that would have a reduced risk of entering streams. The summary is based on the assumption

that only 30% of the culverts will be replaced under alternative 3. It also estimates the amount of 

sediment produced from the culvert replacements. Based on professional experience, each live stream 

culvert replacement would produce on average approximately 1 cubic yard or less of fine sediment that 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

would enter streams at the replacement site during re-watering after replacement in the summer 

(perennial streams only), and during the first winter storms.

The estimate of sediment entering streams from the culvert replacements would be approximately 17 

cubic yards for Alternative 2 and 4 (Table 30). For Alternative 3, the estimated sediment would be 

approximately 5 cubic yards. In comparison, the estimated volume of fill stabilized from potential 

culvert failure is about 850 cubic yards for Alternative 2 and 4, and approximately 250 cubic yards for 

Alternative 3. All action alternatives would reduce the potential for runoff effects and culvert failures 

that may affect water quality.

Table 30: Estimated sediment produced short term and stabilized long term by culvert replacements at 

road/stream crossings by alternative

Alternative Number of Stream 

Culverts Replaced 

Potential Sediment

Stabilized (Cubic Yards)

Sediment Produced

(Cubic Yards)

Alternative 1 0 0 0

Alternative 2 17 850 17

Alternative 3 5 250 5

Alternative 4 17 850 17

Most harvest-related sediment input to streams comes from skid trails, roads that were poorly located, 

or skyline corridor crossings. Research has shown that by keeping these at least 33 feet from streams 

and following Best Management Practices (BMP) guidelines, essentially all of the harvest related 

sediment is eliminated (Rashin et al., 2006, Lakel et al., 2010). In addition, soils in the project area have 

naturally high rates of infiltration and low potential for overland flow. 

Decommissioning the Stewart road (2000-600/636/632/641/643), Vine Maple road (2000-011, 2000-

013) and 2032-315/317 (Shiftless and Pole roads) will produce short term sediment that enters streams, 

but will reduce sedimentation from roads overall by stabilizing the roads and returning drainage 

patterns to their natural condition. Because BMPs such as following instream work timing (July 15th to 

August 31st) and dewatering culvert removal sites, sedimentation is expected to be kept to a minimum. 

Decommissioning the 2032-308 (Stewardess Road) and 2000-017 (Trout Creek Road) may also cause 

slight amount of short term sedimentation from culvert removals, but since there are no stream culverts 

on these roads, it is expected to be very slight and during the fall rains when natural sedimentation is 

very high in streams. The short term sedimentation caused by the Trout Creek Project decommissioning 

is expected to be minimal and not cause any adverse effects to fish species or other aquatic life in the 

stream ecosystem.

An analysis of estimated sediment outputs from roads in the project area was completed using the 

roads module of the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. Results were calculated to 

estimate sediment production rates during the implementation of the project as well as conditions 

following completion of the project. For all of the action alternatives, annual sediment yield increases 

during harvest activities because of increased haul, and decreases after project implementation because 

of reduced road miles from decommissioning. There is slightly less net increase in sediment in 

Alternative 3 compared to Alternatives 2 and 4, because there is 46 miles of haul routes instead 49 

miles, but the slight increase is still about 2% in all alternatives. The decrease of about 5% in alternative 

2 compared to approximately 7% decrease in Alternatives 3 and 4 is due to decommissioning more miles 

of road in Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would decommission about 7 miles of road, and 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would decommission about 9 miles.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 129

Table 31 shows the estimates of sediment production rates based on WEPP. The WEPP road model is 

not reliably accurate and is best used to assess differences between alternative and not the actual 

sediment yield from roads in the action area.

For all of the action alternatives, annual sediment yield increases during harvest activities because of 

increased haul, and decreases after project implementation because of reduced road miles from 

decommissioning. There is slightly less net increase in sediment in Alternative 3 compared to 

Alternatives 2 and 4, because there is 46 miles of haul routes instead 49 miles, but the slight increase is 

still about 2% in all alternatives. The decrease of about 5% in alternative 2 compared to approximately 

7% decrease in Alternatives 3 and 4 is due to decommissioning more miles of road in Alternatives 3 and 

4. Alternative 2 would decommission about 7 miles of road, and Alternatives 3 and 4 would 

decommission about 9 miles.

Table 31: Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for the Trout Creek Project Area

Sediment Production

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Current 

condition

During 

harvest

After 

harvest

During 

harvest

After 

harvest

During 

harvest

After 

harvest

Total Road Sediment Yield 

(cubic yards/year) 332 338 316 337 308 338 308

Change in road sediment 

(cubic yards/year) N/A 6 -16 5 -24 6 -24

Percent change in road 

sediment N/A +2% -5% +2% -7% 2 -7%

The South Santiam River, including the project area, provides municipal water to the City of Sweet Home 

at Foster Dam, approximately 10 miles downstream from the project area. Sedimentation and 

associated turbidity are the most likely consequences of the Trout Creek project that could adversely 

affect municipal water quality, but with project design features there is not expected to be a measurable 

effect because sediment is produced approximately 15 miles above the intake for Sweet Home. The 

intake is also in the dam at Foster Reservoir and sediment will settle out in the reservoir.

By implementing the activities associated with the Trout Creek project, human caused sediment input 

from roads would decrease slightly (5-10%) from current levels. Annual pulses of sediment would 

continue. In some years the sediment input would be greater than in other years, but overall the 

sediment input levels are expected to remain near current levels until a large flood event occurs. Risk of 

road and fill failures during major storm events would be reduced as well. Overall, implementation of 

these alternatives would reduce management-caused sedimentation within the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

All recent and planned timber harvest and road decommissioning projects were and will be designed 

with similar protection measures, design features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects 

to water quality and aquatic resources. Each of the projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix C) were analyzed for effects 

to sedimentation and were found to have no effect, negligible effect, or beneficial effect. The negligible 

or beneficial effects combined with the direct effects expected from the Trout Creek project would not 

contribute measurably to sedimentation beyond the contribution already disclosed in the direct effects 

analysis.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Activities that cumulatively affect stream sedimentation include private timber harvest and private 

timber haul along roads in the project area. On private land there may be commercial harvest, 

associated new road construction, and log haul that effects sedimentation of streams. This 

sedimentation could impact aquatic ecosystems in the short, medium and long term.

Affected Environment – Fisheries

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identifies Management 

Indicator Species (MIS) species as anadromous fish and resident trout (US Forest Service, 1990, p. IV-73). 

They were selected because they are important for commercial and sport fishing and because they are 

representative of the health of the stream systems. Also, their habitat can be easily affected by timber 

harvest. The four MIS fish species that use this project area are Upper Willamette River (UWR) Winter 

Steelhead, UWR Spring Chinook, Cutthroat trout, and resident Rainbow trout. A hybridized cross 

between Cutthroat and Rainbow trout also exists in the project area.

Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent stream 

channels, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. The MIS fish were also selected to indicate healthy stream 

and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. MIS fish-bearing streams are widespread across the 

project area. Habitat for each MIS fish species exists within the project area and is included in the 

analysis area. 

Winter steelhead and spring Chinook are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Chinook are are spawning, with the aid of transport upstream around Foster Dam, in the main stem of 

the South Santiam up to approximately river mile 63 where further upstream passage is blocked by a 

cascading falls below the confluence with Elk Creek. Winter Steelhead spawn in the South Santiam, 

Moose Creek and Canyon Creek within the project area. The Winter Steelhead above Foster Dam are 

not genetically compromised by intermingling with hatchery fish below the dam, and are considered a 

core genetic stronghold important for long term recovery of the species.

Out-migrating juveniles must pass through Foster Reservoir and Dam (Figure 24). The returning adults 

are collected by the hatchery below Foster Dam and transported upstream to two out-planting locations 

on the South Santiam River at Riverbend Campground and Gordon Road. Over the past few years, on an 

average year, approximately 200 returning adult Winter Steelhead are transported above the dam to 

spawn.

Figure 24: Foster Dam blocks anadromous fish passage upstream and makes downstream passage 

treacherous for the juveniles out-migrating to the ocean
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 131

In general, the MIS Fish selected for the Willamette NF have similar stream and riparian ecosystem 

requirements (e.g., cold water habitat). The primary difference is that the anadromous fish require the 

ability to migrate out to the ocean and return to spawn. This access is restricted by Foster Dam. In the 

1960s Foster Dam was constructed, eliminating over 18 miles of anadromous fish habitat. Various 

attempts over time have been made to mitigate the dam. A new fish collection facility was completed 

below the dam in 2015. Anadromous salmonids are theoretically collected with less stress and 

transported above the dam.

In the 1960s through the 1980s a practice of removing large wood from stream channels removed most 

of the large wood available for fish habitat. The amount of large wood in streams is now one of the 

most significant indicators of not properly functioning fish habitat. It is generally accepted that 80 

pieces of large wood per mile indicates properly functioning fish habitat for salmonids. A 2012 stream 

survey of the South Santiam found an average of approximately two pieces of large wood per mile.

In Moose Creek, Soda Fork and Canyon Creeks subwatersheds there has been restoration of large wood 

in the UWR Winter Steelhead spawning portions of these larger streams. The South Santiam main stem 

is still devoid of large wood where stream cleanout was extensive for navigation.

Fish passage barriers caused by culverts that block access to habitat are present in the project area. The 

locations and fish affected are shown in 

Table 32 and Figure 25.

Table 32: Fish Passage Barriers in the Trout Creek Project Area

Fish Passage Barrier Stream Road blocking MIS Fish 

habitat 

MIS Fish Species 

Affected

Miles of habitat 

blocked

White Rock Creek (2 barriers) Moose Creek Road (2025) 

and 2025-510

Cutthroat, Resident 

Rainbow 0.3

Boulder Creek 2000-610 Cutthroat, Resident 

Rainbow 1.2

Keith Creek Hwy 20 Cutthroat, Resident 

Rainbow, Winter Steelhead 1.7

Unnamed Tributary of South 

Santiam crossing Vine Maple Road Vine Maple Road (2000-011) Cutthroat 0.2

Black Creek Gordon Road (2032)

None. Note that Brook 

Trout were introduced 

above this barrier

N/A

The barrier on White Rock Creek, a tributary of Moose Creek, consists of two culverts that block 

passage. One barrier is on road 2025 and the other on road 2025-510. It is possible this stream could 

be used by juvenile steelhead.

The majority of the road system is well maintained, has good drainage culverts and ditches that are 

vegetated so little sediment enters streams during regular storm events. However, major storm events 

cause significantly more sedimentation, and often during major events the streams can have elevated 

turbidity for several days. Because the natural sources of sedimentation in this area produce such a 

large normal amount of sediment that includes fine clays, suspended sediment and turbidity is 

considered functioning at risk.

The existing condition for MIS Fish habitat which supports resident rainbow trout and cutthroat trout is 

stable or improving and therefore the populations are considered stable or improving. The Spring 

Chinook and Winter Steelhead require trap and haul around Foster dam to access the project area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

These populations are considered unstable or at risk and are federally listed as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Figure 25: Fish Passage Barriers in the project area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 133

Environmental Consequences – Fisheries

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no direct effects to MIS Fish habitat in Alternative 1. Indirect effects to habitat would 

occur over time as trees mature and recruit into the stream channels in the project area. Passive 

restoration by protection of Riparian Reserves would result in long-term recovery to desired future 

conditions, especially large wood in streams.

Landscape delivery of fine sediment, as modified by the road network, would continue, leaving 

deteriorating roads and culverts untreated. The current levels would remain within the range of 

conditions necessary to sustain native aquatic biota. Periodic stream crossing failures may occur at 

undersized and outdated culverts, potentially delivering large pulses of fine sediment to fish bearing 

reaches. Culvert failures may induce stresses on resident fish populations, but not at magnitudes that 

would be expected to extirpate local populations.

Current rates of large wood recruitment, provided mostly by stem mortality (from competition, disease, 

wind and snow downed trees) and bank erosion, would be maintained. Alternative 1 would provide a 

slightly higher rate of in-stream wood recruitment compared to the action alternatives. Where the 

action alternatives protect about 90% of the wood recruitment zones with no-harvest buffers (Johnston, 

2011), the No-Action alternative would protect 100%. In streams within the project units, recruitment 

trees are of sufficient size to meet ACS Objectives. In-stream wood abundance is very low and the higher 

amount of wood naturally recruited to channels in alternative 1 would be slightly more beneficial to MIS 

Fish species than the action alternatives. The 10% of potential large wood recruitment lost is too small 

to be stable in habitats occupied by listed fish.

The No-Action alternative would not utilize thinning to enhance vegetation and increase species 

diversity. Desired riparian conditions would develop over time (several decades) and result from natural 

thinning. The currently dense riparian stands would be at greater risk to high severity fire, insect 

infestation, and disease.

Alternative 1 is not likely to have any measurable effect on MIS fish habitat. There is potential for 

culvert failures to lead to temporary increases in fine sediment, but it would still be within the range of 

natural variability.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

No-harvest buffers on all streams would minimize effects to aquatic species and their habitat and 

protect the majority of future large wood for stream recruitment. Project design features were 

incorporated into all activities to protect aquatic resources (see Design Features, Table 14). Due to these 

project design features, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in short-term negative effects such as 

increased turbidity, but would have beneficial effects to fish habitat in the long run. For detailed analysis 

of how the project actions affect aquatic species and their habitat, see the Fisheries Biological 

Assessment located in the project file. 

The greatest potential for direct effect to MIS fish would be fine sediment increases during project 

implementation while roads are decommissioned, culverts are replaced and road maintenance is 

occurring. There would be a short term turbidity effect during re-watering of replaced culverts in the 

summer and in the fall during the first flush of rain. Juvenile and adult salmonids appear to be little 

affected by temporarily high concentrations of suspended sediments that occur during brief periods 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

related to storms (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Once the project is complete, sediment production rates 

return to slightly less than pre-project conditions. All the action alternatives would reduce the potential 

for runoff effects and culvert failures that may affect MIS fish. Road decommissioning of the Vine Maple 

road will remove a fish passage barrier culvert and open up currently unavailable habitat for cutthroat 

trout.

Conditions in Riparian Reserves in the native stands would be maintained. In overstocked, coniferdominant Riparian Reserves lacking structural and species diversity, thinning would occur in Riparian 

Reserves. The desired benefit of thinning in Riparian Reserves is to improve stand structure, vegetation 

diversity, and accelerate development of large trees. McDade et al. (1990) found that 92% of wood 

originates from within 100 feet of the stream channel. Johnston et al. (2011) found wood originated up 

to 213 feet from the stream but that 90% of LWD originated from within 59 feet of the stream at 90% of 

the sites studied. Because of the thinning in manages stands as close as 75 feet on perennial streams 

and 50 feet on intermittent streams it is expected that there will be a small reduction in future large 

wood in streams from reduced future mortality. Thinning only outside of the 75 feet no-harvest buffer 

would result in retention of the majority of potential wood (>90%) while achieving desired vegetation 

characteristics that support productive aquatic communities. The action alternatives may have a slightly 

lower rate of in-stream wood recruitment than the No-Action alternative, but the benefits to vegetation 

diversity and accelerated tree growth would be greater. The major wood recruitment process in the 

project area is stream adjacent recruitment. The only two units with timber harvest in the action 

alternatives adjacent to MIS fish habitat are units 50 and 59. Unit 50 has a no-harvest buffer of 344 feet 

and unit 59 has a buffer of 120 feet to further retain the majority of potential large wood entering the 

stream near MIS fish habitat. The potential effects from lost large wood recruitment on MIS fish and 

their habitat would not be expected to be measureable, and would be expected to be within the range 

of natural variability. Riparian fall and leave projects would help accelerate restoration of in stream 

large wood in the units where it would be implemented.

Cumulative Effects

Each of the projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix C) were analyzed for effects to fisheries and were found to have 

no effect, negligible effect, or beneficial effect. The negligible or beneficial effects combined with the 

direct effects expected from the Trout Creek project would not affect fish in the project area beyond the 

range of natural variability.

Activities that cumulatively affect fisheries include private timber harvest. On private land there will be 

commercial harvest that removes future potential large wood for streams. This loss of future large 

wood may have a negative cumulative impact on aquatic ecosystems and fisheries in the long term.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction

The action alternatives and aquatic mitigation measures proposed in the Trout Creek project were 

reviewed by the District Hydrologist and the District Fisheries Biologist against all Federal and State laws 

and regulations governing streams and endangered species of fish. All rules and regulations related to 

ESA listed fish species, MIS fish species, hydrology, stream channels and water quality would be met by 

any of the action alternatives.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 135

3.04 Wildlife

Summary of Effects Analysis

The effects of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were compared to the No Action alternative for the following 

wildlife species or categories: (a) northern spotted owl, (b) Forest Service sensitive species, (c) Forest 

Service Survey and Manage species, (d) Forest Service management indicator species, and (e) migratory 

birds. These categories were selected for analysis based on standard wildlife concerns with such actions 

identified in past planning documents (such as the Forest Plan), public comments about the project, 

Forest Service policies and regulations (e.g., Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, and Survey 

and Manage standards and guidelines), and issues identified by the project interdisciplinary team and 

public.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would remove or degrade about 872 acres each of natural stands and young 

managed forest habitat in the Planning Area. Alternative 3 would remove or degrade about 654 acres of 

managed stands. All action alternatives would adversely affect species that use these habitat types; 

however, because effects are marginal at the project and Forest-scales, the action alternatives are 

expected to maintain the viability of all wildlife species that utilize this habitat. Because viability is being 

maintained, the proposed alternatives would not contribute to a loss of viability at the project or Forestwide scale. The proposed alternatives would create a small amount of early seral habitat and benefit 

species such as elk and some migratory birds that prefer this habitat. These benefits would occur at the 

site-scale, but there would not be meaningful benefits to the species at the project or Forest-scale due 

to the small amount of habitat affected.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would remove and downgrade 130 and 88 acres, respectively, of suitable owl 

habitat which may affect spotted owls and their habitat; however, because effects are negligible at the 

project and Forest-scale, it is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. 

Alternative 3 would remove 74 acres of dispersal owl habitat and may affect but it is not likely to 

adversely affect spotted owls or their habitat. Spotted owl critical habitat would be affected by 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. They would remove or downgrade suitable and dispersal habitat which may 

likely adversely affect critical habitat; however, because effects would be marginal at the Forest-scale, 

critical habitat would continue to provide demographic support to overall northern spotted owl 

populations and connectivity for owls between critical habitat subunits. Alternatives 2 and 4 would 

remove or downgrade suitable habitat within the home range of 3 known owl sites which may affect 

and likely adversely affect the sites; however, because suitable habitat would remain above threshold 

levels, the functionality of the owl sites for nesting and rearing young would be maintained. There 

would be no effects to Recovery Action 32 habitat.

Scale of Analysis

The scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects on wildlife species associated with the 

Trout Creek project includes all project activity units and the project area. The project area consists of 

37,344 acres in Bear Creek, Soda Fork, Moose Creek, Trout Creek and Lower Canyon 6th field subwatersheds of the Middle Santiam and South Santiam River 5th field watersheds. Four Big Game 

Emphasis Areas were also used to assess effects to elk and deer habitat. For the threatened northern 

spotted owl, in addition to project units, project area and watershed scales, a 300 meter, 0.5 and 1.2 

mile radius buffer around all pair activity centers that may be affected by the proposed project was used 

to assess effects. These habitat radii were used to determine available amounts of suitable and 

dispersal habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Affected Environment – Early Seral Habitat

Age class diversity in forest stands is important as some species of animals and plants depend on 

younger stages of forests for their feeding, nesting, and breeding requirements, whereas other species 

thrive in middle age or old forests. Early seral habitat (defined as less than 20 years old) is of key 

importance to an estimated 156 species of wildlife in the central Oregon Cascades.

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

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

suppression and reduced regeneration harvest have resulted in fewer acres of early seral habitat 

creation. Additionally, fire suppression and reduced regeneration harvest have resulted in a much higher 

proportion of dense, closed canopy stands. Consequently, there is less structurally rich and diverse 

quality early seral habitat in the South Santiam River watershed than in the past. A small amount of 

early seral habitat is present in surrounding rock outcrops at higher elevations and there are very few 

open meadows in the project area. A 2012 Gradient Nearest Neighbor analysis of all ownerships shows 

that about 5% of the South Santiam 5th field watershed is early seral habitat.

The Trout Creek project area occurs in the South Santiam River 5th field watershed, with less than 32 

acres occurring in the Middle Santiam River 5th field watershed. For the purposes of this analysis, since 

32 acres is a negligible amount, they are analyzed in combination with the rest of the project acres in 

the South Santiam River 5th field watershed.

Environmental Consequences – Early Seral Habitat for Wildlife

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 and 3

With implementation of Alternatives 1 and 3, the amount of diverse early seral habitat in the South 

Santiam River watershed would remain about 5% and continue to decrease as these stands move from 

early seral to mid-seral over time. Natural tree mortality (insects, disease, wildfire, or blowdown) within 

the Trout Creek units is not expected to be significant or likely to produce many openings in the shortterm future, resulting in noticeable increase in early seral habitat across the landscape. Refer to the 

Forest and Stand Structure section for a more detailed existing condition analysis.

Alternatives 2 and 4

With implementation of Alternatives 2 and 4, the amount of diverse early seral habitat in the Trout 

Creek project area would increase. Early seral habitat would be created by gaps and early seral creation 

(Aggregate Retention) treatments. Historically the South Santiam River watershed contained about 8 

percent of early seral (GNN, 2012). The total acres of early seral and gaps created by treatments is 136 

acres. Of the total project area, 37,350 acres, treatments on 136 acres represent 0.36% of the project 

area. At the watershed level, this would increase early seral habitat by 0.13% for a total of 5.13%. 

These acres would be expected to provide early seral habitat for about 15 to 20 years.

Cumulative Effects

The Jude Ridge project is adjacent to the Trout Creek project area and it proposes to create 27 acres of 

early seral habitat. Private lands, or 22% of the Trout Creek project area, have been cut over the past 20 

years. The clear-cuts on these private lands are expected to provide low quality early seral habitat for 

the next 10 to 20 years.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 137

Affected Environment – Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl is a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that 

uses forest habitat in the project area. Effects of the various proposed actions for the Trout Creek 

project were addressed by the Willamette Planning Province Level I Terrestrial Team (2017) and 

evaluated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the FY2018 Biological Opinion (BO) (FWS 

Reference Number 01EOFW00-2017-F-0555). This BO fulfills the Forest Service’s legal requirement with 

respect to Section 7 of ESA for the Trout Creek Project. This EIS incorporates by reference this BO, as 

well as the Biological Assessment. A summary of the effects of the alternatives on the northern spotted 

owl is provided in this section.

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Northern spotted owl habitat is classified as (1) suitable habitat that provides for nesting, roosting, 

and/or foraging, (2) dispersal-only habitat that provides for protection from avian predators and at least 

minimal foraging opportunities during dispersal and colonization periods, and (3) non-habitat. Suitable 

habitat also provides for dispersal and movement of owls. The Trout Creek project area contains a mix 

of forest stand age classes. Northern spotted owl habitat was analyzed with GIS applications, aerial 

photography, historic data and field visits in the project area. Using forest mapping of owl habitat there 

are currently about 23,189 (62%) acres of suitable habitat, 960 (3%) acres of dispersal habitat, 5,001 

(13%) acres of non-habitat and 8,200 (22%) acres of private land or other agency lands in the Trout 

Creek project area. Most of the private lands are managed for commercial timber harvest and are 

assumed to be unsuitable habitat for spotted owls.

Northern spotted owl habitat is classified as follows: 

1. Suitable habitat that provides for nesting, roosting, and/or foraging, consisting of “...forested 

stands used by spotted owls for nesting, roosting and foraging. Features that support nesting 

and roosting typically include a moderate to high canopy closure (60-90 %); a multi-layered, 

multi-species canopy with large overstory trees (with dbh of greater than 30 inches); a high 

incidence of large trees with various deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe 

infections, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large accumulations of fallen trees 

and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted 

owls to fly. This habitat is described as nesting and roosting habitat in the revised northern 

spotted owl recovery plan (USFWS, 2011).” Suitable habitat can also function as dispersal 

habitat as it supports both territorial and dispersing spotted owls. Those units for the project 

which were considered to be suitable spotted owl habitat provide for foraging and roosting with 

marginal potential for nesting due to the relatively young growth form of the upper canopy and 

the absence or relatively low number of legacy trees over 250 years old. 

2. Dispersal-only habitat provides for protection from avian predators and at least minimal 

foraging opportunities during dispersal and colonization periods. Dispersal habitat consists of, at 

a minimum, stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian 

predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities (USFWS, 2011). It is comprised of conifer 

and mixed mature conifer-hardwood habitats with a canopy cover greater than or equal to 40 

percent and conifer trees greater than or equal to 11 inches average dbh with open space 

beneath the canopy to allow spotted owls to fly. Generally, spotted owls use younger stands to 

move between blocks of suitable habitat, and to roost, forage and survive until they can 

establish a nest territory. Juvenile owls also use dispersal habitat to move from natal areas. 

Dispersal habitat thus includes habitat that would provide some roosting and foraging 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

opportunities during the colonization phase of dispersal, but not at a scale that would support 

nesting pairs (Willamette National Forest, 2009). While dispersal habitat is often referred to in a 

general sense as stands that are 40-79 years old, growing site conditions, tree spacing, 

elevation, stand size and landscape juxtaposition, precommercial thinning history, and stand 

structure, all play a role in the habitat a stand may provide at a particular age after harvest or 

other disturbance event.

3. Non-habitat refers to land which is capable of growing habitat, but does not currently function 

as either suitable or dispersal habitat.

Recovery Action 32

Recovery Action 32 of the 2011 “Revised Recovery Plan for Northern Spotted Owls” identified a need to 

maintain older, more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests containing large-diameter trees, 

high amounts of canopy cover, and decadent components such as broken-topped trees, mistletoe, large 

snags, and fallen trees (USFWS, 2011). Guidance for identifying such stands was developed for the 

Willamette National Forest with review by US Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management 

(Doerr, 2012). No Recovery Action 32 habitat occurs in the proposed treatment units. 

Critical Habitat Unit

Critical habitat is a designation for land within the range of a listed species that has the physical or 

biological features essential for the conservation of a species and may require special management. For 

the northern spotted owl, these features include particular forest types of sufficient area, quality, and 

configuration to support the needs of territorial owl pairs, including habitat for nesting, roosting, 

foraging, and dispersal. The Trout Creek project is located within the 2012 Critical Habitat Unit 6, West 

Cascades South, subunit WCS3, which totals 319,736 acres. The Trout Creek project contains 815 unit 

acres within subunit WCS3 and 16,520 acres of the WCS3 subunit are within the project boundary. 

Northern Spotted Owl Nest Sites

Effects of habitat modification on individual northern spotted owl nest sites are assessed at three spatial 

scales: (1) the general home range of breeding spotted owls is estimated as a 1.2-mile circle around the 

nest tree, (2) a core area defined as a 0.5-mile radius around the nest tree, and (3) a 300-meter radius 

around the nest tree is referred to as the “nest patch.” It is estimated that at least 40% of the home 

range and 50% of the core area should be suitable habitat to support owl nesting and rearing of young. 

Owls may successfully fledge young when suitable habitat drops below these percentages, but the 

likelihood of this decreases as suitable habitat declines below the threshold values. Owl nest sites for 

this project are based on surveys conducted during nesting season in 2014, 2015 and 2016 in 

accordance with survey protocols established by US Fish and Wildlife Service. Historic owl nest sites 

were also used for this analysis. Nine known owl sites occur in the vicinity of the proposed harvest units, 

one of which is known to be active.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 139

Environmental Consequences – Northern Spotted Owl

Direct and Indirect Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on suitable or dispersal spotted owl habitat. Non-habitat managed 

stands would slowly develop into dispersal habitat within another 10-15 years as the stands thin 

themselves. Those stands which are currently dispersal habitat would develop into low quality foraging 

habitat within 40-50 years. Stands which currently have larger remnant trees of larger diameters could 

become low quality nesting habitat within that timeframe as well. The stands which are currently 

foraging habitat with some nesting opportunity would develop towards old growth conditions and start 

to become high quality suitable owl habitat fitting Recovery Action 32 stand characteristics in about 50-

100 years.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would treat stands between 31-140 years which are non-habitat, dispersal or suitable 

habitat for the northern spotted owl. Some of the older stands have scattered remnant overstory trees 

with potential owl nesting structures. Table 33 displays Alternative 2 proposed treatment acres by age 

class.

Table 33: Age Class Acres by Treatment Type – Alternative 2

Treatment Types Acres By Age Class

34-40 years 41-80 years >80 years

Commercial Harvest (Thinning, Gaps, and Skips1) 302 662 293

Early Seral/Regeneration 0 52 49

Prescribed Underburning 73 156 49

Non-commercial Treatments (Planting Restoration, 

Fall & Leave, Snag Creation, and Dominant Tree 

Release)

17 42 311

Total 392 912 702

1 Skips are not harvested; however, depending on their size and location within the unit they may no longer provide spotted owl habitat.

Treatments in suitable habitat

Alternative 2 would remove about 130 acres or less than one percent of suitable owl habitat in the 

project area, making the habitat unsuitable for spotted owls (Table 34). These acres include 49 acres of 

early seral habitat creation, and 81 acres of fuelbreaks or heavy thinning. These acres also include 2 

acres of clearing in units 140 and 44, each, to accommodate rock pits. In about 40 years post-harvest, 

the early seral openings would develop into dispersal habitat. Suitable owl habitat would develop after 

80-140 years post-harvest, and the stands could achieve characteristics that fit the Recovery Action 32 

description due to the retention of legacy trees that would exist in the stands at that time. Heavily 

thinned acres would take about 10-20 years post-harvest for dispersal habitat to develop. Units with 

retention between up to 40 and 80 trees per acre with harvest treatments would allow these stands to 

provide higher quality dispersal habitat compared to what would occur in a harvest without leave tree 

retention. In addition, 303 acres of suitable habitat would be maintained where only under-planting for 

restoration purposes are proposed.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table 34: Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat and Treatment

Treatment Suitable Acres Dispersal Acres Non-habitat Acres

Harvest (Removed and Maintained) 218 473 181

Post-harvest Broadcast Burn/Pile Burning 130 203 131

Proposed thinning treatments, with one-acre gaps, in Alternative 2 would downgrade 88 acres, or less 

than one percent, of suitable owl habitat in the project area, converting it into dispersal owl habitat. 

These stands, which would retain 40-80 trees per acre and have 50% canopy cover post-harvest are 

expected to develop into low quality suitable habitat in about 10-15 years and into old growth 

conditions in about 50-100 years.

Alternative 2 proposes post-harvest broadcast and pile burning on approximately 130 acres of suitable 

owl habitat. The intent of this treatment is to mimic a natural fire occurrence and reduce activity 

generated fuels (refer to Fire and Fuels section). Post-harvest broadcast burning may result in a small 

amount of overstory tree mortality. Generally, an overstory mortality level of up to 10% is allowable and 

desirable for wildlife habitat because it helps create dead wood structures which are used by the 

spotted owl rodent prey base and other species.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat

About 473 acres of dispersal habitat, which makes up approximately 49% of the dispersal habitat in the 

project area, would be harvested (Table 34). Approximately 74 acres of early seral creation and heavy 

thinning with one-acre gaps, would remove dispersal habitat. Moderate thinning on 399 acres would 

maintain dispersal habitat with an average of approximately 40% canopy cover. Proposed thinning 

stands are expected to close their canopies back to pre-harvest conditions within 7-10 years. Units with 

heavier thinning treatments and lower average canopy retention near 30% would need approximately 

10-15 years to reclose their canopies back to pre-harvest conditions. Moderate thinning of dispersal 

habitat may benefit overall forest structural development and improve long-term (greater than 25 

years) spotted owl habitat conditions. Post-harvest snag and large down wood habitat enhancement in 

selected thinning units would improve stand structure conditions even more for spotted owls and their 

prey in the long-term. Additionally, Alternative 2 proposes post-harvest broadcast and pile burns on 

approximately 203 acres of dispersal owl habitat in order to return fire back into the ecosystem and 

reduce activity generated fuels (refer to Fire and Fuels section). Under-planting on 10 acres of dispersal 

owl habitat are proposed for restoration purposes.

Treatments in Non-Habitat

Approximately 181 acres of forest stands that are currently non-habitat for spotted owls would be 

thinned, this includes 8 acres of thinning in Late Successional Reserves designated lands. These acres 

total to less than 2% of all the non-habitat forest stands in the Trout Creek project area. About 49 acres 

proposed for heavier thinning with an average canopy retention near 30% would delay the development 

of dispersal owl habitat for approximately 20-25 years. Moderate thinning treatments with canopy 

retention of 50% would benefit spotted owls because after 7-15 years, forest structure would be 

improved over the current condition, and they would develop into dispersal habitat conditions faster 

than if they were left to develop naturally. Structural enhancements such as snag and down wood 

placement would further benefit spotted owl habitat quality. This would improve the habitat in the near 

future, about ten years, and longer term for 20-30 years. Pile and broadcast burns are proposed on 131 

acres of unsuitable habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 141

Treatments in RA32 Stands

Recovery Action 32 habitat is a subset of the higher quality suitable habitat and does not include 

dispersal or non-habitat. No Recovery Action 32 habitat occurs in the proposed treatment units.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 does not propose commercial harvest treatments in suitable spotted owl habitat, so the 

effects would be the same as described under Alternative 1 stands older than 80 years of age. 

Treatments are proposed in stands under 80 years of age, thus the effects of this Alternative are less 

than those of Alternative 2. This action proposes to remove 74 acres of dispersal habitat through heavy 

thinning and early seral creation. It would also maintain 399 acres of dispersal habitat and thin 181 acres 

of non-habitat. Not harvesting the currently suitable owl habitat would maintain this habitat and the 

structural dead wood elements for use of foraging for spotted owls and their prey. Alternative 3 would 

have similar effects on forest structure and response as described in Alternative 2 for similar treatments. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 proposes an additional 22.5 acres in gaps, no greater than one acre in size, when 

compared to Alternative 2. This would affect an extra 6 acres and 9.5 acres of suitable and dispersal owl 

habitat, respectively. An additional 7 acres of gaps are proposed in non-habitat. These gap acres would 

have a negligible increase of effects to suitable and dispersal owl habitat when compared to Alternative 

2.

Cumulative Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on spotted owl habitat; therefore, no cumulative effects exist to be 

considered.

Alternative 2

The baseline condition for this analysis accounts for past activities that affected owl habitat in the 

project area and assumes that none of the private land is suitable for owl habitat. The ongoing harvest 

under the Canyon Thin EA and the future thinning Jude Ridge project are all in stands less than 80-years 

old and not in suitable owl habitat. There are no other reasonable foreseeable actions that would 

remove or downgrade suitable owl habitat in the project area. 

On a broader scale, Davis et al. (2016: entire) conducted the Northwest Forest Plan monitoring to show 

trends in spotted owl habitat over the first 20 years of implementation from 1994 to 2013. They found a 

net decrease of 1.5% in spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat on federal lands from 9,089,700 acres in 

1993 to 8,954,000 in 2013 (abstract summary not paginated). Gross losses on federal lands were 

473,000 acres from wildfires (5.2% loss), 116,100 acres from timber harvest (1.3% loss), and 59,800 

acres from insect and diseases (0.7% loss). Because the gross losses were greater than the net losses, it 

indicates that the process of forest succession is compensating for some of the habitat loss.

Dispersal habitat increased by 2.2% on federal lands, but dispersal capable landscapes decreased by 5% 

due to habitat losses on the surrounding non-federal lands. Large wildfires continue to be the major loss 

of spotted owl habitat on federal lands and most of these losses occurred within the conservation 

network of large reserves designed for spotted owl conservation.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

The 20-year monitoring results show that within the Western Cascades of Oregon, there was a net gain 

of 27,100 acres of spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat (1.5% increase) on federal lands, despite gross 

losses of 101,500 acres (4.3% loss) (Davis et al., 2016, p. 21). The losses include 34,900 acres due to 

timber harvest, 63,000 acres due to wild fires, and minor losses due to insects and unspecified causes. 

Within the Western Cascades of Oregon, there was a net gain of 122,200 acres of spotted owl dispersal 

habitat (3.4% increase) on federal lands, despite gross losses of 121,500 acres (3.7% loss) (Davis et al., 

2016, p. 31). The losses of dispersal habitat include 28,300 acres due to timber harvest, 89,300 acres due 

to wildfires, and minor losses due to insects and unspecified causes. Recruitment of dispersal habitat on 

federal lands in the Western Cascades of Oregon is more than compensating for habitat losses with the 

recruitment rate about twice the rate of dispersal habitat loss.

The analysis of dispersal-capable landscapes found no loss of landscape connectivity in the interior of 

federal lands within the Western Oregon Cascades (Davis et al., 2016). There has been no loss in 

landscape connectivity for spotted owls that exists along a wide corridor across the Cascade Range from 

the Canadian border south into northern California. However, substantial loss to dispersal capable areas 

has occurred along the southwest area of the Willamette Province adjacent to the Willamette Valley and 

this loss extends south and west across a connection area between the Oregon Coast and Cascades 

Range south of the Willamette Valley. There also has been some areas of dispersal-capable landscape 

loss and a few small areas of gain along the eastern edge of the range of spotted owl in the east side 

Cascades area in the northern half of Oregon.

Based on the above-described effects and the new Northwest Forest Plan monitoring information, 

Alternative 2 may affect and is likely to adversely affect spotted owl habitat; however, it is not 

expected to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would not affect suitable habitat and the landscape would still support nesting spotted 

owls. This action would remove dispersal habitat through heavy thinning, gap and early seral creation. 

Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, Alternative 3 may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect spotted owl habitat and it is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

spotted owl or result in any incidental take of spotted owls.

Alternative 4

Similar to Alternative 2, considering direct, indirect, cumulative effects and the new Northwest Forest 

Plan monitoring information Alternative 4 may affect and is likely to adversely affect spotted owl 

habitat; however, it is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Unit Cascades South, 

subunit WCS3. Non-habitat managed stands would slowly develop into dispersal habitat within another 

10-15 years as the stands thin themselves. Those stands which are currently dispersal habitat would 

develop into low quality foraging habitat within 40-50 years. Stands which currently have larger 

remnant trees of larger diameters could become low quality nesting habitat within that timeframe as 

well. The stands which are currently foraging habitat with some nesting opportunity would develop 

towards old growth conditions and start to become high quality suitable owl habitat fitting Recovery 

Action 32 stand characteristics in about 50-100 years.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 143

Alternatives 2 and 4

The following effects and discussion is specific to treatments which would occur in Northern Spotted 

Owl Critical Habitat Unit Cascades South, subunit WCS3. It should be noted that some of these 

treatment acres and effects have been discussed previously, although those discussions encompassed 

additional acres and areas not within designated critical habitat.

Treatments in Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat

The project proposes to remove 104 acres of suitable habitat within the WCS3 unit by harvesting and 

creating fuelbreaks on 54 acres and early seral habitat on 49 acres, making the habitat unsuitable for 

spotted owls. Early seral acres are expected to develop into dispersal habitat in about 40 years posttreatment and into suitable habitat in about 80-140 years. Harvest and fuelbreak treatments are 

proposed for heavy thinning with a post-harvest canopy cover between 20 and 40%. In about 10-15 

years post-harvest, these stands would develop into dispersal habitat. Suitable owl habitat would 

develop after 50 years or less post-harvest. Alternative 2 also proposes to downgrade 5 acres of suitable 

to dispersal with an average canopy cover of about 50%. Post thinning, these stands would function as 

dispersal habitat since the final average canopy cover would remain above 40%. About 246 acres of 

suitable habitat within the WCS3 unit would be maintained where only under-planting for restoration 

purposes are proposed to take place.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat within Critical Habitat

Early seral habitat creation on 36 acres would remove dispersal habitat making the habitat unsuitable 

for spotted owls. In about 40 years post-harvest, these early seral acres would develop into dispersal 

habitat and into suitable owl habitat after 80-140 years post-harvest. Dispersal habitat would be 

maintained on 105 acres proposed for moderate thinning with an average of approximately 50% canopy 

cover. These stands are expected to close their canopies back to pre-harvest conditions within 7-10 

years.

Treatments in Non-Habitat within Critical Habitat

The project proposes harvest treatments on 77 acres of non-habitat stands, which includes thinning 8 

acres in Late Successional Reserves. Thinning treatments may accelerate the development of nonhabitat conditions into dispersal and suitable habitat by thinning overstocked stands and/or providing 

additional structure to the stands. These stands are not currently functioning as spotted owl habitat, 

and thinning of these stands would improve habitat structure for spotted owls in the longer term after 

approximately 10 years.

Treatments in Known Owl Sites within Critical Habitat

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined spotted owl habitat viability thresholds of 

50% suitable habitat in the core area and 40% suitable habitat in the home range. Suitable habitat levels 

below these thresholds are thought to compromise the reproductive success of owls.

MSNO NEW13: Early seral creation proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4 would remove 11.5 acres of suitable 

habitat, 5 of which are within CHU, and 36 CHU acres of dispersal habitat within the 1.2 mile home 

range radius. Thinning would downgrade 12 acres of suitable habitat and maintain 27 CHU acres of 

dispersal habitat within the home range. This owl site currently contains approximately 276 acres and 

1,760 acres of suitable habitat within its core and home range, respectively. Proposed treatments 

would still retain suitable habitat above threshold levels and maintain the functionality of this owl site 

for nesting and rearing young. The core area for this owl site would not be affected.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

MSNO 0064: Thinning is proposed on 8 acres of non-habitat within the 1.2 mile home range radius. 

This owl site currently has approximately 498 acres in the core area and 2,445 acres in its home range of 

suitable habitat, well above threshold levels. Thinning would have a beneficial effect on this owl site as it 

would accelerate the development of dispersal and suitable habitat by harvesting overstocked stands 

and/or providing additional structure to the stands.

MSNO 4094: Thinning is proposed on 4 acres and 8 acres of non-habitat within the 0.5 mile core area 

and 1.2 mile home range radius, respectively. Thinning would have a beneficial effect as it would 

accelerate the development of dispersal and suitable habitat by harvesting overstocked stands and/or 

providing additional structure to the stands. This owl site currently has approximately 431 acres in the 

core area and 2,455 acres in its home range of suitable habitat, well above threshold levels.

MSNO 4460: Proposed fuelbreaks on 30 acres within the 1.2 mile home range radius would remove 

suitable owl habitat. Treatments would also include 26 acres of thinning which will maintain dispersal 

habitat. This owl site currently has approximately 397 acres and 1,873 acres of suitable habitat within its 

core and home range, respectively. All proposed treatments would retain suitable habitat above 

threshold levels and maintain the functionality of this owl site for nesting and rearing young. The core 

area for this owl site would not be affected by the proposed action.

MSNO 0687: Treatments would downgrade 5 acres of suitable habitat and 50 acres of non-habitat 

would be thinned within the home range. This owl site currently has approximately 431 acres in its core 

and 2,316 acres of suitable habitat in its home range. Non-habitat treatments are expected to benefit 

this site by accelerating the development of dispersal habitat. Downgrading would still retain suitable 

habitat well above threshold levels and maintain the functionality of the site. No treatments are 

proposed in the core area.

MSNO 2963: Treatments would maintain dispersal habitat on 45 acres and thin 49 acres of non-habitat 

within the core. Proposed treatments would also maintain 144 acres of dispersal habitat, 21 of which 

are in CHU, and thin 71 acres of non-habitat, this includes 22 acres in CHU, in the home range. This site 

currently has approximately 310 acres in the core area and 1,547 acres in its home range of suitable 

habitat, above threshold levels in both areas. Thinning in non-habitat would have a beneficial effect as it 

would accelerate the development of dispersal and suitable habitat by harvesting overstocked stands 

and providing additional structure to the stands. All proposed treatments would maintain habitat above 

threshold levels and retain the functionality of this owl site for nesting and rearing young. Critical habitat 

would not be affected in the core area.

Alternative 3

This alternative would not thin suitable habitat stands within Critical Habitat, so effects to spotted owl 

sites in Critical Habitat would be limited to thinning of dispersal habitat and non-habitat. Alternative 3 

may affect spotted owl Critical Habitat due to 36 acres of dispersal habitat removal. This alternative 

would also thin and maintain 105 acres and 77 acres of dispersal and non-habitat, respectively. 

Alternative 3 would not adversely modify spotted owl critical habitat. This action would not preclude 

meeting recovery goals for spotted owls and the landscape would still support nesting spotted owls and 

dispersal post-treatment.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 145

Cumulative Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on spotted owl critical habitat; therefore, no cumulative effects exist 

to be considered.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Because Alternatives 2 and 4 would remove 104 acres of suitable habitat within WCS3 these alternatives 

may affect and are likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl critical habitat; however, given the 

amount of suitable habitat and functional home ranges that would remain after implementation, WCS3 

would continue to provide demographic support to overall northern spotted owl populations and 

connectivity for owls between Critical Habitat subunits. There are no other reasonably foreseeable or 

ongoing projects that would remove older forest critical habitat in the project area.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would harvest dispersal and non-habitat, which is not limiting on the landscape in WCS3. 

Because treatments would remove about 36 acres of dispersal habitat through thinning, delaying the 

development of suitable habitat, and considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, Alternative 3 

may affect and is likely to adversely affect spotted owl critical habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Known Sites

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because Alternative 1 does not implement any future actions, there would be no effects on any known 

owl sites.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Northern spotted owl surveys were conducted during nesting season in 2014, 2015 and 2016 in 

accordance with survey protocols established by USFWS. Fifteen historic known spotted owl activity 

centers are located inside or overlap with the planning area. Nine owl sites overlap with proposed 

project activities, of which three sites have treatments proposed in suitable habitat. Effects for Activity 

Center’s MSNO NEW13, 0064, 4094, 4460, 0687, and 2963 are discussed in the NSO Critical Habitat 

section of this document. Treatments affecting dispersal habitat are proposed in one owl nest patch.

MSNO 0661: Proposed treatments would maintain 5 acres in the nest patch and 23 acres in the core 

area of dispersal habitat. Early seral creation and thinning would remove 14 acres and maintain 45 acres 

of dispersal habitat in the home range. This owl site is below the viability threshold of 50% and 40% 

suitable habitat in the core area and provincial home range, respectively. It currently contains 172 acres, 

or 34% of suitable habitat in the core area and 297 acres or 11% of suitable habitat within its home 

range, below viability threshold levels. This is a poor site, and potentially non-functional, due to the 

limited amount of suitable habitat. The stands being treated in the core area would experience a 

moderate thinning maintaining an average of 50% canopy cover. Additionally, the prescription would 

create 5 snags and down wood per acre. A harvest restriction during the critical breading period would 

be imposed. These stands are expected to close their canopies back to pre-harvest conditions within 7-

10 years. Because suitable habitat is under the viability threshold levels in the core and home range, this 

site is potentially not capable of supporting owls; and therefore, treatments are not likely to adversely 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

affect this site. Additionally, protocol surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015 did not detect spotted owls 

and monitoring of this site would continue in 2017. If during monitoring, it is determined that spotted 

owls are occupying this site, activities in the nest patch would be dropped.

MSNO 0688: Early seral creation on 2 acres would remove dispersal habitat within the home range. 

Non-habitat would be thinned on 12 acres in the core area and 55 acres in the home range. This is a 

marginal site due to the limited amount of suitable habitat. This owl site currently has about 210 acres 

or 42% and 542 acres or 19% of suitable habitat in its core and home range, respectively. This is less 

than the viability threshold needed for functionality of the site. Because the removal of 2 acres of 

suitable habitat would affect 0.05% of the total home range, the effect to the overall home range is 

negligible. Thinning treatments would benefit the site because it would accelerate the development of 

non-habitat conditions into dispersal and suitable.

NLAA MSNO 2976: Thinning is proposed on 5 acres of dispersal habitat and 39 acres of non-habitat in 

the core of this site. Thinning would remove 18 acres of dispersal and 100 acres would be maintained 

within the home range. Treatments are also proposed on 49 acres of non-habitat within the home 

range. This site currently has approximately 177 acres in the core area and 1,067 acres in its home range 

of suitable habitat, below threshold levels in both areas. This is a marginal site due to the limited 

amount of suitable habitat. Some thinning acres would have a beneficial effect to this site as it would 

accelerate the development of dispersal and suitable habitat by harvesting overstocked stands and 

providing additional structure to the stands. Stands thinned to 30% canopy would delay the 

development of dispersal habitat.

Alternative 3

Because Alternative 3 does not harvest suitable spotted owl habitat, there would be no changes to 

suitable habitat acres within any core areas or provincial home ranges; therefore, the effects to owl sites 

would be less than Alternatives 2 and 4. No regeneration or early seral creation is proposed. Alternative 

3 would only thin dispersal and non-habitat and would have the same effects for owl at all sites as 

described in Alternative 2 for similar treatments.

Cumulative Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Known Sites

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effects on spotted owl known sites, thus no cumulative effects exist to be 

considered.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Cumulative effects of other habitat modification activities within 0.5 mile core area and 1.2 miles home 

range areas of the individual owl sites discussed above were considered in this analysis. Considering 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternatives 2 and 4 may affect and are likely to adversely 

affect northern spotted owls. The landscape would still support nesting spotted owls and dispersal posttreatments.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 does not propose treatments in suitable habitat; therefore, affects are reduced when 

compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. Because Alternative 3 would remove dispersal habitat within some of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 147

the owl sites through early seral creation and considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, 

Alternative 3 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Northern Spotted Owl from Disturbance

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effects to spotted owls from disruption because no activities are proposed 

to occur.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Some of the proposed activities may cause noise disturbance to spotted owls if they occur during the 

breeding season due to their proximity to nest patches. The spotted owl breeding season is from March 

1 – Sept 30, with the critical breeding period occurring March 1 – July 15. In particular, seasonal 

restrictions during the critical breeding period would be imposed on units 73, 60, 61, 63, 59, 42, 50, 14, 

100, 170, 200 and roads 758, 760 and 755 to limit disturbance and help minimize effects to spotted owls 

near two owl sites. Restrictions will be applied to activities such as timber harvest, road work, piledriving, rock crushing, burning (broadcast and pile), chainsaw operations and blasting. The unit wildlife 

biologist may increase disturbance distances and restriction dates according to the best available 

scientific information and site-specific conditions. In particular, blasting, pile-driving and rock-crushing 

may need to be restricted during the entire breeding period. No helicopter operations are proposed for 

the Trout Creek project. If owl nest activity is detected in areas not previously identified, seasonal 

restrictions and standard buffer distances would be applied. No activities are proposed within the 

disruption distance of a known owl site. 

Cumulative Effects to Northern Spotted Owl from Disturbance

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on spotted owl from disturbance. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

There are no effects associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project 

area that when added to the effects of the proposed action are expected to result in cumulative 

disturbance effects. Because proposed activities would occur within a distance which could cause noise 

disturbance to two known spotted owl activity centers, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 may affect but are not 

likely to adversely affect spotted owls.

Proposed Threatened and Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife

Sensitive species are species that are not federally listed under the Endangered Species Act, but are 

designated by the Forest Service and given special consideration in project analysis due to viability 

concerns. The goal of the Forest Service is to manage for these species so they would not become 

federally threatened or endangered. Effects of the alternatives on Forest Service sensitive species are 

considered in a project wildlife Biological Evaluation. This environmental assessment tiers to the analysis 

in the Biological Evaluation and provides a summary of the effects in Table 35 and in the following 

discussion. Seven sensitive species have habitat or potential habitat in the project area and were 

analyzed in detail in the project Biological Evaluation.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table 35: Summary of effects of by alternative on seven sensitive species that occur or have potential 

habitat in the Trout Creek project area

Species1

Effect 

Determination For 

Alts. 2 and 4

Effect 

Determination For

Alt. 3

Rationale For Determination

American Peregrine 

Falcon

MAII2 MAII2 Activities are proposed in all management 

zones. Seasonal harvest restrictions in 

primary and secondary home ranges during 

breeding season.

Harlequin Ducks No Impact No Impact The prohibition of harvesting during nesting 

season and the 150 foot buffer on perennial 

streams mitigates potential impacts.

Lewis Woodpecker MAII2 MAII2 Marginal impact to foraging and fall dispersal 

habitat at the Project and Forest scale.

Fringed Myotis and 

Townsend’s Bigeared Bats

MAII2 MAII2 Effects to foraging habitat and potential tree 

roosting and natal habitat is minor at the 

project and Forest scale. Probability that an 

occupied roost or natal site would be fallen 

during logging or hazard tree felling 

operations is low.

Johnson’s Hairstreak MAII2 No Impact Effects are trivial to western hemlock habitat 

at the project and Forest scale and would 

occur in habitat that currently has no or very 

low dwarf mistletoe abundance.

Sierra Nevada Red 

Fox

MAII2 MAII2 Effects to Sierra Nevada red fox home range 

are negligible and some proposed 

treatments would be beneficial to SNRF’s 

food source

1 Alternative 1 would have No Impact on any Sensitive Species.

2 MAII: may adversely impact individuals, but would not result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Affected Environment – American Peregrine Falcon

The American peregrine falcon inhabits cliffs and rocky outcrops that tend to overlook fairly open areas 

with an ample food supply (Csuti et al., 1997). This species may forage in a variety of forest types. 

Peregrine falcons, like many raptors, are sensitive to physical and noise disturbance. Noise disturbance 

can include activities, such as helicopter use, chainsaw activity and heavy equipment use within the 

vicinity of an active nest site. Physical disturbance, such as recreational use (e.g., rock climbing and 

hiking) of peregrine falcon habitat can cause nest failure. Three management zones identify general 

distances for peregrine habitat use and site management.

• Primary Zone: Average of 0.25-0.75 miles around a nest site.

• Secondary Zone: 0.5-2.0 miles from a nest site.

• Tertiary Zone: 3.0 or more miles from a nest site.

Several potential and occupied habitat sites exist on the Forest. This species has been documented on 

the District and one known nest site is located within the project area. This nest was occupied in 2016. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 149

Environmental Consequences – American Peregrine Falcon

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative there would be no impacts to American peregrine falcons.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

The Trout Creek project would not modify any suitable peregrine nesting habitat. Thinning treatments 

proposed may result in a slightly different prey in and around the units, but the overall prey base for 

peregrine falcons is not expected to decline in these areas. Peregrine falcons prey primarily on birds and 

selectively use open areas for hunting. Gaps, early seral creation and prescribed fire would create a 

mosaic of open areas interspersed with forested habitat that may improve foraging conditions. These 

treatments, together, may result in a beneficial effect or neutral effect to potential forage habitat. 

Portions of all three management zones overlap with several Trout Creek units which may disrupt 

peregrines. In order to mitigate potential impacts to the American peregrine falcon, including noise 

disruption during nesting, all silviculture activities, such as heavy equipment operations and prescribed 

fires, would be restricted within the primary and secondary management zones from February 1st to 

August 15th. No helicopter use is proposed for the Trout Creek project.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because there would be no impacts to American peregrine falcons, this alternative does not contribute 

to any cumulative effects to the species.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Because silviculture activities are proposed in all three management zones of a known falcon territory it 

is my determination that Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 may impact individuals, but would not likely result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. There are no other

reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects that would impact peregrines or their habitat.

Affected Environment – Harlequin Duck

A small population of harlequin ducks nest and rear their young along mountain streams in the Oregon 

Cascades. They begin to arrive on the breeding grounds in early March with the peak courtship period 

from late April to late May. Females nest from the end of April to mid-June and males depart the 

streams and return to their wintering grounds on the Pacific coast of North America in late May and 

June. Females raise their young on the streams until late July. At that time they begin to move 

downstream and start returning to their ocean wintering grounds with few to no birds remaining on the 

forest by the middle of August. Harlequin ducks have been documented on Quartzville, Moose, Canyon 

and Owl Creeks and the Middle and South Santiam Rivers on the Sweet Home Ranger District.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Environmental Consequences – Harlequin Duck

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative there would be no effects to harlequin ducks.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Buffers to protect streams and riparian corridors are part of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4; therefore, proposed 

activities under these alternatives would not affect foraging habitat as harlequin ducks forage for macroinvertebrates in streams. Buffers would also protect suitable nesting habitat from being directly 

affected. Treatments proposed adjacent to nesting habitat for harlequin ducks may disturb and flush a 

female off her nest and cause nesting failure during project implementation. However, the prohibition 

of harvesting adjacent to harlequin duck nesting habitat from March 1 through July 15 and the 

restriction of activities within 150 feet of live streams would mitigate potential impacts to harlequin 

ducks.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because there would be no impacts to harlequin ducks, this alternative does not contribute to any 

cumulative effects to the species.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

The prohibition of harvesting from March 1 through July 15 and the restriction of activities within 150 

feet of live streams would mitigate potential impacts to harlequin ducks and their habitat. Alternatives 

2, 3 and 4 would not create additional cumulative effects to harlequin ducks in the project area. No 

other activities are known to be occurring in the project area which could impact harlequin ducks. The 

on-going Canyon Thin, and future Calapooia and Jude Ridge projects have no impact on this species. 

Other past, present and reasonable foreseeable forest management activities would maintain forest 

habitats suitable for nesting. For these reasons, it is my determination that the proposed Alternatives 

would have no impact on harlequin ducks or their habitat.

Affected Environment – Lewis’ Woodpecker

There are limited records of Lewis’ woodpecker on the Willamette National Forest. This species has not 

been documented breeding on the Willamette National Forest, but occurs on the Forest during fall 

dispersal. In Oregon it nests in white oak woodlands, ponderosa pine woodlands, mixed oak-pine 

woodlands, and cottonwood riparian woodlands. Lewis’ woodpeckers are weak primary cavity nesters 

and most often secondary cavity nesters. In spring and summer, they eat mostly insects and spiders. In 

the fall, their diet turns to acorns and berries. They cache acorns under bark and in crevices of trees. 

Winters are spent in oak savannah. Drastic declines in Oregon since the mid-1960s are speculated to be 

from destruction of lowland oak habitat and competition with European starling (Marshall et al., 2003). 

Although they have not been recorded in the project area, a regular movement of these woodpeckers 

occurs along Cascades ridges in the fall (Marshall et al., 2003). Lewis’ woodpeckers were observed on 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 151

such a ridge outside the project area in September of 2016 foraging around snags killed by a recent 

prescribed fire to restore meadow habitat (Forest Service NRIS wildlife observation).

Environmental Consequences – Lewis Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on the development of nesting structures, such as tree snags, that 

would benefit the woodpecker.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose timber harvest in managed and natural stands with potential foraging 

habitat for this species. Alternative 3 proposes treatments only in managed stands with potential 

marginal foraging habitat. Timber harvest in all alternatives would degrade potential Lewis’ woodpecker 

habitat by reducing future snags; however, all natural stand units would retain some legacy trees. 

Silviculture prescriptions also require that snags and coarse woody debris be retained in all units and 

removed only if deadwood poses a safety concern or for operational purposes. Prescribed burning 

would likely provide some benefit to this species by creating snags and open areas that would attract 

insects that this species would forage on.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative does not propose treatments in Lewis’ woodpecker habitat; therefore, it would not 

contribute to any cumulative effects to this species.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Alternatives 2 and 4 proposed treatments would affect about 0.05% of potential Lewis’ woodpecker 

habitat at the forest level and about 2.33% of the project area. Alternative 3 would affect about 0.04% 

and 1.8% of potential marginal habitat at the forest and project level, respectively. Thus Alternatives 2, 

3 and 4, considering the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, impacts would be negligible to this 

species. Because the effects to potential foraging habitat are insignificant at the project and forest scale 

and because some project activities would have a beneficial effect to foraging habitat, and considering 

past, present and future projects it is my determination that proposed Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 may 

adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area.

Affected Environment – Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s Big-eared Bats

These two bat species are known to nest and roost in tree and snag cavities and under loose bark (Lacki 

et al., 2007), although both species have typically been associated with caves and buildings (Verts and 

Carraway, 1998). Very little is known about fringed myotis habitat in Oregon. Occurrence has been 

documented on the Forest and three were captured in 1971. Although widely distributed throughout 

western Oregon, Townsend’s big-eared bats are seldom abundant. Only one maternity colony has been 

documented on the Forest in the Middle Fork Ranger District. One roosting location exists on the Sweet 

Home Ranger District. In general, on the Westside Cascades, snags are thought to be the main roosting 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

habitat for fringed myotis and a minor roosting component for Townsend’s big-eared bats. No tree or 

snag roost sites have been documented by the Forest Service in the project area or on the Forest, but 

such sites are very difficult to detect. The effects of the alternatives on these bats considered a) changes 

to foraging habitat, b) changes to roosting structures, c) potential for direct mortality to bats, and d) 

amount of roosting habitat affected.

Environmental Consequences – Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s Big-eared Bats

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effect on bat foraging or roosting habitat and no risk of direct mortality to bats. The 

218 acres of stands over 80 years old are expected to begin transitioning into old-growth forests in 

about 50-100 years (FEMAT 1993:IX-24 old-growth conifer stand description) which should contain large 

snags and abundant decadent tree components that could potentially provide high-quality roosting 

forest habitat for these bats. The 654 acres of younger stands under 80 years old would take over 100 

years to begin the transition to old-growth forest.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Proposed harvest units under 80 years of age currently contain little to no snag habitat, and only very 

few potential bat roosting trees and snags that may be used by bats would be lost with Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4. The 218 acres of older stands proposed for harvest in Alternatives 2 and 4 do contain higher 

levels of snag habitat which may be lost if they are a safety hazard during logging operations. Some of 

these stands would also have prescribed burning treatments after logging which would likely result in 

some additional loss of snag habitat.

Foraging Habitat

Bats readily use a variety of habitats over large areas for foraging including open and forested areas. 

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose various treatments on 871 acres including thinning, gaps and seral 

creation. The site-specific effect of this change on bat foraging habitat is uncertain and could range 

from negative to beneficial. The magnitude of the effects on foraging habitat at the landscape and forest 

level scales are insignificant however, because the action alternatives would affect approximately 2.33% 

of the Trout Creek project area and 0.05% of Willamette National Forest.

Roosting Habitat

The Trout Creek units contain some large snags and decadent features that might provide potential tree 

roost sites for bats, but at a lower abundance than would be found in old-growth forests. Proposed 

timber harvest in the stands over 80 years of age in Alternatives 2 and 4 would retain some of the larger 

trees and a large snags, but the harvest and possible subsequent underburns in some of the units would 

largely degrade bat roosting tree habitat on 218 acres for both alternatives. Prescribed burning may 

also create new snags which may be used by bats after 10 or more years. Stands mapped as suitable 

spotted owl habitat were used as a proxy for potential bat tree roost habitat because they contain larger 

trees and snags. It is estimated that there are about 23,189 and 826,384 acres of potential bat tree 

roosting habitat in the Trout Creek project area and on the Willamette National Forest, respectively. On 

the Forest, this makes up about 48.7% of the total forest acres. In the Trout Creek project area, it 

comprises 62.1% of the total acres. Alternatives 2 and 4 would degrade about 0.93% of the estimated 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 153

bat tree roosting habitat in the project area, and 0.03% of the total Willamette National Forest bat tree 

roosting habitat. Alternative 3 is not expected to degrade bat tree roosting habitat because the young 

stands contain very few or no snags.

Because at least 9 trees per acre would be left in the regeneration harvest areas, in addition to snags 

and downed wood being created, it is estimated that in about 80 years the proposed harvest units 

would regenerate to a two-age stand that would begin to resemble old-growth as described by USFS 

(1986). These stands would still be lower quality bat roosting habitat at that time than the untreated 

stands in Alternative 1 because they would have fewer large snags and large decadent tree components.

Potential Mortality

Fringed myotis have strong fidelity to natal roost sites and pups are weaned by end of July to the end of 

August depending on factors, such as lateness of spring (Ormsbee, pers. comm.). If snags or trees used 

as natal sites are fallen prior to that time, it is likely that some or all the pups and adults would be killed. 

Mitigation measures would protect some snags, but some would be fallen for safety and operational 

reasons. Some logging may occur before pups are weaned, especially in years when parturition is 

delayed. Thus, there is a possibility that direct mortality to bat pups could occur as a result of timber 

harvest in Alternatives 2 and 4. For an uncommon species, loss of a natal colony could have significant 

impacts on the viability of the species at the forest level. The possibility of a natal colony being directly 

harmed by logging is highly unlikely, however, because the bats are thought to be relatively uncommon 

and natal colonies are thought to occur at low densities on the landscape. The older stands in 

Alternatives 2 and 4 up to 136 years old, where activities are proposed, have a lower amount of 

potential roost sites than old growth forests or forests with substantial numbers of 250-year old trees 

and are not the highest probability sites for bat roosts. The 218 acres of older forest harvested in 

Alternatives 2 and 4 represents 0.93% of the estimated total potential bat tree roosting habitat for these 

species in the Trout Creek project area. Proposed additional mitigation measures would further reduce 

the possibility of direct mortality (refer to Design Criteria section). As the numbers of natal sites 

increases, so does the possibility that impacting 218 acres of forest would impact a site. However, as 

the number of sites increases on the forest, the chance that loss of a single site would result in the 

species no longer maintaining a viable population on the Forest inversely diminishes because many 

unaffected natal sites would still exist. Alternative 3 is expected have a significant lesser degree of bat 

mortality because the young stands contain a negligible amount of roosting habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no impact on bat foraging or roosting habitat and no risk of direct mortality to 

bats; therefore, it would not contribute to any cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The evaluation above incorporates past Forest Service activities in the project area in the analysis of the 

current condition (e.g., estimate of potential bat roosting habitat available accounts for past timber 

harvest) and assumed all of the private lands were logged and unsuitable for bat tree roosting. The 

ongoing harvest under the Canyon Thin EA is all in stands less than 80-years old, not in suitable owl 

habitat, and would not impact any of the estimated potential bat tree roosting or natal habitat. No other 

timber harvest on Forest Service lands is reasonably foreseeable in the project area so there are no 

additional cumulative effects in the Trout Creek project area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Because effects to bat foraging and potential tree roosting and natal habitat are minor at the project 

and Forest scale, and because the probability of falling a tree or snag containing a natal colony or family 

is low, it is my determination that, for fringed myotis and Townsends’s big-eared bats, Alternatives 2, 

3 and 4 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. There are no effects associated with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project area that when added to the effects of the 

alternatives are expected to result in cumulative disturbance effects.

Affected Environment – Johnson’s Hairstreak

This butterfly species is associated with older western hemlock forests and relies on dwarf mistletoe on 

western hemlock trees as a host plant for its larval stage (Davis et al., 2009). The species is difficult to 

detect because it spends much time in the upper canopy. Twenty two locations comprised of 76 

individuals have been recorded on the Willamette National Forest (Forest NRIS database). It is 

considered to be very localized and scarce with a few “big” years. Peak conditions for this butterfly exist 

in old-growth and late successional second-growth forests. Younger forests that contain dwarf 

mistletoe may also have the potential to support populations. Elevation ranges from sea level to 6,000 

feet. This butterfly is typically located in the forest canopy.

Environmental Consequences – Johnson’s Hairstreak

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 and 3

Under Alternative 1 the value of the habitat for the butterfly species is expected to increase with time. 

Alternative 3 proposes harvest in stands under 80 years of age, so the impacts would be immeasurable 

because the chances of these younger stands having any dwarf mistletoe are very low. Therefore, under 

Alternatives 1 and 3 no impacts would occur to Johnson’s hairstreak habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 4

A small degree of western hemlock containing dwarf mistletoe was located during stand exams. The 

habitat in the harvest units is currently considered low-quality for the hairstreak. As the stands age, 

however, western hemlock would become more dominant and the possibility of dwarf mistletoe 

establishment should increase. The early seral habitat creation with leave trees proposed in Alternatives 

2 and 4 would negatively impact potential habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak by removing understory and 

overstory trees. Immediately following logging, fewer hemlock trees would remain so there would be 

fewer sites where dwarf mistletoe could establish. Additionally, mistletoe spreads more rapidly in 

multistoried stands since the understory trees are showered by mistletoe seeds from plants in the 

overstory (USFS, 2000). The regeneration harvest would remove the multi-storied canopies that 

currently exist in the stand. However, western hemlock would readily regenerate in the understory 

following treatment. By 80 years post-treatment and continuing as the stands age, it is expected that 

there would be a large component of western hemlock that would be suitable for dwarf mistletoe 

establishment and thus, potential habitat for the Johnson’s hairstreak.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would impact approximately 218 acres of potential Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly 

habitat, for about 80 years. An evaluation of stands greater than 80 years of age in the Trout Creek 

project shows that currently there are about 23,189 acres, or 62%, of potential habitat for the butterfly 

species, and 404,500 acres of potential habitat on the Forest, or 22.5% of total forest acres. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 155

Alternatives 2 and 4 would impact 0.93% and 0.05% of the estimated potential Johnson’s hairstreak 

habitat in the Trout Creek project area and on the Forest, respectively.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 and 3

Alternatives 1 and 3 would have no impact Johnson’s hairstreak; therefore, they would not contribute to 

any cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 and 4

Johnson’s Hairstreak is not a Survey and Manage species, so no surveys are required. Surveys were not 

conducted for this butterfly species because the lack of mistletoe precluded finding eggs and isolating 

larval stages on the host plant (Davis et al., 2011) and the chances of seeing adults in the upper canopy 

of the units is remote. Retaining all trees greater than 80 years of age would not fit the Purpose and 

Need of the Project and was not considered necessary to maintain species viability because only a very 

small percentage of the potential habitat would be affected. Western hemlock would readily 

regenerate in the stands after treatment, and the alternatives as designed are expected to maintain 

Johnson hairstreak’s viability at the project and Forest-scale. Because Alternatives 2 and 4 would impact 

a negligible amount of the total western hemlock habitat at the project and Forest-scale and would 

occur in habitat that currently has no or very low dwarf mistletoe abundance, it is my determination 

that, for Johnson’s hairstreak, Alternatives 2 and 4 may adversely impact individuals, but would not 

likely result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause as trend toward federal listing. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 would have no impact on this butterfly species. There are no other reasonably 

foreseeable or ongoing projects that would impact Johnson’s hairstreak or their habitat. The on-going 

Canyon Thin EA and the future Jude Ridge and Calapooia projects only include treatments in young 

managed stands.

Affected Environment – Sierra Nevada Red Fox

The Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator-SNRF) was added to the Forest Service sensitive 

species list in 2015. Persistent presence of this fox with multiple individuals has been documented in 

the Santiam Pass and the Willamette Pass areas as well as on the Deschutes NF (Willamette National 

Forest NRIS data; USFWS, 2015a). Individuals have also been found in McKenzie Pass on both the 

Deschutes and Willamette NFs. The Sierra Nevada red fox is a subspecies of red fox that is adapted to 

snowy, high elevation habitats (USFWS, 2015a) and all locations documented on the Willamette NF are 

above 4,000 feet elevation (Willamette National Forest NRIS data). Scat surveys conducted in 2016 in 

the project area and other locations on the Sweet Home Ranger District did not detect SNRF’s.

Environmental Consequences – Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action alternative there would be no impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

SNRF use montane conifer forests, meadows, and rocky areas and appear to be opportunistic predators 

and foragers. Their diet includes rodents, lagomorphs, pikas, deer carrion, and manzanita berries in 

California. It is assumed they use comparable prey and food items in Oregon. In the Lassen (California) 

area, adult summer home ranges average about 6,300 acres. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would impact 

about 520 acres located above 4000 feet elevation proposed for timber harvest, including seral creation 

and gaps. Thus, Alternatives 2 and 4 could directly affect about 8.3% of a home range if resident foxes 

occurred in the project area. Alternative 3 could affect 4.7% of a fox home range. Gaps and seral 

creation may be beneficial to SNRF by increasing grasses and shrubs which promote more prey and by 

increasing fruiting shrubs that are an important supplemental food source.

Direct mortality to SNRF from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is possible during harvest operations especially if 

they occur prior to pups being weaned, before July 31st. Thus, there is a possibility that direct mortality 

to pups could occur. When adults and pups are mobile, they can move away and avoid areas being 

actively logged; therefore, the possibility of direct harm by logging is unlikely during this time.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because there are no impacts to this species under Alternative 1, it would not contribute to any 

cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

No other timber harvest on Forest Service lands is reasonably foreseeable in the project area so there 

are no additional cumulative effects in the Trout Creek project area. Because effects to Sierra Nevada 

red fox home range are negligible and some proposed treatments in Alternative 2, 3 and 4 would be 

beneficial to SNRF’s food source, it is my determination that, for the Sierra Nevada red fox, the 

proposed Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 1, would have no 

impact on this species.

Survey and Manage Species

The Northwest Forest Plan was amended with standards and guidelines for conducting project surveys 

and managing known sites for certain rare or endemic species that were associated with late 

successional forest habitat (USDA and USDI, 2001). The species covered by this direction are referred to 

here as “Survey and Manage” species. There are four wildlife Survey and Manage species on the 

Willamette National Forest: Crater Lake tightcoil snail, Oregon megomphix snail, red tree vole, and great 

gray owl. Table 36 summarizes the needs and results of Survey and Manage species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 157

Table 36: List of Survey and Manage Species associated with the Sweet Home Ranger District and their 

occurrence in the project area

Species S&M

Category

Survey Triggers Survey Results

Site 

Management

Within 

Range of 

the 

Species?

Contains 

Suitable 

Habitat?

Habitat 

Disturbing?

Surveys 

Required?

Survey Date 

(month/year)

Sites 

Known 

or 

Found?

Vertebrates

Great Gray 

Owl (Strix 

nebulosa)

A Yes Yes No No N/A N/A

Units are not 

within 

proximity of 

nesting 

habitat

Red Tree 

Vole 

(Arborimus 

longicaudus)

C Yes Yes Yes Yes 2013-2016 Yes

Most units 

with vole 

activity were 

dropped or 

buffers were 

placed

Mollusks

Crater Lake 

Tightcoil 

(Pristiloma 

articum 

crateris)

A Yes Yes No No N/A N/A

All suitable 

habitat would 

be 

adequately 

buffered by a 

minimum of 

10 meters

Oregon 

Mmegomphix 

(Megomphix 

hemphilli)

A Yes Yes Yes Yes 2015 Yes

Most units 

with 

megomphix 

activity were 

dropped or 

buffers were 

placed

Affected Environment – Great Gray Owl

This species is most common in lodgepole pine forests adjacent to meadows, yet in some locations like 

the Willamette National Forest, shelterwood harvesting has also been found to be beneficial because it 

opens up closed forest canopy cover for foraging (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 

2001). The required habitat characteristics of suitable great gray owl habitat include: (1) mature or oldgrowth conifer stands, (2) with canopy cover >50%, (3) within proximity [660 feet] to openings > 10 

acres that could be used as foraging areas, and (4) containing potential nest trees (Survey Protocol for 

the great gray owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan v4.0, October 2016). There are no 

known great grey owl nest sites in the project area. Pre-disturbance survey(s) for the great gray owl are 

not required because the proposed harvest units in Alternative 2 do not have proximity to natural 

openings > 10 acres, and pre-disturbance surveys are not required in suitable nesting habitat adjacent to 

man-made openings at this time (Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the 

Northwest Forest Plan v4.0, October 2016).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Environmental Consequences – Great Gray Owl

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would not affect great gray owl or its habitats because no activities are proposed to occur.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Proposed harvest units in Alternatives 2 and 4 do not have proximity to natural openings > 10 acres or 

potential nesting habitat. Early seral habitat may initiate an early successional stage that can support 

small-mammal populations. Alternative 2 proposes 101 acres of early seral creation and 35 acres of gap 

which may enhance opportunities for great grey owl foraging and Alternative 4 proposes an additional 

22.5 acres in gaps when compared to Alternative 2.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 does not propose harvest in stands identified as being near historic great gray owl 

locations or near openings 10 acres in size or greater. Alternative 3 would create approximately 43 acres 

of gaps, which may enhance opportunities for great gray owl foraging.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have not affect great gray owl or modify their habitat; therefore, no cumulative 

effects exist to be considered.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Proposed activities are not proposed to occur within or near known great grey owl nesting habitat and 

treatments may improve foraging habitat. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would have a beneficial 

effect or no negative impacts to this species. These actions would maintain species persistence and 

viability. There are no other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects that would impact great grey 

owls or their habitat.

Environmental Consequences – Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effects to the Crater Lake tightcoil because no activities are proposed to 

occur.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Pre-disturbance surveys for the Crater Lake tightcoil are not required because all proposed harvest units 

in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 containing suitable habitat would be adequately buffered by a minimum of 10 

meters following the management recommendations for this species (BLM, 2002). Protection buffers 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 159

would be placed around perennial wetland areas. Thus, no impacts are expected to occur to this 

species.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would not affect the great grey owl; therefore, no cumulative effects exist to be 

considered.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Because all perennial wetlands would be protected by buffers, no impacts are expected to occur and 

the overall population viability in the project area would be maintained and the persistence of the 

species should not be compromised. The on-going Canyon Thin project and the future Jude Ridge and 

Calapooia projects have no effects on this species.

Affected Environment – Oregon Megomphix

This snail occurs at low to moderate elevations, below the zone of seasonally persistent snow pack. 

Megomphix snails are most often found within the mat of decaying vegetation under sword ferns and 

big-leaf maple trees and near rotten logs. Most occupied sites are on well-shaded slopes and terraces, 

and many are near streams (Applegarth, 2000). Pre-disturbance surveys to protocol standards were 

conducted in the project area. Surveys found 49 Megomphix occupied sites in stands with suitable 

habitat. Stands under 80 years of age proposed for thinning were not surveyed as these stands fall 

under the category for Survey and Manage wildlife species, exemptions “A”, under the “Pechman 

exemptions.” 

Environmental Consequences – Oregon Megomphix

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effects to Oregon Megomphix or their habitat because no activities are 

proposed to occur.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

All units where Megomphix activity was found were dropped, with the exception of two units. Unit 170 

and 190 contain three and two sites, respectively. A one acre no-harvest buffer has been placed around 

each site following management recommendations (Applegarth, 2000). Thus, no impacts are expected 

to occur to this species.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effects to Oregon Megomphix or modify their habitat; therefore, no 

cumulative effects exist to be considered.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Because units where Megomphix are located were dropped and protection buffers were placed, no 

impacts are expected to occur therefore, no concerns for species persistence exists and the population 

viability is expected to be maintained. There are no other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects 

that would impact this species.

Affected Environment – Red Tree Vole

The standards and guidelines to conduct red tree vole surveys were developed, along with other habitat 

protection measures from the Northwest Forest Plan, to provide a reasonable assurance of persistence 

of certain species, such as red tree vole, which were believed to be rare and uncommon across the 

range of the Northwest Forest Plan at the time it was developed. For vertebrate species, like voles, this 

persistence objective is consistent with the goals of providing for viable and well-distributed populations 

under the National Forest Management Act Regulations (USFS and BLM, 2001; USFS and BLM, 1994).

The Trout Creek project contains suitable habitat for this species. Pre-disturbance red tree vole surveys 

were conducted in the project area in line with surveys protocols (USFS and BLM, 2012). Units were 

dropped or buffered where red tree vole activity was found in accordance with management 

recommendations for this species (USFS and BLM, 2000). Project surveys were not required in stands to 

be thinned under 80 years of age for Survey and Manage wildlife species due to exemptions “A”, under 

the “Pechman exemptions.”

Environmental Consequences – Red Tree Vole

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effects to red tree voles or their habitat because no activities are proposed 

to occur.

Alternative 2 and 4

Surveys found vole activity in stands with suitable habitat. All units where vole activity was found were 

dropped, with the exception of four units. Unit 170 contains two active nests, a 10 acre no-harvest 

buffer has been placed around each active site to protect nests. Unit 28 is a managed stand with 

marginal vole habitat, an active vole nest was found during surveys, this site would be buffered by one 

site-potential-tree to protect the nest. Units 92 and 43, were found to each have one active nest and 

one inactive vole site. The prescribed treatment of underplanting native species in these two units are 

not considered ‘habitat-disturbing’ treatments; therefore, a buffer is not necessary.

Alternative 3

This alternative does not propose harvest in stands over 80 years of age. Treatments would occur on 

654 acres of low quality red tree vole habitat. Surveys were not conducted in these stands given that 

these units fall under the Pechman exemption category.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 161

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect to red tree voles or modify their habitat; therefore, no cumulative 

effects exist to be considered.

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 adhere to the 2001 Survey and Manage direction and protects all known red tree

vole sites. Proposed activities are expected to occur outside of known red tree vole active sites and such 

proposed activities may impact individuals of the population by reducing canopy cover, connectivity and 

canopy complexity. In the active red tree vole areas, dispersal would be difficult and suitable habitat 

would be restricted to riparian and suitable habitat corridors until the area recovers to mature stand 

conditions. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 may impact individuals or their habitat temporarily, but 

the actions would maintain species persistence and viability. There are no other reasonably foreseeable 

or ongoing projects that would impact red tree voles or their habitat.

Management Indicator Species

The use of management indicator species in project planning is established by the 1982 National Forest 

Management Act planning regulations. Management indicator species are species whose response to 

land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a wide range of species with 

similar habitat requirements. The “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1990 Willamette 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” identified management indicator species and the 

rationale for their selection (USDA, 1990). A requirement is that viable populations of management 

indicator species be maintained at the Forest level. The effects of the alternatives on northern spotted 

owl are addressed above in a specific section for that species. The project Biological Evaluation 

concluded that the action alternatives would have no impact on bald eagles because the treatments do 

not affect lakes and fish-bearing streams. The Biological Evaluation also determined that the action 

alternatives may impact peregrine falcons because all three management zones would be affected; 

however, it would not likely result in a loss of viability. Table 37 summarize the wildlife management 

indicator species for the Willamette National Forest. The effects of the alternatives on the remaining 

management indicator species are addressed below.

Table 37: Wildlife management indicator species for the Willamette National Forest

Indicator Species Indicator Habitat Reason Selected in 1990

cavity excavators1 dead and decaying trees ecological indicator, limited habitat

elk winter range commonly hunted

deer winter range commonly hunted

pileated woodpecker old growth and mature conifers ecological indicator, limited habitat

marten old growth and mature conifers ecological indicator, limited habitat

northern spotted owl2 old growth and mature conifers ecological indicator, limited habitat, 

proposed threatened species2

bald eagle3 old growth conifers near large bodies of water federally threatened species3

peregrine falcon3 cliff nesting habitat near abundant prey federally endangered species3

1 USDA Forest Service (1990) identified the following species in this group: red-breasted nuthatch, northern flicker, hairy woodpecker, downy 

woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, Lewis woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and northern three-toed woodpecker. 2 Became a federally threatened species in June 26, 1990, as the Willamette NF Plan was being finalized. 3 Bald eagles and peregrine falcons were subsequently delisted and are now Forest Service sensitive species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Affected Environment - Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker and Deadwood 

Abundance

Cavity excavator MIS are used as an ecological indicator for the abundance of dead and decaying trees. 

Pileated woodpeckers are MIS that use snags, but also prefer old and mature forests. Cavity excavator 

MIS species that occur or have potential habitat in the proposed Trout Creek units are red-breasted 

nuthatch, northern flicker, hairy woodpecker, Lewis woodpecker, downy woodpecker, red-breasted 

sapsucker, black-backed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker and northern-three toed woodpecker. 

Lewis woodpecker is a Forest Service sensitive species the does not breed on the Sweet Home Ranger 

District but occurs along the Cascade Mountain ridges in the fall (Marshall et al., 2003; NRIS Wildlife 

database). Effects to Lewis woodpecker are addressed above in a specific section for the species. The 

project Biological Evaluation concluded that effects to potential foraging habitat are insignificant at the 

project and forest scale and some project activities would have a beneficial effect to foraging habitat; 

therefore, the alternatives would have a beneficial or neutral impact on the Lewis woodpecker. 

None of the other species are federally listed Endangered or Threatened Species, Forest Service 

Sensitive species, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS, 2008), or species 

that are regionally identified as having current viability concerns. Population trends for these species 

from breeding bird surveys from 1996─2013 indicate stable populations in Oregon for hairy woodpecker 

and downy woodpecker, and increasing population trends for pileated woodpecker and red-breasted 

sapsucker (Sauer et al., 2014). A decline in northern flicker and red-breasted nuthatch has been 

detected from 1996-2013. Northern flicker is a common resident species that is ubiquitous to most 

forest habitats in Oregon. They are most abundant in open forest habitat and along forest edges with 

available large (31 inches dbh or greater) snags (Marshall et al., 2003). The red-breasted nuthatch 

appears to be fairly common in Oregon and is somewhat flexible to use different forest types. This 

species is showing a slight population decline due to intensive forest management that reduces the 

amount of large diameter trees, snags, and structural diversity (Marshall et al., 2003). Despite a recent 

decline in numbers, both northern flickers and red-breasted nuthatches are well above population levels 

that would suggest a viability concern.

Deadwood Abundance/DecAID Project Analysis

A collection of information, referred to as DecAID, has been developed by Region 6 to help projects 

identify the levels of snags and downed logs required to meet wildlife population needs (Forest Service, 

2012). At the landscape level, DecAID recommends providing dead wood at levels within the range of 

historic variability. The proposed treatments are within the 5th field South Santiam watershed which 

was used to evaluate deadwood at the landscape level for this project (less than 32 acres occur in the 

Middle Santiam River 5th field watershed, for the purposes of this analyses, since 32 acres is a negligible 

amount, these acres are analyzed in combination with the rest of the project acres in the South Santiam 

River 5th field watershed).

DecAID evaluates deadwood levels by wildlife habitat type. The South Santiam watershed contains 

about 27,127 acres of Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 39,455 acres of Westside Lowland ConiferHardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015). Treatment units in the Trout Creek project are in these habitat 

types.

DecAID takes advantage of the spatially-comprehensive dataset of vegetation structure developed for 

Oregon and Washington by a team from the Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State 

University using the statistical imputation method Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) (LEMMA, 2015). 

DecAID includes a process (“Distribution Analysis”) that allows use of GNN data to evaluate the current 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 163

frequency distribution of different densities of snags and amounts of cover of down wood within 

geographic areas such as watersheds selected by users. By using inventory plot data from unharvested 

areas and information on historic disturbance regimes, the process also allows estimation of reference 

conditions for both snags and down wood (Forest Service, 2012).

The median historic condition for the South Santiam River watershed was estimated using levels of 

snags and downed logs found in strategic plots in unlogged stands of various ages and an estimate of 

the normal distribution of seral stages derived from the assumed fire return interval (Acker, 2015). 

Median values are the mid-point where half of the time deadwood levels would be at or higher than 

that value and about half the time they would be at or lower than the value. Studies have indicated that 

fire frequency and severity varied considerably in the past due to substantial variability in weather 

conditions, and fire severity varied from century to century (Wimberley et al., 2000). Therefore, levels of 

dead wood have fluctuated considerably over time and plus or minus 50% of the estimated median 

value was used to approximate the historic range of variability.

Downed Logs

DecAID analysis (Acker, 2015) found that downed logs in the total large size class (> 20 inches diameter) 

in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Montane Mixed Conifer Forest in the South 

Santiam River watershed were similar to estimated historic median conditions (Figure 27 and Figure 29). 

That means that the abundance of downed logs currently is similar to what was historically present 

within the South Santiam River watershed. For small size class (> 5 inches diameter) downed logs in the 

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat type and Montane Mixed Conifer Forest habitat the 

portion of the landscape with 2-4% cover is more than 1.5 times reference conditions (Figure 26 and 

Figure 28).

Figure 26: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic downed wood for the South Santiam 

River watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 27: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter downed wood for the 

South Santiam River watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015)

Figure 28: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic downed wood for the South Santiam 

River watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 165

Figure 29: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter downed wood for the 

South Santiam River watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015)

Figure 30: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic snags for the South Santiam River 

watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Snags

DecAID analysis (Acker, 2015) found that snags in both total size class (> 10 inches dbh) and large size 

class (>20 inches dbh) for both Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest were less than estimated historic median conditions (Figure 30, Figure 31 ,Figure 32 , and Figure 

33). In particular, the percent of area with no snags is higher now than what historically occurred, 

according to the DecAID analysis. For snags greater than 10 inches dbh, 12% of the Westside Lowland 

Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 14% of the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest in the South Santiam River 

watershed have no snags compared to an estimated historic median condition of 6% for both habitats 

(Acker, 2015). For snags greater than 20 inches dbh, 22% of the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood 

Forest and 25% of the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest in the South Santiam River watershed have no 

large snags compared to an estimated historic median condition of 11% and 15%, respectively. Past 

logging and fire suppression are likely important reasons why large areas in the watershed lack snags.

Figure 31: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter snags for the South 

Santiam River watershed in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat (Acker, 2015)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 167

Figure 32: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic snags for the South Santiam River 

watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015)

Figure 33: DecAID analysis showing estimated current and historic large-diameter snags for the South 

Santiam River watershed in Montane Mixed Conifer habitat (Acker, 2015)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Cavity Excavator Snag Population Potential Analysis

The Willamette National Forest Plan has a Standard and Guideline (FW-121) that states: “Habitat 

capability for primary cavity excavators shall be maintained to provide for at least 40% or greater 

potential populations. Habitat shall be provided and monitored at the sub-drainage level.” The method 

that the Forest Plan used to calculate habitat population potential is no longer considered “best science” 

for determining that viable populations will be maintained, but it does provide for a minimum number 

of snags at the watershed scale.

In order to determine the current distribution of large snags and the capability of the landscape to 

support primary cavity excavators, an analysis was conducted at the forest level for all 5th field 

watersheds using the DecAid snag estimates (Willamette SO, wildlife files).

The 20-inch dbh and above size class available in the DecAID snag analysis data was used in these 

calculations, while the snag population potential method is based on 18-inches dbh and above. 

Consequently, the results slightly underestimate population potential because snags 18-19.9 inches dbh 

are not counted. Snag habitat potential in each watershed did not include acres on private land since 

the population potential standard applies to Forest Service lands.

The calculations indicate that, on the Willamette National Forest, there is a current snag population 

potential of about 54% in the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood habitat type and 56% in the 

Montane Mixed Conifer habitat type. In the South Santiam River watershed, the current snag population 

potential is estimated at about 63% in the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood habitat type and 58% in 

the Montane Mixed Conifer habitat type. The analysis suggests that the Trout Creek project area is 

above the minimum snag population potential of 40%, and above the average condition across the 

Forest.

Snags in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood and Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Habitat 

Types

The snag analysis suggests that for both the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest habitat, snags are currently below historic levels in the South Santiam River 

watershed (Table 38). The current low density of snags and greater percentage of areas lacking higher 

levels of snags compared to historic conditions is mainly due to past clear-cut harvesting that removed 

existing snags as well as the trees that could provide future snags. Additionally, fire suppression results 

in fewer acres burned by wildfires which may have also reduced deadwood abundance in the watershed 

(refer to Fire and Fuels section).

Table 38: Estimated Snag Population Potential for the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood (WLCH) and 

Montane Mixed Conifer (MMC) Wildlife Habitat Types in the South Santiam River Watershed and in Willamette 

National Forest

Analysis Area Habitat Type Current Historic 

South Santiam River Watershed WLCH 63% 77%

Willamette National Forest WLCH 54% 75%

South Santiam River Watershed MMC 58% 74%

Willamette National Forest MMC 56% 74%

Hundreds of wildlife trees have been created in various harvest units in the South Santiam River 

watershed since the late 1980s to mitigate for the loss of snags from timber harvest and ongoing fire 

suppression activities. Treatments used were girdling, inoculate, saw-top, and combinations of these 

various treatments. Snag creation is a post-harvest activity that is proposed in the Trout Creek project 

area. Additionally, to maintain current snag population potential conditions, all silviculture treatments 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 169

would require that all snags and down wood in harvest units be retained (except those needed to be 

fallen for safety or operational concerns). An assessment of snag levels would be conducted after 

prescribed burning to ensure that Forest Plan standards and guidelines of maintaining or creating 2 

snags per acre are met. Moreover, a minimum of two snags per acre would be created in all early seral 

creation (i.e., aggregate retention) units

Logs in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Habitat 

Types

Although current levels of large downed logs are within historic levels, the Northwest Forest Plan 

specifies 240 linear feet of logs per acre greater than or equal to 20 inches must be retained in 

regeneration harvest units (early seral creation/aggregate retention). Logs less than 20 feet in length 

cannot be counted towards this total, and only decay classes 1 and 2 can be counted. Down logs must 

reflect the species mix of the original stand. In the Trout Creek project units proposed for early seral 

creation, 5 trees per acre (or 240 linear feet) of fall and leave would be implemented from Douglas-fir 

reserve trees to meet Forest Plan standards. Approximately 9 acres of down wood creation is also 

proposed in the Riparian Reserves in Units 33 and 34. The fall and leave trees would provide down wood 

for nutrient recycling, habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species, gaps for diversity of structure, and 

recruitment for vegetation diversity.

Environmental Consequences – Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker, and 

Deadwood Abundance

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no impact on any cavity excavator MIS or pileated woodpeckers and would not 

affect current levels of snags and dead wood. The forest would continue to develop towards old-growth 

and this should result in a future increase in large snags and large downed logs in those stands and 

improve future habitat for woodpeckers that prefer old forest habitat, such as the pileated woodpecker.

There would be no increase in habitat for species, such as northern flicker, that prefer forest edges and 

open forest habitat with large snags. There would be no additional wildlife tree and large down wood 

creation.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Snag abundance may initially decline on 1,016 acres of forest in Alternative 3 and 1,358 acres of forest in 

Alternatives 2 and 4. It should be noted that these acres exceed the total harvested acres because they 

include skips, gaps and untreated Riparian Reserves, all of which may be impacted if they contain older 

snags that pose a safety hazard to the logging operations. Many of the managed stands proposed for 

thinning in the alternatives have few, if any, large snags present currently, and so few large snags are 

expected to be lost in those areas. Trout Creek design features to create snags in the regeneration units 

in Alternatives 2 and 4 and protect existing snags where possible would mitigate this effect. In addition, 

post-harvest snag and down wood creation is proposed in thinning units as part of the KV plan.

The proposed Trout Creek harvest alternatives would affect snags and downed logs on about 3.6% of 

the total project area. No other timber harvest is reasonably foreseeable on NFS lands in the South 

Santiam River watershed. Clear-cut harvesting is expected to continue on the 8,202 acres of private 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

lands in the watershed. These private lands are mostly previously logged forests with current low levels 

of snags and downed logs. Considering cumulative effects, downed wood levels in the South Santiam 

watershed are expected to remain within historic levels and increase over time as past regeneration 

harvest areas on NFS lands mature. Snag levels in the watershed are expected to initially remain below 

historic levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 

habitats. Snag levels are expected to increase over time, however, and return to the range of historic 

variability as past regeneration harvest areas on NFS lands develop towards mature and older forest 

stages. Because leave trees would be retained, and snags and downed logs would be created well above 

minimum Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines the proposed Trout Creek project would temporarily 

degrade, but not remove, habitat for most cavity excavators.

There may be benefits to treating the older stands above 80 years of age in Alternatives 2 and 4 to 

Northern flickers since they prefer large snags, forest edges, and open forest habitat, all of which would 

be created by the silviculture treatments. Pileated woodpeckers are expected to continue to use the 

older stands after treatment since they are known to use shelterwood harvest areas (Forest Service 

1990: III-73). Assuming that suitable owl habitat would be preferred pileated woodpecker habitat, 

Alternatives 2 and 4 would degrade 218 acres, or less than 1%, of this habitat in the Trout Creek project 

area. Alternative 3 would not treat any suitable spotted owl habitat and would thus not degrade any 

pileated woodpecker habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because there would be no impact to cavity excavators MIS, pileated woodpecker, or dead wood with 

Alternative 1, there are no cumulative effects to consider. 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Using the combined acres of suitable and dispersal owl habitat, which represent forests with trees 

capable of producing 11 inches and larger snags, as a proxy for general cavity excavator habitat, 

Alternatives 2 and 4 would degrade 1.1% of the habitat in the Trout Creek project area and Alternative 3 

would affect 0.2%. Hazard tree removal along the haul route is also expected to result in a very slight 

additional decrease in snag habitat within the project area. The on-going Canyon Thin project and future 

Jude Ridge project would not affect the Trout Creek planning area. Private lands, which make up 22% of 

the project area, are expected to remain relatively poor habitat for cavity excavator MIS and pileated 

woodpeckers. Because Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would impact only a small amount of the available 

habitat, snag and downed wood mitigation measures would be implemented, the individual MIS species 

are not on any viability “watch-list”, and, considering cumulative effects, future down wood and snag 

levels are expected to increase as past clear-cuts on NFS lands mature. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are 

expected to maintain population viability of cavity excavator species and pileated woodpeckers in the 

project area and South Santiam watershed. The project would not contribute to any loss of viability of 

these species at the larger Forest scale.

Affected Environment - Elk and Deer

Elk and Deer Forage

Elk and deer are Forest management indicator species, not because of viability concerns, but because 

they are important big game hunting species in Oregon. The project area is in the state-designated 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 171

Santiam and McKenzie Wildlife Management Units (WMU). Since the beginning of the Willamette 

Forest Plan in 1990, deer numbers and hunter success have fallen by about 50% and elk numbers have 

declined substantially below Oregon Wildlife Management Objectives (USDA Forest Service, 2011). 

Reduced forage quality and quantity due to the reduction in clear-cut logging on the Willamette 

National Forest are factors that may have played a role in this decline of elk and deer.

An elk nutrition model has been developed that predicts Dietary Digestible Energy (DDE) on the 

Willamette National Forest (Rowland et al., 2013) based on percent canopy cover (lower canopy cover, 

higher DDE), proportion of hardwoods (more hardwoods, higher DDE), and potential vegetation zone 

(silver fir/mountain hemlock forest types have higher DDE than western hemlock forests other factors 

being equal). Cook et al. (2004) found that increased summer forage quality (which DDE represents) 

improved elk reproduction and survival. An increase in summer and fall elk forage quality can directly 

increase calf weights prior to winter, overwinter calf survival, pregnancy rates, adult fall fat 

accumulation, and herd productivity (op cit.). The benefits of increased summer forage quality that have 

been demonstrated for elk are also expected for deer.

Recently, as part of the Willamette Forest Monitoring Report for 2014-2015, changes in elk forage 

quality were evaluated across the Forest by running the elk nutritional model using Gradient Nearest 

Neighbor (GNN) data. GNN data are widely used by the Forest Service for large-scale mapping and 

habitat trend analysis, including for the 20-year Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring (e.g., Davis et al. 

2015, 2016). The years 1993 and 2012 were used as “bookends” to compare changes in elk nutrition on 

the Forest and in the project area and reflect the year with available GNN data that is closest to Year 

1990, the start of the Willamette Forest Plan, and the most recent year with available GNN data, 

respectively.

The elk nutritional model (Rowland et al., 2013) divides elk forage into six classes ranging from poor to 

excellent (Table 39).

Table 39: Elk Forage Classes Relative to DDE values

DDE Class DDE values

Poor <2.40

Low-Marginal ≥-2.4 to <2.575

High-Marginal ≥-2.575 to <2.75

Low-Good ≥-2.75 to <2.825

High-Good ≥-2.825 to <2.90

Excellent ≥2.90

DDE = dietary digestible energy (kcal/g)

DDE values are estimated from two sets of equations for dominant potential vegetation types that are 

applicable to the Willamette NF (Douglas-fir/Western hemlock-Springfield area and Pacific silver 

fir/Mountain hemlock), percent canopy cover, and proportion of hardwoods (Rowland et al., 2013). The 

values are very general in that they do not account for the different plant association within the 

potential vegetation type, but the model is useful in showing broad changes in nutritional forage values 

when calculated over large areas like a watershed or Forest. Within the Douglas-fir/western hemlock 

forest, the model predicts poor nutrition forage values at high canopy cover and low hardwood 

abundance (e.g., >60% cover and no hardwoods; >75% cover and >20% hardwoods). Using the Westside 

nutrition model, Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests never reach “good” nutritional quality (i.e., DDE 

>2.75 kcal/g), but can reach the “high-marginal” forage class at low canopy cover (e.g., <20% cover and 

no hardwoods; <30% cover and >20% hardwoods).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

The silver fir/mountain hemlock series is about a forage class higher than Douglas-fir/western hemlock 

under similar canopy cover and hardwood percentages. Dense stands lacking hardwoods are predicted 

to be marginal for elk nutrition. Good forage values occur in stands with moderate canopy and 

increasing hardwood abundance (e.g., <30% cover and no hardwoods; <50% cover and >20 hardwoods). 

Excellent forage nutrition is predicted to occur in open stands, typically early seral forests (e.g., 0% 

canopy cover with no hardwoods; <20% cover and 20% hardwoods).

Proposed treatment units occur in four Big Game Emphasis Areas (BGEAs), which were combined and 

used to evaluate the effects of the Alternatives on big game habitat. The four BGEAs total slightly more 

than 38,245 acres of big game habitat and are referred to as the project analysis area for big game 

forage in the remainder of this section. The acres in each elk forage class in 1993 and 2012, and for each 

Alternative are displayed in Table 40 for these BGEAs.

Table 40: Elk Forage Class Distribution in 1993 and 2012 and for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 in the Big Game 

Project

DDE Class Acres (%) by DDE Class

1993 2012 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

1 - Poor 16,463 (43.1%) 18,713 (48.9%) 17,842 (46.7%) 17,941 (46.9%) 17,842 (46.7%)

2 - Low Marginal 15,562 (40.7%) 15,103 (39.5%) 15,930 (41.7%) 15,864 (41.5%) 15,930 (41.7%)

3 - High Marginal 4,397 (11.5%) 3,186 (8.3%) 3.224 (8.4%) 3,192 (8.4%) 3.224 (8.4%)

4 - Low Good 624 (1.6%) 257 (0.7%) 264 (0.7%) 262 (0.7%) 264 (0.7%)

5 - High Good 176 (0.5%) 111 (0.3%) 111 (0.3%) 111 (0.3%) 111 (0.3%)

6 - Excellent 674 (1.8%) 527 (1.4%) 527 (1.4%) 527 (1.4%) 527 (1.4%)

The big game project analysis area is composed of 4 BGEAs which include Bear, Lower South Santiam, Boulder and Moose.

DDE = dietary digestible energy (kcal/g)

Open Road Densities

Studies have shown that elk avoid open roads that receive regular motorized traffic (Rowland et al.,

2004, 2013). Standards and guidelines in the 1990 Willamette Forest Plan established road habitat 

effectiveness values for each Big Game Emphasis Area that directly translate into desired maximum 

open road densities for each BGEA. The desired maximum open road densities compared to the current 

open road density is shown in Table 41. All BGEAs in the project analysis area currently meet the 

desired open road density.

Because of the low amount of recent clearcutting on the Forest and the lack of large-scale fires in the 

project analysis area, cover for elk and deer is abundant and not limiting the populations. Moreover, 

Cook et al. (1998) found that thermal cover did not enhance elk survival and reproduction and could not 

compensate for inadequate forage conditions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 173

Table 41: Comparison of MVUM Open Road Density to Forest Plan Elk Road Density Standards and 

Guidelines by Big Game Emphasis Area in the Project Analysis Area

Big Game Emphasis Area Forest Plan Elk 

Emphasis Level

Forest Plan Desired1

Maximum Open Road 

Density for Elk (road 

miles/sq. mile)

MVUM Open Road 

Density (road miles/sq. 

mile)

Bear Low < 4.8 2.11

Boulder High < 1.95 1.6

Moose High < 1.95 1.7

Lower South Santiam High < 1.95 1.7

1 Willamette Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines FW-151 and FW-153 establish minimum Habitat Effectiveness Values for open roads in 

Moderate and Low BGEAs. These road habitat effectiveness values directly translated into the maximum desired open road densities (Wisdom 

et al., 1986) shown in this table.

MVUM = Motor Vehicle Use Map which is the Forest Service record of roads on National Forest Lands designated for public vehicle use 

pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.51.

Environmental Consequences – Elk and Deer

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would maintain the current low quality big game forage levels in the project area and 

would have no effect on open road densities or big game cover. As such, Alternative 1 would have no 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to big game. 

Alternatives 2 and 4

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose commercial harvest treatments on about 1,358 acres each or about 3.6%

of the four BGEAs that comprise the big game project analysis area. The current canopy cover and 

proportion of hardwoods in each treatment unit were estimated from stand exam data and 

observations made during field reconnaissance. Estimated changes in canopy cover were determined 

from stand simulations and it was assumed that the proportion of hardwoods remained the same, posttreatment. Changes in elk nutrition were then calculated for each treatment unit. Commercial thinning 

and quality early seral treatments would lower overstory canopy cover to a degree that would result in a 

model-predicted increase in forage quality. The understory enhancement treatments and fuel 

treatments would not measurably change overstory cover or predicted elk forage quality.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would have identical effects on forage quality, about 871 acres of poor quality 

foraging areas would be converted to low-marginal (827 acres), high-marginal (37 acres) or good (7 

acres) foraging habitat (Table 40). Assuming the canopy will grow back at a rate of about 2% per year 

(Chan et al., 2006; Wilson and Puettmann, 2007), the improvement in forage from the thinning 

treatments is expected to last about 10 years on average. Harvest units where canopy is reduced below 

30%, should increase big game forage for about 20 years assuming full stocking with planting if 

necessary, post-harvest.

The reduction in poor nutritional habitat and the increase in marginal quality habitat (Table 40) could 

result in a small temporary increase in elk and deer populations in Alternatives 2 and 4, depending on 

other factors such as weather, disease and predation. Because there would be essentially no change in 

good and excellent forage habitat, no large increase in big game populations or harvest levels are 

expected as a result of this alternative alone.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Alternatives 2 and 4 would have no long-term changes in roads open to the public for motorized use. 

There would be a reduction in elk and deer use within and adjacent to the treatment units during the 

time that logging, yarding, and under-burning was occurring, but elk and deer are expected to return to 

the area soon after activities ceased. Effects of disturbance would be temporary. Cover values would 

remain high and would not be a limiting factor on the populations.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes harvest treatments on about 1,016 acres or about 2.3% of the four BGEAs that 

comprise the big game project analysis area. Commercial thinning treatments would lower overstory 

canopy cover and increase hardwood abundance to a degree that would result in a model-predicted 

increase in forage quality. The understory enhancement treatments and fuel treatments would not 

measurably change overstory cover or predicted elk forage quality. About 772 acres of poor quality 

foraging areas would be converted to low-marginal (761 acres), high-marginal (6 acres) or low good (5 

acres) foraging habitat (Table 40). No excellent forage habitat is expected to be created by nutritional 

model.

Assuming the canopy will grow back at a rate of about 2% per year, the improvement in forage from the 

thinning treatments is only expected to last about 10 years on average. Harvest units where canopy is 

reduced below 30%, should increase big game forage for about 20 years assuming full stocking with 

planting if necessary, post-harvest. The reduction in poor nutritional habitat and the increase in 

marginal quality habitat (Table 40) could result in a small temporary increase in elk and deer populations 

in Alternative 3 compared to the no-action alternative, but less than would be observed in Alternatives 2 

and 4.

Alternative 3 would result in no long-term changes in motorized roads open to the public and cover 

would remain at high levels that would not limit elk and deer populations. In all action alternatives, deer 

and elk are expected to continue to be limited by the availability of high quality forage habitat.

Cumulative Effects

The big game analysis area is comprised of four BGEAs totaling about 38,000 acres. The baseline 

condition was set at 2012 when the last GNN coverage was available to calculate elk forage values from 

the nutritional model. No stand replacement fires have occurred in the analysis area since that time. 

Commercial thinning has been very limited in the analysis area. The future Jude Ridge project would 

harvest about 264 acres which would temporarily reduce the amount of poor quality foraging areas and 

increase the amount of marginal quality foraging areas by less than 0.7% in the analysis area. There are 

no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities on National Forest System lands in the big game 

analysis area that would meaningfully improve forage habitat for deer and elk.

About 22% of the analysis area is comprised of non-NFS lands. Many of these are managed for timber 

production and are expected to provide early seral habitat when they are periodically clear-cut. 

Because the non-Forest Service lands are mostly in the Douglas-fir/Western hemlock series they should 

temporarily provide areas of high-marginal DDE forage when they are logged.

Alternative 1 – No Action

No improvement of elk forage would occur on Forest Service lands. Barring natural disturbances such as 

fire, previously logged area would continue to regenerate and forage would decline in the open 

managed stands that remain. Private lands comprise about 22% of the project area and future 

clearcutting on private lands is expected to improve forage quality. Overall the amount of area in poor 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 175

nutritional quality is expected to increase on NFS lands and deer and elk populations are expected to 

remain at the reduced levels.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Excluding natural disturbances that cannot be predicted, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in a 

temporary improvement in big game forage. The future Jude Ridge project would also temporarily 

improve forage quality on 0.7% of the analysis area. There are no other ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable activities on National Forest System lands in the big game analysis area that would 

meaningfully improve forage habitat for deer and elk. Consequently, the cumulative effects are similar 

to the effects described above for each alternative. It is not possible to accurately predict future deer 

and elk populations due to the numerous factors that affect them. However, because of the expected 

reduction in areas with poor nutritional quality, there may be a small temporary increase in deer and elk 

populations in the analysis area under the action alternatives.

Affected Environment - Marten

Marten are members of the weasel family that prefer mature and old conifer-dominated forest habitat. 

They use cavities in snags and logs for denning, resting, and natal sites. Although the Willamette Forest 

Plan established marten habitat areas, designated as 9c management areas, at strategic locations across 

the entire forest (USDA, 1990), recent information suggests marten primarily occur in montane conifer 

forests above 4,000 feet elevation (Aubry and Lewis, 2003). Camera set monitoring on the Willamette 

National Forest beginning in 2012 have detected marten at about 90% of the stations established above 

4,000 feet elevation (n = 37 stations) compared to 0% of stations below that elevation (n = 33 stations). 

About 700,000 acres (39%) of the Willamette National Forest are above 4,000 feet elevation and 

considered marten habitat. The Trout Creek project alternatives propose treatments adjacent to one 9c 

marten habitat management area.

Environmental Consequences – Marten

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would maintain the current forest habitat and stands would continue to develop large 

diameter trees, large snags, and large downed logs as the stands progress into old growth forests. The 

structural features that marten prefer would continue to increase over time.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose commercial thinning on 140 acres of managed stands and 95 acres of 

natural stands in habitat at or above 4,000 feet elevation. Commercial harvest is expected to degrade 

marten habitat. Negative effects from thinning include loss of future snags and down wood that could 

provide resting and denning sites and habitat for prey. Longer-term, positive benefits from thinning 

include larger tree size, better developed canopies, and multi-layered stands. Units where snag and 

down wood creation would be created post harvest, would improve these stands for about a century 

until the trees fall and the logs decay by providing habitat structures preferred by this species and their 

prey. Gaps and regeneration harvest on 115 acres would remove marten habitat, these stands would 

recover to late-successional habitat conditions in about 100 years or more. These treatments together 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

make up about 7.9% and 0.05% of the marten habitat in the project area and the estimated marten 

habitat on the Willamette NF, respectively.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would not include regeneration harvest, nor would it include units in high quality marten 

habitat. This action alternative proposes 182 acres of thinning above 4,000 feet elevation and 12 acres 

of gaps. These treatments would affect about 4.4% and 0.03% of the marten habitat within the project 

area and the estimated marten area on the Forest, respectively.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Because there would be no impacts to marten or their habitat under this alternative, there are no 

cumulative effects to consider.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions on the NFS land in the project area that 

would meaningfully alter marten habitat. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the 

proposed action alternatives would maintain the viability of marten habitat in the Project Area. Viable 

populations of marten are expected to continue to persist across the Willamette National Forest in the 

montane mixed conifer habitat zone.

Affected Environment - Effects to Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-704). The 

USFWS is the lead Federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. 

However, under Executive Order 13186, all Federal agencies are charged with the conservation and 

protection of migratory birds. A memorandum of understanding between the Forest Service and USFWS

require, during NEPA planning, that the Forest Service, to the extent practicable, evaluate and balance 

long-term benefits of projects to migratory birds against any short- or long-term adverse effects. It also 

requires the Forest Service to consider approaches for identifying and minimizing take of migratory birds 

that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Region 6 has compiled some information to assist 

biologists in disclosing effects to avian species during NEPA planning (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, 2013). Effects to Forest Service sensitive birds, federally listed birds, and 

birds that are management indicator species have been addressed previously. Four additional migratory 

bird species that have been identified by the USFWS as species of conservation concern (USFWS, 2008) 

and that have habitat in the proposed treatment units are addressed in this section. These four species 

are northern goshawk, rufous hummingbird, olive-sided flycatcher, and the purple finch.

An emerging concern for migratory birds in the Pacific Northwest is declining early-successional forest 

habitat (Swanson et al., 2010). Early seral conifer habitat is important for many migratory bird species, 

including three of the above species of conservation concern (Altman and Hagar, 2007). In particular, 

there is a lack of complex early seral habitat, which is early successional forests with abundant and 

diverse shrub understory composition, abundant large diameter snags and downed logs, and substantial 

green tree retention. While logging on private lands may create early seral habitat, important elements 

such as large diameter snags, downed logs and live leave trees are rarely retained in any quantity, and 

shrub and forb understory may be suppressed by herbicide treatment.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 177

Environmental Consequences – Migratory Birds

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1would have no direct effect on migratory bird habitat and would not increase habitat for 

early-seral species. The proposed Trout Creek units would continue to develop toward old growth over 

many decades which would result in improved nesting and foraging habitat for northern goshawks and 

other species that prefer this habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Thinning and early seral creation for Alternatives 2 and 4 would degrade or remove about 214 acres 

over 80 and 78 acres between 40 and 80 years of age. These stands may currently, or in the near future 

as they continue to develop toward old growth, provide foraging habitat and potential nesting areas for 

northern goshawks. No goshawks or nest trees have been detected in project area units. Mitigation 

measures would protect any raptor nests that are incidentally found in the treatment units during layout 

or implementation. Suitable and dispersal habitat for spotted owls was used as a proxy to represent 

goshawk potential habitat. Thinning and early seral creation proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4 represent 

about 1.16% and 0.03% of the estimated potential goshawk habitat in the project area and Willamette 

National Forest, respectively. Therefore, the effects to goshawk habitat are minor at the project and 

Forest scales. 

Alternatives 2 and 4 are consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Memorandum of Understanding. In 

some units, seasonal restrictions on tree falling and yarding prior to July 15 would minimize disturbances 

to nesting birds and reduce the likelihood of harm to individual birds. Measures to retain existing snags, 

where possible, and to retain live trees and, create snags, would provide structural features migratory 

birds would use. Both alternatives would provide about 101 acres of early seral habitat. Migratory birds 

that favor shrub habitat in early seral conifer stands, like the rufous hummingbird and purple finch, may 

benefit for about 20 years or until dense conifer regrowth reestablishes in the units. Species, such as the 

olive-sided flycatcher, which favor forest openings with large snags, may benefit for as long as the snags 

remain, which could be about 30 years or more.

Alternative 3

The effects of Alternative 3 activities to potential goshawk habitat would be negligible. Thinning 

proposed represent about 0.003% and 0.0007% of the estimated potential goshawk habitat in the 

project area and Willamette National Forest, respectively. No early seral creation would be created 

under this proposed alternative. Benefits to migratory birds that use early seral habitats would occur on 

43 acres of proposed gaps in thinning units. This alternative would provide fewer benefits to early seral 

dependent migratory birds that Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effects to migratory birds from Alternative 1; and thus, no cumulative effects would 

occur.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

A possible increase in early-seral dependent migratory birds, such as rufous hummingbird, purple finch, 

and olive-sided flycatcher, may be expected in the treatment units and forest edges adjacent to the 

units, but the increase in birds would be minimal at the landscape level. Private timber lands in the subwatersheds would continue to provide some lower-quality early seral bird habitat where stands have 

been recently clear-cut. No other projects that remove older forest habitat are reasonably foreseeable 

in the project area. Considering cumulative effects, about 67% of the project area would remain 

goshawk nesting and foraging habitat after implementing Alternatives 2 and 4. Viable populations of 

goshawks and other migratory birds that use older conifer forests are expected to be maintained at the 

landscape level.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 179

3.05 Botany and Invasive Plants

Summary of Effects Analysis

The botany Biological Evaluation determination for sensitive vascular plants, lichens and bryophytes is 

no impact. The project will have no environmental effect on sensitive species habitat, individuals, a 

population, or a species. The Biological Evaluation determination for sensitive fungi is may impact 

individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species. Known sites of botanical sensitive and survey and manage species 

are buffered in all action alternatives.

The Trout Creek Project has a high risk of introducing or spreading known populations of invasive weeds 

under Alternatives 2 and 4, and a low to moderate risk under Alternative 3. Weed control measures are 

identified under the Project Design Criteria in Chapter 2.

Buffering special habitats from direct activity and to protect microclimate of the wetter sites will be 

consistent with the Forest Plan which states that these sites shall be maintained. Active management of 

special habitats in Units 59, 67 and 95 will be a benefit to these habitats.

Scale of Analysis

The spatial extent of analysis is the entire project area, located in the South Santiam 5th field watershed, 

and including the following 6th field watersheds: Moose Creek, Trout Creek, Lower Canyon Creek, and a 

small portion of Soda Fork and Bear Creek.

Affected Environment- Special Botanical Species (Sensitive and Survey and 

Manage Species)

Regulatory Framework

Sensitive botanical species are addressed in the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 and Forest-wide 

Standard and Guidelines 156-161 and Amendment 158 to the Willamette Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA, 1990). Protection of federally listed Threatened and Endangered species is 

mandated by the Endangered Species Act. No federally listed Threatened or Endangered, nor suitable 

habitats for these listed plants are known to occur in the project area. Sensitive species are protected by 

USDA Forest Service regulations and manual direction (FSM 2672.4).

Forest management activities that may impact populations of or alter habitat for TESP (threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, or proposed) species require a Biological Evaluation (FSM 2671.44) to be 

completed. The Biological Evaluation process (FSM 2672.43) is used to assist in determining the possible 

effects the proposed management activities have on species listed or proposed to be listed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and species listed as sensitive by the USDA Forest Service, Region 6.

The Northwest Forest Plan, Record of Decision (ROD, USDA and USDI, 2001) designated special 

management of just over 300 “survey and manage” species to reduce or eliminate effects of 

management actions on these old-growth associated species whose persistence is not assured through 

the system of reserved lands. The Northwest Forest Plan requires surveys for projects that could alter 

habitat for survey and manage species and management of populations if they are found. There is an 

exemption for thinning in stands under 80 years old.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Methodology

Management proposals were investigated to determine whether survey and manage species and 

proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive (PETS) species habitat may exist within or adjacent to 

the project area. Sources used include the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Database of Rare 

Species, the Inter-agency Geographic Biotic Observations (GeoBob), the Oregon Flora Plant Atlas, the 

Forest Service national PETS plant species database (NRIS TESP-IS), scientific literature, aerial photos, 

topographic maps, and knowledge provided by individuals familiar There are 93 species on the Regional 

Forester’s 2011 Sensitive Plant List documented or suspected to occur on the Willamette National 

Forest. All species were evaluated for inclusion in the survey list for this project.

Current Condition

A pre-field review is conducted prior to surveys to determine whether special status botanical species 

occur in the project area. Prior to the Trout Creek botanical surveys, five Region 6 sensitive species had 

been documented in this portion of the South Santiam Watershed. These species are two lichens, 

Bryoria subcana and Hypotrachyna riparia, and three vascular plants, Eucephalis gormanii, 

Ophioglossum pusillum, and Polystichum californicum. In addition, 24 survey and manage species had 

been documented. Intuitive controlled surveys conducted in the field seasons of 2012-2015 revealed the 

presence of two more Region 6 sensitive species and numerous more sites of survey and manage 

species than had been previously located. The two sensitive species are fungi, Boletus pulcherrimus and 

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus.

The analysis area contains habitat for 55 species of the 93 on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

List (dated Dec 2011). Of these 55 species, 15 are fungi for which few or no surveys were conducted. 

Single year fungal surveys are considered impractical because fungi fruit inconsistently from year to year 

(USDA and USDI, 2001). One exception is Bridgeoporus nobilissimus, a fungus that forms a perennial 

fruiting body. Fungal surveys are required for habitat disturbing projects in old growth forest; however, 

the Trout Creek Project does not propose activities in old growth. Surveys were conducted for the 

remaining 40 species in all stands that contained suitable habitat for those species. Depending on the 

species, suitable habitat may include noble fir stumps and snags, wetlands, seeps, rotten wood, rock 

outcrops and older forest stands. Table 42 outlines the 2001 ROD Survey and Manage categories. A 

Biological Evaluation for the Trout Creek EIS is in the project file. All rare botanical species in the project 

area are outlined in Table 43.

Table 42: 2001 ROD Survey and Manage Categories

Relative 

Rarity

Pre-Disturbance Surveys

Practical

Pre-disturbance Surveys 

Not Practical Status Undetermined

Rare Category A

*Manage All Known Sites

*Pre-Disturbance Surveys

*Strategic Surveys

Category B

*Manage All Known Sites

*N/A

*Strategic Surveys

Category E

*Manage All Known Sites

*N/A

*Strategic Surveys

Uncommon Category C

*Manage High-Priority Sites

*Pre-Disturbance Surveys

*Strategic Surveys

Category D

*Manage High-Priority Sites

*N/A

*Strategic Surveys

Category F

*N/A

*N/A

*Strategic Surveys
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 181

Table 43: Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species in the Trout Creek Planning Area

Species Life Form Category Number of 

Sites Location

Boletus pulcherrimus Fungus Sensitive and Survey and 

Manage B 1 Unit 55

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus Fungus Sensitive and Survey and 

Manage A 3 Units 14, 20, and 56

Bryoria subcana Lichen Sensitive and Survey and 

Manage B 1 Headwaters of Moose Creek

Clavariadelpus occidentalis Fungus Survey and Manage B 11 Lower Moose Mountain

Eucephalis gormanii Vascular 

Plant Sensitive 1 Adjacent to Unit 100

Gomphus clavatus Fungus Survey and Manage F 2 Lower Moose Mountain

Helvella elastica Fungus Survey and Manage B 3 Lower Moose Mountain

Hypotraychyna riparia Lichen Sensitive 1 Near Unit 67, Camas 

Prairie

Ophioglossum pusillum Vascular 

Plant Sensitive 1 Whiterock Marsh

Otidea leporina Fungus Survey and Manage D 1 Lower Moose Mountain

Peltigera pacifica Lichen Survey and Manage E 6

Falls Creek, Moose 

Mountain, in Unit 59 and 

near Unit 29

Phaeocollybia attenuata Fungus Survey and Manage D 5 Lower Moose Mountain

Phaeocollybia dissiliens Fungus Survey and Manage B 1 Lower Moose Mountain

Phaeocollybia fallax Fungus Survey and Manage D 4 Lower Moose Mountain, 

Unit 43

Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva Fungus Survey and Manage B 1 Lower Moose Mountain

Phaeocollybia sipei Fungus Survey and Manage B 2 Lower Moose Mountain

Polystichum californicum Vascular 

Plant Sensitive 1 Canyon Creek Meadows

Pseudoaleuria quinaultiana Fungus Survey and Manage B 1 Moose Ridge

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis Lichen Survey and Manage A 4 Moose Creek, Falls Creek

Ramaria araiaspora Fungus Survey and Manage B 24 Lower Moose Mountain, 

Falls Creek

Ramaria celerivirescens Fungus Survey and Manage B 2 Lower Moose Mountain

Ramaria gelatiniaurantia Fungus Survey and Manage B 1 Moose Mountain

Ramaria rubrievanescens Fungus Survey and Manage B 1 Moose Mountain

Ramaria stuntzii Fungus Survey and Manage B 11 Moose Mountain

Sarcodon fuscoindicus Fungus Survey and Manage B 1 Lower Moose Mountain

Sowerbyella rhenana Fungus Survey and Manage B 14 Lower Moose Mountain

Sparassis crispa Fungus Survey and Manage D 2 Moose Mountain

Usnea longissima Lichen Survey and Manage F Many

Lower Moose Mtn., South 

Santiam River, Canyon 

Creek, Units 41, 42, 43, 

50, 55, 59, 87 and 92

Multiple surveys were conducted within the Trout Creek project area for botanical species on the 

Regional Forester‘s Special Status Species List (Revised December 2011), and the Survey and Manage List 

(USDA and USDI, 2001). Field surveys were conducted using the intuitive controlled method in the 

summers of 2012-2015. All survey protocols for Survey and Manage species groups were followed. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

following discussion addresses only those Special Status species that are in or immediately adjacent to 

proposed units.

Boletus pulcherrimus is a red-pored bolete that stains blue when handled. It is found sparingly in older 

forests in the Cascades and coast range. It fruits in the fall. It was incidentally located in Unit 55. B. 

pulcherrimus is included on both the sensitive and survey and manage lists.

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus is a fungus that forms a perennial conk that usually grows on large diameter 

noble fir stumps and snags at upper elevations in the Cascades and Olympics. It has occasionally been 

found on other true fir species. There are four conks known to be in the planning area, two in a 

managed stand (Unit 20) and two in fire origin stands adjacent to Units 14 and 56. Bridgeoporus is 

included on both the sensitive and survey and manage lists.

Eucephalis gormanii is a local endemic wildflower that blooms in late summer. It is found in rocky areas 

and scree usually on north and east aspects at higher elevations. There is a population on the north side 

of Cougar Rock adjacent to Unit 100. 

Hypotrachyna riparia is a small lichen that grows on Oregon ash trees in the foothills of the Cascades. 

There are very few sites of this lichen; there are only three known sites in Oregon, all of which are in 

Linn County. It is located adjacent to Unit 67.

Peltigera pacifica is a lichen usually found on decaying wood but sometimes on mineral soil and often 

near water. It is located in Unit 59 below the cliff and just north of Moose Mountain Road near Unit 29.

Phaeocollybia fallax is a mycorrhizal fungus. The fruiting body has a green cap, pale violet gills, and the 

stipe is orange at the base. There is a historical location just north of Unit 43.

Usnea longissima is a charismatic lichen that forms long pendulous strands in low elevation moist 

forests, often in riparian areas. Although it is relatively abundant in its habitat, it is threatened or 

extirpated throughout its world range (McCune and Geiser, 2009). It was located in many of the lower 

Trout Creek units such as Units 67 and 50. As a survey and manage species in category F, there is no 

requirement to manage known sites.

Environmental Consequences – Special Status Botanical Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, no direct effects are anticipated because no sensitive or 

survey and manage botanical species would be disturbed by project activities. 

Indirect effects to special status species would be minimal. No harvest would occur with this alternative. 

Alternative 1 would provide the benefit to rare fungi because most of them form mycorrhizal 

relationships with conifers and thinning has been shown to have negative, short-term (5-7 years) 

impacts to fungi (Pilz et al., 2003). There would be no removal of mycorrhizal host trees by aggregate 

retention harvest or gap creation. The effect of foregoing thinning to rare lichens and bryophytes is less 

clear. Lichens prefer slow growing substrates that overstocked stands would provide but they also 

prefer some species such as Pacific yew that would be better developed and more abundant in a 

thinned stand. Bryophytes thrive under low light conditions and high levels of down wood that can be 

expected under the No Action Alternative.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 183

The overstocked managed stands would undergo a slow decline before naturally opening up enough to 

provide for an understory. Natural processes, including windthrow, snowdown, fire, insects, and disease 

pockets would create openings within the dense stands. Coarse woody debris would be abundant as 

trees die due to overcrowding and other stressors and remain on site to decay.

Alternative 2

The proposed action includes thinning, regeneration harvest, gap creation, hardwood fuel break 

creation, alder treatment, and oak savannah restoration. In managed stands, approximately 576 acres 

will be thinned to varying degrees of canopy cover, 52 acres will be aggregate retention harvested, 168 

acres will receive alder treatment, and 34 acres will be a hardwood fuel break. In fire origin stands (100-

150 years old), 157 acres will be thinned to varying levels of canopy cover, 112 acres will be heavily 

thinned and burned, and 9 acres of oak/savannah habitat will be restored. Additionally, there will be 

skips, gaps and early seral habitat creation. Associated road work and fuels treatment are also proposed. 

Road decommissioning is proposed for seven miles.

Direct effects of the proposed action on special status vascular plants, lichens and bryophytes is minimal 

because sites within or adjacent to units are buffered. The exception to this is Usnea longissima, a 

survey and manage species in category F, for which there is no requirement to manage known sites. Its 

presence in riparian reserves and along untreated creeks and rivers will maintain the population in the 

landscape.

Buffers are for:

• Boletus pulcherrimus in Unit 55 – portion of stand deleted from unit.

• Bridgeoporus nobilissimus fruiting bodies in or adjacent to Units 14, 20 and 56 are buffered by 

150 feet.

• Eucephalis gormanii adjacent to Unit 100 – portion of stand deleted from unit.

• Hypotrachyna riparia adjacent to Unit 67 is buffered by 150 feet.

• Peltigera pacifica in Unit 59 and adjacent to Unit 29 is buffered by 75 feet.

• Phaeocollybia fallax near Unit 43 – outside unit. 

• Usnea longissima in multiple units protected by Riparian Reserves.

There may be direct effects and indirect effects to special status fungi because surveys were not 

conducted for them since single year surveys were deemed impractical (USDA and USDI, 2001). The fire 

origin stands currently provide habitat for these species. It is likely that currently unknown sites of 

Sensitive and Survey and Manage fungi may be negatively affected in the short-term by host tree 

removal, physical disturbance, soil compaction, and disruption of mycelial networks (Kranabetter et al., 

1998; Amaranthus and Perry, 1994). Twelve of the 16 sensitive fungi species and most of the survey and 

manage fungi are mycorrhizal. A study of hypogeous (a below-ground fungi, similar to truffles) found 

that thinning significantly reduced the diversity and amount of fruiting bodies (Gomez et al., 2003). 

Seven of the sensitive fungi are hypogenous. Reductions in the number of fruiting bodies of 

chanterelles, a common mycorrhizal species, were noted after initial thinning but appear to rebound 

after several years (Pilz et al., 2003).

Regeneration or aggregate retention harvest has been shown to have an even greater negative effect on 

fungal mycelium than thinning. The removal of trees leads to loss of tree roots and subsequent 

reduction in the diversity and abundance of mycorrhizal fungi (Byrd et al., 2000). Increased solar 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

radiation leads to reduced soil moisture particularly during the Pacific Northwest’s summer drought. 

Green tree retention can provide some legacy of fungal diversity during the development of the next 

stand (Luoma et al., 2006). However, sporocarp production and ectomycorrhizal species richness is 

significantly reduced at all harvest levels (Luoma and Eberhart, 2005).

Indirect effects to rare botanical species and their habitats vary depending on stand age, composition 

and the proposed activity. Minor forest tree species are favored in most of the silvicultural prescriptions 

over Douglas-fir. This will lead to an increase in stand complexity and diversity over the long-term (20-

100 years) that may provide better habitat for rare botanical species. Thinning of Douglas-fir managed 

stands could eventually lead to more structurally diverse late-successional habitat. Reduced organic 

debris from timber harvest and subsequent fuel treatment has been shown to have adverse effects on 

mycorrhizae development (Jurgensen et al., 1997). Further, one tree species that is being favored by the 

thinning prescriptions and is being planted in some units is western redcedar (Thuja plicata) and this 

species does not support ectomycorrhizal species. A large proportion of western redcedar in a stand 

reduces contact between root systems of host trees (Kranabetter and Kroeger, 2001).

Soil compaction resulting from harvesting equipment and the creation of temporary access roads can 

reduce host tree root growth and root tip availability for fungi (Amaranthus et al., 1996; Amaranthus 

and Perry, 1994; Williamson and Neilson, 2000). Compaction may occur with ground-based yarding, new 

temporary road construction, landing construction, and grapple piling of fuels. Kranabetter and Kroeger, 

(2001) note that thinning prescriptions that leave some stand basal area with good tree vigor may 

accommodate both commercial timber harvest and mycorrhizal fungi. The addition of understory trees 

and shrubs may benefit the sensitive mycorrhizal species. Duff retention and coarse woody debris 

creation would benefit both the sensitive mycorrhizal and saprophytic species (Lindblad, 1998).

There is little habitat for rare bryophytes in the planning area; there are no known locations and no sites 

were located in the course of surveys, therefore no effects to these species are anticipated.

Thinning may affect lichens by removing substrate and altering the microclimate (Sarr et al., 2005). 

Some rare lichens are thought to be dispersal-limited rather than sensitive to microclimatic changes 

(Sillett, 1995). Alternative 2 may have indirect effects to epiphytic lichens by removal of their substrate 

by thinning, early seral creation/aggregate retention harvest and gap creation. The creation of 

hardwood fuel breaks in the fire-origin stands will not benefit rare lichen habitat.

One result of thinning in Alternative 2 may be to enhance habitat for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus in the 

long term (greater than 20 years) in some areas while negatively impacting habitat in others. This 

species forms a perennial conk on large diameter noble fir stumps and snags. Thinning the dense stands 

of noble fir in the managed stands (Units 14, 15, 62, 73 and 100) will create larger diameter trees for 

future habitat. However, the creation of hardwood fuel breaks, regeneration harvest and gap creation 

will not favor Bridgeoporus nobilissimus because the increased exposure may cause potentially suitable 

existing stumps to dry out. Aggregate retention harvest and gap creation will increase light and reduce 

humidity. Noble fir stumps that may provide habitat for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus may become

unsuitable due to drying and mechanical damage during timber harvest and subsequent grapple piling. 

The canopy is not expected to close for approximately 20 years after thinning, and 30 years after early 

seral creation harvest.

If the hardwood fuel breaks and fuels treatments reduce the risk of a stand replacing fire, then 

indirectly, habitat for all special status botanical species will benefit. The effectiveness of hardwood fuel 

breaks on a stand replacing fire is difficult to quantify. Given these possible scenarios, Alternative 2 may 

have negative and positive indirect effects to rare botanical species, however, it is not expected to 

adversely impact rare botanical species over the long-term.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 185

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed to respond to the issues of aggregate retention harvest in managed stands 

and harvesting in older stands. All of the older stands were dropped along with most of the aggregate 

retention harvest. Road decommissioning was increased to 10 miles. Alternative 3 includes thinning in 

managed stands only and does not treat any fire origin stands. Approximately 629 acres will be thinned 

to varying degrees of canopy cover, 168 acres will receive alder treatment, and 34 acres will be a 

hardwood fuel break.

As in Alternative 2, no direct effects to special status species are expected due to buffers of existing sites 

with the exception of Usnea longissima, a survey and manage lichen found primarily in riparian areas.

Thinning of densely stocked Douglas-fir managed stands could eventually lead to more compositionally 

and structurally diverse late-successional habitat that would benefit special status species. Thinning in 

noble fir managed stands could lead to larger diameter trees that could eventually provide habitat for 

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus. However, the creation of a hardwood fuel break in a noble fir managed stand

(Unit 20) may open up the stand to the point that existing stumps dry out and few noble fir remain in 

the stand. Indirect effects to special status fungi from timber harvest are similar to what is described in 

Alternative 2, however, the effects are to a lesser extent because there are no fire origin stands included 

in this alternative. There are 43 acres of gaps in this alternative, which have will negatively affect 

mycorrhizal connections at least in the short term.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 covers the same acres as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 was developed in response to public 

comments asking for heavier thinning and more volume to local timber markets. Thinning intensities 

and gap creation were increased in several units. Road decommissioning was increased to 10 miles.

As in Alternative 2, no direct effects to special status species are expected due to buffers of existing sites 

with the exception of Usnea longissima, a survey and manage lichen found primarily in riparian areas.

Indirect effects to special status species are similar to Alternative 2. Heavier thinning and more gaps will 

have an additional negative effect on special status fungi. The acres of gap creation increases to 40.5 

with subsequent negative effects to mycorrhizae.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1- No Action

Most of the habitat loss for special status species in the watershed has been associated with timber 

harvest. Alternative 1 does not add any acres of harvest to what has occurred in the past, therefore 

there are no additional cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The area analyzed for cumulative effects was the South Santiam (101,917 acres) watershed. About 

56,000 acres of old-growth forest was clearcut in the South Santiam watershed in the last 50 years. Oldgrowth forests were harvested because they were considered over-mature and decadent compared to 

younger, faster growing stands. These forests certainly contained multiple populations of rare botanical 

species. Fungal diversity declines with clearcutting and fire (Byrd et al., 2000; Bruns et al., 2002) and 

most of the stands were burned after harvest. Despite the large amount of past harvest activity there 

are 51,550 acres of mature and old-growth forests still remaining in the South Santiam including two 

inventoried roadless areas and the Menagerie Wilderness. These forests serve as refugia for many rare 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

botanical species that would be able to re-colonize the younger stands as they mature and become 

more complex in structure and diversity. Approximately 250 acres of fire-origin stands will be treated in 

Alternatives 2 and 4 to the extent that they will negatively impact ectomycchorizal fungal species (gaps, 

thinning to less than 40 trees/acre). Alternative 3 that treats managed stands only, minimally adding to 

the cumulative effects in the watershed.

Affected Environment – Special Habitats

Regulatory Framework

Special habitats are non-forested areas including, meadows, ponds, caves, rock gardens, talus and cliffs. 

These sites are important reservoirs of biodiversity and provide habitat for a wide variety of plants, 

fungi, and animals, many of which are not found in forested areas. In fact, while special habitats cover 

only about 5% of the area in the Cascades Range, 85% of native flowering plants are found in these 

areas (Hickman, 1976). In addition, special habitats provide habitat for many species currently on the 

Region 6 Sensitive Species List.

The Willamette LRMP (USDA, 1990) contains a standard and guideline FW-211 which directly influences 

the management of non-riparian special habitats. It states:

“Special wildlife and plant habitats not currently identified in non-harvest management areas 

shall be maintained. This should include the ecotone and a buffered area sufficient to maintain 

the microclimate of the site.”

In order to manage for these special habitats, the Special Habitat Management Guide (2010) was 

developed to guide inventory and maintenance of these habitats on the Willamette National Forest.

Current Condition

Many of the units in Trout Creek contain special habitats (Table 44). Scattered rock outcrops, talus, 

wetlands, and seasonal ponds are the most common special habitats in the area. These special habitats 

provide habitat for various plant communities and contribute to species diversity of the area, which is 

otherwise fairly uniform. Special habitats in units are buffered or protected from direct disturbance by 

designating the habitat as “Area to Protect” or ATP. Special habitats within managed stands tend to 

have more weed species due to past disturbance.

Table 44: Special Habitats in Trout Creek Units

Unit Special Habitat Condition/Buffer

15 Vine maple/talus Area to Protect (ATP)

20 Rock outcrop

Seep

ATP

150 feet

27 Small wet area

Rock garden

150 feet

ATP

32 Red alder patch

Rock garden ATP

33 Linear alder wetland ATP

41 Rock outcrops; oceanspray patches ATP

42 Alder wetland ATP

44 Talus and rock outcrops ATP

50 Alder/mannagrass wetland

Rock outcrop

75 feet

ATP

55 Small wet meadow ATP

56 Sphagnum wetlands 150 feet 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 187

Unit Special Habitat Condition/Buffer

Rock outcrop on ridge ATP

57 Seep 50 feet

58 Rocky slope at top of stand ATP

59 Rock garden ATP; manage 

for oak and madrone

60 Rock garden ATP

62 Rock outcrop ATP

67 Camas Prairie; wet area Active management for oak

72 Carex wetland 75 feet

87 Pond/wetland (weedy) 75 feet

89 Rock outcrop ATP

95 Rock garden Girdle conifers for oak/madrone

100 Cougar Rock ATP

Environmental Consequences – Special Habitats

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There will be minimal direct or indirect effects to special habitats under the No Action alternative. Trees 

in, or surrounding the special habitats will continue to grow but at a slower pace than under the action 

alternative due to the lack of thinning. Existing weed populations in special habitats will likely continue 

to spread, altering the plant composition of those sites. Some of the special habitats in Trout Creek are 

adjacent to roads. Past management activities no doubt had an effect on special habitats, including 

changes to the microclimate and hydrology, soil compaction, and introduction of invasive weeds.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Special habitats are generally protected from physical disturbance in all action alternatives. Buffers, 

when prescribed, should be sufficient to protect the microclimate and prevent invasive weed 

introduction. Unit 67 is designed to enhance oak savannah adjacent to Camas Prairie in Alternatives 2 

and 4. Units 59 and 95 are designed to enhance oak and madrone trees growing on rock outcrop by 

removing Douglas-fir either by commercial harvest or girdling. Buffers are not prescribed for rock 

outcrops, talus or other dry, rocky features. These areas are designated as ATP to protect the habitat 

from physical disturbance (i.e., cable logging, skyline corridor).

Several of the special habitats in managed stands have invasive species in them and some control 

measures will be taken with the action alternatives. Hydrological changes to wet special habitats may 

occur due to temporary road construction, reconstruction, culvert placement, and tree removal, 

however buffers should mitigate these effects. Providing traditional resources for the tribes will have no 

effect on special habitats.

Alternative 3

Other than in Unit 59, there will be no direct effects under the alternative because special habitats are 

buffered or designated as ATP. Less active management will occur in special habitats under Alternative 

3. Units 67 and 96 are not included in this alternative however Unit 59 will still be treated to promote 

Oregon white oak and madrone. Indirect effects include a possible increase in weed presence but design 

features should limit weed encroachment. Indirect effects are less under this alternative because there 

are fewer units with special habitats. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1- No Action

There will be no cumulative effects under the No Action alternative.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

The project area was used to analyze cumulative effects on special habitats. Past timber harvest, road 

construction and associated activities on public and private lands have adversely affected special 

habitats by introducing invasive weeds and altering the microclimate. Given the protective measures of 

this action, additional cumulative effects are not anticipated.

Buffering special habitats from direct activity and to protect the microclimate of the wetter sites is 

consistent with the Willamette Land and Resource Management Plan (LMRP) which states that we shall 

maintain these sites.

Affected Environment – Invasive Plants

Regulatory Framework

Invasive plants are addressed in the Final EIS for Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA, 2005); Amendment 259 to the Willamette Land and 

Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1990); and the Willamette National Forest Integrated Weed 

Management Plan (USDA, 2007). The following documents guide the treatment of competing and 

unwanted vegetation in the Pacific Northwest:

• Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (2001)

• Executive Order 13112 (February 3, 1999)

• Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act (2004)

• Willamette National Forest Noxious Weed Prevention Guidelines (2005)

Current Condition

Non-native plants are species that have been introduced either intentionally or unintentionally to areas 

where they do not naturally occur. Most invasive, non-native plants in the Pacific Northwest originate 

from Europe and Asia. The predators and diseases that control these plant species in their native 

habitats are not present in the habitats where they have been introduced. Unchecked by predators or 

disease, such plants may become invasive and dominate a site, displacing native plants and altering a 

site’s biological and ecological integrity. For example, invasive plants can reduce biological diversity, 

displace entire native plant communities, decrease and degrade wildlife habitat, alter fire regimes, 

change hydrology, disrupt mycorrhizal associations, alter nutrient dynamics, and increase soil erosion. 

Invasive plants can also reduce the quality of recreational experiences. Project activities, timber harvest, 

various ground-disturbing activities and haul may introduce and/or spread invasive plant species.

The Trout Creek planning area contains ample invasive weed species. By far the most problematic are 

false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum sy) and non-native blackberries (Rubus armenicus and R. 

discolor), both of which are found in multiple Trout Creek units and along roads accessing those units. 

Other non-native weeds that occur to a lesser extent are shiny geranium (Geranium lucidum), Herb 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 189

Robert (Geranium robertianum), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and Scotch broom (Cytisus 

scoparius). 

Established weeds common in the Trout Creek planning area are oxeye daisy, St. John’s-wort, Canada 

thistle, curly dock, and tansy ragwort. Direct control efforts are not practical due to their widespread 

occurrence along the road system.

Environmental Consequences – Invasive Plants

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action alternative has the least risk of spreading weeds. There would be no new ground 

disturbances within the planning area other than what is ongoing and occurring by natural processes. 

There would be no new weed populations established or spread in the forested landscape as a result of 

this action. Without ground disturbing activities, mineral soil would not be available for weed seedling 

establishment and there would be no removal of competing vegetation. The rate of spread would be 

expected to continue at current levels. Traffic from logging on private timberland, recreationalists and 

Forest Service personnel will continue to spread weeds along roads and in dispersed recreation sites.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Invasive weeds are expected to spread under the action alternatives due to the increased light and 

disturbance created by regeneration harvest, thinning, gap creation, fuels reduction, and removal of 

competing vegetation. The greater the number of acres in which the existing forest is disturbed, and the 

higher the disturbance level, the greater potential for weed spread. Table 45 outlines the proposed 

activities by alternative and rates their risk level with regard to weed introduction and establishment.

Table 45: Risk Matrix – Comparison of Invasive Weed Introduction Potential by Alternative

Project Element Unit of 

Measure

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Managed Stand Units

Thin leaving 30% canopy cover Acres 0 88 88 88

Thin leaving 40-50% canopy cover (variable 

density) Acres 0 90 222.5 90

Thin leaving 50% canopy cover Acres 0 398 318.5 383.5

Aggregate Retention Acres 0 52 0 52

Gaps Acres 0 26 43 40.5

Skips Acres 0 362 344 362

Total acres Acres 0 1016 1016 1016

RISK RATING FOR MANAGED STANDS Low High Medium High

Fire Origin Units

Thin leaving 30% canopy cover Acres 0 76 0 76

Thin leaving 50% canopy cover Acres 0 81 0 75

Aggregate Retention Acres 0 49 0 49

Gaps Acres 0 9 0 15

Skips Acres 0 127 0 127

Total acres Acres 0 342 0 342

RISK RATING FOR FIRE ORIGIN STANDS Low High Low High
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Project Element Unit of 

Measure

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Associated Activities

Ground-based yarding Acres 0 328 239 328

Skyline with one end suspension Acres 0 537 429 537

Total number of landings created and 

rehabilitated 

# of 

landings 0 221 132 221

Length of haul routes Miles 0 47.3 45.5 45.5

New temporary road construction Miles 0 2.1 1.3 2.1

Re-open existing non-system spur roads Miles 0 2.3 2.0 2.3

Road storage Miles 0 29 29 29

Road decommissioning Miles 0 7 13 13

Grapple pile Acres 0 157 94 157

Underburn Acres 0 278 162 278

Non-commercial treatments Acres 0 370 51 370

RISK RATING FOR ASSOCIATED 

ACTIVITIES Low High Medium High

OVERALL RISK RATING Low High Low-med High

Alternatives 2 and 4 rate very similarly with Alternative 4 having a slightly higher risk due to the increase 

in miles of road decommissioning. Most of the roads to be decommissioned currently have false brome 

infestations on them and are undergoing treatment. Decommissioning reduces access for weed 

treatment, particularly on long stretches of road. Both alternatives have a HIGH risk of weed spread due 

to the greater level of ground disturbance and the current existence of weed populations in the area. 

Alternative 3 has a LOW-MEDIUM risk of weed spread due to reduced acres being harvested, reduced 

acres of ground-based equipment and reduced acres of grapple piling as compared to Alternatives 2 and 

4.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There are no cumulative effects for Alternative 1 – No Action.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The area analyzed for cumulative effects is the Trout Creek analysis area and the road system accessing 

the analysis area. Ground-disturbing activities such as ground-based yarding systems used during 

timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, vehicular traffic and recreation use contribute to 

the incremental increase in invasive weeds.

The impact of non-native invasive weeds on native plant communities is cumulative. The more 

disturbance and activity any given area is subject to, the more the risk of invasive weed introduction, 

establishment, and/or expansion. Past road construction and maintenance, timber harvest 

(approximately 56,000 acres in the South Santiam watershed), and recreation use have resulted in 

numerous weed sites. This project would open and reclose approximately 2.0-2.3 miles of non-system 

temporary road, construct 1.3 - 2.1 miles of new temporary non-system road, and thin or otherwise 

treat approximately 1500 acres. Post- harvest monitoring and control measures in project design 

features will reduce these cumulative effects. The identification of project Design Criteria is also 

consistent with the Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS/ROD (2005) and the Willamette National Forest 

Integrated Weed Management EA (2007).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 191

Mitigation/Project Design Criteria

• Money will be collected from the proposed timber sale to survey and control invasive weeds on 

all harvest units, landings, and roads in the planning area.

• Continue to pretreat invasive species along the highway corridor, and survey for, and control 

weeds in harvest units and along roads.

• All road construction and logging equipment will be pressure washed prior to working in the 

area.

• Obtain gravel for road construction and reconstruction from a weed-free rock source. 

• Minimize areas of soil disturbance during all harvest activities including spur road construction, 

re-opening existing temporary roads, fuels treatment, etc.

• Seed all disturbed areas with native species, including landings and subsoiled skid roads to 

reduce weed establishment.

• Berm, gate, or rip and seed any new temporary and re-opened roads to reduce disturbance and 

incoming weed seed on vehicular traffic.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

3.06 Roads and Access

Summary of Effects Analysis

Implementation of Alternative 1 would allow continued deterioration of the existing road system. With 

most drainage structures in the project area beyond their design life and with limited maintenance 

funding, road and drainage failures would increase over time reducing access and negatively impacting 

water resources in the project area (including the Menagerie Wilderness that is impacted by roads 

situated above and outside its boundaries). Implementing Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would have primarily 

beneficial effects in the project area over the long term by identifying roads to store, maintain, or 

decommission, as required under Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212. Each action Alternative would 

also generate funding to accomplish some or all of this work. 

The project area has approximately 161 miles of road that were analyzed. With Alternative 2 (the 

preferred Alternative), approximately 48 miles of road would be maintained or reconstructed, 32 miles 

of road stored, and 6 miles decommissioned. Alternatives 3 and 4 would maintain and store similar 

miles, but would increase the amount of decommissioning to 10 miles. Under all action alternatives, 1 

mile of new system road would be constructed. Some short term negative road impacts from road 

construction, maintenance and rock pit development are expected, but these effects would be 

minimized with environmentally friendly design features, seasonal operating restrictions, and 

monitoring while work is in progress.

Scale of Analysis

The Willamette National Forest completed a roads analysis in 2003. The Willamette National Forest 

Roads Analysis met the requirements of roads analysis at the Forest level.

A travel analysis was conducted for this project as a guide for managing the National Forest System 

(NFS) roads in the Trout Creek Project planning area. Field work occurred from 2014 to 2016. A travel 

and road management plan (the plan) was developed as a result of the analysis and details current road 

status such as open and stored roads, road conditions, stream culvert location and conditions, road 

maintenance levels, and road access and travel management classifications. Data spreadsheets display 

this information and all documented information resides in the transportation analysis file. The plan 

proposes management recommendations for roads within the transportation analysis area. The travel 

analysis and plan considered such road-related items as safety, risk to resources, future expected use, 

public and private access, emergency access, and maintenance costs.

The 2003 Willamette National Forest Road Analysis selected a set of key forest roads. These Key Forest 

Roads “should be operated and maintained to standards consistent with its Road Maintenance 

Objective. The public will be encouraged to use the system of Key Forest Roads for access into and 

through the Forest.” (USDA, 2003).

Affected Environment

The approximately 170 miles of existing roads in the project area include approximately 161 miles of 

Forest Service system roads, 8.6 miles of state highway, an undetermined number of miles of nonsystem roads, private roads, and no County roads. Most non-system roads are remnants of past logging 

activities, or have been created by the public. The Forest Service road system in the project area consists 

of approximately 9 miles of arterial road, 31 miles of collector roads and 130 miles of local roads (FS 

road types are defined in Appendix D.) 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 193

In and near the Trout Creek project area past management activities have provided the current network 

of Forest Roads that were developed primarily for timber sales. This system of roads now provides 

access to the area for various administrative activities, fire protection, public recreation, and harvest of 

forest products. Approximately 13 miles of road are asphalt surfaced, 46 miles are surfaced with 

crushed aggregate, 68 miles are surfaced with pit run rock, and 3 miles are native surfaced. 

Approximately 145 miles of road within the project area are currently open to mixed motorized use 

(MVUM 2013). Additional non-system roads add to access in the project area. The total miles of nonsystem roads is unknown, but the action alternatives would treat those used for this project 

(Alternatives 2 and 4 - 2.3 miles; Alternative 3 - 2.0 miles) as temporary spurs that will be 

decommissioned after use (see Table 46). 

Table 46: Key Forest Roads

Road Number Key Forest Road Objective Maintenance Level

2000600 Yes 3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars

2022000 Yes 3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars

2025000 Yes 3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars

2027000 Yes 2 – High clearance vehicles

2027755 Yes 2 – High clearance vehicles

2032000 Yes 3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars

2032345 Yes 3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars

2032417 Yes 2 – High clearance vehicles

In recognition of reduced funding available for road maintenance, additional analysis has been 

conducted using a Forest Roads Investment Strategy (RIS) (WNF 2016) to further define the minimum 

road network needed to provide access to the forest. The RIS is an effort to manage the existing road 

system more effectively using feedback from internal specialists and public users of the forest to 

determine the values and risks associated with each road segment across the forest compared to the 

access value. The result is a database with a recommendation on the proposed status of each road 

segment that will be considered when projects are conducted that utilize those roads. Using the RIS 

recommendations and additional information gathered during the project specific interdisciplinary 

analysis, each road in the project area was further evaluated by the IDT for status: remain open, close 

(store), or decommission. A summary of these considerations, guided by the RIS, is shown in Table 47

for each of the action alternatives in the project area. Appendix D provides a road-by-road listing of the 

additional analysis by the IDT showing the prescription determined with comparison to the RIS team 

recommendations. The project area is shared with private land holdings, some of which are covered by 

contracts with the Forest Service which include use and maintenance of roads shared with these 

partners. These contractual requirements were factored into District level analysis, particularly with 

regard to roads identified for decommissioning. Roads identified for action but not included in this 

project will be considered for work toward desired status as forest funds allow.

Table 47 shows RIS recommended roads either Remain Closed (RC), Analyze for Closure (AC), Analyze for 

Decommissioning (AD), Defer Recommendation for later analysis (DR), or Remain Open (RO). Table 47

also shows the Trout Creek IDT recommendations for road status for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The 

proposed status if each road in each alternative were made based off of RIS recommendations, input 

from Resource Specialists and field surveys.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table 47: Road Status Summary Table (all values reported in miles)

Action* Road Investment Strategy Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 and 4

Closed Open Total Closed Open Total Closed Open Total

Analyze for Closure - 13.1 13.1 - 30.9 30.9 - 29. 9 29.9

Remain Closed 1.8 6.5 8.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Remain Open - 128.5 128.5 - 123.2 123.2 - 120.0 120.0

Defer Recommendation - 6.6 6.6 - - - - - -

Analyze for Decommissioning - 3.8 3.8 1.7 4.2 5.9 1.7 8.5 10.2

Total 1.8 158.5 160.3 1.8 158.5 160.3 1.8 158.47 160.3

* Not all recommendations from the RIS and District analysis will be acted on by this project

There are currently approximately 3 miles of system roads in the project area that are closed. These 

roads are closed by means of gates, berms, or other physical barriers implemented through 

administrative closures or naturally by vegetative growth or blown down timber. There are 

approximately 2 miles of roads in the project area that have been previously decommissioned.

The current road system allows for access to conduct a wide variety of public, Forest Service 

management, and fire protection activities in the area. Specifically, Forest Roads provide access to the 

Menagerie Wilderness, 3 developed Forest Service campgrounds, 1 group campgrounds, numerous 

trailheads, lakes, and various dispersed camping sites, scenic drives, rock climbing, firewood gathering, 

hunting, and special forest products harvest.

The road system receives maintenance in accordance with established road management objectives. 

Over the last few decades, a limitation on road maintenance funds on the Forest has resulted in a 

backlog of maintenance work including road side brushing, drainage and ditch cleanout, and road 

surface repair on many of the key and secondary roads in the project area. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 

4, there are drainage improvements, brushing, and surface reconstruction which would be implemented 

prior to commercial haul. Most of the culverts on the roads in the project area are beyond their design 

life, in poor condition and/or undersized, and are in need of replacement. Alternatives 2 and 4 would 

include the installation or replacement of approximately 260 culverts and Alternative would include the 

installation or replacement of approximately 248 culverts. Additional deferred maintenance is expected 

in the future unless maintenance budget funding is improved. Project objectives, which include road 

storage and decommissioning, will reduce the maintenance backlog and slow the deterioration of the 

roads system by focusing reduced maintenance funding on fewer road miles.

For the action Alternatives, a number of system roads will be utilized, temporary spurs will be built, and 

one mile of permanent road will be constructed. Appendix D gives a breakdown of the temporary spurs

and new construction, identified with treatment unit and approximate acres accessed. Appendix D 

identifies those roads in the project area that will be utilized for the project that will receive 

maintenance or other work.

The project area includes a number of rock pits. Two have been identified for use in this project. One, 

located on Road 2027, MP 11.2, is an existing pit that would need some expansion, stripping, site 

development, and blasting. The other pit is a new development located on Road 2027825, MP 0.50. It 

would require initial development including stripping, blasting, and site and access improvement to turn 

it into a viable rock pit. For each pit, development and use would impact approximately 3 acres or less.

There will be no rock pit creation in Alternative 3. The development of these pits will reduce or eliminate 

dependence on commercial rock sources, in line with our mission, and will allow additional maintenance 

work to be completed now and in future maintenance activities because of reduced material costs. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 195

existing pit is already included and the new rock pit will be added to the database of active pits across 

the forest. This database includes pit development planning, resource assessment, and assists in 

oversight of all activities involving each pit. A detailed description of activities associated with rock pit 

expansion and created are included in Appendix D. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would not change the use pattern of roads or correct existing road maintenance problems. 

Without treatment-related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend makes it unlikely that 

funding would be available to support adequate road maintenance in the project area. Brush and tree 

growth with associated reduced visibility, debris on roads, and surface irregularities from storms, OHV, 

and other traffic will result in additional and continued unsafe traveling conditions for public and 

administrative traffic, as well as increasing resource damage associated with localized erosion. There is 

currently a backlog of road maintenance and some local roads are impassible due to slides, drainage 

failures, fallen trees, and brush encroachment. Culverts that are not maintained because of impassible 

roads will eventually plug and cause washouts with sediment reaching into major drainages such as 

Moose Creek, Trout Creek, Falls Creek, and the South Santiam River. This trend is expected to continue 

as more roads deteriorate over time.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Road maintenance would occur on 48 miles of road with Alternatives 2 and 4 and 46 miles with 

Alternative 3. Road maintenance would protect the existing road infrastructure, improve safety on the 

road and decrease or eliminate sedimentation from roads used for project implementation. Road 

maintenance may include roadside brushing, road surface blading, ditch and culvert drainage 

maintenance, culvert replacement and/or installation of drainage dips and water bars which will result 

in proper drainage, surface rocking, asphalt patching for safe use of the roads (see Design Features, 

Section 2.07, in Chapter 2). Roadside brushing will increase sight distance improving visibility for safer 

driving. There are miscellaneous segments of low standard road identified as potential haul routes 

throughout the project area that would require reconstruction and road surface rehabilitation to 

support commercial haul.

Maintenance proposed with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may cause a minor temporary increase in 

sedimentation while road maintenance work is being completed prior to treatments and associated 

road use. The end result of maintenance work will be to decrease both the volume and velocity of water 

that carries sediments off roads into adjacent streams. Newly graded or surfaced roads, improved 

drainage structures, and upgraded culverts may increase sediment delivery briefly until road surfaces 

and slopes stabilize, typically within one season. Attention will be paid during road reconstruction and 

maintenance activities to minimize potential delivery to adjacent streams and BMPs will be applied to 

prevent sediment delivery to the greatest extent possible. Designated water sources for filling water 

tankers for surface blading, compaction and dust abatement operations will have specific withdrawal 

procedures detailed in the contract to protect aquatic species both at the withdrawal site and 

downstream.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide necessary road maintenance on haul routes and roads used for 

other treatment activities. This would reverse the trend of declining road conditions across an estimated 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

90 miles of road or approximately 60 percent of the project area’s road system. The miles of road open 

to motorized public access in all three action alternatives would be reduced post treatment. All roads 

either stored or decommissioned as a result of this project would still be available for walk-in use. 

Maintenance activities will cause some short-term delays or detours for road users while roadwork is 

being performed. OHV use on roads currently open to mixed use would be restricted while treatment 

activities are taking place.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would build approximately 4.4 miles of temporary roads. Alternative 3 would build 

approximately 3.3 miles of temporary roads. The temporary roads will be a combination of existing nonsystem roads reopened and new construction. Implementation of the action alternatives would result 

in a temporary increase of disturbance due to additional miles of temporary roads and increased traffic 

to access the treatment stands. Temporary roads would be decommissioned once activities are 

completed and would not change total system road miles or significantly impact access in the long term. 

A benefit of the action alternatives will be a reduction in total road miles in the project area as nonsystem roads that are opened for this project will be decommissioned after use. Appendix D includes 

information about temporary road miles anticipated under the action alternatives.

Most of the original road system was constructed to accommodate logging with large yarding towers or 

logging caterpillars used to log large tracts of land with little regard for resource damage. Current 

thinning protocol utilizes small, mobile, typically road-based yarders or ground-based systems that have 

a much reduced impact on the various resources, but require better access than the existing roads 

provide. Temporary spur road construction to accommodate these new systems has been kept to a 

minimum in the action alternatives and utilizes previously used skid trails and other previously disturbed 

areas wherever possible. New temporary non-system roads would typically be located on gentle slopes 

and designed to minimize soil disturbance, as possible. Figure 34 and Figure 35 show temporary roads 

located in the Trout Creek project. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 197

Figure 34: System Roads and Temporary Non-System Roads in the Trout Creek project for Alternative 2 (Map 

1)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 35: System Roads and Temporary Non-System Roads in the Trout Creek project for Alternative 2 (Map 

2)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 199

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would implement approximately 32 miles of system road storage and 6 miles 

(Alternative 2) or 10 miles (Alternatives 3 and 4) of decommissioning within the project area. Refer to 

Table 48 for details. These roads would be closed through placement of various types of barriers. Roads 

identified for storage may include any of the following treatments as needed; closure by physical 

barrier, non-drivable water bars, removal of culverts from stream channels with fills of shallow to 

moderate depth, reduction of fill depth for culverts in deep fill locations. Note that removed culverts 

may be staged on the road for future use. Stored roads would include minimal disturbance to the 

roadbed because they will be reopened in the future for various management activities, including 

timber harvest and fire suppression activities. Roads identified for decommissioning may include any of 

the treatments identified with road storage but will also include removal of all culverts, slope recontouring as needed to reestablish a more natural contour, and sub-soiling as needed to promote 

natural drainage and soil productivity. System roads that are decommissioned will be removed from the 

FS road system database. As noted previously, roads closed by gates are not considered stored but are 

closed to protect wildlife or environmental values and can be accessed for administrative purposes.

Road storage with gates, earth berms, or other means would decrease vehicular access (public, 

administrative and commercial), decrease the current effective open road density, reduce existing road 

erosion problems, and reduce road maintenance costs. Roads stored or decommissioned by the project 

would be left in a hydrologically stable condition to protect water quality. There would be fewer roads 

for public and administrative vehicle access for recreation, reforestation, fire and noxious weed control. 

Removing berms to access stored roads for fires suppression will become a fire suppression cost. 

Table 48: Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest

Activity Unit of 

Measure

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

New Road 

Construction

Miles 0 1 1 1

Temporary Road 

Construction

Miles 0 4.4 3.3 4.4

Roads Maintained Miles 0 48 46 48

Roads Stored Miles 0 32 32 32

Roads 

Decommissioned

Miles 0 6 10 10

Rock Pit Development Cubic Yards 0 60,000 20,000 60,000

See Appendix D for a road-by-road breakdown of haul roads identified for use in this project. For these 

roads, maintenance or reconstruction will be performed, the details of which have been spelled out 

previously in general terms. After project disposition is also identified in the appendix for these roads.

Cumulative Effects

Past management actions have created approximately 161 miles of Forest Service road within the 

project area that require continuing road maintenance to provide adequate safe use and resource 

protection. Past budgets have resulted in maintenance cycles that have led to a decline in road 

condition across the project area. Alternative 1 has some short term positive cumulative effects due to 

no change in the minimal road maintenance being conducted. However, long term impacts will be all 

negative for the roads and water resources as the continuing decline in the condition of the roads and 

drainage structures will ultimately result in significant downstream negative sediment delivery as roads 

and stream crossings fail. These negative impacts will also affect the adjacent Menagerie wilderness 

even though no roads enter the wilderness. The proximity of roads above the wilderness in the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

drainage will impact the streams there as they deteriorate and fail over time. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

would provide needed road maintenance on haul routes and roads used for other treatment activities. 

Road maintenance, road storage, and decommissioning treatments proposed under the action 

alternatives would improve the road system by reducing potential sedimentation, increasing safety, and 

reducing future maintenance costs allowing better prioritization of future maintenance needs

The Forest Service does not anticipate any future significant timber sale or public works projects in the 

Trout Creek project area that will impact this planning effort. However, it is anticipated that harvest 

activities, with associated haul and other disturbance, will continue on the adjacent private timber lands 

in the project area. Refer to Appendix C for a complete list of past, present and future activities 

occurring in the Trout Creek project area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 201

3.07 Fire and Fuels

Summary of Effects Analysis

Proposed actions for Alternative 2, 3, and 4 would reduce fuel loadings following timber harvest, reduce 

risk from wildfire to public and private lands, and introduce fire as an ecological function to portions of 

the landscape. Treatment of activity generated fuels would be accomplished through piling and burning 

and prescribed underburning to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for post-harvest fuel 

loadings. Risk from wildfire would be reduced through reduction of fuel densities in strategic areas such 

as roads corridors and areas adjacent to private lands in stands following post-harvest fuel treatments. 

Alternatives 2 and 4 include 278 acres of underburning and 157 acres of pile burning, and Alternative 3 

incudes 229 acres of underburning and 94 acres of pile burning. Immediately following timber harvest 

activities an increase in potential fire intensity will exist until fuels treatments are completed.

Scale of Analysis

Landscape level and project wide data was used to analyze the historic role of fire and its effects across 

the project area. Stand specific data was used in the fuels treatment recommendations for individual 

units. 

Affected Environment

Fire on the Landscape

Within the Trout Creek planning area, naturally occurring lightning fires were one of the primary agents 

of disturbance prior to European American settlement. Before the beginning of fire suppression and 

large scale timber harvest activities, fires of variable size and intensity created a mosaic of forest types 

and age classes that benefitted wildlife habitat, stand dynamics, soil properties, and watershed 

hydrology. Some amount of fire on the landscape was also introduced by the Native American 

communities within the greater geographic area, but these events are thought to be focused primarily in 

the valley bottoms to the west (Morrison and Swanson, 1990). Small specific sites within the planning 

area, such as Camas Prairie at the confluence of Moose Creek and the South Santiam River, are thought 

to have been burned regularly to maintain or enhance camas fields. The extent of this burning across 

the landscape is not fully understood. In 1860, a party that scouted what would become the Santiam 

Wagon Road described several prairies in the vicinity of the project area, most likely a result of burning 

practices of the local Tribes (Wylie, 1860).

Fire Regime and Frequency

Fire frequency is a general term referring to the reoccurrence of fire in an area over a given time. The 

idea of a fire frequency, or return cycle, as a regular occurrence is not as predictable in the western 

Cascades and the Trout Creek planning area as it is in drier forest types. In the Douglas fir western 

hemlock forests of the western Cascades fire frequency can range anywhere from 95 to 145 years 

between events (Agee, 1993).

The term fire intensity refers to the amount of heat that is created at the flaming front of a fire as it 

moves across the landscape. The term fire severity describes the effects that a fire has on the landscape. 

It is important to note that these terms are not necessarily interchangeable. It is possible for low 

intensity fires in deep duff that do not produce much heat to have high severity fire effects in forest soils 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

or vegetation, while high intensity fires in a grass fuel model that produce a lot of heat may have little 

impact on soils or vegetation and be classified as low severity.

A fire regime describes the pattern, frequency, and severity of the wildfires that prevail in an area. While 

the traditional model of Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests has emphasized high severity fire as the 

primary disturbance agent in the western Cascades, recent studies are beginning to suggest that lower 

severity, non-stand replacing fires may have also played a role in forest succession (Tepley, 2013). These 

non-stand replacing fires foster the development of a multi-cohort canopy where shade-intolerant and 

shade-tolerant species exist in the same stand. The impacts of fire varied greatly across this region and 

helped to shape the historic structural diversity that resulted in a variety of age classes and seral types.

A fire history study within the Cook-Quentin and Deer Creek drainages, approximately 10 miles 

southeast of the planning area, shows a high degree of variability in both fire frequency and severity. 

Some sites had evidence of fire return cycles as frequent as every 20 years while others were fire-free 

for up to 500 years. In the Deer Creek study area, fire was less frequent with small low to moderate 

severity fires periodically occurring in the upper elevations and larger high severity fires occurring 

infrequently and generally following the classic stand replacement model. The fire regime of the CookQuentin study area showed a fairly frequent mixed to low severity fire cycle that created mortality in 

patches in even-aged stands and served to thin preexisting stands. The stands that resulted from these 

fires were multi-aged and fit more into a mixed severity model where patchy fires of varying severity 

create a mix of both stand replacing and non-stand replacing fires. That leads to variations in stand 

structure that favors predominantly Douglas-fir over fire intolerant species (Morrison and Swanson,

1990).

Figure 36: Fire Regime Classification of the Trout Creek Planning Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 203

Since 1970 there have been 65 lightning fires in the South Santiam watershed, with a 47 total acres 

burned. While fires continue to occur on the landscape, fire suppression efforts have been largely 

successful in preventing fire from playing its natural role as a disturbance agent. The last large fires in 

the area were a series of human caused fires in the Seven Mile area between 1885 and 1911.

The Trout Creek planning area has a mixture of fire regimes and includes the following (Figure 36):

• Fire Regime II: 0 to 35 year fire return interval; high severity (over 75% mortality)

• Fire Regime III: < 35 to 150 year fire return interval; mixed severity (25-75% mortality)

• Fire Regime IV: < 35 to 150 year fire return interval; high severity (over 75% mortality)

• Fire Regime V: 150+ year fire return interval; high severity (over 75% mortality)

Fuel Profile and Fire Behavior

The following are summaries of expected fire behavior and fuel profile conditions of stands within the 

planning area (NWCG, 1982).

Fuel Model 5: These stands are comprised of shrubs or young conifers with little to no dead wood 

where fire often carries through surface and ground fuels. Fires occurring in these stands are often of 

low intensity due to the light surface fuel loading. However, under severe weather conditions, such as 

high wind events or times of the year when foliar fuel moisture is low, these stands can see an increase 

in fire intensity. Managed stands that have been recently thinned fall into a separate category due to 

their heavier fuel loadings. Figure 37 provides an example of Fuel Model 5.

Fuel Model 8: These are stands with closed canopies of short needle conifers where surface fuels are 

primarily needles and small accumulations of twigs and branches. Some limited areas of heavy fuel 

accumulation may be present but do not substantially effect fire behavior. Most fires are slow burning 

ground fires although under severe weather conditions, such as high wind events or periods of low 

humidity and high temperatures, these fuels may pose a hazard and transition from a surface fire to a 

crown fire. Figure 37 provides an example of Fuel Model 8.

Fuel Model 10: These are older stands with multiple canopy layers and greater quantities of large down 

dead material. During periods of elevated fire danger, this fuel type is more likely to result in higher fire 

intensities and has a greater probability of individual and group tree torching.

Fuel Models 11, 12 (Stands Post Commercial Harvest): Following timber harvest, stands will see an 

increase in the amount of fuel distributed on the forest floor. These elevated fuel loadings will create 

Figure 37: Fuel Model 5 (left) and Fuel Model 8 (Right)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

potential for increased fire intensity until fuels reduction activities take place or sufficient time elapses 

for fuels to break down and decompose (approximately 5 to 15 years).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under Alternative 1, the effects of fire suppression and past management activities would continue. 

Lack of fire disturbance would prevent the creation of new early seral conditions. Existing open areas 

and meadows would continue to fill in with conifers and mid-seral closed canopy conditions will 

continue to dominate the landscape. Managed stands would remain at their current stocking levels and 

short-term impacts to fire danger would be avoided as no resulting slash would be created during 

harvest operations. Over time however, these stands will begin to self-thin either through competition 

for resources, insect damage, disease, or a combination of environmental factors. Fuel loadings and fire 

danger would increase as a result of this self-thinning, similar to that following commercial harvest, but 

without any mitigating fuels treatments. Without release from dense stocking levels, tree vigor would 

decline and average tree diameter and bark thickness growth would stagnate leaving dense stands of 

small diameter trees susceptible to fire damage in the event of a wildfire.

Alternative 2

Post-harvest Fuels Treatments

Following timber harvests, there will be an increase in potential wildfire behavior. The greatest risk from 

fire will come in the first five years after the harvest. Needles and small twigs will remain attached to 

branches and limbs that form slash on the ground. Depending upon the amount and distribution of 

fuels, fires in the harvest area could be fairly active with high intensities, particularly in areas of heavy 

thinning and gaps where direct sunlight is able to reach the forest floor.

Fuel reduction treatments such as piling and burning of limbs and branches, chipping, or prescribed 

underburning can mitigate the effects of commercial harvests and reduce long term wildfire risk and 

intensity. Fuels treatments will generally be completed within 1 to 2 years following harvest and reduce 

total fuel loading to within or below standards set by the Willamette Forest Management Plan 

Standards and Guidelines FW-212 and 252.

Figure 38: Fuel Model 10 (left) and Fuel Model 12 (right)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 205

While stands will see a short term increased risk from fire post-harvest, over the long term, the 

individual trees will become more fire resistant as increased growth rates will create larger diameter, 

thicker barked trees that will be able to withstand higher temperatures in the event of a wildfire.

All Underburns

Each underburn will have an individual Prescribed Fire Plan developed with specific prescription 

parameters. Prescribed burning will be conducted when threat of fire escaping from the defined unit 

boundaries is low and smoke management forecast are favorable. Some units will be seasonally 

restricted from burning activities to avoid impacts to wildlife during critical breeding periods. Units that 

are prescribed underburning may require fireline dug down to mineral soil around the perimeter of the 

burn unit.

Post-Harvest Underburning

Underburning following timber harvest would take place on approximately 278 acres and is intended to 

achieve a variety of resource objectives. The primary objective is the treatment of activity generated 

slash created by timber harvest to bring fuel loading within or below standards established by the 

Willamette National Forest Management Plan to reduce threat from wildfire. Underburning is the most 

effective way to mitigate post-harvest fuel loading and break up fuel continuity across the landscape by 

treating entire units. These burns target the consumption of the smaller diameter fuels, the primary 

drivers of fire behavior. Once this size class of fuels are consumed, future fires within these stands 

would lack sufficient fuel loading to burn with much intensity and would be easily controlled. Some 

material such as downed logs, duff, and small pockets of live and dead fuels will remain after any 

underburns (Figure 39 and Figure 40), but would generally not affect the ability of firefighters to safely 

and effectively suppress any future fires within these stands.

Figure 39: Post-harvest underburning would create a mosaic of burned and unburned areas throughout 

stands
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Secondary objectives for underburns include a variety of natural resource benefits such as promotion of 

early seral species, improvement of big game forage, and creation of new snags. Burning would be 

timed to minimize consumption of duff and large woody debris. While fire would naturally occur at a 

larger scale throughout the planning area and have a greater degree of variability in terms of intensity 

and severity, prescribed underburning allows for a controlled replication of the natural fire disturbance 

process while minimizing threats to public safety and private property.

Low Severity Underburning

Burning in these units would take place on approximately 231 acres. These underburns would replicate 

low intensity fire disturbance and have an acceptable mortality range in overstory trees of 0-10%. The 

burning would create a mosaic of burned and unburned areas and consume most of the activity 

generated fuels from timber harvest activities while replicating natural fire disturbance and its effects on 

the environment.

Mixed Severity Underburning (Unit 56)

Underburning in Unit 56 (47 acres) would have the same objectives and effects as other post-harvest 

underburning but with different mortality objectives. In this unit, the desired mortality range would be 

15-25% with the intention of creating pockets of snags and canopy gaps for the establishment early seral 

habitat (Figure 41). This mortality range would more closely replicate the effects of mixed severity fire in 

a Fire Regime III landscape than a typical low severity underburn and create a structurally rich 

environment for species that benefit from fire disturbance and snag patches. In the event the prescribed 

fire does not create the desired range of mortality, additional snags may be created within the unit 

through girdling or other means. No mortality created by prescribed burning would be salvage logged. 

The Forest, Stand and Structure section in Chapter 3 offers further description and a map of the 

treatments proposed for Unit 56.

Figure 40: Underburns would be timed to ensure adequate duff and down wood retention
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 207

Hardwood Fuel Breaks (Units 20, 72, 89, 120, 140, 170)

Creation of Hardwood Fuel Breaks would take place on 119 acres. These units are located in close 

proximity to private land along strategic ridgetops and road corridors where fire suppression resources

may be most effective in controlling fire spread (Figure 42). Transition of these stands from areas 

dominated by conifers to areas dominated by hardwoods, such red alder and big leaf maple, would

create stands that have a higher foliar moisture content, are more resistant to tree torching, and reduce 

the rates of potential fire spread and flame lengths. This would reduce fire intensity and increase the 

effectiveness of suppression resources in controlling the spread of wildfire across the landscape. Many 

of these units are located adjacent to the Menagerie Wilderness. In this area, fires that escape initial 

attack may need to be contained outside of the wilderness boundary due to the safety concerns and 

operational difficulty of suppressing fires in a wilderness with limited access.

Hand or Machine Piling and Burning

Piling and burning of harvest created slash would take place on approximately 157 acres. Piling would be 

focused on concentrations of post-harvest slash to reduce overall fuel loading and decrease fire hazards. 

Pile burning would mitigate most post-harvest fuel loading but would not provide the same replication 

of the natural fire disturbance process as prescribed underburning. Some amount of material would be 

left to decompose on site and break down over time. In areas where these concentrations remain, some 

elevated resistance to fire control would exist until the material fully breaks down, approximately 5-15 

years after harvest. Pile burning would generally take place in the fall when fire season has been 

declared over and there is little chance of fire spreading outside of the created piles.

Figure 41: Example of post burn mortality pockets in mixed severity underburning
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 49: Comparison of Post-harvest Fuels Treatments by Alternative

Treatment1 Unit of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Underburning Acres 0 278 229 278

Pile Burning Acres 0 157 94 157

Total Fuel Treatments Acres 0 435 323 435

1 Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Alternative 3 would treat 112 less acres of activity generated fuels due to the reduction in harvest acres

(Figure 43). Unit 56 would not be harvested and no mixed severity fire underburning would take place in 

that stand. The number of acres converted to hardwood fuel breaks would decrease from 119 acres in 

Alternative 2 to 43 acres in Alternative 3.

Alternative 4 would treat the same number of acres as Alternative 2 except that additional volume 

would be removed from Unit 56. While the underburning would still take place and the early seral 

habitat creation on the forest floor would be achieved, the removal of the additional volume from the 

Figure 42: Trout Creek units adjacent to private land and wilderness in Alternatives 2 and 4
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 209

stand would decrease the amount of residual snags left in the unit and the post burn structural 

complexity.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No cumulative effects would take place as no post-harvest fuels treatments or projects would take 

place.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4

Effects to fire and fuels from actions proposed in the Trout Creek project (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) 

overlap in time and space with effects from the following actions:

• Sweet Home Rec/Admin Hazardous Fuels Project: Hazardous fuels reduction on approximately 

12 acres to be completed between 2017-2018 at the Gordon Lakes and Rooster Rock Trailheads 

and the Cougar repeater site. Effects from the proposed actions combined with this project 

would help to reduce fuels in key locations across the project area.

Figure 43: Trout Creek units adjacent to private land and wilderness in Alternative 3
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

• Camas Prairie Prescribed Burning: Approximately 11 acres of prescribed burning is conducted in 

the fall every other year (2017, 2019, 2021, etc.) to restore and enhance a native prairie 

ecosystem. The proposed actions in Unit 67 would expand the perimeter of the meadow and 

increase the future size of the prescribed burning by 2 acres.

The proposed actions would have a limited overall cumulative effect on fire and fuels concerns in the 

project area. While there would be a short term increase in activity generated fuel across the project 

area, following fuels treatments stands would be more fire resilient and moved closer to the desired 

future condition. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 211

3.08 Air Quality

Summary of Effects Analysis

The community of Cascadia may experience short duration (approximately 2-5 days) of smoke impacts 

from burning activities associated with the Trout Creek project. Burning would be coordinated through 

the Oregon Department of Forestry’s Smoke Management Program and impacts to local communities 

would be avoided as much as possible.

Scale of Analysis

The area defined for analysis is the treatment units within the project area. Additionally the larger 

airshed in which smoke may travel is also considered and would be included in the smoke management 

forecasts for individual units at the time of burning.

Affected Environment

The State of Oregon has been delegated authority for attainment standards set by the 1990 Clean Air 

Act and the 1977 Clean Air Act and its amendments. To regulate these standards, the state developed 

the Oregon Smoke Management Plan and the State Implementation Plan. These are guidelines and 

regulations for prescribed fire smoke emissions in Oregon. The Willamette National Forest has adopted 

this plan for emission control in Oregon (Forest Plan, 1990).

Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA) and Class I Airsheds are priority areas regulated in order to 

protect air quality. The Willamette Valley is the closest SSRA to the project area however the community 

of Cascadia represents the area most likely to be affected by prescribed burning activities from the 

project. The Mt Washington and Mt Jefferson Wilderness Areas are the closest Class I Airsheds to the 

project area and are both approximately 20 miles from the project area. Class I Airsheds must be 

protected from visibility impairment July 1 through September 15.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under Alternative 1, no management actions would take place and no smoke emissions would be 

created.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Prescribed fire in the project area would comply with Oregon Smoke Management Plan regulations. 

Smoke emissions would be mitigated based on the timing of the burns, seasonality, forecasted transport 

wind direction, and weather. Regulations enforce specific days which are suitable to burn in relation to 

other land owners burning or weather forecasts.

Recreationists and some local residents near project area may be temporarily impacted by smoke from 

prescribed burning or pile burning. In the Oregon Smoke Management Plan, non-harmful concentrations 

of drift smoke are considered nuisance smoke (Oregon SMP, 1995). Mitigation measures such as signing 

along roads or near treatment areas would be made prior to burning.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Prescribed burning creates particulate matter. Prescribed underburning in the spring and fall is the 

activity most likely to impact local communities and forest users. From past experience on the district 

underburning often consumes:

• 80% of the fine fuels 0-1 inch diameter (1 and 10 hour fuels)

• 60% of the 1-3 inch fuels (100 hour fuels)

• 20% of the 3-9 inch fuels (1000 hour fuels)

Large woody material over 9 inches is most often too wet to be consumed and often only the bark is 

charred. Because the smoke prediction model consumes 100% of 1, 10, and 100 hour fuels in spring-like 

conditions, it generates higher estimates of particulate matter values than have been actually 

experienced in past treatments. Prescribed burning activities would take place over several years and be 

timed avoid concentrations of smoke and impacts to communities. Table 50 summarizes the total 

particulate matter emissions by the model.

Table 50: Particulate Matter Emissions from Burning by Alternative

Additional pile burning activities would take place in the fall following timber harvest. Pile burning would

also be coordinated through the Oregon Department of Forestry and a daily limit to smoke emissions 

would be followed.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

Effects to air quality overlap in time and space with the following projects:

• Jude JR Timber Sale: Approximately 18 acres of underburning scheduled to take place between 

2017 and 2021. Although Jude JR is outside the Trout Creek project area, emissions from both 

projects would share the same airshed for smoke management purposes.

• Camas Prairie Prescribed Burning: Approximately 11 acres of prescribed burning are conducted 

in the fall every other year (2017, 2019, 2021, etc.) to restore and enhance a native prairie 

ecosystem.

Cumulative effects of all burning would be mitigated through coordination with the Oregon Department 

of Forestry’s Smoke Management Program. Adequate smoke dispersal would be verified prior to any 

prescribed fire activities. 

Particulate Matter Alternatives 2 and 4 Alternative 3

PM 2.5 total 41 tons 83 tons

PM 10 total 48 tons 98 tons
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 213

3.09 Economics

Summary of Effects Analysis

This economic analysis focuses on the direct, indirect, induced costs, and benefits of the action 

alternative and the connected actions described in Chapter 2. Net present value and benefit to cost ratio 

are the primary economic criteria used to compare the effects of the action to the Federal Government 

termed economic efficiency analysis. Both net present value and benefit to cost ratio are positive for all 

action alternatives. All proposed alternatives would be above cost, including sale preparation and sale 

administration costs.

Most timber sales from the Sweet Home Ranger District are purchased and operated by individuals and 

companies based in Linn County, Oregon. Merchantable saw timber is also generally marketed and 

processed within Linn County. The average wood processed between 2010 and 2014 in Linn County was 

272 MMBF over the five year period. Volume harvested on federal lands within the same time period 

averaged 21 MMBF. The Sweet Home Ranger District contributes about 8 MMBF per year to the 

Willamette National Forest target. The annual target of 8 MMBF equates to about 3% of the total annual 

harvest in Linn County. This project would contribute about 12.7 MMBF in Alternative 2, 8.4 MMBF in 

Alternative 3 and 15.8 MMBF in Alternative 4.

Affected Environment

Effects to the local economy, using employment statistics, can be estimated using State of Oregon 

Employment Department reports for the timber industry in Oregon. The analysis did not include an 

estimate of non-market amenity values due to the unpredictable nature of these values. Non-market 

values are required “only when excess demand exists for non-market goods (Forest Service Handbook 

2409.18 32.24) or the project has detrimental effects on non-market output. For a comprehensive 

discussion of the social and economic considerations at the forest level, refer to the Willamette Forest 

Plan FEIS, Chapter III, pages 213-235 and Chapter IV, pages 119-130.

The latest numbers available in January of 2017 show that unemployment in Linn County was at 5.0%. 

Since 2005 the unemployment rate has ranged from 5.5% in September of 2007 to 14.9% in March of 

2009. The overall trend in 2016 was downward from 6.0% in January to 5.0% in December. The wood 

product industry produces 6.5 jobs per MMBF of timber. This project would harvest 8.4 to 15.8 MMBF 

and create about 55 to 103 jobs. Jobs in the logging and wood product manufacturing industry in Linn 

County accounted for 2,284 of the 44,503 total jobs in Linn County according to the State of Oregon 

Employment Department. The average annual salary in Linn County was $42,056 in the third quarter of 

2016. The average annual salary for jobs in logging and wood product manufacturing was $50,915.

Historically, the managed stands proposed for commercial harvest were logged under different 

standards and guidelines than typically used today. Approximately 50% of the units prescribed as

skyline were originally ground-based yarded using a rubber tired or tracked skidder, sometimes on 

slopes greater than 50%. “High lead” logging (a skyline harvest system not commonly used today) was 

typically used for clear cut harvest. Partial suspension was not required. This system only works well in 

even aged management settings. A standing or live skyline yarding system is generally used today, and 

almost always used in commercial thinning stands. To best meet our current standards and guidelines, 

we must take a different approach to logging systems previously used in the managed stands. Opening 

new non-system roads to reach some of these previously harvested areas would substantially reduce 

ground disturbance. Helicopter logging was considered as an alternative to opening new non-system

roads. This would require several helicopter landings with very little harvested timber volume flown to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

each landing. Helicopter harvest systems are not currently economically viable with timber from 

previously managed stands. An average diameter of 16 inches is optimal for helicopter yarding systems 

with at least 25 thousand board feet (MBF) per acre to be removed and less than 50% canopy closure. 

The average canopy closure for thinned stands in this project would be greater than 50%, the average 

diameter would be 12 inches, and about 10 MBF per acre would be removed.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

The no action Alternative would not change the conditions or level of economic activity in the county. 

With no timber sale from this environmental assessment, no money would go to the county and no 

funding would be available for post-sale activities.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2, the proposed action, would produce an estimated 12.7 MMBF through 733 acres of 

commercial thinning, 31 acres of dominant tree gaps, and 101 acres of early seral creation through 

aggregate retention harvest. For the 35 treatment units on approximately 865 total acres, new 

temporary roads are required for about 2.1 miles and about 2.3 miles of temporary road would be 

reopened. The proposal utilizes skyline yarding systems for about 537 acres and ground-based systems 

for 328 acres. After accounting for all costs, including sale preparation and sale administration costs, 

Alternative 2 would result in a positive net present value (Table 51).

Table 51: Economic Efficiency Analysis (Alternative 2)

Present Net Value (PNV)

Benefits (4% per year inflation) Amount Years Inflated PNV

Timber volume 12,818 MBF (thousand board feet)1 $7,024,264 6 $8,887,935

Costs (4% per year inflation) Amount Years Inflated PNV

Skyline system 7,747 MBF at $250/MBF on 537 acres $1,936,750 6 $2,450,607

Ground-based system 5,071 MBF at $150/MBF on 328 acres $760,650 6 $962,465

Open Existing Spur 2.3 miles at $10,000/mile $23,000 3 $25,872

New Temporary Spur 2.1 miles at $25,000/mile $52,500 3 $59,055

New Road Construction (<1 mile) $12,500 3 $14,061

Haul and Scale at $225.30/MBF (Average TEA Forest Service Region 6) $2,887,895 6 $3,654,108

Slash Disposal (Fuels Planner) $257,698 7 $339,113

Road Maintenance (Transportation Planner) $236,450 4 $276,613

Road Reconstruction (Transportation Planner) $564,600 2 $610,671

Essential KV $196,300 7 $258,317

Summary Amount or Value

Total PNV Cost $8,650,883

Net Present Value $237,052

Cost to benefit ratio 1.03

1 $548 value per MBF (five year average from the Oregon Department of Forestry for the Willamette Valley)

The existing transportation system consists of open system roads, closed system roads, and existing 

temporary roads from first entry harvest. The road network is adequate for the harvest of most of these 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 215

units. Many of the system roads, approximately 48 miles, would require pre-haul maintenance, such as 

blading and brushing, and/or reconstruction, such as culvert replacement or surfacing. Existing 

temporary roads would require more earthwork and sight distance clearing before they can be safely 

used as haul roads.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would produce an estimated 8.4 MMBF through 629 acres of commercial thinning and 39 

acres of dominant tree gaps. For the 27 treatment units on approximately 668 total acres, new 

temporary roads are required for about 1.3 miles and about 2.0 miles of temporary road would be 

reopened. The proposal utilizes skyline yarding systems for about 429 acres and ground-based systems 

for 239 acres. After accounting for all costs, Alternative 3 would result in a lower net present value 

compared to Alternative 2; however, it would have the same cost to benefit ratio as Alternative 2 given 

the lower benefits and costs resulting from harvesting less timber volume on fewer acres (Table 52).

Table 52: Economic Efficiency Analysis (Alternative 3)

Present Net Value (PNV)

Benefits (4% per year inflation) Amount Years Inflated PNV

Timber volume 8,438 MBF (thousand board feet)1 $4,801,222 6 $6,075,078

Costs (4% per year inflation) Amount Years Inflated PNV

Skyline system 5,472 MBF at $250/MBF on 429 acres $1,368,000 6 $1,730,956

Ground-based system 2,966 MBF at $150/MBF on 239 acres $444,900 6 $562,940

Open Existing Spur 2.0 miles at $10,000/mile $20,000 3 $22,497

New Temporary Spur 1.3 miles at $25,000/mile $32,500 3 $36,558

New Road Construction (<1 mile) $12,500 3 $14,061

Haul and Scale at $225.30/MBF (Average TEA Forest Service Region 6) $1,901,081 6 $2,405,474

Slash Disposal (Fuels Planner) $206,836 7 $272,182

Road Maintenance (Transportation Planner) $227,500 4 $266,143

Road Reconstruction (Transportation Planner) $555,650 2 $600,991

Essential KV $0 7 $0

Summary Amount or Value

Total PNV Cost $5,911,803

Net Present Value $163,275

Cost to benefit ratio 1.03

1 $569 value per MBF (five year average from the Oregon Department of Forestry for the Willamette Valley)

The existing transportation system consists of open system roads, closed system roads, and existing 

temporary roads from first entry harvest. The road network is adequate for the harvest of most of these 

units. Many of the system roads, approximately 46 miles, would require pre-haul maintenance, such as 

blading and brushing, and/or reconstruction, such as culvert replacement or surfacing. Existing 

temporary roads would require more earthwork and sight distance clearing before they can be safely 

used as haul roads.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would produce an estimated 15.8 MMBF through about 710.5 acres of commercial 

thinning, 54 acres of dominant tree gaps, and 101 acres of early seral creation through aggregate 

retention harvest. For the 35 treatment units on approximately 865 total acres, new temporary roads 

are required for about 2.1 miles and about 2.3 miles of temporary road would be reopened. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

proposal utilizes skyline yarding systems for about 537 acres and ground-based systems for 328 acres. 

Alternative 4 would harvest more timber volume on the same number of acres as Alternative 2, which 

would result a greater net present value and greater cost to benefit ratio compared to both Alternatives 

2 and 3 (Table 53).

Table 53: Economic Efficiency Analysis (Alternative 4)

Present Net Value (PNV)

Benefits (4% per year inflation) Amount Years Inflated PNV

Timber volume 15,820 MBF (thousand board feet)1 $8,716,820 6 $11,029,558

Costs (4% per year inflation) Amount Years Inflated PNV

Skyline system 9,300 MBF at $250/MBF on 537 acres $2,325,000 6 $2,941,867

Ground-based system 6,520MBF at $150/MBF on 328 acres $978,000 6 $1,237,482

Open Existing Spur 2.3 miles at $10,000/mile $23,000 3 $25,872

New Temporary Spur 2.1 miles at $25,000/mile $52,500 3 $59,055

New Road Construction (<1 mile) $12,500 3 $14,061

Haul and Scale at $225.30/MBF (Average TEA Forest Service Region 6) $3,564,246 6 $4,509,908

Slash Disposal (Fuels Planner) $257,698 7 $339,113

Road Maintenance (Transportation Planner) $236,450 4 $276,613

Road Reconstruction (Transportation Planner) $564,600 2 $610,671

Essential KV $138,381 7 $182,100

Summary Amount or Value

Total PNV Cost $10,196,742

Net Present Value $832,816

Cost to benefit ratio 1.08

1 $551 value per MBF (five year average from the Oregon Department of Forestry for the Willamette Valley)

The existing transportation system consists of open system roads, closed system roads, and existing 

temporary roads from first entry harvest. The road network is adequate for the harvest of most of these 

units. Many of the system roads, approximately 48 miles, would require pre-haul maintenance such as 

blading and brushing and/or reconstruction such as culvert replacement or surfacing. Existing temporary 

roads would require more earthwork and sight distance clearing before they can be safely used as haul 

roads.

Comparison of Alternatives

All action alternatives show a positive present net value (Table 54). The bid price would reflect the 

difference. The money from the bid premium would be used to fund post-sale activities within the 

timber sale area boundary and make payments to Linn County. In general 28% of the bid price would be 

used for payments to counties on Forest Service timber sales. A collection may also be made to fund 

sale preparation for the salvage component of future timber sales. Two to four sales may be prepared 

from the selected alternative.

Table 54: Economic Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative Total PNV Value Total PNV Costs PNV Benefit/Cost Ratio

2 $8,887,935 $8,650,883 $237,052 1.03

3 $6,075,078 $5,911,803 $163,275 1.03

4 $11,029,558 $10,196,742 $832,816 1.08
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 217

Cumulative Effects

As stated in the summary at the beginning of the economic and social environment section, the majority 

of sales are sold to individuals and companies within Linn County. Therefore, the cumulative effects 

would be discussed at the county scale. The timber harvest and post-sale activities would be completed 

within two to seven years. The amount of jobs created would only represent a small portion of the 

potential job market for Linn County. The timber from the proposed action and future opportunities 

would provide timber sales at a scale that individuals and smaller companies that do not have a lumber 

mill interest can bid upon. Other districts on the Willamette National Forest usually sell to companies 

with a mill interest or employ more than 50 people. The sales on the Forest are typically over 5 million 

board feet while the Sweet Home Ranger District generally offers timber sales less than 5 million board 

feet. The purchasers that buy sales in Sweet Home would continue to have opportunities to compete for 

timber sales. Larger sales require more bonding and capital for investment. There is a beneficial 

cumulative effect to making these opportunities available for smaller businesses.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

3.10 Recreation

Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on Recreation resources. Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 would have short term direct adverse effects due to timber harvesting, log truck hauling, 

fuels treatments, and road decommissioning. Expected effects are disruptions to recreational visitors 

participating in a variety of activities including camping, hunting, off-highway vehicle use, and general 

dispersed recreation. Beneficial effects to scenic driving and dispersed use are likely to occur in the 

medium to long term due to maintenance of secondary roads and improved driving conditions.

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects to recreation resources is the 

Trout Creek project area. 

Affected Environment

The Trout Creek project area within the Sweet Home Ranger District is a popular destination for a wide 

range of both developed and dispersed recreation activities. The most popular activities include 

camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, whitewater boating, rock climbing, and scenic driving. There is also 

limited equestrian and winter recreation use. Scenic views of the South Santiam River and the adjacent 

forest are a meaningful recreational attraction. Developed recreational facilities, treatment units, and 

other recreational opportunities in the Trout Creek project area are displayed in Figure 44.

A segment of the state-designated Over the River and Through the Woods Scenic Byway is included 

within the project area. This byway is a 66 mile long scenic route from the Willamette Valley to 

McKenzie Pass that runs through the project area on state Highway 20 and is especially popular for 

viewing scenery and scenic driving during the summer months. Part of the historic Santiam Wagon Road 

also traverses the project area and is used for hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking during the 

summer months. 

Several developed sites in the affected area include the Longbow and Fernview Group Camps as well as 

Trout Creek and Yukwah Campgrounds. These sites are operated on behalf of the Willamette National 

Forest by the Linn County Parks and Recreation Department under a special use permit. Overnight 

camping for individuals as well as small and large groups is provided. Both the group camps and camp 

grounds are busy or full most weekends throughout the summer and have mixed occupancy during midweek. They are closed in the winter.

A scenic overlook platform located up a short trail near the Trout Creek trailhead on Highway 20 

provides middle distance views overlooking the historic Walton Ranch. In combination with the nearby 

Trout Creek Campground and Trout Creek trail into the Menagerie Wilderness, this area provides a 

multitude of recreation opportunities in close proximity to each other and is an area of relatively high 

activity during the summer months.

All but a small segment of the Menagerie Wilderness is located within the project area and provides 

opportunities for self-reliant primitive recreation including technical rock climbing on several challenging 

rock spires. Day hiking into the wilderness to view unusual rock formations is also popular.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 219

Figure 44: Trout Creek Project Area Recreation Sites
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Three hiking trails are included in the area: the Trout Creek and Rooster Rock trails located within the 

Menagerie Wilderness and the Gordon Meadows trail on the south side of the project area. The trails 

into the Menagerie are used throughout the year, but most frequently during the summer season. The 

Gordon Meadows trail receives use during the summer months when roads to the area are accessible.

Throughout the project area, dispersed sites provide undeveloped, informal opportunities along rivers, 

trails, and roads for visitors to camp, picnic, fish or hunt. These sites are intermittently used during the 

summer months for various recreational activities at lower elevations. Higher elevation sites have the 

heaviest visitation typically during hunting season. Hunters use preferred locations throughout the 

project area and use is most heavy during the opening weekends of big game seasons in the fall.

Often associated with hunting, off-highway travel with all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and other high 

clearance vehicles is popular on open dirt roads throughout the project area. Many secondary roads in 

the project area are open to off highway vehicle (OHV) use. There are no designated motorized 

recreation areas.

The Fernview Summer Home Tract includes 10 recreational residences that are authorized under special 

use permits. They are located near the Fernview Campground along the South Santiam River. A few 

organized recreation events often occur each year that may include activities within the project area. 

There is growing interest in trail running and mountain biking events.

Recreational Opportunity Spectrum

The Forest Service uses a land classification system to inventory and describe a range of recreation 

opportunities called the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (Willamette Forest Plan FEIS, page III93). This system seeks to identify non-wilderness recreation settings of varying characteristics that range 

from remote, undeveloped areas to easily accessed highly developed sites. Settings are described in the 

following five ROS Classes: Primitive, Semi-primitive Non-motorized, Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded 

Natural, and Roaded Modified. Primitive falls on the most unmodified natural environment end of the 

spectrum and Roaded Modified falls on the most substantially modified end of the spectrum. Within the 

Trout Creek project area, ROS classifications include Semi-primitive Non-motorized, Roaded Natural and 

Roaded Modified. Management activities proposed in these areas should be designed to be compatible 

with the corresponding ROS class and the desired setting and conditions for recreational activities.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Recreational use of National Forest system lands in the project area would remain unchanged with the 

No-Action alternative. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on recreation within the 

project area. Beneficial effects to scenic driving and dispersed use that are likely to occur in Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 due to maintenance of secondary roads and improved driving conditions would not be 

realized in Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Short term, direct adverse effects of proposed timber harvesting, log truck hauling, fuels treatments, 

and road decommissioning would include localized road closures limiting access and causing disruption 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 221

to recreational visitors to the forest. Logging activity, hauling, and fuels treatments would likely cause 

noise and dust or smoke disturbances in some instances.

Timber harvest, log hauling, and road decommissioning would have limited, short term direct adverse 

effects to developed recreation sites in portions of the project area. Effects would likely include 

increased noise during treatment periods and increased truck traffic. Harvest activity occurring in unit 

50 would create increased truck traffic along the Gordon Road which is also the access route to the 

Longbow group camp. Decommissioning work on Forest Road 308 is likely to have noise affects to the 

nearby Yukwah campground. No effects are expected to the visitors driving the Over the River and 

Through the Woods Scenic Byway.

Unit 72 is likely to have noise affects to the Fernview Campground located directly across Highway 20.

Due to unit 72 being adjacent to the Rooster Rock trailhead, access to the trailhead and parking area for 

hikers would be available during harvest activities due to design features included in this project and 

therefore would not result in adverse effects to recreational access at this location. There are no other 

effects to trails within the project area.

Units 20 and 56 include treatment activity along roads that provide recreational access to the north side 

of the Menagerie Wilderness. The design feature included in this project requires Forest Road 856 to 

remain open to public access while harvest activities occur would prevent adverse effects to 

recreational access in this area.

Road maintenance due to harvest activity on secondary roads in some locations in the project area 

would be likely to benefit conditions for visitors seeking scenic driving and dispersed recreation 

opportunities. This may indirectly result in increased dispersed recreational use in the longer term. 

Treatment activities in units away from the Highway 20 corridor may have short term indirect adverse 

effects to visitors engaged in dispersed recreation activities and OHV use due to restricted access, noise, 

dust and smoke. Design elements are included to provide safety signing to OHV and other road users 

when log hauling is occurring or if roads are temporarily closed.

Harvest activity may also have limited disruption to hunters in areas where harvest units are located and 

when harvest activities are occurring during hunting season. Design elements are included to limit 

effects to hunters during the busy opening weekends of hunting seasons. On other weekends during 

hunting season, truck traffic due to harvest activity may affect hunters accessing areas on the National 

Forest within the project area as well as on private lands that are accessed by National Forest haul 

roads. 

This project proposes the expansion of an existing rock processing site located at the junction of Forest 

Road 2027 and Forest Road 820. Additionally a new rock pit, proposed for Forest Road 825, would

eliminate an existing dispersed use site. Loss of this site would reduce an opportunity for camping, but 

there are other locations in the general area of this site that would provide a substitute location for 

dispersed use activities. For each pit, development and use would impact approximately 3 acres or less. 

No effects are expected to occur to forest visitors that are horseback riding, visiting the forest for winter 

recreation, or fishing and whitewater boating on the South Santiam River. There are no significant 

differences in effects between Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

All activities proposed in the Trout Creek project are consistent with the requirements for existing ROS 

classes within the project area. The desired condition for the setting and activities in the Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized, Roaded Natural, and Roaded Modified classes are maintained.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Recreational use of National Forest system lands in the project area would remain unchanged with the 

No-Action alternative. Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on recreation within the project 

area.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Two timber sales currently occurring in the project area (Owl Thin and Moe Thin) may slightly increase 

short term, adverse effects to dispersed recreation in the southern portion of the project area around 

the Canyon Creek road due to increased noise and traffic. No other effects are expected from past or 

current activities.

The Rec/Admin Fuels Treatment project at the Rooster Rock trailhead is a reasonably foreseeable future 

action that may incrementally add effects to this area if it were to occur at the same time as the 

treatment activities proposed for unit 72. However, design features included in both projects should 

prevent any direct detrimental effects.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 223

3.11 Scenic Quality

Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no adverse effects to scenery because no treatments would occur 

under this alternative. This alternative would also fail to reap benefits to scenery that would occur as a 

result of the proposed action.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not have negative long-term effects to scenery. Views from Panorama 

Point, a northern entrance to the Menagerie Wilderness, and infrequent points along Highway 20 may 

be slightly altered, but changes would be consistent with historical variation in the scenic character of 

the area. The proposed actions would provide benefits to scenery by maintaining visual variety 

(hardwoods), and protecting the sustainability of the valued scenic character through fuels treatments. 

The proposed actions would meet Visual Quality Objectives and be consistent with standards and 

guidelines set by the Forest Plan.

Scale of Analysis 

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to scenery is the project area 

with specific attention to the South Santiam Highway viewshed and Key Observation Points identified 

within the project area.

Methodology

ArcGIS 10-3-1 was used for GIS analyses and mapping in the winter and spring of 2017. Google Earth, 

field photography, and Adobe Photoshop were used for visualizations and simulations in the fall of 2016.

Affected Environment

Scenic Character

The historic range of conditions for the Trout Creek project area is characterized by a landscape mosaic 

with variation in vegetation size, age, and density resulting from a mixed severity fire regime. The 

landscape likely had more variety in vegetation than today, including more hardwoods (bigleaf maple, 

red alder, Oregon white oak, and madrone).

Today the project area is dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock with a mid to late seral closed 

canopy condition. Few pockets of hardwoods dot the landscape to provide minimal visual variety. Past 

logging activities and absence of mixed severity fire has created dense, uniform vegetation conditions. 

Views into the forest are limited due to the density of the stands. The project area is characterized by 

moderate to steep topography with some overlooking vistas, peaks and a few rocky outcroppings and 

cliffs.

Sustainability of Desired Scenic Character

Variation in existing vegetation (hardwoods) is limited by the lifespan of these species and the lack of 

habitat for younger hardwoods. Vegetation in its current dense, relatively even-aged state, is at a risk to 

large, high intensity fires that results from the lack of smaller, mixed severity fires that are the 

characteristic disturbance regime.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 45: South Santiam Highway Viewshed
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 225

Visibility

The South Santiam Highway viewshed corridor runs through the project area (Figure 45). The Over the 

River and Through the Woods Scenic Byway (Highway 20) is found within this corridor and is considered 

a sensitive area for scenery management. Both through-drivers and forest visitors frequent this route. 

The majority of Menagerie Wilderness falls within the project area as well as segments of the Gordon 

Lakes, Trout Creek, and Rooster Rock trails. Developed campgrounds within the project area include 

Longbow Organization Group camp, Trout Creek campground, Yukwah campground, and Fernview 

campground. Due to the longer duration of viewing by hikers, climbers, and campers, views from these 

points would have a higher sensitivity level. Therefore, treatments apparent from these areas were 

considered carefully in the effects analysis.

Visual Management System (VMS)

The Visual Management System (VMS) is the primary means for planning and managing the Willamette 

National Forest’s scenic resources. VMS was used to inventory and categorize landscape zones of 

relative scenic importance in the Forest Plan. The zones are based on attractiveness, and proximity to 

travelways and use areas. These zones are assigned one of five Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) that 

represent relative degrees of acceptable alterations of the natural landscape (USDA Forest Service, 

1974). The VMS methodology and Willamette National Forest Plan were created during an era and with 

the assumption that silvicultural treatments would be primarily regeneration harvest (clear-cuts). This 

inherent assumption in the methodology adds complexity to using the system when interpreting and 

evaluating modern commercial thinning treatments.

VQOs for the Trout Creek project area include preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, 

and maximum modification (USDA Forest Service, 1990). Project area VQOs are illustrated in Figure 46

and Figure 47 for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and are described in detail in Table 55.

Scenery Management System (SMS)

The Scenery Management System (SMS) is a methodology (1995) used by the Forest Service to provide 

an impact assessment of effects to scenic resources. This method aims to integrate social impacts to 

recreation visitors with physical impacts to the visitor experience. SMS ratings are described in terms of 

Scenic Integrity Levels, which describe existing conditions and the degree to which the landscape is 

perceived as visually intact or complete (USDA Forest Service, 1995). When a Forest Plan is revised using 

SMS, Scenic Integrity Objectives are developed. This analysis bridges VQOs in the Forest Plan to Scenic 

Integrity Levels that best match descriptions.

While the current Forest Plan is tiered to the VMS method, SMS has also been used in this analysis to 

facilitate the change in methodology. Table 55 describes the five VMS/SMS categories, associated 

SMS/Scenic Integrity Level categories, and the proposed treatment acres in each category for 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 46: Visual Quality Objectives and Alternative 2 and 4 Units
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 227

Figure 47: Visual Quality Objectives and Alternative 3 Units
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Table 55: VMS/SMS Objectives and Proposed Treatment Acreage

(VMS)

Visual Quality Objective

(SMS)

Scenic Integrity Level

Proposed 

Treatment 

Acres in Alt. 2

Proposed 

Treatment 

Acres in Alt. 3

Proposed 

Treatment 

Acres in Alt. 4

Preservation: 

Provides for ecological 

changes only

Very High:

Scenic character is intact with 

only minute if any deviations. 

The existing scenic character 

and sense of place is expressed 

at the highest possible level

0 0 0

Retention:

In general, human activities 

are not evident to the casual 

forest visitor.

High:

Scenic character appears intact. 

Deviations may be present, but 

must repeat the form, line, color, 

texture, and pattern common to 

the scenic character so 

completely and at such a scale 

that they are not evident.

604 283 604

Partial Retention:

In general, human activities 

may be evident but must 

remain subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape.

Moderate:

Scenic character appears 

moderately altered. Noticeable 

deviations must remain visually 

subordinate to the scenic 

character being viewed.

84 84 84

Modification:

Human activities may 

dominate the characteristic 

landscape but must, at the 

same time, utilize naturally 

established form, line, color, 

and texture and appear as 

natural occurrence when 

viewed in foreground or 

middle-ground distances.

Low:

Scenic character appears 

moderately altered. Deviations 

begin to dominate the valued 

scenic character being viewed 

but they borrow valued attributes 

such as size, shape, edge effect 

and pattern of natural openings, 

vegetative type changes or 

architectural styles outside the 

landscape being viewed. They 

should not only appear as valued 

character outside the landscape 

being viewed but compatible or 

complimentary to the character 

within.

115 112 115

Maximum Modification:

Human activity may dominate 

the characteristic landscape 

but should appear as a 

natural occurrence when 

viewed as background.

Very Low:

Scenic character appears 

heavily altered. Deviations may 

strongly dominate the valued 

scenic character.

784 464 784

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on scenery in the project area, and all VQOs would 

remain consistent with Forest Plan direction. Natural processes would continue unimpeded by 

management actions, and potential benefits to scenery such as improved views into the forest or 

sustained visual variety gained by hardwood treatments would not be realized. Long-term impacts to 

scenery may include less variety in the landscape that would otherwise be created by hardwood 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 229

treatments and thinning to encourage multiple age cohorts. The landscape would continue to veer 

further from its historic range of conditions characterized by now-absent mixed severity fire 

disturbances. The valued scenic character would also be further threatened in the long-term by 

increased threat of large, high intensity fires.

Alternative 2

Proposed treatments in Alternative 2 fall well under the thresholds set for disturbances in scenicemphasis management areas in the Forest Plan (Table 56). Visual Quality Objectives would be met with 

the aid of design features. Assessments of Key Observation Points within and around the project area 

show that the majority of impacts to scenery would be minor and short-term or unapparent to the 

casual forest visitor. Impacts to views near a northern entrance to the Menagerie Wilderness frequently 

used by climbers would be apparent, but design features would be used to soften the effects of the 

treatment. Views from all campgrounds and the majority of trails within the project area would be 

unaffected. Rooster Rock trailhead would see minor, short-term impacts from fuels treatments and 

many proposed actions (fuel breaks and hardwood treatments) would provide a benefit to scenery by 

improving the sustainability of the valued scenic character.

Table 56: Scenic-Emphasis Management Area Thresholds

Management 

Area

Project area 

within 

Management 

Area

Recovered 

Stand 

Height1

Total Allowable 

Disturbed Area 

(%)

Alt. 2 

Disturbed 

Area / (%)

Alt. 3 

Disturbed 

Area / (%)

Alt. 4 

Disturbed 

Area / (%)

11a- Scenic, 

Modification, 

Middleground

4,990 acres 4.5 ft. 24% 13 acres / 

<1%

15 acres / 

<1%

15 acres / 

<1%

11c- Scenic, 

Partial 

Retention, 

Middleground

608 acres 15-20 ft. 20% 0 acres / 

0%

0 acres / 

0%

0 acres / 

0%

11d- Scenic, 

Partial 

Retention, 

Foreground

535 acres 10-15 ft. 14% 0 acres / 

0%

0 acres / 

0%

0 acres / 

0%

11f- Scenic, 

Retention, 

Foreground

4,517 acres 10-15 ft. 10% 59 acres / 

1%

9 acres / 

<1%

63 acres / 

1%

Scenic Viewsheds

When considering the visual impact of vegetation management activities within the South Santiam 

Highway viewshed corridor, it is important to consider the distance at which different parts of the 

landscape are viewed. The Forest Plan outlines management areas that are specific to viewshed 

corridors and divides them by distance zones from which the areas would be viewed. In Table 56, the 

allowable areas of disturbance and minimum height for stand recovery are given for the scenic 

management areas. At the time the Forest Plan was written, “disturbances” were considered large scale 

or cumulative vegetative disturbances such as regeneration harvest, fire, or major road construction 

over the landscape. Management activities such as commercial thinning, understory habitat 

enhancement, fuels reduction, and riparian treatments in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not be 

considered “disturbances.” Thinning to 20-40 residual trees per acre, aggregate retention for early seral 

habitat creation, and gaps one acre or greater in size are considered “disturbances” for the purpose of 

scenery impact assessment.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

230 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Gaps are proposed for approximately 8 acres and thinning to 20-40 residual trees per acre is proposed 

for about 5 acres in 11a- Scenic Modification, Middleground in Alternative 2. No treatments qualifying as 

“disturbances” are proposed in 11c- Scenic, Partial Retention, Middleground or 11d- Scenic, Partial 

Retention, Foreground. 11f-Scenic, Retention, Foreground includes about 5 acres of gaps, 2 acres of 

aggregate retention/early seral creation, and 52 acres of thinning to 20-40 trees per acre in Alternative 

2. The proposed action is well below the thresholds of allowable disturbed area set for each 

management area.

Scenic, Retention, Foreground is found primarily along the north side of Highway 20 (Over the River and 

Through the Woods Scenic Byway) and to the west of the Menagerie Wilderness. Units 50 and 72 would 

be adjacent to Highway 20. A 344 foot no-harvest riparian buffer for the South Santiam River would 

extend into the unit where the road parallels the river. Other units along the highway are blocked by 

foreground vegetation or topography and would unlikely be noticed by the casual forest visitor driving 

through the project area. Treatments in Unit 50 would benefit scenery by maintaining the visual variety 

of the alder stand long-term. Unit 72 would affect the scenic quality from the Rooster Rock trailhead, 

and may be visible from Highway 20. The long-term benefits of providing a fuel break around the 

structure and trailhead area would likely outweigh short-term impacts to scenery. In order to soften 

impacts to scenery along the trailhead, no trees would be cut within 30 feet of the trail. Additionally, 

understory vegetation in roadside frontage zones would be maintained, and trees would be marked 

facing away from the road.

In Scenic, Retention, Foreground and Scenic, Partial Retention, Foreground, slash treatments of 

chipping/removal, chipping/dispersal, and piling/burning would be used to reduce impacts from views 

within the South Santiam Highway viewshed. Careful design and obliteration techniques for new 

temporary haul roads and landings that blend constructed features into the landscape would further 

reduce impacts of proposed actions.

Key Observation Points

Although the proposed actions meet scenic quality standards specified in the Forest Plan, it is prudent to 

also consider whether the treatments would be readily seen from Key Observation Points at vista points 

accessible by official trail or road within the project area. Valued and visually sensitive viewpoints were 

identified using knowledge of the project landscape and visibility assessment using ArcGIS and Google 

Earth.

Views from the Gordon Lakes, Trout Creek, and the majority of the Menagerie Wilderness would be 

unaffected by proposed treatments. Developed campsites within the project area including Longbow 

Organization camp, Trout Creek campground, Yukwah campground, and Fernview campground would 

also be unaffected.

Key Observation Points within the planning area and surrounding vicinity were identified as views from 

Rooster Rock trailhead, and vistas from Rooster Rock, and Panorama Point. An entrance to the 

Menagerie Wilderness from the north frequently used by climbers was also analyzed for effects to 

scenery. Figure 48 illustrates the key observation points identified within the planning area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 231

Figure 48: Trout Creek Project Area Key Observation Points
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

232 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Iron Mountain and Jump-Off Joe were also assessed, but the distance and existing variation in the 

landscape would make any treatments very difficult to perceive from these vistas

Unit 72 encompasses the Rooster Rock trailhead (Figure 49). Proposed treatments include thinning to 

50% canopy cover to favor hardwoods and for fuels reduction. Thinning would be noticeable, especially 

shortly after harvest. Long term benefits of the treatment for scenery would include opening views into 

the forest for trail users and providing variation in the landscape (less dense and more visible 

hardwoods as per the prescription). Design features to soften impacts to scenery include a no-cut buffer 

of 30 feet on either side of the trail and marking trees on the side facing away from the trail.

Looking west from atop Rooster Rock, distance and existing variation in the landscape would make any 

treatments very difficult to perceive for the casual forest visitor. Looking north, views of Unit 20 would 

be blocked by trees in the foreground. Figure 51 is a photo displaying the conditions from Rooster Rock 

summit.

Figure 49: Conditions of Rooster Rock Trailhead, October 2016
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 233

Looking north from Panorama Point, Unit 20 would be noticeable to forest visitors, primarily climbers in 

the Menagerie Wilderness (Figure 50). Since the proposed treatment is designed to mimic the natural 

disturbance regime, namely mixed severity fire, the visual change would be close to the historic range of 

conditions. Treatments would differ from fire in the fewer number of snags created and the absence of 

significant traces of fire activity. The unit would be underburned, which would contribute some shortterm evidence of fire. The existing rock outcroppings do provide the landscape with some visual 

absorption capability (the ability to accept human alterations without loss of character of scenic quality). 

To further enhance the creation of a natural appearing mosaic, design features for Unit 20 and Units 32, 

89, and 140, which fall within Scenic, Retention, Foreground, would include softening edges by 

feathering unit and gap edges and leaving skips in organic, non-geometric shapes in a variety of sizes. 

Thinning adjacent to unit boundaries would remove taller, older trees and favor younger ones to reduce 

a vertical wall effect. Treatments would also avoid widely spacing trees that are silhouetted along the 

skyline. Figure 52 and Figure 53 replicate the view of Unit 20 before and after treatments.

Figure 51: Conditions from Rooster Rock Summit, November 2016

Figure 50: Photos taken from Panorama Point looking toward treatment area (Unit 20), fall 2016
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

234 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Proposed aggregate retention for early seral habitat creation of 47 acres in Unit 56 would also be 

apparent to climbers entering the Menagerie Wilderness. Impacts to scenery would be lessened by 

feathering the edges of the unit and using organic, non-geometric shapes for edges of the unit and 

aggregate retention areas.

Alternative 3

Proposed treatments in Alternative 3 would also fall well under the thresholds set for disturbances in 

scenic-emphasis management areas in the Forest Plan (Table 56), and Visual Quality Objectives would 

be met with the aid of design features. Few differences in impacts to scenery exist between the 

proposed action and Alternative 3. Most effects to scenery resulting from changes from the proposed 

action in Alternative 3 would likely be unperceived by the casual forest visitor. An exception is the 

aggregate retention for early seral habitat creation proposed for Unit 56 near a climber entrance to the 

Menagerie Wilderness in Alternative 2. This treatment is not included in Alternative 3.

Scenic Viewsheds

Gaps are proposed for approximately 10 acres and thinning to 20-40 residual trees per acre is proposed 

for about 5 acres in 11a- Scenic Modification, Middleground in Alternative 3. No treatments qualifying as 

“disturbances” are proposed in 11c- Scenic, Partial Retention, Middleground or 11d- Scenic, Partial 

Retention, Foreground. 11f-Scenic, Retention, Foreground includes about 9 acres of gaps in Alternative 

Figure 53: Google Earth view from Panorama Point looking north

Figure 52: Google Earth and Photoshop simulation of proposed treatments (Unit 20) from Panorama Point 

looking north
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 235

3. The cumulative treatments qualifying as “disturbances” in Alternative 3 are all well below the 

thresholds set for each management area.

Key Observation Points

Effects to scenery and associated design features for most of the identified Key Observation Points 

would be similar to those addressed in Alternative 2. Any deviations would be minor and would be 

unlikely to be perceived by the casual forest visitor. Effects to scenery around Unit 56 (climber entrance 

into the Menagerie Wilderness) would be absent due to the removal of this unit in Alternative 3.

Alternative 4

Proposed treatments in Alternative 4 would also fall well under the threshold set for disturbances in 

scenic-emphasis management areas in the Forest Plan (Table 56), and Visual Quality Objectives would 

be met with the aid of design features. Few differences in impacts to scenery exist between the 

proposed action and Alternative 4. Effects to scenery resulting from changes from the proposed action 

in Alternative 4 would likely be unperceived by the casual forest visitor.

Scenic Viewsheds

Gaps are proposed for approximately 10 acres and thinning to 20-40 residual trees per acre is proposed 

for about 5 acres in 11a- Scenic Modification, Middleground in Alternative 4. No treatments qualifying as 

“disturbances” are proposed in 11c- Scenic, Partial Retention, Middleground or 11d- Scenic, Partial 

Retention, Foreground. 11f-Scenic, Retention, Foreground includes about 9 acres of gaps, 2 acres of 

aggregate retention/early seral creation, and 52 acres of thinning to 20-40 trees per acre in Alternative 

4. The cumulative treatments qualifying as “disturbances” in Alternative 4 are all well below the 

thresholds set for each management area.

Key Observation Points

Effects to scenery and associated design features for all of the identified Key Observation Points would 

be virtually identical to those addressed in Alternative 2. Any deviations would be minor and would be 

unlikely to be perceived by the casual forest visitor.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for scenery result when the level of visual quality or scenic integrity drops below that 

of Visual Quality Objectives set in the Forest Plan. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

including timber harvest, prescribed fire, road development, etc. affecting the integrity of the valued 

scenic character on USFS land in the project area would be relevant in a cumulative effects analysis for 

scenery.

Alternative 1 – No Action

No cumulative effects to Visual Quality Objectives or the valued scenic character of the project area 

would occur because Alternative 1 would not contribute any effects to scenery.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

No cumulative effects to Visual Quality Objectives or the valued scenic character of the project area 

would occur because actions with corresponding design features for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are 

anticipated to result in no impacts to scenery.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

236 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 237

3.12 Wilderness

Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to wilderness character in the 

Menagerie Wilderness. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have both long term direct beneficial and long 

term indirect adverse effects to the natural quality of wilderness character in the Menagerie Wilderness. 

These alternatives would also have medium to long term direct adverse effects to the outstanding 

opportunities quality of wilderness character.

Beneficial effects include improved aquatic organism passage, improved prey for peregrine falcons, 

possible improved forage for terrestrial wildlife, and improved biological diversity in areas adjacent to 

the wilderness. Adverse effects include a high risk of the introduction of invasive species, disruption to 

northern spotted owls and peregrine falcons and their habitat, increased visible evidence of human 

activity, and increased sounds of human activity.

The beneficial effects to the Menagerie Wilderness are similar in each action Alternative. The adverse 

effects are greatest in Alternatives 2 and 4, with Alternative 3 having relatively less adverse effects.

There are cumulative adverse effects to the same qualities of wilderness character when there is the 

combination of timber harvest on private timberland adjacent to the Menagerie Wilderness and 

activities proposed in the Trout Creek project.

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects to Wilderness is the Trout 

Creek project area and the entire Menagerie Wilderness and Middle Santiam Wilderness. The 

Menagerie Wilderness is located almost entirely within the boundary of the project area and has the 

potential to be affected. The Middle Santiam Wilderness is located northwest of the project area with 

the closest part of the project area being about two miles away. Due to the distance away from the 

project area of the Middle Santiam Wilderness, it is included in the scale of analysis because it could 

potentially be affected by the project. However, this analysis has determined that there are no effects 

from the project to the Middle Santiam Wilderness, so it is not further included in this section. In 

addition, temporal scales are used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to Wilderness. For 

the purpose of this analysis short term is defined as actions with effects lasting less than one year, 

medium term effects are those from one to five years in duration, and long term effects are those 

lasting greater than five years.

Affected Environment

The Wilderness Act and Forest Service Policy direct the Forest Service to manage Wilderness areas for 

the “preservation of their wilderness character”. Impacts to wilderness character can result from 

conditions and activities that occur both within Wilderness and beyond its boundaries. There are no 

activities proposed to occur inside the Menagerie Wilderness in the Trout Creek project. However, for 

the purposes of determining impacts to Wilderness, effects to wilderness character that originate from 

activities occurring outside Wilderness, but within the project area, are considered.

Wilderness Character

Wilderness character has up to five defining qualities:
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

238 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

• Untrammeled: Wilderness is essentially wild, unconstrained, unhindered and free from modern 

human control or manipulation. Indicators of impacts to the untrammeled quality include 

actions that intentionally manipulate the biophysical environment.

• Natural: Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern 

civilization. Indicators of impacts to the natural quality include effects that occur to plants and 

animal species and communities, soil, air, water, and ecological processes.

• Undeveloped: Wilderness retains it primeval character and influence and is essentially without 

permanent improvements or modern human occupation. Indicators of impacts to the 

undeveloped quality include the presence of structures or installations and the use of motorized 

equipment or mechanical transport within Wilderness.

• Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation: Visitors 

to Wilderness find outstanding opportunities for self-reliant, challenging, non-motorized, and 

non-mechanized primitive recreational experiences. Wilderness serves as a haven for selfdiscovery and rejuvenation and as a refuge from modern civilization. Indicators of impacts to 

this quality include remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity, presence of facilities 

that decrease self-reliance, and management restrictions on visitor behavior.

• Other features of value: This quality captures important elements or “features” of a particular 

wilderness that are not covered by the other four qualities. This quality of wilderness character 

has not yet been defined for the Menagerie Wilderness and is not considered in this analysis. 

(Landres et al., 2015, p. 33-61)

Wilderness Resource Spectrum Class

The Forest Service uses a land classification system to inventory and describe a range of management 

goals, desired future conditions, and standards and guidelines called the Wilderness Resource Spectrum 

(WRS) (Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1990, p. A-1). Management 

areas are described in the following four WRS strata representing a range of ecological conditions and 

social settings: Pristine, Primitive, Semi-primitive, and Transition. Pristine falls on the most unmodified 

end of the spectrum and Transition falls on the most substantially modified end of the spectrum. Areas 

that are classified as Pristine are to be managed in a manner to protect wilderness character to the most 

rigorous extent. The majority of the area within the Menagerie Wilderness that is adjacent or closest to 

proposed activities within the project area is classified as Pristine. Figure 54 shows the WRS classes for 

the Wilderness in relation to the proposed activities.

Area Descriptions

The Menagerie Wilderness is 4,962 acres with elevations ranging from 1,600 feet to 3,900 feet. The 

landscape of the Menagerie Wilderness is dominated by mountainous terrain with dramatic rock spires 

that offer a challenging on- and off-trail technical rock climbing opportunities for visitors. Beneath the 

rock spires, it has thick forest of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar. This area is visited 

year-round, primarily by day-users. Two main hiking routes – the Rooster Rock Trail (2.1 miles in length) 

and the Trout Creek Trail (3.3 miles in length) – lead to a popular and prominent landmark named 

Rooster Rock which is located near to the center of the Wilderness. Panorama point, at the north end of 

the wilderness, can be reached without technical climbing and is a popular off-trail destination offering 

360 degree views across the Menagerie view shed and beyond. Trout Creek and Keith Creek flow within 

the wilderness boundary.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 239

The Menagerie Wilderness is partially bordered on the north side by private industrial timberland. 

Timber harvest activity occurs on these private lands which can be seen and/or heard from locations 

within the Wilderness. Within the view shed of the Menagerie Wilderness and looking beyond its 

borders, evidence from a range of recent and past harvest activity can be seen on both private and 

public land. Additionally, state Highway 20 is located along a large portion of the southern boundary of 

the wilderness. Road noise from vehicles travelling this highway can be heard from locations within the 

Wilderness. Visual or noise intrusions into the wilderness from logging activity on adjacent private lands 

or the highway are frequent occurrences. They are an existing and persistent effect to the wilderness 

character and the experience of visitors to the Menagerie Wilderness. These activities have been 

occurring since prior to the area’s designation as wilderness. Despite these sound and visual intrusions, 

the Menagerie Wilderness offers a wilderness experience to visitors and provides intact habitat for a 

wide-range of botanical, terrestrial, and aquatic species. The locations of private land and Highway 20 

are shown in Figure 54.

Environmental Consequences

Activities proposed in the Trout Creek project and its four alternatives are analyzed here for direct and 

indirect effects to the wilderness character of the Menagerie Wilderness. Activities unrelated to this 

project but that overlap in time or space and have effects to the Menagerie Wilderness are analyzed for 

cumulative effects. A summary of the environmental consequences of this project on wilderness 

character is provided below. Additional information regarding the analysis leading to these conclusions 

can be found in the Wilderness Resource Report located in the project record.

Figure 54: Wilderness Resource Spectrum classes for the Menagerie Wilderness
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

240 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Wilderness character would remain unchanged in the Menagerie Wilderness with the No-Action 

alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effect on Wilderness.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and indirect effects to Wilderness are shown below as related to the four qualities of wilderness 

character applicable to the Menagerie Wilderness.

Untrammeled

There are no proposed activities within the Menagerie Wilderness in this project. Therefore, there are 

no actions that would result in trammeling and no effects to the untrammeled quality of wilderness 

character.

Natural

Indicators and measures are used to determine effects to the natural quality of wilderness character due 

to activities proposed in the Trout Creek project and are displayed in Table 57. Effects are described 

below according to each indicator and measure.

Table 57: Indicators and measures for the natural quality

Indicator Measures

Botanical resources • Rare botanical species

• Invasive species

Wildlife • Birds of prey

• Other terrestrial wildlife

Aquatic ecosystems • Aquatic organism passage

• In-stream large wood

Ecological processes • Biological diversity

Indicator: Botanical resources

Measure: Rare botanical species

There are two known sites of rare botanical species within the Menagerie Wilderness. One is a lichen, 

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis, and one is a fungus, Ramaria araiaspora. Both sites are in the interior of 

the Wilderness and would not be affected by the Trout Creek Project.

Measure: Invasive Species

The presence of non-native, invasive plants detracts from the natural quality of wilderness character. 

One weed species in particular poses a threat to the Menagerie Wilderness. This species is false brome 

(Brachypodium sylvaticum), a highly invasive grass native to Europe. It is has a wide ecological amplitude 

and thrives under varying light and moisture conditions. Currently there are populations directly 

adjacent to the Menagerie Wilderness.

Activities associated with the Trout Creek project include logging with ground-based equipment, grapple 

piling fuels, and temporary road construction, all of which would generate a great deal of soil 

disturbance adjacent to the Wilderness. The seeds of false brome have a long awn and are easily tracked 

not only by boots and equipment but also by big game. Seeds are washed downstream from plants 

growing along creeks. Given the amount of soil disturbance associated with the Trout Creek project it is 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 241

likely that false brome would become present in the Menagerie Wilderness. The effect of false brome 

on the natural quality of wilderness character is detrimental and could be long term. It is imperative that 

the Wilderness be monitored for this species and newly forming sites be treated aggressively.

A risk assessment was completed to determine the risk of weed spread by alternative. Alternatives 2 

and 4 rate very similarly with Alternative 4 having a slightly higher risk due to the increase in miles of 

road decommissioning. Both alternatives have a high risk of weed spread due to the greater level of 

ground disturbance and the current existence of weed populations in the area. Alternative 3 has a low 

to medium risk of weed spread due to reduced acres being harvested, reduced acres of ground-based 

equipment and reduced acres of grapple piling as compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. To help mitigate 

this risk, design criteria are included for this project in Chapter 2.07. 

Indicator: Terrestrial wildlife

Measure: Birds of prey (northern spotted owls and peregrine falcons)

In Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, treatments adjacent to the Menagerie Wilderness may indirectly adversely 

affect birds of prey in the Wilderness. Several known birds of prey nest in the Wilderness. Peregrine 

falcons and northern spotted owls may experience short term noise disturbance through harvest 

activities, the use of machinery, or smoke resulting from prescribed burns. There would be short and 

long term negative impacts to northern spotted owls due to noise disruption and modification of owl 

habitat since the units overlap with several known nest home ranges adjacent to the wilderness.

Removal of dispersal habitat in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not restrict movement of spotted owl 

across the landscape or their ability to move in and out of the Menagerie Wilderness. As discussed in 

the Wildlife Section, no adverse effects to spotted owls within the wilderness (where all habitat is 

unaffected) is likely due to habitat modification outside the wilderness. There are no expected long term 

impacts to peregrine falcons. These impacts have the potential to effect the natural quality of 

wilderness character in the Menagerie Wilderness. The duration and intensity of these effects are 

difficult to predict and quantify.

There may be long term positive benefits due to more open habitat and increases in hardwood species 

which attract songbirds, a prey item for peregrine falcons. Proposed early seral creation may result in 

slightly different prey in and around the units adjacent to the Wilderness, but the overall prey base for 

birds of prey is not expected to decline in these areas. Some birds of prey selectively use open areas for 

hunting. Gaps, early seral creation and prescribed fire would create a mosaic of open areas interspersed 

with forested habitat that may improve foraging conditions. These treatments, together, may result in a 

beneficial or neutral effect to potential forage habitat.

Measure: Other terrestrial wildlife

The project may have some beneficial effects to other terrestrial wildlife species such as deer and elk 

due to increased openings and early seral forage creation. Deer and elk have large ranges and may 

travel in and out of the wilderness. Forage located outside of the wilderness may benefit these species. 

For a detailed analysis of effects to terrestrial wildlife, see the wildlife section in the Environment 

Analysis for the Trout Creek project.

Indicator: Aquatic ecosystems

Measure: Aquatic organism passage

The condition of aquatic ecosystems inside the Menagerie Wilderness can be generally represented by 

the presence or absence of aquatic passage barriers at road crossings outside the Wilderness. These 

barriers, generally created by culverts, prevent upstream migration of aquatic organisms that is 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

242 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

important for the life cycle of the organism and for the aquatic ecosystem in general. There are

currently aquatic organism passage barriers on Hwy 20 at Keith Creek and on the Vine Maple Road that 

are blocking passage into the Wilderness. The only proposed action in the Trout Creek project that 

could affect the natural quality as indicated by aquatic organisms would be the decommissioning of the 

Vine Maple Road including the removal of an existing aquatic organism passage barrier (see aquatics 

section for details). This would benefit the natural quality of wilderness character for aquatics in the 

Wilderness.

Measure: In stream large wood

The condition of aquatic ecosystems inside the Menagerie Wilderness can be represented by the 

condition of the stream channels inside the Wilderness. Stream channels are partially characterized by 

the presence or absence of large wood in the stream. This indicator is the most easily manipulated by 

management and is most widely how aquatic ecosystems are compromised across the landscape. 

There is potential for activities in two of the proposed units to remove potential future in stream large 

wood through timber harvest. However, no-harvest buffers have been prescribed that would protect 

over 90% of the future large wood on streams originating in these units (see aquatics sections for 

details). The streams in these units are small with little input to the Menagerie Wilderness as a whole. 

The Trout Creek project would not measurably affect in stream large wood in the Wilderness.

Indicator: Ecological Processes

Measure: Biological diversity

Ecological processes play a fundamental role in shaping the natural character of forest ecosystems by 

influencing plant growth, species composition and forest structure. There are numerous ecological 

processes that interact with forest ecosystems which influence biological diversity, including the water 

cycle, carbon cycle, and disturbances such as fire. 

While wilderness is required by law to be managed to preserve its wilderness character, the relatively 

small size and location of the Menagerie Wilderness present challenges in meeting wilderness 

management goals. Given the proximity to private land and other resources at risk, fire suppression is a 

priority in the project area and in the South Santiam watershed, including the Menagerie Wilderness. 

The Forest Plan states that all lightning fires in the Menagerie Wilderness should be suppressed when 

resources outside of the Wilderness are threatened (Forest Plan, 1990, A-15-16). As a result, the 

fundamental role that fire plays within the Menagerie Wilderness is essentially removed from the forest 

ecosystem and the biological diversity of the Menagerie Wilderness has been degraded as forest 

composition and structure have become more homogeneous.

Taking no action (Alternative 1) would have no direct negative impacts to the natural quality of 

wilderness character. Fire suppression would continue to maintain uncharacteristically low levels of 

biological diversity in terms of forest species composition and structure.

Alternative 2 would result in the most biological diversity improvements in areas near the Wilderness of 

all the alternatives. While no treatments would occur within the wilderness, Alternative 2 would treat 

nearby units. These units currently provide the same ecological functions as most forested conditions in 

the Menagerie Wilderness. Commercial thinning and aggregate retention harvest followed by prescribed 

underburning and underplanting would mimic fire and help contribute some of the ecological functions 

that fire would normally provide in the absence of fire suppression. Insects and wildlife within the 

wilderness would benefit from a greater diversity of plant species and structure adjacent to the 

wilderness where they may forage resulting in an indirect long term beneficial effect.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 243

Alternative 3 would have similar effects as Alternative 2, but to a lesser extent because no aggregate 

retention harvest would occur. Commercial thinning, prescribed underburning, and underplanting would 

occur and provide some level of increased diversity in forest structure and species diversity.

Alternative 4 would result in similar effects to the natural quality of wilderness character of the 

Menagerie Wilderness as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would be more effective than Alternative 3 at 

mimicking mixed severity fire, but less effective than Alternative 2.

Undeveloped

There are no proposed activities within the Menagerie Wilderness in this project. Therefore, there are 

no actions that would result in development within the Wilderness and no effects to the undeveloped 

quality of wilderness character.

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

Indicators and measures are used to determine effects to the “Outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

a primitive and unconfined type of recreation” quality of wilderness character (referred to as the 

outstanding opportunities quality) due to activities proposed in the Trout Creek project and are 

displayed in Table 58. Effects are described below according to each indicator and measure.

Table 58: Indicators and measures for the outstanding opportunities quality

Indicator Measures

Remoteness from sights and sounds of human 

activity outside the wilderness

• Visible human activity

• Sounds of human activity

Availability of outstanding opportunities for primitive 

and unconfined recreation

• Recreational access

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity outside the wilderness

Measure: Visible human activity

Four units in Alternatives 2 and 4 are located adjacent to the Menagerie Wilderness. Alternative 3 

includes three units. Proposed activities in these units would be visible from locations within the 

Menagerie Wilderness and have the greatest potential to create effects. Visible human activities 

occurring outside the Wilderness that are visible from inside the Wilderness detract from the 

outstanding opportunities quality of wilderness character due to the reduced feeling of remoteness 

from the sights of human activity.

One unit is located in an area where visitors routinely enter and exit the Wilderness through unofficial 

routes and user trails. This unit includes land that is higher in elevation than the Wilderness boundary 

and is especially visible when viewed from inside the Wilderness due to topographic features. Effects to 

the outstanding opportunities quality due to visible human activity would be most severe from activities 

proposed to occur in this unit and it is therefore used as a representative reference point for 

determining effects. 

The use of motorized equipment and other activities related to harvest activity in Alternatives 2 and 4 

would be directly visible to visitors in the northern portion of the Wilderness during treatment activities. 

These harvest activities are expected to last for up to five years or more. After treatment is completed, 

visual evidence of human activity would be apparent on the landscape for many additional years, 

including evidence of roads, landings, tree removal, and other treatment activities. At some point in the 

future, the visible evidence of human activity would fade and the effects would be reduced and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

244 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

eventually eliminated. These impacts would be a direct adverse effect to the outstanding opportunities 

quality of wilderness character for the medium to long term.

Alternative 3 eliminates an adjacent unit and reduces the treatment activities in others. It would 

therefore be likely to have a slightly reduced duration of adverse effect.

Measure: Sounds of human activity

To analyze effects to the outstanding opportunities quality from sounds of human activity created by 

proposed activities, topography was taken into consideration to determine those areas within the 

Wilderness that are likely to experience impacts. This sound shed analysis uses topographic features to 

predict where sound would travel from its point of origin. This analysis serves as a predictor of the 

likelihood that sound generated by activities would cause impacts within the receptor area due to 

topographical alignment or masking. Determination of which units show a likelihood of impacts are 

based on: the equipment used for a particular activity, proximity to Wilderness, and topographical 

alignment. View shed modeling was accomplished by determining which portions of proposed units 

have potential to look into the wilderness. Those areas were then digitally rasterized to create a 10 

meter grid of viewpoints from which multiple view sheds were developed. These view sheds were then 

combined to create a summary view shed for each unit.

The two types of logging systems are proposed in this project as well as connected activities that include 

rock pit development and operation, and road decommissioning. Each of these activities have different 

potentials for impacts based on the distance noise caused by these activities would travel. 

Resulting direct adverse effects to wilderness character from noise related to the proposed activities are 

summarized in three general categories: effects from ground-based harvest activities and noncommercial activities (including road decommissioning), effects from skyline harvest activities, and 

impacts from blasting activities. All of these effects would occur only during operations and would not 

persist beyond harvest activities with the exception of the operation of the proposed rock pit. These 

impacts are generally of short duration. However, if harvest activities for units that may impact 

wilderness character occur through multiple years, these effects become longer term with greater 

impact. Road decommissioning activities would have an accelerated implementation schedule, 

therefore, the period of impacts would be shorter in duration. Most recreation within the potentially 

impacted area occurs from approximately June 15th through October 15th. Most operations for the 

proposed project activities would likely occur during this same time period. 

Sounds entering the Wilderness from ground-based, non-commercial and road decommissioning 

activities proposed in Alternative 2 would likely penetrate approximately a half mile within the 

Menagerie Wilderness. Units with ground-based harvest and non-commercial activities occurring would 

impact approximately 286 acres within the Wilderness. Road decommissioning activities would impact 

approximately 472 acres within the Wilderness with sounds of human activities.

Effects from skyline harvest activities proposed in Alternative 2 would have a larger impact. Direct 

adverse effects are expected to penetrate up to approximately 1.2 miles into the Menagerie Wilderness. 

Units that include any skyline activities are expected to impact approximately 816 acres. This distance 

and area of impact may be less due to damping from vegetative screening, but it is expected to occur to

a notable extent. The areas potentially impacted by unit 20 activities receive a relatively large amount of 

the use that occurs in the Menagerie Wilderness. Impacts from blasting activities proposed in 

Alternative 2 have the least potential for effects to degrade the outstanding opportunities quality of 

wilderness character and visitors’ experience of solitude. The sound shed model indicates that effects 

from noise can be expected in approximately 55 acres of the Menagerie Wilderness. These impacts 

come from the proposed development and operation of the rock pit. These would occur in areas with 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 245

little use by the public. Figure 55 shows the area that would potentially be effected by all proposed 

activities in Alternative 2 based on sound shed modelling. It is possible the actual distance affected 

would be less due to damping from vegetative screening.

Collectively, it is expected that all direct adverse effects due to the sounds of human activities caused by 

treatments proposed in Alternative 2 would impact approximately 29% (1,453 acres) of the wilderness 

landscape in the Menagerie Wilderness. This would result in diminished quality of outstanding 

opportunities for solitude during operations related to the proposed activities. However, the majority of 

the area (71%) would be unaffected by operations resulting in no effects. These effects to wilderness 

character would be intermittent in nature, both temporally and spatially. Impacts from noise created by 

operations would occur intermittently until all harvest and other activities are complete. Summer-time 

operations would likely have greater impacts on visitor experiences. This impact to the outstanding 

opportunities quality of wilderness character is independent of whether there are visitors present to 

hear the noise.

In comparison to Alternative 2, direct adverse effects from activities in Alternative 3 are substantially 

less due to fewer proposed treatment activities. Figure 56 shows the area that would potentially be 

effected by all proposed activities in Alternative 3 based on sound shed modelling. Effects from groundbased, non-commercial and road decommissioning activities would in combination likely penetrate 

Figure 55: Wilderness potentially affected by activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

246 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

approximately a half mile within the Menagerie Wilderness. Units with ground-based harvest and noncommercial activities are expected to affect zero acres and not create effects. Road decommissioning 

activities would impact approximately 472 acres. This effected area would likely result in low numbers of 

visitors experiencing impacts because the affected areas do not experience large numbers of visitors. 

Effects from skyline harvest activities would have a larger impact to visitor experience and the 

outstanding opportunities quality with sounds of human activity penetrating up to approximately 1.2 

miles into the Menagerie Wilderness and impacting approximately 715 acres. Some of the areas 

potentially impacted by these activities are popular for visitation during peak season. Impacts from 

blasting activities are the same as in Alternative 2. Resulting direct adverse effects from activities 

proposed in Alternative 4 are essentially the same as Alternative 2. The only difference being that 

Alternative 4 proposes to harvest more timber volume, so the period of time which impacts would occur 

could be longer. Therefore, impacts would be greater. 

Figure 56: Wilderness potentially affected by activities proposed in Alternative 3
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 247

Indicator: Availability of outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation

Measure: Recreational access

The outstanding opportunities quality of wilderness character can be degraded by a reduction or 

elimination of recreational access from outside of wilderness in order for visitors to pursue primitive and 

unconfined recreation inside wilderness. Four units are adjacent to the Menagerie Wilderness and 

treatment activities in those units have the potential to effect recreational access due to the operation 

of heavy equipment in the area, areas being closed to public access while trees are felled and removed 

or when burning occurs, and elimination of existing trails, trailheads, or parking areas due to road 

construction or deconstruction. 

One unit is located in an area where visitors to the Menagerie Wilderness routinely enter and exit the 

area through unofficial routes and user trails. Activities occurring in this unit have the greatest likelihood 

of impacting recreational access. Recreational access into the Menagerie Wilderness through the area 

included within this unit is seasonally closed to all entry from January 15 to July 31 in order to meet 

protected wildlife species management objectives. Visitors to the wilderness enter the area from August 

1st until snow makes the access roads impassable in the fall or winter. This is also the timeframe when 

logging and prescribed fire activities in this unit can occur due to the same seasonal wildlife closure and 

the need for snow free access. Activities proposed in three other units have less likelihood of obstructing 

access due to their location, established patterns of recreational use, and existence of alternate access 

routes to the area. To mitigate these potential effects, design features are included in this project to 

maintain recreational access. 

Comparison of Effects from Alternatives

Table 59 includes a summary of the effects to wilderness character of the Trout Creek project proposed 

alternatives.

Table 59: Summary of effects to wilderness character

Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Untrammelled 

N/A N/A No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

Natural

Botanical

resources

Rare botanical 

species

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

Invasive 

species

No Effect High risk of indirect 

long term adverse 

effects.

Low to medium risk 

of indirect long term 

adverse effects.

High risk of 

indirect long 

term adverse 

effect.

Wildlife Northern 

spotted owl

No Effect Direct short term 

disturbance due to 

noise. 

Direct short term 

disturbance due to 

noise. 

Direct short 

term 

disturbance 

due to noise. 

Peregrine 

falcon

No Effect Indirect beneficial 

effect possible.

Direct short term 

disturbance due to 

noise. 

Indirect beneficial 

effect possible.

Direct short term 

disturbance due to 

noise.

Indirect 

beneficial effect 

possible.

Direct short 

term 

disturbance 

due to noise.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

248 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Other 

terrestrial 

wildlife

No Effect Indirect beneficial 

effect possible.

Indirect beneficial 

effect possible.

Indirect 

beneficial effect 

possible.

Aquatic 

ecosystems

Aquatic 

organism 

passage

No Effect Direct long term 

beneficial effect.

Direct long term 

beneficial effect.

Direct long 

term beneficial 

effect.

In stream large 

wood

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

Ecological 

processes

Biological 

diversity

No Effect Indirect long term 

beneficial effects.

Indirect long term 

beneficial effects 

possible, but less 

than Alternatives 2 

and 4.

Indirect long 

term beneficial 

effects 

possible, but 

less than 

Alternative 2.

Undeveloped

N/A N/A No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation 

Remoteness from 

sights and 

sounds of human 

activity outside 

wilderness

Visible human 

activity

No Effect Direct medium to 

long term adverse 

effects.

Direct medium to 

long term adverse 

effects.

Direct medium 

to long term 

adverse 

effects.

Sounds of 

human activity

No Effect Direct medium term 

adverse effects.

Direct medium term 

adverse effects.

Direct medium 

term adverse 

effects.

Availability of 

opportunities for 

primitive and 

unconfined 

recreation

Recreational 

access

No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

As is indicated in Table 59, Alternative 1 has no effects to wilderness character since no activities are 

proposed.

Effects to wilderness character resulting from Alternative 2 include:

• beneficial direct long term effects to the natural quality due to improved aquatic organism 

passage

• possible beneficial indirect effect to the natural quality due to improved foraging conditions for 

peregrine falcons and some terrestrial wildlife

• possible beneficial indirect long term effect to the natural quality due to improved biological 

diversity in areas adjacent to the wilderness

• possible adverse indirect long term effect to the natural quality due to the high risk of the 

introduction of invasive species

• possible direct short term adverse impacts to the natural quality due to impacts to northern 

spotted from noise disturbance. 

• possible direct short term adverse effect to the natural quality due to impacts to peregrine 

falcons from noise disturbance
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 249

• adverse direct medium to long term effect to the outstanding opportunities quality due to 

visible human activity occurring adjacent to the Wilderness

• adverse direct medium term (approximately 5 years) effect to the outstanding opportunities 

quality due to sounds of human activity occurring adjacent to the Wilderness

Alternative 3 shares all of the same effects compared to Alternative 2, with the exception of:

• reduced risk of increasing the probability of the introducing invasive species

• reduced amount of visible human activity occurring adjacent to the Wilderness

• reduced amount of sounds of human activity occurring adjacent to the Wilderness

Effects to wilderness character resulting from activities in Alternative 4 are very similar to Alternative 2, 

with only minor differences that may be slightly greater for the natural and outstanding opportunities 

qualities due to the increased amount of proposed activities which may have a slightly higher risk or 

longer duration of effects.

The areas within the Menagerie Wilderness where adverse effects are expected to occur are located 

mostly within the Pristine management area shown in Figure 54. The Pristine areas fall on the most 

unmodified end of the management spectrum. Areas that are classified as Pristine are to be managed in 

a manner to protect wilderness character to the most rigorous extent.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, does not propose any activities in the Trout Creek project and 

has no effects. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects from this alternative to the Menagerie 

Wilderness. Effects occurring due to activity on adjacent private timber land would continue and be 

unchanged.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Cumulative effects are likely to occur to wilderness character in the Menagerie Wilderness resulting 

from activities in the Trout Creek project in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions occurring in other projects and activities. Cumulative effects are expected to the natural and 

outstanding opportunities qualities. Effects are described below for indicators and measures affected for 

those qualities.

Natural

There are no cumulative effects expected for the wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, or ecological processes 

indicators.

Indicator: Botanical resources

Measure: Invasive Species

Ground-disturbing activities such as ground-based yarding systems used during timber harvest, road 

construction and reconstruction, vehicular traffic and recreation use contribute to the incremental 

increase in invasive weeds. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

250 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

The impact of non-native invasive weeds on native plant communities is cumulative. The more 

disturbance and activity in any given area is subject to, the more the risk of invasive weed introduction, 

establishment, and/or expansion. Past road construction and maintenance, timber harvest 

(approximately 56,000 acres in the South Santiam watershed), and recreation use have resulted in 

numerous weed sites adjacent to the Menagerie Wilderness. Post-harvest monitoring and control 

measures in project design features would reduce these cumulative effects. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

There are no cumulative effects expected for the availability of opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation indicator.

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity outside the wilderness

Measure: Visible human activity

A large portion of the northern boundary of the Menagerie Wilderness is located adjacent to private 

industrial timberland. It is expected that current and future timber harvest activity would occur on this 

land and some of it would be visible from within the Menagerie Wilderness. This activity, in combination 

with activities proposed in the Trout Creek project, would cumulatively adversely affect the outstanding 

opportunities quality due to the reduced remoteness from the sights of human activity that would occur 

when the two activities are occurring simultaneously in time and space. 

Measure: Sounds of human activity

Similar to the visible human activity measure, cumulative adverse effects due to the increased presence 

of sounds of human activity are expected when harvest activity occurs simultaneously in time and space 

on both private timberland and units treated in the Trout Creek project. The outstanding opportunities 

quality of wilderness character would be additionally adversely effected when the two types of activities 

are combined.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 251

3.13 Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects of on the South Santiam River, which is eligible for 

Wild and Scenic River designation. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have short to medium term direct 

adverse effects to the scenic quality of the river corridor in areas where timber harvest activities occur 

beyond 344 foot no-cut Riparian Reserve buffer. The impacts of these adverse effects would reduce with 

time, however, as brush and moss grows, making stumps less easily visible. Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values for the river remain unaffected and the river would retain is eligibility for inclusion in the national 

Wild and Scenic Rivers system. There would be no cumulative effects associated with any of the 

alternatives.

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the South Santiam River is 

the Trout Creek project planning area as well as the portions of the river which extend upstream to its 

headwaters and downstream to the Willamette National Forest boundary from the project area. Four 

parcels of private land are included within the project area along the river corridor. The remainder of 

the river within the project area flows through National Forest System lands.

Affected Environment

The project area includes the portion of the South Santiam River which has been determined to be 

eligible for inclusion into the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Until suitability is determined, the 

area extending 1⁄4 mile away from the river on both sides of the South Santiam River within the project 

area is to be managed to meet Wild and Scenic River (Recreation) Standards and Guidelines as outlined 

in Management Area 6c in the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990). 

The location of the South Santiam River and the river corridor is shown in Figure 57.

Outstanding Remarkable Values (ORVs)

Eligibility status of Wild and Scenic Rivers is determined by identification of the river’s free flowing 

status and it’s “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” (ORVs) as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The ORVs identified for the South Santiam River segment within the project area are recreation, 

fisheries, prehistoric and historic values. Recreational values include developed campgrounds, fishing, 

scenery, trails, and day use activities. Winter steelhead runs up the Moose and Canyon Creek drainages 

are notable for fisheries. Prehistoric values include the river corridor being used as a major travel way 

for Indian tribes as well as encampment sites. Historic values include the Santiam Wagon Road which 

runs the entire segment of the river within the project area (Resource Assessment for Quartzville Creek 

and South Santiam River, Steve Couch, undated - approx. 1989).

The Resource Assessment also recognizes the readily available access to the river by road, the 

recreational developments along the river corridor, and the numerous dispersed recreation 

opportunities. These factors contribute to its recommended classification of “Recreation” for the 

segment of the river within the project area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

252 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Figure 57: Location of South Santiam Wild & Scenic River corridor
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 253

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would result in no change to the condition of ORVs or eligibility status of the South 

Santiam River. There are no direct or indirect effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers resources.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include proposed timber harvest and road decommissioning activities within the 

1⁄4 mile corridor extending from both sides of the South Santiam River in units 41, 42, 50, 68, 72, and 87 

and additionally in units 43 and 67 in Alternatives 2 and 4. Due to proposed mitigation measures, all 

activities are compliant with all standards and guidelines included in the Willamette National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) for Recreational Wild and Scenic Rivers segments 

(Management Area 6c). Standard and guide: “Stumps should be flush cut” (MA-6c-12), is specified in the 

LRMP. This action is required unless justifiable reason exists for not taking action, such as unacceptable 

hardship or expense (LRMP, 1990, p IV-45). Due to the high cost of flush cutting stumps when timber is 

harvested, this mitigation measure is considered an unacceptable expense and is not included. The 

expense of flush cutting stumps would result in an inability to fund other important projects such as the 

proposed road decommissioning.

The design measure for the Riparian Reserve requiring a 344 foot no-cut buffer along the river would

reduce the effect of not flush cutting stumps in some units that are most visible from the river and in 

areas frequently visited by the public. In other areas throughout the half mile wide river corridor, 

stumps would be visible when viewed from areas near harvest activity. This would result in direct 

adverse short to medium term effects to the scenery of the river corridor for as long as stumps are 

visible where timber harvest activity has occurred in areas other than in the Riparian Reserve buffered 

areas. The duration of time that the stumps would be visible would likely vary from a few years to 

twenty or more, according to site specific conditions. Over time, the growth of brush and moss would 

make stumps less easily visible. 

ORVs identified specifically for the South Santiam River (recreation, fisheries, prehistoric and historic 

values) would not be effected by proposed activities. Dispersed use access to areas located along roads 

planned for decommissioning may be reduced, but not to an extent that would significantly impact the 

diverse range of dispersed recreational and other use opportunities available within the river corridor.

There are no effects to ORVs, water quality, or the free flowing status of the South Santiam River; and 

therefore, no effects to its continued eligibility for inclusion in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers 

system.

Cumulative Effects

All land adjacent to the South Santiam River within the project area is either included in the national 

forest system or in one of four small private land parcels. Other than the activities proposed in this 

project, there are no activities proposed by the Willamette National Forest in past or reasonably 

foreseeable future projects in or beyond the project area that would have cumulative effects on the 

river’s ORVs or other qualities and it’s eligibility for inclusion in the national Wild and Scenic River 

system. We are not aware of any activates planned on the private parcels that would have an effect. 

Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

254 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

3.14 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)

Summary of Effects Analysis

All of the alternatives would have no effect to Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and unroaded areas. No 

projects activities are proposed in IRAs under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. No project activities would impact

unroaded areas adjacent to the IRAs or Menegerie Wilderness. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in a 

net reduction of system road miles in the project area, which would be a long term beneficial effect for 

unroaded areas outside of IRAs and wilderness.

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for IRAs is the Trout Creek 

project area, which is located in the following 6th field watersheds: Moose Creek, Bear Creek-Middle 

Santiam, Soda Fork, Trout Creek-Middle Santiam, and Lower Canyon Creek.

Affected Environment

IRAs are areas identified and mapped in accordance with the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule 

(2001 Roadless Rule). IRAs are identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of 

inventoried roadless area maps (contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at the National 

headquarters office of the Forest Service), or any subsequent update or revision of those maps (36 CFR 

294.11). These areas were set aside through administrative rulemaking and have provisions, within the

context of multiple use management, for the protection of inventoried roadless areas. The 2001 

Roadless Rule defines a roadless area as undeveloped areas that met the minimum criteria for 

wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act and that were inventoried during the forest Service’s 

Area Review and Evaluation (RAREII) process, subsequent assessments, or forest planning. An area of 

wilderness is further defined in the wilderness Act to mean an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, 

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which generally appears to 

have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable. In other words, large areas not fragmented by roads or past management activities. Three 

IRAs are located in the Trout Creek project area: Moose Lake (4,898 acres); Gordon Meadows (9,463 

acres); and Rooster Rock (223 acres). Rooster Rock is the only IRA located entirely within the Trout Creek 

project area. These IRAs are illustrated in Figure 58. No activities are proposed within these IRAs.

Unroaded areas are isolated areas of NFS lands that have no roads and no evidence of past management

activities. These unroaded areas are not Wilderness, nor or they IRAs. There are no forest-wide or 

management area standards specific to unroaded areas in the Willamette Forest Plan or the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Unroaded areas are managed consistently with forest-wide standards and guidelines and by 

designated Forest Plan management area allocations. Despite having no forest-wide or management 

area standards specific to unroaded, they are considered here because unroaded areas that are 

adjacent to IRAs and the Mengerie Wilderness could be viewed as providing similar ecological functions 

or value as IRAs and wilderness despite falling within a different land management allocation (e.g., 

Matrix). Outside of designated IRAs and wilderness, unroaded areas in the Trout Creek project area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 255

limited to relatively small areas (less than 300 hundred acres) that are bounded by forest roads and 

fragmented by managed stands.

Figure 58: Roadless Areas in the Trout Creek project area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

256 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No treatments would be implemented with selection of Alternative 1; therefore, no impacts to IRAs 

would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose a limited level of activity adjacent to IRAs. Units 55, 74 and 33 have a small 

portion of unit boundary bordering north end of the western Rooster Rock IRA. Units 56 and 120 border 

the eastern section of the Rooster Rock IRA. Overall, less than a mile of Rooster IRA boundary is in close 

proximity to the harvest units. Small portions of units 55, 74 and 200 are within a quarter mile of the 

Moose Creek IRA boundary. There are no harvest units in close proximity to the Gordon Mountain IRA. 

No activities are proposed within the IRAs under Alternatives 2 and 4. Treatment activities in units near 

the IRAs would potentially result in short to medium term (about 5 years) evidence of human activity as 

viewed from the IRAs, but treatments would improve diversity and resiliency to disturbances in areas 

adjacent to the IRAs in the long term. Mimicking mixed severity fire in some units (e.g., unit 56) would 

increase landscape heterogeneity to levels closer to the historic range of variability in the vicinity of the 

IRAs. Overall, proposed treatments would have no effect to IRA designations within the Trout Creek 

project area.

The majority of the Trout Creek units adjacent to the IRAs and wilderness cannot be considered

ecologically significant given their small size, past management, and proximity to roads; and therefore, 

are not well suited for being considered unroaded areas. It is likely that the 2001 Roadless Rule and the 

Wilderness Act did not incorporate these areas for the following reasons. Units 20, 33 and 200 are 

managed stands that share boundaries with roads or are bisected by roads. Units 55 and 74 are fireorigin units, but they have experienced some level of management in the past and are bisected and 

bounded by roads (only underplanting for diversity is proposed in these two units). Units 56 and 120 are 

also fire-origin units, but are bisected by existing roads. The only other Trout Creek fire-origin unit that 

could potentially provide a continuation of unroaded characteristics would be unit 44. However, this 

unit is bounded by a road along its northern boundary, and to the south there are multiple roads 

dissecting the unroaded area between it and the Menagerie Wilderness (Figure 58). Finally, Alternative 2 

and 4 propose to decommission about 6 and 10 miles of road, respectively. Both Alternatives would 

construct less than one mile of new permanent system road in unit 50 near Highway 20, which would 

result in a net reduction of about 5 and 9 miles of system road in the project area. Therefore, 

Alternatives 2 and 4 would have a net beneficial effect on unroaded areas within the Trout Creek project 

area by decommissioning and removing existing roads from the system.

Alternative 3

In Alternative 3, no fire-origin units would be treated, which leaves only unit 33 adjacent to the Rooster 

Rock IRA and unit 200 within a quarter mile of the Moose Creek IRA. Therefore, Alternative 3 would 

have no effect to IRA designations within the Trout Creek project area. Alternative 3 proposes the same 

road decommissioning work as Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternative 3 would provide the same beneficial

effects as Alternative 4 to unroaded areas outside IRAs and the Menagerie Wilderness (i.e., a net 

reduction of about 9 miles of system road in the project area).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 257

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects to IRA designations; therefore, there would be no 

cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Alternatives 2 and 4 would have no direct or indirect effects to IRA designations; therefore, there would 

be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have no direct or indirect effects to IRA designations; therefore, there would be no 

cumulative effects.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

258 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

3.15 Climate Change

The proposed action (Alternative 2) would treat approximately 1,670 acres in the project area. Harvest 

treatments proposed include commercial thinning, gap creation, aggregate retention (including early 

seral creation), meadow restoration, oak savannah restoration, alder treatment and skips. Fuels 

treatments include fuel breaks, mechanical treatments and post-harvest underburn. Non-commercial 

treatments include understory planting of native species, snag creation, fall and leave, and hazardous 

fuels reduction.

Climate change is a global phenomenon because major greenhouse gasses (GHG) mix well throughout 

the planet’s lower atmosphere (IPCC, 2013). Considering emissions of GHG in 2010 was estimated at 49 

± 4.5 gigatones globally (IPCC, 2014) and 6.9 gigatones nationally (US EPA, 2015), a project of this 

magnitude makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and 

national scales, the proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate 

change would be negligible. In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the 

proposed action’s contribution to cumulative effects on greenhouse gasses and climate change would 

also be negligible.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate change of 

global human activity sectors in its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014). In 2010, anthropogenic 

(human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several sectors:

• Industry, transportation, and building – 41%

• Energy production – 35%

• Agriculture – 12%

• Forestry and other land uses – 12%

There is agreement that the forestry sector contribution has declined over the last decade (IPCC, 2014, 

Smith et al, 2014, FAOSTAT, 2013) The main activity in this sector associated with GHG emissions is 

deforestation, which is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and 

grassland into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC, 2000).

The Trout Creek Project does not fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Forested land would not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands 

are being retained and thinned to maintain a vigorous condition that supports trees, and sequesters 

carbon long-term. US forests sequestered 757.1 megatons of carbon dioxide after accounting for

emissions from fires and soils in 2010 (US EPA, 2015). However there is growing concern over the 

impacts of climate change on US forests and their current status as a carbon sink. There is strong 

evidence of a relationship between increasing temperatures and large tree mortality events in forests of 

the western United States. There is widespread recognition that climate change is increasing the size 

and frequency of droughts, fires, and insect/disease outbreaks, which would have major effect on these 

forests’ role in the carbon cycle (Joyce et al., 2014).

The project is in line with the suggested practice of reducing forest disturbance effects found in the 

National Climate Assessment for public and private forests (Joyce et al., 2014). Here specifically, the 

project proposes to improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure with thinning, gaps, and 

early seral creation. Thinning the overstocked stands would make more growing space and resources 

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

diameter stands. The release of carbon associated with this project is justified given the overall change 

in condition increases forest resistance to release of much greater quantities of carbon from wildfire, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 259

drought, insects/disease, or a combination of these disturbance types (Millar et al., 2007). This project is 

also consistent with options presented by the IPCC for minimizing the impacts of climate change on 

forest carbon, and represents a potential synergy between adaptation measures and mitigation. Actions 

aimed at enhancing forest resilience to climate change by reducing the potential for large-scale, 

catastrophic disturbances such as wildfire also prevents release of GHG and enhances carbon stocks 

(Smith et al., 2014). The proposed action is consistent with these recommendations because it would 

improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure, allowing the forest to adapt, persist and 

function better over time and into the future.

Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in three main ways: (1) by 

increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or destruction (avoided 

deforestation), and (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests). Land-use changes, 

specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale in forests’ role as 

sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

2000). Projects that create forests or improve forest conditions and capacity to grow trees are positive 

factors in carbon sequestration. The proposed action (Alternative 2) falls into this category.

Specifically Required Disclosures

See Appendix A for a description as to how the action alternatives comply with applicable State and 

Federal Laws, regulations and policies.

3.16 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Implementation of any of the Alternatives, including the No-Action alternative, would inevitably result in 

some adverse environmental effects. The severity of the effects would be minimized by adhering to the 

direction in the management prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines in Chapter IV of the 

Willamette Forest Plan, as amended the Northwest Forest Plan, and additional design features proposed 

in Chapter 2 of this document. These potential adverse environmental effects are discussed at length 

under each resource section.

3.17 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

“Irreversible" commitment of resources refers to a loss of future options with nonrenewable resources. 

An "Irretrievable" commitment of resources refers to loss of opportunity due to a particular choice of 

resource uses.

The soil and water protection measures identified in the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, design 

features in Chapter 2, and Best Management Practices are designed to avoid or minimize the potential 

for irreversible losses from the proposed management actions.

Concerning threatened and endangered plant, wildlife, and fish species, a determination has been made 

that the proposed actions would not result in irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that 

foreclose formulation or implementation of reasonable or prudent alternatives.

With all action Alternatives (2, 3 and 4): Tree removal would result in an irretrievable loss of the value of 

removed trees for wildlife habitat, soil productivity, and other values. Little irreversible loss of soil 

should occur due to extensive design features associated with timber harvest and prescribed fire 

(tractor harvest only on slopes less than 35%, skyline yarding with partial or full suspension to meet 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, etc.).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

260 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

3.18 Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR §1502.16). This includes using all 

practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to 

foster and promote general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can 

exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requires of present and future 

generations of Americans (42 CFR § 101(a)).

The Forest Plan establishes a sustained yield of resource outputs while maintaining productivity of 

resources. The specific direction and mitigation measures included in the Forest Plan and Northwest 

Forest Plan ensure the long-term productivity of resources would not be impaired by the application of 

short-term management practices. Additionally, project Design Features (Section 2.7) were developed 

to reduce the environmental effects of the proposed activities and ensure project activities are 

implemented to comply with standards and guidelines, goals, objectives, conservation strategies and 

Best Management Practices.
Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 261

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

Alice Smith – Botanist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Botanical Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. and M.S. Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University. 30 years of 

experience with the US Forest Service (Willamette and Wallowa-Whitman).

Allan Braun – District Silviculturist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Vegetation Analysis and Silvicultural Prescription

Education / Experience: B.S. Forest Management: University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 13 years of 

experience in silviculture, timber sale layout, and forest inventory with USFS (Willamette, 

Chequamegon-Nicolet, Superior, Huron-Manistee, and Tongass; Pacific Northwest Research StationAnchorage Forestry Sciences Lab).

Bradford Peterson – Wilderness and Recreation Manager

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Detroit and Sweet Home Ranger Districts

Contribution: Wilderness Analysis

Education/ Experience: B.S. Environmental Science: Humboldt State University. 16 years of experience 

with the US Forest Service (Willamette) as a Wilderness Ranger, Wilderness Manager.

Chris Donaldson – Fuels Specialist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Detroit and Sweet Home Ranger Districts

Contribution: Fuels and Air Quality Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Anthropology, B.S. History: Southern Oregon University. 16 years of 

experience with the US Forest Service (Willamette, Rogue River-Siskiyou) in Fire Management. 2 years as 

an Assistant Fire Management Officer (Willamette).

Chris Sorensen – Natural Resources Staff Officer

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Economic Analysis for logging activities

Education/ Experience: Education/ Experience: B.S. Forestry (Ecological Restoration), Northern Arizona 

University; M.S. Forestry (Silviculture, Forest Carbon and Natural Resource Economics), Northern 

Arizona University. Planning Forester and Silviculturist 7 years (Stanislaus); Data Management Assistant, 

Southern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring Network, National Park Service 1 year; Research 

Assistant, Ecological Restoration Institute 3 years.

Danny Matthews – Transportation Planner

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Detroit and Sweet Home Ranger Districts

Contribution: Transportation Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Yavapai College. 7 years of experience with private sector engineering firms. 

7 years of experience with the USDA (NRCS in Wyoming and USFS on the Willamette) as an engineering 

technician and transportation planner.

Emily Lauderdale – Natural Resource Specialist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest

Contribution: Scenic Quality Analysis

Education / Experience: B.A. German, Environmental Policy & Culture, Northwestern University; Master 
Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

262 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

of Landscape Architecture (MLA), University of Michigan. 2 years of experience with the US Forest 

Service in natural resources (Willamette).

Esmeralda Bracamonte – Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Wildlife Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. in Biology with emphasis in Zoology, Minor in Chemistry. 10 years of 

experience in natural resources management with US Forest Service (Angeles and Willamette). 

Joanie Schmidgall – NEPA Planner

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Detroit Ranger District

Contribution: Project Lead, Writer/Editor, NEPA Compliance

Education / Experience: B.A. Environmental Science and Geography, University of Oregon; Master of 

Forestry, Oregon State University. 1 year of experience in planning and 7 years of experience in forestry 

with US Forest Service (Willamette).

Ken Loree – Lead Forestry Technician

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Logging Systems Analysis

Education/ Experience: 2 years at University of Oregon. 37 years of experience in forestry, timber sale 

layout, timber sale preparation, logging systems analysis and forest inventory analysis with the US 

Forest Service (Willamette).

Lance Gatchell– Hydrologist and Fish Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Aquatics and Aquatics conservation strategy

Education / Experience: MS in Bio-resource Engineering, Oregon State University. 10 years a District 

Hydrologist (Willamette) and 4 years as a District Fish Biologist/Hydrologist (Willamette).

Lizandra Nieves-Rivera – Forest Soil Scientist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest

Contribution: Soils Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Geology, University of Puerto Rico; Master of Soil Science Studies, 

University of Puerto Rico; Graduate Certificate in Geographic Information Sciences, Oregon State 

University. 4 years of soil, water conservations and earth science research for federal, state-local units, 3 

years Geologist experience with the BLM, and 6 years of experience as a Soil Scientist with US Forest 

Service (Arapahoe and Roosevelt, Stanislaus and Willamette).

Nikki Swanson – District Ranger

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Line Officer

Education/ Experience: Bachelors of Science (Biology Major and English Minor), University of Oregon; 

Masters of Fisheries Science, Oregon State University. One year as District Ranger. 24 years of 

experience in fisheries (2 years with the Eugene BLM and 22 years with the Willamette National Forest).

Suzanne Cable – Recreation, Lands and Minerals Staff Officer

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Detroit and Sweet Home Ranger Districts

Contribution: Recreation, Wild and Scenic Rivers Analysis

Education / Experience: B.A. Environmental Studies, Brown University; M.S. Resource Conservation,

University of Montana. Over twenty years of experience with the US Forest Service on eight national 

forests in five regions working in positions from Wilderness Ranger to Recreation, Lands and Minerals 

Staff.
Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 263

Tony Farque – Archeologist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District

Contribution: Heritage Resources Analysis

Education / Experience: BS Anthropology, University of Oregon; AA Forestry, Lane Community College. 

38 years of experience with the US Forest Service (Willamette) as an archeologist in Cultural Resource 

Management.

Additional Support and consultation was provided by the following individuals during the development 

of this environmental impact statement:

Forest Service Employees

Doug Shank, Geologist Tiffany Young, Wildlife Biologist

Anita Leach, NEPA Planner Jay Anderson, Logging Systems

Dean Mills, GIS

Joe Doer, Forest Wildlife Biologist
Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, Organizations, and Individuals Given Notice of Availability

264 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, 

Organizations, and Individuals Given Notice of 

Availability

The agencies, governments, organizations, and individuals listed below were notified of the availability 

of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). A complete list of recipients, including names and 

contact information, is available in the Trout Creek project file at the Sweet Home Ranger District.

Agencies and Governments

Bureau of Land Management

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Klamath Tribes

Linn County

Office of Senator Jeff Merkley

Office of Congressman Peter DeFazio

Office of Senator Ron Wyden

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation

Oregon Department of Transportation

Sweet Home Chamber of Commerce

United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Organizations

American Forest Resource Council

Cascade Timber Company

Cascadia Wildlands Project

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

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 265

Giustina Land & Timber

Giustina Resources

Northwest Youth Corps

Oregon Eagle Foundation, Inc.

Oregon Hunters Association

Oregon State University

Oregon Wild

Pacific Crest Trail Association

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Rosboro Lumber Co.

South Santiam Watershed Council

Travel Oregon

Weyerhaeuser 

Wild Earth Guardians

Individuals

Over 500 people, including interested parties, stakeholders, landowners, and individuals were notified

of Draft Environmental Impact Statement 45-day comment period. A complete list of recipients, 

including names and contact information, is available in the Trout Creek project file at the Sweet Home

Ranger District.
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Order

266 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, 

Regulations and Executive Orders

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 – NEPA establishes the format and content 

requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. Preparation of the Trout Creek DEIS was 

prepared in full compliance with these requirements.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 1976 –All proposed timber harvest units are planned to 

occur on suitable land. If regeneration harvest is implemented the sites would be capable of restocking 

within 5 years of harvest by either natural or artificial means. All units were considered for potential 

uneven-aged management. Proposed commercial thinning would increase the rate of growth of 

remaining trees. Some locations would favor species or age classes most valuable to wildlife. The 

resultant reduced stress on residual trees would make treated stands less susceptible to pest-caused 

damage. Design features have been identified to protect site productivity, soils, and water quality.

All proposed activities would provide sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of fish and 

wildlife. Critical habitat for threatened or endangered species would be protected through avoidance. 

The action alternatives would accelerate development of forest habitats that are currently deficient 

within the analysis area to enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities in the long-term. See 

discussions under the applicable resource sections above, for further support that proposed activities

that would comply with the seven requirements associated with vegetative manipulation (36 CFR 

219.27(b)), riparian areas (36 CFR 219.27(e)), and soil and water (36 CFR 219.27(f)).

Forest Plan Consistency – Actions analyzed in the Trout Creek project are consistent with a broad range 

of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that have been discussed and disclosed throughout the 

document. The timber stand treatments associated with the project are consistent with the goals and 

management direction analyzed in the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

FEIS and Record of Decision. Road improvements are designed to be consistent with the 1994 Northwest 

Forest Plan amendments to the Forest Plan and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy - The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is an 

integral part of the Northwest Forest Plan and was developed to maintain and restore the ecological 

health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands through implementation of four 

components: 1) Riparian Reserves 2) key watersheds 3) watershed analysis 4) watershed restoration. 

Based on the analysis presented in this DEIS and Appendix B, the ACS Objectives would be met in each 

alternative.

The Preservation of Antiquities Act, June 1906 and the National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended, October 1966 – Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 

(amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992) is the foremost legislation governing the treatment of historic 

properties (a.k.a. heritage or cultural resources) during project planning and implementation. Other 

legal framework considered the effects of its actions on heritage resources is listed below:

• 36 CFR800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 

• 36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), and 

• 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources), and

• Executive Order 13007 – Sacred Sites
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Order

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 267

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

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

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

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

106 of NHPA for the project.

In accordance with this PA, an appropriate inventory and surveys were conducted in from 2014 to 2016,

and documented under the “Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Trout Creek Timber Sales”. 

Through project design, all known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (the project area) were 

protected by avoidance, resulting in a determination of “Historic Properties Avoided” on June 7, 2017.

Documentation was provided to SHPO and copies were retained on file in the Willamette National 

Forest and Sweet Home Ranger District Heritage files SHPO had no comments regarding the Forest 

Service finding. Documentation has been retained in the Forest and District Heritage files.

The Trout Creek Cultural Resource Inventory Report project file was reviewed by a Forest Heritage 

Specialist, and has resulted in a determination of Historic Properties Avoided under the terms of the 

current PA.

Should previously unknown cultural resource sites or object be discovered during project activities, 

contract provisions would provide protection. All activities in the vicinity of the find would cease 

immediately, while the Sweet Home Ranger District Archaeologist is notified to assess the find.

Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977 – The alternatives are designed to meet the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility 

standards. This project is consistent with by the 1990 Clean Air Act and the 1977 Clean Air Act and its 

amendments (See Section 3.16 and 3.17).

The Clean Water Act, 1987 – This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed 

projects. Compliance with the Clean Water Act would be accomplished through planning, application 

and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Based on the analysis presented in this DEIS, 

TMDL requirements for the South Santiam River would be met in each alternative (refer to Chapter 

3.03).

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), December 1973 – The ESA establishes a policy that all federal 

agencies would seek to conserve endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife and plants.

Biological Evaluations for plants and wildlife have been prepared, which describes possible effects and 

impacts of the proposed actions on sensitive, and other species of concern that may be present in the 

project area. A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for the northern spotted owl, and for steelhead

trout and spring Chinook salmon.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for 

Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon Upper Willamette River winter steelhead is currently in 

progress. The Biological Assessment prepared for the Trout Creek project found that the project “may 

affect, and is likely to adversely affect” Upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon and winter Steelhead. 

This analysis also found that there would not be any adverse modification of designated critical habitat 

for either species. On February 14, 2017, the Trout Creek project was presented to the NMFS and they 

concurred with the effects determination of “may affect, is likely to adversely effect.” Consultation was 

formally initiated on February 17, 2017 by Forest Supervisor Tracy Beck, and will be completed prior to 

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

Trout Creek project. The Forest Service will be required to comply with the terms and conditions 

provided by the NMFS in the Biological Opinion.
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Order

268 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

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

completed on August 4, 2017 and evaluated by the USFWS in the August 31, 2017 Biological Opinion 

(FWS reference 1EOFW00-2017-F-0555) signed August 31, 2017.

Trout Creek project May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect the 

Northern Spotted Owl due to Habitat 

Modification from thinning in suitable owl 

habitat.

Trout Creek project Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence 

of the Spotted Owl.

Commercial Thinning in Critical Habitat May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect 

Foraging, Nesting and Roosting Habitat in Critical 

Habitat due to its removal and downgrade.

Effects due to Disruption May Affect and is Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

spotted owls. There are no harvest activities 

within the disruption distance proposed to occur 

during the critical breeding period.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 1976 (MSA) – Essential fish habitat 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is designated in the same 

areas as identified as habitat for the Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization in 1996 established a new requirement for 

essential fish habitat that requires Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat for the Pacific coast 

salmon fishery means those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production needed to support a 

long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. The species 

designated in the South Santiam River is spring Chinook salmon.

The Biological Assessment used for formal consultation with NFMS determined that the Trout Creek 

project “may adversely affect” Spring Chinook Salmon in the South Santiam River.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Public Law 91-173, as amended by Public Law 95-164.

Development of Rock Quarries would conform to the requirements of the act, which sets forth 

mandatory safety and health standards for each surface metal or nonmetal mine. The purpose for the 

standards is to protect life by preventing accidents and promoting health and safety.

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness – Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless areas are both 

located in the project area; however, no actions would occur in these areas. 

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland – No prime farmland, rangeland, or forestland occurs 

within the project area. 

Survey and Manage Species – The action alternatives comply with the Northwest Forest Plan as 

amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey 

and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Predisturbance surveys were conducted and site management applied consistent with the January 2001 

species list. 
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Order

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 269

Management Indicator Species (Aquatic) – The Willamette Forest Plan recognized anadromous and 

resident salmonids as economically important species and designated them as management indicator 

species for riparian habitat and water quality. Salmonid fish are good indicators because they are 

predators in the stream ecosystem. This means that they are not only affected by the physical 

conditions of their habitat but also by the metabolic energy pathways in the watershed from primary 

production to decomposition. The most widespread Management Indicator Species in the Trout Creek 

project is the cutthroat trout. Other species include the rainbow trout, Chinook salmon and steelhead 

trout. The Trout Creek project would maintain habitat conditions for aquatic management indicator 

species in the project area. Therefore, the Trout Creek project would not contribute to a negative trend 

in viability on the Willamette National Forest for these management indicator fish species.

Management Indicator Species (Terrestrial) – The Willamette Forest Plan recognized elk and deer as 

economically important species that are commonly hunted, and designated them as management 

indicator species for winter range. Designated management indicator species for old growth and mature 

conifers are pileated woodpecker, marten, and northern spotted owl. The bald eagle was selected as a 

management indicator species for old growth conifers near large bodies of water, and the peregrine 

falcon was selected as a management indicator species for cliff nesting habitat. The Trout Creek project 

would maintain habitat conditions for elk, deer, pileated woodpeckers, marten, bald eagles and 

peregrine falcons in the project area. The Trout Creek project would not contribute to a negative trend 

in viability for any of the terrestrial wildlife management indicator species. 

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and Wetlands – Executive Order 11988 requires 

government agencies to take actions that reduce the risk of loss due to floods, to minimize the impact of 

floods on human health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by floodplains. Proposed harvest treatments would not occur within 100-year floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990 requires government agencies to take actions that minimize the destruction, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands. Streamside riparian areas, seeps, springs, and other wet habitats exist 

in the project area. These areas would be either avoided, or managed according to the amended 

Willamette Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Riparian Reserves would also be protected with design 

features. As a result, proposed treatments would be consistent with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies 

adopt strategies to address environmental justice concerns within the context of agency operations. 

With implementation of either action alternatives, there would be no disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. Nearby 

communities would mainly be affected by economic impacts connected with contractors implementing 

harvest, road reconstruction, tree thinning, planting, and other fuels treatment activities. Racial and 

cultural minority groups could also be prevalent in the work forces that implement activities. Contracts 

contain clauses that address worker safety.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fishing – The June 7 1995, Executive Order requires government 

agencies to strengthen efforts to improve fisheries conservation and provide for more and better 

recreational fishing opportunities, and to develop a new policy to promote compatibility between the 

protection of endangered species and recreational fisheries, and to develop a comprehensive 

Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan. Proposed activities in the project area not affect 

recreational fisheries since there are no-cut buffers adjacent to fish bearing streams that would protect 

fish habitat. There are major streams in the project area closed to all recreational fishing, but fishing 

regulations are outside the scope of this project.

Executive Order 13186: Migratory Birds – Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U. S.C. 703-704). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead federal agency for 
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Order

270 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. However, under Executive Order (EO) 

13186, all federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds. A 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, 2008) between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service requires, during NEPA planning, that the FS, to the extent practical, evaluate and balance longterm benefits of projects to migratory birds against any short- or long-term adverse effects. It also 

requires the FS to consider approaches, to the extent practical, for identifying and minimizing take of 

migratory birds that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Region 6 has compiled some information 

to assist biologists in disclosing effects to avian species during NEPA planning (Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management, 2013). Effects to FS sensitive birds, federally ESA listed birds, birds that are 

Management Indicator Species and migratory bird species that have been identified by USFWS as 

Species of Conservation Concern in the Northern Pacific Forest (USFWS, 2008) and that have habitat in 

the proposed treatment units are addressed in Chapter 3. 

Seasonal restrictions are recommended in the Trout Creek Design Features (Chapter 2.7) to conduct 

hazard tree falling outside the critical nesting season, as well as tree felling, yarding and prescribed unit 

underburning on specific units to protect owls. This would minimize disturbances to nesting migratory 

birds and reduce the likelihood of harm to individual birds. Design features to retain existing snags 

where possible, and to retain live trees, create snags, and fall trees for dead wood sources would 

provide structural features migratory birds would use. There is a Design Feature (Chapter 2.7) to 

consider late winter or fall for prescribed underburning which would reduce impacts to nesting birds 

and their young.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation – August 17, 2007, 

Executive Order requires Federal agencies “to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting 

opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.” The proposed creation and 

enhancement of early seral habitat in both action Alternatives in the project area would improve forage 

for game species and provide better hunting opportunities for the public.

Other Jurisdictions – There are a number of other agencies responsible for management of resources 

within the project area. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for management of 

fish and wildlife populations, whereas the Forest Service manages the habitat for these animals. The 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been contacted regarding this analysis and Brian Wolfer, a 

biologist with the agency, attend a 2014 public meeting.

Proposed harvest treatments within riparian areas have been designed to comply with “Sufficiency 

Analysis for Stream Temperature – Evaluation of the adequacy of the Northwest Forest Plan Riparian 

Reserves to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards” (USDA Forest Service 

and USDI BLM, 2004). This document was prepared in collaboration with Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality and United States Environmental Protection Agency to provide documentation of 

Northwest Forest Plan compliance with the Clean Water Act with regard to state water quality standards 

for stream temperatures. As such, it redeems several of the Forest Service responsibilities identified in a

“Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service and Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality To Meet State and Federal Water Quality Rules and Regulations” (USDA Forest 

Service and Oregon DEQ, May 2002). The Sufficiency Analysis provides current scientific guidance for 

management of riparian vegetation to provide effective stream shade, including appropriate methods of 

managing young stands for riparian objectives other than shade, such as production of large wood for 

future recruitment.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Forestry are responsible 

for regulating all prescribed burning operations. The USDA Forest Service Region 6 has a Memorandum 

of Understanding with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Forestry, 
Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Order

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 271

and the USDI Bureau of Land Management regarding limits on emissions, as well as reporting 

procedures. All burning would comply with the State of Oregon's Smoke Management Implementation 

Plan and, for greater specificity, see the memorandum of understanding mentioned above.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential – Some form of energy would be necessary for 

projects requiring use of mechanized equipment. Commercial thinning and some partial cutting units 

would involve both heavy and small machines for yarding logs during the implementation period. 

Projects such as road reconstruction and maintenance could require heavy machinery for a small 

amount of time. Both possibilities would result in minor energy consumption. Alternatives that harvest 

trees could create supplies of firewood as a by-product, which would contribute to a supply of energy 

for the local community for home heating.
Appendix B – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

272 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Appendix B – Evaluation for Consistency with 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) of the NWFP was developed to protect the ecological health of 

watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. Timber harvest is prohibited 

in Riparian Reserves unless it is needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ACSOs). If 

one or more of the ACSOs are not being met, then silvicultural treatments can be used to achieve the 

objective(s). Thinning in Riparian Reserves in the Trout Creek project was proposed when needed for 

restoration of aquatic resources. Riparian Reserves silvicultural treatments in this project were used for 

even aged conifer managed stands.

What follows is a discussion of how the activities proposed in the action alternatives conform to the 

nine objectives of the ACS.

Objective #1 – Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations 

and communities are uniquely adapted.

This project would enhance species diversity and stand complexity in managed stands to levels that are 

similar to conditions usually found in natural stands as a result of natural disturbance agents. Through 

time, this would restore diversity and complexity of the watershed and the aquatic systems to which 

species, populations, and communities have adapted.

Objective #2 – Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between 

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, 

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide 

chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of 

aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

Riparian Reserves would maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between 

watersheds. These areas allow for connectivity between ridge tops and valley bottoms where ephemeral 

and perennial streams are considered part of the riparian network.

This project would not create any sort of barrier to aquatic and riparian-dependent species. No new 

roads would be constructed that would create a barrier to aquatic organisms. Connectivity within and 

between watersheds would be maintained.

Treated acres within these Riparian Reserves would retain at least 50% canopy cover after harvest. 

Chemically and physically unobstructed routes critical to life history requirements would remain intact 

as a result of this prescription. In the outer portion of Riparian Reserves, spatial connectivity may be 

restored for some plant and animal species that cannot survive under dense canopy. An increase in 

insects and arthropods is expected to result from a development of a under story. This prey base 

increase is expected to benefit animal species.

Objective #3 – Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, 

banks, and bottom configurations.

The physical integrity of the aquatic system would be maintained. Harvest systems are designed to 

protect all streams, banks, and bottom configurations in accordance with National Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) as outlined in the design criteria. Retention of 75-foot no-cut shade buffers on 
Appendix B – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 273

perennial streams and 50-foot no-cut buffers on intermittent streams would maintain channel bank 

stability.

Objectives #4 – Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and 

wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, 

physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and 

migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

No-cut buffers in Riparian Reserves would protect stream shade and stream banks from erosion. This 

would ensure stream temperatures and bank stability are maintained within the project area. Road 

work that has the potential to increase sediment in streams along the haul route would include 

mitigation measures as indicated in the design criteria. This would minimize road related impacts of 

sediment to streams.

Biological, physical, and chemical integrity of water quality would be maintained through 

implementation of national BMPs as prescribed in the design criteria for this project.

Objective #5 – Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, 

storage, and transport.

Forests roads built in the past caused fills in stream channels that interfere with sediment movement 

downstream. Depending on how the fills block downstream sediment movement, there are various 

downstream effects that are generally negative. This project does not include increasing the number of 

stream crossings so would maintain the existing impacts of roads on the natural sediment regime. Road 

decommission and storage that removes high aquatic risk culverts and associated fills would improve 

natural sediment movement in several locations.

Riparian Reserves were designed to protect important water quality and riparian functions. The 

proposed no-harvest prescriptions would protect streams from any sediment impacts from harvest in 

the outer portion of Riparian Reserves.

Roads continue to contribute pulses of sediment at crossings throughout the project area. However, 

ongoing road maintenance activities have worked to eliminate many of these unstable fill situations. 

Since wet weather haul would be closely monitored, increases in sediment input to the streams are not 

expected to be measureable. Upsizing of culverts that are replaced with deferred maintenance activities 

as part of this project would benefit streams and contribute to more natural sediment regime in several 

locations.

Objective #6 – Maintain and restore in stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic 

and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, 

magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

Implementation of a landscape design that is intended to restore vegetative structures, landscape 

patterns, and disturbance regimes to a more natural condition would result in watershed conditions that 

more closely resemble those under which historic stream flow conditions developed.

Potential adverse effects on the timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak and high 

flows are evaluated by managing the planning sub-drainages within the analysis area to Aggregate 

Recovery Percentage (ARP) levels that comply with the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Willamette National Forest, 1990). Analysis for this project’s proposed treatments 

showed no detrimental cumulative effects to peak flows.
Appendix B – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

274 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

The effects of climate change over the next century are likely to influence in-stream flows in the future. 

This project addressed the effects of climate change in Chapter 3.15.

Objective #7 – Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

The no-cut buffers in Riparian Reserves would provide more wood to streams over time. This would

increase the ability of the streams to connect to their floodplains and help restore timing, variability and 

duration of floodplain inundation over time. Floodplains and wetland areas would be excluded from 

thinning treatments. Where thinning units occur adjacent to these features, ground-based equipment 

that could impact the soil, and result in reduced ground water recharge, is restricted to prevent 

compaction as described in the design criteria.

Objective #8 – Maintain and restore the species compositions and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal 

regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel 

migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical 

complexity and stability.

Plant communities in riparian areas would be maintained at the landscape scale by the implementation 

of stand level prescriptions that have no-harvest buffers in Riparian Reserves along streams and 

adjacent to wetlands. These buffers within the Riparian Reserves would provide adequate summer and 

winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and 

channel migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain 

physical complexity and stability.

Plant communities would be restored in some Riparian Reserves by creating uneven structure within 

stands with varied thinning intensities and no-thin areas to diversify homogenous stands. Reducing 

overstory tree density in selected outer portions of the Riparian Reserves within the project area as well 

as fall and leave treatments in near-stream areas would help widen the range of understory light and 

microhabitat conditions suitable for increasing plant diversity.

Objective #9 – Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Implementation of the Trout Creek Project is intended to restore landscape processes, vegetative 

structures, and landscape patterns to more natural conditions, and would restore the ability of the 

landscape to create a rich variety of habitats for native species. Thinning is expected to increase the 

abundance of native herbs and shrubs because more light and nutrients would be available for growth. 

The increase in plant biomass is expected to lead to increased prey base (insects and arthropods) for 

animals associated with riparian areas.

Where project activities have potential to affect existing native plant and animal species within the 

project area, designation of buffered areas or use of specific project criteria would maintain intact 

populations. BMP's and design criteria are designed to minimize impacts to riparian dependent 

invertebrate and vertebrate species (i.e., seasonal restrictions, canopy cover requirements, and soil 

protection requirements). Adequate amounts of down woody debris would be retained on site. This 

project would not adversely affect the amount or distribution of these habitats or species that use these 

habitats and would likely improve habitat conditions for some species, allowing expansion of their 

distribution in the project area.
Appendix B – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 275

Objective #7 – Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

The no-cut buffers in Riparian Reserves would provide more wood to streams over time. This would

increase the ability of the streams to connect to their floodplains and help restore timing, variability and 

duration of floodplain inundation over time. Floodplains and wetland areas would be excluded from 

thinning treatments. Where thinning units occur adjacent to these features, ground-based equipment 

that could impact the soil, and result in reduced ground water recharge, is restricted to prevent 

compaction as described in the design criteria.

Objective #8 – Maintain and restore the species compositions and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal 

regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel 

migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical 

complexity and stability.

Plant communities in riparian areas would be maintained at the landscape scale by the implementation 

of stand level prescriptions that have no harvest buffers in Riparian Reserves along streams and adjacent 

to wetlands. These buffers within the Riparian Reserves would provide adequate summer and winter 

thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel 

migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical 

complexity and stability.

Plant communities would be restored in some Riparian Reserves by creating uneven structure within 

stands with varied thinning intensities and no-thin areas to diversify homogenous stands. Reducing 

overstory tree density in selected outer portions of the Riparian Reserves within the project area would

help widen the range of understory light and microhabitat conditions suitable for increasing plant 

diversity.

Objective #9 – Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Implementation of the Trout Creek Project is intended to restore landscape processes, vegetative 

structures, and landscape patterns to more natural conditions, and would restore the ability of the 

landscape to create a rich variety of habitats for native species. Thinning is expected to increase the 

abundance of native herbs and shrubs because more light and nutrients would be available for growth. 

The increase in plant biomass is expected to lead to increased prey base (insects and arthropods) for 

animals associated with riparian areas.

Where project activities have potential to affect existing native plant and animal species within the 

project area, designation of buffered areas or use of specific project criteria would maintain intact 

populations. BMP's and design criteria are designed to minimize impacts to riparian dependent 

invertebrate and vertebrate species (i.e., seasonal restrictions, canopy cover requirements, and soil 

protection requirements). Adequate amounts of down woody debris would be retained on site. This 

project would not affect the amount or distribution of these habitats or species that use these habitats.
Appendix C –Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

276 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Appendix C – Past, Present and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis

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

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

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

individual past actions.”

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

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

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

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

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects 

of the proposal for agency action or its Alternatives would add to, modify, or mitigate those 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)

The table below provides a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

overlap in time and space with the Trout Creek project and could contribute cumulative effects to the 

resources in the project area.

Action Agency Description Resources Affected

Past Actions

Fall Thin Timber Sale 

(Canyon Creek EA) USFS

This timber sale area over lapped with the 

Trout Creek project area. 193 acres of 

thinning and 1.9 mmbf. Originally sold in 

2012. The sale was closed in 2015. 

Fuels, Vegetation, Soil, 

Water, Recreation, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Girl Thin Timber Sale 

(Canyon Creek EA) USFS

The haul route included the 2022 Road 

(Canyon Creek Road) in the Trout Creek 

project area. 205 acres and 2.4 mmbf. 

Originally sold in 2012. The sale was 

closed in 2016. 

Fuels, Vegetation, Soil, 

Water, Recreation, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants
Appendix C –Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 277

Action Agency Description Resources Affected

Elbow Thin Timber 

Sale (Canyon Creek 

EA)

USFS

The haul route included FS Road 2022 

(Canyon Creek Road) in the Trout Creek 

project area. 275 acres and 5.1 mmbf. 

Originally sold in 2011. The sale closed in 

2016. 

Fuels, Vegetation, Soil, 

Water, Recreation, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Pipe Thin Timber Sale 

(Canyon Creek EA) USFS

The haul route included FS Road 2032 

(Gordon Road) in the Trout Creek project 

area. 127 acres and 1.6 mmbf. Originally 

sold in 2012. The sale closed in 2014. 

Fuels, Vegetation, Soil, 

Water, Recreation, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Moose Creek Large 

Wood Restoration 

Project (CE)

USFS

Trees were tipped into Moose Creek to 

improve hydrologic function and fish 

habitat.

Hydrology, Fisheries, 

Wildlife, Vegetation

Stewart Road 

Hydrologic 

Stabilization Project 

(CE)

USFS

Culverts were removed in abandoned road 

2000-636 and 2000-632 to hydrologically 

stabilize the road and protect water 

resources. Road access was not changed.

Hydrology, Fisheries, 

Roads

Moose Creek Legacy 

Road project (CE) USFS

Various roads in the Moose Creek 

subwatershed were storm proofed with 

waterbars and drivable drain dips over 

stream crossings. Road access was not 

changed.

Hydrology, Fisheries, 

Roads

Gordon Spurs road 

storage project (CE) USFS

Several roads tributary to the Gordon Road 

(2032) were put in storage so they would 

not need maintenance by removing stream 

crossing culverts. Road access was not 

changed.

Hydrology, Fisheries, 

Roads

Canyon Creek road 

storage (Canyon Thin 

EA)

USFS

Several roads in the Canyon Thin planning 

area were put in storage so they would not 

need maintenance by removing stream 

crossing culverts. Road access was not 

changed.

Hydrology, Fisheries, 

Roads

Private Timber 

Harvest and Haul

Adjacent to the Wilderness, impact to 

wilderness character. 

Present Actions

Owl Thin Timber Sale 

(Canyon Creek EA) USFS

The sale will be hauling in the Trout Creek 

project area down FS Road 2022 (Canyon 

Creek Road). 294 acres and 4.4 mmbf. 

The sale was sold in 2014 and will be 

completed in 2018. 

Fuels, Vegetation, Soil, 

Water, Recreation, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Moe Thin Timber Sale

(Canyon Creek EA) USFS

The sale will be hauling down FS Road 

2022 (Canyon Creek Road). 10.2 mmbf 

and 321 acres. The sale was sold in 2013. 

It will be completed in 2017. 

Fuels, Vegetation, Soil, 

Water, Recreation, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Camas Prairie 

Meadow Restoration USFS

Active management involves control of 

blackberries and shiny geranium. The 

prairie is burned in September very other 

year; it is scheduled to be burned in 2017.

Fuels, Vegetation 

Management, and 

Invasive Plants

Private Timber 

Harvest and Haul

Adjacent to the Wilderness, impact to 

wilderness character.
Appendix C –Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

278 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Action Agency Description Resources Affected

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Private Timber 

Harvest and Haul

Private timber sales will harvest and haul 

about 15,038 MBF from 717 acres

between 2017 and 2021 in the vicinity of 

Owl Ridge Road (300) and Gordon Road 

(2032).

Jude Ridge Timber 

Sale USFS

The sale will be hauling down FS Road 

2041 (Soda Fork Creek Road). 2.3 mmbf 

and 234 acres. The sale will sold in 2017. It 

will be completed in 2020. 

Fuels, Vegetation, Soil, 

Water, Recreation, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Rec/Admin Fuels 

Treatment USFS

Treatment of hazardous fuels around the 

Cougar Repeater, Rooster Rock trailhead, 

Gordon Meadows 1 trailhead, and Gordon 

Lakes trailhead. Expected start date June 

2017 with expected completion date of Oct 

2018. 

Fuels, Vegetation, and 

Recreation

Gordon Meadows 

Restoration USFS

Conifer trees encroaching on the meadow 

will be removed or girdled. Fuels will be 

treated with prescribed fire. 

Fuels, vegetation, 

invasive plants

Dispersed Use 

Management USFS

Closure of the area 500 feet from either 

side of the Moose Creek Road (2025) to 

camping. Day use will be encouraged.

Closure of the area 500 feet from either 

side of the Gordon Road (2032) up to the 

junction with the spur road to the Longbow 

Group camping area to camping. Day use 

will be encouraged.

Vegetation, Water, 

Recreation, Fisheries, 

Roads and Access 

Management
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 279

Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

Results of the Forest-level Travel Analysis Process (TAP), also known as the Willamette National Forest 

Roads Investment Strategy (2015), were analyzed at the project scale using field assessment and District 

roads analysis. Once signed, this decision designates the Minimum Road System (MRS) needed for 

public and administrative use. Final IDT results that would become part of the signed FEIS would amend 

the Forest Travel Management layer per Washington Office and Regional Office direction (Weldon 2012, 

Pena 2016).

AC Analyze for Closure

AD Analyze for Decommissioning

DR Defer Maintenance

ML Maintenance Level

MTC Maintenance

RC Remain Closed

RO Remain Open

RIS Road Investment Strategy

RTC Reconstruction

Forest Service Maintenance Level definitions

Road Maintenance Level 5

Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are 

normally double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The 

appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”

Road Maintenance Level 4

Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel 

speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. 

Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is 

“encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at 

certain times.

Road Maintenance Level 3

Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in a standard passenger cars. User 

comfort and convenience are low priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, 

single lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or 

processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” 

“discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

Road Maintenance Level 2

Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. 

Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, 

dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or 

discourage high-clearance vehicles.
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

280 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Road Maintenance Level 1

Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure 

period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent 

resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. 

Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road 

deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and 

“eliminate.”

Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or construction standard, and may be 

managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being 

maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for nonmotorized uses.

Road Status within Trout Creek Project Area

Road Miles

Current Alternative 2 Alternative 3/4 RIS

Remarks

Status ML Status ML Status ML Status ML

1110000 6.05 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

1110450 0.10 Closed 1 RC 1 RC 1 RC 1

2000011 2.10 Open 2 AD - AD - RC 1 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2000013 0.13 Open 2 RO 2 AD - RC 1

Road to remain open for resource 

administration. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2000017 0.75 Open 2 AD - AD - RC 1 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2000224 0.35 Open 2 RO 2 AD - AC 1

Road to remain open for resource 

administration. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2000600 0.12 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 AC 1 Road to remain open for resource 

administration.

2000610 1.80 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RC 1 Road to remain open for resource 

administration.

2000615 0.23 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 DR - Road to remain open for access to 

summer homes

2000632 0.78 Closed 1 AD - AD - RC 1 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2000636 0.42 Closed 1 AD - AD - RC 1 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2000641 0.11 Closed 1 AD - AD - RC 1 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2000643 0.37 Closed 1 AD - AD - RC 1 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2022000 15.56 Open 3 RO 3 RO 3 RO 3

2022107

0.20 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to MP 0.20.

1.59 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Analyze for closure 1.59 miles with a 

gate after use at MP 0.20.

2024145 3.82 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2025000 3.78 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2025500 1.48 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2025506 5.49 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2025507 0.69 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025510 4.33 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 281

Road Miles

Current Alternative 2 Alternative 3/4 RIS

Remarks

Status ML Status ML Status ML Status ML

2025513 0.20 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025516 0.11 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025517 0.41 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2025518 0.12 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2025523 0.17 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025580 1.94 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025582 0.69 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025584 0.08 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025585 0.21 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2025590 1.01 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2026220 3.39 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027000 17.06 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027530 0.59 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027537 0.30 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AD -

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection but to remain on 

system for resource administration.

2027539 0.11 Open 2 AD - AD - AD - Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2027541 0.09 Open 2 AD - AD - AD - Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2027543 0.06 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AD -

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection but need access for 

helicopter landing.

2027545 0.63 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027547 0.15 Open 2 AC 1 AD - AD -

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2027705 2.11 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 AC 2 Road to remain open for resource 

administration.

2027707 0.59 Open 2 RO 2 AD - AD -

Road to remain open for resource 

administration. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2027709 0.21 Open 2 RO 2 AD - AD -

Road to remain open for resource 

administration. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2027711 0.24 Open 2 AC 1 AD - RO 2

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2027713 0.44 Open 2 AC 1 AD - AD -

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2027714 0.21 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027715 0.31 Open 2 AD - AD - AD - Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2027716 0.13 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027720 5.76 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

282 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Road Miles

Current Alternative 2 Alternative 3/4 RIS

Remarks

Status ML Status ML Status ML Status ML

2027730

1.92 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to MP 1.92.

0.45 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Analyze for closure 0.45 miles with a 

berm/gate after use at MP 1.92.

2027732

1.58 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to MP 1.58.

1.61 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Analyze for closure 1.61 miles with a 

berm/gate after use at MP 1.58.

2027750 0.70 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027755 6.38 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027758 1.34 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027760 1.25 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027765 0.30 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027769 0.31 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027775 1.04 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027801

0.30 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AD - Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection to MP 0.30 after use.

0.40 Open 2 AD - AD - AD - Decommission 0.40 miles after MP 0.30 

after use.

2027803 0.47 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AD -

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection but to remain on 

system for resource administration.

2027805 1.44 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027807 0.32 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 AC 1 Road to remain open for resource 

administration.

2027810 1.13 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road would be used then to be closed 

with berm/gate for resource protection.

2027812 0.46 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road would be used then to be closed 

with berm/gate for resource protection.

2027813 0.66 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road would be used then to be closed 

with berm/gate for resource protection.

2027815 0.43 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027816 0.42 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027817 0.35 Open 2 RO 2 AD - AD -

Road to remain open for resource 

administration. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2027820 0.62 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2027825 1.06 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027830 0.17 Open 2 AD - AD - RO 2 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2027840 1.56 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2027850

1.60 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to MP 1.60.

0.75 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Analyze for closure with berm/gate 0.75 

miles after MP 1.60.

2027856 0.74 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road would be used then to be closed 

with berm/gate for resource protection.

2027857

1.10 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to MP 1.10.

0.85 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Analyze for closure with berm/gate for 

0.85 miles after MP 1.10.

2027859 0.37 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032000 14.81 Open 3 RO 3 RO 3 RO 3
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 283

Road Miles

Current Alternative 2 Alternative 3/4 RIS

Remarks

Status ML Status ML Status ML Status ML

2032308 0.10 Open 2 AD - AD - RC 1 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.

2032315 0.78 Open 2 RO 2 AD - RC 1

Road to remain open for resource 

administration. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2032317 0.52 Open 2 RO 2 AD - RO 2

Road to remain open for resource 

administration. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2032318 0.53 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032319 0.14 Open 2 RC 1 RC 1 RC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032320 0.48 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032325

0.04 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to trailhead at MP 

0.04.

0.44 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Analyze for closure 0.44 miles with 

berm/gate after trailhead at MP 0.04.

2032328 0.17 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032345 2.07 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032349 1.49 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032350 1.9 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 DR - Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032360 0.92 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to for hydropower 

access.

2032362 0.63 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032365 1.86 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032372 0.21 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032401 0.16 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032403 0.52 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032405 0.57 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032407 0.10 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032410

0.48 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to MP 0.48 

0.28 Open 2 RO 2 AD - RO 2

Road to remain open after 0.28 miles 

after MP 0.48 (Alt 2). Decomission and 

taken off system 0.28 miles after MP 

0.48 (Alt 3 & 4).

2032417 3.20 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 DR -

2032418

0.42 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2 Road to remain open to MP 0.42. 

Access needed for cell phone tower.

1.29 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2

Analyze for closure with a gate after use 

for 1.29 miles after to MP 0.42. Access 

needed for cell phone tower.

2032419

0.56 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 AC 1 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection to MP 0.56 after use.

0.10 Open 2 AD - AD - AC 1 Decommission and take of system 0.10 

miles after MP 0.56 after use.

2032420 0.84 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032421 0.39 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2

2032422 0.51 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 DR - Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032423 0.11 Open 2 AD - AD - RO 2 Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system.
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

284 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Road Miles

Current Alternative 2 Alternative 3/4 RIS

Remarks

Status ML Status ML Status ML Status ML

2032424 0.38 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032426 0.26 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032427 0.17 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032428 1.12 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032429 0.77 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 DR - Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection.

2032430 0.29 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032431 0.45 Open 2 RO 2 RO 2 RO 2

2032444 0.33 Open 2 AC 1 AC 1 RO 2 Road would be used then to be closed 

with berm/gate for resource protection.

2032452 0.10 Open 2 AC 1 AD - AC 1

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

2032456 0.11 Open 2 AC 1 AD 1 AC 1

Road to be closed with berm/gate for 

resource protection. (Alt 2)

Road would be decommissioned and 

taken off the system. (Alt 3 & 4)

Trout Creek Haul Roads and Anticipated Road Work Activities

Road

Haul Mileage RCT MTC

Cost 

per 

Mile

Estimated Total $ ($ with wet weather 

haul if permitted) Remarks1

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

2022000 1.34 1.34 1.34 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $26,800

($71,242)

$26,800

($71,242)

$26,800

($71,242)

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation.

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Culvert 

replacements and new culverts. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2022107 1.79 1.79 1.79 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $35,800

($95,167)

$35,800

($95,167)

$35,800

($95,167)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Multiple culvert 

replacements and waterbar 

removal. Expand waste area 50’. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2027000 12.18 12.18 12.18 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $243,600

($647,558)

$243,600

($647,558)

$243,600

($647,558)

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

and fill repairs. Culvert 

replacements. Additional 4” of 

surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2027537 0.30 - 0.30 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $3,000

($12,950) - $3,000($12,950)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2027720 4.30 4.30 4.30 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $64,500 $64,500 $64,500

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Fill repairs. 

No wet weather haul.
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 285

Road

Haul Mileage RCT MTC

Cost 

per 

Mile

Estimated Total $ ($ with wet weather 

haul if permitted) Remarks1

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

2027730 2.37 2.37 2.37 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $47,400 $47,400 $47,400

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

and fill repairs. Culvert 

replacements. No wet weather 

haul.

2027732 2.60 2.60 2.60 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

No wet weather haul.

2027755 2.50 2.50 2.50 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $37,500 $37,500 $37,500

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

No wet weather haul.

2027760 1.25 1.25 1.25 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Fill repairs. 

No wet weather haul.

2027801 0.16 0.16 0.16 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $1,600

($6,907)

$1,600

($6,907)

$1,600

($6,907)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Culvert 

replacements and new culverts. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2027803 0.47 0.47 0.47 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $7,050

($22,638)

$7,050

($22,638)

$7,050

($22,638)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

and fill repairs. Culvert 

Replacements. Additional 4” of 

surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2027805 1.30 1.30 1.30 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $19,500

($62,615)

$19,500

($62,615)

$19,500

($62,615)

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert Replacements. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2027810 0.43 0.43 0.43 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $4,300

($18,561)

$4,300

($18,561)

$4,300

($18,561)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Culvert 

replacements. Additional 4” of 

surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2027812 0.29 0.29 0.29 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $2,900

($12,518)

$2,900

($12,518)

$2,900

($12,518)

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Culvert 

replacements. Additional 4” of 

surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2027813 0.66 0.66 0.66 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $6,600

($28,489)

$6,600

($28,489)

$6,600

($28,489)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Culvert 

replacements. Additional 4” of 

surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2027825 1.06 1.06 1.06 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $15,900

($51,056)

$15,900

($51,056)

$15,900

($51,056)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Fill repairs. 

Culvert replacements. Rock pit 

development at MP 0.50. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

286 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Road

Haul Mileage RCT MTC

Cost 

per 

Mile

Estimated Total $ ($ with wet weather 

haul if permitted) Remarks1

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

2027840 1.49 - 1.49 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $14,900

($64,317) - $14,900($64,317)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Fill repairs. 

Culvert replacements. Additional 

4” of surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2027850 2.35 2.35 2.35 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $47,000

($124,939)

$47,000

($124,939)

$47,000

($124,939)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

No wet weather haul.

2027856 0.64 0.64 0.64 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $6,400

($27,939)

$6,400

($27,939)

$6,400

($27,939)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

No wet weather haul.

2027857 1.95 1.95 1.95 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $29,250

($93,923)

$29,250

($93,923)

$29,250

($93,923)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

No wet weather haul.

2032000 3.32 3.32 3.32 ☒ ☒ $15,000 $49,800

($159,910)

$49,800

($159,910)

$49,800

($159,910)

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2032417 1.55 1.55 1.55 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $31,000

($82,407)

$31,000

($82,407)

$31,000

($82,407)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2032418 1.71 1.71 1.71 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $17,100

($73,813)

$17,100

($73,813)

$17,100

($73,813)

Brushing. Road rehabilitation. 

Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Fill repairs. 

Culvert replacements. Additional 

4” of surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2032419 0.56 0.56 0.56 ☒ ☒ $20,000 $11,200

($29,773)

$11,200

($29,773)

$11,200

($29,773)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Deep patch 

repairs. Culvert replacements. 

Additional 4” of surface rock 

needed for wet weather haul.

2032421 0.39 0.39 0.39 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $3,900

($16,835)

$3,900

($16,835)

$3,900

($16,835)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Culvert 

replacements. Additional 4” of 

surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

2032444 0.33 0.33 0.33 ☒ ☒ $10,000 $3,300

($14,245)

$3,300

($14,245)

$3,300

($14,245)

Clearing & Grubbing. Road 

rehabilitation. Ditch rehabilitation. 

Surfacing/Spot Rock. Culvert 

replacements. Additional 4” of 

surface rock needed for wet 

weather haul.

TOTAL 47.29 45.50 47.29 $801,050

($1,717,150)

$783,150

($1,622,321)

$801,050

($1,717,488)

1 Actual specific type of work or location may change prior to the sale of the Timber Contract. Anticipated work activities are only estimated.
Appendix D – Road Treatment Proposals

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 287

Rock Pits

Rock Pit Location Proposal

Pits with proposed actions

11 Mile NFSR #2027000 MP 11.2 Expand already developed, active pit. Gap in unit 120 on top to provide for 

expansion. Production estimated at about 20,000 cubic yards.

Shank Pit (New) NFSR #2027825 MP 0.50

New pit development. About 1200 feet of length and the development would

move into the hill about two to three additional road widths for the first entry. 

Production estimated at about 40,000 cubic yards. Gap in unit 126 on top to 

provide for expansion.

Pits with no proposed action

Beaver Trail NFSR #2027711 MP 0.10 Closed. No Expansion or use.

Black Creek NFSR #2032000 MP 8.6 Private Source.

Bloody Point NFSR #2027825 MP 1.0 Active pit status but not good source for material. No expansion.

Bullion NFSR #2032000 MP 5.2 Active pit status but not good source for material. No expansion.

Canyon NFSR #2022000 MP 3.5 Private Source.

Canyon Creek NFSR #2022000 MP 4.9 Private Source.

Falls Creek NFSR #2032000 MP 4.7 Restored pit. Not good source for material. No expansion

Hensley Creek NFSR #2025000 MP 2.4 Closed. No Expansion.

Longbow NFSR #2000011 MP 0.79 Closed. No Expansion.

Moose Creek NFSR #2025000 MP 2.1 Closed. No Expansion.

Moose Head NFSR #2027000 MP 6.1 Closed. No Expansion.

Moose Mtn. NFSR #2027000 MP 2.6 Closed. No Expansion.

Powder NFSR #2027000 MP 3.0 Closed. No Expansion.

Soapcan NFSR #2032000 MP 7.7 Unknown status. No Expansion.

Vine Maple NFSR #2000011 MP 0.50 Closed. No Expansion.

Yukwah NFSR #2000011 MP 0.20 Closed. No Expansion.

Temporary Roads

Unit Open Temp Road (miles) New Temp Road (miles)

Alt. 2/4 Alt. 3 Alt. 2/4 Alt. 3

15 0.05 0.05

20 0.68 0.68 0.23 0.23

27 0.06

32 0.26 0.26

33 0.16 0.16 0.02

42 0.09 0.09

44 0.06

50 0.47 0.47 0.85 0.85

56 0.65

62 0.30 0.30 0.05

63 0.10 0.10

68 0.03

73 0.06 0.06

89 0.30

Total 2.33 2.03 1.99 1.31
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

288 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

Commercial Treatments

AR Aggregate retention harvest (i.e., early seral creation)

CC Canopy Cover after thinning

GAPS Gaps no larger than 1 acre in size

GB Ground-based yarding

MBF Thousand board feet

RRT Riparian reserve thinning (acres also included in total thinning acres in THIN column)

SKIPS Skips or areas not harvested

SKY Skyline yarding

THIN Intermediate thinning

TPA Trees per acre retained in aggregate retention opening

Alternative 2

Unit

Year 

of 

Origin

Unit 

Acres Harvest Prescription Acres

Logging System 

Acres Volume 

(MBF)

Retention 

Level

THIN RRT AR GAPS SKIPS GB SKY

Managed Stands

14 1963 42 22 7 10 0 10 0 32 667

THIN=50% CC

AR=30% of 

unit area + 9 

TPA

15 1958 54 35.5 10 6 2.5 10 0 44 742

THIN=50% CC

AR=15% of 

unit area + 9 

TPA

20 1958, 

1983 130 27 4 36 0 67 31 32 1,558

THIN=50% CC 

(10 acres) & 

30% CC 

(17 acres)

AR=50% of 

unit area + 10 

TPA

28 1985 9 6 3 0 0 3 6 0 60 50% CC

29 1984 25 20 7 0 0 5 20 0 170 50% CC

30 1984 26 19 7 0 0 7 19 0 162 50% CC

31 1984 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 68 50% CC

32 1968 27 24 1 0 2 1 10 16 394 50% CC

33 1968 35 28.5 9 0 2.5 4 5 26 294 50% CC

34 1957 25 19 7 0 0 6 8 11 285 50% CC

41 1965 34 21 0 0 0 13 0 21 408 50% CC

42 1985 11 10 <1 0 0 1 10 0 80 50% CC

50 1965 168 90 0 0 0 78 17 73 754 40 to 50% CC

57 1981 23 11 0 0 0 12 9 2 28 50% CC

58 1981 36 29.5 9 0 2.5 4 0 32 321 50% CC

59 1982 21 12 4 0 0 9 3 9 102 50% CC

60 1983 41 24 0 0 0 17 18 6 240 30% CC

61 1983 33 25 0 0 0 8 25 0 250 30% CC
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 289

Unit

Year 

of 

Origin

Unit 

Acres Harvest Prescription Acres

Logging System 

Acres Volume 

(MBF)

Retention 

Level

THIN RRT AR GAPS SKIPS GB SKY

62 1964 40 29 11 0 4 7 0 33 130 50% CC

63 1964 51 30 13 0 10 11 25 11 579 50% CC

68 1985 7 7 1 0 0 <1 0 7 70 50% CC

72 1965 14 8 5 0 0 6 8 0 304 50% CC

73 1963 65 23 5 0 0 42 0 23 295 50% CC

87 1985 6 2 1 0 0 4 2 0 20 50% CC

100 1965 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 102 30% CC

170 1952, 

1975 34 18 0 0 0 16 18 0 249 30% CC

200 1976 49 26.5 5 0 2.5 20 0 29 347 50% CC

Subtotal 1,016 576 109 52 26 362 239 411 8,679 

Fire-Origin Stands

27 1890 22 12 0 0 1 9 2 11 50 50% CC

44 1898 89 64 0 0 8 17 12 60 1,008 50% CC

56 1890 112 0 0 47 0 65 26 21 1,058 50% of unit 

area + 15 TPA

67 1883 9 0 0 2 0 7 0 2 70

70% of unit 

area + oak 

trees

89 1890 36 32 0 0 0 4 0 32 864 30% CC

120 1895 23 19 0 0 0 4 19 0 561 30% CC

140 1890 30 20 0 0 0 10 20 0 400 30% CC

170 1880 15 5 0 0 0 10 5 0 95 30% CC

190 1900 6 5 0 0 0 1 5 0 33 50% CC

Subtotal 342 157 - 49 9 127 89 126 4,139 

Total 1,358 733 109 101 35 489 328 537 12,818 

Alternative 3

Unit

Year 

of 

Origin

Unit 

Acres

Harvest Prescription Acres Logging System Acres Volume 

(MBF)

Retention 

Level

THIN RRT AR GAPS SKIPS GB SKY

Managed Stands

14 1963 42 34 9 0 1 7 0 35 628 40 to 50% CC

15 1958 54 39.5 10 0 3.5 11 0 43 648 40 to 50% CC

20 1958, 

1983 130 76 4 0 5 49 31 50 1,280

40-50% CC 

(59 acres) & 

30% CC 

(17 acres)

28 1985 9 6 3 0 0 3 6 0 60 50% CC

29 1984 25 20 7 0 0 5 20 0 170 50% CC

30 1984 26 19 7 0 0 7 19 0 162 50% CC

31 1984 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 68 50% CC

32 1968 27 22 1 0 4 1 10 16 424 50% CC

33 1968 35 26 9 0 5 4 5 26 355 50% CC

34 1957 25 19 7 0 0 6 8 11 285 50% CC

41 1965 34 21 0 0 0 13 0 21 408 50% CC

42 1985 11 10 <1 0 0 1 10 0 80 50% CC
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

290 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit

Year 

of 

Origin

Unit 

Acres

Harvest Prescription Acres Logging System Acres Volume 

(MBF)

Retention 

Level

THIN RRT AR GAPS SKIPS GB SKY

50 1965 168 90 0 0 0 78 17 73 754 40 to 50% CC

57 1981 23 11 0 0 0 12 9 2 28 50% CC

58 1981 36 27 9 0 5 4 0 32 369 50% CC

59 1982 21 12 4 0 0 9 3 9 102 50% CC

60 1983 41 24 0 0 0 17 18 6 240 50% CC

61 1983 33 25 0 0 0 8 25 0 250 50% CC

62 1964 40 29 11 0 4 7 0 33 130 50% CC

63 1964 51 30 13 0 10 11 25 11 579 50% CC

68 1985 7 7 1 0 0 <1 0 7 70 50% CC

72 1965 14 8 5 0 0 6 8 0 304 50% CC

73 1963 65 20 3 0 1 44 0 21 285 50% CC

87 1985 6 2 1 0 0 4 2 0 20 50% CC

100 1965 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 102 30% CC

170 1952, 

1975 34 18 0 0 0 16 18 0 249 30% CC

200 1976 49 24.5 5 0 4.5 20 0 29 388 50% CC

Total 1,016 629 109 - 43 344 239 429 8,438 

Alternative 4

Unit

Year 

of 

Origin

Unit 

Acres

Harvest Prescription Acres Logging System Acres Volume 

(MBF)

Retention 

Level

THIN RRT AR GAPS SKIPS GB SKY

Managed Stands

14 1963 42 22 7 10 0 10 0 32 667

THIN=50% CC

AR=30% of 

unit area + 9 

TPA

15 1958 54 30 10 6 8 10 0 44 852

THIN=50% CC

AR=15% of 

unit area + 9 

TPA

20 1958, 

1983 130 27 4 36 0 67 31 32 1558

THIN=50% CC 

(10 acres) & 

30% CC (17 

acres)

AR=50% of 

unit area + 10 

TPA

28 1985 9 6 3 0 0 3 6 0 60 50% CC

29 1984 25 20 7 0 0 5 20 0 170 50% CC

30 1984 26 19 7 0 0 7 19 0 162 50% CC

31 1984 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 68 50% CC

32 1968 27 22 1 0 4 1 10 16 424 50% CC

33 1968 35 26 9 0 5 4 5 26 355 50% CC

34 1957 25 19 7 0 0 6 8 11 285 50% CC

41 1965 34 21 0 0 0 13 0 21 408 50% CC
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 291

Unit

Year 

of 

Origin

Unit 

Acres

Harvest Prescription Acres Logging System Acres Volume 

(MBF)

Retention 

Level

THIN RRT AR GAPS SKIPS GB SKY

42 1985 11 10 <1 0 0 1 10 0 80 50% CC

50 1965 168 90 0 0 0 78 17 73 754 40 to 50% CC

57 1981 23 11 0 0 0 12 9 2 28 50% CC

58 1981 36 27 9 0 5 4 0 32 369 50% CC

59 1982 21 12 4 0 0 9 3 9 102 50% CC

60 1983 41 24 0 0 0 17 18 6 240 30% CC

61 1983 33 25 0 0 0 8 25 0 250 30% CC

62 1964 40 29 11 0 4 7 0 33 130 50% CC

63 1964 51 30 13 0 10 11 25 11 579 50% CC

68 1985 7 7 1 0 0 <1 0 7 70 50% CC

72 1965 14 8 5 0 0 6 8 0 304 50% CC

73 1963 65 23 5 0 0 42 0 23 274 50% CC

87 1985 6 2 1 0 0 4 2 0 20 50% CC

100 1965 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 102 30% CC

170 1952, 

1975 34 18 0 0 0 16 18 0 249 30% CC

200 1976 49 24.5 5 0 4.5 20 0 29 388 50% CC

Subtotal 1,016 562 109 52 41 362 239 411 8,948 

Fire-Origin Stands

27 1890 22 11 0 0 2 9 2 11 67 50% CC

44 1898 89 59 0 0 13 17 12 60 1210 50% CC

56 1890 112 0 0 47 0 65 26 21 3572 50% of unit 

area + 4 TPA

67 1883 9 0 0 2 0 7 0 2 70

70% of unit 

area + oak 

trees

89 1890 36 32 0 0 0 4 0 32 864 30% CC

120 1895 23 19 0 0 0 4 19 0 561 30% CC

140 1890 30 20 0 0 0 10 20 0 400 30% CC

170 1880 15 5 0 0 0 10 5 0 95 30% CC

190 1900 6 5 0 0 0 1 5 0 33 50% CC

Subtotal 342 151 - 49 15 127 89 126 6,872 

Total 1,358 713 109 101 56 489 328 537 15,820 

Non-Commercial and Fuel Treatments

GP Post-harvest grapple pile and burn

UB Post-harvest underburn

RR Treatment acres include Riparian Reserve acres

Alternative 2

Unit Unit 

Acres

Fuel Treatment Acres Non-Commercial Treatments

GP UB Description RR Acres

Managed Stands

14 42 0 10 Plant huckleberries in aggregate retention area. No 10

15 54 0 16 Underburn a portion of the thinning area to create 

snags.

No 10
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

292 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit Unit 

Acres

Fuel Treatment Acres Non-Commercial Treatments

GP UB Description RR Acres

20 130 0 63 Restore dry meadow area. Cut and pile submerchantable conifers, burn piles and meadow. No 2

28 9 6 0 None No 0

29 25 20 0 None No 0

30 26 0 19 Thin maple sprouts to favor dominant maple stems. 

Possibly allow firewood collection of cut stems. Yes 3

31 5 0 5 None No 0

32 27 10 0 None No 0

33 35 0 31

Fall and leave thinning in alder patch in Riparian 

Reserves, underplant to western redcedar and bigleaf 

maple to promote long-lived tree species for stream 

shading.

Yes 1

34 25 8 0 Fall and leave (staying above 70% canopy cover) in 

Riparian Reserves to promote stream structure. Yes 5

41 34 0 0 None No 0

42 11 10 0 None No 0

50 168 0 0 None No 0

57 23 9 0 None No 0

58 36 0 0 None No 0

59 21 3 0 Fall and leave thinning in area below cliff band that is 

not feasible to log. No 3

60 41 0 24 None No 0

61 33 0 25 None No 0

62 40 0 0 None No 0

63 51 0 36 Create snags in snag creation gaps. No 4

68 7 0 0 None No 0

72 14 8 0 Plant hazel. Yes 8

73 65 0 0 None No 0

87 6 2 0

Fall and leave thinning in area cut off by wetland from 

logging operations. Underplant alder area with Oregon 

ash and western redcedar to promote long-lived 

species.

Yes 2

100 5 0 0 Cut back existing huckleberry to encourage new 

sprouts; plant more huckleberry if needed. No 4

170 34 18 0

Pre-commercial thin by clearing 14 feet around existing 

hardwood stems. 35-foot no-cut buffer on perennial 

streams. No buffer on intermittent streams.

Yes 7

200 49 0 0 None No 0

Subtotal 1,016 94 229 59

Fire-Origin Stands

27 22 2 0 None No 0

43 35 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade 

tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 35

44 89 12 0 None No 0

55 153 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade 

tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 59

56 112 0 47 None No 0

66 53 0 0 Underplant incense cedar (shade tolerant species) for 

diversity. No 53

67 9 0 2 Fall and leave to release existing oak trees from conifer 

competition (55 trees in Riparian Reserves). Yes 1

74 53 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade 

tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 53

89 36 0 0 None No 0

92 103 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade 

tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 103
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 293

Unit Unit 

Acres

Fuel Treatment Acres Non-Commercial Treatments

GP UB Description RR Acres

95 2 0 0

Snag creation and/or fall and leave to release existing 

oak and madrone trees from conifer competition (5

trees in Riparian Reserves).

Yes 2

120 23 19 0 None No 0

140 30 20 0 None No 0

170 15 5 0 None No 0

190 6 5 0 Planting Tall bugbane restoration. No 5

Subtotal 741 63 49 311

Total 1,757 157 278 370

Alternative 3

Unit Unit 

Acres

Fuel Treatment Acres Non-Commercial Treatments

GP UB Description RR Acres

Managed Stands

14 42 0 0 Plant huckleberries in gap. No 1

15 54 0 10 Underburn a portion of the thinning area to create 

snags.

No 10

20 130 0 2 Restore dry meadow area. Cut and pile submerchantable conifers, burn piles and meadow. No 2

28 9 6 0 None No 0

29 25 20 0 None No 0

30 26 0 19 Thin maple sprouts to favor dominant maple stems. 

Possibly allow firewood collection of cut stems. Yes 3

31 5 0 5 None No 0

32 27 10 0 None No 0

33 35 0 31

Fall and leave thinning in alder patch in Riparian 

Reserves, underplant to western redcedar and bigleaf 

maple to promote long-lived tree species for stream 

shading.

Yes 1

34 25 8 0 Fall and leave (staying above 70% canopy cover) in 

Riparian Reserves to promote stream structure. Yes 5

41 34 0 0 None No 0

42 11 10 0 None No 0

50 168 0 0 None No 0

57 23 9 0 None No 0

58 36 0 0 None No 0

59 21 3 0 Fall and leave thinning in area below cliff band that is 

not feasible to log. No 3

60 41 0 24 None No 0

61 33 0 25 None No 0

62 40 0 0 None No 0

63 51 0 36 Create snags in snag creation gaps. No 4

68 7 0 0 None No 0

72 14 8 0 Plant hazel. Yes 8

73 65 0 0 None. No 0

87 6 2 0

Fall and leave thinning in area cut off by wetland from 

logging operations. Underplant alder area with Oregon 

ash and western redcedar to promote long-lived 

species.

Yes 2

100 5 0 0 Cut back existing huckleberry to encourage new 

sprouts; plant more huckleberry if needed. No 4

170 34 18 0

Pre-commercial thin by clearing 14 feet around existing 

hardwood stems. 35-foot no-cut buffer on perennial 

streams. No buffer on intermittent streams. 

Yes 7

200 49 0 0 None No 0
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

294 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Unit Unit 

Acres

Fuel Treatment Acres Non-Commercial Treatments

GP UB Description RR Acres

Total 1016 94 162 51

Alternative 4

Unit Unit 

Acres

Fuel Treatment Acres Non-Commercial Treatments

GP UB Description RR Acres

Managed Stands

14 42 0 10 Plant huckleberries in aggregate retention area. No 10

15 54 0 16 Underburn a portion of the thinning area to create 

snags.

No 10

20 130 0 63 Restore dry meadow area. Cut and pile submerchantable conifers, burn piles and meadow. No 2

28 9 6 0 None No 0

29 25 20 0 None No 0

30 26 0 19 Thin maple sprouts to favor dominant maple stems. 

Possibly allow firewood collection of cut stems. Yes 3

31 5 0 5 None No 0

32 27 10 0 None No 0

33 35 0 31

Fall and leave thinning in alder patch in Riparian 

Reserves, underplant to western redcedar and bigleaf 

maple to promote long-lived tree species for stream 

shading.

Yes 1

34 25 8 0 Fall and leave (staying above 70% canopy cover) in 

Riparian Reserves to promote stream structure. Yes 5

41 34 0 0 None No 0

42 11 10 0 None No 0

50 168 0 0 None No 0

57 23 9 0 None No 0

58 36 0 0 None No 0

59 21 3 0 Fall and leave thinning in area below cliff band that is 

not feasible to log. No 3

60 41 0 24 None No 0

61 33 0 25 None No 0

62 40 0 0 None No 0

63 51 0 36 Create snags in snag creation gaps. No 4

68 7 0 0 None No 0

72 14 8 0 Plant hazel. Yes 8

73 65 0 0 None No 0

87 6 2 0

Fall and leave thinning in area cut off by wetland from 

logging operations. Underplant alder area with Oregon 

ash and western redcedar to promote long-lived 

species.

Yes 2

100 5 0 0 Cut back existing huckleberry to encourage new 

sprouts; plant more huckleberry if needed. No 4

170 34 18 0

Pre-commercial thin by clearing 14 feet around existing 

hardwood stems. 35-foot no-cut buffer on perennial 

streams. No buffer on intermittent streams. 

Yes 7

200 49 0 0 None No 0

Subtotal 1,016 94 229 

59 

Fire-Origin Stands

27 22 2 0 None No 0

43 35 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade 

tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 35

44 89 12 0 None No 0
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 295

Unit Unit 

Acres

Fuel Treatment Acres Non-Commercial Treatments

GP UB Description RR Acres

55 153 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade 

tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 59

56 112 0 47 None No 0

66 53 0 0 Underplant incense cedar (shade tolerant species) for 

diversity. No 53

67 9 0 2 Fall and leave to release existing oak trees from conifer 

competition (55 trees in Riparian Reserves). Yes 1

74 53 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade 

tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 53

89 36 0 0 None No 0

92 

103 0 0 Underplant western redcedar and incense cedar (shade tolerant species) for diversity. Yes 103 

95 2 0 0

Snag creation and/or fall and leave to release existing 

oak and madrone trees from conifer competition (5 

trees in Riparian Reserves).

Yes 2

120 23 19 0 None No 0

140 30 20 0 None No 0

170 15 5 0 None No 0

190 6 5 0 Planting Tall bugbane restoration. No 5

Subtotal 741 63 49 311

Total 1,757 157 278 370 
References

296 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

References

Chapters 1 and 2

Betts, M.G., Hagar, J.C., Rivers, J.W., Alexander, J.D., McGarigal, K., McComb, B.C. (2010). Thresholds in 

forest bird occurrence as a function of the amount of early-seral broadleaf forest at landscape 

scales. Ecological Applications, 20(8), 2116-2130.

Cissel, John H. et.al. 1998. A Landscape Plan Based on Historical Fire Regimes for a Managed Forest 

Ecosystem: the Augusta Creek Study. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

PNW-GTR-422.

DeBell, D.S., R.O. Curtis, C.A. Harrington, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Shaping stand development 

through silvicultural practices. P. 141-149 in creating a Forestry for the 21st century: Science of 

ecosystem management. Kohm, K.A., and J.F. Franklin (eds.), Island Press, Washington, DC.

Ellis, T. M., & Betts, M. G. (2011). Bird abundance and diversity across a hardwood gradient within early 

seral plantation forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(8), 1372-1381.

Eskelson, B. N., Temesgen, H., & Barrett, T. M. (2009). Estimating cavity tree and snag abundance using 

negative binomial regression models and nearest neighbor imputation methods. Canadian 

journal of forest research, 39(9), 1749-1765.

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994. Record of decision for amendments to 

Forest Service and BLM planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl and 

Standards and Guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest 

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 

Forest Service. 1990. Final environmental impact statement for Land and Resource Management Plan: 

Willamette National Forest. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. N.p.

Hagar, J.C., 2007. Wildlife species associated with non-coniferous vegetation in the Pacific Northwest 

coinfer forests – A review: Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 108-122

Hayes, J.P., S.S. Chen, W.H. Emmingham, J.C. Tappeiner, L.D. Kellog, and J.D. Bailey. 1997 Wildlife 

responses to thinning young forest in the Pacific Northwest. J. For. 95(8):28-32

LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Models. (2007). [Homepage of the LANDFIRE Project, U.S.D.A. 

Forest Service; U.S.D.I], [Online]. Available: 

(http://www.landfire.gov/national_veg_models_op2.php) [3 February 2016].

Muir, P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner, J.D. Bailey, W.E. Elliot, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, E.B. Peterson, 

and E.E. Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forest of western 

Oregon. US Geol. Survey, Biol. Resource. Div., Biological Sci. Rept. USGS/BRD/BSR-20020006. 

Corvallis, OR. 76 pages.

Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.

Oliver, C. D., Larson B.D. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
References

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 297

Swanson, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Beschta, R. L., Crisafulli, C. M., DellaSala, D. A., Hutto, R. L., & Swanson, F. 

J. (2011). The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(2), 117-125.

Tepley, Alan, et.al. 2013. Fire-mediated pathways of stand development in Douglas-fir/western 

hemlock forests of the Pacific Northwest. USA Ecology, 94(8), 2013, pp. 1729–1743.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final environmental impact statement for Land and Resource Management 

Plan: Willamette National Forest. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Record of decision for amendments 

to Forest Service and BLM Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 

and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional And Old-Growth 

Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 6, Portland, 

Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental 

impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Federal Register. 66:751. January 4, 

2001.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Memo signed by all of the 

Northwest Forest Plan agency executives.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards 

and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other 

mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

Forest Stand and Structure

Bailey, J.D. & Tappeiner, J.C. (1998). Effects of thinning on structural development in 40- to 100-year-old 

Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management, 108, 99-113.

Betts, M.G., Hagar, J.C., Rivers, J.W., Alexander, J.D., McGarigal, K., & McComb, B.C. (2010). Thresholds 

in forest bird occurrence as a function of the amount of early-seral broadleaf forest at landscape 

scales. Ecological Applications, 20(8), 2116-2130.

Bunnell, F.L., Kremsater, L.L., & Wind, E. (1999). Managing to sustain vertebrate richness in forests of the 

Pacific Northwest: relationships within stands. Environ. Rev., 7, 97-146.

Chan, S.S., Larson, D.J., Maas-Hebner, K.G., Emmingham, W.H., Johnston, S.R., & Mikowski, D.A. (2006). 

Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range 

Douglas-fir stands. Can. J. For. Res., 36, 2696-2711.

Chmura, D.J., Anderson, P.D., Howe, G.T., Harrington, C.A., Halofsky, J.E., Peterson, D.L., Shaw, D.C., St. 

Clair, J.B. (2011). Forest responses to climate change in the northwestern United States: 

ecophysiological foundations for adaptive management. Forest Ecology and Management, 261,

1121-1142.
References

298 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Cissel, J.H., Swanson, F.J., Grant, G.E., Olson, D.H., Gregory, S.V., Garman, S.L., Ashkenas, L.R., Hunter, 

M.G., Kertis, J.A., Mayo, J.H., McSwain, M.D., Swetland, S.G., Swindle, K.A., & Wallin, D.O. 

(1998). A landscape plan based on historical fire regimes for a managed forest ecosystem: the 

Augusta Creek study (Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-422). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Devine, W., Aubry, C., Bower, A., Miller, J., & Maggiulli Ahr, N. (2012). Climate change and forest trees in 

the Pacific Northwest: a vulnerability assessment and recommended actions for national forests. 

Olympia, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Fahey, R.T. & Puettmann, K.J. (2008). Patterns in spatial extent of gap influence on understory plant 

communities. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 2801-2810. 

Hagar, J.C. (2007). Wildlife species associated with non-coniferous vegetation in Pacific Northwest 

conifer forest: a review. Forest Ecology and Management, 246, 108-122.

Kolb, T.E., Fettig, C.J., Ayres, M.P., Bentz, B.J., Hicke, J.A., Mathiasen, R., Stewart, J.E., & Weed, A.S. 

(2016). Observed and anticipated impacts of drought on forest insects and diseases in the 

United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 380, 321-334.

LANDFIRE. (2007). LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Models [Homepage of the LANDFIRE Project, U.S.D.A. 

Forest Service; U.S.D.I], [Online]. Available from: 

(http://www.landfire.gov/national_veg_models_op2.php)

LANDFIRE 2009. Adapting LANDFIRE Vegetation Dynamics Models. Manual V. 1 – August 2009. 

LANDFIRE, The Nature Conservancy.

Latham, P. & Tappeiner, J. (2002). Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in stand density in 

western Oregon forests. Tree Physiology, 22, 137-146.

Long, J.N. (1985, February). A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle, 23-27.

Luce, C.H. & Holden, Z.A. (2009). Declining annual streamflow distributions in the Pacific Northwest 

United States, 1948-2006. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, 1-6.

Morrison, P.H. & Swanson, F.J. (1990). Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape (Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-254). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.

Muir, P.S., Mattingly, R.L., Tappeiner II, J.C., Bailey, J.D., Elliott, W.E., Hagar, J.C., Miller, J.C., Peterson, 

E.B., & Starkey, E.E. (2002). Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western 

Oregon (Bio. Sci. Rep. USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006). Corvallis, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Center.

Pilz, D., Molina, R., & Mayo, J. (2006). Effects of thinning young forests on chanterelle mushroom 

production. Journal of Forestry, 104(1), 9-14.

Restaino, C.M., Peterson, D.L., & Littell, J. (2016). Increased water deficit decreases Douglas fir growth 

throughout western US forests. PNAS, 113, 9557-9562.

Rivers, J.W. (2014, November). Songbird demographics in early seral habitats. In Wildlife in Managed 

Forests: Early Seral Habitat, Songbirds and Managed Forests. Symposium conducted in Albany, 

OR. 
References

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 299

Swanson, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Beschta, R.L., Crisafulli, C.M., DellaSalla, D.A., Hutto, R.L., Lindenmayer, 

D.B., & Swanson, F.J. (2010). The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional 

ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 117-125.

Swanson, M.E., Studevant, N.M., Campbell, J.L., & Donato, D.C. (2014). Biological associates of earlyseral pre-forest in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management, 324, 160-171.

Takaoka, S. & Swanson, F.J. (2008). Change in extent of meadows and shrub fields in the central western 

Cascade Range, Oregon. The Professional Geographer, 60(4), 1-14. 

Tappeiner II, J.C., Maguire, D.A., Harrington, T.B., & Bailey, J.D. (2015). Silviculture and ecology of 

western U.S. forests (2nd ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Tepley, A.J., Swanson, F.J., & Spies, T.A. (2013). Fire-mediated pathways of stand development in 

Douglas-fir/western hemlock forest of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecology, 94(8), 1729-1743.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2002). Forest Vegetation Simulator (Version 2.06) [Software]. 

Fort Collins, Colorado: Forest Management Service Center.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2006). South Santiam Watershed Analysis Update. Sweet 

Home, Oregon: Willamette National Forest-Sweet Home Ranger District.

Van Pelt, R. & Sillett, S.C. (2008). Crown development of coastal Pseudotsuga menziesii, including a 

conceptual model for tall conifers. Ecological Monographs, 78(2), 283-311.

Vose, J.M., Clark, J.S., Luce, C.H., & Patel-Weynand, T. (2016). Effects of drought on forests and 

rangelands in the United States: a comprehensive science synthesis (Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-93b). 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 

Weisberg, P.J. (2004). Importance of non-stand replacing fire for development of forest structure in the 

Pacific Northwest, USA. Forest Science, 50(2), 245-258.

Weiskittel, A.R., Maguire, D.A., & Monserud, R.A. (2007). Response of branch growth and mortality to 

silvicultural treatments in coastal Douglas-fir plantations: implications for predicting tree 

growth. Forest Ecology and Management, 251, 182-194.

Williamson, R.L. (1982). Response to commercial thinning in a 110-year-old Douglas-fir stand (Res. Pap. 

PNW-296). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Soils

Legard, Harold A. and Meyer, LeRoy C., 1973: Willamette National Forest Soil Resource Inventory, Pacific 

Northwest Region, p. 167 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final environmental impact statement for Land and Resource Management 

Plan: Willamette National Forest. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest.

Walker, George W. and Duncan, Robert A., 1989, Geologic Map of the Salem 1 (degree) by 2 (degree) 

Quadrangle, Western Oregon: Miscellaneous Investigations Series, U. S. Geological Survey, 

1989G.
References

300 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Aquatics

Allan, J.D., M.S. Wipfli, J.P. Caouette, A. Prussian, and J. Rodgers. 2003. Influence of streamside 

vegetation on inputs of terrestrial invertebrates to salmonid food webs. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 60: 309-320.

Anderson, P. D., Larson, D. J., and Chan, S. S. (2007). Riparian buffer and density management influences 

on microclimate of young headwater forests of western Oregon. Forest Science, 53(2), 254-269.

Benda, L and P. Bigelow. 2014. On the patterns and processes of wood in northern California streams. 

Geomorphology, 209: 79-97. 

Bjornn, T., & Reiser, D. W. (1991). Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication, 19(837), 138.

Brown, G. W., and Krygier, J. T. (1970). Effects of clear-cutting on stream temperature. Water resources 

research, 6(4), 1133-1139.

DeWalle, D.R. 2010. Modeling stream shade: Riparian buffer height and density as important as buffer 

width. J. Am. Water Res. Association 46(2): 323-333.

Foltz, R.B, K. A. Yanosek, and T.M. Brown. 2007. Sediment concentration and turbidity changes during 

culvert removals. Journal of Environmental Management 87:329–340

Gatchell, L.O. 2010. Canyon Thin Aquatic Risk Roads Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Willamette National 

Forest, Sweet Home Ranger District.

Gomi, T., Moore, R. D., and Dhakal, A. S. (2006). Headwater stream temperature response to clear-cut 

harvesting with different riparian treatments, coastal British Columbia, Canada. Water 

Resources Research, 42(8). 

Gravelle, J.A., T.E. Link. 2007. Influence of Timber Harvesting on Headwater Peak Stream Temperatures 

in a Northern Idaho Watershed. Forest Science, 53(2): 189-205.

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An Ecosystem Perspective of 

Riparian Zones. BioScience, 41 (8): 540-551. 

Groom, J.D., Dent, L., Madsen, L.J., 2011a. Stream temperature change detection for state and private 

forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resour. Res. 47, W01501. 

doi:10.1029/2009WR009061.

Harrington, C. A., Roberts, S. D., and Brodie, L. C. (2005). Tree and understory responses to variabledensity thinning in western Washington. United States Department Of Agriculture Forest Service 

General Technical Report PNW, 635, 97. 

Janisch, J. E., Wondzell, S. M., and Ehinger, W. J. (2012). Headwater stream temperature: Interpreting 

response after logging, with and without riparian buffers, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 270, 302-313. 

Johnston, N. T., Bird, S. A., Hogan, D. L., and MacIsaac, E. A. (2011). Mechanisms and source distances 

for the input of large woody debris to forested streams in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research, 41(11), 2231-2246.

Johnson, S. L., & Jones, J. A. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in 

western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(S2), 30-39.
References

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 301

Lakel, W. A., Aust, W. M., Bolding, M. C., Dolloff, C. A., Keyser, P., and Feldt, R. (2010). Sediment trapping 

by streamside management zones of various widths after forest harvest and site preparation. 

Forest Science, 56(6), 541-551.

Leinenbach, P., McFadden, G., Torgersen, C. 2013. Effects of Riparian Management Strategies on Stream 

Temperature. Riparian Elevation.

Levno, A., Rothacher, J. (1967). Increases in maximum stream temperatures after logging in old-growth 

Douglas-fir watersheds. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, US Department 

of Agriculture. 

Luce, Charles H.; Rieman, Bruce E.; Dunham, Jason B.; Clayton, James L.; King, John G.; Black, Thomas 

A. 2001. Incorporating aquatic ecology into decisions on prioritization of road 

decommissioning. Water resources impact. 3(3): 8-14.

Luce CH. 2002. Hydrological processes and pathways affected by forest roads: What do we still need to 

learn? Hydrological Processes 16: 2901- 2904

Luce CH, Wemple BC. 2001. Introduction to the special issue on hydrologic and geomorphic effects of 

forest roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 111- 113.

Macdonald, J. S., MacIsaac, E. A., and Herunter, H. E. (2003). The effect of variable-retention riparian 

buffer zones on water temperatures in small headwater streams in sub-boreal forest 

ecosystems of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33(8), 1371-1382. 

Madej, MA, 2001. Erosion and Sedimanet Delivery Following Removal of Forest Roads. Earth Surf. 

Process. Landforms 26, 175-190

Mantua, N., Tohver, I. & Hamlet, A. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and 

summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon 

habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change 102 (1): pp 187-223 

McDade, M. H., Swanson, F. J., McKee, W. A., Franklin, J. F., and Sickle, J. V. (1990). Source distances for 

coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research, 20(3), 326-330.

Megahan WF, Kidd WJ. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion and sediment deposition 

from steep terrain. Journal of Forestry 7:136-141.

Meleason, M. A., Gregory, S. V., and Bolte, J. P. 2003. Implications of riparian management strategies on 

wood in streams of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications, 13(5), 1212-1221. 

Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation. Strategy Evaluation of the Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. May 25, 2012

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. Willamette Basin Total Maximum Daily Load, 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, Sept 29, 2006. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/willamette.htm#w

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2012/search.asp

Oregon Forest Practice Act. 1971. https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Working/Pages/FPA.aspx

Perry, T. D., & Jones, J. A. (2016). Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forest in the 

Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology.
References

302 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Poage, N.J. and J.C. Tappeiner. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of oldgrowth Douglas-fir trees in Western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 32: 1232-

1243. 

Pollock, M. M., Beechie, T. J., Chan, S. S., & Bigley, R. (2005). Monitoring restoration of riparian 

forests. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland, 67-96.

Pollock, M. M., T.J. Beechie, and H. Imaki. 2012. Using reference conditions in ecosystem restoration: an 

example for riparian conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. Ecosphere, 3(11),(98). 

Pollock, Michael M. and Timothy J. Beechie, 2014. Does Riparian Forest Restoration Thinning Enhance 

Biodiversity? The Ecological Importance of Large Wood. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association (JAWRA) 50(3): 543-559.

Rashin, E. B., Clishe, C. J., Loch, A. T., and Bell, J. M. (2006). Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for 

controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. October. 1307-1327.

Robison, E.G. and R.L. Beschta. 1990. Characteristics of coarse woody debris for several coastal streams 

of southeast Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 47: 1684-1693.

Romero, N., R. E. Gresswell, and J. Li. 2005. Changing patterns in coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki clarki) diet and prey in a gradient of deciduous canopies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, 62:1797-1807. 

Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR. 2002. A review of stream restoration 

techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest 

watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1- 20.

Rutherford, J.C., Marsh, J.C., Davies, P.M., and Bunn, S.E. 2004. Effects of patchy shade on stream water 

temperature: How quickly do small streams heat and cool? Mar. Freshw. Res. 55: 737–748. 

doi:10.1071/MF04120.

Spies, T., Pollock, M., Reeves, G., and Beechie, T. (2013). Effects of riparian thinning on wood 

recruitment: A scientific synthesis. Science Review Team Wood Recruitment Subgroup. 

Swanson, F.J., and Dyrness. 1975. Impact of clear-cutting and road construction on soil erosion by 

landslides in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology 3:393-396.

Tappeiner, J.C., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T.A. Spies, and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Density, ages, and growth 

rates in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 27(5):638-648.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Record of decision for amendments 

to Forest Service and BLM Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 

and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth 

Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 6, Portland, 

Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental 

impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final environmental impact statement for Land and Resource Management

Plan: Willamette National Forest. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.
References

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 303

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands. FS-990a. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 165 pp. 

Vose, James M.; Clark, James S.; Luce, Charles H.; Patel-Weynard, Toral, eds. 2016. Effects of drought on 

forests and rangelands in the United States: A comprehensive science synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

WO-93b. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 

289 p.

Wemple BC, Jones, JA, Grant GE. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, 

western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 1195- 1207

Wemple BC, Swanson, FJ, and Jones, JA. 2001. Forest Roads and Geomorphic Process Interactions, 

Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 26, 191-204

Wilkerson, E., Hagan, J.M., Siegel, D., and Whitman, A.A. 2006. The effectiveness of different buffer 

widths protecting headwater stream temperatures in Maine. For. Sci. 52: 221–231.

Wilzbach, M.A, B.C. Harvey, J.L. White, and R.J. Nakamoto. 2005. Effects of riparian canopy opening and 

salmon carcass addition on the abundance and growth of resident salmonids. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 58-67. 

Wondzell, S.M. 2006. Effect of morphology and discharge on hyporheic exchange flows in two small 

streams in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon, USA. Hydrological Processes. 20 (2): 267-287.

Wondzell, S.M. 2012. Hyporheic zones in mountain streams: physical processes and ecosystem 

functions. Stream Notes. January-April 2012

Zwieniecki, M., and Newton, M. 1999. Influence of streamside cover and stream features on 

temperature trends in forested streams of western Oregon. West. J. Appl. For. 14: 106–113.

Wildlife

Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O'Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of 

Oregon Wildlife (Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History), Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, Oregon.

Davis, R., D. McKorkle, and D. Ross. 2011. Survey protocol for Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly (Callophrys 

johnsoni) in Washington and Oregon (v.1.2). Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status 

Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. 

[accessed 6/3/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/faunainvertebrates.shtml]

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Multi-agency report, USDA Forest Service, 

Portland, Oregon. N.p.

Lacki, M. J., J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, Eds. 2007. Bats in forests: conservation and management. John 

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 329 p.

Marshall, D. B., M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general reference. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 768 p.
References

304 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Ormsbee, P. 2013. Region 6 Bat Center of Excellence Leader (retired), Willamette National Forest. 

Personal communication on July 19, 2013, to Joe Doerr, Forest Wildlife Biologist. Willamette 

National Forest, Springfield, Oregon.

Raley, C. M., E. C. Lofroth, R.L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, and J. M. Higley. 2012. Habitat ecology of fishers in 

western North America. Pages 231-254. In Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and 

fishers: a new synthesis. Aubry, K. B., W. J. Zielinski, M. G. Raphael, G. Proulx, and S. W. Buskirk. 

(eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 580 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014b. Proposed rule to list fisher as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. USFWS, Yreka, California. 94 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Draft species report: Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes 

necator). USFWS, Sacramento, California. 58 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 2016. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) database. Accessed in 2016.

U. S. Forest Service (USFS). 2000. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 54 

(revised). Region 2, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 9 p. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1986. Interim definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer 

forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. PNWS Research Note PNW-447. 7p.

Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

668 p.

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2009. Species fact sheet for California shield-backed bug. 

Unpublished Fact Sheet, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land 

Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml]

Botany

Amaranthus, M.P. and D.A. Perry. 1994. The functioning of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the field: linkages in 

space and time. Plant and Soil 159: 133-140.

Bruns, T.D., A.M. Kretzer, T.R.Horton, E. Stendell, M.I. Bidartondo, and T.M. Szaro. 2002. Current 

investigations of fungal ectomycorrhizal communities in the Sierra National Forest. USDA Forest 

Service GTR. PSW-GTR-183 pp 83-89.

Byrd, K.B., V.T. Parker, D.R. Vogler, and K.W. Cullings. 2000. The influence of clear-cutting on 

ectomycorrhizal fungus diversity in a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stand, Yellowstone 

National Park, Wyoming, and Gallatin National Forest, Montana. Canadian Journal of Botany 

78:149-156.

Gomez, D.M., R.G. Anthony, and J.M. Trappe. 2003. The influence of thinning on production of 

hypogeous fungus sporocarps in Douglas-fir forests in the Northern Oregon Coast Range. 

Northwest Science 77: 308.

Hickman, J. C. 1976. Non-forest vegetation of the Central Western Cascade Mountains of Oregon. 

Northwest Science 50:145-155.

Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, T.R.Graham, D.S. Page-Dumroese, J.R. Tonne, M.J. Larson, and T.B. Jain. 

1997. Review article: Impacts of timber harvesting on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity, 

and health of inland Northwest forests. Forest Science 43:234-251.
References

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 305

Kranabetter, J.M. and P. Kroeger. 2001. Ectomycorrhizal mushroom response to partial cutting in a 

western hemlock-western redcedar forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:978-987.

Kranabetter, J.M. and T. Wylie. 1998. Ectomycorrhizal community structure across forest openings on 

naturally regenerated western hemlock seedlings. Canadian Journal of Botany 78: 189-196.

Lindblad, I. 1998. Wood-inhabiting fungi on fallen logs of Norway spruce: relations to forest 

management and substrate quality. Nordic Journal of Botany 18 (2): 243-255.

Lippert, J., C. McCain and A. Smith. 2010. Willamette National Forest Special Habitat Management 

Guide.

Luoma, D.L., C. Stockdale, R. Molina, and J. Eberhart. 2006. The spatial influence of Pseudotsuga 

menziesii retention trees on ectomycorrhizal diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

36:2561-2573.

Luoma, D.L. and J. Eberhart. 2005. Results from green tree retention experiments: ectomycorrhizal 

fungi. In: Peterson, C. E. and D.A. Maquire (Eds.). Balancing ecosystem values: innovative 

experiments for sustainable forestry. Proceedings of a conference. PNW-GTR-635. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 2009. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, OR.

Parendes, L.A. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along 

roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 14: 

64-75.

Pilz, D., et al. 2003. Ecology and management of commercially harvested chanterelle mushrooms. PNWGTR-576

Roy, Bitty. 2006. Personal communication. University of Oregon, Oregon.

Sarr, D., D. Odion, D. Hibbs, JWeikel, R. Gresswell, R. Bury, N. Czarnomski, R. Pabst, J. Shatford, and A. 

Moldenke. 2005. Riparian zone forest management and the protection of biodiversity: a 

problem analysis. Technical Bulletin No 908. Research Triangle Park, N.C. National Canter for Air 

and Stream Improvement, Inc. 107 pp.

Sillett, S.C. 1995. Branch epiphyte assemblages in the forest interior and on clearcut edge of a 700 year 

old Douglas-fir canopy in western Oregon. The Bryologist 98 (3).

US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Interior. 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines.

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Pacific Northwest Region R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05.

Williamson, J.R. and W.A. Neilsen. 2000. The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil 

compaction and profile disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 30: 1196-1205.

Transportation

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest. 
References

306 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Willamette National Forest Roads Analysis. 2003.

Willamette National Forest Road Investment Strategy. 2015.

Fire and Fuels

Agee, James K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press. 209-211. 

Tepley, Alan, et.al. 2013. Fire-mediated pathways of stand development in Douglas-fir/western hemlock 

forests of the Pacific Northwest. USA Ecology, 94(8), 2013, pp. 1729–1743.

Morrison, P.H., and Swanson, F.J. 1990. Fire History and Pattern in a Cascade Range Landscape. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-254, USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland.

NWCG. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest. 

Wiley/Democrat Herald 1863

Air Quality

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1995. Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Amended. ORS 477.515. Scott, 

Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. 2005.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest.

Economics

State of Oregon Department of Forestry, Yearly Pond Values, Northwest Oregon and Willamette Valley, 

available at http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Working/pages/TimberSales.aspx

State of Oregon Employment Department, unemployment rates, Linn County available at 

http://www.homefacts.com/unemployment/Oregon/Linn-County.html

State of Oregon Employment Department, employment and wages by industry, Linn County available at 

http://www.qualityinfo.org/ed-ewind

State of Oregon Employment Department, jobs per board feet of timber harvest in Oregon, available at 

http://www.qualityinfo.org/-/jobs-per-board-feet-timber-harvests-in-oregon

Scenic Quality

USDA Forest Service. (1974). National Forest Landscape Management Vol.2 Ch.1 The Visual 

Management System. Agriculture Handbook No. 462.

USDA Forest Service. (1995). Landscape Aesthetics. A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture 

Handbook No. 701.

Wilderness

Denali National Park and Preserve Final Backcountry Management Plan, General Management Plan 

Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, January, 2006. USDI National Park Service.
References

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 307

IAC Acoustics, A Division of Sound Seal Inc., 2017. Retrieved from: 

http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm

Landres, P., Barns, C., Boutcher, S., Devine, T., Dratch, P., Lindholm, A., Merigliano, L., Roeper, N., 

Simpson, E. (2015). Keeping it Wild 2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

General Technical Report.

Peng, J., Bullen, R., Kean, S. (2014). The Effects of Vegetation on Road Traffic Noise. Inter-noise 2014.

Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, and J. Fites-Kaufman. Chapter 4: fire as an Ecological Process. In: 

Fire in California ecosystems. Editors: Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufman, 

K.E. Shaffer, A.E. Thode. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Tontechnik-Rechner, Damping of Sound Level (dB) vs. Distance, n.d. Retrieved from: 

(http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm)

Tontechnik-Rechner (2), Damping of Air at High Frequencies (Dissipation), n.d. Retrieved from: 

(http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm)

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design – Visual 

Quality (n.d.). Retrieved from: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_barriers/design_construction/keepdown.

cfm

Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1990. USDA Forest Service.

Climate Change

FAOSTAT (2013). FAOSTAT database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

http://faostat.fao.org/.

IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. 

Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley 

(eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 

pp. (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/)

IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, 

R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

IPCC (2000). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use 

Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. 

(http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0)

Joyce, L.A., Running, S.W., Breshears, D.D., Dale, V.H., Malmsheimer, R.W. et al. (2014). Chapter 7: 

Forests. In: Melillo, Jerry; Richmond, Terese (T.C.); Yohe, Gary, eds. Climate change impacts in 

the United States: The third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program: 

176–194. (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/forests)

Millar, C.I., Stephenson, N.L., & Stephens, S.L. (2007). Climate change and forests of the future: 

Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17(8): 2145-2151. 

(http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/31774)
References

308 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Smith P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A. et al. (2014). Agriculture,

Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. 

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. 

Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. 

von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 121 pp. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf)

Tappeiner, J.C., Maguire, D.A., & Harrington, T.B. (2007). Silviculture and ecology of western U.S. forests. 

Oregon State University Press. 440 pp.

US EPA (2015). US Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2013. Executive Summary. 

EPA 430-R15-004 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 27 pp.

Appendix D

U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Memorandum from Leslie Weldon to Regional Foresters et al. on Travel 

Management, Implementation of 36 CFR, Part 212, Subpart A (March 29, 2012).

U.S. Forest Service. 2016. Pacific Northwest Region Memorandum from Jim Pena, Monitoring Travel 

Management NEPA Decisions for the Minimum Road System (Sept 6, 2016).
Glossary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 309

Glossary

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Air Quality The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most frequently 

in connection with "standards" of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. Used 

instead of "air pollution" when referring to programs.

Allochthonous Energy 

Sources

Allochthonous energy sources are those derived from outside the stream system, that is, 

from the terrestrial environment. Leaves, twigs, fruits, etc. are typical forms that enter the 

water by direct litterfall or lateral leaf blow.

Ambient Air Quality Defined under the Clean Air Act as the air quality outside of industrial site boundaries.

Area to Protect An area where harvesting or any other activities, such as staging of equipment, will not 

occur. These areas will not be included as part of a unit and will be identified on timber 

sale contract maps. 

Arterial Road A forest road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other 

arterial roads or public highways. (FSH 7709.54, no longer in print)

Autochthonous 

Energy Sources

Autochthonous energy sources are those derived from within the stream system. During 

photosynthesis, for example, primary producers form organic carbon compounds out of 

carbon dioxide and inorganic matter. The energy they produce is important for the 

community because it may be transferred to higher trophic levels via consumption.

Canopy The uppermost spreading branchy layer of a forest.

Canopy Base Height The height above the ground of the first canopy layer where the density of the crown 

mass within the layer is great enough to support vertical movement of a fire. Low canopy 

base heights have been shown to initiate crown fire behavior.

Canopy Bulk Density Canopy bulk density (CBD) describes the density of available canopy fuel in a stand. It is 

defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per canopy volume unit.

Canopy Cover Canopy cover is a measure of the percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection 

of the tree canopy.

Canopy Closure Canopy closure is the proportion of the sky hemisphere (measured from all angles) 

obscured by vegetation when viewed by a single point. Closure is affected by tree heights 

and canopy widths and takes into account light interception and other factors that 

influence microhabitat.

Chain A standard measurement equal to 66 feet.

Class I Airsheds Geographic areas designed by the Clean Air Act subject to the most stringent restrictions 

on allowable increment of air quality deterioration. Class I areas include Forest Service 

wildernesses and nation memorial parks over 5,000 acres, National Parks exceeding 

6,000 acres, international parks, as well as other designated lands.

Cohort A group of trees developing after a single disturbance, commonly consisting of trees of 

similar age, although it can include a considerable range of tree ages of seedling or 

sprout origin and trees that predate the disturbance.

Condition Classes A function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes. Condition class 1 is 

within or near historical conditions; class 3 is significantly altered from historical regimes.

Contiguous In close proximity to or near.
Glossary

310 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Core Area 0.5 mile (radius circle) around a known or predicted owl site, which delineates the area 

most heavily used during the nesting season for nesting, foraging and rearing young. 

Bingham and Noon (1997) defined the core area as that portion of a northern spotted owl 

home range that received disproportionately high use for nesting, roosting and access to 

prey; they suggested that 60-70% of owl reproducing season activity occurred in about 

20% of the home range. Although Courtney et al. (2004:5-5) observed that core area 

sizes varied greatly among owls, Thrailkill (pers. com.) determined that Bingham and 

Noon 1997, Wagner and Anthony 1999, Franklin et al. 2000 and Irwin et al. 2004 

collectively suggested a core area of about 500 acres.

Collector Road A forest road that serves smaller land areas than an arterial road. Usually connects forest 

arterial roads to local forest roads or terminal facilities. (FSH 7709.54, no longer in print)

Critical Habitat The critical habitat designation is conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is 

based on the current status and recent scientific research on northern spotted owl 

populations. Critical habitat was identified for specific areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it was listed, on which are found those physical or 

biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and which may require 

special management considerations or protection. For the northern spotted owl, these 

features include particular forest types that are used or likely to be used by northern 

spotted owls for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing habitat. In addition, the best 

available information was used to identify those areas that are otherwise determined to 

be essential to the conservation of the species. A habitat network was identified that 

meets the following criteria: 1) Ensures sufficient habitat to support stable, healthy 

populations across the range, and also within each of the 11 recovery units; 2) Ensures 

distribution of northern spotted owl populations across the range of habitat conditions 

used by the species; 3) Incorporates uncertainty, including potential effects of barred 

owls, climate change and wildfire disturbance risk; and 4) Recognizes that these 

protections are meant to work in concert with other recovery actions, such as barred owl 

management.

Crop Trees Trees which are considered suitable to meet long term management objectives for an 

analysis area. These may also be referred to as healthy or manageable trees. This may 

include both the physical make-up of the tree as well as the species.

Cycle As applied to uneven-aged management, it is the time interval between harvest entries. It 

should be noted that harvest entries in uneven-aged management are to leave residual 

levels of growing stock which should not need treatment for at least one cycle length.

Desirable Species Any species of plant or animal which is considered to be compatible with meeting 

management goals and objectives.

Discounted Cost Value of all cost associated with a project over its lifetime multiplied by a discount rate to 

determine the costs at today’s worth.

Discounted Revenue Value of all revenue associated with a project over its lifetime multiplied by a discount rate 

to determine the value today.

Net Present Value Difference in Discounted Revenue and Discounted Cost to evaluate if a project will have 

a positive or negative return on investment.

Disturbance Events that disrupt the stand structure and/or change resource availability or the physical 

environment (Oliver, 1996).

Diameter at Breast 

Height (DBH)

Diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet up from the ground on the uphill side.

Early Seral Plants which inhabit a disturbed site within the first few years subsequent to the 

disturbance.
Glossary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 311

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Early Seral Habitat A forest structural condition that lasts 15-20 years after a human disturbance such as 

timber harvest, or natural disturbance such as wildfire. This structural condition can 

provide valuable wildlife habitat components including grasses, flowering forbs, 

hardwoods, and dead wood habitat structures.

Emissions A release of combustion gases and aerosols into the atmosphere.

Fire Behavior The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography.

Fire Intensity The product of the available heat of combustion per unit of ground and the rate of spread 

of the fire, interpreted as the heat released per unit of time for each unit length of fire 

edge. The primary unit is Btu per second per foot (Btu/sec/ft) of fire front. Also, the rate of 

heat release per unit time per unit length of fire front. Numerically, it is the product of the 

heat yield, the quantity of fuel consumed in the fire front, and the rate of spread.

Fire Regime A function of the historical frequency of fire and the degree of severity of those fires.

Fire Regime Condition 

Class

Depiction of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in 

alternations of key ecosystem components. These classes categorize and describe 

vegetation composition and structure conditions that currently exist inside the Fire 

Regime Groups. Based on the coarse-scale national data, they serve as generalized 

wildfire rankings. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components from wildfires increases 

from Condition Class 1 (lowest risk) to Condition Class 3 (highest risk).

Fire Severity Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; loosely, a product of fire 

intensity and residence time.

Flame Length The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the 

flame (generally the ground surface), an indicator of fire intensity.

Fuel Class Part of the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS). Group of fuels possessing 

common characteristics. Dead fuels are grouped according to 1-, 10-, 100-, and 1000-

hour time lag, and living fuels are grouped as herbaceous (annual or perennial) or woody.

Fuels Vegetative matter, dead or alive, that burns in a fire. It is broadly characterized by the 

following categories:

• Surface or ground fuels are within a foot or so of the ground surface.

• Ladder fuels exist when you have a continuous vertical arrangement of fuel that 

allows fire to easily go from ground level into the tree canopy.

• Crown fuels are the tree limbs and leave that can burn with enough heat and/or 

wind.

• Live fuels are the green (live) herbs and shrubs.

Fuel Models Simulated fuel complex for which all fuel descriptors required for the solution of a 

mathematical rate of spread model have been specified.

Group Selection A stand management method in which silviculturists identify groups of trees which need 

to be removed from a stand of trees in order to meet management objectives.

Habitat Modification Habitat Downgraded: Refers to silvicultural activities that change spotted owl suitable 

habitat to dispersal habitat;

Habitat Removed: Refers to silvicultural activities that 1) Alter spotted owl suitable habitat 

such that it no longer supports nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (i.e., suitable 

habitat becomes non-habitat after treatment) or 2) Alter spotted owl dispersal habitat so 

that the habitat no longer supports dispersal (i.e., dispersal habitat becomes non-habitat 

after treatment).

Home Range An estimated area for habitat use of a spotted owl pair. For the Oregon Cascades, this 

estimate is 1.2 miles (radius circle) around a known or predicted owl site (Thomas et al.,

1990; USDI et al., 2008).

Hyporheic Flow Hyporheic flow is the mixing of shallow groundwater and surface beneath and alongside 

a stream bed.
Glossary

312 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Incidental Take (ESA) Take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.

Individual Tree 

Selection

A stand management method in which silviculturists identify individual trees that need to 

be removed from a stand of trees. In this method, specific types, sizes, or qualities of 

trees are identified for either removing from the stand or remaining in the stand.

Initial Attack The fire suppression effort that takes place as soon as possible following a wildland fire 

report.

Invasive Weed Refer to Noxious Weeds.

Known Owl Site A site that was or is occupied by a pair or resident single as defined by the survey 

protocol (1990-2012). The specific site location is determined by the unit biologist based 

on the best and/or most recent information.

Ladder Fuels Fuels that provide vertical continuity between the ground and tree crowns which create a 

pathway for a surface fire to move into the overstory tree crowns.

Local Road A forest road that connects terminal facilities with forest collector, forest arterial or public 

highways. Usually forest local roads are single purpose transportation facilities. (FSH 

7709.54, no longer in print)

Macrophyte A macrophyte is an aquatic plant that grows in or near water and is emergent, 

submergent, or floating. In lakes and streams macrophytes provide cover for fish and 

substrate for aquatic invertebrates, produce oxygen, and act as food for some fish and 

wildlife.

Mechanical Thinning Reducing the number of trees in a stand using a factor which is independent of tree 

quality. The use of spacing for thinning is one type of mechanical treatment. For example, 

the closest tree to the points of a 15-foot by 15-foot grid would be left, regardless of tree 

quality.

Microbes A microbe is a microscopic organism, which may be a single cell or multicellular 

organism. Microbes are very diverse and include all the bacteria and archaea and almost 

all the protozoa. They also include some members of the fungi, algae, and animals such 

as rotifers.

Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM)

A map reflecting designated roads, trails and areas on an administrative unit or a Ranger 

District of the National Forest System. (36 CFR 261.2)

Multi-Cohort A stand with two or more age classes or cohorts.

Nest Patch (or Stand) 300 meters (radius circle) around a known or predicted owl site, where a spotted owl 

would be likely to select a nest tree. This is based on habitat usage of spotted owls within 

the Central Cascades Study Area, located on the Willamette National Forest.

Net Present Value Difference in Discounted Revenue and Discounted Cost to evaluate if a project will have 

a positive or negative return on investment.

Noxious Weeds 

(Invasive species)

Non- native plants listed by the State that generally have either economic or ecosystem 

impacts, or are poisonous to wildlife and/or livestock. They aggressively invade disturbed 

areas such as fires, road sides, and construction areas.

Obligate Predator When the word is used as an adjective, obligate means "by necessity" (the antonym is 

facultative) and is used mainly in biology. An obligate predator is an organism whose 

survival is dependent on a diet consisting of animal flesh. In the case of aquatic insects 

these organisms would primarily eat other insects.

Off-Highway Vehicle 

(OHV)

Describes all those vehicles designed for off-highway use and which are classified as one 

of four classes of ATV in Oregon. (OHV Guide, 2014)
Glossary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 313

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Particulate Matter Known as particle pollution or PM, is a microscopic complex mixture of extremely small 

particles and liquid droplets and contains a “number of components, including acids (such 

as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust particles, and allergens 

(such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). Fine particles, such as those found in 

smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller (EPA website)

Percentile Weather The weather conditions that can be expected of X% of the days during a fire season. The 

standard percent is Low (0%-15%), Moderate (16%-89%), High (90%-96%) and Extreme 

(97%+). For example, low percentile weather is the average suite of weather conditions 

that would occur less than 15% of the time.

Periphyton Periphyton is a complex mixture of algae, cyanobacteria, heterotrophic microbes, and 

detritus that is attached to submerged surfaces in most aquatic ecosystems. It serves as 

an important food source for invertebrates, tadpoles, and some fish.

Phytophagous Feeding on plant material. This term is typically used when referring to insects.

Predicted Owl Site An area able to support resident spotted owls (i.e., a potential breeding pair) as 

determined by the USDI et al. (2008) northern spotted owl occupancy template. This is 

used for determining effects to spotted owls where survey data are insufficient.

Prescribed Fire Burn 

Plan

A plan required for each fire application ignited by management. Plans are documents 

prepared by qualified personnel, approved by the agency administrator, and include 

criteria for the conditions under which the fire will be conducted (a prescription). Plan 

content varies among the agencies.

Prescribed Fire Fire which is planned and used as a tool to meet specific management objectives.

Primitive Unconfined 

Recreation

From the Wilderness Act of 1964 and which describes the concept of freely accessed 

recreational opportunities with minimal interruption to such activity either physically, 

socially or due to administrative actions implemented by a land management agency 

such as seasonal closures, group size restrictions, fees, permitting systems or other 

restrictions.

Probability of Ignition 

(POI)

The chance that a firebrand will cause an ignition when it lands on receptive fuels.

Problem Fire Problem fires are wildfires that, because of extreme fire behavior, present a high risk to 

human safety and loss of forest resources.

Rate of Spread (Fire 

Behavior)

The relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal dimensions. It is expressed as rate 

of increase of the total perimeter of the fire, as rate of forward spread of the fire front, or 

as rate of increase in area, depending on the intended use of the information. Usually it is 

expressed in chains or acres per hour for a specific period in the fire's history.

Redd A fish nest made of gravel, consisting of a depression hydraulically dug by a fish for egg 

deposition (and then filled) and associated gravel mounds.

Remnant trees Large to giant-diameter trees within younger-aged stands, that lived through past natural 

fire disturbances, or were retained after logging. Amounts and distribution of remnant 

trees within younger stands may be highly variable.

Road A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail. (36 

CFR 212.1)

Road 

Decommissioning

Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more 

natural state. (36 CFR 212.1)

Rotation A pre-determined time frame in which an even-aged forest stand will reach maturity and 

be harvested.

Sag Pond A sag pond is a body of water collected in the lowest parts of a depression formed either 

near the head scarp of rotational landslides or between two strands of an active strike-slip 

fault. Hidden Lake sits on a deep seated earthflow and is technically a sag pond.
Glossary

314 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Salvage Activity, usually removal or chipping, of material killed by a disturbance event such as 

insects, fire, wind, etc. Where possible, this material is used as some form of forest 

product of commercial value, such as firewood, pulp, and/or chips.

Seral Stages Seral stage describes the phase of development of a plant community. Early seral 

species are those species you would expect to find on a site soon after a major 

disturbance, like fire. These are species such as pines, Douglas- fir, snowbrush, fireweed, 

etc. They are generally shade intolerant species. Late seral are the species that can 

come in under a fully developed vegetative canopy, such as true firs, prince's pine, 

lichens, etc.

Silviculture The theory and practice of directing forest establishment, composition, and growth for the 

production of forest resources to meet specific management objectives. The word is 

derived from the Latin word silva, which means "forest" and from cultura, which means "to 

develop and care for." So, it is the development and caring for the forest.

Silviculturist One, who plans, assists in and supervises the implementation of silviculture projects. The 

Silviculturist determines (prescribes) the vegetative treatments necessary to meet the 

objectives for vegetation on a given site.

Site A specific location where management activity is considered, planned, or operating.

Site Potential The specific ability of a site to grow vegetation. It includes the soil, topographic, and 

climatic conditions that determine the resources available for growing vegetation.

Site Preparation The removing or rearranging of vegetation or woody debris to meet specific management 

objectives. Most often it is used to describe the process(es) used to expose mineral soil 

areas suitable for planting or seeding desirable species of plants.

Slash Debris resulting from such natural events as wind, fire, or snow breakage; or such human 

activities as road construction, logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting. It includes 

logs, chunks, bark, branches, stumps, and broken understory trees or brush.

Smoke Sensitive 

Receptor Areas 

(SSRA)

Area in which smoke from outside sources is intolerable, for reasons such as heavy 

population, existing air pollution, or intensive recreation or tourist use.

Soundscape Geographic region as defined by the audible sounds associated within it.

Spotted Owl Suitable 

Habitat

Consists of forested stands used by spotted owls for nesting, roosting and foraging. 

Features that support nesting and roosting typically include a moderate to high canopy 

closure (60-90%); a multi-layered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees (with 

dbh of greater than 30 inches); a high incidence of large trees with various deformities 

(large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); large 

snags; large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and 

sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly.

Spotted Owl Foraging 

Habitat

Generally has attributes similar to those of nesting and roosting habitat, but such habitat 

may not always support successfully nesting pairs (USFWS, 2011c, p. A-10).
Glossary

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 315

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Spotted Owl Dispersal 

Habitat

At a minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide 

protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities (USFWS,

2011c, p. A-10). It consists of conifer and mixed mature conifer-hardwood habitats with a 

canopy cover greater than or equal to 40% and conifer trees greater than or equal to 11 

inches average dbh with open space beneath the canopy to allow spotted owls to fly. 

Generally, spotted owls use younger stands to move between blocks of suitable habitat, 

roost, forage and survive until they can establish a nest territory. Juvenile owls also use 

dispersal habitat to move from natal areas. Dispersal habitat thus includes habitat that will 

provide some roosting and foraging opportunities during the colonization phase of 

dispersal, but not at a scale that would support nesting pairs (in which case it would be 

classified as suitable habitat). Suitable habitat can also function as dispersal habitat as it 

supports both territorial and dispersing spotted owls. However, in this document, 

dispersal habitat generally refers to stands that are 40-79 years old.

Stand A group of trees of similar canopy structure, species composition, and/or size growing on 

a continuous area. A stand is distinct from neighboring stands in structure, growing 

conditions, or management objectives. Stand age for this project is averaged and based 

on trees of commercial size which is seven inch DBH and greater.

Stand Density Index 

(SDI)

A relative density measure based on the relationship between mean tree size and 

number of trees per unit area in a stand (Reineke, 1933).

Stand Dynamics The changes in forest stand structure with time, including stand behavior during and after 

disturbances (Oliver, 1996).

Stand Structure The physical and temporal distribution of trees and other plants in a stand (Oliver, 1996).

Stratum A distinct layer of vegetation within a forest community; canopy layer.

Stream Classes Class 1 and 2 = perennial fish bearing streams; Class 3 = perennial non-fish bearing 

streams; Class 4 = intermittent, seasonally flowing streams.

Suppression All the work of extinguishing or confining a fire beginning with its discovery.

“Take” of ESA listed 

species

Take: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by USFWS to include 

significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed 

species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. Harass is defined by USFWS as actions that create the likelihood of injury to 

listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.

Thinning Any cutting or removal of vegetation (trees, brush, etc.) resulting in a reduction of 

competition for water, light, and/or nutrients between individual plants. Commercial 

thinning refers to removing material that has an established dollar value on the open 

market and can be sold with at least a minimal net value sufficient to pay for the thinning 

activity.

Torching The burning of the foliage of a single tree or a small group of trees, from the bottom up. 

Also, single tree torching is one tree and group torching is more than one tree often a 

patch of multiple trees torching.

Treatment A term used to broadly refer to the management actions made to meet management 

objectives. It may include thinning, cutting of undesirable trees, prescribed fire, salvage, 

or any manipulation of the vegetative conditions. In addition, intentionally excluding a 

portion of a stand from harvest is a management action, or treatment.

Trees per Acre (TPA) The number of trees on an acre of land.

Underburn Using prescribed fire under the canopy of an existing stand of trees.

Undesirable Species Any species of plant or animal which is NOT considered to be compatible with meeting 

management goals and objectives.
Glossary

316 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

Advanced 

Regeneration

Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under mature trees 

prior to planned harvest activities.

Vegetation Recovery Period of time that allows for sufficient re-growth in harvested areas to make evidence of 

harvest activity largely unnoticeable to the casual observer.

Woody Debris Dead pieces of woody vegetation such as stems, limbs, or leaves which are on a site.
Index

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 317

Index

A

Aggregate Retention, 24, 28, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 

41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 70, 71, 74, 88, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 99, 100, 141, 175, 188, 189, 

190, 191, 196, 222, 224, 238, 242, 243, 251, 268, 

300, 304, 306

Aquatic Conservation Strategy, 65, 113, 114, 

117, 118, 119, 122, 138, 276, 282

C

Canopy Cover, 55, 56, 65, 79, 80, 86, 87, 88, 89, 

91, 99, 120, 122, 123, 125, 143, 145, 148, 151, 

163, 166, 177, 178, 179, 180, 189, 191, 196, 240, 

282, 284, 286, 304, 305, 306

Carbon sequestration, 269

Compaction, 33, 65, 66, 67, 68, 102, 103, 105, 106, 

107, 108, 109, 111, 130, 189, 190, 193, 203, 284, 

286

Critical habitat, 140, 143, 148, 150, 276, 278

Cumulative effects, 72, 73, 74, 75, 98, 102, 111, 

112, 120, 124, 125, 127, 140, 146, 147, 150, 152, 

153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 

165, 166, 176, 179, 181, 182, 184, 191, 192, 194, 

197, 206, 217, 220, 225, 226, 230, 231, 243, 244, 

245, 247, 258, 260, 262,264, 267, 268, 284, 287

D

Dead wood, 23, 62, 115, 145, 146, 168, 175, 176, 

210, 280

Decommissioning, 33, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 53, 

65, 68, 71, 102, 110, 111, 112, 128, 129, 130, 132, 

133, 134, 139, 189, 191, 196, 199, 200, 201, 206, 

207, 226, 229, 249, 250, 252, 254, 262, 266, 283, 

290, 293, 295

Dispersed site, 60, 228

Down Wood, 25, 31, 32, 41, 45, 49, 53, 54, 56, 57, 

60, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 74, 81, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 

105, 115, 117, 118, 119, 145, 146, 151, 168, 175, 

176, 182, 188, 284, 286

E

Early Seral Habitat, 11, 25, 26, 31, 38, 39, 42, 46, 

50, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 

97, 98, 99, 100, 140, 141, 142, 144, 148, 160, 163, 

180, 183, 184, 189, 214, 216, 238, 242, 280

Economics, 17, 72, 86, 89, 93, 96, 221, 222, 223, 

224, 225, 270, 279

Elk, 26, 60, 134, 140, 167, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 

249, 279

Enhancement, 68, 70, 97, 108, 145, 179, 180, 237, 

270, 280

ESA, 35, 36, 112, 134, 137, 139, 140, 142, 153, 185, 

277, 278, 280

F

Fire Behavior, 27, 91, 210, 213

Fire Regenerated, 113, 115, 118, 122

Fire Regime, 195, 209, 210, 231

Forest Plan, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 29, 35, 57, 62, 

67, 71, 91, 100, 107, 112, 124, 139, 140, 163, 165, 

174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 185, 208, 219, 

221, 228, 231, 233, 236, 237, 238, 242, 243, 250, 

264, 269, 270, 276, 279, 281

Fuels, 11, 27, 30, 31, 32, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 

52, 57, 58, 63, 71, 101, 119, 145, 174, 189, 190, 

191, 195, 197, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 

217, 218, 220, 222, 223, 224, 226, 229, 230, 231, 

237, 240, 248, 268, 279, 287, 288, 289

G

Gaps, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 

48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 63, 74, 80, 81, 84, 86, 

88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 110, 125, 141, 

144, 145, 146, 154, 158, 161, 163, 175, 182, 184, 

189, 191, 192, 196, 212, 214, 222, 223, 224, 238, 

243, 249, 268, 300, 304, 306, 307

Greenhouse gas, 268

H

Hazardous fuels, 11, 27, 30, 39, 42, 46, 50, 83, 84, 

87, 91, 95, 97, 99, 124, 217, 268, 289

I

Invasive Weed, 63, 185, 193, 194, 195, 197, 258

Inventoried roadless areas, 17, 18, 77, 192, 264, 

278

K

Key Issues, 36, 37, 44, 48, 54
Index

318 – Trout Creek Project Draft EIS

L

Land Management Area, 15

Landings, 30, 33, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 102, 

103, 107, 108, 109, 196, 197, 222, 238, 252

Late successional reserve, 17, 18, 27, 39, 87, 

145, 148

M

Management Indicator Species, 134, 140, 166, 

167, 177, 182, 279, 280

N

Northern spotted owl, 15, 35, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 

49, 50, 53, 54, 61, 140, 142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 

150, 152, 153, 166, 167, 245, 249, 256, 277, 278, 

279

Northwest Forest Plan, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 29, 

57, 86, 112, 114, 117, 120, 122, 123, 146, 147, 

162, 163, 165, 175, 177, 185, 264, 269, 270, 276, 

279, 281

P

Private property, 213

Proposed Action, 18, 25, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 52, 

72, 74, 103, 104, 110, 125, 131, 142, 149, 153, 

182, 189, 208, 217, 218, 222, 225, 231, 237, 238, 

242, 243, 250, 268, 269, 277, 298

Proposed Wild and Scenic River, 18, 259

Purpose and Need, 11, 22, 34, 37, 38, 80, 84, 85, 

97, 98, 160

R

Reforestation, 57, 71, 100, 206

Riparian reserves, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 30, 32, 38, 

40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 

65, 70, 89, 100, 107, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 

118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 130, 138, 139, 175, 189, 

276, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 304, 305, 306, 

307

S

Safety, 16, 33, 56, 58, 59, 62, 156, 157, 158, 175, 

199, 202, 207, 213, 214, 229, 278, 280

Salmon, 35, 121, 277, 278, 279

Seral Stage, 24, 59, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 86, 91, 98, 

99, 100, 168

Skips, 24, 26, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 

48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 60, 74, 81, 84, 86, 88, 89, 93, 

96, 98, 99, 144, 175, 189, 196, 241, 268, 300

Snag, 27, 31, 39, 41, 45, 49, 53, 56, 57, 62, 70, 71, 

74, 76, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 96, 100, 144, 

145, 146, 157, 159, 172, 174, 175, 176, 182, 214, 

268, 304, 305, 306, 307

Soil, 26, 32, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 83, 85, 87, 

102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 

124, 127, 130, 188, 189, 190, 193, 195, 197, 203, 

206, 208, 212, 246, 248, 269, 276, 284, 286, 287, 

288, 289

Special interest area, 15, 17, 18, 58, 92

Stand Density Index, 78

Stream Class, 65, 107

T

Temporary non-system roads, 33, 40, 41, 44, 

45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 

102, 108, 117, 119, 130, 190, 194, 196, 197, 203, 

206, 222, 223, 224, 248, 298

Thinning, 11, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 

39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 

65, 74, 75, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 95, 

97, 98, 99, 101, 109, 110, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 

122, 123, 128, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 

148,149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 159, 161, 164, 

175, 176, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 

190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 203, 209, 211, 

212, 221, 222, 223, 224, 230, 233, 237, 238, 240, 

241, 243, 251, 268, 276, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284, 

286, 287, 288, 300, 304, 305, 306, 307

Treatment, 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 

46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 63, 71, 75, 76, 78, 

79, 80, 81, 87, 90, 92, 93, 95, 99, 101, 102, 106, 

107, 112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125, 128, 

129, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 160, 166, 168, 

176, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 194, 

197, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 212, 219, 222, 223, 

224, 226, 229, 230, 233, 236, 237, 240, 241, 242, 

252, 254, 255, 266, 268, 276, 279, 280, 289, 290, 

303, 304, 305, 306

W

Wilderness, 11, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 39, 58, 59, 60, 

77, 83, 121, 192, 199, 201, 207, 214, 219, 226, 

228, 229, 231, 233, 237, 238, 241, 242, 243, 245, 

246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 

256, 257, 258, 259, 264, 266, 278, 288, 289
Index

Trout Creek Project Draft EIS - 319