McKenzie Landscape Project Public Scoping Meeting September 26, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

McKenzie Landscape Project Public Scoping Meeting

September 26, 2013 Bureau of Land Management Eugene District Upper Willamette Resource Area

Purpose of Meeting

Listen to us as we share information on the project Listen to you

• Your questions
• Your information to share
• Your comments

Project Identification Assign Interdisciplinary Team Scoping Alternative Development Environmental Assessment Public Comment Decision Project Implementation

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

Project Identification Assign Interdisciplinary Team Scoping (through Oct. 17) Alternative Development Environmental Assessment Public Comment Decision Project Implementation

Scoping

We have a common goal, which is a thorough environmental review. It is important that we hear your:

• Issues that could be relevant
• Alternatives
• Knowledge and information that might help with project development
• r environmental review.

Comments must be in writing so they can adequately be considered.

Agenda

6:00 – 7:00 BLM Presentation of the McKenzie Landscape Project

• Background and Project Context
• Upland Management
• Riparian Management

7:00- 7:30 Questions 7:30 – 8:00 Informal Discussion

Purpose and Goals of the McKenzie Project

 Aid in the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl  Maintain and restore high quality early seral and late seral forest habitats  Maintain & restore aquatic and terrestrial habitats and meet all components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy  Test new methods and forest management strategies that meet both conservation and timber production goals  Provide for sustainable timber harvest

BLM Management Direction

 O&C Act- Timber and other resource management  Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, NEPA, FLPMA  Northwest Forest Plan (1994)  Eugene Resource Management Plan (1995)

• Land Use Allocations
• Late successional reserves (42%)
• Riparian reserves (28%)
• Matrix (25%)
• Adapti

tive m management a areas (5%)

Adaptive Management Areas (AMA)

 10 areas designated throughout the region  Encourage the development and testing of new methods to meet objectives  Relies on ingenuity of managers and communities working together

Adaptive Management Areas (AMA) cont.

• Well distributed late-successional forests outsi

tside of reserves in lands suitable for regeneration harvest

• Riparian zone protection and restoration
• Stable supply of timber
• Develop an AMA plan (NWFP D1-D16)
• Ecosystem research
• Experiments and demonstrations at stand and watershed level
• Utilize natural disturbance (fire) histories to develop forest and

riparian objectives

Middle McKenzie Landscape Design (MMLD)

 Developed by BLM team of interdisciplinary resource specialists  To meet ecological and timber objectives, it established guidance for regeneration harvest and thinning forest treatments per decade.

• Regeneration harvest: 594 acres
• Thinning: 933 acres

Management Considerations

 Tier 1 watershed (most conservation-

• riented of 2-

tier system)

Management Considerations

 Tier 1 watershed (most conservation-

• riented of 2-

tier system)  Northern Spotted Owl 2012 Critical habitat

Management Considerations

 Tier 1 watershed (most conservation-

• riented of 2-

tier system)  Northern Spotted Owl 2012 Critical habitat  Nominated Area

• f Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Management Considerations

 Tier 1 watershed (most conservation-

• riented of 2-

tier system)  Northern Spotted Owl 2012 Critical habitat  Nominated Area

• f Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC)  Eligible Wild and Scenic River segments

Potential Alternatives

 No Action Alternative  Alternative based on the Middle McKenzie Landscape Design  Northwest Forest Plan Matrix/Riparian Reserve option

• Could include Ecological Forestry (Johnson & Franklin) components

 Others?

Potential Issues for Analysis

How would the project affect:

• Threatened & Endangered Species?
• water quality including sedimentation and temperature?
• other aquatic and riparian habitat components such as coarse

wood, peak flows, and microclimate?

• climate change?
• others?

Project Identification Assign Interdisciplinary Team Scoping (through Oct. 17) Alternative Development Environmental Assessment Public Comment Decision Project Implementation

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

25

Central C l Concepts o

• f

f the La Landscape Desi sign gn

Ecological Principles

 Fire history reconstruction in the Bear-Martin Watershed. (Weisberg 1997)  Two important parameters for developing the landscape design

• Fire Frequency
• Fire Severity

Reasons To Treat These Stands

 Provide stable timber supply  Approximate key aspects of historical fire regime  Maintain good crown ratios and stable, windfirm trees

Representative Current Stand Structure

Representative Stand Diameter Distribution

Two Types of Prescriptions in the Landscape Design

General Prescription Regeneration Harvest Transitional Prescription Thinning

Green Tree Retention, Snags And Down Wood

6 – 20 green trees per acre 8 snags per acre 300 linear feet of down logs per acre

Regeneration Harvest Individual and Group Retention

Transit itio ional R l Rx Second Commercial Thin 60-70 yrs Gen ener eral R Rx Regeneration Harvest 180 yrs. Transit itio ional R l Rx Precommercial Thin 10-15 yrs. Transit itio ional R l Rx First Commercial Thin 40-50 yrs. . Current Con Condi ditions

Compariso son of

• f

Upland M Managem emen ent

La Landsc scape D Desi sign NWF NWFP ( (Matrix) Regeneration Harvest Rotation Age 100 or 180 years or when stand develops certain stand attributes. Age at which volume growth is at maximum (approx 80 yrs) Green Tree Retention

• Range of 6-20 trees per acre
• More green trees left at the

lower slope positions than at the upper slope positions.

• Emphasis on leaving trees

for retention that are windfirm.

• Individual and Aggregate

tree retention in varying sizes (<1 acre to 5 acres).

• Retain 8 Snags / acre and

300 linear ft. of down wood

• Retain 6-8 TPA.
• Retain trees in a

variable pattern (single trees and clumps).

• Retain green trees for

snag recruitment where there is an identified snag deficit.

• Minimum of 240 linear

feet of logs per acre greater than or equal to 20"dbh.

• Retain snags at the unit

level to support cavity nesting birds at 40 percent of potential population levels. Thinning Thin to create windfirm trees to move stand into general Rx Thinning in stands up to 80 years of age

Com

• mpariso

son of

• f

Upland M Manage gement Ecol

• log
• gical F

For

• rest

stry

Regeneration Harvest Rotation Age

• use return intervals for silvicultural activities consistent with recovery of

desired structures and processes

• Ecological forestry programs are typically planned, implemented and

evaluated at the landscape scale, incorporating knowledge developed from the study of pattern and ecological function in natural landscapes Green Tree Retention

• Retain structural and compositional elements of the pre-harvest stand

during regeneration harvests

• Retain existing older stands and individual older trees found within

younger stands proposed for management, using a selected threshold age Thinning

• Accelerating the development of complexity in young forest stands,

particularly those originating as plantations, through a variety of silvicultural activities, including variable-density thinning

• Extending the maximum age of stands eligible for thinning in Late

Successional Reserves from 80 years (current policy) to 120 years would aid in this effort

Riparian Reserves

Guidance:  NWFP 1994  Eugene RMP 1995  O&C Act 1937  MMLD 2001  Vida Watershed Analysis 1996  Endangered Species Act 1973  Clean Water Act 1972  Wild & Scenic Rivers Act 1968  Potential Alternatives for Riparian Reserve Management

• 1) NWFP/RMP

(Matrix, LSR, etc…)

• 2) MMLD (AMA)

 Focus today will be on non-fish bearing streams

Riparian Reserve Land Allocation

 “Apply silvicultura

l practices in Riparian

Reserves…needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives” NWFP ROD 1994, C-32, Eugene RMP pp. 24  “Riparian protection in AMAs should be comparable to that prescribed for other land areas…However, flexibility is provided to achieve these conditions, if desired, in a manner different from that prescribed for other areas and to conduct bonafide research projects within riparian zones.” NWFP ROD 1994, D-9

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

 “ACSOs must strive to maintain and restore ecosystem health at wat atershed an and l lan andscape sca scales to protect h ct habita tat f t for fish and ot

• ther r

ripar arian an- dependent s species and resources and restore currently degraded habitats.” ROD, 1994 B-9  ACSOs have an aquatic and terrestrial component.

 MMLD separates the Aquatic and Terrestrial

• bjectives of the ACS

 Nine Small Basin Reserves established to meet intent

• f the ACSOs for terrestrial

species  Provide connectivity between upland and riparian areas and a link to

• ther reserve areas

 SMAs focus on the aquatic attributes of the ACS. SMA widths varies between 135’ and 270’ (non-fish bearing streams)

Stream Management Areas and Small Basin Reserves

NWFP RR Boundary vs. SMA Boundary (Non-fish Bearing Streams)

 NWFP/RMP Riparian Reserve  MMLD Stream Management Area (SMA)

1 SPTH (220’) 1/2 SPTH + 25’ (135’) to 1 SPTH + 50’ (270’)

Riparian Reserves

• vs. Stream Management Area

Example NWFP Riparian Reserve Boundaries Example SMA Boundaries with Small Basin Reserves

Key components:

• Water quality

(temperature, sediment)

• Peak/Base flows
• Sediment transport,

soil compaction, water storage

• Floodplain

connectivity

• Stream structure

(streambank stability, wood recruitment, pool quality)

Analysis tools:

• Intensive ground based

surveys to determine wood loading, cold water inputs, topography, soils, and other site specific features

• Modeling thermal

loading, erosion, and debris flow potential using Netmap

Analysis of Aquatic Objectives of the ACS

Low sensitivity to thermal loading High sensitivity to thermal loading Proposed harvest units

Example of Modeling Using Netmap (Thermal Sensitivity)

Low probability

• f debris

flow High probability

• f debris

flow Proposed harvest units

Example of Modeling Using Netmap (Debris Flow)

Questions & Comments

It is important that we hear your:

• Issues that could be relevant
• Alternatives
• Knowledge and information that might help with project development or

environmental review.

Additional information available online at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene/plans/mckenzie.php Comments must be received in writing by Oct. 17 so they can adequately be considered:

Eugene District BLM ATTN: Kristine Struck 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite E Springfield , OR 97477

• r e-mail

BLM_OR_EU_Mail@blm.gov, ATTN: Kristine Struck