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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process Project Identification Assign Interdisciplinary Team Scoping Alternative Development Environmental Assessment Public Comment Decision Project Implementation

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 or 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- oriented of 2- tier system)

Management Considerations  Tier 1 watershed (most conservation- oriented of 2- tier system)  Northern Spotted Owl 2012 Critical habitat

Management Considerations  Tier 1 watershed (most conservation- oriented of 2- tier system)  Northern Spotted Owl 2012 Critical habitat  Nominated Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC )

Management Considerations  Tier 1 watershed (most conservation- oriented of 2- tier system)  Northern Spotted Owl 2012 Critical habitat  Nominated Area of 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?

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

Central C l Concepts o of f the La Landscape Desi sign gn 25

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 Transitional Prescription Regeneration Harvest 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

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

Compariso son of of La Landsc scape D Desi sign NWF NWFP ( (Matrix) Upland M Managem emen ent Rotation Age 100 or 180 years or when stand Age at which volume develops certain stand growth is at maximum attributes. (approx 80 yrs) Retain 6-8 TPA. Green Tree Range of 6-20 trees per acre • • Retain trees in a Retention More green trees left at the • • variable pattern (single lower slope positions than at trees and clumps). the upper slope positions. Retain green trees for Emphasis on leaving trees • • snag recruitment where Regeneration for retention that are there is an identified Harvest windfirm. snag deficit. Individual and Aggregate • Minimum of 240 linear tree retention in varying • feet of logs per acre sizes (<1 acre to 5 acres). greater than or equal to Retain 8 Snags / acre and • 20"dbh. 300 linear ft. of down wood Retain snags at the unit • level to support cavity nesting birds at 40 percent of potential population levels. Thin to create windfirm trees to Thinning in stands up to 80 Thinning move stand into general Rx years of age

Com ompariso son of of Ecol olog ogical F For orest stry Upland M Manage gement 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 Regeneration Green Tree Retain structural and compositional elements of the pre-harvest stand Harvest • Retention during regeneration harvests Retain existing older stands and individual older trees found within • younger stands proposed for management, using a selected threshold age Accelerating the development of complexity in young forest stands, • particularly those originating as plantations, through a variety of silvicultural activities, including variable-density thinning 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:  Potential  NWFP 1994 Alternatives for  Eugene RMP 1995 Riparian Reserve  O&C Act 1937 Management  MMLD 2001  1) NWFP/RMP (Matrix, LSR, etc…)  Vida Watershed  2) MMLD (AMA) Analysis 1996  Endangered Species Act  Focus today will 1973 be on non-fish  Clean Water Act 1972 bearing streams  Wild & Scenic Rivers Act 1968

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 other 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.