McKenzie Project Scoping Meeting PresentationMcKenzie Project Scoping Meeting Presentation Author:...
Transcript of McKenzie Project Scoping Meeting PresentationMcKenzie Project Scoping Meeting Presentation Author:...
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
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%) Adaptive management 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 outside 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?
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 Concepts of the Landscape Design
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
Transitional Rx Second Commercial
Thin 60-70 yrs
General Rx Regeneration
Harvest 180 yrs.
Transitional Rx Precommercial Thin
10-15 yrs.
Transitional Rx First Commercial
Thin 40-50 yrs.
Current Conditions
Comparison of Upland Management Landscape Design 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
Comparison of Upland Management Ecological Forestry
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 watershed and landscape scales to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent 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 objectives of the ACS
Nine Small Basin Reserves established to meet intent of the ACSOs for terrestrial species
Provide connectivity between upland and riparian areas and a l ink to other 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 of debris flow High probability of 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 or e-mail [email protected], ATTN: Kristine Struck