Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project Environmental Assessment

Lower Steamboat United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service LSR Plantation Thinning Project

Pacific Northwest Region Environmental Assessment

Umpqua National Forest

North Umpqua Ranger District December 2013

Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project Environmental Assessment

Douglas County, Oregon December 2013

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest

Responsible Official: Alice B. Carlton, Forest Supervisor Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, Oregon 97471 Phone: (541) 957-3200

For More Information Contact: Steve Burns, Project Manager Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: (541) 957-3351 Email: [email protected]

Electronic comments can be mailed to: [email protected]

Abstract: This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes a no-action alternative, and two action alternatives that includes commercially harvesting timber on approximately 1,200 acres, treating activity-generated fuels, conducting road work, and other connected actions. The proposed thinning units are located within Management Area 10, 11 and 12 of the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as well as the Late Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve land-use allocations defined by the Northwest Forest Plan. The project area is located within the Steamboat and Middle North Umpqua Watersheds on the North Umpqua Ranger District.

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 TDD). 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 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 1 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSES ...... 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 4 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ...... 7 SCOPING ...... 7 ISSUES AND CONCERNS ...... 9 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 10

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 11 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY ...... 11 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...... 12 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ...... 12 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ...... 12 ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... 18 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 25

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 26

ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CONRTIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS…….………...... ….26

TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT……………………….…………………...... …………….…28 FOREST VEGETATION ………….……………………………...... …………………….……….28 WILDLIFE …………………………………………………………...... ………………..………….57 BOTANY …………………………………………………………...... ………………………..……94 FIRE AND FUELS ………………………………………………...... ………………………...….106 SOIL PRODUCTIVITY ……………………………………………….…...... …………………….112 CLIMATE CHANGE ………………………………………………………...... ………….……118 RECREATION AND VISUALS …………………………………………...... ….…………….….120 HERITAGE RESOURCES …………………………………………………...... ……..…………123

SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED AND OTHER DISCLOSURES…………….....…..…………..124 AIR QUALITY AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT …………………………………...... …….....….124 WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS …………………………………………………...... …....…125 POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS …………………………………………………...... ….126 PRIME FARMLANDS, RANGELANDS, FORESTLANDS, AND PARKLANDS .…...... …135 CONFLICTS WITH PLANS POLICIES OR OTHER JURISDICTIONS …….….…...... …..135 POTENTIAL OR UNUSUAL EXPENDITURES OF ENERGY ………………....…...... …...... 135 CONSUMERS, CIVIL RIGHTS, MINORTY GROUPS, AND WOMEN …………...... …...135 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ………………………………………………………...... …...... 135

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT………………………………………………………..………….…136 BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER …………………………………………….....……….…...... ……136 WATER QUALITY ………………………………………………………...…….....……..…...... ……..138 STREAM FLOWS ………………………………………………………….…….....……..…...... …….141 RIPARIAN RESERVES ………………………………………………………….....……..…...... ……144 STREAM CHANNELS …………………………………………………………...... …...... ….…149 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION …………………………………………..….....……...... …..152 CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION ……………………………………………………....…...... ……..161 FISHERIES ……………………………………………………………………………...... ….…….163

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT…………………………………………………….…….……….…...174 ECONOMICS…………………………………………………………………….…………….………..174

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS……………………………...... ………179

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ………………………………………………………...... …………179 AGENCY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ………………...... …...... ….……179 APPENDIX 1: Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures...... 180 INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ……………………………………………………...... ….……239 LITERATURE CITED ………………………………………………………….…...... …...... ……240 GLOSSARY …………………………………………………………….…………...... ….…….247

Tables

Table 1. Connected Actions Associated with the Proposed Actions ...... 15 Table 2. Alternative 2 Summary ...... 16 Table 3. Connected Actions associated with Alternative 3 ...... 21 Table 4. Alternative 3 Summary...... 24 Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives...... ……...... 26 Table 6. Past Management Activities in the Planning Area …..…...... ….…27 Table 7. Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Planning Area ..…...... 28 Table 8. Tree mortality within the Lower Steamboat planning area ...... ………….....……...36 Table 9. Stand summary for proposed Lower Steamboat timber sale units .……...……...….....41 Table 10. Alternative 2 prescriptions for thinning units ...... ………...... ……...... 47 Table 11. Alternative 3 prescriptions for thinning units...... …...... 49 Table 12. Summary of direct and indirect effects to forest vegetation ……...... ……54 Table 13. Summary of proposed unthinned acres (skips) and gap creation acres ...... …...... 56 Table 14. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act ……………...... …...58 Table 15. Regional Forester Sensitive Species...... 58 Table 16. Direct impacts to northern spotted owl habitat...... 61 Table 17. Umpqua National Forest Management Indicator Species...... 76 Table 18. Birds of Conservation Concern...... 85 Table 19. Landbirds identified as Focal Species...... 87 Table 20. Alternative 2 Impacts to Pertinent Landbird Species...... 88 Table 21. Alternative 3 Impacts to Pertinent Landbird Species...... 89 Table 22. DecAID Coarse Wood Debris Levels at the 50% Tolerance Level...... 91 Table 23. Proposed Activity Units adjacent to Unique Habitats...... 94 Table 24. Noxious Weed List for the North Umpqua Ranger District...... 97 Table 25. Project Effects Assessment for Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive Plants...... 101 Table 26. Description and Associated Fire Behavior of Fuel Models...... 107 Table 27: Summary of fuel treatment effects by Alternative...... 111 Table 28. Stream and road densities by landforms...... 113 Table 29. Unacceptable soil disturbance estimates...... 116 Table 30. Water quality limited waters in the planning area...... 139 Table 31. Current Hydrologic Recovery for the Subwatersheds...... 142 Table 32. Soil Concerns from field reviews...... 153 Table 33. System road improvements proposed for Lower Steamboat...... 157 Table 34. Sediment Delivery Potentials from the undisturbed background condition...... 159 Table 35. Physical Characteristics of the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat Creek...... 163 Table 36. Miles of fish-bearing stream by sub-watershed...... 165 Table 37. Riparian Harvest by Alternative...... 169 Table 38. Determination of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Aquatic Species...... 173 Table 39. Economic Efficiency Analysis...... 175 Table 40. Economic Impact Analysis...... 178

iii

Figures

Figure 1. Lower Steamboat Planning Area Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2. Lower Steamboat Planning Area Boundary Map ...... 8 Figure 3. Alternative 2 Project Area Map ...... 18 Figure 4. Alternative 3 Project Area Map ...... 25 Figure 5. Alternative 3 project area map...... 31 Figure 6. Landtype associations ...... 31 Figure 7. Forest vegetation zones in the Lower Steamboat planning area...... 34 Figure 8. Historic and current distribution of forest successional stages...... 35 Figure 9. Historic (1936) and existing forest vegetation successional stages...... 35 Figure 10. Natural disturbance and tree mortality agents...... 35 Figure 11. Existing conditions in representative units...... 41 Figure 12. Representative stand conditions...... 51 Figure 13. Representative diameter distributions...... 52 Figure 14. Peregrine Falcon reproduction...... 79 Figure 15. Elk numbers by management unit...... 80 Figure 16. Black-tailed deer numbers...... 80 Figure 17. Snag habitat availability...... 81 Figure 18. Snag and down wood availability through time at the landscape level...... 93 Figure 19. Flame Length for typical Fuel Models ...... 108 Figure 20. ROS for typical Fuel Models (current and predicted)...... 109 Figure 21. Generalized landform map for Lower Steamboat Planning Area...... 115 Figure 22. Undeveloped areas, Managed Stands, and 200 foot buffer...... 128 Figure 23. Lower Steamboat Undeveloped PWA...... 130 Figure 24. Overview of Riparian Reserves in the Lower Steamboat Planning Area ...... 145 Figure 25. Soil management concerns in Lower Steamboat Planning Area...... 155 Figure 26. Soil concerns in Lower Steamboat planning area...... 156 Figure 27. Lower Steamboat Area Fish Distribution...... 168 Figure 18. Average Composite Douglas-fir Log Prices...... 177

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Chapter 1 of this Environmental Assessment (EA) describes the Proposed Action, management direction, and Purpose and Need of the project, as well as the scope of the decision to be made. Chapter 1 also includes an explanation of the scoping process and how issues and concerns were addressed by project design features and alternatives in Chapter 2, and the effects analyses in Chapter 3.

PROJECT LOCATION The Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project planning area is located on the North Umpqua Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest (UNF) within the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat 5th-field watersheds, approximately 37 road miles east of Roseburg, Oregon in Townships 25 and 26 South, Ranges 1 West and East, Williamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon (Figure 1). The planning area encompasses approximately 30,500 acres, with approximately 2,400 acres analyzed in detail. All lands within the Lower Steamboat planning area are administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSES The 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and its amendments to date, including the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (NWFP), provide broad management direction for the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project. The Lower Steamboat planning area includes Management Areas (MA) 6, 7, 9 10, 11 and 12 as defined by the LRMP, as well as Riparian Reserves, and Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) as defined by the NWFP, with the proposed thinning units being located within MA 10, 11, 12, Late Successional Reserve, and Riparian Reserve areas. Management Area 6 provides for the protection and enjoyment of remarkable designated special interest areas, Illahee Rock in this case. Illahee Rock is within the planning area but no activities are proposed in the immediate vicinity of this site. Management Area 7 provides for the protection of the North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Corridor. This Wild and Scenic Corridor is within the planning area bur no activities are proposed within the designated corridor. Management Area 9 provides for the management of potential Research Natural Areas (RNA), the Limpy Rock RNA in this case. The Limpy Rock RNA is within the planning area but no activities are proposed in the immediate vicinity of this site. Management Area 10 provides for production of timber on a cost-efficient sustainable basis consistent with other resource objectives.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

Figure 1. Lower Steamboat Planning Area Vicinity Map

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

Management Area 11 provides for big game winter range habitat and timber production with other resource objectives. However, managing for big game winter range habitat would not be an objective for Lower Steamboat stands within the Late Successional Reserve. Management Area 12 provides additional management direction to maintain or enhance the fisheries resource of Steamboat Creek and its tributaries. Riparian Reserves provide an area along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable and potentially unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. Late Successional Reserves (LSR) management objectives are designed to protect and enhance habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species.

This EA tiers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended, and the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. This EA also incorporates by reference the 2003 Umpqua National Forest Roads Analysis. An Umpqua Forest-Scale Roads Analysis (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2003) evaluated access issues for key road systems across the Forest and recommended further evaluations at the watershed and project scale, as needed. Roads analysis below the Forest scale is not automatically required, but may be undertaken at the discretion of the Responsible Official (FSM 7710). It has been determined that a roads analysis below the Forest scale was not needed to support the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project because no road management activities under this project would result in any changes to access, changes to current use, or changes in traffic patterns or road standards. This EA incorporates by reference the recommendations and analyses in the Middle North Umpqua (USDA, 2001) and Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1999), as well as the 2006 Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan, and the 2006 Steamboat Watershed Restoration Plan. This EA incorporates by reference the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). Chapter 3 provides a summary of the specialists input in adequate detail to support the rationale for the decisions and the appendices provide supporting documentation. The Project Record contains supplemental information and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. Incorporating this information implements the CEQ Regulations provision that agencies should reduce National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4), and that environmental documents shall be “analytic rather than encyclopedic, and shall be kept concise and no longer than absolutely necessary (40 CFR 1502.2)”. The objective is to furnish adequate site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The Project Record is available for review at the Umpqua National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2900 N.W. Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon 97471.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action is to promote the development and maintenance of late-successional forest conditions in existing even-aged stands in LSR and Riparian Reserves (USDA & USDI, 1994b, C-12). Proposed project activities include silvicultural treatments (commercial thinning and fuels treatments) designed to develop structurally complex stands and landscape structure as well as species composition within second-growth stands that originated following even-aged management and subsequent planting in the 1950s through the 1970s. These treatments are required in riparian reserves to obtain ACS objectives. A reduction in some natural and activity-generated fuels is an additional beneficial outcome associated with the project. Previous clearcutting and subsequent planting of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat watersheds, along with fire exclusion over the last several decades has created dense, even-aged stands in both uplands and riparian areas that are now in the stem exclusion stage of structural development (Oliver and Larson, 1996). These second-growth stands lack the structural and species diversity they would otherwise have if exposed to natural successional pathways, such as fires (Zenner, 2005). Historically, sugar pine trees were naturally abundant in the planning area on south through west aspects and were maintained by the historical fire regime. Today, sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) is underrepresented within the planning area landscape and is declining due to competition related to dense planting of Douglas-fir, fire exclusion, and occurrence of white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). Dense stand stocking also leads to heavy inter-tree competition, resulting in decreased tree and stand vigor, low growth rates, and potentially restricted development of some desired riparian habitat characteristics, such as large-diameter trees that may ultimately be recruited as large down wood to streams. Additionally, dense stocking reduces stand resistance to wind and fire damage (Poage and Tappeiner, 2002). Silvicultural treatments proposed for the Lower Steamboat project are consistent with recommendations in the Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP as well as the LRMP and have two principal objectives: 1. Promoting the development of old-growth forest characteristics in young stands, including large trees, snags, logs on the forest floor, deep tree crowns, and canopy gaps that enable establishment of multiple tree layers (vertical diversity) and diverse species composition; and 2. Preventing large-scale disturbances by fire, wind, insects, and diseases that would destroy or limit the ability of this portion of LSR RO-222 to sustain viable populations of forest species (B-5, USDA & USDI, 1994b).

PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) has been designed to meet the Purpose and Need by implementing the following activities:

Commercially thinning approximately 1,212 acres utilizing a range of silvicultural prescriptions that would generally retain approximately 40-100 trees per acre (tpa). This range allows prescriptions to be applied to each unit depending on slope, aspect, and other site-specific conditions in order to increase growth, health, and vigor of the leave trees. Creation of ½-acre and 1-acre gaps also is proposed for 112 acres within treatment units; the prescriptions are designed to increase growth, health, and vigor of

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

the leave trees and are anticipated to result in approximately 13.3 million board feet of timber;

Approximately 377 acres of ground-based, or mechanized, logging systems and 835 acres of skyline logging systems would be employed to implement the thinning prescriptions. Mechanized equipment is generally utilized on slopes under 35% and skyline systems over 35% slope.

Approximately 200 landings are proposed, 160 of which are in skyline units and 40 in ground-based units. The average landing size is 0.05 acres in skyline units and 0.12 acres in ground-based units.

Riparian reserves along fish-bearing (class 1 and 2) streams would not be thinned. Approximately 245 acres of riparian reserves along perennial non-fish bearing (class 3) and intermittent (class 4) streams are proposed for thinning treatments outside of the no- cut buffers. Class 3 no-cut buffers would be 85 feet each side of stream channel; class 4 no-cut buffers would be 25 feet each side of stream channel; where instability or slope breaks are present, buffers would be widened to protect these areas. Approximately 10 skyline landings are proposed within riparian reserves.

Generally, felled material down to a six inch diameter top would be yarded and removed from the site and material from six to three inch diameter tops would be brought to the landings. Whole-tree yarding could occur, provided enough slash remains on site to meet temporary spur road obliteration and winterization requirements. Yarded material may be chipped, left on the landing for firewood cutters, or burned.

The activity fuels, or slash, would be treated in order to break up the continuity of the fuels throughout the units. Grapple pile burning would occur on approximately 380 acres in the ground-based units. Areas with light fuel loading may be in a condition or location that would not benefit from applying a fuels treatment. Prescribed burning would occur on approximately 90 acres and 2 miles of handline would be constructed to support that burning. Landing piles would be burned. Implementation of these treatments would be subject to a post-harvest fuels assessment.

Implementing a project-level amendment to the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan that would allow timber harvest within 150 feet of unique habitats. Timber harvest activities within these areas would not normally occur under the Standards and Guidelines for unique habitats (Wildlife Prescription C5-1, LRMP IV-200), but is considered beneficial for enhancing development of desired stand conditions.

Implementing road work: no new system roads would be constructed and all temporary spur roads would be obliterated after use.

Temporary spur road construction- approximately 0.4 miles of new temporary spur road would be constructed to gain access into thinning units, 50 feet of which would be located within riparian reserve areas, none would be located within no-cut buffers.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

Temporary spur road reconstruction- approximately 6 miles of temporary spur route to gain access into thinning units would be located on the existing footprint of skid roads, fire lines, and abandoned or unclassified roads that were built to access the original harvest units. Approximately 1.08 miles of these would be located within riparian reserve areas. Approximately 0.1 miles would be located in no-harvest buffers. Reconstruction would give the Forest Service the opportunity to properly obliterate and hydrologically restore these roads.

Temporary spur road obliteration – after use, approximately 6.4 miles (combination of new and existing) of temporary roads would be obliterated with an excavator equipped with a “winged ripper” to de-compact soil as needed. Any excavated material, including soil and woody material, would be pulled back over the road. A native forage seed mix would be applied to all subsoiled temporary roads and landings to minimize erosion and the establishment of invasive weeds.

System Road Reconstruction- Road reconstruction would include reconstruction to meet Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan, in order to accommodate flood flows, minimize the disruption of natural water flow pathways, and lessen the risk of erosion (ROD C 32-33), while providing for safe, cost-efficient timber haul.

Road Reconstruction would include: placement or replacement of surface rock; the replacement of approximately 30 ditch relief culverts; armoring culvert outlets; the replacement of 13 of undersized or deteriorated, to the extent that failure is eminent, stream crossings on roads 3816, 4713, 4713-100,4713-500, and 4760; stabilizing road fills and road shoulders; and the repair of a slide located on the 4713 road. Road reconstruction work would be done using heavy equipment such as an excavator, backhoe, road grader, dump truck, and a water truck.

Road maintenance- Road maintenance would be implemented in order to meet the Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan which are designed to accommodate flood flows, minimize the disruption of natural water flow pathways, and lessen risk of erosion (ROD C 32-33), while providing for safe, cost-effective timber haul. These activities would occur on up to 71 miles of existing roads to facilitate hauling of logs: brushing roadsides and blading roadbeds; placing or replacing surface rock; cleaning ditches and culverts; falling hazard trees to meet OSHA safety requirements; grading and shaping of existing road surfaces; constructing water bars; and opening existing closed roads then re-closing after use. Work would be done using heavy equipment such as an excavator, backhoe, road grader, dump truck, and a water truck.

Rock pits – the project would use rock from Redman Tooth, Jack Creek, and Bloody Point Quarry, which would be expanded. No new rock pit locations would be implemented for this project.

Waste Disposal Areas- sites located on roads 3816, 4713, 4713-100, 4713-200, 4713- 300, 4713-500, and 4760 have been identified by the interdisciplinary team as suitable locations for waste disposal of rock and fill material.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

Steamboat Helibase: Manage vegetation to restore access to helipad #3 to facilitate emergency fire management and prescribed burning in the LSR. Harvest all merchantable vegetation <20” dbh within the area designated by Unit 212. Non- merchantable material would be cut and scattered or burned by Forest Service personnel. Vegetation greater than 20” dbh would be cut and left on site.

Bloody Point Rock Pit and Disposal Site: Manage vegetation to provide better access and organization for rock source material and the administrative disposal area. Invasive weeds are propagating at the disposal area and the current site configuration makes it difficult to separate the disposal site from the source material, increasing the risk of contaminating the source material and spreading invasive weeds. The rock pit would also be expanded approximately 100’ to the north. This includes harvesting all merchantable vegetation under 20” DBH, cutting and leaving all trees over 20” DBH and cutting and scattering non-merchantable vegetation over approximately 2.7 acres.

Similar and connected actions would include noxious weed treatments, watershed improvement projects, trail maintenance and repair activities, and fisheries improvement projects (See Table 1).

DECISIONS TO BE MADE Based on the analysis documented in this Environmental Assessment, the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest would decide the following: To implement the project as proposed (Alternative 2), to implement portions of the proposal that reflect fewer temporary roads and no gaps (Alternative 3) or to not implement the project at this time (Alternative 1). If the project is implemented, which best management practices, project design features, and monitoring activities are necessary to achieve resource goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. Whether to amend the Forest Plan as proposed. Whether there is a significant effect on the human environment that would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

SCOPING Public involvement for the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project began with the publishing of the March 2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). A scoping notice describing the project components and querying interest in a field trip was sent to approximately 70 members of the public on November 1, 2012, which initiated the scoping period. Scoping didn’t generate any interest in a formal field trip but six comment letters were received during the scoping period. The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians’ tribal government was sent a letter describing the project and solicited comments, however no comments were received. The Lower Steamboat administrative record contains a detailed scoping summary that describes Forest Service outreach efforts, the scoping comments received for the project, and how the Forest Service addressed scoping comments in the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project EA.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

Figure 2. Lower Steamboat LSR Thinning Project Area 8

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

ISSUES AND CONCERNS Issues are based on unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources that are generally raised during scoping and can be used as the basis for formulating and comparing alternatives to the Proposed Action, for prescribing mitigating and monitoring measures, or for identifying environmental analysis needs (40 CFR 1502.14). Scoping during the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project planning process identified several concerns that have been addressed in the following manner: Issues that did not drive Alternatives Comments that raised concerns, but did not provide a cause and effect statement to become an issue that would drive an alternative, have been identified and resolved by: clarifying the Purpose and Need or the Proposed Action in Chapter 1; addressing the concern by developing project design features (PDFs), including Best Management Practices (BMPs), or identifying monitoring activities in Chapter 2; or by disclosing effects in the analyses of Chapter 3. As these concerns were resolved as described below, they did not drive the development of an alternative to the Proposed Action and as such would not be discussed or analyzed further. Concerns addressed by clarification of the Proposed Action in Chapter 1 Comments suggesting that road construction should be avoided or minimized are addressed in the Proposed Action, as no new permanent roads are proposed in association with this project, and all temporary spur roads would be obliterated after use. Also, temporary spur road work decreased by approximately 1.5 miles due to further refinement and reduction of the Proposed Action after the scoping period. Concerns were raised regarding thinning activities and landings in riparian reserves and a suggestion was made to avoid these activities whenever possible. Further refinement and reduction of the Proposed Action after the scoping period resulted in a decrease of 14 acres of thinning and nearly 20 landings in riparian reserves. Concerns were raised regarding the protection of mature forests. The stands proposed for thinning are over-stocked and less than 80 years of age, meaning they are not characterized as mature, but rather are in the stem-exclusion stage. A commenter suggested that temporary roads be considered as candidates for permanent roads in the anticipation of future needs. The Interdisciplinary Team evaluated this and found that creating permanent roads is unnecessary to meet the objectives of the Purpose and Need. A commenter suggested that managing for elk in the Late Successional Reserves is inappropriate because elk is an early-mid seral species. This issue was clarified in the proposed action. Any benefit to elk is incidental. Concerns addressed by PDFs, BMPs, and Monitoring Activities in Appendix 1 The following comments were addressed through project design features (PDFs), Best Management Practices (BMPs), and monitoring activities that are specifically developed for the purposes of minimizing resource damage. Concerns were raised regarding thinning activities and landings in riparian reserves and a suggestion was made to avoid these activities whenever possible. Many PDFs, BMPs, and monitoring activities in Chapter 2 were developed and included specifically to minimize and

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action avoid effects to riparian areas. These measures are found throughout the PDF/BMP section, particularly under the subheading entitled Riparian Areas Within or Adjacent to Cutting Units.

Concerns addressed by the analyses in Chapter 3 Internal concern was expressed regarding harvest units in direct proximity to a peregrine falcon aerie. A cursory analysis conducted by Forest Service wildlife biologists could not demonstrate that there would be no adverse effects to the peregrine falcon so those units were removed from any action alternative. This issue and the effects to peregrine falcons are addressed in the Wildlife section. Concern was expressed regarding snags and down wood, the effects to which are disclosed in the Wildlife section. Comments were received regarding effects to roadless and wilderness areas. This topic is addressed in the Potential Wilderness Areas section. A comment inquired as to how expanding the Bloody Point Rock Pit would mitigate the spread of invasive weeds. This is described in detail in the Botany section. Concerns regarding effects to wildlife were raised in general, and some were specific to Northern Spotted Owl. The Wildlife section addresses many species, including the Northern Spotted Owl. Comments were received requesting an explanation of the need for thinning in riparian reserves to achieve Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives and which ACS objectives would be met by the Proposed Action. The Aquatic Environment section addresses this and provides an analysis of the Proposed Action in relation to the nine ACS objectives.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Should Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 be selected as a result of this NEPA process, the Forest Service would implement the timber harvest and associated activity fuel treatments and road work through timber sale contracts. In the course of implementing complex projects, minor changes may be needed to better meet on-site resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments, within approximately ten percent accuracy of the proposed measures, may be needed to adjust unit boundaries for resource protection, to improve logging system efficiency, and to better meet the intent of the resource prescriptions. For example, changes in aspects of logging systems, including locations of temporary spur roads may be required to better facilitate logging systems and provide for resource protection. These minor changes would not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required to document any changes, the criteria to determine the need to supplement an existing Environmental Assessment (FSH 1909.15, sec.18) would be followed.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis of a proposed action and other reasonable alternatives, including no action. The no action alternative (Alternative 1) provides a baseline for estimating environmental effects and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) was developed to meet the Purpose and Need. The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) was modified and Alternative 3 was developed to respond to public comments while still maintaining the integrity of the project’s Purpose and Need. These three alternatives for the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project are considered in detail in this EA.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Comments were received suggesting that thinning be excluded from riparian reserves. An alternative was considered in response, but eliminated from detailed study because the comments did not provide a cause and effect statement to become an issue that would drive an alternative. Concerns related to riparian reserves were, however, addressed and resolved by refining the silvicultural prescriptions in riparian reserves to focus on stands in need of thinning to attain ACS objects, developing PDFs to minimize and avoid the effects of activities in riparian reserves, and disclosing effects in the analyses of Chapter 3.

Issues that drove Alternatives Issues are based on unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources that are generally raised during scoping and can be used as the basis for formulating and comparing alternatives to the Proposed Action, for prescribing mitigating and monitoring measures, or for identifying environmental analysis needs (40 CFR 1502.14). Scoping during the Lower Steamboat planning process identified two issues that were used to develop an alternative to the Proposed Action:

Issue 1: Creation of Skips and Gaps During scoping, several commenters raised concerns about whether the proposed treatments would achieve desired levels of heterogeneity and complexity within the managed stands. Commenters requested that treatments be designed to result in a variable density outcome by enhancing species and structural complexity and heterogeneity. While commenters agreed that prescriptions should incorporate both skips and gaps within treatment units to promote within-stand and between-stand variability, they differed in their opinions regarding the size, number, and location of these treatments. One commenter requested an “optimal” mix of skips and gaps, asking that skips be larger than the gaps and that structural elements be retained within gaps. A second commenter supported skips but requested that gaps be eliminated from the project entirely, suggesting that ½-acre gaps were too large in extent and were not appropriate treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve land allocation. Finally, a third commenter supported retaining untreated skips and also requested that gaps be

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action implemented within all units to enhance vertical and horizontal structural complexity within the currently homogenous managed plantation stands. To quantify and track this issue through the analysis of both action alternatives, the following measures of change were developed: Acres analyzed but not thinned (skips) within the planning area. Acres of gaps created within the planning area.

Issue 2: Temporary Roads During scoping, public comments indicate concern over creating new and temporary roads. No new permanent roads are proposed in any action alternative. However, temporary roads to facilitate stand management are proposed, typically over existing footprints. Commenters suggest that alternatives to temporary road construction are carefully considered and that preference is given to temporary roads that would access more area for management activities. All temporary roads would be subsoiled and hydrologically restored after the proposed management activities. To quantify and track this issue through the analysis of both action alternatives, the following measures of change were developed: Miles of existing temporary roads. Miles of new temporary roads. Miles of temporary roads subsoiled and hydrologically restored.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, no commercial thinning, activity fuel treatments, road work, or other connected actions would take place. No ground-disturbing activities would take place and no timber would be offered for sale. Ongoing and future activities, such as routine road maintenance, recreation use, and noxious weed control would be expected to occur.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) has been designed to meet the Purpose and Need by implementing the following activities:

Commercial thinning approximately 1,212 acres utilizing a range of silvicultural prescriptions that would generally retain approximately 40-100 trees per acre. This range allows prescriptions to be applied to each unit depending on slope, aspect, and other site-specific conditions. The prescriptions are anticipated to result in approximately 13.3 million board feet of timber and are designed to increase growth, health, and vigor of the leave trees.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Approximately 200 landings are proposed, 160 of which are in skyline units and 40 in ground-based units. The average landing size is 0.05 acres in skyline units and 0.12 acres in ground-based units.

Implementing road work: no new system roads would be constructed and all temporary spur roads would be obliterated after use. Temporary spur road construction- approximately 0.4 miles of new temporary spur road would be constructed to gain access into thinning units, 50 feet of which would be located within riparian reserve areas, none would be located within no-cut buffers. Temporary spur road reconstruction- approximately 6 miles of temporary spur route to gain access into thinning units would be located on the existing footprint of skid roads, fire lines, and abandoned or unclassified roads that were built to access the original harvest units. Approximately 1.08 miles of these would be located within riparian reserve areas. Approximately 0.1 miles would be located in no-harvest buffers. Reconstruction would give the Forest Service the opportunity to properly obliterate and hydrologically restore these roads.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

would be applied to all subsoiled temporary roads and landings to minimize erosion and the establishment of invasive weeds.

System Road Reconstruction- Alternative 2 would include reconstruction to meet Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan, in order to accommodate flood flows, minimize the disruption of natural water flow pathways, and lessen the risk of erosion (ROD C 32-33), while providing for safe, cost-efficient timber haul. Road Reconstruction would include: placement or replacement of surface rock; the replacement of approximately 30 ditch relief culverts; armoring culvert outlets; the replacement of 13 undersized or deteriorated, to the extent that failure is imminent, stream crossings on roads 3816, 4713, 4713-100,4713-500, and 4760; stabilizing road fills and road shoulders; and the repair of a slide located on the 4713 road. Road reconstruction work would be done using heavy equipment such as an excavator, backhoe, road grader, dump truck, and a water truck.

Rock pits – the project would use rock from Redman Tooth, Jack Creek, and Bloody Point Quarry, which would be expanded. No new rock pit locations would be implemented for this project.

Waste Disposal Areas- sites located on roads 3816, 4713, 4713-100, 4713-200, 4713- 300, 4713-500, and 4760 have been identified by the interdisciplinary team as suitable locations for waste disposal.

Appendix 1 of this EA includes Best Management Practices (BMPs), Project Design Features (PDFs), and Mitigation Measures that comply with national BMP standards and are specific to the Lower Steamboat LSR Thinning Project. Appendix 1 in its entirety is considered part of the Alternative 2.

Connected actions, in general, are those actions that depend on the Proposed Action in order to be implemented, are mitigation or design features that may be required to implement the Proposed Action, or are similar or related activities located within the project area boundary.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 1. Connected Actions associated with the Proposed Action

Action Amount Description Underplanting 102 Acres Underplanting is necessary to accelerate development of late successional habitat characteristics, specifically a multi-storied stand structure. Development of LSR habitat meets the purpose and need of the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project. Planting would occur within ½- and 1-acre gaps and would utilize native seedling species in appropriate landscape positions. Sugar pine and incense cedar planting is prescribed for select ½- and 1-acre gaps in middle to upper slope positions on south- to southwest aspects; western redcedar is prescribed for the edges of ½-acre gaps. Pre-Commercial 360 Acres All pre-commercially thinning acres are within the Lower Thinning Steamboat Sale Area boundary and were included in the 2010 North Umpqua-Diamond Lake Zone PCT CE. Sub-Soiling and 6.4 Acres This activity covers the remainder of the temporary roads within Native Seeding the project area and includes subsoiling and/or seeding. Invasive Weed 1250 Acres This includes manual weed management and removal over the Management entire project area to be completed over a three year period. Snags / Down 568 Acres The creation of snags in all units to total a minimum of 10 per Wood acre would help mitigate the coarse woody debris deficiencies identified by the SC LSRA and DecAID. Ditch Relief Approx. Replacing failing/plugged culverts would reduce the probability of Culvert road failures and debris torrents. 30 Culverts Replacement Stream Crossing 13 Culverts Replacing failing/plugged culverts would help restore aquatic Culvert connectivity and reduce the probability of road failures and debris Replacement torrents. Steamboat 8.4 acres Harvest all merchantable vegetation <20” dbh within the area Helibase designated by Unit 212. Non-merchantable material would be cut and scattered or burned by Forest Service personnel. Vegetation greater than 20” dbh would be cut and left on site. Bloody Point 2.7 acres The proposed expansion for rock needs would be a 0.96 acre Rock Pit area to the North, between the top of the pit and the 3803-007 road which is between 60 and 150 feet from the current rock pit clearing. This expansion, when needed for production of rock, would involve clearing off the vegetation, and removal of the overburden for access to the rock. The proposed expansion for material storage needs would be the 1.6 acre area between the 3803-003 road and the current pit boundary. This expansion would provide for ODOT and FS needs for long term storage of unsuitable material excavated from roadways. The expansion of the rock pit would facilitate the segregation of disposal site from the rock source and would thus help mitigate the spread of invasive weeds.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Alternative 2 Unit Summary.

Detailed Silvicultural Prescriptions Logging Total Fuels Treatments Total Thinning Prescription Gap Size Riparian Reserve Systems Unit Unthinned Thinned Volume Unit (Acres) (Number) Thinning # Acres Acres Removed Acres 40- 50- 70- Volume (mbf) Skyline Ground Grapple Hand 20 1/2- 1- Thinned Underburn Handline Landings 50 70 100 Removed Harvest Based Pile Pile TPA acre acre Acres (acres) (miles) (number) TPA TPA TPA (mbf) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 2 66.9 8.9 58.0 0 0 54.0 0 4 2 15 185 783 39 19 0 0 22.9 0.36 16 3 77.9 31.9 46.0 0 2 43.0 0 6 0 12 150 618 43 3 2.7 0 0 0 11

4 34.4 6.0 28.4 0 0 26.4 0 4 0 1 10 302 26 3 2.6 0 0 0 7 5 110.9 11.2 99.7 0 0 92.7 0 10 2 14 140 1059 60 40 39.9 0 0 0 25 6 55.0 21.6 33.4 0 0 0 29.9 5 1 3 30 387 27 7 6.6 0 0 0 8

7 51.5 13.7 37.8 0 0 0 34.3 5 1 6 57 411 27 11 10.8 0 0 0 10 8 31.3 3.3 28.0 0 0 26.0 0 4 0 3 32 312 9 19 19.2 0 0 0 8 9 41.5 22.0 19.4 0 1.5 17.9 0 3 0 8 98 246 19 0 0 0 19.4 0.6 5

10 39.0 4.8 34.2 0 0 31.2 0 2 2 0 0 420 34 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 24.0 18.6 5.3 0 0 3.3 0 2 1 0 0 87 5 0 0 5.3 0 0 2 12 30.0 4.7 25.3 0 0 22.3 0 2 2 2 27 363 24 1 1.4 0 0 0 6

14 7.9 1.0 6.9 0 0 6.4 0 1 0 0 0 74 7 0 0 6.9 0 0 2 16 48.4 20.0 28.4 0 0 25.4 0 4 1 0 0 390 7 21 21.0 0 0 0 6 18 84.1 25.2 58.9 0 2 54.9 0 8 0 21 253 767 35 24 23.7 0 0 0 15

19 37.2 9.6 27.5 0 0 24.5 0 4 1 7 76 343 28 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 72.1 21.1 51.0 0 0 46.0 0 8 1 11 110 563 46 5 5.4 0 0 0 12 21 20.5 3.2 17.3 0 1 16.3 0 2 0 1 13 238 17 0 0 0 0 0 5

23 74.1 9.0 65.0 0 2 60.0 0 6 2 15 158 695 32 33 33.4 0 31.6 0.37 17 24 50.7 20.2 30.5 0 0 25.5 0 8 1 15 166 377 25 5 5.3 0 0 0 8 100 28.8 4.4 24.4 0 0 22.4 0 2 1 9 92 262 24 1 0 0 24.4 0.8 6

103 61.6 13.2 48.4 0 0 42.4 0 8 2 7 71 527 23 26 0 0 48.4 0.5 12 104 105.1 65.2 39.9 0 2 34.9 0 8 1 8 79 444 9 31 0 0 39.9 1 10 105 28.1 6.0 22.0 0 0 20.0 0 4 0 3 30 234 0 22 0 0 22.0 0.5 5

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Detailed Silvicultural Prescriptions Logging Total Fuels Treatments Total Thinning Prescription Gap Size Riparian Reserve Systems Unit Unthinned Thinned Volume Unit (Acres) (Number) Thinning # Acres Acres Removed Acres 40- 50- 70- Volume (mbf) Skyline Ground Grapple Hand 20 1/2- 1- Thinned Underburn Handline Landings 50 70 100 Removed Harvest Based Pile Pile TPA acre acre Acres (acres) (miles) (number) TPA TPA TPA (mbf) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 106 96.3 12.3 84.0 0 3.5 80.5 0 3 2 15 132 775 62 22 0 0 84.0 1.7 22 108 125.1 17.8 107.4 0 1.5 96.9 0 13 4 27 298 1259 72 35 35.4 0 0 0 26 111 16.7 11.5 5.2 0 0 3.7 0 1 1 2 22 67 5 0 0 0 0 0 2

112 48.6 5.5 43.1 0 0 39.1 0 6 1 0 0 466 35 8 8.0 0 0 0 12 113 81.1 51.3 29.9 0 0 23.9 0 10 1 6 63 380 9 21 20.9 0 0 0 7 115 48.1 38.8 9.3 0 2 8.3 0 2 0 2 21 105 9 0 0 0 0 0 3

116 93.5 24.1 69.3 0 0 63.3 0 6 3 32 318 733 69 0 0 0 69.3 0.6 17 211 25.2 3.0 22.2 0 0 0 20.7 4 0 0 0 219 3 19 18.9 3.3 0 0 6 212 8.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 0 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 64 4 0 0 4.2 0 0 2

213 2.7 1.0 1.7 0 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 2 1.7 0 0 0 2 Total: 1726 514 1212 4 18 1017 85 155 33 245 2631 13989 835 377 257 20 362 6.4 312

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 3. Alternative 2 Project Area Map

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Alternative 3: No Gap & Temporary Road Reduction Alternative Alternative 3 has been designed to meet the Purpose and Need by implementing the following activities while considering concerns expressed by commenters regarding silvicultural prescriptions, particularly as they pertain to gaps and the number of temporary roads:

Commercial thinning approximately 1,075 acres utilizing a range of silvicultural prescriptions that would generally retain approximately 40-100 trees per acre. This range allows prescriptions to be applied to each unit depending on slope, aspect, and other site-specific conditions. The prescriptions are anticipated to result in approximately 12 million board feet of timber and are designed to increase growth, health, and vigor of the leave trees.

Approximately 362 acres of ground-based, or mechanized, logging systems and 745 acres of skyline logging systems would be employed to implement the thinning prescriptions. Mechanized equipment is generally utilized on slopes under 35% and skyline systems over 35% slope.

Approximately 180 landings are proposed, 145 of which are in skyline units and 35 in ground-based units. The average landing size is 0.05 acres in skyline units and 0.12 acres in ground-based units.

Riparian reserves along fish-bearing (class 1 and 2) streams would not be thinned. Approximately 227 acres of riparian reserves along perennial non-fish bearing (class 3) and intermittent (class 4) streams are proposed for thinning treatments outside of the no- cut buffers. Class 3 no-cut buffers would be 85 feet each side of stream channel; class 4 no-cut buffers would be 25 feet each side of stream channel; where instability or slope breaks are present, buffers would be widened to protect these areas. Approximately 8 skyline landings are proposed within riparian reserves.

The activity fuels, or slash, would be treated in order to break up the continuity of the fuels throughout the units. Grapple pile burning would occur on approximately 323 acres in the ground-based units. Areas with light fuel loading may be in a condition or location that would not benefit from applying a fuels treatment. Prescribed burning would occur on approximately 80 acres and 1.8 miles of handline would be constructed to support that burning. Landing piles would be burned. Implementation of these treatments would be subject to a post-harvest fuels assessment.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Implementing road work: no new system roads would be constructed and all temporary spur roads would be obliterated after use.

Temporary spur road reconstruction- approximately 4.2 miles of temporary spur route to gain access into thinning units would be located on the existing footprint of skid roads, fire lines, and abandoned or unclassified roads that were built to access the original harvest units. Approximately 0.6 miles of these would be located within riparian reserve areas. Approximately 400 feet would be located in no-harvest buffers. Reconstruction would give the Forest Service the opportunity to properly obliterate and hydrologically restore these roads.

Temporary spur road obliteration – after use, approximately 4.6 miles (combination of new and existing) of temporary roads would be obliterated with an excavator equipped with a “winged ripper” to de-compact soil as needed. Any excavated material, including soil and woody material, would be pulled back over the road. A native forage seed mix would be applied to all subsoiled temporary roads and landings to minimize erosion and the establishment of invasive weeds.

System Road Reconstruction- Alternative 3 would include reconstruction to meet Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan, in order to accommodate flood flows, minimize the disruption of natural water flow pathways, and lessen the risk of erosion (ROD C 32-33), while providing for safe, cost-efficient timber haul. Road Reconstruction would include: placement or replacement of surface rock; the replacement of approximately 30 ditch relief culverts; armoring culvert outlets; the replacement of 12 undersized or deteriorated, to the extent that failure is imminent, stream crossings on roads 3816, 4713, 4713-100, 4713-500, and 4760; stabilizing road fills and road shoulders; and the repair of a slide located on the 4713 road. Road reconstruction work would be done using heavy equipment such as an excavator, backhoe, road grader, dump truck, and a water truck.

Road maintenance- Road maintenance would be implemented in order to meet the Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan which are designed to accommodate flood flows, minimize the disruption of natural water flow pathways, and lessen risk of erosion (ROD C 32-33), while providing for safe, cost-effective timber haul. These activities would occur on up to 60 miles of existing roads to facilitate hauling of logs: brushing roadsides and blading roadbeds; placing or replacing surface rock; cleaning ditches and culverts; falling hazard trees to meet OSHA safety requirements; grading and shaping of existing road surfaces; constructing water bars; and opening existing closed roads then re-closing after use. Work would be done using heavy equipment such as an excavator, backhoe, road grader, dump truck, and a water truck.

Rock pits – the project would use rock from Redman Tooth, Jack Creek, and Bloody Point Quarry, which would be expanded. No new rock pit locations would be implemented for this project.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 3. Connected Actions associated with Alternative 3

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Bloody Point 2.7 acres The proposed expansion for rock needs would be a 0.96 acre Rock Pit area to the North, between the top of the pit and the 3803-007 road which is between 60 and 150 feet from the current rock pit clearing. This expansion, when needed for production of rock, would involve clearing off the vegetation, and removal of the overburden for access to the rock. The proposed expansion for material storage needs would be the 1.6 acre area between the 3803-003 road and the current pit boundary. This expansion would provide for ODOT and FS needs for long term storage of unsuitable material excavated from roadways. The expansion of the rock pit would facilitate the segregation of disposal site from the rock source and would thus help mitigate the spread of invasive weeds.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 4. Alternative 3 Unit Summary.

Detailed Silvicultural Prescriptions Logging Total Fuels Treatments Total Thinning Prescription Gap Size Riparian Reserve Systems Unit Unthinned Thinned Volume Unit (Acres) (Number) Thinning # Acres Acres Removed Acres 40- 50- 70- Volume Skyline Ground Grapple Hand 20 1/2- 1- Thinned (mbf) Underburn Handline Landings 50 70 100 Removed Harvest Based Pile Pile TPA acre acre Acres (acres) (miles) (number) TPA TPA TPA (mbf) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 2 66.9 8.9 58.0 0 6.0 52.0 0 0 0 15 185 740 39 19 0 0 22.9 0.36 16

3 77.9 31.9 46.0 0 7.0 39.0 0 0 0 12 150 592 43 3 2.7 0 0 0 11 4 34.4 6.0 28.4 0 3.1 25.3 0 0 0 1 10 290 26 3 2.6 0 0 0 7 5 110.9 11.2 99.7 0 10.0 89.7 0 0 0 14 140 1017 60 40 39.9 0 0 0 25

6 55.0 21.6 33.4 0 0 0 33.4 0 0 3 30 334 27 7 6.6 0 0 0 8 7 51.5 13.7 37.8 0 0 0 37.8 0 0 6 57 359 27 11 10.8 0 0 0 10 8 31.3 3.3 28.0 0 2.3 25.7 0 0 0 3 32 298 9 19 19.2 0 0 0 8

9 41.5 22.0 19.4 0 4.1 15.3 0 0 0 8 98 243 19 0 0 0 19.4 0.6 5 10 39.0 4.8 34.2 0 3.5 30.7 0 0 0 0 0 384 34 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 24.0 18.6 5.3 0 2.2 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 63 5 0 0 5.3 0 0 2

12 30.0 4.7 25.3 0 2.7 22.6 0 0 0 2 27 349 24 1 1.4 0 0 0 6 14 7.9 1.0 6.9 0 0.6 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 70 7 0 0 7 0 0 2 16 48.4 20.0 28.4 0 4.3 24.1 0 0 0 0 0 381 7 21 21.0 0 0 0 6

18 84.1 25.2 58.9 0 6.3 52.6 0 0 0 21 253 722 35 24 23.7 0 0 0 15 19 37.2 9.6 27.5 0 2.8 24.7 0 0 0 7 76 304 28 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 72.1 21.1 51.0 0 5.4 45.6 0 0 0 11 110 521 46 5 5.4 0 0 0 12

21 20.5 3.2 17.3 0 2.0 15.3 0 0 0 1 13 230 17 0 0 0 0 0 5 23 74.1 9.0 65.0 0 5.6 59.4 0 0 0 15 158 662 32 33 33.4 0 31.6 0.37 17 24 50.7 20.2 30.5 0 3.8 26.7 0 0 0 15 166 344 25 5 5.3 0 0 0 8

100 28.8 4.4 24.4 0 2.6 21.8 0 0 0 9 92 249 24 1 0 0 24.4 0.8 6 103 61.6 23.3 38.3 0 3.9 34.4 0 0 0 7 89 391 13 26 0 0 38.3 0.5 12 104 105.1 105.1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 105 28.1 6.0 22.0 0 2.4 19.6 0 0 0 3 30 225 0 22 0 0 22.0 0.5 5

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Detailed Silvicultural Prescriptions Logging Total Fuels Treatments Total Thinning Prescription Gap Size Riparian Reserve Systems Unit Unthinned Thinned Volume Unit (Acres) (Number) Thinning # Acres Acres Removed Acres 40- 50- 70- Volume Skyline Ground Grapple Hand 20 1/2- 1- Thinned (mbf) Underburn Handline Landings 50 70 100 Removed Harvest Based Pile Pile TPA acre acre Acres (acres) (miles) (number) TPA TPA TPA (mbf) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 106 96.3 12.3 84.0 0 7.2 76.8 0 0 0 15 132 769 62 22 0 0 84.0 1.7 22 108 125.1 17.8 107.4 0 11.3 96.1 0 0 0 27 298 1206 72 35 35.4 0 0 0 26 111 16.7 16.7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

112 48.6 48.6 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 113 81.1 81.1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 115 48.1 48.1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

116 93.5 24.1 69.3 0 8.4 60.9 0 0 0 32 318 710 69 0 0 0 69.3 0.6 17 211 25.2 3.0 22.2 0 0 0 22.2 0 0 0 0 200 3 19 18.9 3.3 0 0 6 212 8.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 4 0 0 4.2 0 0 2

213 2.7 1.0 1.7 0 0.3 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 2 1.7 0 0 0 2

Total: 1726 652 1075 4 108 869 93 0 0 227 2464 11733 758 317 228 20 312 6 312

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 4. Alternative 3 project area map

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 5 compares the alternatives by the elements of the Purpose and Need, the issue indicators, and summarizes other activities, actions, and effects that would occur.

Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Density Management Acres of Thinning 0 1,212 1,075 Volume Removed (mbf) 0 13,989 11,733 Return to Treasury 0 $1,829,619 $1,358,030 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0 1.26 1.21 Acres analyzed but not thinned (skips) within the planning area. 0 545 652 Acres of gaps created Acres thinned in riparian 0 112 0 reserve 0 245 227

Logging Systems Skyline (acres) 0 835 758 Ground-Based (acres) 0 377 317

Temporary Roads Miles of existing temporary roads 0 6 4.2

Miles of new temporary roads 0 0.4 0.4

Miles of temporary roads subsoiled and hydrologically 0 6.4 4.6 restored

Activity Fuels Treatments Grapple pile (acres) 0 257 228 Underburning (acres) 0 362 312 Handline (miles) 0 6.4 6.4 Landings treated (piles) 0 312 312

Operating Seasonal Restrictions Units: Units: 002, 100, 104, 002, 100, 106, There would be no logging 106, 108, 116 108, 116 permitted outside of the normal N/A operating season except on the Haul Route: Haul Route: analyzed haul routes and units. 4713, 4713- 4713, 4713- 100,4713-300 100,4713-300

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

This chapter describes the components and scope of the human environment that may be affected by implementation of the alternatives outlined in Chapter 2 and discloses the potential consequences of implementing each alternative, including the best management practices and project design features.

This chapter presents the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives. The effects are discussed in terms of social and environmental changes from the current condition and include qualitative and quantitative assessments, where possible. All discussions are tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended and the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. This EA incorporates by reference the recommendations and analysis in the 2006 Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan. This chapter also incorporates by reference all reports and analyses prepared by resource specialists, which are summarized in this chapter.

Activities That May Contribute to Cumulative Effects The tables below document the relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that may contribute to cumulative effects for the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project. Recently, the Council on Environmental Quality issued a memo stating that agencies are not required to “catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions” (CEQ memo, June 24, 2005). Instead, agencies should use scoping to focus on relevant past actions and discuss their relevance in terms of the cause and effect they had on a resource. This direction is followed in this project; the following tables are displayed to summarize information known about the subwatersheds that constitute the planning area.

Table 6. Past Management Activities in the Planning Area Activity Decade Acres/Miles Description and Extent of Activity

Stand Clearcut 1950s 914 An even-aged regeneration or harvest method 1960s 2607 that removes all trees in the stand producing a 1970s 1128 fully exposed microclimate for the development 1980s 1163 of a new age class in one entry. 1990s 363 Total 6,175 acres

Shelterwood 1970s 178 A type of cut that removes trees except those Cut 1980s 555 needed for the purpose of seed production. 1990s 35 Prepares the seed bed and creates a new age Total 768 acres class in a moderated microenvironment. Partial Removal 1970s 21 An intermediate harvest that partially removes Total 21 acres the overstory in a prepatory or establishment cut of either a shelterwood or seed-tree harvest system. Commercial 1960s 28 An intermediate harvest with the objective of

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Activity Decade Acres/Miles Description and Extent of Activity

Thin 1970s 1032 reducing stand density primarily to improve 1980s 221 growth, enhance forest health, and other 1990s 308 resource objectives. 2000s 165 Total 1754 acres Pile Burning 1970s 1505 A method used to reduce logging debris post- 1980s 800 harvest that involves either machine or hand- 1990s 99 piling material and burning the piles. 2000s 12 2010s 15 Total 2,431 acres Underburn 1990s 446 Manipulation of a site by prescribed burning to Total 446 acres enhance the success of regeneration and/or control of understory vegetation Broadcast 1950s 862 Manipulation of a site by prescribed burning to Burning 1960s 2451 enhance the success of regeneration and/or 1970s 1299 control of understory vegetation 1980s 959 1990s 395 Total 5,966 acres Pre- 1960s 16 The cutting of trees not for immediate financial Commercial 1970s 723 return but to reduce stocking. Thinning 1980s 2011 1990s 1132 2000s 470 2010s 57 Total 4,409 acres Wildlife Habitat 2000s 184 Activities where the primary focus was to Activities 2010s 268 enhance various habitat conditions for wildlife Total 452 acres species.

Table 7. Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Planning Area Activity Type Approximate Notes Acres/Miles Noxious Weed Treatment 100 acres Ongoing treatment of noxious weeds in the watershed Road Maintenance 15 miles Ongoing maintenance of road system in the watershed Ragged Ridge Prescribed 3300 acres Future prescribed fire plan for burning near Fire the Lower Steamboat Planning Area Precommercial Thinning 360 acres Ongoing precommercial thinning operations

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Terrestrial Environment A detailed description of the terrestrial environment can be found in the Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1999), Upper Steamboat and Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis iteration (USDA, 2007), Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis (USDA, 2001), and South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA & USDI, 1998). Site-specific field work and analysis for this project produced additional information, which is provided in the following sections. Two spatial scales are used in many of the following discussions: (1) the landscape scale; and (2) the stand scale. The landscape scale focuses on large-scale conditions, such as forest vegetation patterns as seen from an airplane over thousands of acres. Satellite imagery and landtype maps were used to characterize vegetation and landforms at the landscape scale. The stand scale refers to areas several to hundreds of acres in size. Stand exams and other field data were used to characterize vegetation conditions at the stand scale. Existing and future conditions were quantified and modeled using this stand exam data and the Forest Vegetation Simulator Model (Dixon, 2013; Keyser, 2013) in conjunction with the Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator Model (Rebain, 2013), and Stand Visualization System (McGaughey, 2004).

FOREST VEGETATION Forest vegetation management activities include silvicultural and fuels treatments designed to approximate the natural range of variability for stand structure, composition, and arrangement across the planning area landscape. These treatments are designed to meet the project purpose and need to promote the development and maintenance of late-successional forest conditions in existing even-aged stands in LSR (USDA & USDI, 1994b, C-12). Proposed project activities include silvicultural (commercial thinning and fuels treatments) designed to develop structurally complex stand and landscape structure and species composition within second- growth stands that originated following even-aged management and subsequent planting in the 1950s through the 1970s. A reduction in some natural and activity-generated fuels is an additional beneficial outcome associated with the project. During scoping, the creation of skips and gaps was raised as an issue. Concerns were raised about whether the proposed treatments would achieve desired levels of heterogeneity and complexity within the managed stands. Commenters requested that treatments be designed to result in a variable density outcome by enhancing species and structural complexity and heterogeneity. This issue was addressed with the development of Alternative 3. The indicators selected to compare the relative impacts of each alternative on this metric were the number of acres of skips not thinned and the number of acres of gaps created. The effects of retaining skips and creating gaps are disclosed in this section. Existing and Desired Landscape Conditions Existing Landscape Conditions

The 30,483-acre Lower Steamboat planning area is located in the Middle North Umpqua and Lower Steamboat 5th-field watersheds within the Western Cascades physiographic province of the 509,000-acre Late Successional Reserve RO-222 (Figure 5). Existing landscape conditions in the Lower Steamboat planning area was broadly classified in terms of landtype associations, vegetation successional stage and forest type using raster data (LEMMA, 2013; LANDFIRE, 2013), 2012 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery, and landtype maps.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Successional stage and forest type classifications were subsequently validated using field reconnaissance, aerial imagery, landtype maps, and stand exam data analyses.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 5. Location of Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project area within LSR 222.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Existing Landtype Associations Characterizing the Lower Steamboat Planning Area

Landtype association maps were used to characterize the Lower Steamboat planning area in terms of vegetation and fire behavior associated with differences in elevation, slope, and aspect. Landtype maps were derived using digital elevation models (DEMs) with elevation, slope, gradient, and slope position attributes to model key relationships between plant series, climate, topography, and fire regimes. This classification strategy tiers to the Aquatic Conservation strategy for maintaining natural disturbance regimes at a landscape scale. Characterizing the planning area landscape using landtype maps informs the development of appropriate treatment strategies that are consistent with the range of natural variability for the landscape.

The core of the Lower Steamboat planning area is characterized by the Gentle Mountain Slope landtype association (36%), upper slope areas with few barriers to fire spread and with historic evidence of large patches of stand replacement fire, and Gentle Valley Bottoms (28%), areas characterized by surface fire and limited amounts of crown fire, representing the most likely refugia from fire at low elevations (Figure 6). This core area is framed largely along the east perimeter by the Steep Terrain landtype area (25%) and along the south perimeter by the Inner Gorge landtype area (11%), areas dominated by steep slopes where fire intensity is generally greater and stand replacing fire events more frequent.

Figure 6. Landtype associations characterizing the Lower Steamboat planning area landscape.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Existing Forest Successional Stages and Forest Types

Forest age classes that develop following a major disturbance, such as stand-replacing wildfire or clearcutting, are used to characterize current conditions across the landscape: 1. Early seral: Young stand with an open canopy. Stand age is generally less than 30 years, but can be older, especially in the high-elevation, cold/dry sites where canopy closure is delayed 10 to 20 years or more on average.

2. Stem exclusion: Stand with full site occupancy, where new species do not appear and some present species are dying due to competition or understory shading. Stand age is generally from 40 to more than 100 years, the average tree diameter is about 10” dbh, and canopy cover is ≥53%.

3. Mature: Stand where trees reach their maximum height potential. Stand age is generally from 80 to 150 years, the average tree diameter is 10 to 19” dbh, and canopy cover is ≥53%. This stage includes the “understory re-initiation stage”, where the understory develops in response to small openings in the canopy (Oliver and Larson, 1996) and the “transition stage”, defined in the Northwest Forest Plan as transitioning toward late seral.

4. Late seral: Stand with overstory trees dying in an irregular fashion and with understory trees filling the gaps. Stand age is generally more than 150 years, average tree diameter is ≥20” dbh in low-elevation, mixed conifer stands, and conifer canopy cover is ≥70%. Late seral includes the “shifting gap” stage (USDA/USDI, 1994a).

The Lower Steamboat planning area is located primarily within three forest vegetation zones (Figure 8), including the White Fir Zone (48% of planning area), Western Hemlock Zone (39% of planning area), and Douglas-fir Zone (10% of planning area). At high elevations, the planning area also includes small inclusions of the Mountain Hemlock Zone (2% of planning area) and Pacific Silver Fir Zone (1% of planning area). Detailed descriptions of forest vegetation zones can be found in the Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1999), Upper Steamboat and Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis iteration (USDA, 2007), Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis (USDA, 2001). Until the last few decades of the 20th century, the planning area landscape was largely covered by contiguous, late-successional forests with scattered patches of early to mid-successional forests resulting from stand replacement fires. Late-successional forest was concentrated in the gentle, moister terrains and high elevation sites. This patchy distribution of late successional forest consisted of numerous smaller patches in the steep and dry land units while the middle and southern portion of the planning area landscape was characterized by larger patches, indicative of high severity fires. Riparian forest patterns were well defined and showed large sections of riparian forests having been burned through. Overall, contiguous late-successional forest covered the majority of the watershed through time.

Since the early 1920s, fire suppression has altered how fire affects the landscape by greatly reducing the frequency of high-severity, stand replacement fires. In addition, over the last 50 years, road construction, development of infrastructure, residences, and timber harvesting have collectively caused major changes to the planning area landscape, shifting forest vegetation patterns from their natural range of variability. At the landscape scale, the patch size and spatial arrangement of existing forest vegetation conditions are departed from reference

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 7. Forest vegetation zones in the Lower Steamboat planning area.

conditions predicted by FRCC1 data (Hann and Strohm, 2003). Specifically, the spatial arrangement, patch size, and contiguity of forest successional stages across the planning area has been shifted from historical patterns by past forest management involving staggered clearcut harvests in the 1950s through 1980s and through fire suppression. Late-successional forest that historically occurred in large, contiguous blocks in gently-sloping valley bottom fire refugia now is fragmented into small patches and is distributed across the landscape in all landtype associations. In addition, large, unfragmented blocks of older forest are located in uncharacteristically steep terrain where risk of stand replacement fire is high. The exclusion of fire also has helped shape current vegetation patterns, resulting in increased fuel loads and increased density of understory vegetation.

Analysis of 1936 historic forest vegetation maps and reference condition data from the Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Interagency Handbook (Hann and Strohm, 2003), indicates that approximately 31% of the planning area’s landscape was covered by late seral forest vegetation, 26% by stem exclusion, and 22% by early seral vegetation, while mature vegetation comprised just 17% of the planning area. Non-forested portions of the planning area (land not conducive to conifer establishment, such as land dominated by rock and water) covered 3% of the planning area. In comparison, the existing distribution of forest vegetation across the Lower Steamboat planning area is predominantly in the mature successional stage (30% of the landscape) while early seral (26%), stem exclusion (22%), and late seral vegetation comprises 20% of the planning area. Non-forested areas covered 2.5% of the planning area (Figure 8).

1 Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) are qualitative (low, moderate and high), ecological measures describing the degree of departure from historical fire regimes, based on alterations of ecosystem components such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings (Schmidt et al. 2002).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

15 % of Planning Area: 1936 10 % of Planning Area: 2013

Figure 8. Historic and current distribution of forest successional stages across the Lower Steamboat planning area landscape.

Existing vegetation conditions in the Lower Steamboat planning area are more fragmented with lower inter-patch connectivity and contain less late seral forest and less stem exclusion forest, relative to reference conditions. However, although the amount of late-successional forest is within the natural range of variability, the arrangement and extent differs from historical conditions. Current late-successional forest is more fragmented by small, discontinuous stand initiation and stem exclusion stage patches, relative to historic conditions (Harrington, 2003) (Figure 8).

Figure 9. Historic (1936) and existing forest vegetation successional stages across the Lower Steamboat planning area landscape.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Existing Natural Disturbance

The primary drivers of ecological and natural disturbance processes within the Lower Steamboat planning area include fire, Armillaria root disease (Armillaria obscura), laminated root rot (Phellinus sulphurascens), white pine blister rust, Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), fir engraver beetle (Scolytus ventralis), and flathead fir borer (Melanophila drummondi). Other active disturbance agents include wind, annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum), black stain root rot (Leptographium wageneri ), Schweinitzii root and butt rot (Phaeolus schweinitzii), red ring rot (Phellinus pini), brown crumbly rot (Fomitopsis pinicola), and dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium species).

Disturbance effects resulting from fire range from light underburns, which may not be readily apparent a few years after the fire, to stand-replacing events, in which most plants are killed by the fire. In contrast, insects and pathogens persist at endemic levels across most of the planning area, producing frequent, small disturbances affecting several to hundreds of trees. Depending on stand condition and disturbance event, these disturbance agents can create forest openings ranging from very small (individual tree scale), to moderate (up to a few acres in size, as with root disease pockets; p. 86, SCLSRA; USDA, 1998), to very large (stand-replacing fire at the landscape scale; pp. 73-88, SCLSRA; USDA, 1998). The planning area experiences a mean fire return interval ranging from 11 to 126 years (mean=42 years) and is represented by fuel models 8 and 10. Fire severity data indicates that stand-replacing fire events create openings averaging 2.3 acres (range 0.0001-69.6 acres) in the planning area, specifically, and 3.7 acres (range 0.0009-1,078 acres) in the Umpqua National Forest portion of LSR RO-222, generally. Wildfire history data for the Umpqua National Forest and USDA Forest Service Region 6 Forest and Grassland Health Aerial Detection Survey data (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/forest-grasslandhealth/insects-diseases/) indicate that natural disturbance agents have resulted in tree mortality on over 4,700 acres within the Lower Steamboat planning area (Figure 11). Specifically, eleven wildfire events have resulted in tree mortality on 4,343 acres since 1987 while insects have resulted in tree mortality on 303 acres and damage from black bears has resulted in tree mortality on 78 acres within the planning area since 2005 (Table 8).

Figure 10. Lower Steamboat planning area natural disturbance and tree mortality agents.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Table 8. Tree mortality within the Lower Steamboat planning area resulting from natural disturbance agents between 1987 and 2012. Acres of Planning Mortality Agent Mortality Agent Name Year Area Affected

Wildfire: Jack Point Fire 1987 83 Rumble Fire 1996 27 Black Gorge Fire 1996 280 Spring Fire 1996 2,381 Quarry Fire 1996 56 Horse Prairie Fire 1996 15 Horse Prairie Fire 2002 1 Limpy Fire 2002 478 Mine Fire 2002 7 No Name 5 Fire 2002 1 Rattle Fire 2008 1,014 Insects: Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) 2005-2012 226 Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) 2005-2012 57 Western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis) 2005-2012 2 Flatheaded fir borer (Melanophila drummondi) 2005-2012 8 Fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis) 2005-2012 10 Large Mammals: Black bear (Ursus americanus) 2005-2012 78 Total Planning Area Acres Affected: 4,724

Desired Landscape Conditions Desired future conditions (DFCs) describe the desired composition, structure, and arrangement of forest vegetation and are developed by integrating information from multiple temporal scales (including past, present, and future time scales) and spatial scales (including landscape, forest stand, and forest plot spatial scales). Past, or reference, conditions serve as a model of functioning ecosystems and provide insight into the natural processes shaping vegetation patterns within the range of natural variability (Landres et al., 1999; Keane et al., 2009) as well as potential future conditions resulting from climate change (USDA, 2008, 2010a, and 2010b; Kurz, et al., 2008; Körner and Basler, 2010). This approach represents a way to identify the degree of departure from the natural range of variability in present-day landscapes and identify specific departures from reference conditions that might be modified through management.

Proposed silvicultural and fuels treatments targeting DFCs for the Lower Steamboat planning area landscape were developed using recommendations provided in the ROD (USDA & USDI, 1994a), S&Gs (USDA & USDI, 1994b), SCLSRA (USDA, 1998), LRMP (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1990), Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1999) and 2007 iteration (USDA, Umpqua NF, 2007), Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis (USDA, Umpqua NF, 2001), and the Revised Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USDI, 2011). The SCLSRA

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

and watershed analyses document an overabundance of densely-stocked second-growth stands and recommend the use of commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, and prescribed fire in these managed stands to shift landscape patterns towards desired reference conditions. Key management recommendations describing desired landscape conditions follow:

South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment Recommendations The 1998 South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment (SCLSRA; USDA & USDI, 1998) provides the management framework and context for vegetation management projects within approximately 721,000 acres of Late Successional Reserve land allocations. These management recommendations apply to the 509,000-acre Late Successional Reserve (LSR) RO-222 where the Lower Steamboat planning area is located. Treatment criteria to enhance late seral conditions describe the objectives of these treatments are to place stands on the path to produce late seral structures, to increase the size of what would eventually become late seral blocks, to reintroduce previously native tree and plant species, and to produce large wood as quickly as possible for recruitment into streams (SCLSRA, p. 121). The SCLSRA states that density management objectives in stands under 80 years of age are to place or keep stands on the path to produce or enhance late seral structures as soon as possible and recommends: Prioritizing areas with large amounts of early and mid-seral stands for treatment to accelerate development of late-successional structure. Using density management (pre-commercial thinning) incorporating variable-spacing to advance species and structural diversity of stands less than 25 years old. Prioritizing areas in the upper 1/3 slope position to reduce fuels and increase fire resiliency.

Watershed Analyses Recommendations The Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1999) and its 2007 iteration (USDA, 2007), and the Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis (USDA, 2001) identified multiple landscape-scale management recommendations based on the natural range of variability resulting from local disturbance processes (Landres et al., 1999). As such, these management recommendations tier to key disturbance processes shaping specific landtype areas and include:

1999 Lower Steamboat Watershed Analysis: Thin in mid-seral stands to accelerate the development of late-successional tree characteristics. Thin using variable spacing to achieve complex vegetative structure needs, maintain full live crown ratios, develop large branch diameters, and develop thick, fire-resilient bark (use wide spacing in some areas to maintain high growth rates to develop large diameter trees as soon as possible and also incorporate areas of no thinning); Maintain or develop intermediate canopy layers in managed stands by thinning; Release desirable hardwoods and shrubs in mid-seral stands to maintain diversity; and Interplant shade-tolerant conifers, such as western redcedar, in riparian areas. 2007 Lower Steamboat Watershed Analysis Iteration:

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Prescribe thinning and fuel reduction treatments in stem exclusion stands to improve the fire resiliency of the mature stands of the future. Reduce the current amount of landscape fragmentation by enlarging patches to approximate the acreage of historic large-scale disturbance events. Treat groups of adjacent patches simultaneously to accelerate structural development and ultimately lower the effects of fragmentation. The desired future pattern of stand initiation and stem exclusion patches would be more variable than today’s pattern and would include patches hundreds of acres in size. Thin plantations located in vicinities of relatively unfragmented late successional forest in order to accelerate large tree development. At the stand scale, focus vegetation treatments in the stem exclusion and mature stages to restore missing species and structural diversity. Use variable density thinning and fuel reduction to create a mosaic of vegetation and fuels in the future that is more like historic conditions. Design treatments that diversify the homogeneous, management-related stand structure in plantations. Recreate a mosaic of fuel conditions characteristic of a moderate severity fire regime. Vary treatments at both the stand and landscape scale to restore these historic patterns. Prioritize treatments in stands less than 80 years old (commercial thinning) and young stands less than 25 years old (pre-commercial thinning). Reduce stand replacement risk in areas that border older stands and owl cores. In Gentle Valley Bottoms, thin stem exclusion patches adjacent to late-successional patches in order to accelerate stand development and decrease fragmentation; apply thinning treatments and create small canopy gaps in early seral, stem exclusion, and mature structural stages in order to restore species and structural diversity characteristic of a mixed severity fire regime; and, where appropriate, initiate an uneven-aged management regime in order to culture a shade tolerant understory layer. In Gentle Mountain Slopes, apply thinning, canopy gap creation (up to 2 acres), and underburning to restore structural and species diversity in areas of stem exclusion and mature stands; and focus thinning and fuel treatments in the gentle mountain slope landscape areas where partial stand replacement fire played a more active role and where treatments can lower risks to adjacent steeper terrain. In Steep Terrains, manage stands to maintain even-aged characteristics; and, manage all forest stages to improve resiliency to fire by opening canopies and raising canopy base heights. 2001 Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis: Prescribe silvicultural and fuels treatments to accelerate the development of late successional forest habitat; and Utilize treatments designed to increase patch size and enhance connectivity among patches and among watersheds.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

In general, the desired future condition for the Lower Steamboat planning area landscape is to approximate the composition, structure, and arrangement of forest vegetation within the historic range of variability (Landres et al., 1999; Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002), with structurally and compositionally complex, fire-resilient stands imbedded within the planning area landscape. Desired future landscape conditions include shifting landscape patterns back to more natural conditions, reflecting the larger contiguous vegetation patches, increased species complexity enhanced stand vigor, and reduced fire hazard characteristic of reference conditions. This objective of maintaining a complex mosaic of vegetative structural diversity and pattern would be achieved by varying harvest treatments across the landscape consistent local disturbance processes. The desired landscape condition would have larger, contiguous age-class patches compared to today’s pattern and would restore the late-successional forest to historic refugia in the gently-sloping areas of the landscape. Desired patch sizes would be larger to approximate historic fire disturbance that previously covered thousands of acres. This desired pattern of vegetation patches would align with a spatially heterogeneous pattern similar to that produced by local natural disturbance processes (pp. 73-88, SCLSRA; USDA, 1998) while increasing stand resilience to potential future disturbance events (Kohm & Franklin, 1997; Franklin et al., 2002). This complex spatial and structural pattern also would be consistent with SCLSRA and watershed analyses recommendations as well as Objective 1 of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which calls for the restoration of the diversity and complexity of landscape-scale vegetation pattern and grain.

Existing and Desired Stand Conditions Existing Stand Conditions Previous clearcutting and subsequent planting of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Middle North Umpqua and Lower Steamboat watersheds, along with fire exclusion has created dense, even-aged stands in both uplands and riparian areas that are now in the stem exclusion stage of structural development (Oliver and Larson, 1996). These second-growth stands lack the structural and species diversity they would otherwise have if exposed to natural successional pathways, such as fires (Zenner, 2005). Historically, sugar pine trees were naturally abundant in the planning area on south through west aspects and were maintained by the historical fire regime. Today, sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) is underrepresented within the planning area landscape and is declining due to competition related to dense planting of Douglas-fir, fire exclusion, and occurrence of white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). Dense stand stocking also leads to heavy inter-tree competition, resulting in decreased tree and stand vigor, low growth rates, and potentially restricted development of some desired riparian habitat characteristics, such as large-diameter trees that may ultimately be recruited as large down wood to streams. Additionally, dense stocking reduces stand resistance to wind and fire damage (Poage and Tappeiner, 2002). Stands proposed for silvicultural treatments within the project area include relatively homogeneous, even-aged, Douglas-fir stands ranging from 38 to 57 years old (Table 9). These stem exclusion stands were established following even-aged harvest in the 1950s through 1970s and subsequent planting. Relative to historic conditions, existing stands are characterized by limited species diversity and reduced structural complexity, with few legacy habitat components, such as large snags, large downed wood, and “wolf trees” (Spies & Franklin, 1991). In contrast to historic stem exclusion stand development patterns, plantations in the planning area are growing at much higher densities and experiencing pronounced intertree competition (Figure 12). Dominant trees in today’s old-growth stands developed from young stands growing at stand densities averaging 40 to 50 trees per acre (tpa), thus allowing trees to

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

sustain high growth rates during the first 50 to 100 years and facilitating the early development of late-successional characteristics such as fire-resilient, large diameter trees with deep crowns and with less self-thinning than managed stands experience today (Poage & Tappeiner, 2002; Tappeiner et al., 2007).

Figure 11. Existing conditions in representative Lower Steamboat planning area units.

While some of these stands could develop old-growth characteristics without silvicultural intervention, current stocking and structure of most of these stands were established to produce high timber yields, not to provide for the development of old-growth forests. Research addressing silvicultural strategies for advancing late seral structure in young, managed stands suggests that, in the absence of active management, these young plantations would likely ultimately transition to and climax as shade-tolerant, Tsuga (hemlock)-dominated stands (Zenner, 2005). Even with fire suppression, these stands also would eventually be affected by wildfire, likely stand-replacing wildfire, due to accumulated fuel loads and layered canopies of fire-intolerant understory vegetation (Zenner, 2005). These densely-stocked young plantations also may not develop into old-growth structure over time if they are too densely stocked to allow development of the vertical and horizontal structural differentiation characteristic of existing old- growth stands (Tappeiner, et al., 1997). The developmental pathways and subsequent stability of densely-stocked young plantations also may be compromised if high densities persist through pivotal growth periods when height- to diameter ratios develop and establish (Wilson & Oliver, 2000). Thinning in young coniferous stands also may contribute to the development of a diverse understory differing in successional status, growth form, and structure, thus enhancing ecosystem resilience (Ares et al., 2010).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Table 9. Stand summary for proposed Lower Steamboat timber sale units.

Unit Acres Age Elevation Aspect Landtype Plant Association Group Potential (ft)2 Association3 Vegetation4 2 66.9 52 2,650 (2,300-3,000) NNE GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF-WH 3 77.9 52 2,650 (2,400-2,900) NE ST White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF-WH 4 34.4 52 3,400 (3,200-3,600) NW GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF 5 110.9 52 3,550 (3,300-3,800) NE GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron & WF White Fir Zone, Cascade Barberry-Pippisewa 6 55.0 48 4,000 (3,800-4,200) NW GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron & WF White Fir Zone, Cascade Barberry-Pippisewa 7 51.5 47 4,000 (3,700-4,300) N GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron & WF White Fir Zone, Cascade Barberry-Pippisewa 8 31.3 53 3,000 (2,850-3,150) ENE GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF 9 41.5 55 2,450 (2,200-2,700) N GVB-GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF-WH 10 39.0 53 2,200 (1,950-2,450) NE ST Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern 11 24.0 52 2,125 (2,000-2,250) NW-NE ST Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern & Douglas-fir Zone, Salal-Rhododendron-Cascade Barberry 12 30.0 56 1.825 (1,450-2,200) WNW- ST Douglas-fir Zone, Salal- WH NNE Rhododendron-Cascade Barberry & Douglas-fir Zone, Pacific Poison Oak 14 7.9 52 2,050 (1,950-2,150) NW GMS Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern 16 48.4 50 4,150 (4,050-4,250) N GMS White Fir Zone, Cascade WF Barberry-Pippisewa 18 84.1 51 3,425 (3,150-3,700) NE GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF 19 37.2 51 2,750 (2,400-3,100) NE GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF 20 72.1 53 2,400 (2,100-2,700) NE GMS Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern & White Fir Zone, Rhododendron 21 20.5 53 1,975 (1,750-2,200) NE GMS Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern & White Fir Zone, Rhododendron 23 74.1 39 3,100 (2,900-3,300) N GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF

2Average elevation and elevational ranges reported (feet). 3 Landtype Associations: GVB=Gentle Valley Bottoms; GMS=Gentle Mountain Slopes; ST=Steep Terrains. 4 Potential Natural Vegetation Zones: The vegetation that would be present under climax conditions if the site were allowed to grow, undisturbed by fire, insects, diseases, flood, wind, erosion, or humans. Represents the theoretical steady state condition in vegetation composition characterizing the site potential that would result after approximately 500 years without disturbance: WF=white fir; WH=western hemlock.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Unit Acres Age Elevation Aspect Landtype Plant Association Group Potential (ft)2 Association3 Vegetation4 24 50.7 48 3,225 (3,050-3,400) N GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF 100 28.8 52 3,025 (2,700-3,350) S GMS Douglas-fir Zone, Salal- WF-WH Rhododendron-Cascade Barberry 103 61.6 46 4,000 (3,800-4,200) SE GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron & WF White Fir Zone, Cascade Barberry-Pippisewa 104 105.1 51 1,950 (1,650-2,250) NW GVB Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern 105 28.1 47 4,250 (4,050-4,450) SE GMS White Fir Zone, Rhododendron & WF White Fir Zone, Cascade Barberry-Pippisewa 106 96.3 51 2,175 (1,850-2,500) SSE GMS Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern & Douglas-fir Zone, Pacific Poison Oak 108 125.1 51 3,625 (3,250-4,000) SW- GMS-ST White Fir Zone, Rhododendron WF WNW 111 16.7 48 2,800 (2,650-2,950) SW-W ST Douglas-fir Zone, Salal- WF Rhododendron-Cascade Barberry 112 48.6 47 2,700 (2,500-2,900) NW-W GMS Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WF-WH Swordfern & Douglas-fir Zone, Salal-Rhododendron-Cascade Barberry 113 81.1 51 2,475 (2,350-2,600) SW-W GVB Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern 115 48.1 51 1,875 (1,750-2,000) N GVB-GMS Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WF-WH Swordfern & White Fir Zone, Rhododendron 116 93.5 38 2,650 (2,300-3,000) NW-S GMS Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WF-WH Swordfern & White Fir Zone, Rhododendron 211 25.2 57 1,525 (1,350-1,700) SE GVB Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern 212 8.4 47 1,500 (1,450-1,550) SE GVB Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern 213 2.7 47 1,650 (1,600-1,700) SE GVB Grand Fir Zone, Oceanspray- WH Swordfern

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Desired Stand Conditions Desired future conditions for stands in the Lower Steamboat planning area incorporate information from past, or reference, conditions that provide insight into the natural processes shaping stand vegetation patterns within the range of natural variability (Landres et al., 1999). Silvicultural and fuels treatments proposed for planning area stands in the planning area were designed to target these identified DFCs and to bridge the gap between existing and desired stand conditions. Ecological restoration objectives were drawn directly from specific objectives relevant to the Lower Steamboat planning area as identified in the Lower Steamboat (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1999) and Middle North Umpqua (USDA, Umpqua NF, 2001) watershed analyses and the South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA and USDI, 1998). In general, the desired future condition for stands in the Lower Steamboat planning area is to approximate the composition, structure, and arrangement of forest vegetation within the natural range of variability at the stand scale, shifting stand composition and structure back to more natural conditions (Kerr, 2012). Desired future conditions within planning area stands include: multi-species and multi-layered assemblages of trees; moderate- to-high accumulations of large logs and snags; moderate-to-high canopy closure; moderate-to-high numbers of trees with physical imperfections; and moderate-to-high accumulations of fungi, lichens, and bryophytes (B-5, USDA & USDI, 1994b).

Proposed Silvicultural Treatments: Commercial Thinning and Fuels Treatments Proposed silvicultural treatments were designed to bridge the gap between existing and desired stand and landscape conditions. Treatments were designed to achieve DFCs by accelerating the development of the young planning area stands into multi-layered stands with large trees and diverse plant species, and structures that may, in turn, maintain or enhance species diversity (S&Gs B-6, USDA & USDI, 1994b). Treatments were developed using recommendations in watershed analyses, the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1990), and the South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA and USDI, 1998). Historical (LANDFIRE, 2011) and current imagery (NAIP), field reconnaissance formal stand exams, and Forest Vegetation Simulator modeling (Reinhardt & Crookston, 2003) also were used to develop detailed prescriptions for each planning area unit.

Proposed silvicultural activities are consistent with SCLSRA direction for density management in LSR and specifically in LSR stands less than 80 years of age by prescribing site-specific density management, snag creation, prescribed fire, underplanting, and down wood recruitment to add complexity at the stand scale (SCLSRA, pp. 125-127; USDA, 1998). This site-specific array of proposed treatments is designed to create a complex mosaic of conditions across the project landscape. A range of commercial thinning densities is prescribed to open up the canopy, thereby increasing the structural and compositional diversity and hastening the transition of treated stands to stands with mature forest characteristics (p 113; USDA, 1998). Emphasis is placed on initiating uneven-age and two-age mature stand structure while using planting and canopy gaps to diversify homogeneous plantations. Silvicultural and fuels treatments have two principal objectives:

1. Promoting the development of old-growth forest characteristics in young stands, including large trees, snags, logs on the forest floor, deep tree crowns, and canopy gaps that enable establishment of multiple tree layers (vertical diversity) and diverse species composition; and

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

2. Preventing large-scale disturbances by fire, wind, insects, and diseases that would destroy or limit the ability of this portion of LSR RO-222 to sustain viable populations of forest species (B-5, USDA & USDI, 1994b).

Proposed silvicultural treatments utilize uneven-aged silvicultural systems using thinning from below to shift nearly 1,800 acres of even-aged, stem exclusion Douglas-fir plantations towards a development trajectory of greater structural and species complexity and function. The proposed action prescribes commercial thinning in the stem exclusion stage portions of the planning area landscape where the density of young stands is currently the highest. Treatments are designed to increase growth, health, and vigor of the leave trees remaining in the stand; restore stand density, and species and structural diversity to those considered characteristic under a natural disturbance regime; and reduce hazardous fuel loads and improve stand resiliency to wildfire. Ecological benefits would include hastened development of late-successional structure and function, including development of multi-layered stands, legacy habitat components (e.g., large trees, abundant large snags and downed woody material, and wolf trees), increased vertical and horizontal heterogeneity, structural complexity and species diversity. Thinning from below is proposed to allow light to penetrate the currently relatively uniform canopy and stimulate understory growth of desired tree, shrub, and herbaceous species. In general, thinning from below would retain the largest diameter overstory trees and advance residual tree growth. Thinning also would increase both horizontal and vertical structural diversity within stem exclusion stands. Following thinning, stem exclusion stands would have reduced stand density and broader distribution of tree sizes; thus a low thinning would set the stage for a more uneven distribution of large trees in the future. Trees in the stem exclusion stands would respond with rapid growth after thinning because of the reduced tree density. Density management objectives would be achieved by commercially thinning approximately 1,250 acres utilizing a range of silvicultural prescriptions retaining approximately 40-100 trees per acre (tpa). This range allows prescriptions to be applied to each unit depending on slope, aspect, and other site-specific conditions in order to increase growth, health, and vigor of the leave trees. In Alternative 2, gap creation and subsequent planting of native species, including sugar pine, incense cedar, and western redcedar also is proposed to increase structural complexity and to facilitate understory development (Coates and Burton, 1997). Proposed treatments are designed to increase diversity within relatively uniform stands of Douglas-fir by including areas of variable spacing using one of three thinning densities, depending upon site- specific resource objectives with no thin areas (skips) and gaps nested within the intervening thinned forest matrix as follows(Tables 10 and 11; Figures 13 and 14):

No thinning acres: 10% of unit area, minimum. Applied to portions of all treatment units to achieve objectives related to wildlife habitat, thermal and visual cover, riparian shade, unique habitats, slope instability, and merchantability. Density Management: o Light thinning (70-100 tpa) o Moderate thinning (50-70 tpa) o Heavy thinning (less than 50 tpa) and gap creation (½- and 1-acre): 3-10% of unit area to achieve objectives related to maximizing individual trees development, understory vegetation development, and initiation of structural diversity. o Fuels treatments (including underburning, grapple piling, modified whole-tree yarding, and handpiling).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Similar and connected actions associated with the Proposed Action are designed to accelerate the development of multi-storied, late-successional forest structure, and manage for reduced fire risk over time. These similar and connected actions include underplanting within 102 acres of ½- and 1-acre gaps and pre-commercial thinning to restore stand density, species diversity, and promote the structural development of young, previously managed stands. Following implementation of silvicultural and fuels treatments, selected gaps would be underplanted with sugar pine and incense cedar seedlings to increase structural complexity in young, stem exclusion Douglas-fir plantations. Western redcedar also would be planted in ½- acre gaps adjacent to riparian areas in appropriate landscape positions (Table 10). Pre-commercial thinning also would occur on up to 360 acres within the planning area.

Marking guidelines would specify retention of minor tree species, including sugar pine, western white pine (Pinus monticola), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), suitable to landscape area. Legacy habitat components, such as snags and downed wood would be retained following treatment to maintain legacy wildlife habitat. Hardwood tree species, such as bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), also would be retained during implementation where appropriate to maintain habitat and biodiversity hotspots for wildlife species associated with hardwoods (Spies and Duncan, 2009).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Table 10. Alternative 2 prescriptions for Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning project units. Detailed Silvicultural and Fuels Prescriptions

Moderate Heavy Light Thinning Total Heavy Acres of Reforestation Within Thinning Thinning Gap 5 No Thin Prescription Thinning & Gap Fuels Treatment Acres Heavy Thinning & Gap Prescription Prescription Treatments Total (70-100 tpa) Treatments Treatments (50-70 tpa) (<50 tpa) Unit Unit Acres # # 1- % Unit % Unit % Unit 1/2- % Unit Sugar Incense Western Acres Acres Acres Acres acre Acres GP MWT UB None Acres Acres Acres acre Acres Pine Cedar Redcedar Gaps Gaps 002 66.9 8.9 13.3 0 0 51.0 76.2 2 4 2 6 9.0 18.7 41.3 4.2 2.7 1 1 2 003 77.9 31.9 41.0 0 0 43.0 55.2 0 6 0 3 3.9 2.7 43.3 0 31.9 0 0 2.5 004 34.4 6.0 17.4 0 0 26.4 76.7 0 4 0 2 5.8 2.6 25.8 0 6.0 0 0 0 005 110.9 11.2 10.1 0 0 92.7 83.6 0 10 2 7 6.3 39.9 59.8 0 11.2 0 0 3.5 006 55.0 21.6 39.3 33.4 60.7 0 0 0 5 1 3.5 6.4 6.6 26.8 0 21.6 0 0 2.5 007 51.5 13.7 26.6 37.8 73.4 0 0 0 5 1 3.5 6.8 10.8 27.0 0 13.7 1 1 2.5 008 31.3 3.3 10.6 0 0 26.0 83.0 0 4 0 2 6.4 19.2 8.8 0 3.3 0 0 2 009 41.5 22.0 53.1 0 0 16.4 39.6 1.5 3 0 3 7.2 0 19.4 0 22.0 0 0 1.5 010 39.0 4.8 12.3 0 0 31.2 80.0 0 2 2 3 7.7 0 39.0 0 0 0 0 1 011 24.0 18.6 77.8 0 0 3.3 13.9 0 2 1 2 8.3 0 5.3 0 18.6 0 0 0 012 30.0 4.7 15.6 0 0 22.3 74.4 0 2 2 3 10.0 1.4 23.9 0 4.7 2 0 0.5 014 7.9 1.0 12.2 0 0 6.4 81.4 0 1 0 0.5 6.4 0 7.9 0 0 0 0 0 016 48.4 20.0 41.3 0 0 25.4 52.5 0 4 1 3 6.2 21.0 7.5 0 20.0 0 0 0 018 106.8 46.6 43.6 0 0 54.2 50.8 2 8 0 6 5.6 25.0 35.2 0 46.6 0 0 3 019 37.2 9.6 25.9 0 0 23.5 63.3 0 4 1 3 8 0 27.5 0 9.6 0 0 2 020 72.1 21.1 29.3 0 0 46.0 63.8 0 8 1 5 6.9 5.4 45.6 0 21.1 0 0 3.5 021 20.5 3.2 15.6 0 0 15.3 74.6 1 2 0 2 9.8 0 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 023 74.1 9.0 12.2 0 0 58.0 78.4 2 6 2 7 9.5 33.4 37.7 0 2.9 2 2 3 024 50.7 20.2 39.8 0 0 25.5 50.3 0 8 1 5 9.9 5.3 25.2 0 20.2 1 1 4 100 28.8 4.4 15.3 0 0 22.4 77.8 0 2 1 2 6.9 0.6 0 23.8 4.4 1 1 1 103 61.6 13.2 21.4 0 0 42.4 68.9 0 8 2 6 9.7 25.6 22.9 0 13.2 2 2 3

5 Fuels Treatment Acres Codes: GP=Grapple Pile; MWT=Modified Whole-Tree Yarding; UB=Underburn.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Detailed Silvicultural and Fuels Prescriptions

Moderate Heavy Light Thinning Total Heavy Acres of Reforestation Within Thinning Thinning Gap No Thin Prescription Thinning & Gap Fuels Treatment Acres5 Heavy Thinning & Gap Prescription Prescription Treatments Total (70-100 tpa) Treatments Treatments (50-70 tpa) (<50 tpa) Unit Unit Acres # # 1- % Unit % Unit % Unit 1/2- % Unit Sugar Incense Western Acres Acres Acres Acres acre Acres GP MWT UB None Acres Acres Acres acre Acres Pine Cedar Redcedar Gaps Gaps 104 114.7 74.1 64.5 0 0 33.7 29.4 2 8 1 7 6.1 31.0 0 9.7 74.1 0 0 3.5 105 28.1 6.0 21.5 0 0 20.0 71.3 0 4 0 2 7.1 22.0 0 0 6.0 0 0 0 106 96.3 12.3 12.8 0 0 77.0 80.0 3.5 3 2 7 7.3 22.0 62.0 0 12.3 2 2 1.5 108 125.1 17.8 14.2 0 0 95.4 76.2 1.5 13 4 12 9.6 35.4 71.9 0 17.8 4 4 6.5 111 16.7 11.5 69.0 0 0 3.7 22.0 0 1 1 1.5 9.0 0 5.2 0 11.5 1 1 0.5 112 48.6 5.5 11.3 0 0 39.1 80.5 0 6 1 4 8.2 8.0 35.0 0 5.5 1 1 2.5 113 81.1 51.3 63.2 0 0 23.9 29.4 0 10 1 6 7.4 20.9 8.9 0 51.3 1 1 1.5 115 48.1 38.8 80.7 0 0 6.3 13.1 2 2 0 3 6.2 0 9.3 0 38.8 0 0 1 116 93.5 24.1 25.8 0 0 63.3 67.7 0 6 3 6 6.4 0 0 51.0 42.5 3 3 3 211 25.2 3.0 11.7 22.2 88.2 0 0 0 4 0 2 7.9 18.9 3.9 0 2.4 0 0 2 212 8.4 4.3 50.6 0 0 0 0 4.2 0 0 4.2 49.8 0 4.2 0 4.3 0 0 0 213 2.7 1.0 38.4 0 0 1.7 61.6 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.7 0 0 1.0 0 0 0 Totals 1759 545 31% 93.4 5% 996 57% 22 155 33 134 8% 378 751 89 541 22 20 60

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Table 11. Alternative 3 prescriptions for Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning project units. Detailed Silvicultural and Fuels Prescriptions Heavy Light Thinning Moderate Thinning Thinning Total Heavy Thinning Acres of Reforestation Within No Thin Prescription (70-100 Prescription (50-70 Gap Treatments Total Prescription & Gap Treatments Heavy Thinning & Gap Treatments tpa) tpa) Unit Unit (<50 tpa) Acres # 1/2- % Unit % Unit % Unit # 1-acre % Unit Sugar Incense Western Acres Acres Acres Acres acre Acres Acres Acres Acres Gaps Acres Pine Cedar Redcedar Gaps 2 66.9 8.9 13.3 0 0 52.0 78 6.0 0 0 6.0 9.0 0 0 0 3 77.9 31.9 41.0 0 0 39.0 50.0 7.0 0 0 7.0 9.0 0 0 0

4 34.4 6.0 17.4 0 0 25.3 73.6 3.1 0 0 3.1 9.0 0 0 0 5 110.9 11.2 10.1 0 0 89.7 80.9 10.0 0 0 10.0 9.0 0 0 0 6 55.0 21.6 39.3 33.4 60.7 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0

7 51.5 13.7 26.6 37.8 73 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 8 31.3 3.3 10.6 0 0 25.7 82.1 2.3 0 0 2.3 7.4 0 0 0 9 41.5 22.0 53.1 0 0 15.3 37.0 4.1 0 0 4.1 9.9 0 0 0

10 39.0 4.8 12.3 0 0 30.7 78.7 3.5 0 0 3.5 9.0 0 0 0 11 24.0 18.6 77.8 0 0 3.1 13.0 2.2 0 0 2.2 9.2 0 0 0 12 30.0 4.7 15.6 0 0 22.6 75.4 2.7 0 0 2.7 9.0 0 0 0

14 7.9 1.0 12.2 0 0 6.3 80.1 0.6 0 0 0.6 7.6 0 0 0 16 48.4 20.0 41.3 0 0 24.1 49.9 4.3 0 0 4.3 8.9 0 0 0 18 84.1 25.2 29.9 0 0 52.6 62.6 6.3 0 0 6.3 7.5 0 0 0

19 37.2 9.6 25.9 0 0 24.7 66.5 2.8 0 0 2.8 7.5 0 0 0 20 72.1 21.1 29.3 0 0 45.6 63.2 5.4 0 0 5.4 7.5 0 0 0 21 20.5 3.2 15.6 0 0 15.3 74.6 2.0 0 0 2.0 9.8 0 0 0

23 74.1 9.0 12.2 0 0 59.4 80.3 5.6 0 0 5.6 7.6 0 0 0 24 50.7 20.2 39.8 0 0 26.7 52.7 3.8 0 0 3.8 7.5 0 0 0 100 28.8 4.4 15.3 0 0 21.8 75.7 2.6 0 0 2.6 9.0 0 0 0

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Detailed Silvicultural and Fuels Prescriptions Heavy Light Thinning Moderate Thinning Thinning Total Heavy Thinning Acres of Reforestation Within No Thin Prescription (70-100 Prescription (50-70 Gap Treatments Total Prescription & Gap Treatments Heavy Thinning & Gap Treatments tpa) tpa) Unit Unit (<50 tpa) Acres # 1/2- % Unit % Unit % Unit # 1-acre % Unit Sugar Incense Western Acres Acres Acres Acres acre Acres Acres Acres Acres Gaps Acres Pine Cedar Redcedar Gaps 103 61.6 23.3 37.8 0 0 34.4 55.8 3.9 0 0 3.9 6.3 0 0 0

104 105.1 105.1 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 105 28.1 6.0 21.5 0 0 19.6 69.9 2.4 0 0 2.4 8.6 0 0 0 106 96.3 12.3 12.8 0 0 76.8 79.8 7.2 0 0 7.2 7.5 0 0 0

108 125.1 17.8 14.2 0 0 96.1 76.8 11.3 0 0 11.3 9.0 0 0 0 111 16.7 16.7 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 112 48.6 48.6 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0

113 81.1 81.1 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 115 48.1 48.1 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 116 93.5 24.1 25.8 0 0 60.9 65.2 8.4 0 0 8.4 9.0 0 0 0

211 25.2 3.0 11.7 22.2 88.3 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 212 8.4 4.2 50.0 0 0 0 0.0 4.2 0 0 4.2 50.0 0 0 0 213 2.7 1.0 37.0 0 0 1.4 51.9 0.3 0 0 0.3 11.1 0 0 0

Total: 1726 652 37.9 93 6.7 869 47.7 112 0 0 112 7.7 0 0 0

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

a. b. c. No Action Alternative in 2013 (a), 2063 (b), and 2113 (c).

d. e. f. Light Thinning Prescription (70-100 tpa) in 2013 (d), 2063 (e), and 2013 (f).

g. h. i. Moderate Thinning Prescription (50-70 tpa) in 2013 (g), 2063 (h), and 2013 (i).

j. k. l. HeavyThinning Prescription (less than 50 tpa) in 2013 (j), 2063 (k), and 2013 (l).

m. n. o. Gap Prescription in 2013 (m), 2063 (n), and 2013 (o).

Figure 12 (a-o). (a-c) Representative stand conditions for No Action; (d-f) Light Thinning prescription (70-100 tpa); (g-i) Moderate Thinning prescription (50-70 tpa); (j-l) Heavy Thinning prescription (less than 50 tpa); and (m-o) Gap prescription, in 2013, 2063, and 2113, respectively. DFCs are represented by 2113 stands. All prescriptions include a 20” diameter at breast height (dbh) upper diameter limit.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

a. b. c. No Action Alternative in 2013 (a), 2063 (b), and 2113 (c).

d. e. f. Light Thinning Prescription (70-100 tpa) in 2013 (d), 2063 (e), and 2013 (f).

g. h. i. Moderate Thinning Prescription (50-70 tpa) in 2013 (g), 2063 (h), and 2013 (i).

j. k. l. HeavyThinning Prescription (less than 50 tpa) in 2013 (j), 2063 (k), and 2013 (l).

m. n. o. Gap Prescription in 2013 (m), 2063 (n), and 2013 (o).

Figure 13 (a-o). (a-c) Representative diameter distributions for No Action; (d-f) Light Thinning prescription (70-100 tpa); (g-i) Moderate Thinning prescription (50-70 tpa); (j-l) Heavy Thinning prescription (less than 50 tpa); and (m-o) Gap prescription, in 2013, 2063, and 2113, respectively. DFCs are represented by 2113 stands. All prescriptions include a 20” diameter at breast height (dbh) upper diameter limit.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects are those that are triggered immediately as a result of implementation at the stand scale. Indirect effects are those that would occur within the treatment areas and at the landscape scale over 30 to 50 years, the timeframe required for canopy closure following proposed silvicultural and fuels treatments (Table 12). The purpose of the Lower Steamboat project is to promote the development and maintenance of late- successional forest conditions in existing even-aged stands in LSR (USDA & USDI, 1994b, C-12). Proposed project activities include silvicultural (commercial thinning and fuels treatments) designed to develop structurally complex stand and landscape structure and species composition within second-growth stands that originated following even-aged management and subsequent planting in the 1950s through the 1970s. Project treatment objectives are to shift relatively homogeneous, even-aged, Douglas-fir plantations towards developing a heterogeneous combination of stand conditions appropriate to landscape position, slope, aspect, elevation. A mosaic of thinning intensities and fuel treatments would restore the variability of stand structure characteristic of a moderate severity fire regime. Silvicultural treatments are designed to be implemented in the short-term in order to achieve long-term structural and compositional objectives for stands within the planning area landscape. Two-layer stands and multi-age stand structure would be the desired and expected condition fifty years after implementation of the proposed treatments. The No Action and two action alternatives differ in the degree to which project objectives would be met.

In Alternative 1, no commercial thinning, gap creation, underplanting, or precommercial thinning would occur. No direct effects on forest vegetation within the Lower Steamboat planning units would occur. However, since Alternative 1 would forgo the opportunity to accelerate the development of late-successional forest structure and habitat, there are indirect and long-term impacts associated with this No Action alternative.

In Alternative 2, commercial thinning, gap creation, underplanting, and precommercial thinning is proposed to manage stand density and advance the development of late-successional forest structure and habitat.

In Alternative 3, commercial thinning and precommercial thinning is proposed to manage stand density and advance the development of late-successional forest structure and habitat. No gap creation or subsequent underplanting would occur in this alternative.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Table 12. Summary of direct and indirect effects to forest vegetation. Effect on Treatment Acres By Primary Effect Duration Treatment Forest Alternative (Beneficial/Adverse) (Years) Vegetation 1 2 3 Lower stand densities and canopy Beneficial: Improved closure/Variable species and structural 30-50 0 1,080 1,075 tree density at diversity. landscape and stand scales Commercial Beneficial: Large snags Thinning created/accelerated Lower amount growth of larger leave of snags and trees. down 30 0 1,080 1,075 wood/Larger Adverse: Loss of diameter trees suppression-related and snags mortality in suppressed and intermediate small- diameter trees. Beneficial: Accelerated Individual tree growth of dominant release and tree in gap center and 30-50 0 112 0 added growth. improved structural ½-Acre and diversity within stands. 1-Acre Gaps Beneficial: Accelerated age class and species Trees planted diversification within 30-50 0 102 0 stands and across landscape. Lower tree Beneficial: Accelerated Pre- density and growth of retention Commercial 30-50 0 360 360 reduced canopy trees and improved Thinning closure. species diversity.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Landscape Scale Effects on Vegetation Direct and indirect effects of proposed treatments for each Alternative, including the effects of skips and gap creation (Issue #1), are disclosed at both the landscape and stand scale. At the landscape scale, both of the action alternatives proposes treatments thinning forest stands, which would alter stand structure but not change the seral stage, which would alter landscape patterns. Effects to vegetation are predominantly beneficial because thinning creates a more open structure and canopy, proportional to the number of acres to be thinned (Table 12). Alternative 2 proposes to commercially thin 5 more acres than Alternative 3. However, Alternative 2 proposes to create gaps on 112 of these acres then underplant 102 acres with native species, thus creating more complex structure and species composition across the landscape than Alternative 3. Alternative 1 would result in no direct changes to existing conditions, compared to the two action alternatives because no treatments would be done. Stands would remain densely stocked, the development of stem exclusion stands would be delayed, the advancement of late seral habitat would be delayed across the landscape, and structural and species diversity would not be enhanced under the current dense stand conditions. Thus, Alternative 1 would adversely affect both structural development and fuel conditions by maintaining stands in the stem exclusion successional stage. This effect would be greatest in the proposed treatment units where silvicultural and fuels treatments are proposed, where young Douglas-fir dominates, and where fuel loads are high. Overall, Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on the landscape, but would have the indirect effect of delaying development of late-successional forest habitat within young Douglas-fir plantations in LSR and increasing risk of stand-replacement fire and loss of late-successional forest, which would be noticeable at the landscape scale.

Stand Scale Effects on Vegetation Proposed treatments that would directly affect forest vegetation at the stand scale involve commercial thinning, gap creation, no thinning areas, and fuels treatments. The overall effects to vegetation vary by alternative and are proportional to treatment acres (Table 12). Commercial thinning would reduce tree density and create more open stands in order to accelerate individual tree growth. Seral stages would be maintained or advanced over time. In 30 to 50 years, stands would have developed more mature forest structure with two or more canopy layers and higher densities of large trees (>24” DBH) in the overstory (Figures 13 and 14). Douglas-fir would still dominate the species composition but the understory of naturally-regenerated seedlings and planted sugar pine, incense cedar, and western redcedar would continue to develop and create structural heterogeneity and layering. Alternative 2 has the largest effect on stand structure because it commercially thins and 5 more acres, creates 112 acres of gaps, and underplants native conifer species on 102 more acres than Alternative 3 (Table 12). The stand-scale effects are beneficial, as the treatments reduce stand density, increase species diversity, and move the stands toward the desired future conditions of developing late-successional structure and complexity while increasing fire resiliency. Alternative 1 would result in no direct changes to existing conditions, compared to the two action alternatives because no treatments would be done. Stands would remain densely stocked, the development of stem exclusion stands would be delayed, the advancement of late seral habitat would be delayed across the landscape, and structural and species diversity would not be enhanced under the current dense stand conditions. Thus, Alternative 1 would adversely affect both structural development and fuel conditions by maintaining stands in the stem exclusion successional stage. This effect would be greatest in the proposed treatment units where silvicultural and fuels treatments are proposed, where young Douglas-fir dominates, and where fuel loads are high. Overall, Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on stands, but would have the indirect effect of delaying development of late-successional forest habitat within young Douglas-fir plantations in LSR and increasing risk of stand-replacement fire and loss of late-successional forest..

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Landscape-Scale and Stand-Scale Effects of Skips and Gap Creation Acres of unthinned forest (skips) and acres of gap creation (Table 13) were the metrics identified to track effects of alternatives in meeting the project purpose and need of promoting the development and maintenance of late-successional forest conditions in existing even-aged stands in LSR (USDA & USDI, 1994b, C-12). Table 13. Summary of proposed unthinned acres (skips) and gap creation acres in the Lower Steamboat planning area units.

Alternatives:

1 2 3 Unthinned acres (skips) 2,389 1,197 1,314 Thinned acres 0 1,080 1,075 Gaps 0 112 0

Alternative 2 would have more direct and indirect beneficial effects on development of late-successional structure because it proposes 112 more acres of gap creation and 102 more acres of subsequent underplanting of native conifer species than Alternative 3 (Table 12). Alternative 2 would leave 1,197 acres unthinned while Alternative 3 would leave 1,314 acres unthinned, thus forgoing treatment to advance development of late seral habitat on 117 more acres than Alternative 2. Therefore, relative to Alternative 3, Alternative 2 better meets the purpose of advancing the development of late seral conditions in currently relatively homogenous, even-aged, young, Douglas-fir plantation stands. Alternative 1 would affect little change to existing conditions as no commercial thinning or gap creation with subsequent underplanting would occur and all 2,389 acres analyzed would remain unthinned. Young, even- aged Douglas-fir plantation stands would remain densely stocked, stand growth and development would be slowed as intertree competition increased, and structural and species diversity would be maintained at low levels until a major disturbance event occurred (Zenner, 2005).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Cumulative Effects to Vegetation at the Landscape and Stand Scales Past harvesting and associated road building in the Lower Steamboat planning area have increased the fragmentation, decreased the connectivity, and shifted the distribution of late successional forest habitat on the landscape. When considering past and foreseeable future activities, the proportion of mature and late- successional forest would remain relatively stable and would begin to increase over time. Existing forest fragmentation resulting from previous clearcuts and past wildfires is expected to decrease as these acres begin to transition from the stem exclusion stage into the mature forest condition and blend back into the surrounding unmanaged forests. This reduced fragmentation is expected to become increasingly noticeable within the next 30 years. At the landscape scale, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would both beneficially impact the planning area landscape, as all proposed treatments are designed to enhance the development of late-successional forest habitat. Implementation of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would have beneficial impacts relative to the accelerated development of desired late-successional conditions over time. Following consideration of the incremental impacts of the project, when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there would be no meaningful negative cumulative impacts associated with either Alternative 2 or 3. The proposed activities and connected actions thus represent a positive contribution to vegetative conditions in the planning area.

In contrast, Alternative 1 would have no meaningful cumulative impacts on vegetation within the planning area as no silvicultural or fuels treatments would occur. However, forgoing treatment would maintain an increasing risk of stand-replacement fire into the future. Future stand-replacement fires would likely cause a reduction of late-successional forest and an increase in stand initiation stage greater than that resulting from activities associated with the action alternatives.

At the stand scale, previous harvesting has occurred in all units currently proposed for treatment. Treatments proposed in the Lower Steamboat project would add to past effects of thinning, with the cumulative effects of the action alternatives proportional to the total acres proposed for commercial timber harvest treatments (Table 12). Alternative 2 would have the greatest cumulative effect on the individual stands by commercially thinning 1,080 acres, creating 112 acres of gaps and increasing species diversity and restoring native species composition by underplanting 102 acres. Alternative 3 would commercially thin 1,075 acres but would create no gaps and would not achieve any underplanting. Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effect, as no silvicultural or fuels treatments would occur.

WILDLIFE Threatened and Sensitive Wildlife Species

This section covers species recognized under the federal Endangered Species Act, and species recognized as sensitive by the Forest Service. Federally listed species require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before project implementation. No such requirement exists for sensitive species. The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.4) requires a biological evaluation to determine potential effects of proposed ground-disturbing activities on sensitive species. This evaluation analyzes the alternatives and discusses the potential effects on the population or its habitat within the area and on the species as a whole. It also makes recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating for adverse effects. In addition, the Umpqua National Forest’s Land Management Plan standard and guidelines for wildlife (USDA 1990) states:

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

“Any management activity that would negatively affect plant or animal species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list, or their habitat would be modified to either avoid (preferable) or minimize the impact. Activities would not be permitted if they would result in the loss of a colony or subpopulation that is important in the natural distribution of the species. “

A pre-field review was performed to determine which sensitive species are most likely to be impacted by the proposed alternatives. Impact or effect determinations are made on each species based on this review. If an impact or effect is anticipated, further analysis and discussion of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects is provided in the following sections. Unless identified otherwise, the analysis area for wildlife species is the extent of 6th field subwatersheds within which activities are proposed. Effects are classified as direct, indirect, or cumulative. Direct effects are defined as those effects that would occur immediately as a result of implementation. Indirect effects are those that would typically occur over longer time periods. Cumulative effects are the effects of the alternatives that would incrementally add to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities that may result in additive effects to the various species. Table 14. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Legal Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis Mature, old growth mixed conifer Owl caurina Threatened forests

Table 15. Regional Forester Sensitive Species as of December 9, 2011 for the Umpqua National Forest.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species List for Umpqua National Forest 12/9/2011 Birds Habitat Determination Present in of Action the Alternatives Planning Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Area American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Forest, Nests on Cliffs Y NI Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Lakes, Rivers N NI Forest, Nests Behind N NI Black Swift Cypseloides niger Waterfalls Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Large lakes N NI Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Rivers Y NI Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Large lakes N NI Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Ponderosa pine forests Y NI Mature, old growth Y ME-LTAA Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina mixed conifer forests Open areas adjacent to N NI lakes, wetlands, or Purple Martin Progne subis agricultural fields Red-Necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Large lakes N NI

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

White-Headed Y NI Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Ponderosa pine forests Coturnicops Wetlands on edges of N NI Yellow Rail noveboracensis lakes, ponds Mammals Habitat Determination Present in the Planning Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Area Fisher Martes pennanti Mature forests Y NI Drier grasslands, forests, Y NI Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes woodlands High elevation talus Y BI North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus slopes, wide ranging Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus Dry interior valleys N NI Caves, Forests, human Y BI Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii structures Amphibians and Reptiles Habitat Determination Present in the Planning Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Area Foothill Yellow-Legged Low gradient, low Y NI Frog Rana boylii elevation streams Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa Streams, marshes N NI Pacific Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata Ponds, lakes N NI Invertebrates Common Name Scientific Name Habitat California Shield-Backed Vanduzeeina borealis High elevation grassland Y NI Bug californica meadows Mesic forest at mid Y MI - NLRLV Cascades Axetail Slug Carinacauda stormi elevations Rock outcrops, talus Y NI Chace Sideband Monadenia chaceana slopes Meadow, grassland Y MI-NLRLV Coronis Fritillary Speyeria coronis coronis habitats sedge and herbaceous Y NI Pristiloma arcticum wet areas at high Crater Lake Tightcoil crateris elevations Wet meadows in Y MI-NLRLV Evening Fieldslug Deroceras hesperium forested areas Plebejus podarce N NI Gray-Blue Butterfly klamathensis High elevation meadows Johnson's Hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni Mature forests with Y NI

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

western hemlock mistletoe Mid elevation grasslands Y NI Mardon Skipper Polites mardon adjacent to water Rocks and downed wood N NI Oregon Shoulderband Helminthoglypta hertleini in Forests Siskiyou Short-Horned High elevation meadow N NI Grasshopper Chloealtis aspasma & grassland habitats

NI = No Impact, ME-LAA = May effect, likely to adversely affect BI = Beneficial Impact , MI-NLRLV = May Impact, but not likely to result in loss of viability

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Status: Threatened

Existing Condition - As a result of federal listing, a separate analysis has been prepared for the spotted owl and supplied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Formal consultation FY2013 Lower Steamboat Timber Sale and Lonely Oak Project September 2013). This document includes a detailed analysis describing the current conditions and project effects of the Lower Steamboat Project’s Alternative 2. In order to provide a more concise assessment, the major conclusions are summarized. Italicized text is extracted from this parent analysis.

The NSO (northern spotted owl) analysis area for the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale action area covers about 42,200 acres, of which 25,320 acres (60%) are currently suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF) for the NSO). There are 16 potential NSO home ranges within the analysis area. Approximately 12,238 acres of the action area (29%) are considered to be dispersal habitat. Less than half of the action area (18,194 acres) falls within 2012 critical habitat, Western Cascades South Sub Unit 5.

There are no current surveys for owls within the action area. Due to the lack of recent survey data, spotted owl activity centers and home ranges within the action area have been estimated using the method identified by USDI-USDA (2008). That analysis resulted in an estimate of 16 potential spotted owl home ranges/territories located around activity centers based either on known historic or on predicted activity center locations (KPACs) within the action area. Of these 16 KPACs, 11 are based upon historic owl pair locations identified from surveys which occurred in the late 1990’s, and the remaining 5 were located as per USDI-USDA (2008).

For the analysis for this consultation, the analysis of spotted owl home range/territory condition was conducted using the 1.2 mile provincial home range radius (for the Oregon Cascades province) around each KPAC. All of the KPACs are above the 40% home range and 50% core use area thresholds for amounts for NRF habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects - The Lower Steamboat project proposes commercial timber harvest, administrative site management actions, and associated connected actions identified in Chapter 2. None of the proposed treatments occur within nesting/roosting/foraging habitat. In alternative 2 proposed actions would result in 1,192 acres of dispersal habitat being impacted. Of this amount, 392 acres would receive treatments that resulted in canopy closures dropping below the 40% level which would constitute dispersal

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

habitat loss. Alternative 3 proposes these same treatment activities, but on a reduced acreage. Alternative 3 would result in a loss of 258 acres of dispersal habitat.

These direct impacts to northern spotted owl habitat are summarized in the following table:

Table 16. Direct impacts to northern spotted owl habitat. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing acres of NRF in Analysis Area 25,320 25,320 25,230 Acres NRF Removed 0 0 0 Acres of NRF Remaining in Analysis Area 25,320 25,320 25,320 % NRF Remaining 100% 100% 100% % of Analysis Area in NRF 60% 60% 60% Acres NRF Degraded 0 0 0

Existing Dispersal Only Habitat 12,238 12,238 12,238 Acres Dispersal Only Habitat Removed 0 392 258 Acres of Dispersal Only Habitat Remaining 12,238 11,846 11980 % Dispersal Only Habitat Remaining 100% 97% 98% % of Analysis Area in Dispersal Only Habitat 29% 28% 28%

The proposed project may also have direct effects on NSOs through noise generating disturbances within close proximity to both known NSO activity centers and spatially suitable habitat that may support nesting owls. It is expected that some potential disturbance activities would occur during the March 1 through September 30 NSO breeding season. Activities occurring after the critical breeding period (March 1 through July 15) may disturb the NSO, but are not likely to disrupt NSO reproductive success because the identified buffers and restrictions from the programmatic disturbance letter of concurrence (USFWS 2009, TAILS 13420-2009-I-0070) are being applied. As noted in the BA, the exception to this is the project calls for retaining the option of spring underburning. A spring underburn in Units #105 & 106 would potentially cause disturbance to KPAC’s #0590 & 0592. These units are included in both alternatives 2 and 3.

The Biological Assessment for the project also includes more information on the potential impacts to spotted owl prey species including flying squirrels, woodrats, red tree voles and mice. In summary, proposed treatments are expected to have short-term direct adverse effects, which are expected to decrease as treated stands develop additional understory structure. While Alternative 1 would have no impacts to spotted owl prey species, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have these impacts in relation to their comparative acreage of treatment, 1,192 acres for Alternative 2 and 1,085 acres for Alternative 3.

Effects to Critical Habitat – In December of 2012, the USFWS released a final rule designating critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2012). The action area for Lower Steamboat contains 18,194 acres of revised critical habitat, all of which falls within the Western Cascades South sub unit 5. There are 508 acres of Lower Steamboat units within WCS-5. The final rule states, “In general, prescriptions (e.g., vegetation management, prescribed fire, etc.) that apply ecological forestry principles to address the restoration and conservation of broader ecological processes in areas where this is needed, while minimizing impacts to structurally diverse or mature and old forest that does not require such management can be compatible with maintaining the critical habitat’s essential features in the long term at the landscape scale” (USFWS 2012, p. 71882). The final rule also states that, “This rule is different from previous designations of northern spotted owl critical habitat in that we are recommending a ‘‘hands on’’ approach to forest

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

management within critical habitat. We encourage land managers to consider active management of forests that balance short-term impacts with long-term beneficial effects, which ultimately supports long-term conservation of the northern spotted owl” (USFWS 2012a, p. 72014). Alternative 2 proposes treatment which would result in 66.5 acres of downgraded dispersal habitat. Alternative 3 would result in 54.5 acres of downgraded dispersal habitat. The Biological Assessment prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife consultation noted that although there are short-term adverse impacts, that the proposed treatments would have long- term beneficial impacts through improved structural diversity and heterogeneity in stands that are treated.

Consistency with the Recovery Plan - In July of 2011 the revised recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl was finalized (USDI 2011). The Recovery Plan included four Recovery Criterion and 33 Recovery Actions, of which 3 Recovery Actions apply to the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale Project.

Recovery Action 6: In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should implement silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity that would benefit spotted owl recovery. (p. III-19).

The Lower Steamboat Timber Sale is entirely within LSR and is designed to accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity within the treated stands. Therefore the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale is entirely consistent with this recovery action.

Recovery Action 10 - Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population.

Recovery Action 10 goes on to suggest that in unsurveyed owl habitat (like the Lower Steamboat project) the USFWS and Forest Service should work together to minimize impacts to potential spotted owl sites. All of the known and modeled owl home range and core use areas are at or above threshold levels for amounts of suitable habitat and would remain as such post treatment. Therefore the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale project is consistent with Recovery Action 10.

Recovery Action 32: Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-federal lands across its range, land managers should work with the Service as described below to maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These high-quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.

There are no stands being proposed for treatment in the project that meet the criteria of Recovery Action 32. Therefore the Lower Steamboat project is consistent with Recover Action 32.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, wildfire, wildfire suppression, infrastructure developments have all had an influence on the availability of spotted owl habitat conditions found today. In general, the total amount of such habitat is expected to be reduced from pre-European settlement times. The analysis area also includes ongoing timber harvest and prescribed burning activities. The analysis conducted for ongoing timber harvest and prescribed burning (Ragged Ridge) are consistent with the impacts described for the Lower Steamboat project. The cumulative effect of these actions has been considered in project baseline and is not expected to result in cumulative impacts greater than those already disclosed for the Lower Steamboat project.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Effects determination – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and therefore has no direct, indirect or cumulative effects. This alternative would have “No Effect” to the spotted owl. Alternatives 2 and 3 each include treatments that would reduce the amount dispersal habitat and introduce disturbance. Alternatives 2 and 3 “May Effect, and are likely to adversely affect” spotted owls. The analysis conducted for formal Fish and Wildlife Service consultation determined these alternatives were “Likely to Adversely Affect” the species. These action alternatives also propose treatment within delineated recovery habitat which have short-term adverse effects. The Biological Assessment also notes these treatments would been designed to produce long-term habitat improvements for the spotted owl and concluded that the project is not likely to adversely affect the functionality of critical habitat.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Cascades Axetail Slug (Carinacauda stormii), formerly salamander slug, Gliabates oregonius Existing Condition - This small (1/2-inch) slug has been found in western hemlock/vine maple plant associations of the western Cascades at moderate elevations (2,000 – 4,000 feet). Important microsite characteristics appear to be coniferous needle litter consisting almost entirely of Douglas-fir, with pockets or depressions with moisture and vine maple leaves. Stand age does not appear to be critically important, with individuals being found in stands 25 to over 150 years of age (Stone, T. and T. Young 2010). This species has never been documented on the Umpqua National Forest.

On the North Umpqua District, western hemlock and Douglas-fir forests with substantial vine maple understory trees are found in moister, mesic forests of the District. In the Lower Steamboat project area, suitable habitat is considered to be mid elevation (2,000-4,000 foot) coniferous forest dominated by Douglas- fir located on north aspects or within riparian areas. Based on GIS analysis, suitable habitat within the Lower Steamboat TS analysis area totals 28,349 acres. No surveys were conducted for this species so all suitable habitat is assumed to be occupied for this analysis.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and retains all mapped Cascade axetail slug potential habitat in its current condition. There are no direct or indirect effects associated with Alternative 1. Alternative 2 proposes commercial thinning treatments in 671 acres of mapped potential habitat, and Alternative 3 proposes 621 acres. Proposed treatments would have a direct effect that reduces canopy closure and could result in direct mortality from ground based logging equipment, but these treatments would also be expected to have an indirect, future beneficial effect of stimulating deciduous understories. The net effect is expected to be a minor degradation in post-treatment habitat quality for the Cascade axetail slug habitat conditions on thinned and burned acres. Both Alternative 2 and 3 would impact 2% of the available mapped habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber management, road building, prescribed burning and wildfire have all resulted in reduction of the amount of habitat current availability of suitable Cascade axetail slug habitat conditions in the analysis area. The planned Ragged Ridge prescribed burn project would adversely impact an additional 912 acres directly through minor decreases in coniferous canopy closure and indirectly improve deciduous shrub cover. This acreage represents an additional 3% of the currently mapped habitat. This minor increase in disturbed habitat is not likely to lead toward an increased .

Alternative 1 has no direct or indirect effects to potential habitat and would therefore have “No Impact” to the Cascade axetail slug. Alternatives 2 and 3 each have direct and indirect effects that “May Effect” residual habitat quality on thinned areas. These treatment locations represent a small portion of the available habitat. These impacts are not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of the species within the project area.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium) Existing Condition - The evening fieldslug is associated with perennially wet meadows in forested habitats; in microsites with a variety of low vegetation, litter and debris; and in rocks that may also be used as refugia. Little detail is known about exact habitat requirements for the species, due to the limited number of verified sites. However, this species appears to have high moisture requirements and is almost always found in or near herbaceous vegetation at the interface between soil and water, or under litter and other cover in wet situations where the soil and vegetation remain constantly saturated. Because of the apparent need for stable environments that remain wet throughout the year, suitable habitat may be considered to be limited to moist surface vegetation and cover objects within 30 m. (98 ft.) of perennial wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas. This species has not been detected on the North Umpqua District or other areas of the Umpqua National Forest.

The analysis area does contain perennial wetlands, springs and streams. Based upon GIS mapping, there are 7,552 acres of potential habitat within the project analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 proposes no treatment within mapped potential habitat and would have “No Impact” to the evening fieldslug. Alternative 2 proposes commercial timber harvest within 86 acres of mapped suitable habitat, while Alternative 3 proposes 75 acres of harvest. Both action alternatives represent 1% of the mapped suitable habitat in the analysis area. Proposed treatments are proposed to reduce coniferous canopy closure, but stimulate deciduous and herbaceous vegetation components of riparian areas. All treatments are expected to retain the principle habitat components (low vegetation, plant litter and rocks) of suitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, road construction and recreational developments have had minor impacts on the availability and quality of riparian habitats. In general, these impacts have been isolated and at a rather small scale. The only other planned activity that is anticipated to affect mapped evening fieldslug habitat is the Ragged Ridge prescribed burn. This project would impact 327 acres (4%) of mapped habitat (not within that identified within the Lower Steamboat Alternative 2) with similar conifer canopy reductions and deciduous and herbaceous canopy expansion. This action is expected to maintain or improve overall riparian condition qualities.

Alternative 1 would have “No Impact” to evening fieldslug habitats. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose treatments in mapped, suitable habitat for this species, but the extent and degree of habitat alternation is projected to be very minor. Both alternatives “May Effect” mapped habitat, but are not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of species viability of the evening fieldslug as these alternatives would only affect 1% of the suitable habitat in the analysis area.

Oregon shoulderband (Helminthoglyta hertleini) This is a former Survey and Manage mollusk species, added to the Sensitive Species List in 2004. Although documented on the Umpqua National Forest, it is not expected to occur outside the South Umpqua River basin so it would not be expected anywhere on the North Umpqua District.

Direct and Indirect Effects – The entirety of the analysis area is outside the identified range of the Oregon shoulderband. All alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects to the Oregon shoulderband.

Cumulative Effects – None, as analysis area does not contain suitable habitat for this species.

With no potential habitat in the project area, all alternatives would have “No Impact” to the Oregon shoulderband.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma articum crateris) Existing Condition - This species is also classified as a Survey and Manage species, but was added to the updated Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list in 2004. Habitat is defined as perennially moist locations within 33 feet of open perennial water in mature conifer forest or perennially wet meadows dominated by rushes, mosses or other low stature herbaceous vegetation. Most documented populations are in habitats which remain under snow for long periods in the winter. There are 508 acres of mapped potential habitat in the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 proposes no activity in mapped Crater lake tightcoil potential habitat, so there are no direct or indirect effects from this altenative. Alternatives 2 and 3 both include units 116 and 006 which have extremely small portions of mapped potential habitat within their perimeter. These areas have a combined total of 1/10th of an acre. Proposed treatments would all occur within young plantation units which would neither qualify as mature coniferous forest or perennially wet meadow. These areas, then, are discounted as providing suitable habitat for the Crater Lake tightcoil. Consequently, Alternatives 2 and 3 also have no treatment in suitable, potential Crater Lake tightcoil habitat and have no direct or indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects – There are no other riparian enhancement projects scheduled which may produce cumulative effects. The planning area, however, does include the planned Ragged Ridge prescribed burn project which overlays 39 acres of mapped, potential tightcoil habitat. Prescribed burning is expected to yield very little change to the wet locations associated with potential tightcoil habitat. Cumulatively, these projects are expected to have very small impacts to Crater Lake tightcoil habitat conditions in the analysis area.

All project alternatives have no direct or indirect effects to mapped, potential habitat and would have “No Impact” to the Crater Lake tightcoil.

Chace Sideband (Monadenia chaceana) Existing Condition - Like the Crater Lake tightcoil, the Chace sideband is a Survey and Manage mollusk species that has also been added to the Sensitive Species List. The agency survey protocol identifies suitable habitat in southwestern Oregon Cascades as rocky areas, talus and riparian areas associated with these rock features. On-forest documented populations of this species seem to indicate that areas of large, cobble or larger sized rock are requirements for this species. No subwatershed scale level of inventory of such rocky areas is available. For the Lower Steamboat project analysis, suitable habitat is identified as dry forest openings at least 1 acre in size, as included in forest level GIS mapping. There are 942 acres of these dry openings.

Direct and Indirect Effects –Unit 108 includes a small segment (2 acres) mapped as forest opening, but aerial photo analysis validates the proposed treatment area is not part of the natural opening. As a result, all alternatives have no direct or indirect effects to mapped, potential habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects – Fire suppression practices of the past have resulted in increased forest encroachment which is likely to have reduced the amount of acreage of natural openings. A single planned activity, the Ragged Ridge prescribed burning project, would also have the potential to influence the amount or quality of suitable habitat for the Chace sideband. This project would result in some opening of residual stand canopy closure, as well as reduce the amount of accumulated down wood material on the forest floor. All proposed treatments are expected to retain the bulk of the large diameter down wood and rock which provide cover for this species. The mapped habitat within the ragged Ridge project area totals 28 acres.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

All project alternatives would have “No Impact” to the Chace sideband because no suitable habitat would be treated as part of the Lower Steamboat project.

California shield-backed bug (Vanduzeeina borealis californica) Existing Condition - This small, ¼-inch long insect is distinguished by its enlarged back plate which covers the entire abdomen. This subspecies has been located in Oregon in the Mt Hood area and at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest in eastern Lane County. It has not been documented anywhere on the Umpqua National Forest. Life history is poorly understood, but habitat associations are made based upon the few documented specimens. From this limited input, it appears that this subspecies is a tall grass prairie specialist (Foltz, S and S. Jepsen 2009). Within the Lower Steamboat project area, potential habitat is considered to be natural, tall grass dominated meadows at mid to high elevation (2750 – 4500 ft). Based upon GIS maps, there are 428 acres of suitable habitat in the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and has no direct or indirect effects. Alternative 2 and 3 both include 3 acres of mapped, potential habitat but aerial photo analysis verifies these areas are not natural meadows. Both action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects to natural opening habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects - Potential habitat in the analysis area has been influenced by past fire suppression activities which have resulted in the loss of available habitat acreage. A single planned activity, the Ragged Ridge prescribed burning project, would treat 7 acres of mapped, potential shieldbug habitat. This treatment may directly adversely impact individuals during the period of burning, but would also have indirect, future positive impacts to available habitat.

All project alternatives would have “No Impact” to the California shield-backed bug as no native grassland/meadow habitat would be treated.

Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni) Existing Condition - Preferred habitat is late successional and old-growth coniferous forests that contain mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium (dwarf mistletoes). The Johnson’s hairstreak is considered to be an old-growth obligate butterfly. The species lays its eggs on mistletoe and the larvae feed on all exposed parts of the host plant. Adults feed on flower nectar (including Oregon grape, Pacific dogwood, ceanothus, pussy paws, and Rubus species) and nectar of the mistletoe. This species is believed to spend most of its time high in the canopy, only occasionally coming down to the forest floor. Range is local and scarce throughout Pacific Northwest. The species has been documented within the analysis area. A detailed summary of habitat associations, life history traits, range/distribution etc. are documented in a species fact sheet on the Forest Service-Bureau of Land Management Pacific Northwest Interagency Special Status /Sensitive Species Program website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20050906-fact- sheet-johnsons-hairstreak.doc. Suitable habitat (stands over 80 years of age with canopy closure over 70%) is found throughout the analysis area; based upon available GIS mapping it totals 25,891 acres.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 has no proposed activities within suitable Johnson’s hairstreak potential habitat. Alternative 2 and 3 include some areas identified in available mapping as mature stands (85 acres and 60 acres respectively) scattered across the treatment areas. These, however, represent GIS mapping errors inherent in the available landsat imagery and often represent small errors associated with pixilation. None of the stands proposed for treatment in either action alternative are over 80 years of age. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no direct or indirect effects to the amount of available Johnson’s hairstreak habitat available within the analysis area.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, road construction and wildfire have all had negative effects on the amount of available Johnson’s hairstreak habitat within the analysis area. The only currently scheduled treatment that would have potential cumulative effects is the ragged ridge prescribed burn. This project would occur within 1,395 acres of mapped Johnson’s hairstreak habitat. The burning proposed with this project is expected to have very little impact to this species which spends the predominance of time within the canopy of mature stands.

All project alternatives would have “No Impact” to the Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly as no habitat would be treated.

Gray-blue butterfly (Plebejus podarce klamathensis) Existing Condition - This small (wingspan of about an inch) butterfly inhabits high elevation (5,100 – 6,500 ft) wet meadows that contain deep grasses and dense stands of false hellebore. Based upon species reports from California, the larval food plants appear to be shooting stars (Dodecatheon jeffreyi and D. alpinum). The species is noted as being tied closely to suitable meadow habitat, with little straying from these wet, herbaceous conditions. The analysis area does not have wet meadows at the appropriate elevation to be considered as potential gray-blue butterfly habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects – All alternatives are considered to have no direct or indirect effects to the gray- blue butterfly.

Cumulative Effects - None, as analysis area does not contain suitable habitat for this species.

All alternatives would retain current habitat conditions and would have “No Impact” for gray-blue butterflies.

Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon) Existing Condition - The Mardon skipper is a small, tawny-orange butterfly currently found at only four geographically disjunct areas in northwest California, southwest Oregon, the southern Washington Cascades, and one population in the south Puget Sound region of western Washington. Populations in southern Oregon occupy small (0.5 to 10 ac), higher-elevation (4,500 to 5,100 ft) grasslands within mixed conifer forests. They are usually associated with a water source (USDA Forest Service 2007). Within the analysis area there are 80 acres of natural openings at or above 4,500 feet elevation, all at the eastern boundary.

Direct and Indirect Effects – None of the alternatives propose any activities within identified Mardon skipper potential habitat. Therefore, there are no direct or indirect effects from any alternative.

Cumulative Effects – None, as no alternatives affect potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid activity in potential Mardon skipper habitat and would have “No Impact” to this species.

Coronis fritillary (Speyeria coronis coronis) Existing Condition - Habitat associations described by Pyle (2002) are lower elevation canyons and grasslands as well as mid-montane meadows and forest margins and openings. Some records indicate occupied habitat as high as 7,600 feet. Eggs are laid on species of violets (Viola spp.) late in the summer and overwinter before emerging the following spring to begin foraging on host plants. Adults are nectar- feeders often feeding on thistle plants. The project location contains mid-elevation forest openings and is therefore considered to be potential habitat for the coronis fritillary. Potential habitat is mapped as all natural

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

openings including a 50 foot buffer of adjacent forest edge. The analysis area contains 1,599 acres of mapped potential habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 retains all potential coronis fritillary habitat in its current condition and so has no direct or indirect effects. Alternative 2 and 3 both contain unit 108 which proposes treatment of 7 acres of mapped, potential coronis fritillary habitat. Proposed treatments may have direct, negative impacts associated with crushing or disturbance during periods of mechanical treatment. These treatments are expected to result in a more open canopy which may stimulate herbaceous species such as violets and thistle, which would produce positive, long-term indirect effects. These impacts occur on a very small proportion (<1%) of available potential habitat in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects – Past wildfire and fire suppression are anticipated to be the principle mechanisms of habitat change for this species. Natural or Native American burning is considered to have sustained habitat while fire suppression has enabled successional processes that have reduced the amount within the analysis area. The only scheduled or planned project within the analysis area that would cumulatively contribute to changes in coronis fritillary habitat is the ragged Ridge prescribed burn project. This project is anticipated to effect 62 acres of mapped habitat. This project is expected to also produce a minor decrease in coniferous canopy closure with stimulation of herbaceous and flowering plants within treatment acreage.

Alternative 1 has no direct or indirect effects and would have “No Impact” to the coronis fritillary. Alternatives 2 and 3 include minor treatment areas that “May Effect” coronis fritillary individuals that may occur in the project location. Direct effects are expected to be negative, while long-term effects to vegetation are expected to be positive. These impacts are small scale and are not expected to produce effects to a degree which may impact species viability on the site.

Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper (Chloealtis aspasma) Existing Condition - This small, brown grasshopper occurs in grassland/herbaceous habitats (i.e. high elevation meadows and clear-cuts, grassy hilltops). It is distributed in two general areas in the state, one in Southern Oregon (Jackson Co.) and the other in Benton Co. The species appears to be associated with blue elderberry plants (Sambucus caerulea). Females lay eggs in the pith of elderberry stems in the summer. Eggs hatch the following year. Juveniles forage in open meadows near the ground. The species feeds on grasses and forbs. Additional life history information and habitat associations are documented in a species fact sheet: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20050906-fact-sheet-chloealtis- aspasma.doc . The project analysis area does not contain high elevation (5,000 foot or higher) grassy, open areas that may be considered potential habitat for the Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper.

Direct and Indirect Effects – None of the alternatives propose any activities within identified Siskiyou short- horned grasshopper potential habitat. Therefore, there are no direct or indirect effects from any alternative.

Cumulative Effects – None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid activity in potential Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper habitat and would have “No Impact” to this species.

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) Existing Condition - Corkran and Thoms (1996) describe suitable habitat for this species as low gradient streams with exposed bedrock or rock substrates. The elevation range is described as being up to 1800 feet. The species has been documented in the North Umpqua River within the analysis area. Riparian zones along the North Umpqua River and lower reaches of Steamboat Creek may be potential habitat.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects – None of the alternatives propose any activities within potential foothill yellow- legged frog habitat. Therefore, there are no direct or indirect effects from any alternative.

Cumulative Effects – None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid activity in foothill yellow-legged frog habitat and would have “No Impact” to this species.

Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) Existing Condition - The spotted frog is more dependent upon aquatic environments than other frogs. Preferred habitat are wetlands with slack water dominated by grasses or non-woody vegetation (Leonard, et al 1993). It was once common west of the Cascade Crest, but recently populations have shown a marked decline. The introduction of exotic species and urban development are believed to be the chief causes of this decline. Populations may still occur in higher elevation lakes and wetlands on the North Umpqua District. There are no mapped wetlands within the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - All alternatives avoid Oregon spotted frog habitat and therefore would have no direct or indirect impact to the species.

Cumulative Effects - None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid potential habitat and would have “No Impact” to the Oregon spotted frog.

Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) Existing Condition - This species inhabits ponds, swamps and slow moving rivers. Surveys for this species on the Umpqua National Forest have found this species to be limited to the areas below 4,000 feet. In the Oregon Department of Wildlife’s Living with Wildlife, Western Pond Turtle publication (ODFW 2000), key habitat elements include slow moving or still bodies of water, shores with gentle gradients and water less than 12 inches deep for hatchling habitat and nearby non-forested areas on south or southwest aspects within 500 feet of water for nesting sites. Although the North Umpqua River is within the analysis area, it is not considered a slow moving or still water body capable of supporting western pond turtle populations.

Direct and Indirect Effects - None of the alternatives propose any treatment that would impact potential turtle habitat. All alternatives would have “No Impact” to the western pond turtle.

Cumulative Effects - None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid potential habitat and would have “No Impact” to the Pacific pond turtle.

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) Existing Condition - This small diving duck nests in northern latitudes of Canada. It winters along the coast. During migration it can be found on large bodies of water. Gauthier (1993) records a year-round population occuring in the Williamette Valley. There are no large waterbodies suitable for bufflehead use within the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - All alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects to bufflehead.

Cumulative Effects - None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

All alternatives avoid potential habitat and would have “No Impact” to bufflehead.

Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) Existing Condition - Yellow rails are secretive birds that inhabit wetlands and meadow areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The majority of the species breeds in the far northeast portions of Canda and winters along the Gulf Coast, but an isolated population has been recorded in Oregon. Breeding locations are often in sedge areas, and rarely in cattail stands (Bookout 1995). There are no large wetlands within the analysis area that provide suitable habitat for the yellow rail.

Direct and Indirect Effects - None, since no suitable habitat occurs within the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects – None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid suitable habitat and would have “No Impact” to the yellow rail.

Black Swift (Cypseloides niger) Existing Condition - The black swift is an insect-eating bird, foraging while on the wing. Lowther and Collins (2002) note this species foraging widely (up to 25 miles from nest) on “blooms” of aerial insects. This species is a summer migrant, coming to the area to nest and rear young. Very few nest locations are known, owing to the relative inaccessibility of the nests and little inventory work to document the presence of the species. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Sensitive Species at Risk (1996) identifies 5 key ecological features required for black swift nesting locations:

1. The presence of some degree of flowing water 2. The presence of a high degree of relief, such that swifts exiting the nest can immediately be at a foraging altitude 3. An inaccessible site to prevent nest harassment and predation 4. A nesting location such that sunlight does not reach the nest 5. The presence of an unobstructed flyway in front of the nest location.

Most documented black swifts nests have been behind active waterfalls of substantial elevation drop that meet the above criteria. There are no suitable waterfalls within the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - All alternatives would have no direct or indirect impacts to the black swift.

Cumulative Effects - None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid potential habitat and would have “No Impact” to the black swift.

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Existing Condition - Peregrine falcons are rather large birds of prey which forage primarily upon other bird species. Habitat elements needed by peregrines include large cliff faces for nesting and areas with abundant bird populations for foraging sites. The analysis area contains 2,003 acres of primary zone habitat for four peregrine nests (Eagle/Rattlesnake, Limpy, Part Creek and Medicine Creek), 6,910 acres of secondary zone and 30,992 acres of tertiary habitat.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Forest Plan direction (Prescription C3-I) for the secondary zone includes a provision to restrict timber harvest between January 1st and July 31st, if determined to be necessary to minimize disturbance. This seasonal restriction is applied to units #103 and #105. Prescription C3-I also provides direction to maintain at least 50% of the area within 3.0 miles in pole aged stands or larger. Currently the Eagle/Rattlesnake nest has 70%, the Limpy nest has 73%, Part Creek nest has 69%, and Medicine Creek has 58% in pole age stands or larger.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 retains all conditions in their current state and has no direct or indirect effects. Both Alternative 2 and 3 incorporate seasonal timing restrictions where needed to minimize disturbance of peregrine falcon nests. Alternative 2 also includes harvest prescriptions which call for gap creation within the 1.5 mi zone around both the part Creek and Limpy Rock nests. These gaps represent less than 1% of each nest zone; so existing levels of pole aged stands are retained. Alternative 3 has no gap creation and would also retain current levels of pole aged or older stands. All alternatives comply with direction in Prescription C3-I.

Cumulative Effects - Disturbance activities at identified nests include road use, recreational hiking and rock climbing and Forest management and administrative duties. These actions are expected to follow past trends in the foreseeable future. Past regeneration harvest, wildfire and infrastructure developments (roads, rock quarries, helibase) are the principle activities that reduced the amount of area pole aged or larger forest stands within 1.5 mile nest zones. The planned Ragged Ridge prescribed burn does fall within the 1.5 mile zone of the Part Creek and Limpy Rock nests, but anticipated burn intensities are not expected to result in stand replacement effects. There are no other planned or scheduled activities within the peregrine falcon 1.5 mile nest zones that would combine with action alternatives to produce further cumulative effects.

All alternatives comply with forest guidance for falcons, would have “No Impact” to the peregrine falcon.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Existing Condition - The bald eagle is a raptor that preys largely upon fish and is most often associated with rivers or lakes. Primary habitat components include clean water with abundant populations of fish and large wolfy perch trees and roost sites located nearby. Nest and roost trees are often the biggest trees available with stout limbs capable of supporting large nesting structures. Nest trees must also have suitable flight paths into the nest and offer good visibility of the surrounding terrain. There are no known bald eagle nests within the analysis area.

The project is located 5-18 air miles away from the closest bald eagle nest at Toketee Reservoir. Individual bald eagles have been reported in the analysis area along Steamboat Creek and the North Umpqua River, but these scattered reports suggest non-reproductive use of the area for seasonal foraging on anadromous salmonids runs.

Direct and Indirect Effects - All alternatives avoid any treatment in identified bald eagle nest management zones. None of the alternatives are anticipated to have direct or indirect impacts to anadromous fisheries to the degree that would alter the analysis area as a seasonal foraging site.

Cumulative Effects – None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid identified eagle nesting locations and therefore would have “No Impact” to the bald eagle.

Harlequin Duck (Histronicus histronicus)

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Existing Condition - Harlequin ducks utilize high elevation turbulent, mountain streams during the breeding season and then migrate to rocky ocean shorelines for the winter months. Little is known about the breeding habitat requirements, but based on the few available records; nest locations appear to be on the ground under overhanging vegetation, rocks or stream debris. Nest locations are adjacent to rapids or other turbulent water. The species feeds mainly on animal matter including mollusks, crustaceans, insects and fishes. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1991) lists the Umpqua River Basin above Roseburg as one of five main potential habitat areas within the state.

The North Umpqua River mainstem within the analysis area is considered to provide the stream conditions desired by this species. The species has been reported in a several isolated occurrences along the North Umpqua River in the analysis area. There have been no documented sightings of the species in the Steamboat basin.

Direct and Indirect Effects – All alternatives avoid treatment within the mapped riparian area of the mainstem North Umpqua River, and would have no direct or indirect effects to potential harlequin duck habitat.

Cumulative Effects - None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid suitable habitat for this species and would have “No Impact” to harlequin ducks.

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) and White-headed woodpecker ( Picoides albolarvatus) Existing Condition - These woodpeckers are found in open habitats, favoring low canopy closure forest with open understories. The Lewis woodpecker inhabits open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodlands dominated by cottonwood, or pine forest that have been logged or burned. It may also inhabit oak or oak/dry coniferous forests. Food items include free-living (not wood boring) insects, acorns, other nuts and fruits (Tobalske 1997). The white-headed woodpecker is most often associated with large diameter, old growth pines and open canopies. In our area it favors ponderosa pine and sugar pine due to the high value seed production of these species. (Garret, Raphael and Dixon 1997).

Potential habitat was mapped as drier site plant series (Douglas-fir) with low canopy closure canopy closures (from 11-40%) on south aspects. Regeneration harvest units with low canopy closure due to recent harvest were omitted. Only areas at least 10 acres in size are considered as suitable habitat for these species. Within the analysis area there are currently 736 acres of this mapped habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and would have no direct or indirect effects. Alternative 2 and 3 proposed activities are all plantation thinnings which are not within mapped, potential habitat for these species. Neither action alternative would have direct or indirect effects to mapped habitat.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, road building and wildfire have all influenced the amount of potential Lewis’ and white-headed woodpecker habitat in the analysis area. In general, current conditions are considered to be below historic levels where frequent fires likely maintained more open canopied forest stands on southerly slopes. The only other planned or scheduled activity that may influence potential habitat for these species is the ragged Ridge prescribed burn. Approximately 1200 acres of this activity fall within the analysis boundary. This project is expected to slightly reduce tree stocking levels and canopy closures, while also creating additional snag habitat. These effects are anticipated to yield positive effects to these species.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

All alternatives avoid direct or indirect effects to mapped potential habitat and would have “No Impact” to Lewis’ or white-headed woodpeckers.

Horned grebe (Podiceps auritis) and red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena) Existing Condition - Both grebe species are breeding residents of far north wetlands. Horned grebes have been reported breeding on large wetland and lakes in Oregon in the Klamath Marsh area. In our area, both species occurrence would be expected to be limited to periods of migration (Stedman 2000) (Stout and Nuechterlein. 1999). During these times they could be found on the large bodies of water such as Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake. There are no large wetlands or water bodies within the analysis area that could be considered as potential habitat for the horned and red-necked grebe.

Direct and Indirect Effects - None of the alternatives propose any treatment in suitable habitat. All alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects to these grebe species.

Cumulative Effects - None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid suitable habitat and would have “No Impact” to horned or red-necked grebes.

Purple martin (Progne subis) Existing Condition - This species is a common and well known backyard resident in the eastern US, but in our area it has a patchy and irregular distribution. Preferred habitat includes lowland areas such as agricultural fields, lakes, and wetlands that provide a suitable flying insect forage base. The purple martin is a secondary cavity nester, requiring suitable woodpecker created cavities for successful reproduction (Brown 1997). The analysis area does not contain any agricultural field or large wetlands or lakes suitable for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects - None of the alternatives propose any treatment adjacent to any potential habitat. All alternatives would have no direct or indirect impacts to the purple martin.

Cumulative Effects - None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid suitable habitat and would have “No Impact” to the purple martin.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Existing Condition - These bat are usually associated with desert areas. On the west side of the Cascades, they are restricted to the dry, interior valleys (Verts and Carraway 1998). Documented roost locations of this species include cliffs, caves, buildings, trees and bridges.

The analysis area is not located in dry, interior valley areas and is therefore not considered to provide any potential pallid bat habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects – All alternatives avoid activities in potential habitat, so there are no direct or indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects – None, as no alternative has impacts to potential habitat.

All alternatives avoid suitable habitat and would have “No Impact” to the pallid bat.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Existing Condition - Townsend’s big-eared bat is a widely distributed species along the west coast, with isolated populations in the central and eastern US. Within this range, it occupies a wide variety of habitat types, including coniferous forests, deserts, prairies and agricultural area. The key habitat feature appears to be the presence of cave or cave-like features for roosting and rearing young. Reports also exist of solitary individuals (likely males) utilizing buildings, bridges rock crevices and hollow trees for roosting by non- breeding or non-wintering individuals. This species is a moth specialist with over 90% of its diet composed of lepidopterans. It may cover large distances while foraging at night, with records of some foraging flights over 150 kilometers (93 miles) (Piaggio 2005). This species has been documented on the North Umpqua District.

The analysis area does not contain any known cave or cave-like structures suitable for maternal roosts or winter hibernaculum. Rock crevices, bridges and snags can be found throughout the analysis area, as can forest openings and open-canopied forest where foraging may be more efficient. Essentially the entirety of the 55,105 acre analysis area can be considered to be providing foraging opportunities under, within or above any available tree canopy.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and retains current vegetative structural conditions. This alternative has no associated direct or indirect effects. Alternative 2 and 3 each propose commercial timber harvest. Proposed units are younger plantations with small size diameters and fewer defect characteristics that make them unlikely candidates for roost trees. Negative direct impacts to roosting habitat is therefore discountable. These treatments would result in lower stocking rates and more open residual stands which are expected to create better foraging opportunities for aerial insect gleaners like the big-eared bat. Action alternatives are also expected to have indirect and long-term positive effects through a reduced time for development of larger trees which can provide cavities for nesting. Alternative 2 includes 1,226 acres of treatment with these effects, while Alternative 3 proposes 1,087 acres.

Cumulative Effects – Past regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and prescribed fire have all influenced the availability and quality of snag and foraging habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Each produced some loss of hollow trees for roost site, but also generated foraging advantages. Within the analysis area, the planned Ragged Ridge prescribed burn would have these same kinds of effects.

Alternative 1 has no identified direct, indirect or cumulative effects and would have “No Impact” to the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a “Beneficial Effect” to habitat conditions through short-term improvements to foraging opportunities in newly created open canopied stands and long- term benefits to large diameter tree development. These impacts are not expected to yield a trend toward federal listing or loss of species viability.

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Existing Condition - As with other bats, there is little known about this species habitat requirements or life history in the state of Oregon. It has been classified as a cave dweller, but records also exist of it utilizing human structures (attics, abandoned structures). Habitat types associated with known roost locations include old-growth Douglas fir and riparian areas with western yew, Port Orford cedar and big-leaf maple (Verts and Carraway 1998).

The analysis area does not contain any known caves, but does contain old growth Douglas-fir and riparian habitats that would provide roosting opportunities. As identified for the Townsend’s big-eared bat, the entirety of the analysis area could be utilized for foraging.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 retains current habitat conditions and has no identified direct or indirect effects. Alternatives 2 and 3 each propose commercial thinning of young stands and neither alternative would have any direct or indirect effects to old growth stands.

Cumulative Effects – Past, present and planned future activities for fringed myotis foraging habitat conditions are the same as those identified in the Townsend’s big-eared bat cumulative effects section.

All alternatives avoid suitable habitat and would have “No Impact” to potential fringed myotis habitat.

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Existing Condition - Important habitat elements for wolverine are an adequate forage base and large areas of security habitat which are free from human disturbance. Wolverines are far-ranging scavengers and in the Lower Steamboat analysis area the principle forage item would likely be natural or hunting induced big game carcasses. For this analysis, seclusion habitat is defined as those areas at least ½ mile away from any system road. Currently the analysis area contains 2,382 acres or 4.3% of the total area in seclusion habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and retains the existing forage base and seclusion habitat conditions as they currently exist. There are no direct or indirect effects related to this alternative. Alternative 2 proposes 1,212 acres of commercial thinning, including 110.5 acres of gap creation. These treatments are expected to have a direct, but short-term benefit to black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk that comprise the majority of the wolverine forage base in the analysis area. Additional information on these effects to deer and elk can be found in the Management Indicator Species, deer and elk section of this document. Alternative 2 has no changes to the forest road network and no changes to the current level of seclusion habitat. Alternative 3 proposes 1,075 acres of commercial thinning with no gap creation. This alternative would have a lower level of short-term forage improvement for deer and elk as compared to Alternative 2. But like Alternative 2, this alternative proposes no change to the forest road network and retains current levels of seclusion habitat.

Cumulative Effects – Past land use activities (including timber harvest, infrastructure development, recreational development, road building, prescribed burning, etc;) have greatly influenced wolverine habitat conditions in the analysis area. Regeneration timber harvest, coupled with the effects of fire (both wildfire and prescribed burning), have produced positive effects to big game habitat conditions and populations. Conversely, roadbuilding, recreational development, road building and other actions have resulted in increased human use and decreased availability of seclusion habitat. Many of these same activities are still ongoing today. Within the analysis area the Ragged Ridge prescribed burning project is anticipated to produce improvements to the big game forage base. The entire analysis are would also be part of the forest-wide Motor Vehicle Use planning process which is expected to produce changes to motorized use of the area. The net effect to seclusion habitat is pending a final decision. Although there are some small alterations between alternatives, these differences are not considered to be of a degree large enough to meaningfully change the quality of the analysis area as potential wolverine habitat. The large degree of road access and human activity ultimately provide marginal habitat conditions for wolverine.

Alternative 1 has no direct or indirect effects and would have “No Impact” to overall wolverine habitat conditions. Alternative 2 and 3 each provide minor improvements to the big game forage base. Both alternatives would have a “Beneficial Effect” to wolverine habitat quality in the analysis area.

Fisher (Martes pennanti) Existing Condition - Fishers are relatively large forest carnivores of boreal forest regions of the U.S. Generally they are reported to occupy lower elevational areas, but in the western Cascades of Oregon they

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

have also been reported in higher elevations including the area around Crater Lake National Park (Verts and Carraway 1998). Deep, fluffy snow packs may limit movements and distribution. Important habitat elements include mature forests with high canopy closures and abundant down wood. Fishers appear to have a wide variety of prey species including snowshoe hares, squirrels, voles, mice, and porcupines. Suitable habitat for fishers is considered to be mature forest stands over 80 years of age. Within the analysis area there are 9,626 acres or 17% is suitable fisher habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 proposes no new actions that would have direct or indirect effects to potential fisher habitat in the analysis area. Alternatives 2 and 3 each propose commercial thinning, but none is within identified potential fisher habitat. Action alternatives also have no direct or indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest and wildfire have been the major past events that have influenced the amount of existing fisher habitat in the analysis area. Minor impacts have also been caused by recreational developments and other infrastructure developments. Currently scheduled or planned activities include the Ragged Ridge prescribed burn which would impact 541 acres of mapped potential fisher habitat.Change to no cumulative effect because no project effect

All alternatives avoid mature forest stands and suitable habitat and would have “No Impact” to fisher.

Umpqua Forest Plan Management Indicator Species

The Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains 8 Management Indicator Species: Northern spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, pine marten, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, and “cavity nesters”. The northern spotted owl is a federally listed species, and the bald eagle and peregrine falcon are Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive species. Agency direction requires that Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species receive special consideration in land management decisions. These species are also included in the wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared for this project.

Table 17. Umpqua National Forest Management Indicator Species, the habitats for which they are an indicator and their presence within the analysis area. Presence within the analysis Species Habitat Indicator area Northern spotted owl Mature/Old growth habitat Yes Pileated woodpecker Mature/Old growth habitat Yes High elevation mountain hemlock/lodgepole Pine marten Unlikely pine Bald eagle None/Special management Unlikely Peregrine falcon None/Special management Yes Blacktail deer and Roosevelt Big game winter range Yes elk Primary cavity excavators Snag Habitat Yes

Throughout further analysis of Management Indicator Species, the historical and current forest-wide baseline values are obtained from the Management Indicator Species on the Umpqua National Forest Habitat Assessment 2012 (MIS Habitat Assessment) document (Chapman, J. 2012) prepared by the Forest Wildlife Biologist. This document is incorporated into this analysis by reference.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

*Management indicator species without indicator feature or presence in analysis area (pine marten and bald eagle) are not discussed further in this MIS analysis.

Northern spotted owl Existing Condition – Northern spotted owls are residents of mature and old growth forests. In addition to being selected as indicators for mature forests in the Forest Plan, they also are listed as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and a Region 6 Sensitive species. Additional information on the spotted owl in relation to its designation as a Threatened species can be found in the Biological Assessment prepared for this project as part of required consultation procedures. Information in relation to its designation as a sensitive species can be found in the wildlife Biological Evaluation prepared for the project. As a Forest Plan Management Indicator Species, the analysis for this species would focus on the mature forest indicator habitat for which it was selected. Average home ranges in our area are considered to be within a 1.2 mile radius of nest or activity center locations. Fourteen historic or projected owl home ranges lie within proposed treatment areas. The cumulative footprint of these 14 home ranges comprises the analysis area for spotted owls as a MIS. This analysis area totals 31,174 acres, within which 18,659 acres (60%) are mapped as suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat (NRF).

On the Umpqua Forest as a whole, there are 519,741 acres of identified NRF habitat. The available mature forest within the identified analysis area for this species represents about 3.6% of the total of such habitat on the Forest. There is little recent information available on spotted owl population trends on the Forest. However as part of monitoring for the Northwest Forest Plan, there has been ongoing demography work being done in eleven demographic study areas in Washington, Oregon and northern California. The three closest demographic study areas to the Umpqua (Tyee, Klamath and South Cascades study areas) have stationary population trends over the last 23 years (1985-2008) of monitoring while the rest of the demographic study areas in Oregon and Washington have declining population trends (Figure 3). This, in conjunction with the increase in modeled habitat as compared to 1990 Forest Plan estimates indicate that the northern spotted owl on the Umpqua NF are doing better in terms habitat and population trend than most Forests in Region 6.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and would retain all existing habitat within the analysis area in present conditions. Alternative 2 proposes commercial thinning of 50 acres of mapped NRF. Alternative 3 proposes thinning of 43 mapped NRF acres. Proposes treatments are within plantations less than 80 years of age, so it considered likely that these treatment areas do not have the multiple canopy layers and abundant snag and down wood levels to provide optimal spotted owl habitat conditions. Both alternatives would impact less than 1% of the mapped NRF habitat in the analysis area and .01% of the NRF available on the Umpqua Forest.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, wildfire and road building have all reduced the amount of available mature and old growth habitat in the analysis area. The planned Ragged Ridge prescribed burn overlays 1,830 acres of mapped NRF habitat (less than 1%). This activity may have minor impacts to post- project habitat conditions, but overall it is not expected to yield substantial changes the amount of available NRF habitat on the Forest.

All alternatives retain enough mature forest habitat to meet Forest Plan objectives for habitat availability and provide for continued species viability within the project area and across the Forest. All alternatives comply with Forest Plan direction and objectives for the northern spotted owl.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Pileated woodpecker Existing condition – Pileated woodpeckers may forage in forests as young as 40 years of age, but require stands at least 70 years of age for roosting and nesting (ODF&W 1992). Pileated woodpecker habitat at the Forest scale is identified as mature/old growth habitat (greater than 80 years as mapped via landsat imagery). This yields a total of 501,297 acres of mapped pileated woodpecker habitat on the Umpqua Forest.

Various studies of pileated woodpeckers have found home ranges to be from 500-1,200 acres (Bull, E and R.Holthausen 1992 and Mellen, K., E.Meslow and R.Mannan 1992). Proposed treatments occur across a broad area, so the effects analysis boundary for this species is established as the subwatersheds in which treatments may occur. This results in a 55,105 acres analysis area for the pileated woodpecker.

Based upon the baseline forest available habitat, there are 28,408 acres of suitable pileated woodpecker habitat in the project area. Project area pileated woodpecker habitat comprises approximately six percent of the total pileated woodpecker habitat on the Forest.

Information contained within the latest Forest Monitoring report (2010 DRAFT) indicates that population trends for the six Breeding Bird Surveys included show a mixture of results;. Two routes showed increasing trends, two showed decreasing trends and two showed stable populations. Due to the large proportion of the Forest land base that is suitable habitat for this species, the pileated woodpecker population is expected to be stable across the Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives – None of the alternatives treat mature or old growth habitat. All alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects to forest stands over 80 years of age.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, road construction, and wildfires have all contributed to an overall decline in the amount of available habitat for pileated woodpeckers. The only other scheduled or planned activity within the analysis area that is expected to impact the availability of mature or old growth forest is the ragged Ridge prescribed burn. This activity overlays 2,066 acres. Burning effects may be some isolated tree mortality and down wood and snag loss, but these impacts are anticipated to cause minor decreases in overall habitat quality rather than large scale changes to the acreage of suitable habitat.

All alternatives retain enough suitable habitat to provide for continued species viability within the project area and across the Forest. All alternatives comply with Forest Plan direction and objectives for pileated woodpeckers.

Peregrine falcon Existing condition - The peregrine falcon is both a Forest Service Sensitive species as well as an Umpqua Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) Management Indicator Species. Information and analysis on peregrine falcons as a Forest Servixe species has been evaluated previously in this analysis. The species was identified in the Umpqua LRMP as an MIS species because it was listed as Endangered under the ESA at the time the Forest Plan was finalized in 1990. The species was delisted in 1999, but it is still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Forest Plan monitoring plan (Chapter V of the Umpqua Forest Plan) calls for annual monitoring of all known Peregrine Falcon sites, and to report the number of active nests. At the time of the decision for the Forest Plan (1990) there were seven known nesting pairs (FEIS Chapter 3 p. 84), and in 2011 there are now 16 known nesting pairs on the Forest (Figure 7) that have fledged 183 young since 1990 (Figure 8). The Umpqua is now considered a source population for peregrine falcons in southwestern Oregon, and the peregrine reproduction has been increasing with numbers of eyries detected, as well as number of young fledged. Therefore peregrine populations on the Umpqua are being maintained at a viable level, with a

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

positive trend in population.

Figure 14. Peregrine Falcon reproduction on the Umpqua National Forest from 1990-2012.

Forest Plan direction (Prescription C3-I) for the peregrine falcon includes guidance relative to seasonal closures and management of age class diversity within 3 miles of nest locations. Seasonal restrictions for Peregrine Falcons would be incorporated as needed for both action alternatives.

There are 206,271 acres of the Umpqua Forest within peregrine falcon nest zones, and 33,676 acres within the analysis area. The analysis area, then, represents 16% of the peregrine falcon nest zone area on the Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative which has no direct or indirect effects to peregrine falcon habitat conditions. As detailed previously in the Sensitive species section, Alternatives 2 and 3 each incorporate seasonal timing restriction where necessary and retain adequate levels of pole aged or larger stands within 3 miles of the nest location. As a result, these action alternatives would have no identified direct or indirect effects.

All alternatives are compliant with Forest Plan direction and contribute to viable populations both within the analysis area and on the Umpqua Forest.

Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus) and Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) Existing condition - Due to their high recreational value, elk and black-tailed deer are included as Forest Management Indicator Species. The Lower Steamboat Project is located within the southern portion of the Indigo Game Management Unit. Information on population trends as envisioned for MIS species monitoring is included in the MIS habitat assessment (Figure 15).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 15. Elk numbers by management unit for wildlife management units that occur on the Umpqua National Forest from 1992-2013. These are not population numbers, but results from winter aerial detection surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Figure 16. Black-tailed deer numbers by management for wildlife management units that occur on the Umpqua National Forest from 1992-2012. These are not population numbers, but results from spotlighting surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In general black-tailed deer numbers appear to be stable or slightly declining, and Roosevelt elk population numbers are declining.

In addition to population trend monitoring, the Forest Plan includes specific objectives and standards that relate to deer and elk habitat management. A single Forest-wide standard applies to important big game areas:

#17. When planning timber sales in important big game areas, a habitat effectiveness model (“A Model to Evaluate Elk Habitat in Western Oregon” or similar model) would be used to compare the impact of various

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

alternatives on big game habitat.

Black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk were also selected as Management Indicator Species to monitor winter range habitat conditions. Forest-wide, there are 208,066 acres of designated winter range. Proposed treatments occur within winter range of 4 subwatersheds. These affected subwatersheds constitute the project analysis area for big game. Within this analysis area there are 10,166 acres of designated winter range. This means that the designated winter range within the analysis area is 4.9% of that available on the Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives – The forest-wide standard calls for use of a habitat model in important winter range areas such as the Lower Steamboat Project area. For the Lower Steamboat project, the Model to Evaluate Elk Habitat in Western Oregon (Wisdom, M. J. et al 1986) was used. The model evaluates cover and forage spacing, cover quality, open road density and forage habitat quality to yield a numerical value between 0 and 1 to illustrate the quality of habitat conditions.

Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative which has a habitat effectiveness index (HEI) of .54. The HEI model describes this rating as “Viable”. Alternative 2 proposes 1,212 acres of commercial thinning in plantations including 4 acres of heavy thinning and 110 acres of gaps. These activities yield very slight changes to the cover and forage spacing quality variable in the HEI index. There are no project level changes to the open road network. Alternative 2 activities yield a post-project HEI value of .55. Alternative 3 proposes 1,075 acres of plantation thinning but no gap creation. Instead some portions of the thinned units receive a heavier thinning prescription. Like Alternative 2, there are no changes to the open road network. Alternative 3 treatments are not of a large enough scale to alter any of the model habitat categories, and the HEI value remains at .54.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, road building, infrastructure development, wildfires, fire suppression, and prescribed burning activities have all contributed to the current conditions for deer and elk in the analysis area. Past regeneration timber harvest, wildfires, and prescribed burning have all had beneficial impacts to habitat quality for these species. Road building, infrastructure development and fire suppression have had negative impacts. Other planned or foreseeable activities in the analysis area include the Ragged Ridge prescribed burning. This project is expected to have positive effects from small-scale canopy reductions and regeneration of favorable forage species. Additionally, the Forest is engaged in a Forest-wide evaluation of where motorized vehicles would be permitted and prohibited. This project (the Motorized Vehicle Use Plan or MVUM) may also result in changes to motorized use within the analysis area. The degree of increase or decrease in motorized use, and the subsequent increase or decrease in big game disturbance, is not known at present.

In the 1990 Umpqua Forest Plan, black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk winter range habitat components was envisioned to be managed largely through an intensive regeneration timber management strategy. With the incorporation of the Northwest Forest Plan and Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and Recovery habitat, this initial Forest Plan strategy has been constrained to the point where attaining and maintaining these desired habitat conditions is not considered possible with current land allocations. Given these conditions, all alternatives are determined to be compliant with current agency direction and guidance with regard to Roosevelt elk and black-tailed deer. Both species are expected to remain viable within the analysis area with all alternatives.

Cavity nesters

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Existing Condition - As a group, “cavity nesters” were identified as a Forest Plan Management Indicator Species for wildlife species requiring standing dead trees. For the cavity nester analysis snag density requirements for two species would be used: the hairy woodpecker for smaller diameter snags (10-20” dbh), and the pileated woodpecker for larger snags (greater than 20” dbh). Hairy woodpeckers can utilize snags as small as 10 inches in diameter at breast height (Thomas 1979). This source also cites territory size for the hairy woodpecker at 25 acres.

In an intensive study conducted in northeastern Oregon, nesting pileated woodpeckers usually sought out the largest available snags for cavity excavation, with a strong preference for snags greater than 22 inches in diameter at breast height (Bull 1987). Other studies indicate average diameter of nest trees to be 30 or 31 inches, with a minimum size considered to be 20 inches dbh (Shroeder 1982). Bull (1987) noted that foraging occurred on down wood, standing snags and live trees in relatively equal amounts. While feeding on downed wood, a preference for material between 10 and 20 inches was observed. While foraging on standing trees, a preference for trees over 20 inches was also observed.

In the forestwide Management Indicator Species habitat assessment for the Umpqua Forest (Chapman 2012), the Forest plan objective of 60% potential populations is identified along with snag density size and values to meet this objective. For the hairy woodpecker this objective is 1.15 snags per acre greater than 10” dbh, and for the pileated woodpecker the objective is .04 snags per acre greater than 20” dbh. A total of 857,196 acres of suitable cavity nester habitat was identified for the Forest. For primary cavity excavators, the analysis area is considered to be the extent of commercial thinning acreage. The 1,212 acres for Alternative 2 then constitutes approximately 14/100ths of one percent of the available primary cavity excavator habitat on the Forest. Silvicultural stand exam data within this area indicates a >10” dbh snag density of 2.49 per acre, with large snag density (>20”dbh) of .07 per acre.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives – Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and would retain current snag levels within the analysis area at 2.49 >10” and .07 per acre >20”. Alternative 2 and 3 each propose commercial thinning which is expected to impact snag levels for cavity nesters in several ways. Some loss of standing snags can be expected through thinning and burning operations as well as through felling of danger trees. Timber yarding and activity fuel treatments, however, are also expected to create additional new snags as the result of treatment mortality. The cumulative effect to snag habitat availability is projected for alternatives in the figure below. Snag density objective values identified in the Forest Plan are identified by a dashed black line.

>10" Snag Availability 30 25 20 No Action 15 Alternative 2 10 Alternative 3 5 0 2013 2016 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2073

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

>20" Snag Availability 5 4 3 No Action 2 Alternative 2 1 Alternative 3 0 2013 2016 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2073

Figure 17. Snag habitat availability

Cumulative Effects –Past timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression and infrastructure development have all had an influence on snag levels within the analysis area. Reasonably foreseeable activities that may combine with Lower Steamboat Project effects include the Ragged Ridge prescribed burn project and road maintenance. Prescribed burning activities may result in some loss of standing snag habitat, but also creation of additional snag developement. Based upon past prescribed burning activities, the net effect is expected to be an overall increase in standing snag numbers. Snag habitat loss from road maintenance activities is considered to be of very minor relevance when compared to these other actions in the analysis area.

Snag retention for all alternatives exceeds levels envisioned in the Forest Plan. All alternatives provide for continued viable populations of primary cavity excavators for the project area and the Umpqua National Forest.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Landbird Analysis

Existing Condition - Federal land management agencies are required by treaty and executive order to consider the effects of their land management activities on a variety of bird species.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). - Implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird except as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. 703-704). The regulations at 50 CFR 21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds, including nests and eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (Director's Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States; however, under Executive Order (EO) 13186 all other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and the habitats on

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

which they depend. In response to this order, the Forest Service has implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be addressed in the NEPA process when actions have the potential to negatively or positively affect migratory bird species of concern.

Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001)“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” - This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. This Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) with the FWS to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. The Forest Service has completed, and is currently implementing, their MOU’s with the USFWS.

Forest Service & FWS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - The purpose of this MOU is, “to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration between the Parties, in coordination with State, Tribal, and local governments.”

Under the MOU the Forest Service Shall:

Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands, consistent with NFMA, ESA, and other authorities listed above. When developing the list of species to be considered in the planning process, consult the current (updated every 5 years) FWS Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008 (BCC), State lists, and comprehensive planning efforts for migratory birds. Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. To the extent practicable:

a. Evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of actions. b. Pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area. c. Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as: 1. altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season; 2. retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented; 3. retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories of use and; 4. giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes, and stop-over habitats. 5. minimizing or preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environments utilized by migratory birds whenever practical by assessing information on environmental contaminants and other stressors relevant to migratory bird conservation.

As noted in the first paragraph, the consideration of these approaches (1-5), is called for when developing, amending or revising forest management plans. The Lower Steamboat project is not a forest plan revision, so these analysis efforts are not mandated for the Lower Steamboat project.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

PIF Bird Conservation Regions (BCR’S) - Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. BCR’s are a hierarchical framework of nested ecological units delineated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC framework comprises a hierarchy of 4 levels of eco- regions. At each spatial level, spatial resolution increases and eco-regions encompass areas that are progressively more similar in their biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, drainage patterns, temperature, and annual precipitation) characteristics. The Umpqua falls within BCR 5 (Northern Pacific Forest) and the BCR 5 species, habitats and their occurrence on the Umpqua are displayed in Table 18.

Table 18. Birds of Conservation Concern in the Bird Conservation Region 5, Northern Pacific Rain forest. Potential Present Impact on the from Bird Species Preferred Habitat Umpqua Project Winters along the coast from AK to Baja CA. Transients can be found on inland Yellow-billed Loon bodies of water. No No Prefer coastal mudflats, sandy ocean beaches, wet margins of large reservoirs Marbled Godwit (nb) or brackish lakes and sewage ponds. No No Found along the coast foraging in open estuarine tide flats, inland on margins of Red Knot (Roselaari sewage ponds & at larger brackish ssp.) (nb) lakes. No No A bird of wet mud or shallow water with Short-billed Dowitcher underlying mud. Common in tidal (nb) mudflats and adjacent shallow water. No No Primarily pelagic, coming to land only to Aleutian Tern nest and roost. No No Found in marine, coastal estuarine, salt marsh brackish and freshwater habitats near large bodies of water. Often nests Caspian Tern on islands in rivers and salt lakes. No No Found offshore migrating along the Arctic Tern coast, rarely near land. No No Found in nearshore (within 5 km) waters and within 50 miles inland in old growth Marbled Murrelet forest stands. No No Kittlitz’s Murrelet Alaskan species. No No Nests on ledges or shallow caves in steep rock faces and canyons, usually near or behind waterfalls and sea caves. Forage over forests and open areas in Black Swift1 montane habitats. Yes No Found in a variety of habitats, most likely in brushy areas with flowers and forests with a well-developed Rufous Hummingbird1 understory. Yes Potentially

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Potential Present Impact on the from Bird Species Preferred Habitat Umpqua Project Found in narrow, moist coastal fog zones in open areas of coastal scrub. Allen’s Hummingbird Nest in nearby wooded areas. Yes No Open conifer forests (< 40 % canopy cover) and edge habitats where standing snags and scattered tall trees Olive-sided Flycatcher1 remain after a disturbance. Yes Potentially Associated with riparian shrub dominated habitats, especially Wouldow Flycatcher brushy/wouldow thickets. In SE WA also (non listed subspecies) found in xeric brushy uplands. Yes Potentially Open fields with short herb dominated Horned Lark (Strigata ground cover < 31 cm tall and patches ssp.) (ESA candidate) of bare ground. Yes No Lightly grazed pastures with scattered Oregon Vesper shrubs and grass height < 30-60 cm) Sparrow (Affinis ssp.) high Yes No Marshes with open water and on lakes and reservoirs supporting emergent Western Grebe (nb) vegetation. Yes No Nests on ledges or shallow caves in steep rock faces and canyons, usually near or behind waterfalls and sea caves. Forage over forests and open areas in Laysan Albatross (nb) montane habitats. No No Black-footed Albatross (nb) Pelagic, far offshore seabird No No Pink-footed Shearwater (nb) Pelagic offshore seabird No No Red-faced Cormorant Alaskan species No No Year round nearshore marine and estuarine habitats, on ledges and Pelagic Cormorant vertical cliffs, on rocky islands and (pelagicus ssp.) headlands. No No Associated with large bodies of water, forested areas near the ocean, along Bald Eagle (delisted rivers, and at estuaries, lakes and species) reservoirs. Yes No A habitat generalist that prefers to nest in mature forests with large trees on Northern Goshawk moderate slopes with open understories. Yes No Peregrine Falcon Wide range of habitats, nests on cliff (delisted species) ledges, bridges, quarries. Yes No Rocky shores and sand/gravel beaches Black Oystercatcher along the coast. No No

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Potential Present Impact on the from Bird Species Preferred Habitat Umpqua Project Small and partly wooded patches of water, and high altitude bogs and wet Solitary Sandpiper (nb) meadows No No Migrates through east of the Cascade crest. A wader of shallow pools often found near mudflats on seasonally Lesser Yellowlegs (nb) flooded fields and small isolated ponds. Maybe No Migrating through coastal estuarine mud flats and on sandy ocean beaches. Inland on fields or mud flats around Whimbrel (nb) lakes and ponds. No No Short-grass or mixed-prairie habitats with flat to rolling topography. Also found Long-billed Curlew (nb) in agricultural fields. No No Hudsonian Godwit (nb) Rare migrant along the west coast. No No nb= non breeding within this BCR, 1species are also focal species identified in Altman and Alexander 2012.

The Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington list of focal species (2012) and BCC species list for the project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the project area are incorporated and effects disclosed in this analysis. Table 19 displays a list of focal landbird species identified in the 2012 PIF habitat conservation plan on the Umpqua National Forest that are known or likely to be present in the Planning Area and could be affected by the proposed actions.

Table 19. Landbirds identified as Focal Species by the Partners In Flight document “Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington” version 2.0 by Altman and Alexander 2012.

Potential Forest Stage Habitat Attribute Focal Species Impact from Project Large snags Pileated Woodpecker No Old-Growth/Mature Large trees Brown Creeper No Forest (Multi- Layered/Late- Deciduous canopy/sub- No Successional) canopy trees Pacific-slope Flycatcher Mid-story tree layers Varied Thrush No Mature/Young Forest Closed canopy Hermit Warbler No (Multi- Open mid-story Hammond’s Flycatcher No Layered/Understory Deciduous understory Wilson’s Warbler Reinitiating) Forest floor complexity Winter Wren No Young/Pole Forest (Understory Reinitiating/Stem Black-throated Gray Exclusion) Deciduous canopy trees Warbler Yes

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Sapling/Seedling Residual canopy trees Olive-sided Flycatcher Yes Forest (Stand Snags Northern Flicker Yes Initiation/Early Orange-crowned Yes Successional) Deciduous shrub layer Warbler Mineral springs Band-tailed Pigeon No Wet meadows Lincoln’s Sparrow No Alpine grasslands American Pipit No Unique Forest Waterfalls Black Swift No Habitats or Conditions Nectar-producing plants Rufous Hummingbird No Large hollow snags Vaux’s Swift No Landscape mosaic forest Blue (Sooty) Grouse No Pine-oak No canopy/subcanopy trees Purple Finch Klamath Mountains Dense shrub understory Nashville Warbler No Mixed Conifer/Mixed Shrub-herb interspersion No Conifer-Hardwood understory Hermit Thrush Forests Forest canopy edges Western Tanager No Montane brushfields Fox Sparrow No Post-wildfire Lazuli Bunting No

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and would have no direct or indirect effects to any of the landbird species referenced above. Alternatives 2 and 3 include thinning, including gap creation or heavy thinning, which would have potential effects identified in the following tables:

Table 20. Alternative 2 Impacts to Pertinent Landbird Species

Landbird species Effects of Alternative Implementation Rufous Commercial thinning, notably gap creation and areas of heavy hummingbird thinning, are expected to result in increased development of shrub and herbaceous flowering species. This habitat impact is expected to yield a positive, indirect effect. Olive-sided Only areas of gap creation or heavy thinning prescriptions flycatcher (115 acres) are expected to result in habitat areas with canopy closures below 40% desired by this species. Given the small size and scattered distribution of this acreage, it is unlikely these impacts would produce any increased utility of the area by olive-sided flycatchers. Wouldow Riparian thinning is included in this alternative (245 acres) but flycatcher the small scale and widely scattered distribution makes it unlikely that it would produce environmental effects large enough to influence wouldow flycatcher use of the project area. Black-throated Commercial thinning activities, together with potential gray warbler broadleaf tree planting, have the potential to yield increased amounts of deciduous canopy trees. This would have an indirect and beneficial impact to the black-throated gray warbler.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Northern flicker The effects of alternative activities to snag habitat is further detailed in the coarse wood analysis section of this assessment. In summary, this alternative initiates activities that would hasten development of large diameter trees and snags which would yield direct and indirect beneficial effects. Orange-crowned The commercial thinning activities of this alternative would warbler produce short-term decreased canopy closures which would allow corresponding development of the deciduous shrub layer. This would produce an indirect, beneficial effect to the orange-crowned warbler.

Table 21. Alternative 3 Impacts to Pertinent Landbird Species

Landbird species Effects of Alternative Implementation Rufous Commercial thinning, notably areas of heavy thinning, are hummingbird expected to result in increased development of shrub and herbaceous flowering species. This habitat impact is expected to yield a positive, indirect effect. Olive-sided Only areas of heavy thinning prescriptions (4 acres) are flycatcher expected to result in habitat areas with canopy closures below 40% desired by this species. Given the extremely small size of this acreage, it is unlikely this alternative would produce any increased utility of the area by olive-sided flycatchers. Wouldow Riparian thinning is included in this alternative (227 acres) but flycatcher the small scale and widely scattered distribution makes it unlikely that it would produce environmental effects large enough to influence wouldow flycatcher use of the project area. Black-throated Commercial thinning activities, together with potential gray warbler broadleaf tree planting, have the potential to yield increased amounts of deciduous canopy trees. This would have an indirect and beneficial impact to the black-throated gray warbler. Northern flicker The effects of alternative activities to snag habitat is further detailed in the coarse wood analysis section of this assessment. In summary, this alternative initiates activities that would hasten development of large diameter trees and snags which would yield direct and indirect beneficial effects. Orange-crowned The commercial thinning activities of this alternative would warbler produce short-term decreased canopy closures which would allow corresponding development of the deciduous shrub layer. This would produce an indirect, beneficial effect to the orange-crowned warbler.

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, infrastructure development, wildfire and timber management activities have all had effects to certain habitat characteristics identified as being utilized by this broad and inclusive species grouping. Current land use practices including non-commercial timber culture activities, prescribed burning, recreational use and infrastructure maintenance are all planned or foreseeable within the

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

analysis area. None, when viewed cumulatively with Lower Steamboat activities, are anticipated to yield changes to overall habitat conditions outside those considered in the preceding analysis.

All alternatives are compliant with current agency direct and objectives for landbird species. All alternatives are expected to continued viability for those species currently found within the analysis area.

Wildlife Survey and Manage Species

Survey and manage is a standard and guideline within the NWFP that is intended to mitigate impacts of land management actions on species that are closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forests and whose long-term persistence is a concern. With the exception of the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) and great grey owl (Strix nebulosa), all wildlife survey and manage species that are relevant to this project, were added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List and are addressed in the sensitive wildlife species section. Proposed project activities for all alternatives fall within the “Complaince with the modified injunction of October 11, 2006”. This project falls within one of the four exemptions listed in the October 11, 2006 modified injunction NEA v. Rey; specifically: (a) Thinning projects in stand younger than 80 years old; (d) The portions of projects involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portions of hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging would remain subject to the survey and manage requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph (NEA v. Rey, C04-0844_p, Stipulation (Dkt No. 109 at 2-3)”

All alternatives avoid activities in late-successional or old growth habitats favored by these species. All alternatives are expected to provide for continued persistence of these species and are compliant with Survey and Manage direction and objectives.

ROD Identified Snag Retention Species

White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus)

The 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines also includes mitigation measures for the white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl.

Existing Condition - These 4 species of cavity nesters were included in the Northwest Forest Plan ROD with snag retention guidelines designed to enhance viability. Black-backed woodpeckers are residents of lodgepole pine forests or mixed conifer forests with a lodgepole pine component at elevations at or above 4,500 feet. There are no such suitable high elevation lodgepole stands within the analysis area. No further analysis for this species is conducted. On the other hand, the project area does contain dry site Douglas-fir habitat, which may be inhabited by white-headed woodpeckers, pygmy nuthatches and flammulated owls. In these habitats, management objectives call for at least 0.6 snags per acre be retained with the minimum size

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

being 15 inches dbh. Silvicultural information indicates that stands within the project treatment units currently are well below this snag habitat objective with .07 large (20 inch or greater diameter) per acre.

Direct and Indirect Effects - These species were included in the Northwest Forest Plan to ensure retention of adequate snag habitat to provide nesting sites for 100% of potential populations. Additional information on large snag values is included in the Cavity Nesters portion of the Management Indicator Species analysis detailer earlier in this assessment. All alternatives start off with larger snag availability below the .6 snags per acre, but achieve and maintain above this value at essentially the same point in time (approx. 2029). Alternative 1 provides snag habitat as the result of natural mortality from resource competition, insects and disease. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have reduced levels of natural mortality in the short-term, but would also have compensatory snag increased as the result of harvest operations, activity fuels treatments and active snag creation.

Cumulative Effects - Past timber harvest, infrastructure development, wildfire and forest succession have all influenced snag availability within the analysis area. Planned and foreseeable activities aside from the Lower Steamboat treatments that may influence snag numbers in the analysis area include hazard tree felling and prescribed burning activities.

All alternatives would retain adequate snag amounts to meet ROD snag retention guidelines.

Coarse Wood Analysis Standing snags and down wood are important habitat components for a variety of wildlife species. These habitat components are evaluated with a coarse wood analysis for the subwatersheds with proposed activity.

Existing Condition – Coarse woody debris (CWD) is defined here as standing dead trees (snags) and large down woody debris (≥6” diameter). These physical structures provide essential habitat components for many species of terrestrial wildlife.

There is only one relevant Forest Plan standard that addresses snag or down wood retention for the proposed project. This is Wildlife Habitat/Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species standard #18: “When possible, wildlife trees (snags and green culls) would be left standing in areas of timber harvest. This habitat would be in addition to that provided by implementing the snag habitat prescriptions” (p.IV-38).

The Forest plan also includes two other standards (#1 and 2, p. IV-36) that speak to down woody material, but these standards apply to regeneration harvest prescriptions. None of the alternatives propose any such regeneration harvest.

Although there are few relevant standards or guidelines in the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan land allocations, it is recognized that management of coarse wood debris components is an important aspect of vegetative treatments. An additional source of information on coarse woody debris management is DecAID (Marcot, et al. 2002). Treatment areas fall within the Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer –Hardwood Forest habitat type and small-medium tree structural condition. DecAID benchmarks at the 50% tolerance level for this habitat type and structural stage are outlined in the table below. The 50% tolerance level was identified as the analysis benchmark considering the extensive degree of recent regeneration timber harvest in the analysis area.

Table 22. DecAID Coarse Wood Debris Levels at the 50% Tolerance Level

CWD Category Range 50% tolerance Level

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Snags 10+”/acre 0.0 – 105.1 6.2 Snags 20+”/acre 0 – 78.6 2.0 Down wood (% ground cover) 0.0 – 17.0 1.7

Direct and Indirect Effects – As described previously in the pileated woodpecker and cavity nesters analysis project activities are expected to have both beneficial and negative effects to coarse wood debris categories. The availability of each CWD category is detailed further in the charts below. The 50% decAID tolerance level is illustrated as a dashed black line.

Landscape Scale >10" Snag Availability 25

15 No Action 10 Action Alternatives

0 2013 2016 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2073

Landscape Scale >20" Snag Availability 7

4 No Action 3 Action Alternatives 2

0 2013 2016 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2073

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Landscape Scale Downed Wood Availability 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 No Action 2 Action Alternatives 1.5 1 0.5 0 2013 2016 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063 2073

Figure 18. Snag and down wood availability through time at the landscape level

Snags greater than 10 inches in diameter are currently just below benchmark values, but all alternatives show regular improvement in total snag numbers, each producing values above the 50% tolerance level once the treatment year is attained. Both Alternative 2 and 3 are displayed in the graph as action alternatives since the graph lines are essentially the same at the chart scale. The No Action and Action alternatives lines for the landscape comparision are essentially the same as the treatment acreage is such a small component (approx. 2%) of the affected subwatersheds.

Large (20+”) snag availability in action alternatives also start out below benchmark values for the entirety of the analysis area. All alternatives, including the No Action, reach this desired benchmark at the same time.

Percent ground cover is also above benchmark values for all three alternatives, with all three alternatives having almost concentric lines. Again, this is due to the small percentage of the treatment acreage in action alternatives.

As can be seen in these charts, Action alternatives have very little direct or indirect effect to the availability of coarse wood levels within the subwatersheds of treatment when compared to the No Action alternative.

Cumulative Effects – Past activities and events that have influenced coarse wood debris categories within the watershed are the same as described earlier in the pileated woodpecker and “cavity nester” sections (timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression and infrastructure development). Reasonably foreseeable activities that may combine with Lower Steamboat Project effects include the Ragged Ridge prescribed burning activities and road maintenance. All of these are small in scale and are not expected to yield any detectable difference in coarse wood debris category amounts projected for the watershed.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

BOTANY Unique Habitats Unique habitats are non-forested openings that vary in size from 1 to 75 acres and include meadows, hardwood stands, wetlands, ponds, caves, cliffs, and rock outcrops (USDA Forest Service 1990). They are important due to their high value for wildlife and plants and their scarcity in the forest environment (Ch. 2 FEMAT 1994, USDA Forest Service 1990, USDA, Umpqua NF, 1995). Approximately 85% of the plant species diversity of the Western Cascades is found in non-forested habitats (Hickman 1976) which make up about 3% of the Umpqua National Forest. Similarly, these unique habitats are utilized by 87% of the local wildlife for primary breeding and feeding purposes (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1995). Existing and Desired Conditions - Unique Habitats Unique habitats in the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat Watersheds include wet and dry meadows, rock outcrops, shrub fields, ponds, and some hardwood stands. Unique habitats currently account for 4.5% (approx. 1345 acres mapped) of the 30,000-acre Lower Steamboat planning area. There are approximately 13 acres of unique areas mapped within or immediately adjacent to project units (Table 23) and of these unique areas, there are only 6.55 acres of unique habitats as defined by the Umpqua National Forest LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1990) located within treatment units. These openings range from 1 to 2.25 acres in size. The Middle North Umpqua (USDA, 2001) and Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1999) identified that unique habitats in the watersheds represent a small percentage of the total area, 4% and 3.4% respectively, yet represents approximately 90% of the biological diversity. These habitats are highly susceptible to naturally occurring disturbances and human mediated activities such as cattle grazing, road building, and timber harvests. Changes associated with these activities have the potential to alter the microclimate, hydrological processes, soil composition, and vegetation characteristics of the unique habitat and the adjoining forested stands. Dry habitats in the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat drainages are usually associated with shallow soil types that can have a high solar exposure. Fire exclusion has resulted in the gradual succession of meadow openings to closed-canopy forest. This is most evident in and around the perimeter of dry meadows on south- and west-facing slopes where Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis), madrone (Arbutus menziesii) and chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla) have been overtopped by conifers. In addition, large ponderosa and sugar pines that are often associated with these openings thrive under open conditions but are now crowded with young Douglas-fir and white fir. Wetland habitats in or adjacent to units mostly consist of graminoid-dominated meadows, with some seeps and ponded water, surrounded by shrub thickets or dry forb meadows. Evidence of historic fire maintenance of these habitats is less evident although occasional fire would certainly have occurred. There are additional smaller wetland features are scattered throughout units that also provide hydrological function and wildlife benefit. The desired condition of all unique habitats is to maintain or improve vegetative composition and structure of the unique habitats for the benefit of wildlife (Umpqua LRMP IV-200). For wetlands there is the additional objective of maintenance of water tables in accordance with Objective 7 of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Table 23. Proposed Activity Units adjacent to Unique Habitats. Unique Habitat Unit Location Acres Buffer Size (feet) Dry Meadows 12 2.25 0

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Unique Habitat Unit Location Acres Buffer Size (feet) 104 2.2 0 Wet Meadows 113 2.01 150’ Total Acres 6.46

Direct and Indirect Effects - Unique Habitats Direct effects are those that would occur within unique habitats or their immediate surroundings during implementation. Indirect effects are those that could occur later in time or beyond the immediate area of the proposed activities. Alternative 1 would result in no direct effects to unique habitats because no activities would occur in or near them. Under the action alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects to the wetland unique habitat in unit 113 because it would be buffered from timber harvest operations and partial harvest of trees in the unit and is not anticipated to alter ground water levels. Indirect effects, such as the introduction of invasive weeds into this unique habitat would be mitigated for (CH 2). While mitigation might greatly reduce the probability of the impacts within these areas, the effect may not be entirely eliminated through these actions. Dry meadows adjacent to units (Table 23) would not be buffered from thinning (see Forest Plan Amendment below) under both action alternatives. Thinning within these areas are intended to reduce encroaching conifers into the ecotones of the drier habitats. This should result in an indirect benefit due to release and recovery of some of the suppressed hardwoods and pines that are currently dying out from competition. There would also be an indirect beneficial effect in the thinned areas by increasing the likelihood that future fire, either wild or prescribed, would maintain the desired vegetative composition and structure. Because of the requirement to directionally fall trees away from the unique habitat there would be no direct impact to the unique habitats themselves. Under both of the action alternatives there would be an indirect adverse effect due to the potential for increased weed invasion into the unique habitats and thinned buffer, particularly those immediately adjacent to roads. This potential would be reduced, although probably not entirely eliminated by the mitigation measures (CH2). Cumulative Effects - Unique Habitats The scope of analysis for cumulative effects to unique habitats is the planning area, with projects located in Tables 6 and 7. Past clearcut harvesting and road building activities have resulted in alteration of wetland hydrology, introduction of invasive weeds, increased sediment input to wetlands, and conversion of ecotonal communities into conifer plantations. Increased sediment into the wetlands may have resulted in loss of open water and accelerated succession to relatively dry plant communities. Because there is no direct or indirect effect anticipated from proposed activities in the unique habitats there would be no cumulative effect under any alternative.

Forest Plan Amendment – Unique Habitats In terms of the proposed Forest Plan Amendment, the responsible official would make a Determination of Significance of Change to the Forest Plan in the Decision Notice/ Finding of No Significant Impact. In order to make that determination, FSH 1909.12, Section 5.32, outlines the factors to be used to determine whether a proposed change to the LRMP is significant or not significant, based on National Forest Management Act requirements. A discussion of each of these four factors follows. 1. Timing: The proposed amendment is necessary now in order to harvest the Lower Steamboat stands and meet the desired stand conditions, and would occur at the end of the current plan period. Therefore, timing is not considered to be a significant factor related to the amendment.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

2. Location and Size: There are approximately 1345 acres of mapped unique habitats in the Lower Steamboat timber sale planning area. The proposed amendment would affect the buffer around approximately 4.45 acres of unique habitat across the 30,000 acre planning area. This represents > 0.1% of the planning area and > 0.1% of the mapped unique habitats within the planning area. Thus, impacts to unique habitats are limited in scale and consequence. Therefore, the location and size of the area involved in the proposed amendment is not considered to be significant. 3. Goals, Objectives, and Outputs: Although the proposed amendment would not change existing goals, or outputs as defined by the Forest Plan, there would be a modest increase in the volume of timber available by harvesting in areas where it was not planned in the LRMP. Therefore, the proposal would result in a slight benefit to the changes in the level of goods and services currently being produced as projected by the LRMP. Therefore, the goals, objectives, and outputs are not considered to be a significant factor related to the proposed amendment. 4. The proposed amendment would not permanently change management of unique habitats. This amendment applies to this project only; upon completion of this project, Prescription C5-1 would again apply. Therefore, changes in management prescription are not considered to be a significant factor related to the proposed amendment.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy - Unique Habitats As disclosed above in this Unique Habitat section, no measurable impacts to the wetlands are expected from any of the proposed activities in the action alternative including road work, thinning, burning, or yarding activities. As such, there would be no measurable effect upon water tables associated with project’s wet areas so wet areas would remain unaltered and wet, consistent with ACS Objective 7.

INVASIVE PLANTS/NOXIOUS WEEDS Existing and Desired Conditions - Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds The health of native plant communities throughout the Pacific Northwest is at risk by noxious weeds and other invasive plants. Introduced plant species thrive in their new ecosystems for various reasons including a lack of natural predators, change in disturbance regime, adaptations for growing on nutrient-poor soils, and allelopathic (plants with natural chemical pesticides or herbicides) abilities. As a result, many weeds are capable of out-competing native plants, ultimately altering the structure and lowering the diversity of native plant communities. The frequency of fire can also be altered by noxious weeds in ways that are detrimental to natural ecosystems (Brooks et al. 2004, Harrod and Reichard 2001, Keely 2001). Further, different soil organisms predominate under different kinds of vegetation. Replacement of native plant communities with invasive species can be expected to change soil microbial populations and nutrient cycling processes. Most weeds take advantage of disturbed areas such as roadsides, trails, logged units, burns, rock quarries, mined sites and areas around human structures. Established populations serve as sources for further dispersal, especially along roads, power line, and trail corridors. Roads are considered the first point of entry for invasive species into a landscape, and roads serve as corridors along which invasive plants move farther into the landscape. Logging, construction equipment and off-road vehicles have the potential to transport weed seed beyond roadsides to the disturbed soil that they concurrently generate. Invasive plant seed can also be moved by wind, water, animals, and humans. The increase of invasive plant introductions on the Umpqua National Forest is directly related to expanding weed populations on nearby federal, state, and private lands. Populations of extremely aggressive species such as spotted knapweed, meadow knapweed, and rush skeletonweed have become roadside weeds on

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

frequently traveled highways in Oregon and along arterial roads in the Umpqua and adjacent national forests. The greatest risk of human-caused noxious invasive plant introduction into the proposed units is from seed- contaminated vehicles and equipment traveling through the planning area. The Umpqua National Forest has classified its invasive plants into four categories: high priority species (Forest Rating A) for which treatment of all known sites is a priority, lower priority species (Forest Rating B) which are generally too widespread for control to be feasible, detection species (Forest Rating D) which are surveyed for and would become high-priority if found, and other weeds of interest (Forest Rating O). The noxious weeds known to occur on the North Umpqua Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest are presented, by category, in Table 24. Table 24. Noxious Weed List for the North Umpqua Ranger District Lower Common Name Scientific Name Steamboat Planning Area

High-Priority Species (Forest Rating A) Italian Thistle Carduus pycnoephalus No Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa No Tocalote, Malta thistle Centaurea melitensis No Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis No Spotted Knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos Yes Rush Skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea No Scotch Broom Cystisus scoparius Yes Yellow Toadflax Linaria vulgaris Yes Sulfur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta No Gorse Ulex europaeus No Lower-Priority Species (Forest Rating B) Meadow Knapweed Centaurea debeauxii spp. thuillieri Yes Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Yes Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense Yes St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Yes Himalayan Blackberry Rubus armeniacus Yes Tansy Ragwort Senecio jacobaea Yes Medusahead rye Taeniatherum caput-medusae Yes Other Weeds of Interest (Forest Rating O) Oxeye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Yes Chicory Cichorium intybus Yes Wild Carrot Daucus carrota Yes Foxglove Digitalis purpurea No Common Teasel Dipsacus fullonum Yes Sweet Pea Lathyrus latifolius Yes Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea No Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare Yes Periwinkle Vinca major Yes

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Invasive plant surveys for the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale were conducted in 2012. There are 95 acres of priority noxious weeds known from the 30,000-acre planning area (>0.1%), 62 acres of which are located in or adjacent to planned units, with 40 of those acres being located along major haul routes. Scotch broom is by far the most common priority weed species. Major seed sources within the planning area are being actively managed. The Scotch broom in and adjacent to the planning area would be targeted for removal and subsequent control, if needed and as funded, as outlined in the Botany Mitigation Measures in Chapter 2 (see the project file for a map of these weed occurrences). Lower-priority invasive species are nearly ubiquitous in the planning area along roads and disturbed openings. Of particular concern in the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat drainages are the presence of Canada thistle in wetland habitats and the spreading of Tansy Ragwort throughout the planning area. Canada thistle is an aggressive, colony-forming competitor that can alter wetland ecology, but is a B-listed noxious species in Oregon because it is so widespread and difficult to eradicate. Tansy Ragwort is also a B- listed noxious species in Oregon and there is an ongoing effort to minimize the spread of this weed in the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat drainages. The desired condition for the watershed and planning area is to be free of priority invasive plant infestations and to maintain native plant communities that are resilient to the introduction and spread of all invasive plants. Disturbed areas, such as rock quarries and waste disposal areas would be maintained free of invasive weeds to the degree practicable.

Relevant Standards and Guidelines - Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds Forest Service Region 6 issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in October 2005, for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. The 2005 ROD added a set of standards to Forest Plans (USDA, Forest Service 2005). Several of the standards that are pertinent to this project are incorporated into the Botany Mitigation Measures in Chapter 2. The Umpqua National Forest LRMP was also amended in 2003 (USDA, Umpqua NF 2003) with the following relevant Standards and Guidelines: . Integrated weed management prevention and treatment strategies would be used to treat noxious weeds within the constraints of laws, policies and regulations and to meet Forest Management objectives. Methods may include manual (mowing, clipping, grubbing), biological, heated steam, competitive seeding, competitive planting, solarization, prescribed fire, grazing, chemical, or other applicable methods designed to control and/or eradicate the noxious weed. Biological controls tested and sanctioned by the US Department of Agriculture would be allowed to occur. Manual control methods within disturbed sites, such as along roads, trailheads, landings and within administrative sites would be allowed at any time. . Require all ground disturbing machinery to be washed prior to entering and leaving the Forest, using the appropriate timber sale contract provisions and construction contract requirements. . Require the use of certified-weed-free seed for all revegetation projects. . Revegetate disturbed sites as soon as practical using native species unless there is no immediate resource concern and the site is anticipated to revegetate naturally to native species to desired cover standards.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects - Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would not result in any direct effects because ground disturbing activities with the potential to encourage new noxious weed invasions would not occur. Invasive plant management would take place subject to district priorities and funding Roads indirectly affect weed spread by creating habitat for invasive weeds and providing corridors for movement of weeds. The absence of any road work under Alternative 1 would result in no road-related direct effects upon invasive plants. Alternative 2 proposes to construct 6.4 miles of temporary road; 6.0 miles would be reconstructed over an existing track while Alternative 3 proposes to construct 4.6 miles of temporary road; 4.0 miles would be constructed over an existing track. Under the action alternative these roads would be subsoiled and seeded to native species after the sale, contingent upon funding. The area where the temporary roads would be constructed currently have only scattered low-priority weeds present. These low-priority weeds may increase in abundance immediately subsequent to road construction but should decrease with competitive seeding and native plant recovery. In the absence of seeding, these weeds would be anticipated to compete with and consequently retard native species recovery. Temporary road obliteration and re-vegetation, along with the application of required weed prevention measures during timber sale operations and post-harvest monitoring, should mitigate the potential for weed invasion of the temporary roads. Timber harvest, fuels reduction and prescribed fire activities all have the potential to directly affect weed spread under the action alternative by vehicles and equipment carrying weeds and seeds to areas being disturbed. Most of the priority weed sites are located on designated haul routes, which could directly facilitate the spread of weed propagules. The overall potential for weed spread would largely be mitigated for through application of the Standards and Guidelines.

Weed spread and colonization would be indirectly facilitated by removing competing vegetation and disturbing the soil in the timber harvest units to create additional habitat which is more susceptible to invasion. This is particularly acute where vegetation is removed immediately adjacent to the primary dispersal corridors (i.e. roads) which tend to have more weed diversity and abundance. Landings would be expected to become occupied by weeds if left untreated. This would be partially mitigated by: treating known sites prior to timber harvest and fuels management activities (and continuing to manage the known sites); subsoiling and seeding temporary roads, landings and skid trails adjacent to landings; and post-project monitoring to detect and treat invasive weeds before they can establish. The amount of mitigation that would occur would be dependent upon available funding. If weed mitigation is not funded, or funding is delayed, there would be the potential for weed infestations to become established that would be much more expensive to manage over the long-term.

Cumulative impacts for this project are analyzed at the planning area scale. Numerous activities including historic sheep grazing, timber harvest, road building, recreation, and burning/fuels treatments, have contributed to bringing in weed seed and creating soil and vegetative conditions conducive to weed invasion. Because temporary roads would be subsoiled and revegetated, there would be no cumulative impact of additional roads in the planning area under either of the action alternatives. The proposed mitigation measures and ongoing weed management activities are anticipated to reduce the potential for weed colonization and proliferation. Thinning would result in a short-term increase in some low-priority weeds such as St. Johnswort and possible tansy ragwort. Sites of other low-priority species of particular concern, such as Canada thistle, are proposed to be treated. All high-priority species would be managed so the cumulative effect of the proposed actions in conjunction with past, ongoing or anticipated activities would be minimal.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE BOTANY SPECIES

Biological Evaluation - Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botany Species This Biological Evaluation evaluates potential impacts to Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) vascular plants, lichens, and bryophytes from the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale Project. It is Forest Service policy to “ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired plant or contribute…trends toward Federal listing of any species” (FSM 2672.41). There are currently 38 vascular plant species, 11 fungi, three lichens, and 25 bryophytes listed as Sensitive on the Umpqua National Forest (Table 25). There are two species known or suspected to occur on the Forest that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine) is listed as Threatened and has been documented on the Tiller Ranger District. Plagiobothrys hirtus (rough popcorn flower) is listed as Endangered and occurs primarily in the vicinity of Sutherlin in northern Douglas County but has not been documented on the Forest to date. Pre-field Review - Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botany Species Closed-canopy plantations proposed for commercial thinning under the action alternative represent generally poor suitable habitat for most rare plant species. The only species that has been documented within the project area that occupies openings in young stands is North Umpqua kalmiopsis (Kalmiopsis fragrans) which would typically be found in rocky openings. Previously known occurrences of North Umpqua kalmiopsis are located in the Research Natural Area (RNA), adjacent to the project area, and are removed from any treatment activities. In addition to the previously known occurrences, two new sites of North Umpqua kalmiopsis werelocated within the project area. Unique habitat features within units such as wetlands and rock outcrops along with old-growth relicts such as large, well-decayed logs and large trees represent the best potential habitat for numerous species. Species that were determined to have potential habitat are noted in Table 25. Field Reconnaissance - Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botany Species Intuitive controlled6 surveys were conducted throughout the 2012 field season by Forest Service botanists Bryan Benz and Rory Nichols. Although this project is exempt from conducting Survey and Manage pre- disturbance surveys and site management, all species encountered are noted and would be managed on a site specific basis using standard protocols. Non-suitable habitats in the units were field verified from appropriate vantage points or during travel between suitable potential habitats. Botany surveys complied with established protocols (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1997 &1999; Derr et al. 2003a; and Derr et al. 2003b). Field surveys discovered four new populations of North Umpqua kalmiopsis within units 18, 19, and 101 and along the section of 4713-200 adjacent to unit 07. The area surrounding these populations have all been removed from the thinning areas of the project or protected with 150 foot buffers. Because of the unique biology of fungi, pre-project surveys are not considered to be a reliable conservation tool. The vegetative component of fungi is composed of a network of thread-like, underground cells called hyphae, which collectively are referred to as the mycelium. The mushroom is the fruiting body of the organism, somewhat like an apple on an apple tree. Mushrooms for most species occur unpredictably and may go years without fruiting. To reliably determine species presence on a given site would require multiple surveys in the fall and spring over several years. Conservation of sensitive fungi species on Forest Service lands entails management of known sites, targeted surveys based on regional priorities and consideration of habitat elements for fungi during project planning.

The proposed project area is traversed so that all major habitats and topographic features have been investigated. Identified suitable habitats receive a complete survey.

100

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Table 25. Project Effects Assessment for Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive Plants Potential Species Taxa Group and Species Habitat Present Project Effects Threatened or Endangered Plants Alt 1 Alt 2 Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii No No NE NE Plagiobothrys hirtus No No NE NE

Bryophytes Anastrophyllum minutum No No NI NI Andreaea schofieldiana No No NI NI Blepharostoma arachnoideum Yes No NI NI Bryum calobryoides No No NI NI Calypogeia sphagnicola No No NI NI Cephaloziella spinigera No No NI NI Codriophorus depressus Yes No NI NI Encalypta brevicollis Yes No NI NI Encalypta brevipes Yes No NI NI Entosthodon fascicularis Yes No NI NI Gymnomitrion concinnatum No No NI NI Harpanthus flotovianus No No NI NI Helodium blandowii No No NI NI Lophozia gillmanii No No NI NI Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica No No NI NI Meesia uliginosa No No NI NI Polytrichastrum sphaerothecium No No NI NI Porella bolanderi Yes No NI NI Schistostega pennata Yes No NI NI Schofieldia monticola No No NI NI Splachnum ampullaceum No No NI NI Tetraphis geniculata Yes No NI NI Tomenthypnum nitens No No NI NI Trematodon asanoi No No NI NI Tritomaria exsectiformis No No NI NI

Lichens Lobaria linita Yes No NI NI Pseudocyphellaria mallota Yes No NI NI Ramalina pollinaria No No NI NI

Fungi Boletus pulcherrimus Yes N/A NI MIIH Cortinarius barlowensis Yes N/A NI MIIH Dermocybe humboldtensis No N/A NI MIIH Gastroboletus vividus Yes N/A NI MIIH Gymnomyces fragrans Yes N/A NI MIIH Pseudorhizina californica Yes N/A NI MIIH Ramaria amyloidea Yes N/A NI NI Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva Yes N/A NI MIIH Rhizopogon exiguous Yes N/A NI MIIH Rhizopogon inquinatus Yes N/A NI MIIH

101

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Stagnicola perplexa Yes N/A NI MIIH

Vascular Plants Adiantum jordanii Yes No NI NI Arabis suffrutescens var. horizontalis No No NI NI Arnica viscosa No No NI NI Asplenium septentrionale Yes No NI NI Botrychium pumicola No No NI NI Calamagrostis breweri No No NI NI Calochortus umpquaensis No No NI NI Carex crawfordii Yes No NI NI Carex diandra No No NI NI Carex lasiocarpa var. americana No No NI NI Carex nardina No No NI NI Carex vernacula No No NI NI Collomia mazama Yes No NI NI Cypripedium fasciculatum Yes No NI NI Elatine brachysperma No No NI NI Eucephalus vialis Yes No NI NI Frasera umpquaensis No No NI NI Gentiana newberryi var. newberryi No No NI NI Iliamna latibracteata Yes No NI NI Kalmiopsis fragrans Yes Yes NI NI Lewisia columbiana var. columbiana Yes No NI NI Lewisia leana No No NI NI Ophioglossum pusillum Yes No NI NI Pellaea andromedifolia No No NI NI Perideridia erythrorhiza No No NI NI Pinus albicaulis No No NI NI Poa rhizomata Yes No NI NI Polystichum californicum Yes No NI NI Romanzoffia thompsonii Yes No NI NI Rotala ramosior No No NI NI Scheuchzeria palustris var. No No NI NI americanaSchoenoplectus subterminalis No No NI NI Utricularia minor No No NI NI Utricularia ochroleuca No No NI NI Wolffia borealis No No NI NI Wolffia columbiana No No NI NI

NE - No Effect (Applies only to Threatened and Endangered species.) NI - No Impact (Applies to Forest Service Sensitive species.) MIIH - May Impact Individuals or Habitat but would not likely contribute towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. WOFV - Would impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. BI - Beneficial impact.

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS There is no suitable habitat for either species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Kincaid’s lupine occurs in low-elevation upland prairies and is primarily known from Williamette Valley grasslands although there are isolated occurrences documented throughout the Umpqua basin. Rough popcornflower is

102

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

confined to low-elevation wetlands in the vicinity of Sutherlin in northern Douglas County. There are no known sites of either species near the planning area. Because there is no suitable habitat in or near any of the proposed activities under the action alternative there would no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to either species. Therefore there would be “No Effect” to either listed species resulting from activities in any alternative. SENSITIVE BOTANY SPECIES North Umpqua kalmiopsis North Umpqua kalmiopsis (Kalmiopsis fragrans), is a rare perennial shrub found in a narrow band of rocky habitat on the North Umpqua Ranger District on the Umpqua National Forest. North Umpqua kalmiopsis is a low lying shrub in the heath family (Ericaceae) that produces bright pink, relatively large flowers. Potential threats to this species include fire, over-collection, and disturbance due to timber harvest activities. The steep rocky slopes that are the preferred habitat for this species probably preclude any direct impact from timber harvest activities. There are only 19 occurrences of North Umpqua on the Umpqua National Forest with only four known occurrences located within the Lower steamboat Timber Sale Project area. The area surrounding the populations in units 18, 19, 101, and along the section of 4713-200 adjacent to unit 07 have all been removed from the thinning areas of the project or protected with 150 foot buffers. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects – North Umpqua kalmiopsis Alternative 1 would have no direct effects to North Umpqua kalmiopsis since ground disturbing activities would not occur near these populations. The action alternatives could have direct impacts to the roadside populations of North Umpqua kalmiopsis caused by road maintenance activities along haul routes but is not likely due to this species being located on rocky openings. To minimize direct impacts to North Umpqua kalmiopsis, all known sites would be protected as no-entry areas. This species is observed to favor steep rocky outcrops, and as such, this occurrence would be buffered to protect the individual plants from any timber harvest or road maintenance activities. Past activities likely have had a mixed cumulative effect upon this species but recently, wildfires most likely present the greatest threat to this species (K. Amsberry et al, 2007). Given the effect of wildfire on this species, subsequent stand management might preclude stand replacing fires that could affect the distribution of this species. Because of the potential benefits from managing the adjacent stands there could be an indirect beneficial effect although no activities are proposed to specifically improve the habitat. The known occurrences would be buffered from timber harvest activities and with adherence to mitigations listed in Chapter 2 there would be “no impact” to this species from any proposed activities under the action alternatives. Because the action alternatives would not cause any adverse direct or indirect effects and the overall effects to the species would be minimal and potentially beneficial, there would be no substantial cumulative effects from the action alternatives.

Fungi There are no known sensitive fungi sites within the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale Project area. The described suitable habitat for most rare fungi species is very general and not yet well understood. Although data published on the habitat requirements for rare fungi is only broadly described (Aurora 1986, Castellano et al. 1999, Castellano et al. 2003, Exeter et al. 2006), modeling performed by York and Helliwell (2007) indicates that there is suitable habitat for Ramaria amyloidea Nine of the eleven Sensitive fungi belong to the ectomycorrhizal (ECM) functional guild. ECM fungi are most abundant and diverse in areas with well-developed surface litter and organic material and a higher density of large-diameter trees with greater canopy closure (Amaranthus et al 1994, Meyer et al. 2008, Smith et al 2005).

103

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

The two remaining Sensitive fungi are saprobic, meaning their mycelia reside in the litter and downed wood which they feed on, and therefore are also more likely to occur in areas with well-developed surface litter and organic debris.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects - Fungi Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct adverse effects to Sensitive fungi due to the lack of ground disturbing activities. Recent research has demonstrated that thinning stands rather than clearcutting can preserve much or most of the fungal biomass and diversity. Luoma et al. (2004) evaluated the effect of various patch and dispersed retention timber harvest patterns on ectomycorrhizal fungi in Western Oregon (including the Umpqua NF). They determined that leaving only 15% basal area in harvest units (in either an aggregated or dispersed pattern) reduced mushroom and truffle production during the three years following the treatments. However, the retention of 40% of the green trees in a dispersed pattern led to no consequential drop in the fall mushroom or truffle standing crop. This is consistent with Luoma et al. (2006) that report that ectomycorrhizal species richness drops sharply outside the dripline of individual trees following harvest but was largely retained within the dripline. Norvell and Exeter (2004) also determined that light and moderate thinning had little effect on ectomycorrhizal fungi diversity. Under the action alternative, reduction of basal area within treatment units are not expected to drop below 40% with the average being closer to 57% of basal area being retained in any of the units. However, Gomez et al. (2003) did find that thinning substantially reduced sporocarp frequency in the Northern Oregon Coast Range and that retention of coarse woody debris was important in maintenance of some hypogeous species. In this study, approximately 33-50% of the trees were retained in the harvest units. The majority of the stands in this project would be reduced to below 50% but all stands would be above 41%. Similarly, Carey et al. (1999) reported a short-term reduction of epigeous fungi but suggest that the small- scale of their study and retention of native understory shrubs effectively mimics natural processes. Each of these studies evaluated only the short-term response of timber harvest on fungi and most studies only considered sporocarp production as an indicator of fungal abundance and diversity. Past clearcut harvest would have contributed to a cumulative decline in fungi species associated with older forests due to soil compaction, disruption of duff and large decaying logs and loss of older host trees for mycorrhizal species. Based on the above cited literature, the relatively light thinning prescription and retention of down wood in the units would probably retain most or all of the pre-harvest fungal diversity. Therefore the potential for one of the sensitive species being present and being directly or indirectly impacted by timber harvest is low while the potential for rapid recovery to pre-harvest diversity and abundance is good. For these reasons, activities proposed under the action alternative “may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for those sensitive species of fungi with potential habitat within the project area. There would be “no impact” to the remainder of the fungal species.

104

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007).

The Lower Steamboat Timber Sale Project is consistent with the Umpqua National Forest District Resource Management Plan/Forest Land and Resource Management 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 (2001 ROD).

The Lower Steamboat Timber Sale Project applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 Record of Decision related to Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 10, 2006). Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, including both pre-disturbance surveys and known site management. Also known as the Pechman Exemptions.

“Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground- disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order would not apply to: a. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old: b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; c. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and d. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging would remain subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.”

The 2006 Pechman Exemptions remain in force: The Lower Steamboat Timber Sale Project meets Exemption A because it entails no regeneration harvest and entails thinning only in stands less than 80 years old

SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES There were no known Survey and Manage species found within the Lower steamboat Timber Sale Project area. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Because there were no known Survey and Manage species found within the project area there would be no direct impact upon any species under Alternative 1.

105

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Under the action alternatives, future substrate for a number of Survey and Manage species would be indirectly enhanced by thinning which would generate potential habitat more rapidly than not thinning. However, this benefit may be minimal since the habitat is only marginal throughout most of the treatment areas for a number of Survey and Manage species. Because there were no known Survey and Manage species found within the project area, activities proposed under the action alternatives “may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the potential populations or species”. Therefore, the action alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects due to absence of any known Survey and Manage species. The action alternatives would not cause any adverse cumulative effects to any potential habitat since there are no direct or indirect effects.

FIRE AND FUELS

This section would address the benefits and limitations of fuels treatments with in the project area. Important findings are summarized below.

Existing and Desired Conditions

The Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis (WA) area that encompass the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project planning area provides a meaningful landscape-scale context for discussing fire and fuel conditions and includes a detailed discussion of the reference, existing, and desired future landscape conditions. The Lower Steamboat Watershed Analyses (1999) are incorporated by reference.

Prior to fire suppression and intensive timber harvesting, wildfire was the major disturbance shaping the forests of the western Oregon Cascades (Agee 1993, Morrison and Swanson 1990, Teensma 1987). The role wildfire plays in an ecosystem is described in terms of a fire regime. They are a function of the frequency of fire occurrence and fire severity (Irving 1971). In forested stands, high severity fire regimes are defined as having infrequent high severity fires (greater than 100 years between fires) that often kill most trees in a stand (Agee 1990). Moderate severity fire regimes have infrequent fires (25-100 years) that are often partial stand-replacement fires and include areas of high and low severity (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1999).

Historical fire patterns seen in the 1946 photos were similar to those described in other Western Cascades studies (Morrison and Swanson 1990 and Van Norman 1998). Areas within the moderate severity regime (steeper, more dissected, lower elevation landscapes) experienced more frequent wildfires (17 to 30 year return intervals) that were normally low to moderate in severity and occasionally crowned out to create patches of even-aged stands. These patches usually occurred in the mid to upper slopes, ridge tops and tops of steep draws. Forest canopies along larger-order streams were more intact and experienced mostly low to moderate severity fires (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1999).

Currently, the watershed is considered to be a moderate severity fire regime that is showing signs of transitioning to a high severity regime (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1999). The moderate fire regimes of the watershed have been gradually replaced with an artificially high fire severity regime, primarily due to fire exclusion. Increasing surface and crown fuel loads are creating conditions that make stands more susceptible to stand replacement fire. Fire has not been allowed to burn as a natural ignition (prescribed natural fire), nor has it been re-introduced to the watershed purposefully (prescribed management ignited fire), except for burning slash after logging. Fires that occur today would either be ineffective at reducing fuels, because of fire suppression, or increasingly destructive due to high severity burning conditions if initial suppression efforts were not effective.

106

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

The desired future condition for the watershed is to have late seral stands that can be maintained on a landscape scale. Until then, later seral stands that are resilient to stand replacement fire should be maintained in order to provide habitat for dependent species.

Fuel Models

Fuels are classified by vegetation type, fuel size and loading, and potential fire behavior. Fuel loading can be described using models that can help predict what the fire behavior of a certain area would be like. These models are called Fire Behavior Prediction System (FBPS) Fuel Models7 (FM) and are assigned numeric values (Anderson 1982). The table below describes the four fuel models relevant to the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project.

Table 26. Description and Associated Fire Behavior of Fuel Models (current & predicted) in the Lower Steamboat project area. Fuel Model Description and Associated Fire Behavior Closed canopy stands of short-needle conifers or hardwoods that have leafed out support fire in the compact litter layer. This layer is mainly needles, leaves and occasionally twigs because little undergrowth is present in the stand. Representative conifer types include Douglas fir. Fuels Model 8 Slow-burning ground fires with low flame lengths are generally the case although the fire may encounter an occasional “jackpot” or heavy fuel concentration that can flare up. Only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidity’s and high winds do these fuels pose fire hazards. Fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater fire intensity than the other timber litter models. Dead-down fuels include greater quantities of 3-inch or larger fuels from events that create a large load of dead material on the forest floor. Crowning out, spotting, and torching of individual trees are more frequent Fuel Model 10 in this fuels situation, leading to potential fire control difficulties. Any forest type may be considered if heavy down material is present; examples are insect- or disease ridden stands, wind thrown stands, over mature situations with deadfall, and aged light thinning or partial-cut slash. This fuel model is characterized by light slash loads. Fires are fairly active in the slash and intermixed herbaceous material . The spacing of the rather light fuel load, shading from overstory, or the aging of the fine fuels can contribute to Fuel Model 11 limiting the fire potential. Light partial cuts or thinning operations in mixed conifer stands are considered. Clearcut operations generally produce more slash than represented here. The less-than-3-inch material load is less than 12 tons per acre. The freater-than-3-inch is represented by nor more than 10 pieces, 4-inch in diameter, along a 50-foot transect. Rapidly spreading fires with high intensities capable of generating firebrands can occur. When fire starts, it is generally sustained until a fuel break or change in fuels is encountered. The visual impression is dominated by slash and much Fuel Model 12 of it is less than 3 inches in diameter. The fuels total less than 35 tons per acre and seem well distributed. Heavily thinned conifer stands, clearcuts, and medium or heavy partial cuts are represented. The material larger than 3 inches is represented by encountering 11 pieces, 6 inches in diameter, along a 50-foot transect.

7 Fuel Model (FM) 8 is defined as having < 5 tons/acre of 0-3” surface fuels and is the desired condition of second growth stands; FM 10 has between 5-12 tons/acre of 0-3” surface fuels and is the current condition of most stands in the planning area. FM 11 is defined as having < 11.5 tons/acre of 0-3” surface fuels; this fuel model is representative of light to medium logging slash, which would occur in harvest areas that receive no slash treatment. 107

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

About 45% of the planning area is considered to be a Fuel Model 10 (primarily the existing late-successional stands). Another 35% is considered Fuel Model 8, with the remaining 15% a Fuel Model 11. The majority of the proposed units are currently considered to be Fuel Model 8.

Fire behavior models indicate that if a wildfire did occur in a Fuel Model 8, fire behavior would not require mechanized equipment and could be successfully contained with hand crews. Fire behavior in FM 8 could be expected to produce 1 - 2’ flame lengths (Figure 19) and rates of spread from 1 to 6 chains per hour (Figure 20). Initial attack suppression forces (two engines staffed with three person crews and a one hour time delay) would also be inadequate to contain the fire in a Fuel Model 10, as fire behavior can be expected to be 6 to 22 chains per hour with flame lengths of 2 to 7 feet. When flame lengths exceed 4 feet, the fire is too intense for direct attack on the head of the fire with hand tools, and handline alone cannot be relied on to hold the fire. The modeling illustrates the relative level of fire risks that exist within the larger Lower Steamboat planning area and demonstrates the potential benefits of treating activity created fuels to maintain harvest units in a Fuel Model 8.

Figure 19. Flame Length for typical Fuel Models (current and predicted) within planning area.

108

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 20. ROS for typical Fuel Models (current and predicted) within planning area.

Fire Regime Condition Class

Fire regime condition classes8 (FRCC) are coarse-scale measures of the degree of departure from the natural fire regime (USDA/USDI 2005). This departure results in changes to one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, fire severity and pattern; or other associated disturbances processes. Departure is measured in three broad classes: low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2) and high (FRCC 3) departure from the natural or historical regime. Low departure is considered to be within the natural range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside of that range. In FRCC 2 and 3, one or more fire return intervals have typically been missed due to fire exclusion. Areas of high departure increase the risk of losing key ecosystem components due to fire effects.

Historically, the Lower Steamboat Creek watershed was prone to both small and large size fires of low and mixed severity. The small fires were kept in check due to low fuel loads, the moisture regime for the area and/or the time of season that the fires occurred. Fires that typically started here spread very little and those that did spread in the under-story are generally not detectable in aerial photos. Multiple influences have affected fire’s role within the watershed including the following: (1) fire suppression, which limits the acres burned within the watershed, converts stands toward fire intolerant species, and increases fuels within late- succession/old growth stands; (2) harvest activity, which breaks up stand continuity throughout the landscape and changes stand structure and plant communities; and (3) construction of a road system which to some degree provides natural barriers for fire spread; provides direct access to fire starts and provides access to the public potentially increasing human ignitions (LWSA 39). Currently, the watershed is considered to be a moderate severity fire regime this is showing signs of transitioning to a high severity regime (LSWA 7).

8 The use of FRCC in planning is a requirement of the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA); it allows agencies to compare landscapes based on a standardized nation-wide process.

109

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects analysis for planning area units were determined using field data, model output from BehavePlus, professional opinion, and discussions with local fire managers with extensive experience in the planning area. The environmental effects discussed below display how fuel loadings, fire behavior characteristics, and fire effects would differ between Alternatives over time. In most cases, output for action alternatives is identical; the difference being the number of acres treated varies by action alternative.

Under Alternative 1 there would be no management entry in the Lower Steamboat units, thus there would be no direct impacts to fire and fuel loads from this alternative. However, this lack of activity would allow additional fuels to accumulate within the units over time. Suppression mortality would increase. The small dead tree component of the stand would increase causing an increase in surface fuel loadings. High stand densities and low level limbs within the stands would provide an avenue for fire spread into the crowns. Thus, if allowed to accumulate, these fuels could potentially contribute to high intensity fires in areas that historically supported low to moderate intensity fires. Therefore, Alternative 1 through a lack of action has the potential to result in increased fire behavior and more severe fire effects to vegetation, soils, etc. in the planning areas over time.

Activities proposed under both action alternatives have potential direct and indirect impacts on fuels. All action alternatives would thin and remove trees from the stand, thus reducing canopy continuity and the potential for crown fire spread. All action alternatives would treat acreage as detailed in Table 4 in Chapter 2. Generally, Alternative 2 and 3 would thin the same stands using the same silvilculture prescriptions and would use almost identical fuel treatments9 to address activity-generated fuels. Due to the reduced amount of temporary roads in Alternative 3 that was addressed in Issue and Concerns in Chapter 1, Alternative 2 treats the most acreage among the action alternatives. The difference between action alternatives is minor enough that the potential impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 on fuel conditions would be the same.

Alternative 2 would create 112 acres of gaps that are ½ or 1-acre in size. Slash in those gaps would be treated based on scheduled unit treatment (i.e. piled, burned or no treatment).

The direct effects of the various fuel treatments that include burning in the action alternatives would be to immediately separate (break up) and lower 0-3” surface fuels to levels that would reduce future potential fire behavior, thereby increasing stand resiliency to fire over time, as the trees grow larger and increase in bark thickness. The action alternatives would have a direct effect of consuming surface fuels that include portions of the litter, duff, 0-3” material, >3” material, and also the stand herb and shrub components. The majority of the Douglas-fir leave trees would average around 15” diameter,a size resistant to fire damage. The resulting stand would have fuel conditions similar to a FM 8. Future fires would be less intense because of lower fuel loads; fires would likely burn in the understory, with pockets of torching, and would resemble fires that would normally burn in a moderate severity fire regime.

The direct effect of not burning activity-generated fuels (e.g. no treatment) would be an increase the total surface tons of fuel in those stands. This fuel loading would remain at increased levels and present a higher fire hazard for a period for 5-10 years after harvest (fuel conditions would be similar to FM 11 or FM 12). The result of this change in fuel models would be a potential increase in surface fire behavior at the stand scale and an overall reduction in stand resiliency to fire until the slash decomposes within about a decade. All fuel treatments prescribed would lower the risk of mortality from a future moderate wildfire to less than 20% for the retention trees left after harvest. Should a high severity wildfire occur within the first 10 years

9 Fuels treatment prescriptions for both alternatives were designed to reduce the risk and effects of fire in the fuels created by harvest activities. 110

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

after harvest, only the stands with underburning would effectively lower the risk of stand replacement to less than 40% of the retention trees.

Where activity fuels are very light and no values are threatened by potential fire behavior, activity fuels may be allowed to dissipate over time. The majority of the acreage prescribed for no fuel treatment is located in the units with skyline operations prescribed, which consist in areas of slopes greater than 30%. Logging methods have seen a change currently where some of the more preferred methods consist of whole tree yarding. This consists of bringing the whole tree to the landing sites instead of processing the cut within the unit. With these changes in methods, the fuel loading left with in the units have decreased, which in turn reduced the risk. Even with this method, fuel loads would increase after thinning and would overall not have the same beneficial effect as areas with treatment prescribed.

The thinning and removal of trees would reduce canopy continuity, making treated, as well as adjacent, stands less susceptible to crown fire. This is because thinning separates the crowns and increases the canopy base height and decreases crown bulk density. Recent publications have shown that such treatments can effectively lower fire hazard, which not only affects fire behavior at the site, but can affect fire behavior in larger surrounding areas (Peterson et al, 2004). Over time, proposed thinning and fuels treatments under Alternative 2 and 3 are expected to have multiple beneficial impacts. Implementation of fuel treatments in thinned stands would establish a fuel profile that would contribute to cost effective and safer fire suppression operations in the area. Thinning and fuels treatment are also expected to reduce the amount of tree mortality in these stands in the event of a wildfire by reducing ground and ladder fuels and tree density.

Table 27. Summary of fuel treatment effects by Alternative. Treatment type Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Effects Underburn acres 0 362 312 Beneficial - reduced 0-3” surface fuels both for the short-term (up to 5 years) and the long-term (greater than 5 years) and increased stand resiliency to potential wildfire effects from a future fire. Adverse – CO2 emissions potential into Class one or two airsheds for a short period of time. Higher costs to implement and impacts from building handline10 surrounding treatment areas.

Piles & Burn acres 0 277 248 Beneficial - reduced 0-3” surface fuels both for the short-term (up to 5 years) and the long-term (greater 5 years) and increased stand resiliency to potential wildfire effects from a future fire. Adverse – CO2 emissions potential into Class one or two air sheds for a short period of time. Thinning & No Fuel 0 573 515 Beneficial - Reduction of standing fuel and separation Treatment acres of crown layers. Short and long-term effect of reducing crown fire potential. Long-term benefit of increased fire resiliency against crown fire. Adverse - short-term increase in the 0-3“surface fuels with an increased risk for higher intensity fires effects during future wildfires.

A connected action with all alternatives is enhancement at the Steamboat Helibase. The Helibase currently is without the use of the 3rd pad due to vegetation within the safety zone of flight operations. The Helibase

10 Handline construction involves exposing mineral soil (two foot width) along the perimeter of the area to be underburned. Alternative 2 proposes to construct about 16 miles of handline; Alternative 3 – 12.2 miles; Alternative 4 – 10.8 miles.

111

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

would have the removal of merchantable vegetation <20”DBH within the area designated by Unit 212. Vegetation over 20” DBH would be cut and left on site, while the non-merchantable vegetation would be piled and burned by Forest Service Personnel. The beneficial effect of maintaining the Helibase site is that it would be restored to its full potential use for fire personnel and outside agencies that often utilize the site. With all action alternatives, the connected action of wildlife snag creation would occur through the use of fire and through other methods such as girdling. These snags would be retained on the landscape as wildlife habitat and are not expected to present a hazard for torching or fire spread due to the space between the snags and the residual trees.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for fuels is the Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed. As previously described past harvest, road building and fire suppression in recent decades has moved portions of the watershed away from historic stand conditions and fire regimes. Ongoing and future activities such as commercial and precommercial thinning would reduce stand densities and address activity-generated fuels and thus are expected to make a positive contribution toward the condition of the watershed relative to fire risks. Road decommissioning would reduce fire fighter access in the watershed; however, this reduction in access was evaluated in watershed analysis and was determined to be inconsequential. Potential impacts of Alternative 2 and 3 on the fire and fuels resource are primarily beneficial, where lack of action under Alternative 1 could result in potential project level impacts. Both adverse and beneficial impacts are considered to be minor for all Lower Steamboat alternatives.

The action alternatives would also overlap in time and space with the Ragged Ridge Prescribed Fire CE, which would underburn about 3,300 acres within the next several years. Past thinning and burning combined with these two projects would have the beneficial cumulative effect (at the landscape scale) of increasing stand resiliency to fire and lowering the probability of stand replacement fires. The magnitude of this effect would not differ by action alternative. Alternative 1 would not contribute to this beneficial cumulative effect of reducing fuels across the landscape, as no treatment would occur.

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY The maintenance of soil productivity during forest management activities is critical to maintaining a healthy forest. Consequently, soil productivity is addressed in the Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) with several Standards and Guidelines. The primary focus of this analysis centers on past and predicted soil disturbances and the maintenance of ground cover. Relevant Standards and Guidelines The most relevant Standards and Guidelines from the Umpqua Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) related to soil productivity (USDA Umpqua NF 1990a) include: Soil Productivity S&G #1, p IV-67: Requires that the combined total amount of unacceptable soil conditions in proposed activity areas (compaction, displacement of surface soil and severe burning) would not exceed 20 percent, including areas in roads and landings. Soil Productivity S&G #2, p IV-68, S&G #13, p IV-71: Requires maintenance of effective ground cover to prevent loss of topsoil through erosion. Soil Productivity S&G #3, p IV-68: Requires maintenance of ground cover for surface organic material (defined as litter, duff and wood) to maintain long-term soil productivity of the site. Soil productivity S&G # 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12 and other North West Forest Plan requirements also apply and are described in this section or are listed as best management practices, project design features, management requirements and monitoring in Chapter Two.

112

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Soil Suitability - Exceptions to harvesting only on suitable (regeneration) lands shall be documented during NEPA (S&G #6, LRMP IV-44). Soil Productivity Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices were developed to limit management related impacts to soil tilth, soil carbon, surface organic matter, and large woody material to a level that provides protection of the soil hydrology, soil biology and flora and fungi, soil stability and erosion, and soil fertility. Existing and Desired Conditions Past timber harvest activities in the Lower Steamboat planning area utilized a combination of highlead, skyline, tractor and helicopter yarding methods. Highlead logging was used in the through the 1950s and 1960s on steeper slopes over forty percent. Unlike current cable logging (skyline logging) systems which suspends logs off the ground, there was little if any suspension in highlead resulting in deep furrowing of the slopes, severe soil displacement, and intercepted ground water. Generally, all non-merchantable material remained on-site, accumulating in large concentrations in swales and the lower third of steeper harvest units and in streams. Following harvest during this period prescribed fires to reduce this fuel concentration often resulted in relatively high intensity fall burns that left the upper slopes bare. Around 1975, skyline logging systems were primarily used to harvest the moderate to steeper slopes in Lower Steamboat, greatly reducing the soil disturbance to three percent or less of the harvest area, as well as reducing soil compaction. The effects of tractor yarding were reduced after 1985 by restricting ground skidding to designated skid trails over approximately 18% to 20% of the area harvested. During this period, skid trails were designated away from streams and saturated soils. Soil interpretations for the planning area were made using the Umpqua Soil Resource Inventory (SRI, USDA 1976), field review, and further refined with GIS (Table 28, Figure 21). The SRI inventory provides landscape-scale soils information on broadly mapped areas (average size = 250 acres) that have distinctly unique geology, landform and soils that affect the growth and development of forest vegetation. This information was reviewed for each landform and provides useful information for sale planning. The geology of Lower Steamboat is associated with rock units of the Western Cascades, consisting of a complex mixture of highly fractured volcanic basalt (ridge and sideslope), weathered volcanic tuffs and breccia (dormant earthflows), and massive to fractured weather shallow intrusive rhyodacite (ridge and sideslopes).

Table 28. Stream and road densities by landforms making up the Lower Steamboat Planning Area.

Planning Stream Road Erosion Geomorphic Land Unit AREA Density Density Risk % mi/mi2 mi/mi2

DISSECTED MOUNTAINS 69% 14.2 13.2 Low to high Units: 1-18, 20,21,100-116,201,210 Dominant Landtypes: 23, 27, 41, 51

DISSECTED HUMMOCKY MOUNTAINS 26% 3.7 4.4 moderate Units: 19-24,201-213 Dominant Landtypes: 23, 45

INCISED TABLELANDS 2% 0.6 5.5 Low to moderate Units: 113-115 Dominant Landtypes: 24

113

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Dissected Mountains: Sixty-nine percent of the planning area and seventy-five percent of the proposed harvest and fuel treatments would occur on the moderately steep to steep, moderately deep to deep dissected mountain landforms. This landform is characterized by highly fractured undifferentiated basalt and fractured to massive tuff bedrock that has high groundwater storage capacity and moderate to high of water transmission. Drainage patterns are strongly expressed on lower slopes (14.2 stream miles per square mile) with deeply incised channels. Mass wasting hazard is rated stable to moderately unstable stable in clearcuts and roads (0.08 unstable acre per acre of landform identified). Surface water erosion potential is predominately low to moderate, with high ravel potential on steep slopes. Nineteen percent of dissected mountain in the planning area was identified as very dry habitat with skeletal or very shallow soil. Grass competition can be very high where the forest floor is opened up to light. Brush competition moderate to high. Windthrow hazard ranges from low to moderate.

Dissected Hummocky Mountains: Twenty-six percent of the planning area and twenty-three percent of the proposed harvest and fuel treatments would occur on the gentle to steep, moderately deep to deep dissected mountain landforms. This landform is characterized by moderate to highly fractured undifferentiated basalt and fractured to massive tuff bedrock that has high groundwater storage capacity and moderate to high of water transmission. Drainage patterns are moderately expressed on lower slopes (3.7 stream miles per square mile) with deeply incised channels. Mass wasting hazard is rated stable to moderately unstable stable in clearcuts and roads (0.03 unstable acre per acre of landform identified). Surface water erosion potential is predominately low to moderate, with high ravel potential on steep slopes. One percent of dissected hummocky mountains in the planning area was identified as very dry habitat with skeletal or very shallow soil. Grass competition can be very low to high where the forest floor is opened up to light. Brush competition ranges from low to high and windthrow hazard ranges from very low to high.

Incised Tablelands: Two percent of the planning area and six percent of the proposed harvest and fuel treatments would occur on the gentle to moderately steep, deep table landforms. This landform is characterized by moderate to highly fractured undifferentiated basalt and fractured to massive tuff bedrock that has high groundwater storage capacity and moderate to high of water transmission. Drainage patterns are weekly expressed on lower slopes (0.6 stream miles per square mile) with deeply incised channels. Mass wasting hazard is rated stable in clearcuts and roads (0.0 unstable acre per acre of landform identified). Surface water erosion potential is predominately low to moderate, with high ravel potential on steep slopes. Three percent of the incised tablelands in the planning area was identified as very dry habitat with skeletal or very shallow soil. Grass competition can be very high where the forest floor is opened up to light. Brush competition ranges from low to high and windthrow hazard ranges from very low to high.

114

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 21. Generalized landform map for Lower Steamboat Planning Area.

Desired Condition The desired condition for soils is to keep cumulative impacts (legacy and proposed) of compaction and displacement to less than 20% of the treatment area and to maintain at least 70% to 85% effective ground cover of stable surface organic material for soil productivity and erosion control. The desired condition for compacted surfaces would be to effectively restore hydrologic infiltration and permeability. All landings, skid trails (2 or more passes), and temporary roads used by the purchaser would

115

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

be subsoiled to a minimum depth of 20 inches. Ripping that does not lift and effectively fracture the soil without turning it over, and/or scarifying that does not reach the minimum depth of 20 inches would be unacceptable treatments. During implantation of this project erosion control measures would be proactively implemented with the objective dispersing surface water runoff and capturing sediment before it can move offsite or in onsite locations where concentrated surface flows are likely (i.e. drainage ditches). Visible sediment accumulation in ditch lines should be an indicator of road distress. Therefore, visible signs of sediment accumulation in roadside drainage ditches is an unacceptable condition that would require immediate attention by the operator. Monitoring has shown the use of straw bales as an erosion control measure in drainage ditches where concentrated flows can occur to be problematic. If used for erosion control, straw bales must be placed in a manner that creates a spillway over bales; not around or under. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects are discussed at the scale of the 2,388 acres analyzed for treatment within the Lower Steamboat Planning Area. Alternative 2 is a result of this interdisciplinary team assessment. Alternative 2 would prescribe “no treatment” on 1,176 acres (49%) of the analyzed acres and some form of stand modification on the remaining 1,212 acres (51%). Alternative 2 would provide fuel treatments to about 27% of the acres analyzed for treatment. Alternative 3 would prescribe “no treatment” on 1,313 acres (55%) of the analyzed acres and some form of stand modification on the remaining 1,075 acres (45%). Alternatives 3 would provide fuel treatments to about 24% of the acres analyzed. Direct effects would occur immediately as a result of thinning, fuels treatment, and road work while indirect effects would occur in the future as a result of minor modifications to risks of potential wildfire. Under Alternative 1, legacy soil displacement and compaction would remain unchanged at around 65 of the analyzed acres (Table 29). Overall, legacy compaction in units previously tractor logged averaged 25% to 30% compaction within the tractor logged areas. The action alternatives would re-use 4.2 (Alt 3) to 6.4 miles (Alt 2) (approximately 6.6 to 9.4 acres) of previously compacted and abandoned temporary roads and landings. New compaction would occur from 0.4 miles (approximately 0.6 acres) of newly constructed temporary roads, and roughly 13 acres from landing and yarding disturbances. The project design features for compaction using subsoiling has the direct effect of reducing disturbance, improving water infiltration, and decreasing the risk of erosion. Alternatives 2 and 3 would subsoil all temporary roads, landings, and skid trails used by the purchaser as a normal operating procedure. This would treat roughly 50 to 70 acres of soil disturbance and have the potentially to move compacted soils towards a more acceptable condition with increased infiltration and permeability. Soil compaction would remain as a long-term effect (>50 years) if not treated. De-compacting damaged soil through subsoiling temporary roads, landings, and skid trails would increase the soils permeability, and help to disperse surface water runoff to decrease erosion delivery potential. Following harvest and subsoiling, all units in the action alternatives would meet soil Standards and Guidelines for acceptable levels of soil disturbance for both compaction and effective ground cover, thus complying with soils S&G #1 and erosion risk S&G #2 (LRMP pp 67-68). Full recovery of soil productivity on these sites is a biological process that takes time (10+ years). The use of soil amendments such as biosolids have been shown to assist the biologic recovery process (USDA Forest Service 2007) and is recommended for treatment of landings and temporary roads. However, the use of soil amendments would not be a part of this project.

Table 29. Unacceptable soil disturbance estimates for Lower Steamboat EA.

Non-Riparian Riparian Reserve

116

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Reserve (acres) (acres) Detrimental Alternative Soil Disturbances Legacy New Legacy New Totals

ALT-1 Skid Trails and Abandoned Roads 159 0 13 0 Landings 26 0 4 0 Roads (permanent) 265 0 60 0 Roads (temporary 0 0 0 0

Subsoiling (0) (0) (0) (0) 530

ALT-2 Skid Trails and Abandoned Roads 159 4 13 0 Landings 26 9 4 0 Roads (permanent) 265 0 60 0 Roads (temporary) na1 0.6 na1 0.15

Subsoiling (62) (13.6) (5.4) (0.15) 460

ALT-3 Skid Trails and Abandoned Roads 159 3 13 0 Landings 25 9 2 0 Roads (permanent) 265 0 60 0 Roads (temporary na1 0.6 na1 0.15

Subsoiling (39) (12.4) (2.2) (0.15) 480

1/ Temporary legacy roads were accounted for under Skid Trails and Abandoned Roads.

Fuel treatments would occur under “spring like conditions” over approximately 23% to 27% of the original 2,388 acres that were analyzed for this project. Under these conditions grapple piles would potentially expose approximately 2% to 3% of the treated area, underburning would exposed approximately 5% to 15% resulting in severely burned soil conditions over less than 4% to 8% of the area treated. Hand piles would result in even less disturbance. All stands would be logged with tops attached; this would prevent the majority of harvest-derived fuels from remaining in the units. Some units would be strategically treated by light hand pile and burning or by grapple piling and burning, further reducing surface fuels. Whole tree yarding would be expected to remove between 7% and 10% (230 to 275 kg*ha-1) of the total nitrogen from these sites (Edmonds 1989). Nitrogen recovery would be considered a long-term process (>100 years), however these losses would much less than would occur under a more severe wildfire scenario. Together, harvest and fuel treatments would maintain more than 80% to 90% or more effective ground cover. Effective ground cover is defined as all herbaceous or stable dead woody materials, synthetic materials and rock fragments >0.75” diameter that cover the surface of the ground and prevent soil surface erosion (LRMP IV-68). Minimum ground cover recommendations have been prescribed to address both the risk of soil erosion (LRMP IV-68 S&Gs #2 and #3) and the need to maintain soil organic matter for long-term site productivity. Carbon (standing and down woody material, litter, soil organic matter) is a critical element to site productivity and soil development. Most plant available nutrients are retained by the organic fraction in the upper ten inches of forest soils. Fine roots and mychorrizal fungi activity occurs at the litter-soil interface and in the surface two inches of soil. Fine root development plays an important role in soil carbon sequestration (Lal 2005) and long-term soil fertility. Forest soils that are low in organic matter are also less productive. Increased carbon storage in forest soils can be achieved through forest management including site preparation, and fire management. Soil most sensitive to losses in effective ground cover would be the dry site soils that are shallow and skeletal.

117

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

The combined effects of harvest, landings, and fuels treatment would potentially expose soil over about 12% of tractor harvest unit acres and 2 to 3 percent of skyline units. Helicopter harvested area would receive little if any surface disturbance. The amount of potential disturbance anticipated to occur under the Lower Steamboat alternatives would be considered acceptable for maintaining long-term soil productivity (LRMP IV- 68). The action alternatives are expected to result in little to no effect on soil carbon. Therefore disruption of natural processes would not be expected to occur under any of the action alternatives. The risk of wildfire would be a potential indirect effect of maintaining fine fuels and litter. Under Alternative 1 a future wildfire would potentially reduce the effective ground cover by 40% to 72%. This would increase the possibility for erosion and would potentially reduce long-term site productivity on less resilient sites such as portions of the steep side slopes with shallow soils. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 the potential risks from wildfire would remain the same over 98% of the acres analyzed in the Lower Steamboat planning area. Under the worst case scenario all predicted soil disturbances created under Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet all long-term soil productivity Standards and Guidelines. There would be no adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with connected actions outside an acceptable range. Cumulative Effects The Lower Steamboat planning area is in a moderate severity fire regime dominated by soils that are relatively resilient to disturbance. Both action alternatives are within the parameters of acceptable disturbance and therefore would not add to any past soil impacts that result in any adverse cumulative effects to soil. Considering recent and foreseeable activities in the Lower Steamboat and Middle North Umpqua subwatersheds, there would be a minor cumulative net beneficial effect to long-term soil productivity. Other sales that have been implemented in the subwatershed in the past ten years have addressed existing levels of legacy compaction, including decommissioning and subsoiling. In addition, fuel treatments have resulted in low impact, low intensity, and short duration burns that result in acceptable levels of soil disturbance11 while reducing the future potential wildfire risk. The action alternatives, along with other present, recent past and reasonably foreseeable timber sale thinning and fuels management activities within Lower Steamboat may potentially reduce the risk of severe wildfire effects to soils and result in a beneficial cumulative effect. Conversely, because Alternative 1 has the potential to result in severe soil effects from a wildfire, it may continue to add to adverse soil impacts in Lower Steamboat but because there is no action taken, no cumulative effects can occur. CLIMATE CHANGE Guidance for considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate change where provided by Rationale for Project-Scale Effects Conclusions on Climate Change (R6 Memo January 14, 2011); Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis (Washington Office Memo January 13, 2009); and Executive Order 13514 of October 5, 200912.

Effects of climate change on the project area. Projected effects of future climate change to the Lower Steamboat Planning Area include (BASC 2010, Ryan et al. 2010): • Decreased forest growth in warmer climates;

11 Fuel monitoring fuels summaries from 1998, on file at the Umpqua National Forest. 12 Executive Order 13514—Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 194 /Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Presidential Documents

118

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

• Water availability would decrease where rivers are fed by snowpack; • Earlier aquifer recharge with earlier base flow discharge to streams • Increased insect outbreaks • Increased danger of wildfire

As forest carbon storage increases, there is a potential for greater loss of carbon stores from forest fires, and insect outbreaks. Climate change threatens to amplify these risks by increasing the frequency of these disturbances. As climate change increases the frequency of disturbance, many forests could release substantial amounts of carbon to the atmosphere over the next 50-100 years. Climate change could also increase soil decomposition, leading to carbon losses from a part of the ecosystem that we consider to be relatively stable. At the landscape level over the long term, disturbance would not cause a net loss of forest carbon as long as the forest regenerates. But if the frequency and/or severity of fire disturbance increase substantially, long-term carbon storage at the landscape scale would be reduced because the fraction of the landscape with large older trees (that have high carbon stores) would decline (Ryan et al. 2010). The timing of annual snowpack discharge would also be affected by predicted changes in climate. Regional warming of the past several decades has affected the shape of the annual hydrograph, with the temporal center (mid-point of total annual streamflow) of the hydrograph occurring earlier in the season and reduction of minimum flows (Jefferson et al, 2006). Continued warming is predicted to lead to loss of snowpack and continued decline in minimum flows. The Lower Steamboat Planning Area is located within the transitional snow zone. The action alternative would allow more snow to accumulate in some small openings due to the reduction in canopy; however snowpacks are projected to be greater under the no-action alternative due to continued loss of canopy due to potential wildfire. Young stands use more water which could offset any increases in minimum streamflows due to canopy loss. Most recent studies on the interaction between climate change and invasive plants conclude that climate change is likely to favor invasive plant species to the detriment of native plant species for individual ecosystems (Chornesky et al. 2005, Climate Change Science Program 2008, Dukes and Mooney 1999, Hellmann et al. 2008, Pyke et al. 2008). In some studies, invasive plant species have demonstrated increased growth rates, size, seed production, and carbon content in the presence of elevated CO2 levels (Rogers et al. 2008, Rogers et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2000, Ziska 2003). Warming climates may remove elevational barriers to invasive plant distribution that currently exist (Tausch 2008). Predicting how climate change would affect invasive plants, and invasive plant management, at the local or even regional scale is more difficult to deduce than are these general indications. Anticipated changes in the climate for the Pacific Northwest (e.g. more rain, less snow, warmer temperatures (Mote 2004, Mote et al. 1999, National Assessment Synthesis Team 2000) or elevated CO2 may not be realized at a local area, particularly within the time frame of this analysis. Growth of invasive plants under elevated CO2 conditions would also be influenced by environmental conditions such as soil moisture, nutrient availability, and the plant community in which the invasive species occurs. The complex interaction of multiple and uncertain variables make site-specific predictions speculative. Effects of the Project Area on Climate Change This proposed action would affect 1,075 to 1,212 acres of forest by commercially thinning approximately 90 to 120 trees per acre in early to mid-seral Douglas-fir and mixed conifer stands, retaining the largest dominant or co-dominant trees. This scope and degree of change would be minor relative to the amount of forested land within the Lower Steamboat Planning Area as a whole.

119

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Currently, there are no Federal statutes, regulatory standards, or policy direction on the significance of such effects on which to weigh Alternatives 2 and 3. As greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with the Lower Steamboat alternatives (Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, January 13, 2009 WO memo).

RECREATION

Primary recreational activities within the Lower Steamboat planning area include developed campground use, dispersed camping, and day use activities such as hiking, sightseeing, and hunting. Camping, sightseeing and hiking are at their highest use from Memorial Day to Labor Day, while hunting is primarily focused to fall.

Developed campgrounds (CG) within the planning area include Steamboat Falls CG and Canton Creek CG. Steamboat Falls also includes a day use site. Units 14, 20 and 21 are within a mile of Steamboat Falls CG. Unit 211, 212, and 213 are within a mile to Canton Creek CG.

Trails and associated trailheads within the planning area include: Illahee Flats Trail 1532, Wild Rose Trail 1535, Illahee Lookout Trail 1539, and Bradley Ridge Trail 1551. Unit 113 is within a mile of trail 1532. There are no other trails within a mile of any units.

Relevant Standards and Guidelines

No specific LRMP Standards and Guidelines apply to the planning area for the recreation resource. All general Standards and Guidelines for this area regarding Developed Recreation, Dispersed Roaded and Unroaded Recreation would continue to be met with any alternative for this project (LRMP IV 12 – 15).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no direct or indirect effects to recreationists or recreational opportunities because none of the proposed activities would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Developed Sites There would be no direct effects under Alternatives 2 and 3 for Steamboat CG and day use area and Canton Creek CG as no activities are proposed in or immediately adjacent to these developed sites. Indirect effects would include sounds that may travel during operations as well as some expected traffic-related noise from log trucks and equipment from Monday to Friday. While units 14, 20, 21 along with units 211, 212, and 213 are most likely to be heard at Steamboat CG and Canton Creek CG, respectively, some equipment sounds (chainsaws and whistles) can carry for several miles depending on topography and may be heard from other units. Additionally, users at Steamboat CG and Canton Creek CG may experience increased log truck activity on Roads 38 and 4760 along with correlated traffic-related noise. These indirect effects from logging activities could recur over more than one season until all units are harvested.

Dispersed Sites Some dispersed sites may experience some short and possibly long term effects. Landings or pull offs traditionally used as dispersed camping sites may be temporarily closed to allow for logging operations in the

120

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

area, while other dispersed campsites may be within the harvest areas. The effects on such sites would vary depending prescription used, but would generally leave the site more open than the existing condition. Indirect effects include activity sounds and log traffic Monday through Friday.

Trails There would be no direct effects to any National Forest System trails since there are no trails that cross any harvest units.

Indirect effects to trail users would be limited to sounds that may travel during logging operations, such as chainsaws, whistles, etc. These effects are minimized by limiting operations to Monday through Friday.

Recreationists The primary effects to recreationists and recreational opportunities (such as driving for pleasure and hunting) in the planning area under both action alternatives would include short-term noise disturbance during logging operations; short-term traffic congestion during yarding and logging operations; possible short-term access limitations (temporary road closures) during logging and yarding to protect the safety of forest visitors; and short-term air quality impacts (visibility) during fuel treatment operations. These effects would affect hunters if logging and/or burning operations occur in the fall hunting season.

In general, all effects to recreationists would be limited in extent and duration, however activities may recur over more than one season. These disruptions would generally occur during the work week and not on weekends when use is heaviest.

Connected Actions None of the connected actions would have any lasting effects on the recreation resources. Short term impacts include equipment blocking or taking up space on roads, fire or forestry personnel moving or driving throughout the forest, increases in traffic from crew movement during thinning operations. All of these impacts would be short term and are not expected to have a major effect on recreation in the area.

Cumulative Effects The scale at which cumulative effects are analyzed is the planning area.

There would be no cumulative effects under Alternative 1 (no action) as no actions would occur that would impact recreationists or recreational opportunities.

For Alternatives 2 and 3, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may contribute to the cumulative effects analysis for the Lower Steamboat Project include the Ragged Ridge Prescribed Fire. Project activities may occur on a recurring basis during spring and/or fall until completed. This project may overlap with thinning operations and increase or add to the short-term air quality impacts (visibility) to recreationists during spring and fall. These effects may recur on a yearly basis until the desired number of acres is achieved, however due to the short duration, the effects to recreationists are considered to be minimal.

VISUALS

The LRMP applies the Visual Management System Inventory as a minimum standard that project proposals should achieve when implemented. The visual resources can also be described by the USDA’s National Forest Scenery Management System (SMS) (Agriculture Handbook Number 701). The Umpqua NF LRMP has not been amended to officially adopt this system. However, SMS terms are described in parenthesis

121

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

where applicable, in order to provide information as to how the alternatives address visual resource protection.

For the Lower Steamboat Planning Area, visual quality objectives (VQO) include retention (high scenic integrity), partial retention (moderate scenic integrity), modification (low scenic integrity) and maximum modification (very low scenic integrity). No areas of retention would be affected by the action alternatives. In the areas where the VQO is partial retention, management activities are to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. In areas with a VQO of modification, management activities may visually dominate the landscape; however, roads and visible remnants from logging such as slash and stumps, etc. should remain visually subordinate to the landscape. The maximum modification VQO allows management activities of vegetative and landform alterations to dominate the landscape.

Units 104, 106, 211, 212, 213 fall either entirely or partially within the Partial Retention VQO, while the rest of the harvest units fall either within modification or maximum modification.

The North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River corridor is within the Lower Steamboat planning area and would be managed to meet Retention. No proposed harvest units would occur within the Umpqua Wild and Scenic River corridor. With the vegetation cover provided by the corridor, none of the harvest units would be directly seen from the river or Highway 138.

Illahee Flats Trail #1532 falls within a sensitivity level 2 viewshed, and would be managed to meet Partial Retention VQO. Unit 113 is approximately 0.5 mile from the trail. No other units are within a mile of any trails in the planning area.

Relevant Standards and Guidelines

Visual Standards and Guidelines are listed on pages IV-19 to IV-26 in the LRMP. No visually sensitive areas listed in the LRMP would be affected by proposed activities with the action alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no direct or indirect effects to the visual quality of the area because no ground disturbing activities would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Under alternatives 2 and 3, the Retention VQO for the North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River corridor would be met. With the vegetation cover provided by the corridor, none of the harvest units would be seen from the river or Highway 138.

Under alternatives 2 and 3, the Partial Retention VQO for trail 1532 would be met, because there is adequate distance and tree cover between the trail and unit 113.

Slash burning would have the potential to directly and indirectly impact visuals, however if burning BMPs are followed, the effects would be short-term and VQOs would be met. The effects from the slash burns would fade after a few years as vegetation grows and the burned area no longer becomes visible.

None of the connected actions would have any lasting effects on the visual resources. Short term impacts include equipment visible in and along roads, small piles visible along roads, charred vegetation visible after

122

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

burning, and other minor changes to the visible environment; these are all considered normal forest activities that a visitor would reasonably expect to see in a National Forest.

For alternatives 2 and 3, direct effects to visual resources would be short term. There are no known adverse indirect effects. With the BMPs described in Chapter 2, LRMP Standards and Guidelines and VQOs would be met.

Cumulative Effects

Within the planning area, there has been 6,175 acres of regeneration timber harvest on National Forest lands over the last 60 years. This along with the natural stands has produced a landscape with a variety of tree heights and composition of vegetation. Of the harvested acres, approximately 360 acres were harvested after 1990. These harvest units may potentially still have a visual impact because the trees may be less than 20 feet tall. However, these areas along with the areas proposed for thinning in Alternatives 2 and 3 would still be within LRMP Standards and Guidelines and VQOs would be met.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not have cumulative effects to the visual quality of the area, because it does not alter the landscape. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have short term and minimal direct effects, given the prescriptions for thinning stands, the limited prescribed burning, and by following BMPs, LRMP Standards and Guidelines and VQOs would be met with both alternatives. There would be some additional burning with the Ragged Ridge prescribed fire project. Effects from this project would have similar direct and indirect effects as described above on the visual resources. By following burning prescriptions, VQOs for the area would still be met. When considering past projects, present activities, and foreseeable future activities, no cumulative effects are anticipated to occur with these alternatives

Heritage Resources

The affected environment for heritage resources falls within the areas of proposed activities with the potential to affect those resources (timber harvest, fuels treatment activities, road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning; subsoiling, landing construction). Forest Plan goals and objectives and Cultural Resource (Heritage) Standards and Guidelines are listed in Chapter IV, pages 28-30 of the Umpqua National Forest LRMP. All applicable Standards and Guidelines have been met through the inventory and evaluation of the historic properties as required under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. All aspects of potentially eligible sites shall be protected through mitigation measures. A heritage resource inventory was conducted as part of the compliance process of section 106 of the NHPA. The Lower Steamboat Planning Area project reconnaissance report would be completed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as required. The Lower Steamboat Planning Area project cultural resources inventory and monitoring meets the criteria for Case-by-Case Review required by the Programmatic Agreement13 among the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Cultural Resources Management in the State of Oregon (PA). The potential exists for unidentified heritage resources in the Lower Steamboat Planning Area project implementation areas, and that those identified are larger than currently known. This is especially true in areas that were over grown by vegetation, and/or covered by dense down woody materials. Mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 would protect undiscovered heritage resources, lowering the potential for

13 The Stipulation III (B)2 Programmatic Agreement is between the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, and the United States Forest Service, Region 6.

123

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

effects to these resources. Overall, proposed project activities have met the criteria of historic properties avoided for known heritage resources. Standard contract provisions would provide for protection of heritage resources discovered during project implementation. The Umpqua National Forest sent a cover letter with the quarterly copies of the Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) to each of the Tribes. Each quarter, the cover letter highlights new projects and projects that may be of interest to the Tribes; the Lower Steamboat Planning Area Project was identified as a new project when the project was first initiated. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians were contacted by letter. Other contacts in the form of phone calls, letters, opportunities to participate in public tours and public meetings, and meetings at Tribal offices were also utilized to interact with the Tribes. This project was discussed at the annual government-to-government meeting at the Cow Creek Tribal Office in December of 2012. Under the treaties with the Tribes, no trust resources or reserved treaty rights are given for the lands managed by the Umpqua National Forest. Therefore, no effects to trust resources or reserved treaty rights would occur with any of the alternatives. Based on the results of the heritage surveys, review and mitigation of known resources, mitigation of undiscovered sites, and consultation with tribes, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the known heritage resources as the result of implementing any of the proposed Lower Steamboat Planning Area Project alternatives. Mitigation measures have been established which would protect historic properties’ status for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places affected by the project. The no action alternative would have no direct or cumulative effect on any heritage resources. Indirectly, a wildfire and associated suppression activities may have the potential to burn or damage existing heritage resources, especially if the fire was of high intensity under Alternative 1.

SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED AND OTHER DISCLOSURES Air Quality Standards for ambient air quality14 are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are designed to protect human health and welfare. Air quality can be impacted by the presence of particulate matter and other pollutants produced by both prescribed burning and wildfire15. Although smoke from wildfire is considered a natural event by the EPA’s Natural Events Policy (air quality standards do not apply), smoke generated from prescribed burning must meet federal and state air quality standards set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA) (section 160). All activities associated with this project would be implemented to meet standards in the CAA. The Forest Service is required to file a burn plan with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and would comply with the strict standards for air quality. ODEQ would not provide approval for burning when atmospheric conditions exist that may result in an inversion or other atmospheric conditions that would cause air quality violations. ODEQ strictly regulates burning; as such, there is very little likelihood that the effects to air quality from any action alternative would exceed air quality standards, even when combined with other burning and pollution sources. Regional Haze Rule was designed by the EPA to call on states to establish goals for improving visibility in mandatory Class I areas and to develop long term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment to these areas. At this time, Oregon does not yet have a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to deal with regional haze or visibility impairment so no standards currently exist. However, the

14 Ambient air quality is defined under the Clean Air Act of 1963 as the air quality outside of industrial site boundaries. 15 Although prescribed burning affects air quality in ways similar to wildfire, it offers some advantages over wildfire. Prescribed burning plans are developed and implemented to minimize impacts on the airshed by the consideration of atmospheric conditions, season of burn (e.g., burning is restricted between July 1 to September 15 under the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan), fuel and duff moisture, diurnal wind shifts, ignition techniques and rapid mop-up.

124

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

importance of visibility in these areas, such as nearby Crater Lake National Park, is recognized and burn prescriptions would be designed to minimize potential for smoke intrusion in these areas. Since prescribed burning is not a stationary source of pollutants and because no burning associated with this project is within a non-attainment area, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and the conformity provisions (see glossary) of the CAA are not applicable. Other air quality impacts that may occur related to prescribed burning include: temporary and localized loss of aesthetic qualities due to visibility reduction, reduced visibility on highways and roads causing potential safety issues, health problems for sensitive people (i.e. asthma), and human discomfort. These impacts may occur at pollutant levels that are within air quality standards. Smoke impacts to safety, human health or visibility that occur within air quality standards are termed “nuisance smoke”. The closest smoke sensitive areas16 are Oakridge (26 miles north) and Roseburg (45 miles west). The closest Class I Airsheds (see glossary) are Diamond Peak Wilderness (about 8 miles to the northeast) and Crater Lake National Park (about 15 miles to south souteast). Although Wilderness areas within the Umpqua National Forest are not a designated Class I Airsheds, the importance of air quality in these areas is recognized and impacts would be avoided. Burn prescriptions would be designed to minimize the potential for impact to visitors in these areas.

WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS This is an evaluation of wetlands and floodplains for the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project. This evaluation meets the intent outlined in Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 in the Forest Service Manual 2527.

Wetlands are generally areas soaked by surface or groundwater frequently enough to support vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, springs, seeps, bogs, wet meadows, mudflats, natural ponds, and other similar areas. Legally, federal agencies define wetlands as possessing three essential characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The three technical characteristics specified are mandatory and must all be met for an area to be identified as a wetland. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life growing in water, soil, oron a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions in the upper part of the soil profile. Generally, to be considered a hydric soil, there must be saturation at temperatures above freezing for at least seven days. Wetland hydrology is defined as permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally (Cowardin, 1979). Findings There are 2.0 acres of wetlands in or directly adjacent to the proposed activity units. All wetlands and flood plains within the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project planning area are excluded from active management. Additionally, these wetlands were buffered to mitigate any potential effects associated with the proposed activities. See the botany section for more detail. There would be no direct or indirect affects to wetlands or flood plains as a result of either proposed Action Alternative. Methodology Wetlands were initially identified through a review of the National Wetlands Inventory data that were derived

16 Smoke Sensitive Areas are areas designated by the state board of forestry, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Quality, that is provided the highest level of protection under the smoke management plan because of its past history of smoke incidents, density of population or other special legal status

125

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

from selectively field validated remotely sensed data. The presence of the wetlands identified in this project was validated during the field reconnaissance in preparation for analyses and disclosure. Due to the relatively steep and dissected gorge of the North Umpqua River and the rapidly draining soils associated with the area, standard floodplain of 30 feet (total) was applied to all perennial streams. This estimate is based on field observations. Information Search A review of previous analyses revealed that no floodplain mapping had been conducted for project area. The basis for the flood plain evaluation was derived from detailed field investigations. Wetlands were previously mapped and recorded as unique habitats. The location, extent and character of these wetlands were validated and refined through detailed field investigations associated with this project proposal. Floodplain Evaluation On-site values are generally related to wildlife and fish habitat, recreation, and the natural functioning of these watersheds to provide water for domestic livestock, wildlife, and irrigation downstream. Natural erosion rates are low in lands proposed for exchange and all streams are generally stable and functioning. There are no known wetlands, surface ponds or lakes on lands proposed for thinning. There are small wetlands in areas proposed for prescribed fire treatment but there would be no active ignition within the wetlands and firing patterns would be modified to minimize the fire intensity around the perimeter of wetlands. Additionally, due to the moist nature wetlands, it is not likely that they receptive to fire. Based on my professional judgment supported by detailed field investigations of the project area, the proposed activities are consistent with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 and implementing regulations and Forest Service Manual direction. Wilderness, Potential Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless, and Other Undeveloped Lands

UNDEVELOPED AREAS AND POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS EVALUATION

This analysis describes the processes used to determine if any potential wilderness areas or undeveloped areas exist within or immediately adjacent to the planning area. Undeveloped areas were identified because they may contain special resource values that warrant an evaluation differently than other parts of the planning area. Identification of these areas is project specific and situational. This does not constitute an official inventory. Official inventories of potential wilderness areas are completed during the Forest Planning process.

PROJECT CRITERIA

The potential wilderness area and undeveloped area analysis for the Lower Steamboat planning area is based on and is consistent with the criteria found in Forest Service Handbook [(FSH) 1909.12, sec. 71]. This criteria was applied in a different order than appears in the handbook in order to identify undeveloped areas first, and then evaluate for potential wilderness areas second, however all criteria were considered and accounted for. Additionally, professional judgment and local knowledge was used regarding unique, site- specific conditions of each area being considered for inclusion in this analysis.

UNDEVELOPED AREAS – SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND EVALUATION

The undeveloped area analysis includes all federally-owned acres within the project planning area boundary and could include lands outside the boundary if immediately contiguous to the planning area and meet the

126

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

same criteria for undeveloped areas. Private inholdings were excluded from the undeveloped area evaluation.

Step 1 – Remove managed stands which have substantially recognizable stumps, skid trails, or evidence of management [FSH 1909.12, sec. 71.11(9)]

The undeveloped analysis area was overlain with the district’s current GIS harvest layer which displays locations of timber harvest (regeneration harvest and thinning operations) and management over the past 60 years. Figure 22 shows the managed stands which were removed from lands being considered in this analysis.

Step 2 - Remove substantially recognizable roads and impacted lands within 200 ft. of those roads [FSH 1909.12, sec. 71.1(3); 71.11(9)]

The analysis area was overlain with the district's GIS forest roads layer plus a 200-foot buffer on each side of the road. These areas were removed from further analysis. Figure 22 shows the roads plus the buffer which was removed from lands considered in this analysis. The Forest transportation system was used for this analysis.

The 200-foot buffer was located along both sides of roads to account for the road construction and maintenance activities described below. This distance is consistent with the process used in identifying the land to be included in the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness and the Boulder Creek Wilderness. This distance is based on local knowledge and professional judgment regarding the evidence of recognizable stumps, skid trails, etc. which occur to varying degrees adjacent to forest roads and to facilitate easy on-the- ground identification of a uniform, measurable boundary along a semi-permanent, human-made feature.

Road construction and road maintenance have removed trees and created visible stumps along road corridors. These activities are expected to continue into the future. Trees were felled within a clearing limit to provide for safe and efficient construction and future operational safety of road users. Clearing distances vary based on various factors; such as, tree height, topographic slope, and other factors. Road maintenance includes the periodic clearing of brush and the falling of danger trees that present a hazard to forest visitors, employees, and contractors as defined by the Region 6 Danger Tree Policy (2007). The distance of the danger tree removal away from a road varies by tree height, topographic slope, and other factors. Road maintenance occurs to varying degrees along each road according to an assigned maintenance level and available funding.

Results

Figure 22 shows undeveloped area polygons within the Lower Steamboat Project Area. Managed stands, road buffers and private inholdings accounted for 8,758 acres within the project area. The remaining 18,754 acres are undeveloped. The undeveloped area effects analysis later in this section is based on this undeveloped area inventory.

127

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 22. Undeveloped areas, managed stands, and 200 foot road buffer.

POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS - SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND EVALUATION

This section evaluates all undeveloped areas to determine if the criteria for potential wilderness areas (PWA) are met.

Step 1– Identify the largest undeveloped areas that do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, except as permitted in areas east of the 100 meridian. [FSH 1909.12, sec 71.1(3)].

This was completed with the undeveloped area analysis.

Step 2 – Determine if the largest area is 5,000 acres or more [FSH 1909.12, sec 71.1(1)]

This evaluation found a 7,700 acre undeveloped area within the project planning area. This area spans several watersheds along steep terrain, includes a portion of the Limpy Rock Research Natural Area (RNA), and is immediately adjacent to private land inholdings. This area was evaluated as PWA in the effects analysis section. This area is shown on Figure 23.

128

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Step 3 – Determine if areas can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions. [FSH 1909.12, sec 71.1(1a)] and/or if Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. [FSH 1909.12, sec 71.1(1b)]

There are no physical terrain features or natural conditions present that would lend themselves to preservation, nor any self-contained ecosystems that could be managed as a separate unit for any of the evaluated undeveloped areas, evidenced by the fact that portions of the area in question have previously been logged and are easily accessible by roads.

Step 4 – Determine if any areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size. [FSH 1909.12, sec 71.1(1c)]

Boulder Creek Wilderness is immediately to the east of the Lower Steamboat Project Area, but the two areas are separated by a road and large ridge, therefore there are no areas contiguous to the Boulder Creek Wilderness Area.

RESULTS

This evaluation found a 7,700 acre undeveloped area that meets the criteria for a PWA and is shown on Figure 23.

Based on the criteria listed above, there are no other areas in the Project Planning Area that meet the criteria for potential wilderness areas. Based on local knowledge and professional judgment, none of the other undeveloped areas can be preserved due to terrain or natural conditions, are self-contained ecosystems, or are contiguous to existing wilderness.

129

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 23. Area that meets the criteria for potential wilderness area.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

OTHER UNDEVELOPED AREAS

Existing Condition – Other Undeveloped Areas

Undeveloped areas identified in the undeveloped area evaluation are shown on Figure 22 and total 18,754 acres.

Undeveloped areas may have unique characteristics because they have not been managed in the last 60 years and as such may exhibit a sense of naturalness that is not normally found in managed lands. This is primarily due to a lack of visible stumps and landings. In addition, some undeveloped lands may be able to

130

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

provide a sense of solitude and remoteness as they generally have less developed roads and the correlated ambient noise. While this feature is not unique to undeveloped lands, it is often found within them.

Alternative 1 - Effects to Other Undeveloped Areas

Under the no action alternative, there would be no direct effect on undeveloped areas or their special characteristics because no management activities would occur in those areas. Because there are no direct effects and no other activities area proposed in and adjacent to these undeveloped areas, there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 and 3 – Effects to Other Undeveloped Areas

Direct and Indirect Effects

Size – The presence of stumps and yarding corridors would be the primary indicators of management and would decrease the size of undeveloped areas. Undeveloped areas that are managed would be excluded from consideration for potential wilderness areas. If the areas are not managed for 60 years, they may be returned to an undeveloped area status.

Alternative 2

Undeveloped areas in the project area would decrease by approximately 501 acres, reducing the total from 18,754 acres to approximately 18,253 acres. Developed areas in the project area would increase by approximately 501 acres, bringing the total from 8,758 acres to approximately 9,259 acres.

Alternative 3

Undeveloped areas in the project area would be decreased by approximately 445 acres, reducing the total from 18,754 to approximately 18,309 acres. Developed areas in the project area would increase by approximately 445 acres, from 8,758 acres to a total of approximately 9,203 acres.

Social values –From a recreation perspective, while a sense of solitude may be greater in undeveloped lands, the effects analysis on recreation encompass all recreationists. Please see the recreation effects analysis for additional analysis.

From a visual perspective, the unique visual attributes correlated with undeveloped areas would be lost. Typically, a managed appearance (primarily visible stumps and landings), would persist for 20 to 60 years in harvested areas. This would affect the sense of naturalness within the units until the understory vegetation develops and hides tree stumps and landings. Please see the visual resources effects analysis for additional analysis.

Biological and physical resources – The two action alternatives provide for thinning of dense overstocked small diameter trees. Silvicultural treatments proposed for the Lower Steamboat project are designed to promote the development of old-growth forest characteristics in young stands, including large trees, snags, logs on the forest floor, deep tree crowns, and canopy gaps that enable establishment of multiple tree layers (vertical diversity) and diverse species composition. The two action alternatives are compliant with regional

131

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

snag and down-wood objectives. A complete down-wood analysis was conducted in the wildlife section of this chapter.

A comprehensive assessment of project impacts to wildlife habitat conditions can be found in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Interest reports. These reports evaluate a wide spectrum of wildlife species (in excess of 50) including assessments for the northern spotted owl (Threatened) and wolverine (Sensitive). The spotted owl assessment includes project assessment for mature and old-growth habitat impacts, while the wolverine assessment includes information on the availability of remote or secluded habitat. In addition to these two species included in the Biological Evaluation, the Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Interest Report includes habitat assessments for the pileated woodpecker (mature/old-growth species), varied thrush (mature forest with mid-story species) and grey wolf (public interest species). These analyses describe habitat impacts associated with implementing the project, but did not identify any conflict with agency policy or objectives.

There was also interest in how the project might impact unique habitat features and how it would relate to the "patchiness" of natural vegetation processes. The Wildlife Biological Evaluation prepared for the project includes assessments on the availability and impacts for species that rely on these unique habitat features, including wet meadows (evening fieldslug), rock outcrops (Chace sideband), dry meadows (California shieldbacked bug), high elevation meadows (gray-blue butterfly and Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper), ponds (western pond turtle), waterfalls (black swift), cliffs (peregrine falcon) and caves (Townsend's big- eared bat).

There are no unique fish, plant, soil, or water resources within these undeveloped areas which would be affected beyond those already described in the appropriate resource sections in this chapter.

Rehabilitation of all temporary roads would include subsoiling to 20 inches and covering the treated surface with slash. These treatments would restore the hydrologic functions of water infiltration, soil permeability, and runoff dispersal. Recovery of the soil structure and biology would be a longer-term process (>10 years). Once treated, the surface will no longer be recognizable as a road nor will it be practical for ORV/ATV access due to the fractured surface and slash cover.

Cumulative Effects

The scale at which cumulative effects are analyzed is the planning area.

A portion of the Ragged Ridge prescribed fire project would occur within portions of the Limpy Rock RNA. The prescribed fire would not affect the characteristics of the undeveloped areas. No other actions would occur that would impact undeveloped areas, so there would be no adverse cumulative effects with Alternative 1 (no action).

For Alternatives 2 and 3, when combined with the past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities, the existing direct and indirect effects to undeveloped areas are not expected to contribute to any meaningful cumulative effect to any undeveloped areas. Areas harvested in the last 60 years were identified and established as the existing condition for this project and were evaluated in the direct and indirect effects section. As stated above, the Ragged Ridge prescribed fire project would not adversely affect the undeveloped areas within the Limpy Rock RNA.

POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS (PWA)

Existing Condition – Potential Wilderness Areas

132

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

There is an area identified within the Lower Steamboat Planning Area that meets the criteria for potential wilderness area and is 7754 acres. This area was evaluated without any natural boundary restrictions, included a portion of the Limpy Rock RNA and is adjacent to private inholdings.

Alternative 1 - Effects to Potential Wilderness Areas

Under the no action alternative, there would be no direct effect to the area that meets the criteria for PWA. A portion of the Ragged Ridge prescribed fire project would occur within the area identified as meeting the criteria for PWA. The prescribed fire would not affect the characteristics of the undeveloped areas, and would not reduce the acreage of PWA. No other actions would occur that would impact the area, so there would be no adverse cumulative effects with Alternative 1 (no action).

Alternative 2 and 3 – Effects on Potential Wilderness Areas Proposed harvest areas that overlapped the area meeting the criteria of a PWA would be excluded from future consideration for a PWA. If the areas are not managed for 60 years after harvest, they could be considered as undeveloped areas and meet the criteria for PWA.

Direct effects with both Alternatives 2 and 3 are a reduction of 116 acres to the area meeting the criteria for PWA, from 7,754 to 7,638 acres. Under both alternatives, this area would still meet the criteria for PWA because it exceeds 5,000 acres. Indirectly there would be 116 acres that someone could not experience solitude, but there are thousands of acres in the vicinity where a person could have that experience.

Cumulative Effects

The scale at which cumulative effects are analyzed is the planning area.

A portion of the Ragged Ridge prescribed fire project would occur within portions of the Limpy Rock RNA. Having prescribed fire in this area would not affect or change the area that meets the criteria for PWA. No other actions would occur that would impact that area, so there would be no adverse cumulative effects with Alternative 1 (no action).

For Alternatives 2 and 3, when combined with the past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities, there are not expected to be adverse cumulative effects to the area meeting the criteria for PWA. Areas harvested in the last 60 years were identified and established as the existing condition for this project and were evaluated in the direct and indirect effects of this section. As stated above, the Rocky Ridge prescribed fire project would not affect or change the area that meets the criteria for PWA.

WILDERNESS AREAS

Existing Condition – Wilderness Areas The Boulder Creek Wilderness is immediately to the east of the Lower Steamboat planning area. Units 111, 112, and 113 are within a mile of the wilderness. The rest of the units are more than 2 miles away from the wilderness. A large ridge and road separates the Boulder Creek Wilderness from the Lower Steamboat Planning Area.

All Alternatives - Effects on Wilderness Areas Under all alternatives, no project activities would occur within the Boulder Creek wilderness area, and as such, there would be no direct effects on designated wilderness or wilderness characteristics.

133

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Indirect effects may include noise related to equipment along with short duration views of smoke during burning activities. It should be noted that the project activities and the wilderness are divided by a large ridge which would shelter most users from such indirect effects. In addition, the units are away from the traditionally used portions of the wilderness, further reducing the chance that these activities may affect recreationalists.

Cumulative Effects

The scale at which cumulative effects are analyzed is the planning area.

There would be no cumulative effects under Alternative 1 (no action) as no actions would occur that would impact recreationists or recreational opportunities.

For Alternatives 2 and 3, other projects that overlap in time include the Loafer T.S. Project, located 3 miles east of the Boulder Creek Wilderness. Although unlikely due to distance, indirect effects such as noise, helicopter activity, and smoke during burning activities could overlap with the indirect effects from Lower Steamboat. Additionally, Ragged Ridge Prescribed fire could similarly affect Boulder Creek Wilderness indirectly from smoke during burning activities.

RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS (RNA)

Existing Condition – Research Natural Areas The Limpy Rock RNA is located within the Lower Steamboat Planning area. Under all alternatives, no project activities would occur within the Limpy Rock RNA.

All Alternatives - Effects on Research Natural Areas There are no effects specific to the unique values found in the RNA. Under all alternatives, no project activities would occur within the RNA.

Cumulative Effects The scale at which cumulative effects are analyzed is the planning area. Because there are no direct or indirect effects to the RNA, this project is not expected to contribute to any meaningful cumulative effects.

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS (IRA)

Existing Condition – Inventoried Roadless Areas There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas within or immediately adjacent to the Lower Steamboat Planning area.

All Alternatives – Effects on Inventoried Roadless Areas Under the action alternatives, no project activities would occur within or adjacent to an Inventoried Roadless Area. There would be no direct effects on IRA characteristics because there are no IRAs in immediate proximity.

Cumulative Effects The scale at which cumulative effects are analyzed is the planning area. Because there are no direct or indirect effects to IRAs, this project is not expected to contribute to any meaningful cumulative effects.

134

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

PRIME FARMLANDS, RANGELANDS, FORESTLANDS, AND PARKLANDS No prime farmlands, rangelands, forestlands or parklands exist within the area; therefore; no direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur. CONFLICTS WITH PLANS, POLICIES, OR OTHER JURISDICTIONS Implementation of any of the alternatives would not conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including the Tribes. This project would not conflict with any other policies, regulations, or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Effects to air quality and compliance with the Clean Air Act are described in this chapter. POTENTIAL OR UNUSUAL EXPENDITURES OF ENERGY Alternative 2 would require expenditures of fuel for workers to access the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project Project for use of power equipment and to utilize the logging systems. Alternative 1 would require no expenditure of fuel. No other direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are expected to occur with any of the action alternatives. CONSUMERS, CIVIL RIGHTS, MINORITY GROUPS, AND WOMEN Contracting procedures would ensure that projects made available to contractors through this project would be advertised and awarded in a manner that gives proper consideration to minority and women-owned business groups. Because of this consideration, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to consumers, civil rights, or minority groups with implementation of any of the alternatives. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs Federal agencies to address environmental justice by identifying and disclosing the effects of the proposed activities on minority and low-income populations. The effects of the alternatives on the economic conditions of the State and county are disclosed in the Economics section of this chapter. According to 2006 statistical data for Douglas County, about 7% of the population is made up of minorities. Unemployment and poverty in the county is higher than the State average. The project occurs well away from any large population center that would be directly affected by the project. Several small communities are located along the haul routes, some of which may see an increase in business during logging operations and an increase in traffic. The ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities may also contribute to log truck traffic; overall, this increase in traffic may be measurable, but would not be comparable to the logging that occurred in the area in the late 1980s. No other adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these communities are expected to occur. The stands that would be thinned have some recreational value, as described in the recreation section. Where there is dispersed recreation, the effects to those recreating in the area would be greatest. Minority groups or low-income groups that use these areas may be impacted during logging operations by the increase in log truck traffic. These groups may choose to recreate elsewhere. Adverse impacts to these groups would end when logging and other connected actions are completed. Overall, none of the action alternatives imposes any other additional hardships on minority or low-income communities; therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to environmental justice with any action alternative. Alternatives would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any low-income or minority populations that utilize the area for recreation.

135

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT The Proposed Action and its relationship to the aquatic environment were assessed during the scoping process. Concerns were raised over the impacts of thinning within riparian reserves. This issue was considered during the development of the project design features and BMPs. The aquatic effects related to this issue are disclosed in this section. The results of watershed analyses are presented, a description of the existing condition and the important physical and biological components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) are discussed, and conclusions are presented regarding how Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 move conditions toward desired conditions in terms of the nine ACS objectives, which include: 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.

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.

3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

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.

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.

6. Maintain and restore instream 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.

7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

8. Maintain and restore the species composition 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 distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

136

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Applicable Watershed Analysis Recommendations - Hydrology The following recommendations are not exhaustive but they water resources relevant subset of recommendations from three Watershed Analyses. These recommendations mention road decommissioning; to clarify, the Forest Service is not proposing any permanent road construction or decommissioning. However, we do proposed to construct under a half mile of new temporary road and reconstruct between 4.5 and 6.5 miles of existing (non-system) temporary roads. All temporary roads would be subsoiled (decommissioned) and hydrologically restored following their use. Another point of clarification with these recommendations: the Forest Proposes to create snags through girdling, logging systems and fire rather than through fungal inoculation.

1999 Lower Steamboat Watershed Analysis: Thin in mid-seral stands to accelerate the development of late-successional tree characteristics: i.e., vary thinning spacing to accommodate complex vegetative structure needs (wide spacing in some areas to maintain high growth rates to develop large diameter trees as soon as possible vs. areas of no thinning); maintain full live crown ratios; develop large branch sizes and thick bark, etc.; Release desirable hardwoods and shrubs in mid-seral stands to maintain diversity; Maintain or develop intermediate layers in managed stands by thinning; Reduce compaction where practical in former harvest areas within the riparian area.

2001 Calf-Copeland Watershed Analysis: Use a variety of silvicultural methods to restore vegetation in second-growth stands. Prescribed fire, thinning (cutting), girdling, or inoculating trees with a species of fungus can be used to help reduce stand densities and encourage large tree growth within riparian areas. Similarly, prescribed fire can be used to help thin out understory components (when desirable) as well as thin-barked species such as hemlock. To restore species diversity within management-created second-growth stands, thinning and release can be coupled with planting. This could include planting native conifers, hardwood and shrub species. Decommission or improve roads to reduce chronic and catastrophic sediment delivery to stream channels, as well as to help restore hydrologic function with the watershed. Road improvement activities would include: installing waterbars and drain dips, installing stand pipes, placing slaph aprons below culvert outlets, upsizing culverts, and pulling back over steepened road fills and landings. An interdisciplinary team should develop specific recommendations for the road system based on site specific and cumulative watershed effects analysis.

2001 Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis: Utilize variable spacing by species that prescribes different level s of retention between the riparian and terrestrial environments. Interplant shade-tolerant conifers such as western red cedar and hardwoods such as Oregon ash in riparian areas. Re-establish aquatic and riparian connectivity by using appropriately-sized culverts or by placing natural-bottom culverts. Restore forest health (stand and landscape) through pre-commercial and commercial thinning, timber harvest and the use of prescribed fire.

137

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Prescribe thinning activities in previously harvested stands adjacent to fish bearing streams in order to accelerate development of large trees for stream shading and coarse wood. Coordinate with road decommissioning if possible. Use the project level planning process to determine stream reaches to thin. Restore compacted soils on sites within refugia habitat to augment water infiltration where current and past harvest has altered soil conditions on over 40% of the site. 2007 Steamboat Creek WA iteration: Along perennial streams, apply silvicultural treatments such as thinning, activity fuel treatments, and/or prescribed underburns outside the primary shade zone when it is determined that such activities can benefit effective shade and other riparian functions over the long term (UDDA/USDI, 2005), thus meeting the long-term objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Treatments within the primary shade zone such as thinning and prescribed fire may be considered when a site specific analysis shows no risk of temperature increases to listed reaches. Along intermittent streams, apply silvicultural treatments such as thinning, activity fuel treatments, and/or prescribed underburns when it is determined that such activities can benefit the long-term objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Variable-width, no treatment buffers would be identified where stream bank, bed, or adjacent up slope stability is a concern and to lower sediment delivery associated with certain types of yarding. The size of such no treatment buffers should be prescribed based on site-specific conditions and in the context of the proposed silvicultural prescription and logging system. Where overall channel stability and sediment delivery are verified not to be a concern, maximizing the amount of restorative treatment and lowering the long-term hazard of stand-replacement fire along streams is the desired outcome. Treatments that occur where no buffer is needed would maximize the restorative benefits and lower the chances of more severe wildfire effects along streams.

Water Quality The Clean Water Act (1972) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.

A suite of TMDLs were approved by the Department of Environmental Quality for the Umpqua Basin in 2007. However, not all pollutants were adequately addressed in these plans and thus remain on the list of impaired waters. Regardless of whether an impaired waterbody has an approved TMDL established (303(d); Category 4) or one is still needed (303(d); Category 5), the waterbody is still classified as Water Quality Limited for not meeting applicable state water quality standards.

Beneficial Uses of Water

The relevant inclusive beneficial uses of the North Umpqua River and its tributaries as determined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2003) are: Public Domestic Water Supply Private Domestic Water Supply

138

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Industrial Water Supply Irrigation Livestock Watering Fish & Aquatic Life Wildlife & Hunting Fishing Boating Water Contact Recreation Aesthetic Quality Hydro Power

Relevant Standards and Guidelines – Water Quality The relevant standard and guidelines are specifically from the Umpqua Land Resource Management Plan (1990). Water Quality/Riparian Areas S&G #6, p IV-60: Directional felling methods would be used to meet riparian objectives and protect water quality during timber harvest (e.g.; Timer Sale Contract Clause C6.51 and C6.41).

Water Quality/Riparian Areas S&G #12, p IV-63: The application Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of water quality and beneficial uses (e.g.; aquatic life or wildlife and hunting) would be monitored on ground disturbing activities.

Watershed Cumulative Effects and Water Quality, S&G #1, p IV-64: The beneficial uses of waters must be identified and management activities planned so they would not interfere with or be injurious to the beneficial uses of adjacent and downstream waters.

Watershed Cumulative Effects and Water Quality, S&G #2, p IV-64: Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitats would not be degraded by turbidity, sediment, or scoured stream channels caused by timber harvest, road construction, and related activities.

Exisiting and Desired Conditions – Water Quality

The following table details relevant water quality limited stream reaches that may be affected by the proposed Lower Steamboat Project (Table 30). The desired conditions for streams within the planning area are to ensure their compliance with all applicable Water Quality Management Plans and maintain water quality for all beneficial uses.

Table 30. Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Steamboat Project. All of these waters are classified as Category 4a, Water Quality Limited with an approved TMDL, under the 2007 Umpqua Basin TMDL (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/results.asp). River Stream Pollutant Season Criteria Beneficial Uses Mile Core cold water Canton 0 to Year Around habitat: 16.0 degrees Core cold water Temperature Creek 16.5 (Non-spawning) Celsius 7-day-average habitat maximum North Core cold water 0 to Year Around Core cold water Umpqua Temperature habitat: 16.0 degrees 68.9 (Non-spawning) habitat River Celsius 7-day-average

139

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

maximum

Cold water: Not less Anadromous fish Steamboat Dissolved 0 to 6.1 Summer than 8.0 mg/l or 90% of passage; Salmonid Creek Oxygen saturation fish rearing Anadromous fish passage; Water contact recreation; Steamboat Salmonid fish 0 to 6.1 pH Summer pH 6.5 to 8.5 Creek spawning; Resident fish and aquatic life; Salmonid fish rearing Resident fish and aquatic life; Anadromous fish Steamboat 6.1 to passage; Salmonid pH Summer pH 6.5 to 8.5 Creek 10.9 fish rearing; Water contact recreation; Salmonid fish spawning Salmon and steelhead Salmon and Steamboat 0 to September 1 - spawning: 13.0 Temperature steelhead Creek 10.9 June 15 degrees Celsius 7-day- spawning average maximum Core cold water Steamboat 0 to Year Around habitat: 16.0 degrees Core cold water Temperature Creek 23.4 (Non-spawning) Celsius 7-day-average habitat maximum

Direct Effects – Water Quality

The Lower Steamboat Project is in compliance with the Water Quality Management Plans derived from the Umpqua Basin TMDL (2006). All proposed activities are subjected to evaluation under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other associated Water Quality Restoration Plans. By implementing and monitoring water quality related best management practices we would minimize the probability of degrading waters within the planning area or downstream. Any effects would by short lived and only detectable at the site scale.

Indirect Effects – Water Quality

Under the Action Alternatives, the proposed activities may indirectly benefit water quality by potentially reducing the extent and/or severity of wildfires. High intensity wildfires and emergency fire management have the potential to degrade water quality through increased runoff and erosion, accelerated nutrient inputs and through chemical spill or misapplications. The proper decommissioning of existing temporary roads, through subsoiling and channel restoration, following their reconstruction and use for this project would likely have a long-term, measurable net benefit at the site scale due to the reduced risk of old decaying road failure.

140

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Cumulative Effects – Water Quality

Past harvesting of perennial stream shade occurred up until about the 1980’s on the Forest Service land within the watershed. Loss of stream shade has contributed to past elevated stream temperatures and pH in planning area streams. Areas harvested prior to the early 1980’s would today be nearly recovered. Alternatives 2 and 3 would protect the effective shade along perennial streams with no-cut buffers on all streams. Therefore, no cumulative temperature effect would occur that would affect downstream Beneficial Uses.

Streamflows The streamflow regime of the Lower Steamboat Planning Area is influenced by Western Cascades geology. The Western Cascades streamflow regime responds rapidly during winter runoff events. The streamflow regime has large annual flow fluctuations between summer low flow and winter high flow. In general, the streamflow record from the gaging station near the mouth of Steamboat Creek downstream of the planning area (about 10 stream miles) reveals that winter flow for the Steamboat Creek Watershed responds quickly to storm precipitation during the winter causing rapid runoff, which is in sharp contrast to summer flows that are very low. Relevant Standards and Guidelines – Streamflows The relevant standard and guidelines from the Umpqua LRMP related to streamflow include: Watershed cumulative effects and water quality, S&G 2: Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitats would not be degraded by turbidity, sediment, or scoured stream channels caused by timber harvest, road construction, and related activities. Watershed cumulative effects and water quality, S&G 4: Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitat (water quality) would not be degraded by increased peak flows caused by canopy removal from timber harvest, road construction, and related activities.

Exisiting and Desired Conditions – Streamflows

The planning area is mostly within the transient snow zone, between 2,000 to 5,000 feet in elevation, where winter peak flows are an important fluvial process. In this zone, warm rain can follow a colder snow storm causing rapid snowmelt. In the Upper Williamette sub-basin, 88% of floods with a return period of greater than 6 years were associated with rain-on-snow events (Harr 1979, Christner 1981). Sizeable canopy openings can result in greater snow accumulation and more rapid snowmelt compared to locations lacking large canopy openings. The forest canopy has a major influence on snow accumulation, distribution, and melting rates. The Umpqua Forest Plan requires an analysis of forest canopy conditions (standard and guideline 4, listed above). The hydrologic recovery procedure (HRP) was used to estimate the hydrologic recovery of the forest canopy at the drainage, subwatershed, and watershed scales. An area is considered fully recovered when the canopy closure is 70% and the average tree diameter is eight inches (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1990). The hydrologic recovery level represents an area compilation of forest canopy re-development following disturbance. It also represents the potential influence on the streamflow and stream channel effects from floods. A hydrologic recovery of 75% or greater would maintain current peak flows and avoid adverse change to physical channel condition and associated factors such as water quality and fish habitat. Statistically discernible increases in peak flows have occurred when greater than 25% of smaller drainages have been clear-cut harvested and included roads; that is, the hydrologic recovery was less than 75% (Jones and Grant, 1996; Thomas and Megahan, 1998). Conditions below the 75% hydrologic recovery value (i.e.; lower levels of hydrologic recovery) need further evaluation for potential peak flow cumulative effects from rapid snowmelt during rain- on-snow storms (following S&G 4).

141

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

The hydrologic recovery levels for the Steamboat Creek and Middle North Umpqua Watersheds, in which thinning is proposed , are currently are greater than the 75% level of concern. In the Steamboat 5th Field, Steelhead Creek remains the lowest at 86%, however, now thinning is proposed in Steelhead Creek. In the Middle North Umpqua 5th Field, wildfires reduced canopy cover in the three subwatersheds: Blitzen and Williams Facials and the Panther Subwatershed. The Panther Subwatershed was affected the most and is approximately 20% recovered. No thinning is proposed in any of these subwatersheds. The proposed thinning activities would only reduce recovery by as much as 3% in each respective subwatershed, well under the 75% level of concern. At the smaller drainage scale, the current recovery levels are also greater then the level of concern. The current hydrologic levels are displayed in Table 31; satellite imagery and previous activity data was used to determine hydrologic recovery. Table 31. Current Hydrologic Recovery for the Subwatersheds in the Steamboat and Middle North Umpqua Watersheds (USDA, 2001; 2003; 2004; 2007). Steamboat Creek Watershed Hydrologic Hydrologic Proposed Thinning Subwatershed Area (acres) Recovery Pre Recovery Post (Acres): Alt 2 /Alt 3 Treatment Treatment Steamboat Headwaters 33,076 0 / 0 87% 87% Upper Steamboat Facial 14,948 0 / 0 92% 92% Big Bend Creek 18,465 0 / 0 90% 90% Steelhead Creek 9,978 0 / 0 86% 86% Middle Steamboat Facial 11,718 100 / 100 91% 91% Lower Steamboat Facial 16,453 640 / 640 92% 89%

Middle North Umpqua Watershed Hydrologic Hydrologic Proposed Thinning Subwatershed Area (acres) Recovery Pre Recovery Post (Acres): Alt 2 /Alt 3 Treatment Treatment Apple Creek Facial 11,830 408 / 356 97% 94% 1Panther 12,167 0 / 0 20% 20% 2Williams Facial 6,431 0 / 0 77% 77% 2Blitzen Facial 22,542 0 / 0 86% 86% Illahee Facial 15,300 93 / 0 95% 95% 1The Panther Creek Subwatershed indicates poor hydrologic recovery due to high severity fire effects associated with the 2003 Apple Fire. Prior to the Apple Fire, Panther Creek was approximately 86% recovered (USDA, 2003). 2The Williams and Blitzen Subwatersheds indicate lower hydrologic recovery due to high severity fire effects associated with the 2009 Williams Creek Fire. Prior to the Williams Cree Fire, the Williams Facial was 97% recovered and the Blitzen Facial was approximately 93% recovered.

142

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Some studies have proposed that forest roads on steep slopes may intercept subsurface flow and hasten its arrival as surface flow to stream channels (Montgomery, 1994; Wemple et al, 1996). A recent study found that in seven of eight small catchments studied (25-625 acres) the subsurface flow interception effect by roads produced moderate (13-36%) increases of large (>1 return period) peak discharge events and increases persisted for decades (Jones, 2000). The Steamboat watershed is composed of many smaller catchments of this size range that contribute to larger drainages. Interception of ground water at road-cuts and the extension of the channel network through the road ditches with too few relief culverts can potentially alter the timing of water delivery to the stream network. Road ditches draining into a stream and culverts with gullies below that connect directly to a stream channel can extend the stream network (Wemple et al, 1996). There are many stream crossing culverts that are connected to ditches greater than 300 feet within the planning area. The desired condition is the protection of flow regimes in keeping with ACS objective 6, while moving stem exclusion forest stands toward the desired range of natural variability.

Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects Peak flows represent an indirect effect rather than a direct small-scale effect. The Forest Plan (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1990) identified an analysis area of at least 1,000 acres to evaluate potential peak flow response. As such, only downstream indirect effects and cumulative effects are discussed for the peak flow analysis. The overall hydrologic recovery analysis of snow accumulation and melt utilized research that was done on the Umpqua and Gifford Pinchot National Forests. This research indicated that a shelterwood canopy can allow about 60% greater snowpack runoff than mature forest (Storck et al. 1999) at the site scale. Therefore, the analysis for the action alternatives assumed at least a combined 40% canopy recovery condition for proposed thinning units with 40-70 trees per acre and no recovery for canopy gaps. For the lighter thinning prescription of 70-100 trees per acre, the analysis assumed no reduction in recovery level. These conservative assumptions allowed for a margin of safety in the analysis to address scale difference from the original study (site response versus larger area) and treatment difference (heavy versus light thinning). Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the proposed silvicultural treatments would increase the potential for snow accumulation in created gaps and in the thinned areas where overall canopy closure from 40-70 trees per acre would be less than 70%. However, the remaining leave trees in the thinned areas would buffer any snowpack from rapid snowmelt during rain-on-snow events. The leave trees would break up the flow of warm wind across the snow pack and substantially mitigate the rapid melt process. Because of the thinning treatment and the recovery of past harvesting, the resulting reduced hydrologic recovery level in the planning area would remain above the level of concern at the drainage, subwatershed and watershed scales. In the Steamboat Watershed, approximately 3,000 acres of commercial thinning treatments are either being implemented under the Lobo and Tugboat Environmental Analyses or are proposed under the Lower Steamboat project. The largest combined EA planned acreage would occur in the Lower and Middle Steamboat subwatersheds where 3-4% of the subwatersheds would be thinned. The combined loss of canopy from the proposed thinning and the current recovery of past harvesting would slightly reduce the hydrologic condition about <1% at the watershed and 3-4% subwatershed scales. However, thinning would not reduce the hydrologic recovery below 75% at either of these scales. Therefore, the hydrologic recovery would maintain current peak flows and avoid adverse change to physical channel conditions and associated factors such as water quality and fish habitat (consistent with S&Gs 2 and 4, listed above). No cumulative peak flow effect is expected under the action alternatives when considering past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities (Tables 6 and 7).

143

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

The action alternatives would result in less risk of stand replacement fire in the steeper slope positions, which is a long-term beneficial effect. If a wildfire occurred in the planning area, the thinning, fuel treatments, and fire breaks under the action alternatives would have alleviated dense stand conditions that cause a surface fire to torch into the crowns and carry across many acres. As such, a future wildfire under the action alternatives is more likely to create smaller pockets of stand replacement fire compared to Alternative 1. Furthermore, increasing structural and species diversity in the proposed treatment stands would make them resilient to disease and drought. Thus, the action alternatives exert less risk of future peak flow increases and the potential impacts to the beneficial uses of water.

Riparian Reserves Riparian areas are water dependent systems that consist of lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with streams, rivers, and wetland systems. Riparian ecosystems are the ecological links between uplands and streams, and terrestrial and aquatic components of the landscape. Many riparian areas have wetlands associated with them. While riparian areas are defined primarily on the basis of their proximity to streams and rivers, wetlands occur wherever the water table is usually at or near the surface, or where the land is at least seasonally covered by shallow water.

The riparian reserve land allocation was established in the Northwest Forest Plan as part of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA/USDI, 1994). This riparian reserve analysis is based on the guidance in the Northwest Forest Plan which, in general, is defined for this analysis as one site potential tree height on non- fish bearing streams (either perennial or intermittent) and two site potential tree heights on fish bearing streams. A site potential tree height is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant tree that is 200 years or older for a given area. The height of site potential trees in the planning area has been established at 200 feet (USDA, 1999; 2001; 2007).

144

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 24. Overview of Riparian Reserves in the Lower Steamboat Planning Area

Exisiting and Desired Conditions – Riparian Reserves

The Lower Steamboat Planning Area has approximately 7,400 acres of Riparian Reserves. Exhaustive field reconnaissances discovered an additional 50 acres of Riparian Reserves from previously unmapped streams in and directly adjacent to activity units. These are Riparian Reserves as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI, 1994). During initial project design, potential treatment units were avoided or dropped from detailed analysis after preliminary field work suggested that their Riparian Reserves could not be effectively managed and still meet the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy with confidence. Therefore, Riparian Reserve thinning in the proposed units is needed to restore historic stand structure and condition and provide an adequate source of large wood in the long-term to meet the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy while minimizing the potential for adverse effects.

In the Lower Steamboat Planning Area approximately one quarter of the riparian reserves were previously clearcut. The previously clearcut riparian reserves are Douglas-fir plantations presently in the stem exclusion stage. These stem exclusion stands are very dense and lack diversity due to the selection of Douglas-fir over other species during planting and precommercial thinning. If left untreated many stands are on a track

145

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

to develop as closed, homogeneous stands that do not represent desired conditions for either the Late Successional Reserve or Riparian Reserve land allocations. Roads in riparian areas have the potential to limit shade and deposition of large wood and debris to streams and riparian areas over long time periods since permanent roads are long-term features. Approximately 1.5% of the Riparian Reserves within the project area are impacted by system roads. There are also several miles of existing non-system roads that were used to harvest stands but were never properly decommissioned. Many of these roads were surfaced and culverts were installed. Several of the culverts are plugged or have failed over the years. The Lower Steamboat Project proposes to reuse some of these existing roads (4.5-6.5 miles) and properly decommission them following the proposed thinning activities. The desired future conditions for the Lower Steamboat Planning Area are generally to approximate the composition, structure, and arrangement of forest vegetation within the natural range of variability at the stand scale, shifting landscape patterns back to more natural conditions, reflecting the larger contiguous vegetation patches, restoring the health, vigor, and historic composition of native pine species, and reduced fire hazard characteristic of reference conditions. Specifically, the desired future condition for functioning riparian areas is to preserve and enhance the structure and species composition to maintain and/or achieve water quality standards for Beneficial Uses as described in our Water Quality Management Plans derived from the Umpqua Basin TMDL (2006). Additionally, riparian areas would provide quality aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat.

Relevant Standards and Guidelines – Riparian Reserves

The Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas (as per the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP) and Riparian Reserves (as per the1994 Northwest Forest Plans) specifically related to the Lower Steamboat alternative includes: Umpqua LRMP C-2-VIII, IX, X: Prohibit timber harvest and site preparation…except to meet riparian objectives. Yarding corridors are permitted at designated locations with full log suspension over the streambank and protected vegetation. Corridors must minimize disturbance to riparian vegetation and meet riparian objectives. Incorporate activities that minimize both prescribed fire and wildfire damage to riparian vegetation.

Northwest Forest Plan TM-1 (c): Prohibit timber harvest except where silvicultural practices are applied to control stocking, to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Northwest Forest Plan FM-1: Design fuel treatments to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression could be damaging to long-term ecosystem function.

Northwest Forest Plan FM-4: Design prescribed burning and prescriptions to contribute to attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Northwest Forest Plan RF-2a: For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by minimizing road and landing locations in riparian reserves.

Direct Effects – Riparian Reserves The direct effects to riparian forest conditions are defined as those occurring within the confines of the riparian reserve over the course of one to two decades. Under the two action alternatives, the construction of temporary roads within riparian reserves would result in short-term impacts to riparian forest conditions by disturbing soil, vegetation, and changing localized habitat

146

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

conditions at the site scale. No such impacts would occur under Alternative 1 where no temporary roads would be built. The action alternatives would result in losses of small-sized organisms, habitat, and site productivity at the immediate site of the road prisms. The duration of these impacts are expected to last up to a decade. The roads would be subsoiled following use and some of the displaced wood and duff would be pulled back across the roads allowing recovery from the impacts. Additionally, the disturbed areas would be revegetated with a native seed mix. Under the action alternatives, neither the gaps nor the general thinning surrounding such gaps are expected to exert unusual or extraordinary impacts to riparian forest conditions, since these activities approximate moderate severity fire that lowers tree density and creates pockets of dead trees and openings under the natural disturbance processes (Zenner, 2005). In contrast under Alternative 1, the absence of disturbance would maintain the stem exclusion stage and delay the development of late successional stand structures for many decades (Andrews et al., 2005). Riparian thinning, which was raised as an issue during scoping, would also result in effects to riparian conditions under the action alternatives. The ground-based logging would exert the most direct impact to riparian reserves due to soil and vegetation disturbance compared to skyline logging17. Whenever possible, skyline thinning systems were designed adjacent to Riparian Reserves to minimize potential undesirable effects. Soil disturbance results in a loss of site productivity, and vegetation clearing results in habitat modification. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in slightly less logging impacts in riparian reserves than Alternative 2 because it would implement slightly fewer acres of ground-based logging. The actual amount of disturbance expected with the ground-based logging would be about 1/10 of the total ground-based thinning acres displayed in Table 2, because skid trails typically affect about 10% of the area logged with ground- based systems. With the cut-to-length logging system, soil disturbance is lower compared to other ground based logging, because the equipment operates on top of a bed of tree branches that are laid in front of the machine as it works through the stand (USDA, Forest Service 2003). The tree branches provide a cushion resulting in less displacement and compaction of soil, but vegetation clearing is still an impact. Mitigation measures to minimize impacts from ground based logging include limiting the density of skid trails, restricting equipment entry to no closer than 50 feet from stream channels or outside of the no-cut buffers, whichever is greater, and subsoiling skid trails after use. These measuresare detailed in the Project Design Features and Best Management Practices section, are included in both action alternatives and function to lower the extent and intensity of the impacts disclosed above. Under Alternative 1, no soil disturbance or vegetation removal from logging or activity fuel burning would occur, thus no organisms would be killed, no bare soil would be exposed, and no productivity losses would occur in riparian reserves. Under Alternative 1, Riparian Reserves proposed for thinning would remain in a homogenous, stem exclusion stage for decades and be at higher risk of large scale disturbance. Additionally, under the No Action Alternative the homogenous stands proposed for treatment would continue to move away from desired conditions and key ecosystem components, such as diverse riparian habitat and stand structure would continue to degrade. In summary, these disclosed direct adverse effects to riparian forest conditions can be expected to occur under the two Action Alternatives. The magnitude of these effects at the site-scale in relation to the planning area and the broader Steamboat watershed are inconsequential. This is because both the extent and the duration of these impacts (as described above) are predicted to be low.

Indirect Effects – Riparian Reserves

17 Post-treatment monitoring of timber sales has revealed that the amount of disturbed soil varies by logging system with helicopter logging typically disturbing less than 1% of the surface of a given harvest unit, skyline logging disturbing up to about 4%, and ground- based logging disturbing about 10% of the surface of a harvest unit (USDA Forest Service, 1997).

147

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

The indirect effects to Riparian Reserve forests are those that would occur within the Riparian Reserves of the harvest units over the long-term (continue for more than two decades), or that would occur beyond the immediate treatment areas.

Under Alternative 1, more, smaller diameter trees would be available for snag and down wood recruitment in areas outside no-harvest buffers, compared to the action alternatives, but it would take longer for larger diameter trees to become available for snags and down wood.Thinning under the Action Alternatives would lower snag and down wood recruitment rates compared to Alternative 1, by removing trees that would die from suppression mortality. The majority of the snag recruitment loss would be from smaller-sized trees because suppression mortality typically kills smaller, suppressed trees rather than the larger dominant trees (See Wildlife Section).

In order to preserve riparian function and meet all objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, no-thin buffers were prescribed. It is important to mention that activity units were initially designed to exclude Riparian Reserves, thus negating the need for no-thin buffers along these streams. However, some Riparian Reserves were included in the units because initial assessments identified a net benefit for treatment. The large wood recruitment loss to perennial stream channels would be largely mitigated by the minimum 85-200 foot no-harvest buffers (85 feet buffer for non-fish bearing perennial streams and 200 feet for fish bearing perennial streams), since most of the wood that naturally recruits to streams comes from within the first 65 feet of the stream (Murphy and Koski, 1989; McDade et al. 1990, Johnston et al. 2011). Although habitats and habitat quality would be diminished by the loss of smaller-sized trees, the extent of the proposed thinning is not expected to result in riparian species population declines. There would be some acceleration of larger wood available to channels, especially intermittent ones, due to release of remaining trees. Although small wood plays an important role in structure and function of small streams, large wood can accumulate more sediment, last longer and is more likely to remain stable during floods, than smaller wood (Bilby and Ward, 1989; Montgomery et al., 2003). Larger diameter wood is also necessary for meeting requirements of many wildlife species (Keisker, 2000)(see Wildlife section). Any net loss or gain of wood recruitment to channels would likely be immeasurable at the site or landscape scale with the proposed no-harvest buffers.

The Action Alternatives would result in long-term beneficial effects to Riparian Reserve forest structure and composition with the development of more desired riparian conditions than under Alternative 1. As such, under the action alternative, NWFP S&G TM-1 (c) would be met because the silvicultural practices applied to control stocking in the selected Riparian Reserves contribute to meeting the desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Over time, the commercial thinning would also result in Riparian Reserves attaining structural characteristics and species compositions more consistent with the desired reference condition when compared to Alternative 1. These beneficial effects would gradually improve habitat connectivity for riparian dependent species that rely on late-successional forest conditions. The magnitude of these beneficial effects from the Action Alternatives are slight since only a small portion of the Riparian Reserve land allocation in the planning area would be treated and the rate at which these effects would accrue over time is gradual.

Cumulative Effects – Riparian Reserves

It is reasonably foreseeable that there would be underburning associate with the Ragged Ridge Prescribed Fire Project near the treatment units in the Lower Steamboat Planning Area. These areas would be subject to Best Management Practices including special management of riparian areas. Therefore, the response is anticipated to be localized and likely immeasurable even at the site-scale. Previous harvest has degraded the character and function of some of the Riparian Reserves within the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat

148

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Watersheds. However, the silvicultural prescriptions, project design features and BMPs are specifically designed to maintain and/or enhance the character of Riparian Reserves within the Lower Steamboat Planning Area and therefore would not adversely contribute to previous loss of functioning riparian areas.

Stream Channels Streams in the planning area are primarily affected by roads that cross them or that exist near them, by the age of the adjacent forest that provides bank stability and large wood input, and by the effects of disturbance such as floods and fire. The impact to streams from the various forms of road work is disclosed in this section. All streams within unit boundaries or directly adjacent to activity units were walked and evaluated by project resource specialists to asses stream channel stability.

Exisiting and Desired Conditions – Stream Channels

Stream channels within the Lower Steamboat Planning Area can be best characterized as pool-riffle or step- pool streams that are generally of moderate gradient (5-10%). Most streams in the Steamboat and Middle North Umpqua Watersheds and in the Lower Steamboat planning area have experienced impacts from stream cleanout (removal of wood from the channel) and riparian forest clearcutting during the early decades of timber harvesting and impacts from roads (USDA, 1997; 1999; 2001). Large wood is an important feature of a healthy aquatic ecosystem; an indicator of aquatic habitat complexity and resilience. The mean density of large wood in reference streams on the Umpqua National Forest is 55 pieces per mile. Because winter flows are so high in these watersheds, three of the most severely compromised wood-related functions are over-wintering habitat for aquatic fauna, organic matter and nutrient retention for aquatic insect communities, and gravel retention for pool formation and fish spawning.

Channels should be stable at stream crossings and flow regimes should be within the range to support aquatic life and riparian function. The Forest Service continues to be very active with the instream restoration program. The instream restoration work was designed under the 2005 Steamboat Creek Watershed Restoration Project. Additional instream restoration planning was initiated for Middle North Umpqua Watershed in 2013.

Relevant Standards and Guidelines – Stream Channels The relevant standard and guidelines are specifically from the Northwest Forest Plan (1994). RF-2e: For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of stream flow and interception of surface and subsurface flow.

RF-3a: Meet ACS objectives by reconstructing roads and associated drainage features that pose a substantial risk.

RF-3c: Meet ACS objectives by closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing roads based on the ongoing and potential effects considering short-term and long-term transportation needs.

Direct Effects – Stream Channels

Under Alternative 1, there would be no change to stream channels within the project area. Under the Action Alternatives, there may be localized compaction and widening to intermittent stream channels at crossings that may persist for a winter or two but would not impact the integrity or function of the channel. As a result of soil compaction, rilling is occurring on existing temporary road footprints. These areas of localized compaction divert water and incise the surface during episodes of precipitation and increase erosion and

149

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

sedimentation. When feasible, temporary roads were designed over these existing surfaces so that they can be properly subsoiled and hydrologically restored following their use. The Lower Steamboat Project does not propose any new permanent systems roads. Approximately 0.4 miles of new temporary roads would be constructed and between 4.6 (Alternative 3) and 6.4 (Alternative 2) miles of temporary roads over existing footprints would be reconstructed. All temporary road construction/reconstruction would be obliterated and hydrologically restored following the implementation of the proposed activities, thus negating the long term effects associated with sediment delivery to channels. Activities were thoughtfully designed so as to avoid impacts to channel stability. This is accomplished through no-cut buffers and by minimizing stream crossing during harvest activities. In order to further protect stream channels and minimize sediment delivery, the Lower Steamboat Project also proposes up to 60/71 (Alt3/Alt2) miles of road maintenance that includes: grading, shaping, and rocking of road surfaces; constructing, removing, and replacing water bars; repairing and improving drain dips; installing stream crossing and ditch relief culverts. The Action Alternatives have a net benefit to stream channels through the implementation of road maintenance and subsoiling 4.6/6.4 (Alt3/Alt2) miles of existing temporary road footprints.

Indirect Effects – Stream Channels

Under Alternative 1, new channels may eventually develop on existing temporary roads that were not hydrologically restored, thus modifiying the hydrologic regime of project area. These existing roads have already altered the hydrologic regime; some of the roads still have culverts, many of which are damaged or plugged. Additionally, some of the road maintenance wouldn’t occur unless a failure was imminent or after a failure. Under the Action Alternatives channels along new and existing temporary roads may have to be temporarily modified, causing some instability. Additionally, following subsoiling and channel restoration during the removal of temporary roads, channels would be less stable until the native seed secures the substrate. These effects are not anticipated to last more than one year.

Cumulative Effects – Stream Channels

Many stream channels in the planning area were modified by management activities over the last 70 years. Streams were moved, flow regimes modified and connectivity often completely lost. Streams were cleared of large woody debris for decades; that large wood provided habitat and served to dissipate energy. For the last two decades the Forest Service has implemented several restoration projects in the planning area to place wood back in streams, restore cannels, improve stream crossings and improve stream/riparian connectivity. However, anytime there is instream work there a risk of reduced channel stability until the project site is revegetated and stabilized. If the work is done properly, this can take several months to a year. The short- term effect is shared by multiple projects currently being implemented in the Steamboat Creek and Middle North Umpqua Watersheds. Over the past 10 years, there has been approximately 2700 acres of thinning, 100 acres of prescribed fire, at least 10 miles of instream work and several culvert replacements and fish passage improvements. Furthermore, this project would result in approximately 1200 more acres of thinning and there are another 3000-4000 acres of prescribed fire anticipated over the next 10 years. All of these activities have the potential to reduce channel stability, over the short term and at the site-scale. However, all of the activities would help restore channels, make them more stable and more resilient to large disturbances. Aquatic Conservation Strategy

The Record of Decision for Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI, 1994) developed an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. A goal of this strategy is to maintain a "natural" disturbance regime. In addition, management activities must comply with nine objectives that are included in the strategy. A

150

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

variety of tactics to accomplish these goals and objectives incorporated four primary components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. These four components are designed to operate together to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The following discussions show how the activities proposed in the action alternatives conform to the nine ACS objectives. The watershed (5th field) is the typical scale of analysis for the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

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.

The Proposed Action would not affect the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features. The proposed activities would have no measurable adverse effects to the system at the watershed level. The proposed activities would work to restore, at the site-scale, aquatic systems by simulating or encouraging the development of stand structures and species compositions consistent with the reference disturbance regime.

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.

There are no activities in the Proposed Action that would interrupt drainage network connections. All wetlands, flood plains and functional riparian areas would be adequately preserved from thinning through no-cut buffers. Additionally, all management proposed in the Riparian Reserve is specifically designed to restore the structure and species composition in a manner consistent with the reference disturbance regime. There would be no measurable effects from the activities, as proposed, at the watershed or landscape scale.

Objective #3 - Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

The proposed activities would maintain the physical integrity of the aquatic system through no-cut buffers. The Proposed Action would work to restore the aquatic system, at the site-scale, by implementing prescriptions that are designed to restore the activity units to the desired reference condition. Additionally, stands would be made more resilient to disturbances and would be better suited to host frequent low-intensity fires, thus minimizing the potential for the aquatic system to be impacted by a high severity fire.

Objectives #4 and #5 - 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.

The Lower Steamboat Project is in compliance with the Water Quality Management Plans derived from the Umpqua Basin TMDL (2006). The proposed activities are subject to evaluation under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other associated Water Quality Restoration Plans. Effective shade would be maintained within the proposed activity units, so there

151

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

would be no measurable increases in temperature and no other Beneficial Uses would be adversely affected.

Objectives #6 and #7 - 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.

Neither Action Alternative would have a measurable effect to in-stream flows at the watershed scale. Neither Action Alternative would affect the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.See the HRP analysis under the Streamflows section for more detail.

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.

Neither Action Alternative would have measurable effects to species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands at the watershed scale. At the site-scale, both Action Alternatives are specifically designed to remove off-site species and restore the forest structure and species composition in portions of Riparian Reserves. Under the No Action Alternative, species compositions and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas would continue to depart from desired reference conditions.

Objective #9- Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

The project would maintain habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species at the watershed scale. At the site-scale, both Action Alternatives are specifically designed to remove off-site species and restore the forest structure and species composition in portions of Riparian Reserves.

Erosion and Sedimentation

Erosion and sedimentation are geomorphic processes that shape the physical appearance of the landscape and strongly influence aquatic ecosystems. The range of natural variability for sediment delivery to streams and wetlands within the planning area is considered to be very large because erosion processes are influenced by infrequent natural disturbance events such as floods and wildfire. Sedimentation18 rates to streams are typically inconsequential on a year to year basis but can spike several orders of magnitude during large storm events. Land management and road uses have the potential to accelerate erosion rates and the volume of sediment entering streams and wetlands. Within the planning area sediment enters the aquatic environment through mass wasting, surface erosion and fluvial erosion.

18 Sedimentation pertains to the deposition of settling of rock and soil materials in an aquatic environment.

152

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Mass Wasting

Mass wasting is the dominant mechanism of sediment production within temperate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest (Naimen, et al. 1990), which includes Lower Steamboat. The potential mass wasting processes within the planning area include rapid-shallow landslides such as debris avalanches and in-channel debris flows, and slow-moving deeper-seated forms of mass-movement that include rotational slumps, earthflows, and soil creep. Topography has a strong influence on the form of a landslide. Relevant Standards and Guidelines

LRMP soil standard and guideline 5 (IV-68). Prepare a risk and hazard analysis when the potential exists for triggering slope mass-movements as a result of proposed land management activities. The project analysis would address how the proposed activities plan to meet soil Standards and Guidelines. Project design features (or alternatives) would be developed and evaluated when detrimental soil conditions are expected as a result of the proposed action (LRMP S&G 10 pp. IV-71). NWFP RF-2e. For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives by minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of stream flow and interception of surface and subsurface flow (USDA/USDI, 1994). NWFP RF-3a. Meet ACS objectives by reconstructing roads and associated drainage features that pose a substantial risk (USDA/USDI, 1994). NWFP RF-4, Existing stream crossings determined to pose a substantial risk to riparian conditions would be improved to accommodate at least a 100-year flood. Crossings would be maintained to prevent diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing failure (USDA/USDI, 1994). Existing and Desired Conditions

Slope and soil stability was field verified for the Lower Steamboat units (Table 32, Figures 25 and 26). A total of 24 acres were delineated as potentially prone to landslide, slope failure, or active earthflow and removed from the proposed harvest. This field review has resulted in modifications to Units 9, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, 100, and 112. An additional 30 acres were considered Conditionally Unsuitable; available for harvest using a silviculture prescription that maintains or increased root strength in areas of Units 2, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, and 112. No ground based harvest would occur in these areas.

Table 32. Soil Concerns from field reviews.

SOIL CONCERN acres

Active Earthflow 37 Verified Unstable Slopes 132 Droughty Skeletal Habitat 1,061

Stream crossings represent potentially critical sites for mass wasting when culverts are undersized to pass large flows or become plugged by some combination of sediment and wood debris. Under these circumstances, water can divert down the road where it might exit the road in a steep area causing a rapid-

153

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

shallow landslide. Improperly functioning (plugged) cross drains or an insufficient number of cross drains are a chief cause of road fill failures (USDA Forest Service, 1999). When road fills become saturated and fail, rapid-shallow landslides can occur. Roads that cross active earthflows often become buckled and slumped. Road grading, reconstruction, and maintenance would improve drainage on all roads that were identified in the Lower Steamboat Roads Analysis. Road grading and ditch line maintenance would occur on 71 miles under Alternative 2 and 60 miles under Alternative 3 (Table 4) The desired condition is improved road drainage and stream crossings with less risk of mass wasting triggered by roads, and is intended to meet ACS objectives through improved road drainage and stream crossings that in turn results in less risk of mass wasting, and is in keeping with ACS objective #5 of restoring the sediment regime. Roads that are not maintained develop ruts and carry runoff for several hundred feet down the road surface to where it is finally dumped as concentrated runoff onto fill slopes. Maintaining a well graded road bed is critical for dispersing runoff before it can concentrate and cause erosion with leads to road damage and slope failures.

154

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 25. Soil management concerns in Lower Steamboat Planning Area.

155

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 26. Soil concerns in Lower Steamboat planning area.

156

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects would occur as an immediate result of the proposed road work; such work can result in immediate changes to slope stability due to changes in water routing. Indirect effects are defined as those that occur over a longer time period as a result of longer-term changes to slope stability caused by chronic road problems, thinning, and potential future fires. The action alternatives are not expected to result in any adverse short-term direct effects or longer-term indirect effects to the aquatic environment as a result of mass wasting. The more unstable soils were removed from the timber harvest base and “no treatment” was prescribed to these areas. This has diminished the risk of activating new mass movements in the earthflow terrain. Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected to trigger any new mass movement within the units or in downslope locations. Alternatives 2 and 3 would upgrade 13 and 12 culverts respectively at priority undersized stream crossings, replace 30 older ditch relief culverts and provide fill stabilization to a site on the 4713 roads. This along with the proposed road surface and drainage maintenance would result in beneficial effects to the aquatic environment. Such modifications to the existing road network would decrease the risk of mass wasting and would meet the desired condition of less road-related mass wasting. The duration of these culvert replacements are expected to last for up to 20 or more years assuming some level of road maintenance would occur.

Table 33. System road improvements proposed for Lower Steamboat planning area.

SYSTEM ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 2 3

Ditch relief culvert replacement (number) 0 30 30 Replacement undersized stream culverts (number) 0 13 12 Road fill stabilization and shoulder work (number) 0 1 1 Road surface & drainage maintenance (miles) 0 71 60

Alternative 1 would not result in any beneficial effects of reducing the existing mass wasting potential of high priority stream crossings. Not taking action would likely maintain a risk of stream crossing failure at 13 undersized culverts and drainage failure at 30 older relief culverts. Cumulative Effects

Since there are no adverse direct or indirect effects of increased mass wasting under the action alternatives, there would be no chance of these alternatives resulting in any adverse cumulative effects to the aquatic environment. Surface Erosion

Surface erosion occurs when mineral soil is exposed to the erosive forces of water, wind and gravity. This occurs in forest environments when the protective surface layer of duff and other materials such as wood and rock is removed or displaced and exposes mineral soil to erosive forces. Activities such as dragging trees across the ground during yarding, burning activity-created fuels, road building, reconstruction, or decommissioning, and timber haul on existing dirt or gravel roads, can all result in sedimentation of the aquatic environment.

157

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Relevant Standards and Guidelines

The most relevant standard and guidelines from the Umpqua Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) related to soil productivity (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1990a) include: Soil standard and guidelines #2 and #3 (LRMP IV-69) requires a minimum amount of effective ground cover (EGC) in order to meet acceptable levels of surface soil loss resulting from gravity, water, or wind action and to maintain soil productivity. Acceptable levels of ground cover must exist within the first year following the end of a ground disturbing activity. The action alternatives would maintain 85% effective ground cover in riparian reserves, along drainage ways, in areas mapped as conditionally unsuitable, and on steep slopes greater than 65%. In all other disturbance areas a minimum of 65% effective ground cover would be maintained. This minimum effective ground cover requirement is included as a project design feature for the action alternatives as listed in Chapter Two. If adequate ground cover is not present, certified weed free mulch or hydro-mulch would be applied as needed. Soil standard and guideline #11 (LRMP IV-71) requires monitoring during and immediately following the implementation of ground-disturbing activities (i.e. mechanized harvest and yarding, prescribed burning) to determine if soil management objectives were met. Soil standard and guideline #13 (LRMP pp. IV-71) requires all areas of soil disturbance to have erosion control measures (effective ground cover and erosion control structures) in place by the beginning of the rainy season. During the rainy season (November 1 - April 30), no more than ½ acre of exposed soil, including landings, skid trails, and temporary roads would exist at any time without erosion control that is effective in preventing sediment movement. Soils standard and guideline #16 ((LRMP IV-72) requires the identification of erosion control in existing developed areas where pre-existing surface erosion is on-going. Existing and Desired Conditions

Units located on steeper terrain were originally clearcut using a highlead19 logging system where entire log lengths were dragged either down or uphill without any part of the log suspended off the ground. Highlead yarding often displaced large amounts of soil that ended up at the bottom of slopes and in streams, along with large amounts of large woody debris. Most of the old surface erosion from the historic highlead logging has subsided with the recovery of ground cover and stream flow, thus restoring site productivity. Existing roads are another source of surface erosion that leads to sedimentation of streams. Road inventories in the planning area revealed an overall low level of road prism erosion. When erosion is occurring it is mostly due to a lack of adequate aggregate or irregular road maintenance. Regular road maintenance is critical to keeping the levels of road-related surface erosion in check. However, road maintenance has declined sharply in the last two decades because fewer timber sales have occurred to help accomplish road maintenance and appropriated funds to do road maintenance have also declined. Annual road maintenance is limited to main use roads. The desired condition is to reduce total compaction (legacy plus predicted) to no more than 20% of an area (LRMP S&G 1, pp. IV68), and to reduce long-term chronic surface erosion associated with system roads, legacy skid trails, and future wildfire in keeping with ACS objective #5, which calls for the restoration of sediment regimes.

19 Highlead logging was used up until the mid-1970’s. The system lacked a tall tower and typically lacked the ability to suspend any portion of the log off the ground. It has been replaced by skyline logging which typically gets one end of the log off the ground.

158

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Direct Effects

Direct effects are defined as the short-term effects of sedimentation that might occur within planning area streams as an immediate result of the proposed road work, timber haul, logging and treatment of activity fuels with fire.

Table 34. Sediment Delivery Potentials from the undisturbed background condition during a storm equivalent to 2-year and 50-year events in inches of soil loss per acre during the first year following a disturbance.

ALT-1 ALT-2 ALT-3 (inch/acre/yr) (inch/acre/yr) (inch/acre/yr)

Background 2-year storm 0.00015 to 0.00016 0.00015 to 0.00016 0.00015 to 0.00016 50-year storm 0.00406 to 0.00414 0.00406 to 0.00414 0.00406 to 0.00414

Harvest Treatments 2-year storm Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged 50-year storm Unchanged 0.00076 0.00077

Fuel Treatments 2-year storm Unchanged 0.0012 to 0.0013 0.00108 to 0.00111 50-year storm Unchanged 0.0085 to 0.0086 0.0074 to 0.0076

Total Delivery Potential 0.00015 to 0.00414 0.0014 to 0.014 0.0012 to 0.013 Probability 36% 37% to 48% 37% to 47% Nutrient Loss Potential 0.001% to 0.03% 0.01% to 0.11% 0.01% to 0.10%

Roads are a source of surface erosion that leads to sedimentation of streams. Grading and graveling dirt roads in the action alternatives would help to decrease erosion by more effectively dispersing surface water before it becomes concentrated as runoff over road surfaces. The potential benefit from increased road maintenance in the project planning area would be similar between action alternatives, reducing the potential for sediment delivery over the next five to ten years from roads after the sale has closed and traffic is reduced. Erosion and sedimentation from temporary roads are expected to be low and is not expected to be measurable. The project design features of subsoiling would have the direct effect of increasing soil infiltration to decrease the potential for surface water runoff and restarting the process of restoring site productivity (Ref. Best Management Practices, Project Design Features and Soil Productivity). Alternative 1 would not result in surface erosion above background levels in the unmanaged sites. However, this alternative would not implement road maintenance or upgrade culverts. In addition. The indirect effect of reduced road maintenance under Alternative 1 could potentially result increased delivery of road sediment. The Harvest, Yarding, and Fuel Prescriptions for Lower Steamboat are low impact and would not be expected result in adverse sediment delivery to streams. Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet and exceed Forest Standards and Guidelines minimums for effective ground cover (standard and guidelines #2 and #3 (LRMP IV-69)

159

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are defined as the effects of delivery of sediment from surface erosion to streams within the planning area that can continue to contribute large spikes of fine sediment for several years or longer. Indirect effects are also defined as effects that could occur downstream in Steamboat Creek if a substantial storm event should occur immediately following the proposed ground disturbances. Based on the analysis described in Table 34 of sediment delivery potentials it is reasonable to assume that the projected amounts of sediment associated with the action alternatives are unlikely to result in an indirect adverse turbidity spike downstream of the planning area. This is because the amount of predicted surface erosion associated with the action alternatives is not expected to exceed the capacity of the local streams to properly store, route, and transport their burden of sediment. Based on sediment analysis of similar past and current practices and turbidity monitoring records between 1982 to the present within a local watershed similar to Steamboat Creek, any spikes of sediment into the system would be expected to recover within one to two years (USDA 2006)20. Without the restoration projects that include road decommissioning, road inactivation and culverts upgrades, the no action alternative has the potential to increase surface erosion. However, long-term indirect effects are not expected to be measurable. Cumulative Effects

An analysis of soil erosion potential considers soil texture, slope steepness, changes in topography, precipitation, runoff potential and vegetation cover, and incorporates disturbances such as exposed, compacted, and severely burned soil. The cumulative potential for hill slope erosion and runoff from roads and harvest to deliver sediment to streams was evaluated using Disturbed WEPP (Eliot 2005), WEPP and GIS modeling. Modeled sediment delivery is presented as a relative comparison, but the models tend to over-predict, thus delivery rates represent a “worst case scenario”. In summary, under Alternative 1 (no action) existing roads would maintain or slightly increase sediment delivery to streams, but hill slope erosion would remain unchanged. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, sediment delivery from harvest, yarding, and fuel prescriptions would only increase slightly at the 0.001 inch/acre/year measure from 2-year storm disturbances and at the 0.01 inch/acre/year measure from 50-year storms disturbances (Table 34), with the probability of delivery increasing by 1 to 12% above background. Such increases would be short-term during the initial 1 to 2 years following disturbance but would be expected to decrease as ground cover and vegetation comes in to cover bare soil. Under these alternatives project road maintenance would be expected to improve dispersal of surface water runoff and therefore reduce the carrying capacity of runoff to carry sediment to streams when compared with no action. However, increased road use and truck haul during the period of haul would result in a short-term sediment spike from road surface erosion over background levels by as much as 130 times (USDA 1985). The majority of the sediment delivery from haul would be delivered during the first few storms once road surfaces and hill slopes are saturated between November and December. Seasonal restrictions, project road maintenance, proactively implementing erosion control measures, with active implementation and effectiveness monitoring (refer to Best Management Practices) would help to keep this expected increase in sediment delivery from haul roads to a minimum over a minimal period of time. Either action alternative would result in a short-term spike of several weeks for haul roads used in the dry season to several months for roads used for winter haul, and a slight increase in hill slope erosion during the first winter following harvest or fuel treatments. When considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within Steamboat and Middle North Umpqua watersheds the effects of any potential spike in sediment from this project would be seasonal, and short-term, spread out over the implementation period of this project. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that no adverse cumulative effects from sediment delivery would occur to water quality or fisheries

20 Dinner Environmental Assessment, 2006. Umpqua National Forest.

160

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

as a result of implementing Alternatives 2 or 3; and given the limited indirect effects and the lack of action, no cumulative effects would occur under Alternative 1. CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION The action alternatives presents some risk of water contamination due to the use of fuel products and dust abatement chemicals that have the potential to enter streams if spilled or misapplied. Dust abatement would be accomplished through the application of magnesium chloride to the gravel haul roads. Excessive rates of application could potentially increase either the surface runoff or the migration of the material through the soil to stream channels. The primary risk of water contamination would occur with a spill near a waterway. Magnesium chloride is highly soluble and moves through the soil with water. The movement is largely dependent on the rate of application, the frequency and intensity of rainfall, the drainage characteristics of the area of application and the chemical and physical nature of the soil. During periods of long duration or high intensity rainfall, in areas of high surface runoff, or in areas of high soil permeability, magnesium can move considerable distances either as surface runoff or as soil leachate (materials dissolved in water that is within the soil). Surface runoff typically drains into streams, lakes, or ponds whereas leachates feed ground water. Under these conditions it is the constituent ions of magnesium and chloride (Mg2+, and Cl-) that migrate through the environment. Magnesium ions are readily held by soil particles while chlorides tend to remain in solution and potentially infiltrate ground water or runoff into surface waters. Magnesium is a very common element in soil and water because it readily bonds with soil particles, however they typically do not migrate far from their point of application, which is the case of dust abatement chemical application (USDA, 1997). Because chlorides do not bond well with soil particles and tend to migrate, their effects are more widespread. Although chloride is present in all natural waters it usually occurs in concentrations of less than 50 ppm (parts per million). Trout begin to suffer serious effects from chlorides when concentrations reach 400 ppm. Concentrations in excess of 10,000 ppm place all fresh water biota in immediate jeopardy of mortality. At typical application rates, measurable increases in background concentrations would not be expected to occur (USDA, 1999).

Direct Effects – Chemical Contamination Alternative 1 would have no direct effects relative to chemical contamination because no chemicals would be applied as a result of this alternative. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a dust abatement spill or petroleum spill could potentially result in direct effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial uses of water. Dust abatement would be applied to gravel haul roads as needed, up to 62 miles total over the lifetime of the project. The risk of water contamination due to the application of dust abatement is minimized under all action alternatives by several mitigation measures that would be required under the timber sale contract. Dust abatement with chemical compounds under all action alternatives include maintaining an average 25 foot no treatment buffer at perennial stream crossings and maintaining a 1-foot no treatment area adjacent to the outside edge of the ditch line. Moreover, the application of dust abatement materials would normally occur only once per year in a window of time when no rain is forecast for at least three days. The buffering of applications away from perennial stream crossings has been found to effectively mitigate pollution of adjacent waters (USDA 1999). The rate of application of dust abatement compounds in the planning area would be “typical” and therefore is not expected to contribute to adverse riparian or aquatic effects. Magnesium chloride is typically used on a limited basis and at low application rates, as compared to study areas where the most noticeable effects have been seen. Based on the literature review and typical application rates for dust abatement purposes that would be used in the Lower Steamboat planning area, effects from these compounds to plants and animals in the riparian and aquatic environments would be negligible under the action alternative.

161

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Timber sale purchasers would be required to have spill prevention and recovery equipment on site, they would be required to develop spill prevention plans if substantial amounts of fuel or other pollutants are stored in sale areas, and traffic control measures would be required in the timber sale contract. All of these requirements associated with the action alternative, detailed in Chapter 2 and in the Best Management Practices Checklist (Project Record), function to diminish the chances that potential direct effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial uses of water from project-related pollutants would actually occur. Thus, risk of chemical contamination is considered to be low for all action alternatives. Indirect Effects – Chemical Contamination Alternative 1 would not utilize chemical compounds and would result in no risk of indirect effects to downstream beneficial uses due to water contamination. Alternatives 2 and 3 would present more risk of indirect effects to downstream beneficial uses because of the amount of potentially polluting products transported to the project area. The action alternatives present similar risks of an accidental spill contaminating off-site or downstream waters and the beneficial uses of those waters. The likelihood of an accidental spill is believed to be low under all alternatives; therefore no mitigation measures would be applied to the transport of potential pollutants outside the timber sale areas. Cumulative Effects – Chemical Contamination Most past and on-going land management operations throughout the Umpqua River basin such as silvicultural activities, timber sales, and all forms of road work use a variety of potentially polluting products (such as dust abatement, petroleum, concrete, adhesives, cleansers, herbicides, etc) that pose a risk of entering waterways if spilled or mishandled. The level of timber harvest and associated road work on Federal land has diminished over the last two decades relative to the previous three decades. Therefore, the level of additive effects that can contaminate water from such actions has also diminished. Potential contamination of waters within the river basin associated with private industrial forestry operations, intensive agricultural operations (using pesticides, fertilizers, other petroleum products, and herbicides), and city and town development and use by people (sewage, plus all the above mentioned potential pollutants and others not mentioned) has not diminished. Water contaminations from these sources can be expected to increase as demand for food and natural resources increases with the human populations. Therefore, the lower areas of the Umpqua River basin are where the cumulative effects of all the additive forms and sources of water contamination would be most likely realized. The chances of any of the action alternatives resulting in any cumulative effects to water contamination hinges on whether a substantial spill of petroleum or dust abatement products occurs. Should a spill occur and clean-up measures fail, a cumulative effect could be realized. This is particularly true the further downstream an accidental spill occurs. None of the Lower Steamboat alternatives are expected to appreciably affect water quality over the long-term (decades, or longer), and none are expected to contribute to chemical contamination or have a measurable effect on the nutrient regime unless an accidental spill were to occur. The chances of such a spill are offset as much as possible by a series of Best Management Practices required in the timber sale contract of the action alternatives. Any impacts to water quality associated with contamination of water due to timber sale operations would be short-term and likely localized. As such, the broad-scale goals of the ACS would not be impacted.

162

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

FISHERIES Existing Condition - Fisheries The Middle North Umpqua River and the Lower Steamboat Creek Watershed Analysis documents provide detailed descriptions of fish habitat in the planning and surrounding areas and are incorporated by reference into this document. The following paragraphs summarize key information regarding habitat conditions relevant to the Lower Steamboat Timber Sale project (Figure 27).

Middle North Umpqua (MNU) and Lower Steamboat Creek Habitat Conditions Stream surveys of the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat Creek indicate that the main stems are bedrock dominated. The MNU River and Steamboat Creek in the Action Area exhibit a profound lack of large wood but have a relatively high proportion of pool habitat by area and generally have normal pool frequencies (Table 35). The MNU watershed is approximately 53,300 acres in drainage size. The Umpqua National Forest administers 96%, the BLM administers 1%, and private land comprises 3% of the watershed. The Lower Steamboat Creek watershed is approximately 71,530 acres and with 100% of its land based managed by the Forest. Both of these watersheds and many of their tributaries exhibit large changes from historic conditions with respect to levels of Large Woody Debris (LWD), flow regime, riparian vegetation, fine sediment levels, streambank stability, low flow channel widths, water temperatures, velocity refuge, habitat connectivity and substrate particle size distribution (USDA 1995, Roper 1995, Dose and Roper 1994). These habitat parameters have been degraded as a result of land management activities. Some of these same parameters are likely to have had negative effects on the survival and distribution of anadromous and resident salmonids and other native fishes in the watersheds. Table 35. Physical Characteristics of the Middle North Umpqua and Steamboat Creek. Middle North Umpqua Stream Habitat Characteristics Reach Reach Reach Reach % Dom # Pieces # Pools Expected # Description Length Gradient Pool Substrate Wood/Mi per Mi Pools/Mi 1 From ~9.2 mi ~2% 40% bedrock/ ~0.2 4 2 - 8 Steamboat boulder Creek to Dry Creek Steamboat Creek Stream Habitat Characteristics From mouth 6.5 mi ~2% 54% boulders/ 0.8 10 12 - 17 to Singe 1 bedrock Creek

The ranges of “Expected # Pools/Mile” displayed in Table 35 were derived per reach on the basis of normal pool frequency being every 5-7 channel widths for mid to high order channels such as the MNU and Steamboat Creek (Leopold et al. 1964 as cited by Rosgen 1996). While MNU falls within the expected range for pool frequency Reach 1 of Steamboat Creek falls slightly below the expected pool frequency. Reach 1 may fall below the expected range because this reach contains Black Gorge, an approximately 3 mile stretch of the creek where channel morphology differs from the

163

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

majority of main stem Steamboat Creek in which pools occur every 5-7 channel widths. Some portions of Black Gorge have higher than average pool frequency due to a localized large boulder stair-step nature of the channel. Other portions of Black Gorge have lower than average pool frequency due to the presence of extremely long bedrock trench pools created by bedrock confinement for prolonged lengths of the stream. This variability may manifest itself in the form of slightly lower than expected pool frequency for reach 1 overall. The fact that adult summer steelhead have been using many of the same pools for over-summering for thousands of years suggests that these pools are stable through time and resistant to pool filling. The lack of large wood is an important shortcoming of aquatic habitat in both the MNU and Lower Steamboat Creek. Since both MNU and Steamboat Creek are confined higher order stream channels, we would expect large wood loading within the active channel to be less than that in lower order tributaries. However, even in large streams large wood is an important component to add channel complexity along channel margins, in side channels, at heads of point bars, and at heads and margins of islands. This wood plays a critical role in providing over-wintering habitat for salmonids as well as spring and summer habitat for salmonid fry. Large wood is crucial to retaining fine organic matter and thereby trapping nutrients and providing substrate for aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. Knowing exactly how much large wood “should” be present in higher order main stem channels is nearly impossible to determine because pristine stream and river systems of this size on which to base a comparison are rare to nonexistent along the Pacific coast (Bisson et al. 1987). Primary processes of large wood input to a 6th order or higher stream include transport from upstream, bank cutting, blow down, streamside debris avalanches, earthflows, or debris torrents from tributaries (Bisson et al. 1987). In main stem MNU and Steamboat Creek several of these processes have been reduced or arrested by management activities including timber harvest, riparian roads, and riparian trail systems. Excessive fine sediment can have negative impacts to salmonid spawning success. Fine sediment can fill intestinal spaces of spawning gravels and suffocate incubating eggs or pre-emergent fry. In 2001 a composition analysis of spawning gravels was conducted on the main stem of Steamboat Creek and several representative tributaries. Spawning areas targeted were those used by steelhead trout. The analysis indicated that fine sediment was not a limiting factor within the Steamboat Creek Watershed (Pentec Environmental, 2001). Cursory surveys indicate fine sediment does not appear to be a limiting factor in the middle North Umpqua.

Side Channel Habitats Side channels are very important aquatic habitats. They tend to be areas of sediment and large wood deposition, fine organic matter and nutrient retention, aquatic insect production, and over wintering for fish and other vertebrates (Bustard and Narver 1975, Swales et al. 1986, Gregory et al. 1991). Side channels are rare habitat features along the North Umpqua River but offer high quality complex aquatic habitat for a multitude of aquatic species. They provide unique off-channel habitats characterized by lower water velocities relative to the main channel. During low flows, some side channels become dry or have isolated pools, which provide good habitat for various aquatic organisms. An "incredible diversity" of juvenile fish were found in a 100-meter stretch of side channel in the action area as compared to other types of river and stream habitats sampled over the years in the watershed. Young-of-the year and one-year old coho, large amounts of young-of-the year chinook, one and two-year-old cutthroat, young-of-the year, one, and two year-old steelhead, sculpins, and many juvenile lamprey were found. Within the action area there are 9 side channels and approximately 1.5 miles of side channel habitat. Two side channels are immediately adjacent to established recreation sites, where the presence of people may lead to inadvertent disturbance of juvenile salmonids. Most of the recreation sites appear to have little direct effect on the habitat in the side channel adjacent to them.

164

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

During summer 1998 the main stem Steamboat Creek was inventoried to identify large side channel habitats. Side channels greater than 600 feet in length were categorized as “large” due to their inherent depositional features and potential to provide amounts of over-wintering habitat for aquatic vertebrate species including fish and salamanders. Over the entire 18 mile main stem, ten large side channel sites were identified based on a combination of field and air photo inventory. A cumulative total of approximately 1.7 miles (10% of total stream length) of the main stem has large side channel habitats associated with it. Virtually all these side channels were formed by localized wide stretches of Steamboat Creek controlled at the downstream ends by bedrock nick points. These are places where bedrock outcrops or side slopes on both sides of the creek converge to “back up” water into the wider upstream areas. This backing up of water combined with the relatively lower water velocities at high flows going through the wider areas allows deposition of sediments to form bars and islands. Smaller side channels ranging from approximately 150-300 feet in length were observed but not documented on the inventory. While these shorter areas have some potential to provide high flow velocity refugia and sediment/nutrient retention, the channel tends to be more constrained in these shorter sites so their potential was judged to be minor compared to large side channels.

Channel Morphology Trends Much of the channel morphology of both main stem streams consists of bedrock, forced pool-riffle, and plane-bed morphologies. Pool-riffle channels have an undulating streambed that occurs as a sequence of gravel/cobble bars, pools, and riffles. This morphology manifests itself as a rhythmic series of laterally alternating pools and riffles. Forced pool-riffle channels are those whose features are forced by the presence of large wood or large boulder/bedrock formations in the channel margin facilitates development of a gravel bar and forces the channel to move laterally off the bar. Plane-bed channels are characterized by long stretches of relatively planar channel bed that may have occasional channel spanning rapids or boulder steps (Montgomery and Buffington, 1993). Plane-bed channel reaches generally lack pools and obstructions in the channel thus making them generally less complex aquatic habitat. Plane-bed channel reaches occur naturally in both channels in some unknown proportion but are more common in the MNU. However, Montgomery and Buffington (1993) describe that pool-riffle reaches forced by the presence of large wood could metamorphose into plane-bed reaches upon removal of large wood or other perceived obstruction. Past clearcut riparian timber harvest, riparian road building, and stream cleanout along both stream channels and their tributaries have resulted in low wood counts and simplified aquatic habitat.

Tributary Streams Tributary streams in the action area are important to the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem for numerous reasons. As indicated in the table below tributaries in the 6th field sub-watersheds provide valuable resident and anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitat. Fish bearing streams only make up a small amount of the perennial stream miles in the action area. Both fish bearing and non-fish bearing streams provide a ready supply of prey items and a constant supply of cool water into mid-summer. These become important sources of cool water as warmer weather and solar input heat the water in the open channel of lower Steamboat Creek.

Table 36. Miles of fish-bearing stream by sub-watershed in the Planning Area.

165

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Subwatershed Steelhead Cutthroat / Chinook Coho Rainbow Middle North *9.2 *9.2 *9.2 *9.2 Umpqua Dry Creek 0.5 3.0 0 0 Lower Steamboat **6.3 **9 **5 **1 Singe Creek 1.0 3.0 0 0 Deep Creek 0.1 1.5 0 0 * Mainstem North Umpqua River. ** Mainstem Steamboat Creek.

Large wood is an important feature of a healthy aquatic ecosystem and can be a strong indicator of aquatic habitat complexity and resilience. The mean density of large wood in reference 3rd order streams on the Umpqua National Forest is 55 pieces/mile compared to 24 - 34 pieces/mile in analysis area fish bearing streams that have been surveyed. This identifies the general lack of large wood in fish-bearing streams of the analysis area. The lack of large wood in the action area streams indicates that many of the functions associated with large wood are at least moderately compromised in 3rd order and larger streams. Because winter flows are so high in this watershed, three of the most severely compromised functions are availability of over-wintering habitat for aquatic fauna, lack of fine organic matter and nutrient retention to fuel aquatic insect communities, and lack of sediment retention to retain gravels for aquatic insect and salmonid spawning habitat. Smaller 1st and 2nd order streams vary widely in the amount of wood that is present in their channels. This is primarily due to past land management activities, mainly past clear cut timber harvest. Most of these streams have experienced some degree of recovery over the last six decades since the stands were clear-cut. Stillwater Sciences Inc. (1998) suggested that the combination of large wood removal from streams and the 1964 flood eliminated sediment storage in 3rd and 4th order channels and caused scour of these channels to bedrock, a condition which persists today in many streams. Instream restoration activities, riparian large wood management, and providing for no-cut stream side buffers during timber harvest activities has allowed for large wood levels to begin to recover.

Aquatic Species Present There are four fish species and two aquatic mollusk species that have special status on the Umpqua National Forest: 1) Oregon Coast (OC) Coho salmon (Federally listed as threatened under ESA) - Oregon Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) use the Middle North Umpqua River and Lower Steamboat watersheds for spawning, rearing, and migration. Coho salmon use in the North Umpqua River extends from the mouth to the Soda Springs Dam. Additionally, coho salmon occupy the lowest reach of Steamboat Creek for spawning and rearing. Coho salmon distribution is absent from the other small fish-bearing tributaries that enter both of these streams.

2) Oregon Coast (OC) steelhead trout (FS Sensitive) – Oregon Coast steelhead trout (O. mykiss) use both the North Umpqua River and Steamboat Creek and most major tributaries in those watersheds

166

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

for spawning, rearing, and migration. Steelhead distribution within both of these streams extends far beyond the planning/project area boundary. Steelhead occupy the lower 2 to 3 miles of Singe and Reynolds Creeks and the lower ¼ mile of Dry Creek within the planning area. The other smaller tributaries in the planning area do not offer suitable habitat for steelhead.

3) Pacific Coast (PC) chum salmon (FS Sensitive) – Pacific Coast chum salmon (O. keta) are not known to occur in the North Umpqua Sub-basin. Chum salmon are located approximately 180 miles downstream of the planning area in the Pacific Ocean.

4) Umpqua Chub (FS Sensitive) - The Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) is endemic to the Umpqua River Basin (the mainstem Umpqua River, South Umpqua River, and to a lesser extent North Umpqua River). Habitat selection by the chub is moderate to slow flowing water (runs and channel margins). Past surveys have not identified Umpqua Chub in the vicinity of the planning area.

5) Rotund Lanx (FS Sensitive) - The rotund lanx (Lanx subrotuna) is known to occur on the Umpqua National Forest. The rotund lanx is a small freshwater limpet and the current distribution appears to be scattered and local in portions of the North Umpqua River, portions of the South Umpqua and major tributaries above Roseburg including Cow Creek. The rotund lanx is found in unpolluted rivers and large streams at low to moderate elevations. They prefer highly oxygenated, swift-flowing streams with stable cobble, boulder or bedrock substrates. They are not typically found where aquatic macrophytes and epiphytic algae occur. Surveys have not been conducted in the planning area but suitable habitat can be found in the planning area.

6) Western Ridged Mussel (FS Sensitive) – The Western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) is suspected to occur on the Umpqua National Forest, although suitable habit exists no documented sites are known to occur within the North Umpqua and Steamboat watersheds. Western ridged mussels occur in streams of all sizes and are rarely found in lakes or reservoirs. They are found mainly in low to mid-elevation watersheds, and do not often inhabit high elevation headwater streams where western pearlshells can be found. They often share habitat with the western pearlshell throughout much of the Pacific Northwest. They are more tolerant of fine sediments than western pearlshells and occupy depositional habitats and banks. They can withstand moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from habitats with unstable or very soft substrates. Lack of information on life history, reproduction, and ecology of western ridged mussels would hinder effective conservation and management.

In addition to the species above Oregon Coast spring Chinook salmon also occupy both the MNU and Steamboat Creek adjacent to the Lower Steamboat Vegetation Management project area.

7) Oregon Coast (OC) spring Chinook salmon - Spring chinook adults return in late spring and spend the summer in the deep pools of the entire mainstem of the North Umpqua River and to a lesser degree deep pools of Steamboat Creek. They spawn in the low to moderate gradient reaches utilizing larger spawning substrate than the other salmonids. Chinook use in Steamboat Creek extends from the mouth upstream about 10 miles to its confluence with Big Bend Creek. Chinook use in Steamboat Creek is extremely limited with very few fish migrating into the basin. Temperature requirements are similar to the other species. Juvenile spring Chinook use the tributaries of the mainstem North Umpqua and to a lesser degree the confluence area of Steamboat Creek as a thermal refuge during the low flow, warm water period.

167

Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects

Figure 27. Lower Steamboat Vegetation Management Project Area Fish Distribution.

168

Direct and Indirect Effects - Fisheries Harvest and Haul Log harvest and haul activities for the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, are described in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment. Alternative 2 would not authorize any activities that would modify in-stream habitat or otherwise directly affect fish, sensitive aquatic invertebrates, or their habitat; thus, there are no measurable direct effects associated with Alternative 2. This conclusion is based on the following rationale: no-harvest buffers would be placed on all stream channels (measured from the edge of the stream channels) thereby eliminating any direct logging effects to fish and sensitive aquatic invertebrates. Indirect effects that have been identified as having the potential to impact the aquatic environment include stream sedimentation, stream temperature, and large wood recruitment. There is a limited amount of riparian proposed for vegetation management under Alternative 2 (Table 37). All riparian harvest would occur on the outside edge of the riparian areas with all streams being protected by no-cut buffers. Large wood recruitment and stream temperatures would be protected from measurable negative impacts through project design criteria that include no-cut stream buffers. Intermittent stream channels would be protected through maintaining 25 foot minimum buffers while non-fish bearing perennial streams would be protected with 85 foot riparian buffers. Fish bearing streams would be protected with a minimum 180 foot buffer. These no-cut buffers would also act as living filters to capture any overland sediment transport that may come from harvest units. Table 37. Riparian Harvest by Alternative Alternative Acres Riparian in Acres of Proposed Percent of Riparian Planning Area Riparian Harvest by Proposed for Harvest Stream Class 1 2 3 4 Alternative 1 ~4786 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative 2 & 3 ~4786 0 0 98 224 6.7%

Log haul would be limited to the normal operating season, described as June 1 to October 31 for a majority of the planned harvest units. Wet season log haul may occur on approximately 8 miles of FSR 4713 and several rocked 4713 spur roads. Units included for wet season haul activities include skyline units 106, 108, 116, 100, 004 and, 006. The wet season haul route would cross 3 non-fish bearing perennial streams and 10 intermittent stream channels. All of these channels would likely be flowing water during wet season haul. FSR 4713 is a midslope road that generally does not parallel stream channels. This road climbs quickly towards the ridge top resulting in most of the stream crossings being near headwater areas of the streams. None of the streams in the planned wet season haul area are fish bearing. Road maintenance prior to log haul would improve road drainage and assure stream extensions due to ditch lines are minimized by cleaning culverts and adding cross drains where necessary. In addition, blading, spot rocking, and reshaping roads, where necessary, would decrease water channeling and ponding on the road surface. Identified / required pre haul maintenance on identified wet season haul routes would be completed prior to October 31 of the year haul is expected to occur. If identified maintenance is not completed by October 31 no wet season haul would be allowed that logging season.

169

Haul during suitable dry conditions has little potential to create or deliver road-derived sediment to live stream channels. A portion of the paved haul route crosses OC coho salmon designated critical habitat as well as OC steelhead trout habitat over a bridge that crosses Steamboat Creek, State Hwy 138. There are no areas where the haul route parallels or crosses anadromous habitat on gravel roadways. Wet season haul has a greater potential to increase sediment delivery to area waterways. Roads can become saturated and log haul traffic can cause fines to move up through the road bed to the surface of the road where they can be easily transported to waterways. Road generated sediment and its delivery are expected to be negligible due to specified wet season haul route, road maintenance and improvements that would occur prior to haul, BMPs that would be in place, and the monitoring of road conditions during wet season haul to assure that resource damage is not occurring. Logging activities including log haul can be suspended at any time of year when precipitation events are imminent or excessive road deformity would occur during haul due to road moisture conditions. Log haul would be suspended if road surface run off carrying sediment is observed flowing in roadside ditches. All Umpqua Forest Road Rules would be enforced. As part of the maintenance plan, dust abatement may occur on the graveled haul routes. Magnesium chloride or water would be applied for dust abatement. In the event magnesium chloride is used application rates would conform to industry standards of up to 19 tons per mile. Application would be required to maintain a one foot buffer along each road edge and no application within 25 feet of any stream channel. The application of magnesium chloride as dust abatement is not expected to have a measurable adverse impact on water quality or aquatic species in or downstream of the planning area. No direct effects from timber harvest, log haul, or fuels treatment on listed sensitive fish or sensitive aquatic invertebrate species are expected to occur. Maintaining a no-harvest buffer along all streams would adequately protect future large wood recruitment, filter and disperse overland flow before it reaches the streams, and protect stream shade providing vegetation that in turn helps to maintain healthy stream temperatures. Fuels Alternatives 2 and 3 would not create or burn piles within the no-harvest buffers. This along with the no-harvest stream buffers and the hand and grapple piling mitigations would minimize the potential for any meaningful direct effects to aquatic habitat. Activity fuels in harvest units would be treated by grapple piling in ground-based yarding system units. Skyline systems would yard trees with tops attached and fuels would be treated at the landing or by hand piling and burning. The no-harvest buffers are expected to be sufficient to prevent any meaningful amount of sediment from disturbed ground from reaching the stream channel. Burning of slash piles would be limited to the interior of the units, and landings with low erosion potential. There would be no hand piles or grapple piles within the no-harvest buffers. Sediment resulting from slash burning is expected to filter into the forest floor before reaching stream channels. Road Maintenance and Temporary Roads Alternatives 2 and 3 proposes approximately up to 71 miles of road maintenance. This would include brushing, ditch line and culvert cleaning, road surface blading and shaping, and adding crushed rock where needed. Up to 30 ditch relief culverts would be replaced or installed to facilitate road network drainage. These culverts are typically associated with the road ditch line and not connected to stream channels. Project design features and Best Management Practices would be implemented during road maintenance activities (See Chapter 2). Any closed system

170

roads opened for the project would be closed after use. This would include the same type of work as road improvements. Any instream work associated with road improvements such as culvert replacements would occur during low flow conditions. Proposed road improvement would reduce road-derived sediment generated during increased road use over the life of the project. Road-derived sediment would be directed onto the forest floor through cross drains where it would be filtered before reaching stream channels. There would be about 0.38 miles of new temporary spur road constructed and 5.19 miles of existing temporary spur road reconstruction under Alternative 2. Temporary road placement, minimizing new temporary road construction, no-harvest riparian buffers, and proximity to fish bearing streams would be sufficient to prevent adverse amounts of sediment delivery from temporary road construction or use from being delivered to downstream occupied habitat. All temporary roads would be decommissioned and obliterated after use. All pre-haul road work, all temporary road reconstruction/construction, temporary road closures, and temporary road obliteration would occur prior to October 31 of any given year during the life of the timber sale. Any closed system roads opened for the project would be closed after use. A small amount of instream work would occur during spot reconstruction to facilitate log haul. All reconstruction sites are located on non-fish bearing stream channels and would include 13 culvert replacements on non-fish bearing streams. These replacements would help restore aquatic connectivity and reduce the probability of road failures and debris torrents. Instream work would occur during low summer flow conditions, July 1 to September 15. Due to timing of construction, project design features and BMPs, the reconstruction is expected to transport an immeasurable amount of sediment to downstream critical fish habitat. Any increase of sediment to the system would be short lived, localized, and would likely be undetectable against background levels in occupied downstream habitat. This project would have negligible amounts of fine sediment from road activities that would enter stream channels at stream crossings. The impacts are expected to be inconsequential to salmonid habitat. This is due to the focused and limited wet season haul as indicated above; sediment input would be minimized through project design features and BMPs (e.g. turbidity reduction measures and suspension of haul operations if suspended sediment is flowing off of the road). Road maintenance activities would minimize disturbance to grasses and forbs that are growing in the ditch line that act as sediment traps. Where haul routes parallel stream channels, a sufficient filter strip between the ditch and the stream exists to slow and capture any sediment laden runoff in the event of a rain storm during haul. During wet season haul erosion control would be used to filter sediment moving off of the haul roads. These filters would be maintained as needed to remove trapped sediment. Removed sediment would be disposed of in areas not connected to stream channels. The contract administrator also has the authority to suspend operations if weather conditions arise that would cause a transport of sediment from the road surface to the stream. Considering the information above regarding vegetated ditch lines, the presence of an adequate filter strip between the road and the stream, following established BMP’s, PDC, and instream work timelines, road improvements prior to haul, and the use of erosion control, the likelihood and potential quantity of material reaching the stream are discountable and inconsequential. Alternative Comparison Alternative 1 would leave stands of timber in stem-exclusion condition. Temporary roads constructed during the last timber entry into this area 40 to 60 years ago and not rehabilitated would remain on the landscape as hydrologic barriers and potential sources of chronic erosion

171

to local waterways. No road maintenance would occur under this alternative potentially leaving the road system with a greater risk of producing chronic sediment to area streams and an elevated risk of mass failure. Thus Alternative 1, through lack of action, would have a negative indirect impact by leaving compacted roads on the landscape. Alternative 2 proposes to obliterate new as well as existing temporary spur roads after use. Alternative 2, as described in the above analysis, would not affect fish and sensitive aquatic invertebrates by measurably affecting downstream water quality or aquatic habitat in fish bearing channels of the Middle North Umpqua or Steamboat watersheds through the release of additional nutrients, reduction of large wood recruitment, increases in stream sedimentation, or by increasing water temperature. The reconstruction and subsequent obliteration of temporary roads would disconnect compacted soils from the stream network and would prove beneficial to habitat over the long term by potentially eliminating chronic sediment sources. Maintenance that would occur on system roads would help in reducing chronic sediment production and delivery by improving road surfaces and drainage structures and design. Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2 in aquatics effects. The main differences between Alt 2 and 3 are the amount of existing temporary road reconstructed and subsequently obliterated, 12 fewer miles of road maintenance, one less stream crossing improved, and the number of ½ acre gaps created within units. Although there is no meaningfully measureable difference in the effects determination between these alternatives Alternative 2 offers the benefit of obliterating temporary roads that are used during harvest. Alternative 3 would reconstruct / construct 1.76 fewer miles of existing temporary road. By not reconstructing and using these roads for this project we forego the opportunity to obliterate them as part of the timber sale package. It is unlikely that funds would be available to obliterate them at another time. Under Alternative 3 these old temporary roads would remain on the landscape as linear compacted features that would impede the natural flow and infiltration of water, inhibit tree growth, potentially increase the risk of slides, and remain chronic sources of sediment production. None of the connected actions described in Chapter 2 would result in any indirect effects over the long-term or in downstream areas as described previously. All of the connected actions are minor activities of limited scope and duration. As such, these connected actions would have little chance of resulting in a negative effect to water quality or instream habitats, but may have long term beneficial effects. Aquatic Conservation Strategy - Fisheries No meaningful or measurable negative impacts to habitat elements or the associated beneficial uses of water are expected from any of the proposed activities in Alternatives 2 or 3, including those actions proposed to take place within the riparian reserve land use allocations. Moreover, both Alternatives were designed to accomplish broad landscape objectives that are designed to restore diversity and variability within previously managed stands, and to contribute to restoring the watershed over the long term. Alternatives 2 and 3 are designed to accomplish the intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, whereas Alternative 1 would not proactively implement this conservation strategy. Cumulative Effects - Fisheries The action Alternatives do not have the potential to result in any meaningful cumulative effects to water quality, streamflows, or the sediment regime that would affect sensitive fish or sensitive aquatic invertebrates. This is simply due to the lack of any substantial risk of direct or indirect effects associated with this project. Neither Action Alternative would have no meaningful or measurable elements (either adverse or beneficial) that would incrementally add to any other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the affected 5th, 6th, or 7th field watersheds.

172

Determination of Effects - Fisheries Essential Fish Habitat – No Adverse Effect As discussed above throughout this aquatic section, it is unlikely that downstream effects would occur that would adversely affect any Essential Fish Habitat as defined under the Magnuson- Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) for salmon commercial fisheries. EFH is further addressed in the Fisheries Biological Evaluation. ESA Listed/FS Sensitive Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Species Oregon Coast Coho Salmon: No Effect (NE). Oregon Coast Steelhead, Pacific Coast Chum Salmon, Western Ridged Mussel, Rotund Lanx and Umpqua Chub: No Impact (NI).

Table 38. Determination of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Aquatic Species Species Alts. 1 and 2 OC coho salmon and designated critical NE habitat Oregon Coast steelhead (sensitive) NI Umpqua Oregon chub (sensitive) NI Pacific Coast chum salmon (sensitive) NI Rotund Lanx NI Western Ridged Mussel NI

173

Social Environment

ECONOMICS The economic analysis focuses on the direct, indirect, and induced costs and benefits of the alternatives and the connected actions described in Chapter 2. Net present value and benefit/cost ratio are the primary criteria used to compare the direct effects of the alternatives to the Federal Government, termed economic efficiency analysis. Impacts to the general economy of the area are modeled using IMPLAN Professional, an input/output model developed by the Forest Service (IMPLAN 2000). The most current IMPLAN data available is 2010. Assumptions regarding the economic analysis are footnoted where appropriate. Most timber sales from the North Umpqua Ranger District are purchased and operated by individuals and companies based in Douglas County, Oregon. Total mill capacity in Douglas County in 2003 stood at 760 mmbf/year (Ragon 2003). There have been two permanent mill closings since then: one sawlog mill and one plywood mill. A figure of 700 mmbf is used to estimate the contribution of each alternative towards meeting demand. Final demand is assumed to be wood products ready for shipment at the mill yards. Douglas County Economic Situation Total employment in Douglas County is difficult to quantify exactly, as the Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS), Census Bureau, and IMPLAN use different criteria to measure employment. Because of this, percentages and relative differences are used for analysis where possible instead of absolute numbers. The 2008-2009 recession impacted the timber industry in the county especially hard. Unemployment in Douglas County rose from 8.3% in January of 2008 to the highest point in May, 2009 at 16.5% (OLMIS). Current unemployment (April, 2013) stands at 10.9%. According to OLMIS, the county lost 330 logging and wood products manufacturing jobs from January of 2008 through December of 2012. In 2010, the logging, forestry and wood products manufacturing sectors provided about 9.1% of Douglas County’s employment, and 28.6% of the overall industrial output, according to the 2010 IMPLAN data. IMPLAN data through 2010 show total employment in Douglas County has declined by 1.8% since 2002, however, the decline is 38% in forestry, logging and wood products manufacturing. The average annual wage paid in the county in 2010 was $30,978, compared to the forestry, logging, and wood products manufacturing average wage of $56,878 based on the 2010 IMPLAN data. Even with the decline, wood products industry employment is a key part of the economy of Douglas County. Economic Efficiency Analysis The direct economic effects of the alternatives are displayed in Table 39. The standard criterion for deciding whether a government program can be justified on economic principles is net present value (NPV) – the discounted21 monetized 22value of expected net benefits (OMB A- 94). Forest Service planning costs are not included in the economic efficiency analysis since they are considered sunk (OMB A-94). It is estimated that this project has cost about $236,000 to plan over the last two fiscal years. Based on the expected return to the Federal government shown in Table 39, the action alternatives are above-cost, including Forest Service planning,

21 Discounting is the process of calculating the present value of a future amount of money. 4% is the standard discount rate for long-term projects (OMB A-94). 22 Lit. “to give the character of money to.” A cost or benefit is monetized when it is expressed in terms of money.

174

sale preparation, and administration costs. Alternative 1 is considered below-cost since there would be no return to the U.S. Treasury with expenditures for planning. The action alternatives could be marketed as two or more individual timber sales. These sales would be offered in a public auction to achieve the highest return possible23. It is anticipated that all post-sale mitigation requirements and sale area improvement work would be paid for by stumpage24 from the timber sales. Both action alternatives show a positive net present value and would be considered advantageous to the U.S. government from an economic standpoint, due to their ability to fund many sale area improvements, and to return a sizeable amount to the Treasury. It is anticipated that the individual timber sales marketed from these alternatives would be viable and would attract competitive bids. Table 39. Economic Efficiency Analysis

Alt 2 Alt 3

25 Timber Volume (MBF) 13,989 11,733 Acres by Harvest Method Skyline 835 758 Ground-based 377 317 Total Acres 1,212 1,075 Volume (MBF)/Acre 11.5 10.9 Total Present Value Benefits

Gross Benefits $6,145,955 $5,154,800 26 Value/MBF $439 $439 Value/Acre $5,071 $4,795 Total Present Value Costs

FS Prep & Admin $410,406 $347,885 Logging $3,458,001 $3,005,680 Slash Disposal $503,665 $448,114 Road Work $313,961 $261,135 Reforestation $34,373 $34,373 Sale Area Improvements $166,443 $158,127 Total Cost $4,886,849 $4,255,315 Cost/MBF $349 $363

23 Individual timber sales would be appraised and offered at fair market value, or the minimum to cover reforestation costs and a $0.50/ccf return to the Treasury, whichever is higher. 24 Stumpage is the value of the timber “on the stump.” It is the timber sale contract minimum value and is determined by subtracting logging, road work, and slash disposal costs from the delivered log price. Timber sale purchasers may bid more in a competitive auction. The actual monetary return to the U.S. Treasury is determined by subtracting all post sale costs from the stumpage. 25 MBF is thousand board feet. The Forest Service estimates MBF using east-side Scribner rules, therefore the volume as shown, is higher than if west-side, long log Scribner rules would be applied. 26 West side delivered log prices derived from ODF log price surveys have been adjusted to reflect equivalent east side values due to the differences in scaling rules.

175

Alt 2 Alt 3

Cost/Acre $4,032 $3,958 Net Present Value $1,259,107 $899,485 Stumpage (2013 dollars) $2,073,942 $1,592,235 Predicted Stumpage Price/MBF $148.26 $135.71 27 Potential Return to the Treasury $1,829,619 $1,358,030 28 B/C Ratio 1.26 1.21

Log prices fluctuate due to a variety of market forces, many of which are external to Douglas County and Oregon. Typically, log prices are higher in the winter months and lower in the summer/fall, reflecting the availability of logging due to weather. The recent recession and slowdown in nation-wide housing caused the local log market to fall drastically from 2006 to 2009. Figure displays a composite log price average ($/mbf) for the local Douglas County market since 1990 using Oregon Department of Forestry log price information (ODF 2013). The data in Table 39 are not adjusted for inflation and are equated to west side long log Scribner scaling rules. The economic efficiency analysis displayed in Table 39 uses average local log prices from the most recent four quarters, adjusted for short log volume. Log prices hit historic lows during the 1st quarter of 2009 and have since come back to near average levels. The outlook for continued recovery is tenuous, but indications are for housing to slowly improve. In the short-term, log prices could fluctuate based on import/export pressure, natural disasters, or general economic trends. If log prices decline, less money would be available for post-sale activities, and the value of the timber could reach a point where an individual sale may not be marketable. A decline in log prices of 29% or more from 1st quarter, 2013 local prices would likely result in no- bid sales. It would be speculative to predict the local markets at the time of sale offer or operation, however, a price reduction of this magnitude is unlikely in the short-term.

27 This is calculated to at least cover the requirement for 25% Payments to Counties and 10% Road & Trail Fund. 28 B/C Ratio is the benefit/cost ratio, another standard criterion for economic efficiency. It is the product of the present value of benefits divided by the present value of costs.

176

Average DF Log Prices

1000.00 900.00 800.00 700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00

Figure 28. Average Composite Douglas-fir Log Prices, Douglas County Market Area.

Both action alternatives have the potential to return a substantial value to the Federal Treasury. Both action alternatives have a positive predicted stumpage price. Alternative 2 is more cost efficient based on somewhat higher volume per acre and lower logging cost. Economic Impact Analysis The economic impact analysis using IMPLAN considers changes in employment and income due to changes in the economic activity of the county from each alternative. An individual timber sale may not substantially change the overall economic activity of the county, since the amount of timber volume represents a small percentage of the total demand. Since 2005, Umpqua National Forest timber volume has been offered at a somewhat consistent level, at about 41 mmbf per year, or 6% of the total mill capacity in Douglas County. Timber sales from the National Forest are viewed as raw material available for the local industry, allowing production and support for jobs in the local economy to be sustained. Local National Forest timber would offset logs imported to the area, potentially reducing overall costs and increasing production. Table displays the results of the economic impact analysis by alternative. In general, the sale of timber from the National Forest would result in sustained or increased employment in the logging and wood products manufacturing sectors, in the forestry services (slash treatment, planting, etc.) and indirect and induced employment in many other sectors. Payments in lieu of taxes due to Douglas County from timber receipts are not included in these figures, as they are accounted for in the return to the Federal Treasury shown in Table 39. Other direct, indirect, and induced benefits are derived from road reconstruction and other connected actions that may be funded by revenue from the timber sales or other funding sources. These work activities are treated as costs in the benefit/cost analysis since they reduce the revenue to the Federal Treasury, but they have economic benefits to the local community since most are contracted services. These benefits are included in the economic impact analysis and in the numbers reported in Table 40.

177

The numbers in Table 40 are not intended to be absolute. The analysis should be used to compare the relative differences among alternatives. The percentages listed are percentage of the total Douglas county activity, including all sectors. The value of each activity included in the impact analysis was estimated from the cost and benefit analysis spreadsheets. An estimate was made of the percent of each activity’s value that would be spent locally. The value to the wood products manufacturing sector was estimated to be 40% of the delivered log price, reflecting the difference between end product value and log cost to the mill. This difference can be widely variable based on mill efficiency and the choice of end products, but it approximates the value given for all of Oregon in 1998 (Gebert 2002). The percentage of value assigned to sawlog and veneer production is 95% and 5%, respectively, based on the estimated average diameter of harvested trees. Table 40. Economic Impact Analysis

Alt 2 Alt 3 Value* % Value* % Change in Total $10,589,005 0.4 $9,080,257 0.3 Industrial Output Change in Employment 85.5 0.2 73.7 0.2 Change in Labor $4,331,214 0.1 $3,733,858 0.1 Income Contribution to local 14.0 MMBF 2.0 11.7 MMBF 1.7 mill capacity * Employment is number of jobs. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 is not shown in Table 40 since by definition it would not change the conditions or level of economic activity in the County. This alternative may, however, contribute to a decline in the local timber industry, since it would keep federal timber from the market, at least in the short-term. No attempt was made to quantify that impact, as it would be speculative to estimate the current and reasonably foreseeable timber supply in the local area. Alternatives 2 and 3 have a beneficial direct effect to the local economy. These effects are relatively small in terms of the percentage of total Douglas County economic activity. However, certain sectors, such as logging and wood products manufacturing show considerable differences. Alternate 2 contributes $1.5 million more than Alternative 3 in industrial output, and $0.6 million more in personal income. Implementation of either alternative would contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to the local economy. This project, when combined with other federal timber sales from the Umpqua National Forest, would contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect of sustaining the wood products infrastructure in Douglas County.

178

CHAPTER 4 Consultation with Others

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement for the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project Project began with the mailing of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). A scoping notice describing the project components and querying interest in a field trip was sent to approximately 60 members of the public in early March 2012, which initiated the scoping period. The Tribal governments (Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Confederated Tribe of the Grand Ronde Indians, and the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians) were sent a scoping letter describing the project and soliciting issues. Comments and concerns related to the project, and the responses by the Forest Service are outlined in the Scoping section of Chapter 1 and the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project project record contains a detailed scoping summary that describes the scoping comments received for the project, and how the Forest Service addressed scoping comments.

AGENCY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION The regulatory agency charged with overseeing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), was consulted and communicated with as appropriate during the planning process. The USFWS participated in a field trip in May, 2011 to provide recommendations for incorporation into the Proposed Action. A Biological Assessment was submitted to the USFWS, which included the Lower Steamboat LSR Plantation Thinning Project Project Record, and a Biological Opinion was issued on August 22nd, 2012. Tribal consultation also occurred.

179

Appendix 1 Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures

Contents

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES ...... 181 GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ...... 185 Plan-1 Forest and Grassland Planning ...... 185 Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis ...... 186 Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning ...... 188 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 189 AqEco-2. Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems ...... 189 AqEco-3. Ponds and Wetlands ...... 193 CHEMICAL USE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 196 Chem-6. Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 196 ROAD MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 197 Road-1. Travel Management Planning and Analysis ...... 197 Road-2. Road Location and Design ...... 199 Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction ...... 201 Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance ...... 203 Road-5. Temporary Roads ...... 207 Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning ...... 208 Road-7. Stream Crossings ...... 210 Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage ...... 214 Road-9. Parking and Staging Areas ...... 215 Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing ...... 216 FACILITIES AND NONRECREATION SPECIAL USES MANAGEMENT ...... 218 Fac-2. Facility Construction and Stormwater Control ...... 218 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 219 Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning ...... 219 Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire ...... 221 MINERALS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 223 Min-5. Mineral Materials Resource Sites ...... 224 MECHANICAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 226 Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning ...... 226 Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control ...... 228 Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones ...... 230 Veg-4. Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations ...... 232 Veg-5. Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations ...... 233 Veg-6. Landings ...... 234 Veg -7 Winter Logging ...... 236 Veg-8. Mechanical Site Treatment ...... 236

180

Project Design Features

Cultural Mitigations

□ In the event that an unknown historic or prehistoric site is discovered in the course of the project, the activity would be stopped and the appropriate measures would be taken to stop any adverse effects to the site resulting from the activity (BT6.24). Any adverse effects, should they occur, shall be mitigated. □ Heritage resources were identified during project inventory. Following Stipulation IIIB.2(C) of the PA the Forest Archaeologist has determined the following protection measures for a determination of Historic Properties Avoided as described in the PA under Standard Case-by-Case Review. The protection measures outlined in the memo from the Forest Archaeologist regarding this undertaking would be implemented. □ Heritage clearance for this project is based on an impact area survey. Connected and/or similar actions, activities outside of units, or activities with unknown locations or unspecified scope of work may require additional monitoring or separate clearance. □ Site monitoring would be conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the need for additional preventative measures.

Fire Mitigations

□ Burn plans would be prepared in advance of ignition and approved by the appropriate line officer for each prescribed fire. □ As needed, fire lines would require water bars at slopes greater than 30%. Fire line water bars would deflect surface run-off from the trail down slope onto stable material such as rock surface cover. Fire line construction would generally avoid sensitive areas like unique habitats. Fire lines would be constructed in portions of units: 02, 100, 104, 106 (Alternative 2 and 3) and 103, 105 (Alternative 3). □ Burning would be carried out when fuel moistures are sufficient to help retain existing snags and down wood to the extent feasible. □ Burning would be conducted to meet air quality standards as outlined by Oregon DEQ, and air quality monitoring would be conducted in conjunction with the DEQ. □ Burning would be carried out when fuel moistures are sufficient to help retain existing snags and down wood to the extent feasible. □ Maximum depth of slash on temporary roads and landings is 12 inches. □ Grapple piles would be constructed to the following specifications: All slash from 1 inch in diameter up to 6 inches in diameter and exceeding 3 feet in length shall be piled. Piles

181

would be constructed compactly with minimal soil in the piles and covered to shed water so they remain dry for burning during the fall or winter; height would be at least 6 feet and no greater than 12 feet; width would be at least 12 feet and no greater than 24 feet. Piles would be evenly spaced between trees and snags left after harvest. Piles would be placed on temporary roads or designated equipment trails when possible. Piles would be placed at least 50 feet away from live streams. □ Machine piles at landings would be built by grapple or shovel to keep dirt and rock debris out. No cat piling or pushing of piles.

Wildlife Mitigations

Standing green trees in any gap are available for snag creation techniques Timber harvest operations and post-sale fuels treatments would be managed to to help achieve snag availability objectives Gaps would be available for supplemental planting of coniferous tree, broad-leaf tree, and shrubs to increase species diversity Where seeding occurs for erosion control or noxious weed control, desired forage species may be included. All seeding for erosion control shall occur prior to September 15. Retain and protect (during harvest and burning) existing large down wood (>6 inch diameter) and snags (>9 inch dbh) to the extent practical and safe. Avoid mechanical impacts and movement of large down wood and leave felled snags on site.

Vegetation Management

Rx Under the action alternatives, fourteen ½-acre gaps would be located in four units within designated Elk Winter Range, including unit 23 (6 gaps), 24 (1 gap), 106 (4 gaps), and 209 (3 gaps). Gap locations would be identified and mapped during layout, prior to operations. Rx Reforestation activities would occur in portions of heavy thin (40-70 TPA greater than 7” dbh retained) units, including units 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 209, and 213. Rx Big game repellant would be applied to planted seedlings at the time of spring planting and again in the Fall for animal damage protection. Rx Bare root stock would be inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi spores mixed with water and a material, such as Terrasorb, immediately before outplanting. Rx Seedling handling would meet Region 6 standards. Rx Minor conifer species would be preferred for retention in harvested areas, as feasible. Generally, these include non-Douglas-fir species, such as ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and western hemlock.

Botanical Management □ Establish 150-foot no-entry buffers around three Kalmiopsis fragrans locations occurring in units 18 (west side of unit- 2 populations) and unit 19 (edge of unit on the south east side).

182

□ Establish a 150-foot no-harvest buffer (Forest Plan S&G’s IV-200 [C5-I]) around unique “wet” habitats (as located on the unit shapefile) to minimize potential impacts. Unique wet habitats are located in units 20, 103, 113, and 116. □ In units containing dry unique habitats, units 12, 18, 19, 21, 100, 104, and 106, harvest activities would not occur within these habitats and trees would be directionally felled away from the edges. (see Forest Plan Amendment). □ Treatment of weeds would be based on the Forest Integrated Weed Management Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact signed in June 2003. The Forest Service would flag noxious weed sites to be avoided in the higher priority sites, prior to work commencing. Infested sites to be avoided would be marked with florescent orange flagging and labeled “NOXIOUS WEEDS” with black lettering. Forest Service would provide the contractor with a map indicating where the known infestations of Forest Rated “A” noxious weeds and other invasive weeds of concern are located. Contractor would avoid ground-disturbing activities in the flagged and/or staked areas unless otherwise directed by the Forest Service. □ Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that would operate outside the limits of the road prism (including public works and service contracts), require the cleaning of all heavy equipment (bulldozers, skidders, graders, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering National Forest System Lands (Prevention Standard 2—Regional Invasive Plants FEIS and B/BT6.35). □ A District or Forest weed specialist would inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites and borrow material for invasive plants before use and transport. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free by District or Forest weed specialists (including material from commercial sites) (Prevention Standard 7 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). □ Treat or require treatment of infested sources before any use of pit material (Prevention Standard 7 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). Starting with the highest slopes that have invasive vegetation growing in previously disturbed areas scrape off the top several inches of soil and rock to remove all of the seed bank. Stockpile this material in a location at the quarry where it would not be disturbed, i.e. no machinery should drive over the pile. This contaminated material would be monitored and covered as necessary to ensure it does not become a future source of weeds at the quarry. □ All personnel, contractors, etc. working on the project would be made aware of the high priority “A” weeds (specifically Scotch broom) that could be found during activities; any high priority noxious weeds found should be reported to the Forest Service. □ Use signs such as “logging use only” to discourage public access to active road construction sites by establishing road closures. Allowing only vehicles involved with the construction on the site would help limit introduction of noxious weed seed. □ After harvest, treat remaining or new infestations of noxious weeds for up to three years following sale closure.

183

□ Wherever possible, use native re-vegetation techniques to reestablish native plants on sites where weeds are removed as well as in areas where exposed mineral soil provides optimal conditions for weeds to colonize. Native plant materials are the first choice in revegetation for restoration and rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur. Non-native, non-invasive plant species may be used in any of the following situations: 1) when needed in emergency conditions to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability, water quality and to help prevent the establishment of invasive species); 2) as an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plants; 3) if native plant materials are not available; or 4) in permanently altered plant communities. □ Under no circumstances would non-native invasive plant species be used for revegetation (Prevention Standard 13 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). □ Maintain desirable roadside native vegetation. If desirable vegetation is removed to bare mineral soil during blading or other ground disturbing activities, that area must be revegetated prior to September 15. All roadside disturbance that occurs after September 15 shall be stabilized with ground cover such as wood chips, wood straw, or weed free straw. □ Conduct road blading, brushing and ditch cleaning in areas with high concentrations of invasive plants in consultation with District or Forest-level invasive plant specialists; incorporate invasive plant prevention practices as appropriate (Prevention Standard 8 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). Weed areas of concern would be marked with orange flagging and labeled “NOXIOUS WEEDS” with black lettering. Forest Service would provide the contractor with a map indicating where the known infestations of Forest Rated “A” noxious weeds and other invasive weeds of concern are located. Contractor would avoid ground-disturbing activities in the flagged and/or staked areas unless otherwise directed by the COR/FSR. Whenever possible, roadside brushing would be accomplished prior to seed setting of noxious weed species (approximately late June) in noxious weed flagged areas. The intent of this is to stop and/or prevent noxious weed spread and establishment. □ If needed, use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or mulch are not available then it must be certified, all states, noxious weed-free (Prevention Standard 3 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). Note: because of the aquatic nature of rice, the harvested straw is already considered weed-seed free. The District or Forest weed specialist may approve the use of rice or wood straw for some applications.

184

General Planning Activities Plan-1 Forest and Grassland Planning Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning

Plan-1 Forest and Grassland Planning Manual Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1900, FSM 1920, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) or 1909.12, and FSM 2511. Handbook Reference Objective Use the land management planning and decision making processes to incorporate direction for water quality management consistent with laws, regulation, and policy into land management plans. Practices □ Establish desired conditions, goals, and objectives for soil, water quality, and riparian resources that contribute to the overall sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems in the plan area consistent with established State or national water quality goals for the plan area. o Consider the water quantity, quality, location, and timing of flows needed to provide water supplies for municipal, agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses; hydropower generation; water recreation, transportation, and spiritual uses; aesthetic appreciation; and tourism to contribute to social and economic sustainability. o Consider the water quantity, quality, location, and timing of flows needed to provide the ecological conditions to support diversity of native and desired nonnative plants and animal species in the plan area to contribute to ecological sustainability. □ Include plan objectives to maintain or, where appropriate, improve or restore watershed conditions to achieve desired conditions of soil, water quality, and riparian resources. □ Consider watershed characteristics, current and expected environmental conditions (including climate change), and potential effects of land uses when determining suitability of NFS lands within the planning area for various uses. □ Include Standards and Guidelines to maintain and, where appropriate, improve over time the quality of soil, water resources, and riparian areas when implementing site-specific projects and activities. □ Include monitoring questions and associated performance measures to address watershed condition and water quality goals and objectives.

Local / Site □ Condtional Language for winter haul and harvest. Specific □ Monitoring Elements: BMP 1. Erosion control measures will be adequate to prevent the offsite movement of sediment. 2. On September 15: are erosion controls and seeding in place? Have all roads to be used for winter haul been appropriately upgraded?

185

3. On October 15: have erosion control measures been kept current with activities? Have all harvest activities not approved for operations outside of the normal operating season been halted?

Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis Manual Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1950, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, and FSM or 2524. Handbook Reference Objective Use the project planning, environmental analysis, and decision making processes to incorporate water quality management BMPs into project design and implementation. Practices □ Include watershed specialists (hydrologist, soil scientist, geologist, and fish biologist) and other trained and qualified individuals on the interdisciplinary team for project planning, environmental analysis, and decision making to evaluate onsite watershed characteristics and the potential environmental consequences of the proposed activity(s). □ Determine water quality management objectives for the project area. o Identify water quality management desired conditions and objectives from the land management plan. o Identify and evaluate the condition of water features in the project area (e.g., streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, riparian areas, springs, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, recharge areas, and floodplains). o Identify State-designated beneficial uses of waterbodies and the water quality parameters that are critical to those uses. o Identify locations of dams and diversions for municipal or irrigation water supplies, fish hatcheries, stockwater, fire protection, or other water uses within the project area. o Identify any impaired (e.g., 303[d] listed) waterbodies in the project area and associated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses or other restoration plans that may exist. o Identify threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in or near water, wetlands, and riparian areas in the project area and their habitat needs related to water quality. □ Determine potential or likely direct and indirect impacts to chemical, physical, and biological water quality, and watershed condition from the proposed activity. o Always assume hydrological connections exist between groundwater and surface water in each watershed, unless it can reasonably be shown none exist in a local situation.

186

o Consider the impacts of current and expected environmental conditions such as atmospheric deposition and climate change in the project area when analyzing effects of the proposed activities. o Evaluate sources of waterbody impairment, including water quantity, streamflows, and water quality, and the likelihood that proposed activities would contribute to current or future impairment or restoration to achieve desired watershed conditions. o Identify and delineate unstable areas in the project area. o Identify soil limitations and productivity impacts of proposed activities. o Verify preliminary findings by inspecting the sites in the field. o Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, and mitigation measures to achieve water quality management objectives. Consult local, regional, State, or other agencies’ required or recommended BMPs that are applicable to the activity. o Consider enhanced BMPs identified in a TMDL or other watershed restoration plan to protect impaired waterbodies within the project area. o Use site evaluations, professional experience, monitoring results, and land management plan standards, guidelines, and other requirements. o Identify Federal, State, and local permits or requirements needed to implement the project. o Examples include water quality standards, CWA 401 certification, CWA 402 permits (including stormwater permits), CWA 404 permits, and Coastal Zone Management Act requirements. o Plan to limit surface disturbance to the extent practicable while still achieving project objectives. o Designate specific AMZs around water features in the project area (see BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]). o Design activities on or near unstable areas and sensitive soils to minimize management induced impacts. o Use local direction and requirements for prevention and control of terrestrial and aquatic invasive species. □ Use suitable tools to analyze the potential for cumulative watershed effects (CWE) to occur from the additive impacts of the proposed project and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on NFS and neighboring lands within the project watersheds. o Consider the natural sensitivity or tolerance of the watershed based on geology, climate, and other relevant factors. o Consider the existing condition of the watershed and water quality as a reflection of past land management activities and natural disturbances. o Estimate the potential for adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from current and reasonably foreseeable future activities on all lands within the watershed relative to existing watershed conditions. o Use land management plan direction; Federal, State, or local water quality standards; and other regulations to determine acceptable limits for CWE. o Modify the proposed project or activity as necessary by changing project design, location, and timing to reduce the potential for CWE to occur.

187

o Consider including additional mitigation measures to reduce project effects. o Identify and implement opportunities for restoration activities to speed recovery of watershed condition before initiating additional anthropogenic disturbance in the watershed. o Coordinate and cooperate with other Federal, State, and private landowners in assessing and preventing CWE in multiple ownership watersheds. □ Integrate restoration and rehabilitation needs into the project plan. o Consider water quality improvement actions identified in a TMDL or other watershed restoration plan to restore impaired waterbodies within the project area. □ Identify project-specific monitoring needs. □ Document site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, mitigation measures, and restoration, rehabilitation, and monitoring needs in the applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, design plans, contracts, permits, authorizations, and operation and maintenance plans. o Delineate all protected or excluded areas, including, for example, AMZs and waterbodies, 303(d) listed and TMDL waterbodies, and municipal supply watersheds, on the project map. Local / Site □ Erosion control measures would be adequate in preventing the offsite movement Specific of sediment. BMP □ The sale administrator, presale crew, and monitoring teams shall be provided with a map of the harvest activity areas that have been designated unsuitable or conditionally unsuitable due to slope instability.

Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning Manual Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2526 or Handbook Reference Objective To maintain and improve or restore the condition of land around and adjacent to waterbodies in the context of the environment in which they are located, recognizing their unique values and importance to water quality while implementing land and resource management activities.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Proactively manage the AMZ to maintain or improve long-term health and sustainability of the riparian ecosystem and adjacent waterbody consistent with desired conditions, goals, and objectives in the land management plan. o Balance short-term impacts and benefits with long-term goals and desired future conditions, considering ecological structure, function, and processes, when evaluating proposed management activities in the AMZ. o Determine the width of the AMZ for waterbodies in the project area that

188

may be affected by the proposed activities: o Evaluate the condition of aquatic and riparian habitat and beneficial riparian zone functions and their estimated response to the proposed activity in determining the need for and width of the AMZ. o Use stream class and type, channel condition, aspect, side slope steepness, precipitation and climate characteristics, soil erodibility, slope stability, groundwater features, and aquatic and riparian conditions and functions to determine appropriate AMZ widths to achieve desired conditions in the AMZ. o Include riparian vegetation within the designated AMZ and extend the AMZ to include steep slopes, highly erodible soils, or other sensitive or unstable areas. o Establish wider AMZ areas for waters with high resource value and quality. o Design and implement project activities within the AMZ to: o Avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to riparian vegetation, groundwater recharge areas, steep slopes, highly erodible soils, or unstable areas. o Maintain or provide sufficient ground cover to encourage infiltration, avoid or minimize erosion, and to filter pollutants. o Avoid, minimize, or restore detrimental soil compaction. o Retain trees necessary for shading, bank stabilization, and as a future source of large woody debris. o Retain floodplain function. o Restore existing disturbed areas that are eroding and contributing sediment to the waterbody. □ Mark the boundaries of the AMZ and sensitive areas like riparian areas, wetlands, and unstable areas on the ground before land disturbing activities.

Local / □ Seeding for the purpose of erosion control would be in place prior to Site September 15. After September 15 all bare soil will be covered with Specific erosion controls such as wood chips, wood straw, or weed free straw. BMP

Aquatic Ecosystems Management Activities AqEco-2. Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems AqEco-3. Ponds and Wetlands AqEco-4. Stream Channels and Shorelines

AqEco-2. Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems Manual None known.

189

or Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to water quality when working in aquatic ecosystems. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 (AMZ Planning) when planning operations in aquatic ecosystems. □ Identify the aquatic and aquatic-dependent species that live in the waterbody, Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ), or on the floodplain and their life histories to determine protection strategies, such as timing of construction, sediment management, species relocation, and monitoring during construction. □ Coordinate stream channel, shoreline, lake, pond, and wetland activities with appropriate State and Federal agencies. o Incorporate Clean Water Act (CWA) 404 permit requirements and other Federal, State, and local permits or requirements into the project design and plan. □ Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when preparing the site for construction or maintenance activities. o Clearly delineate the work zone. o Locate access and staging areas near the project site but outside of work area boundaries, AMZs, wetlands, and sensitive soil areas. o Refuel and service equipment only in designated staging areas (see BMP Road-10 [Equipment Refueling and Servicing]). o Develop an erosion and sediment control plan to avoid or minimize downstream impacts using measures appropriate to the site and the proposed activity (see BMP Fac-2 [Facility Construction and Stormwater Control]). o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures. o Consider needs for solid waste disposal and worksite sanitation. o Consider using small, low ground pressure equipment, and hand labor where practicable. o Ensure all equipment operated in or adjacent to the waterbody is clean of aquatic invasive species, as well as oil and grease, and is well maintained. o Use vegetable oil or other biodegradable hydraulic oil for heavy equipment hydraulics wherever practicable when operating in or near water. □ Schedule construction or maintenance operations in waterbodies to occur in the least critical periods to avoid or minimize adverse effects to sensitive aquatic and aquatic-dependent species that live in or near the waterbody.

190

o Avoid scheduling instream work during the spawning or migration seasons of resident or migratory fish and other important life history phases of sensitive species that could be affected by the project. o Avoid scheduling instream work during periods that could be interrupted by high flows. o Consider the growing season and dormant season for vegetation when scheduling activities within or near the waterbody to minimize the period of time that the land would remain exposed, thereby reducing erosion risks and length of time when aesthetics are poor. □ Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when clearing the site. o Clearly delineate the geographic limits of the area to be cleared. o Use suitable drainage measures to improve the workability of wet sites. o Avoid or minimize unacceptable damage to existing vegetation, especially plants that are stabilizing the bank of the waterbody. □ Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the waterbody when implementing construction and maintenance activities. o Minimize heavy equipment entry into or crossing water as is practicable. o Conduct operations during dry periods. o Stage construction operations as needed to limit the extent of disturbed areas without installed stabilization measures. o Promptly install and appropriately maintain erosion control measures. o Promptly install and appropriately maintain spill prevention and containment measures. o Promptly rehabilitate or stabilize disturbed areas as needed following construction or maintenance activities. o Stockpile and protect topsoil for reuse in site revegetation. o Minimize bank and riparian area excavation during construction to the extent practicable. o Keep excavated materials out of the waterbody. o Use only clean, suitable materials that are free of toxins and invasive species for fill. o Properly compact fills to avoid or minimize erosion. o Balance cuts and fills to minimize disposal needs. o Remove all project debris from the waterbody in a manner that would cause the least disturbance. o Identify suitable areas offsite or away from waterbodies for disposal sites before beginning operations. o Contour site to disperse runoff, minimize erosion, stabilize slopes, and provide a favorable environment for plant growth. o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. □ Use suitable measures to divert or partition channelized flow around the site

191

or to dewater the site as needed to the extent practicable. o Remove aquatic organisms from the construction area before dewatering and prevent organisms from returning to the site during construction. o Return clean flows to channel or waterbody downstream of the activity. o Restore flows to their natural stream course as soon as practicable after construction or before seasonal closures. □ Inspect the work site at suitable regular intervals during and after construction or maintenance activities to check on quality of the work and materials and identify need for midproject corrections. □ Consider short- and long-term maintenance needs and unit capabilities when designing the project. o Develop a strategy for providing emergency maintenance when needed. □ Include implementation and effectiveness monitoring to evaluate success of the project in meeting design objectives and avoiding or minimizing unacceptable impacts to water quality. □ Consider long-term management of the site and nearby areas to promote project success. o Use suitable measures to limit human, vehicle, and livestock access to site as needed to allow for recovery of vegetation.

Local / □ In Unit 113 the legacy Humboldt crossing over Dry Creek shall be removed Site and a temporary culvert installed during construction of the temporary road. Specific This temporary culvert must be installed during the normal operating season BMP and removed prior to the end of the normal operating from which it was installed. □ Protect all no-harvest stream and wetland buffers with directional felling (C/CT6.41#), and waive debris cleanout of streams (B/BT6.5). □ Trees that are in no-harvest buffers and are damaged during timber harvest or road activities would be left on site. □ Restrict ground-based equipment entry to beyond 100 feet of streams and wet areas, or outside the no-harvest buffer, whichever is greater. □ The following are the recommended minimum no-harvest buffer width recommendations to ensure protection of unmapped streams and wet areas identified during project implementation. The district hydrologist or fish biologist would be consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers and these individuals may modify the recommended buffers but must assure compliance with ACS and the NWFP Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy by providing the following minimum buffers: - perennial streams: 85 foot buffers or the slope break, whichever is greater; - intermittent streams without erosion concerns: 25 foot buffers or the slope break, whichever is greater; - wet unique habitats greater than 1 acre: 150 foot buffers.

192

AqEco-3. Ponds and Wetlands Manual None known. or Handbook Reference Objective Design and implement pond and wetlands projects in a manner that increases the potential for success in meeting project objectives and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems) when working in or near waterbodies. □ Obtain and manage water rights. □ Clearly define goals and objectives in the project plan appropriate to the site for desired hydrology, wetland plant community associations, intended purpose, and function of the pond or wetland and expected values. □ Select sites based on an analysis of landscape structure and associated ecological functions and values. o Construct ponds and wetlands on sites that have easy construction access where practicable. o Construct wetlands in landscape positions and soil types capable of supporting desired wetland functions and values. o Construct ponds outside of active floodplain to minimize overflow of groundwater-fed ponds into adjacent streams and avoid or minimize erosion of pond embankments by floods, unless location in the floodplain is integral to achieving project objectives. o Construct ponds with surface water supply off-channel rather than placing a dam across a stream. o Construct ponds and wetlands on sites with soils suitable to hold water with minimal seepage loss and that provide a stable foundation for any needed embankments. o Construct ponds and wetlands in locations where polluted surface water runoff or groundwater discharge do not reach the pond. o Consider the consequences of dam or embankment failure and resulting damage from sudden release of water on potentially affected areas. □ Ensure that the natural water supply for the pond or wetland is sufficient to meet the needs of the intended use and that it would maintain the desired water levels and water quality. o Design the wetland to create hydrologic conditions (including the timing of inflow and outflow, duration, and frequency of water level

193

fluctuations) that provide the desired wetland functions and values. o Avoid or minimize drawdown effects in a stream source by limiting timing and rate of water withdrawal to allow sufficient downstream water flow to maintain desired conditions in the source stream (see BMP WatUses-1 [Water Uses Planning]). □ Design the wetland project to create a biologically and hydrologically functional system. o Design for function, not form. o Keep the design simple and avoid over engineering. o Design the project for minimal maintenance needs. o Use natural energies, such as gravity flow, in the design. o Avoid use of hard engineering structures or the use of supplemental watering to support system hydrology. o Plan to allow wetland system time to develop after construction activities are complete. □ Design the pond or wetland to be of sufficient size and depth appropriate for the intended use and to optimize hydrologic regimes and wetland plant community development. o Size the pond or wetland appropriately for the contributing drainage area such that a desired water level can be maintained during drought conditions and that excess runoff during large storms can be reasonably accommodated without constructing large overflow structures. o Size the pond or wetland to an adequate depth to store sufficient amounts of water for the intended use and offset probable evaporation and seepage losses. o Integrate design with the natural topography of the site to minimize site disturbance. o Design the pond or wetland to have an irregular shape to reduce wind and wave impacts, disperse water flows, maximize retention times, and better mimic natural systems. o Create microtopography and macrotopography in wetlands to mimic natural conditions and achieve hydrologic and vegetative diversity. o Avoid creating large areas of shallow water to minimize excessive evaporation losses and growth of noxious aquatic plants. o Avoid steep-sloped shorelines in areas with potential substrate instability problems to reduce erosion and sedimentation. □ Include water control structures to manage water levels as necessary. o Design spillway or outlet to maintain desired water level under normal inflows from snowmelt, groundwater flow, and precipitation. o Design discharge capacity using a suitable hydrologic analysis of the drainage area to be sufficient to safely pass the flow resulting from the design storm event. o Size the spillway to release floodwaters in a volume and velocity that do not erode the spillway, the area beyond the outlet, or the downstream channel.

194

o Consider the need for suitable measures to drain the pond or wetland. o Return overflow back to the original source to the extent practicable. o Use suitable measures to maintain desired downstream temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels, and aquatic habitats when water is released from the pond or impoundment. □ Use materials appropriate for the purpose of the pond and site. o Select materials for a dam or embankment that would provide sufficient strength and, when properly compacted, would be tight enough to avoid or minimize excessive or harmful percolation of water through the dam or embankment. o Design the side slopes appropriately for the material being used to ensure stability of the dam or embankment. □ Use wetland vegetation species and establishment methods suitable to the project site and objectives, consistent with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. o Consider the timing of planting to achieve maximum survival, proposed benefit of each plant species, methods of planting, proposed use of mulch, potential soil amendment (organic material or fertilizer), and potential supplemental watering to help establish the plant community. □ Properly maintain dams, embankments, and spillways to avoid or minimize soil erosion and leakage problems. o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize erosion of dams and shores due to wind and wave action. o Design sufficient freeboard to avoid or minimize overtopping by wave action or other causes. o Stabilize or armor spillways for ponds with continuous flow releases or overflow during heavy rainfall events. □ Manage uplands and surrounding areas to avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to water quality in the pond or wetland.

Local / Site □ Wetlands should be protected from ground disturbance or substantial Specific microclimate change by applying no-harvest buffers for commercial operations. BMP No logging corridors, roads or landings would be put in buffers unless otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service and appropriate mitigations are applied. □ Refer to Plan-2 for equipment operation in/near buffers and buffer specification.

195

Chemical Use Management Activities Chem-6. Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation

Chem-6. Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation Manual or Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2150.1; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14, Handbook chapter 50. Reference Objective 1. Determine whether chemicals have been applied safely, have been restricted to intended targets, and have not resulted in unexpected nontarget effects. 2. Document and provide early warning of possible hazardous conditions resulting from potential contamination of water or other nontarget resources or areas by chemicals. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Identify the following elements in all water resource monitoring plans and specify the rationale for each: o What are the monitoring questions? o Who would be involved and what are their roles and responsibilities? o What parameters would be monitored and analyzed? o When and where would monitoring take place? o What methods would be used for sampling and analyses? o How would Chain of Custody requirements for sample handling be met? o What are the criteria for quality assurance and quality control? □ Consider the following factors when developing monitoring questions: o The physical or biological resource of concern, including human health. o Applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. o Type of chemical. o Type of application equipment used and method of application. o Site-related difficulties that affect both application and monitoring. o Public concerns. o Potential benefits of the application. o Availability of analytic methods, detection limits, tools, and laboratories. o Costs of monitoring and resources available to implement monitoring plan. □ Choose monitoring methods and sample locations suitable to address the monitoring questions. o Consider the need to take random batch or tank samples for future testing in the event of treatment failure or an unexpected adverse effect.

196

□ Monitor sensitive environments during and after chemical applications to detect and evaluate unanticipated events. □ Use U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified laboratories for chemical sample analysis. o Use appropriate containers, preservation, and transportation to meet Standard Methods requirements. o Implement proper Chain of Custody procedures for sample handling. □ Evaluate and interpret the results of monitoring in terms of compliance with, and adequacy of, treatment objectives and specifications.

Local / □ Monitor the application of dust abatement chemicals. Site □ Buffer stream crossings by 25 feet on each side of the stream and one foot Specific from the edge of the road. BMP

Road Management Activities Road-1. Travel Management Planning and Analysis Road-2. Road Location and Design Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance Road-5. Temporary Roads Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning Road-7. Stream Crossings Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage Road-9. Parking and Staging Areas Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing Road-11. Road Storm-Damage Surveys

Road-1. Travel Management Planning and Analysis Manual or Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55; and Handbook FSH 7709.59, Reference chapter 10. Objective Use the travel management planning and analysis processes to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during road management activities.

197

Practices □ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when conducting travel management planning and analysis. □ Use interdisciplinary coordination for travel planning and project-level transportation analysis, including engineers, hydrologists, soil scientists, and other resource specialists as needed, to balance protection of soil, water quality, and riparian resources with transportation and access needs. □ Design the transportation system to meet long-term land management plan desired conditions, goals, and objectives for access rather than to access individual sites. □ Limit roads to the minimum practicable number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, geology, and climate to achieve land management plan desired conditions, goals, and objectives for access and water quality management. o Use existing roads when practicable. o Use system roads where access is needed for long-term management of an area or where control is needed in the location, design, or construction of the road to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Use temporary roads for short-term access needs if the road can be constructed, operated, and obliterated without specific control of techniques to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources (See BMP Road-5 [Temporary Roads]). o Decommission temporary roads and return to resource production when the access is no longer needed (See BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]). o Consider placing roads in storage (Maintenance Level 1) when the time between intermittent uses exceeds 1 year and the costs of annual maintenance (both economic and potential disturbance) or potential failures due to lack of maintenance exceed the benefits of keeping the road open in the interim (See BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]). o Consider decommissioning unneeded existing roads within a planning area when planning new system roads to reduce cumulative impacts to soil, water quality, and riparian resources (See BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]). □ Plan road networks to have the minimum number of waterbody crossings as is practicable and necessary to achieve transportation system desired conditions, goals, and objectives. □ Develop or update RMOs for each system road to include design criteria, operation criteria, and maintenance criteria to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design) to establish design elements and standards. o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-4 (Road Operations and Maintenance) to establish criteria on how the road is to be operated and

198

maintained. o Revise RMOs as needed to meet changing conditions. □ Identify and evaluate road segments causing, or with the potential to cause, adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Identify and prioritize suitable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects (see BMPs Road-2 (Road Location and Design), Road-3 (Road Construction and Reconstruction), Road-4 (Road Operations and Maintenance), Road-6 (Road Storage and Decommissioning), and Road-7 (Stream Crossings) for potential mitigation measures).

Local / Site NO SITE SPECIFIC ADDITIONS Specific BMP

Road-2. Road Location and Design Manual or FSM 7720 and FSH 7709.56. Handbook Reference Objective Locate and design roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. Practices Location □ Locate roads to fit the terrain, follow natural contours, and limit the need for excavation. o Avoid locations that require extended steep grades, sharp curves, or switchbacks. □ Locate roads on stable geology with well-drained soils and rock formations that dip into the slope. o Avoid hydric soils, inner gorges, overly steep slopes, and unstable landforms to the extent practicable. □ Locate roads as far from waterbodies as is practicable to achieve access objectives, with a minimum number of crossings and connections between the road and the waterbody. o Avoid sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, bogs, and fens, to the extent practicable. o Provide an AMZ of suitable width between the road and a waterbody to maintain desired conditions, goals, and objectives for structure, function, and processes of the AMZ and associated waterbody when a road must parallel a waterbody (See BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]). □ Relocate existing routes or segments that are causing, or have the potential to cause, adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources, to the extent practicable.

199

o Obliterate the existing road or segment after the relocated section is completed (see BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]).

Predesign □ Consider design criteria relative to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the decision document and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis document. □ Consider the road RMOs and likely future maintenance schedule in the initial design. □ Conduct suitable site investigations, data collection, and evaluations commensurate with the anticipated design and sensitivity of the area to soil, water quality, and riparian resource impacts. o Consider subsurface conditions and conduct suitable investigations and stability analyses for road and ridge locations where slope instability can occur due to road construction. o Conduct a suitable soils and geotechnical evaluation to identify susceptibility to erosion and stable angles of repose.

Design □ Design the road to fit the ground and terrain with the least practicable impacts to soil, water quality, and riparian resources considering the purpose and life of the road, safety, and cost. o Use road standards that minimize impacts for grade and alignment (e.g., width, turning radius, and maximum slope). o Use low impact development treatments that reduce long-term maintenance needs wherever practicable. □ Design the road to maintain stable road prism, cut, and fill slopes. o Design cut and fill slope ratios to reduce soil loss from mass failures. o Use structural or nonstructural measures as necessary to stabilize cut and fill slopes. □ Design the road surface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that minimizes concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces o Use structural or nonstructural measures suitable to the road materials, road gradient, and expected traffic levels. o Use an interval between drainage features that is suitable for the road gradient, surface material, and climate. o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize erosion of ditches. □ Design the road subsurface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove groundwater that may flow into the base course and subgrade, lower high- water tables, and drain water pockets. o Use suitable subsurface dispersion or collection measures to capture and disperse locally shallow groundwater flows intercepted by road cuts. o Use suitable measures to release groundwater into suitable areas

200

without causing erosion or siltation. □ Design the road for minimal disruption of natural drainage patterns and to minimize the hydrologic connection of the road segment or network with nearby waterbodies. o Use suitable structural or nonstructural measures to avoid or minimize gully formation and erosion of fill slopes at outfalls of road surface drainage structures. o Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges from road drainage structures to nearby waterbodies. o Provide sufficient buffer distance at the outfalls of road surface drainage structures for water to infiltrate before reaching the waterbody. o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to limit the number and length of water crossing connected areas to the extent practicable. □ Design road surface treatment to support wheel loads, stabilize the roadbed, reduce dust, and control erosion consistent with anticipated traffic and use. o Consider whether road closures or roadway surface drainage and erosion protection can adequately mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. □ Design roads within the AMZ (when no practicable alternative exists outside of the AMZ to achieve access objectives) to maintain desired conditions, goals, and objectives for AMZ structure, function, and processes (See BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]). o Use suitable measures to minimize or mitigate effects to waterbodies and other sensitive areas when adverse impacts cannot be practicably avoided. □ Design waterbody crossings to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources to the extent practicable consistent with road use, legal requirements, and cost considerations (See BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]). □ Design a post-construction site vegetation plan, including short- and long-term objectives, using suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Local / Site NO SITE SPECIFIC ADDITIONS Specific BMP

Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction Manual or FSM 7720, FSH 7709.56, and FSH 7709.57 Handbook

201

Reference Objective Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from erosion, sediment, and other pollutant delivery during road construction or reconstruction. Practices □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when constructing or reconstructing system roads. □ Use suitable construction techniques to create stable fills. o Use full bench construction techniques or retaining walls where stable fill construction is not possible. o Avoid incorporating woody debris in the fill portion of the road prism. o Leave existing rooted trees or shrubs at the toe of the fill slope to stabilize the fill. o Avoid use of road fills for water impoundment dams unless specifically designed for that purpose. □ Identify and locate waste areas before the start of operations. o Deposit and stabilize excess and unsuitable materials only in designated sites. o Do not place such materials on slopes with a risk of excessive erosion, sediment delivery to waterbodies, mass failure, or within the AMZ. o Provide adequate surface drainage and erosion protection at disposal sites. □ Do not permit sidecasting within the AMZ. o Avoid or minimize excavated materials from entering waterbodies or AMZs. □ Develop and follow blasting plans when necessary. o Use restrictive blasting techniques in sensitive areas and in sites that have high landslide potential. o Avoid blasting when soils are saturated. □ Remove slash and cull logs to designated sites outside the AMZ for storage or disposal. o Consider using cull logs in aquatic ecosystem projects to achieve aquatic resource management objectives as opportunities arise. □ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species. □ Construct pioneer roads using suitable measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Confine construction of pioneer roads to the planned roadway limits unless otherwise specified. o Locate and construct pioneering roads to avoid or minimize undercutting of the designated final cut slope. o Avoid deposition of materials outside the designated roadway limits. o Use suitable crossing structures, or temporarily dewater live streams, where pioneer roads intersect streams.

202

o Use suitable erosion and stormwater control measures as needed (see BMP Fac-2 [Facility Construction and Stormwater Control]). □ Reconstruct existing roads to the degree necessary to provide adequate drainage and safety. Avoid disturbing stable road surfaces. Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges from road drainage structures to nearby waterbodies.

Local / □ During construction and reconstruction activities, unsuitable or excess Site excavated soil material shall be placed in Forest Service approved waste Specific sites. Spread and shape material to drain. Finish slopes on waste no BMP steeper than 1V:1.5H. Furnish and spread straw/hay or wood chips uniformly on finished slopes. Straw must be certified noxious weed free. □ Relief culvert locations would be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest Service before installation to ensure that water is routed only onto stable soil/vegetation.

Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance Manual or FSM 7732 and FSH 7709.59, chapter 60. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling road use and operations and providing adequate and appropriate maintenance to minimize sediment production and other pollutants during the useful life of the road. Practices Operations □ Designate season of use to avoid or restrict road use during periods when use would likely damage the roadway surface or road drainage features. □ Designate class of vehicle and type of uses suitable for the road width, location, waterbody crossings, and road surfaces to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, or riparian resources to the extent practicable. □ Use suitable measures to communicate and enforce road use restrictions. □ Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, or riparian resources when proposed operations involve use of roads by traffic and during periods for which the road was not designed. o Strengthen the road surface in areas where surfaces are vulnerable to movement such as corners and steep sections. o Upgrade drainage structures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges into nearby waterbodies. o Restrict use to low-ground-pressure vehicles or frozen ground conditions. o Strengthen the road base if roads are tending to rut. o Adjust maintenance to handle the traffic while minimizing excessive erosion and damage to the road surface.

203

□ Ensure that drainage features are fully functional on completion of seasonal operations. o Shape road surfaces to drain as designed. o Construct or reconstruct drainage control structures as needed. o Ensure that ditches and culverts are clean and functioning. o Remove berms unless specifically designed for erosion control purposes. □ Consider potential for water quality effects from road damage when granting permits for oversize or overweight loads. □ Use suitable road surface stabilization practices and dust abatement supplements on roads with high or heavy traffic use (See FSH 7709.56 and FSH 7709.59). □ Use applicable practices of Chemical Use Management Activities BMPs when chemicals are used in road operations. Inspection □ Periodically inspect system travel routes to evaluate condition and assist in setting maintenance and improvement priorities. o Give inspection priority to roads at high risk of failure to reduce risk of diversions and cascading failures. □ Inspect drainage structures and road surfaces after major storm events and perform any necessary maintenance (see BMP Road-11 [Road Storm-Damage Surveys]). o Repair and temporarily stabilize road failures actively producing and transporting sediment as soon as practicable and safe to do so. □ Inspect roads frequently during all operations. o Restrict use if road damage such as unacceptable surface displacement or rutting is occurring. Maintenance Planning □ Develop and implement annual maintenance plans that prioritize road maintenance work for the forest or district. o Increase priority for road maintenance work on road sections where road damage is causing, or potentially would cause, adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Consider the risk and consequence of future failure at the site when prioritizing repair of road failures. □ Develop and implement annual road maintenance plans for projects where contractors or permittees are responsible for maintenance activities. o Define responsibilities and maintenance timing in the plan. Maintenance Activities □ Maintain the road surface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces. o Clean ditches and catch basins only as needed to keep them functioning. o Do not undercut the toe of the cut slope when cleaning ditches or catch basins.

204

o Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges from road drainage structures to nearby waterbodies. □ Identify diversion potential on roads and prioritize for treatment. o Minimize diversion potential through installation and maintenance of dips, drains, or other suitable measures. □ Maintain road surface treatments to stabilize the roadbed, reduce dust, and control erosion consistent with anticipated traffic and use. □ Grade road surfaces only as necessary to meet the smoothness requirements of the assigned operational maintenance level and to provide adequate surface drainage. o Do not undercut the toe of the cut slope when grading roads. o Do not permit sidecasting of maintenance-generated debris within the AMZ to avoid or minimize excavated materials entering waterbodies or riparian areas. o Avoid overwidening of roads due to repeated grading over time, especially where sidecast o material would encroach on waterbodies. o Use potential sidecast or other waste materials on the road surface where practicable. o Dispose of unusable waste materials in designated disposal sites. □ Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, and shoulders, and cut and fill slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, vehicle passage, or obstructs necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or excessive vegetation disturbance. □ Maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and approaches to reduce the likelihood that water would be diverted onto the road or erode the fill if the structure becomes obstructed. □ Identify waterbody-crossing structures that lack sufficient capacity to pass expected flows, bedload, or debris, or that do not allow for desired aquatic organism passage, and prioritize for treatment. o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to improve crossings. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-6 (Road Storage and Decommissioning) for maintenance and management of Maintenance Level 1 roads. □ Ensure the necessary specifications concerning prehaul maintenance, maintenance during haul, and posthaul maintenance (putting the road back in storage) are in place when maintenance level 1 roads are opened for use on commercial resource management projects or other permitted activities. o Require the commercial operator or responsible party to leave roads in a satisfactory condition when project is completed.

Local / □ Erosion control measures (e.g. silt fences, weed-free straw/straw bales, Site etc.) would be placed and maintained at sites that have potential to deliver Specific sediment to the stream network during the wet season haul on or before BMP September 30. If sediment delivery is noted, additional erosion control

205

measures would be placed and maintained. □ Road construction or reconstruction operations (including culvert replacements) would occur during minimal runoff periods prior to the end of normal operating season. □ Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively draining. Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, vehicle passage, or obstructs necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or excessive vegetation disturbance. □ Aggregate would be placed on access roads into water sources to reduce sedimentation to streams, as needed. □ Haul on native surfaced roads should not occur during the wet season. Surface rock placement may be done outside the normal operating season as weather and road conditions permit, but no surface rock can be added outside the normal operating season to extend the season of haul. □ Spot rocking of less than 75 cubic yards per mile of aggregate may be required for road maintenance with an approved gradation at locations designated by the Forest Service. Roads requiring more than 75 cubic yards of aggregate for more than a mile would fall under road reconstruction (USFS-R6 Road Maintenance Handbook 7709.59 Chapter 60) requiring work to be completed within the normal operating season. Only those roads that have been brought up to Forest Service standards during the normal operating season would be considered suitable for winter haul. Roads approved for winter haul, but later found to require more than 75 cubic yards per mile of spot rocking in order to prevent “road distress” would no longer be considered suitable until reconstructed during the “normal operating season”. □ All exposed soils would have required erosion control treatments completed the same year they are constructed even if they are not completed to final acceptance specifications. If the same area requires further disturbance to complete the road construction, it would be treated for erosion control and re-vegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection. □ Construction activities that may expose new soil (including clearing, grubbing, excavating, and fill placement) would be limited to the normal operating season (June 1 to October 31). However, construction activities may be suspended anytime during wet weather to protect water quality of affected streams. Construction sites would be treated for erosion control and re-vegetated as needed to ensure surface soil protection. □ Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all Maintenance Level 1 system roads. □ No dust abatement chemicals would be applied within one foot of the outside edge of road ditch lines. □ Cease chemical dust abatement application within 25’ of streams. □ Application of dust abatement would occur between July 1 and September

206

30. Dust abatement would not be applied when raining and would only be applied if there is a 3-day forecast of clear weather. □ Work consisting of cleaning bridge decks and curbs, and cutting vegetation growth would be done in accordance with Forest Service Specification (T- 833F – Bridge Maintenance Specification). □ Rock quarry benches, access roads and work areas should be sloped to drain and disperse surface water without ponding. Runoff should not flow directly into streams. □ Road use shall conform with the Umpqua National Forest’s road rules (“Commercial Road Use Rules And Road Use Permit Requirements”, Umpqua National Forest, May 2012)

Road-5. Temporary Roads Manual or None known. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the construction and use of temporary roads. Practices □ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design) to locate temporary roads. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when constructing temporary roads. □ Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface-disturbing activities to the extent practicable. □ Schedule construction activities to avoid direct soil and water-disturbance during periods of the year when heavy precipitation and runoff are likely to occur. □ Routinely inspect temporary roads to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are implemented, functioning, and appropriately maintained. □ Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and effective functioning. □ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species. □ Use temporary crossings suitable for the expected uses and timing of use (See BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]). □ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-6 (Road Storage and Decommissioning) to obliterate the temporary road and return the area to resource production after the access is no longer needed. Local / □ All new temporary road construction would be done using outslope Site designs, with drain dips and grade sags as needed, so that no new ditchlines Specific would be built. BMP □ No temporary roads without previous ground disturbance would be constructed on slopes exceeding 35% slope.

207

□ A soil specialist shall review all temporary roads prior to treatment to initiate and finalize the treatment prescription; the effectiveness of the temporary road restoration prescription in preventing erosion and providing suitable plant habitat shall be monitored as appropriate.

Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning Manual or FSH 7709.59, chapter 60 and FSM 7734. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by storing closed roads not needed for at least 1 year (Intermittent Stored Service) and decommissioning unneeded roads in a hydrologically stable manner to eliminate hydrologic connectivity, restore natural flow patterns, and minimize soil erosion. Practices All Activities □ Implement suitable measures to close and physically block the road entrance so that unauthorized motorized vehicles cannot access the road. o Remove the road from the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) to include the change in the annual forestwide order associated with the MVUM. □ Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to avoid or minimize accelerated erosion and soil loss. o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to stabilize and revegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. Road Storage □ Evaluate all stream and waterbody crossings for potential for failure or diversion of flow if left without treatment. o Use suitable measures to reduce the risk of flow diversion onto the road surface. o Consider leaving existing crossings in low-risk situations where the culvert is not undersized, does not present an undesired passage barrier to aquatic organisms, and is relatively stable. o Remove culverts, fill material, and other structures that present an unacceptable risk of failure or diversion. o Reshape the channel and streambanks at the crossing-site to pass expected flows without scouring or ponding, minimize potential for undercutting or slumping of streambanks, and maintain continuation of channel dimensions and longitudinal profile through the crossing site. o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize scour and downcutting. □ Use suitable measures to ensure that the road surface drainage system would

208

intercept, collect, and remove water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces without frequent maintenance. □ Use suitable measures to stabilize unstable road segments, seeps, slumps, or cut or fill slopes where evidence of potential failure exists. Road Conversion to Trail □ Reclaim unneeded road width, cut, and fill slopes when converting a road for future use as a trail. □ Use suitable measures to stabilize reclaimed sections to avoid or minimize undesired access and to restore desired ecologic structures or functions. □ Use suitable measures to ensure that surface drainage would intercept, collect, and remove water from the trail surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that minimizes concentrated flow and erosion on the trail surfaces without frequent maintenance. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to provide waterbody crossings suitable to the expected trail uses. Road Decommissioning □ Use existing roads identified for decommissioning as skid roads in timber sales or land stewardship projects before closing the road, where practicable, as the opportunity arises. □ Evaluate risks to soil, water quality, and riparian resources and use the most practicable, costeffective treatments to achieve long-term desired conditions and water quality management goals and objectives. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when obliterating system roads. □ Implement suitable measures to re-establish stable slope contours and surface and subsurface hydrologic pathways where necessary to the extent practicable to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Remove drainage structures. o Recontour and stabilize cut slopes and fill material. o Reshape the channel and streambanks at crossing sites to pass expected flows without scouring or ponding, minimize potential for undercutting or slumping of streambanks, and maintain continuation of channel dimensions and longitudinal profile through the crossing site. o Restore or replace streambed materials to a particle size distribution suitable for the site. o Restore floodplain function. □ Implement suitable measures to promote infiltration of runoff and intercepted flow and desired vegetation growth on the road prism and other compacted areas. □ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.

Local / Site □ Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads would have

209

Specific water bars installed and would be closed with road barriers to prevent BMP damage after commercial use is complete. □ Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all Maintenance Level 1 system roads. □ The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur roads under the timber sale contract. This involves subsoiling the road as appropriate, seeding as needed, and pulling displaced soil and duff back over the road surface. Slash would be pulled over the top of the road to provide additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of temporary roads (new or legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest Service, for depth of treatment and use of effective ground cover on treatment area. □ Prior to September 30th of the first year, all opened temporary roads within riparian reserves that are not further needed for project implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to complete project implementation would be winterized with all erosion control measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, at a minimum, would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons weed free straw per acre (LRMP S&G 13, pp IV-71). Temporary roads with segments in riparian reserves are proposed in Units 005, 008, 024, 104, 108, and 113. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access between October 31 and June 1, unless otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service, including the District Hydrologist.

Road-7. Stream Crossings Manual or Manual or Handbook Reference: FSM 7722 and FSH 7709.56b. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent waterbody crossings. Practices All Crossings □ Plan and locate surface water crossings to limit the number and extent to those that are necessary to provide the level of access needed to meet resource management objectives as described in the RMOs. □ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems) when working in or near waterbodies. □ Use crossing structures suitable for the site conditions and the RMOs. □ Design and locate crossings to minimize disturbance to the waterbody. □ Use suitable measures to locate, construct, and decommission or stabilize bypass roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

210

□ Use suitable surface drainage and roadway stabilization measures to disconnect the road from the waterbody to avoid or minimize water and sediment from being channeled into surface waters and to dissipate concentrated flows. □ Use suitable measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate damage to the waterbody and banks when transporting materials across the waterbody or AMZ during construction activities. Stream Crossings □ Locate stream crossings where the channel is narrow, straight, and uniform, and has stable soils and relatively flat terrain to the extent practicable. o Select a site where erosion potential is low. o Orient the stream crossing perpendicular to the channel to the extent practicable. o Keep approaches to stream crossings to as gentle a slope as practicable. o Consider natural channel adjustments and possible channel location changes over the design life of the structure. □ Design the crossing to pass a normal range of flows for the site. o Design the crossing structure to have sufficient capacity to convey the design flow without appreciably altering streamflow characteristics. o Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and maintain streambed and bank resiliency and continuity through the structure. □ Bridge, culvert, or otherwise design road fill to prevent restriction of flood flows. o Use site conditions and local requirements to determine design flood flows. o Use suitable measures to protect fill from erosion and to avoid or minimize failure of the crossing at flood flows. o Use suitable measures to provide floodplain connectivity to the extent practicable. □ Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize scour and erosion of the channel, crossing structure, and foundation to maintain the stability of the channel and banks. □ Design and construct the stream crossing to maintain the desired migration or other movement of fish and other aquatic life inhabiting the waterbody. o Consider the use of bottomless arch culverts where appropriate to allow for natural channel migration and desired aquatic organism passage. o Install or maintain fish migration barriers only where needed to protect endangered, threatened, sensitive, or unique native aquatic populations, and only where natural barriers do not exist. o Use stream simulation techniques where practicable to aid in crossing design. □ Bridges o Use an adequately long bridge span to avoid constricting the natural

211

active flow channel and minimize constriction of any overflow channel. o Place foundations onto nonscour-susceptible material (e.g., bedrock or coarse rock material) or below the expected maximum depth of scour. o Set bridge abutments or footings into firm natural ground (e.g., not fill material or loose soil) when placed on natural slopes. o Use suitable measures as needed in steep, deep drainages to retain approach fills or use a relatively long bridge span. o Avoid placing abutments in the active stream channel to the extent practicable. o Place in-channel abutments in a direction parallel to the streamflow where necessary. o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, damage to the bridge and associated road from expected flood flows, floating debris, and bedload. o Inspect the bridge at regular intervals and perform maintenance as needed to maintain the function of the structure. □ Culverts o Align the culvert with the natural stream channel. o Cover culvert with sufficient fill to avoid or minimize damage by traffic. o Construct at or near natural elevation of the streambed to avoid or minimize potential flooding upstream of the crossing and erosion below the outlet. o Install culverts long enough to extend beyond the toe of the fill slopes to minimize erosion. o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize water from seeping around the culvert. o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize culvert plugging from transported bedload o and debris. o Regularly inspect culverts and clean as necessary. □ Low-Water Crossings o Consider low-water crossings on roads with low traffic volume and slow speeds, and where water depth is safe for vehicle travel. o Consider low-water crossings to cross ephemeral streams, streams with relatively low baseflow and shallow water depth or streams with highly variable flows or in areas prone to landslides or debris flows. o Locate low-water crossings where streambanks are low with gentle slopes and channels are not deeply incised. o Select and design low-water crossing structures to maintain the function and bedload movement of the natural stream channel. o Locate unimproved fords in stable reaches with a firm rock or gravel base that has sufficient load-bearing strength for the expected vehicle traffic. o Construct the low-water crossing to conform to the site, channel shape,

212

and original streambed elevation and to minimize flow restriction, site disturbance, and channel blockage to the extent practicable. o Use suitable measures to stabilize or harden the streambed and approaches, including the entire bankfull width and sufficient freeboard, where necessary to support the design vehicle traffic. o Use vented fords with high vent area ratio to maintain stream function and aquatic organism passage. o Construct the roadway-driving surface with material suitable to resist expected shear stress or lateral forces of water flow at the site. o Consider using temporary crossings on roads that provide short-term or intermittent access to avoid, minimize, or mitigate erosion, damage to streambed or channel, and flooding. o Design and install temporary crossings suitable for the expected users, loads, and timing of use. o Design and install temporary crossing structures to pass a design storm determined based on local site conditions and requirements. o Install and remove temporary crossing structures in a timely manner as needed to provide access during use periods and minimize risk of washout. o Use suitable measures to stabilize temporary crossings that must remain in place during high runoff seasons. o Monitor temporary crossings regularly while installed to evaluate condition. o Remove temporary crossings and restore the waterbody profile and substrate when the need for the crossing no longer exists. Standing Water and Wetland Crossings □ Disturb the least amount of area as practicable when crossing a standing waterbody. □ Provide for sufficient cross drainage to minimize changes to, and avoid restricting, natural surface and subsurface water flow of the wetland under the road to the extent practicable. o Locate and design roads or road drainage to avoid dewatering or polluting wetlands. o Avoid or minimize actions that would alter the natural drainage for flow patterns on lands immediately adjacent to wetlands. □ Use suitable measures to increase soil-bearing capacity and reduce rutting from expected vehicle traffic. □ Construct fill roads only when necessary. o Construct fill roads parallel to water flow and to be as low to natural ground level as practicable. o Construct roads with sufficient surface drainage for surface water flows.

Local / Site □ Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, Specific would be completed during low flow conditions when the potential for delivery BMP of construction-related sediment can be minimized. During construction,

213

stream water would be diverted around the work site and back into the channel. □ Stream crossing culvert locations would be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest Service before installation.

Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage Manual or FS-7700-41 and FSH 7709.59, chapter 24.11. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid or minimize erosion, sedimentation, and chemical pollution that may result from snow removal and storage activities. Practices □ Develop a snow removal plan for roads plowed for recreation, administrative, or other access to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. □ Use existing standard contract language (C5.316# or similar) for snow removal during winter logging operations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. □ Limit use of approved deicing and traction control materials to areas where safety is critical (e.g., intersections, steep segments, and corners). o Use site-specific characteristics such as road width and design, traffic concentration, and proximity to surface waters to determine suitable amount of de-icing material to apply. o Use effective plowing techniques to optimize chemical de-icer use. o Consider use of alternative materials to chemical de-icers, such as sand or gravel, in sensitive areas. o Use properly calibrated controllers to ensure material application rates are accurately regulated. o Limit spray distribution of chemical de-icers when near surface waters. o Design paved roads and parking lots to facilitate sand removal (e.g., curbs or paved ditches). □ Use suitable measures when storing de-icing materials to avoid or minimize mobility of the materials. o Store de-icing materials on a flat, upland, impervious area of adequate size to accommodate material stockpiles and equipment movement. o Stockpile de-icing materials under cover and provide runoff collection, containment, and treatment, as necessary, to avoid or minimize offsite movement. □ Move snow in a manner that would avoid or minimize disturbance of or damage to road surfaces and drainage structures. o Mark drainage structures to avoid damage during plowing. o Conduct frequent inspections to ensure road drainage is not adversely affecting soil or water resources. □ Control areas where snow removal equipment can operate to avoid or

214

minimize damage to riparian areas, floodplains, and stream channels. □ Install snow berms where such placement would preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and would serve to dissipate melt water. o Provide frequent drainage through snow berms to avoid concentration of snowmelt runoff on fillslopes and other erosive areas, to dissipate melt water, and to avoid or minimize sediment delivery to waterbodies. □ Store snow in clearly delineated pre-approved areas where snowmelt runoff would not cause erosion or deliver snow, road de-icers, or traction-enhancing materials directly into surface waters. o Store or dispose of snow adjacent to or on pervious surfaces in upland areas away from waterbodies to the extent practicable. o Do not store or dispose of snow in riparian areas, wetlands, or streams unless no other practicable alternative exists. □ Manage discharge of meltwater to avoid or minimize runoff of pollutants into surface waterbodies or groundwater. o Use suitable measures to filter and treat meltwater before reaching surface water or groundwater. o Use suitable measures to disperse meltwater to avoid creating concentrated overland flow. o Collect and properly dispose of onsite litter, debris, and sediment from meltwater settling areas. □ Discontinue road use and snow removal when use would likely damage the roadway surface or road drainage features. o Modify snow removal procedures as necessary to meet water quality concerns. □ Replace lost road surface materials with similar quality material and repair structures damaged in snow removal operations as soon as practicable.

Local / Site □ Snow plowing without a permit is prohibited. Specific BMP

Road-9. Parking and Staging Areas Manual or FSM 7710, FSM 7720, and FSM 7730. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when constructing and maintaining parking and staging areas. Practices □ Design and locate parking and staging areas of appropriate size and configuration to accommodate expected vehicles and avoid or minimize adverse effects to adjacent soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Consider the number and type of vehicles to determine parking or

215

staging area size. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when designing, constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining parking or staging areas. □ Use suitable measures to harden and avoid or minimize damage to parking area surfaces that experience heavy use or are used during wet periods. □ Use and maintain suitable measures to collect and contain oil and grease in larger parking lots with high use and where drainage discharges directly to streams. □ Connect drainage system to existing stormwater conveyance systems where available and practicable. □ Conduct maintenance activities commensurate with parking or staging area surfacing and drainage requirements as well as precipitation timing, intensity, and duration. □ Limit the size and extent of temporary parking or staging areas o Take advantage of existing openings, sites away from waterbodies, and areas that are apt to be more easily restored to the extent practicable. o Use temporary stormwater and erosion control measures as needed. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-10 (Facility Site Reclamation) to rehabilitate temporary parking or staging areas as soon as practicable following use.

Local / Site Specific □ Parking or staging would not occur in areas designated as off limits by the BMP Forest Service on the sale area map.

Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing Manual or FSM 2160 and FSH 7109.19, chapter 40. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources during equipment refueling and servicing activities.

216

Practices □ Plan for suitable equipment refueling and servicing sites during project design. o Allow temporary refueling and servicing only at approved locations, located well away from the AMZ, groundwater recharge areas, and waterbodies. □ Develop or use existing fuel and chemical management plans (e.g., Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures [SPCC], spill response plan, and emergency response plan) when developing the management prescription for refueling and servicing sites. □ Locate, design, construct, and maintain petroleum and chemical delivery and storage facilities consistent with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. □ Use suitable measures around vehicle service, storage and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills and avoid or minimize soil contamination and seepage to groundwater. □ Provide training for all agency personnel handling fuels and chemicals in their proper use, handling, storage, and disposal. o Ensure that contractors and permit holders provide documentation of proper training in handling hazardous materials. □ Use suitable measures to avoid spilling fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other chemicals during handling and transporting. □ Prohibit excess chemicals or wastes from being stored or accumulated in the project area. □ Remove service residues, used oil, and other hazardous or undesirable materials from NFS land and properly dispose them as needed during and after completion of the project. □ Clean up and dispose of spilled materials according to specified requirements in the appropriate guiding document. □ Report spills and initiate suitable cleanup action in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations. o Remove contaminated soil and other material from NFS lands and dispose of this material in a manner consistent with controlling regulations. □ Prepare and implement a certified SPCC Plan for each facility, including mobile and portable facilities, as required by Federal regulations. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-10 (Facility Site Reclamation) to reclaim equipment refueling and services site when the need for them ends.

Local / Site □ Roadwork contractors would have spill prevention and recovery equipment on Specific site during all road construction operations as agreed to by the Forest Service. BMP □ Fuel should not be stored or equipment refueled within 150 feet of any stream channel or surface water feature.

217

Facilities and Nonrecreation Special Uses Management Fac-2. Facility Construction and Stormwater Control

Fac-2. Facility Construction and Stormwater Control Manual or None known. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling erosion and managing stormwater discharge originating from ground disturbance during construction of developed sites Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) 402 stormwater discharge permit coverage from the appropriate State agency or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when more than 1 acre of land would be disturbed through construction activities. □ Obtain CWA 404 permit coverage from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when dredge or fill material would be discharged to waters of the United States. □ Establish designated areas for equipment staging, stockpiling materials, and parking to minimize the area of ground disturbance (see BMP Road-9 [Parking Sites and Staging Areas] and BMP Road-10 [Equipment Refueling and Servicing]). □ Establish and maintain construction area limits to the minimum area necessary for completing the project and confine disturbance to within this area. □ Develop and implement an erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed areas, including borrow, stockpile, fueling, and staging areas used during construction activities. □ Calculate the expected runoff generated using a suitable design storm to determine necessary stormwater drainage capacity. o Use site conditions and local requirements to determine design storm. o Include run-on from any contributing areas. □ Refer to State or local construction and stormwater BMP manuals, guidebooks, and trade publications for effective techniques to: o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion during construction or before the next growing season. o Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practicable. o Control, collect, detain, treat, and disperse stormwater runoff from the site. o Divert surface runoff around bare areas with appropriate energy

218

dissipation and sediment filters. o Stabilize steep excavated slopes. □ Develop and implement a postconstruction site vegetation plan using suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements per Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. □ Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface- disturbing activities to the extent practicable. □ Do not use snow or frozen soil material in facility construction. □ Schedule, to the extent practicable, construction activities to avoid direct soil and water disturbance during periods of the year when heavy precipitation and runoff are likely to occur. o Limit the amount of exposed or disturbed soil at any one time to the minimum necessary to complete construction operations. o Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions could result in excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies. □ Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed areas and waterways before seasonal shutdown of project operations or when severe or successive storms are expected. □ Use low-impact development practices where practicable. □ Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and effective functioning. o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures. o Implement corrective actions without delay when failures are discovered to prevent pollutant discharge to nearby waterbodies. □ Routinely inspect construction sites to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are implemented and functioning as designed and are appropriately maintained. □ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.

Local / Site No Site Specific BMP’s Specific BMP

Wildland Fire Management Activities Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire

Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning Manual or FSM 5120; FSM 5150; FSH 5109.19 Ch. 50

219

Handbook Reference Objective Use the fire management planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during wildland fire management activities. Practices □ Consider the beneficial and adverse effects of wildland fire on water quality and watershed condition when developing desired conditions and goals for the plan area. o Identify areas where the adverse effects of unplanned wildland fire to water quality and watershed condition outweigh the benefits. □ Include plan objectives and strategies that allow the use of wildland fire where suitable to restore watershed conditions. □ Include design criteria, standards, and guidelines for fire management activities to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. □ Consider the need to establish a network of permanent water sources in the plan area for fire control and suppression. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when planning prescribed fire treatments. □ Consider prescription elements and ecosystem objectives at the appropriate watershed scale to determine the optimum and maximum burn unit size, total burn area, burn intensity, disturbance thresholds for local downstream water resources, area or length of water resources to be affected, and contingency strategies. o Consider the extent, severity, and recovery of fire disturbance a watershed has experienced in the past to evaluate cumulative effects and re-entry intervals. □ Identify environmental conditions favorable for achieving desired condition or treatment objectives of the site while minimizing detrimental mechanical and heat disturbance to soil and water considering the following factors. o Existing and desired conditions for vegetation and fuel type, composition, structure, distribution, and density. o Short- and long-term site objectives. o Acceptable fire weather parameters. o Desirable soil, duff, and fuel moisture levels. o Existing duff and humus depths. o Site factors such as slope and soil conditions. o Expected fire behavior and burn severity based on past burn experience in vegetation types in the project area. o Extent and condition of roads, fuel breaks, and other resource activities and values. □ Develop burn objectives that avoid or minimize creating water-repellent soil conditions to the extent practicable considering fuel load, fuel and soil moisture levels, fire residence times, and burn intensity. o Use low-intensity prescribed fire on steep slopes or highly erodible

220

soils when prescribed fire is the only practicable means to achieve project objectives in these areas. □ Set target levels for desired ground cover remaining after burning based on slope, soil type, and risk of soil and hillslope movement. □ Plan burn areas to use natural or in-place barriers that reduce or limit fire spread, such as roads, canals, utility rights-of-way, barren or low fuel hazard areas, streams, lakes, or wetland features, where practicable, to minimize the need for fireline construction. o Identify the type, width, and location of firebreaks or firelines in the prescribed fire plan. □ Use fire initiation techniques, control methods, and access locations for ignition and control (holding versus escape conditions) that minimize potential effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. □ Use prescribed fire in the AMZ only when suitable to achieve long-term AMZ-desired conditions and management objectives (see BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

Local / Site □ Piles would be placed at least 50 feet away from live streams. Specific BMP

Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire Manual or FSM 5140 Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of prescribed fire and associated activities on soil, water quality, and riparian resources that may result from excessive soil disturbance as well as inputs of ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris. Practices □ Conduct the prescribed fire in such a manner as to achieve the burn objectives outlined in the Prescribed Fire Plan (see BMP Fire-1 [Wildland Fire Management Planning]). □ Locate access and staging areas near the project site but outside of AMZs, wetlands, and sensitive soil areas. □ Keep staging areas as small as possible while allowing for safe and efficient operations. □ Store fuel for ignition devices in areas away from surface water bodies and wetlands. □ Install suitable measures to minimize and control concentrated water flow and sediment from staging areas. □ Collect and properly dispose of trash and other solid waste. □ Restore and stabilize staging areas after use (see BMP Veg-6

221

[Landings]). □ Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the burn objectives. o Manage fire intensity to maintain target levels of soil temperature and duff and residual vegetative cover within the limits and at locations described in the prescribed fire plan. □ Construct fireline to the minimum size and standard necessary to contain the prescribed fire and meet overall project objectives. o Locate and construct fireline in a manner that minimizes erosion and runoff from directly entering waterbodies by considering site slope and soil conditions, and using and maintaining suitable water and erosion control measures. o Consider alternatives to ground-disturbing fireline construction such as using wet lines, rock outcrops, or other suitable features for firelines. o Establish permanent fireline with suitable water and erosion control measures in areas where prescribed fire treatments are used on a recurring basis. o Maintain firebreaks in a manner that minimizes exposed soil to the extent practicable. o Rehabilitate or otherwise stabilize fireline in areas that pose a risk to water quality. □ Alter prescribed fire prescriptions and control actions in the AMZs as needed to maintain ecosystem structure, function, and processes and onsite and downstream water quality. o Pretreat AMZs and drainage ways to reduce excessive fuel loadings. o Avoid building firelines in or around riparian areas, wetlands, marshes, bogs, fens, or other sensitive water-dependent sites unless needed to protect life, property, or wetlands. o Construct any essential fireline in the AMZ in a manner that minimizes the amount of area and soil disturbed. o Keep high-intensity fire out of the AMZ unless suitable measures are used to avoid or minimize adverse effects to water quality. o Avoid or minimize complete removal of the organic layer when burning in riparian areas or wetlands to maintain soil productivity, infiltration capacity, and nutrient retention. o Rehabilitate fireline in the AMZ after prescribed fire treatment is completed. o Remove debris added to stream channels as a result of the prescribed burning unless debris is prescribed to improve fisheries habitat. □ Conduct prescribed fire treatments, including pile burning, for slash disposal in a manner that encourages efficient burning to minimize soil impacts while achieving treatment objectives. o Pile and burn only the slash that is necessary to be disposed of to achieve treatment objectives. o Locate slash piles in areas where the potential for soil effects is lessened (meadows, rock outcrops, etc.) and that do not interfere with

222

natural drainage patterns. o Remove wood products such as firewood or fence posts before piling and burning to reduce the amount of slash to be burned. o Minimize the amount of dirt or other noncombustible material in slash piles to promote efficient burning. o Construct piles in such a manner as to promote efficient burning. o Avoid burning large stumps and sections of logs in slash piles to reduce the amount of time that the pile burns. o Avoid burning when conditions would cause the fire to burn too hot and damage soil conditions. o Avoid piling and burning for slash removal in AMZs to the extent practicable. o Minimize effects on soil, water quality, and riparian resources by appropriately planning pile size, fuel piece size limits, spacing, and burn prescriptions in compliance with State or local laws and regulations if no practical alternatives for slash disposal in the AMZ are available. □ Evaluate the completed burn to identify sites that may need stabilization treatments or monitoring to minimize soil and site productivity loss and deterioration of water quality both on and off the site. o Provide for rapid revegetation of all denuded areas through natural processes supplemented by artificial revegetation where necessary. o Use suitable measures to promote water retention and infiltration or to augment soil cover where necessary. o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to stabilize the site in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. o Clear streams and ditches of debris introduced by fire control equipment during the prescribed fire operation. o Consider long-term management of the site and nearby areas to promote project success. o Use suitable measures to limit human, vehicle, and livestock access to site as needed to allow for recovery of vegetation.

Local / Site Specific No Site Specific BMP’s BMP

Minerals Management Activities Min-1. Minerals Planning Min-5. Mineral Materials Resource Sites

223

Min-5. Mineral Materials Resource Sites Manual or FSM 2850. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when developing and using upland mineral materials resource sites or instream sand and gravel deposits. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. All Activities □ Allow upland and instream sand and gravel mining where consistent with land management plan desired conditions, goals, and objectives for soils, aquatic and riparian habitats, and water quality. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Min-3 (Minerals Production) and BMP Fac- 2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for sanitation, solid waste, and transport and storage of petroleum products or other hazardous materials and to control erosion, manage stormwater, keep the site dry, and protect the waterbody when clearing the extraction and processing areas. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Min-6 (Ore Stockpiles, Mine Waste Storage and Disposal, Reserve Pits, and Settling Ponds) and BMP Min-7 (Produced Water) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when processing materials. Upland Gravel Pits □ Plan operations at the site in advance to minimize disturbance area and more effectively and efficiently open and operate the site. o Limit the area of the facility to the minimum necessary for efficient operations while providing sufficient area for materials processing and stockpiling. o Phase development where practicable. o Use suitable measures to avoid, mitigate, or treat metal leaching and formation of acid rock drainage. □ Conduct extraction activities in such a manner as to minimize the potential for slope failures, limit slope steepness and length, limit disturbed areas to those actively used for extraction, retain existing vegetation as long as possible, and allow for progressive reclamation of the site where practicable. Instream Sand and Gravel Mining □ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems), BMP AqEco-3 (Ponds and Wetlands), and BMP AqEco-4 (Stream Channels and Shorelines) when working in or near waterbodies to prevent or minimize adverse impacts to water quality. □ Consider channel type and effects of the proposed operation on channel morphology and function when approving instream sand and gravel mining operations. □ Limit access disturbance to designated areas on one streambank to reduce the

224

effort required for site reclamation. o Use suitable measures to protect the streambank at access points to minimize bank erosion. □ Locate the material processing and stockpile site at a suitable distance from the active channel to leave a buffer zone along the waterbody to reduce risk of flooding. o Consider historic channel migration patterns and site elevation when locating mineral processing and stockpile sites. o Avoid or minimize disturbance to valuable riparian areas; wetlands; and aquatic-dependent threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat. □ Include suitable measures to protect channel morphology and function when extracting sand and gravel deposits. o Specify the maximum depth of mining. o Limit extraction depth to minimize slope changes along the stream, avoid or minimize channel and bank erosion, and retain existing natural channel armoring. o Limit extraction amount to minimize upstream and downstream effects due to changes in bedload transport. o Avoid modifying point bars to the extent where the resultant channel changes cause unacceptable reduced sinuosity or increased stream gradient, velocity, stream power, and bank instability. o Schedule in-channel mining to occur during low-flow periods. o Avoid or minimize changes to channel shape and reduce effects of mining on aquatic habitats by establishing a low-flow buffer. o Avoid or minimize streambank erosion and instability during and after mining. o Avoid or minimize headward erosion of the channel at the upstream end of the instream pit. □ Design and construct diversion channels to handle anticipated flow volumes and to minimize upstream and downstream effects of changes in stream grade, width, depth, bed characteristics, bank instability, and groundwater inflows when temporarily or permanently dewatering stream channels to extract sand and gravel. o Ensure barrier is able to adequately protect the dewatered mining area from flood flows. □ Conduct excavation operations in such a manner as to avoid measurable increases in downstream turbidity.

Local / Site As pertains to the upland Bloody Point Rock Pit. Specific BMP

225

Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities □ Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning □ Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control □ Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones □ Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations □ Veg-5 Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations □ Veg-6 Landings □ Veg-7 Winter Logging □ Veg-8 Mechanical Site Treatment

Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning Manual or FSM 1921.12 Handbook Reference Objective Use the applicable vegetation management planning processes to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during mechanical vegetation treatment activities. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) Planning) when planning vegetation management projects. o Evaluate opportunities to use proposed mechanical vegetation treatment projects to achieve AMZ desired conditions, goals, and objectives in the project area. □ Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions that avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Validate land management plan timber suitability decisions for the project area. o Design mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions to limit site disturbance, soil exposure, and displacement to acceptable levels as

226

determined from the land management plan desired conditions, standards, and guidelines or other local direction or requirements. o Evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of vegetation alteration on streamflow regimes and consequent channel responses at suitable watershed scales. o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting potential, and other soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for ground-based, cable, and aerial yarding systems (see BMP Veg-4 [Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations] and BMP Veg-5 [Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations]). o Use the most economically practicable yarding system that would minimize road densities. o Consider site preparation and fuel treatment needs and options. o Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-8 (Mechanical Site Treatment) to determine areas suitable for mechanical treatments for site preparation, fuels treatment, habitat improvements, or other vegetation management purposes. o Evaluate the capabilities of the machinery likely to operate in the landscape under consideration. o Use preplanning to schedule entry or timing of mechanical and other vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire or chemical treatments) when needed for large projects. □ Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design a transportation plan associated with the mechanical vegetation treatments to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Use the logging system that best fits the topography, soil types, and season, while minimizing soil disturbance and road densities and that economically achieves silvicultural objectives. o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design), BMP Veg-4 (Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations), BMP Veg-5 (Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations), and BMP Veg-6 (Landings) to determine proposed location and size of roads, landings, skid trails, and cable corridors. o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-1 (Travel Management Planning and Analysis) and BMP Road-5 (Temporary Roads) to determine the need for specified roads and temporary roads. o Evaluate the condition of system roads, including roads in storage, and unauthorized roads in the project area to determine their suitability for use in the project and any reconstruction or prehaul maintenance needs. o Evaluate the Road Management Objective of system roads to determine where log hauling should be prohibited or restricted. □ Identify sources of rock for roadwork, riprapping, and borrow materials (see BMP Min-6 [Mineral Materials Resource Sites]). □ Identify water sources available for purchasers’ use (see BMP WatUses-3

227

[Administrative Water Developments]). □ Ensure the timber sale contract, stewardship contract, or other implementing document includes BMPs from the decision document to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Use appropriate standard B and C provisions and regional or local provisions to address measures and responsibilities consistent with the BMPs in the decision document in the timber sale or stewardship contract. o Delineate all protected or excluded areas, including AMZs and waterbodies, on the sale area map or project map. o Delineate approved water locations, staging areas, and borrow areas on the sale area map or project map. o Ensure that the final unit location, layout, acreage, and logging system or mechanical treatment and Knutson-Vandenberg Act plans are consistent with the decision document. □ Use contract modification procedures to the extent practicable to modify unit design, treatment methods, or other project activities where necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources based on new information or changed conditions discovered during project implementation.

Local / Site □ The silviculturist would review marking guides with the purchaser prior to Specific marking timber sale units. The silviculturist would monitor marking quality BMP on a sample of each type of prescription, both during and after the unit is completely marked, as funding and staffing allows. If the number of leave trees per acre varies from the target retention by plus or minus 10 percent, remarking or amending the silvicultural prescription would be necessary. □ Limit logging operations during the bark slippage season from April 15 to July 1. Where purchasers can demonstrate adequate mitigation, this limitation can be waived by the Contracting Officer. □ Mortality of merchantable leave trees resulting from activity fuel burning operations should not exceed 5% in pile-and-burn areas and 10% in underburn areas except in areas identified for reforestation (1/2-acre and 1-acre gaps) where the intent is to create snags with prescribed fire.

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Manual or Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.15. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by implementing measures to control surface erosion, gully formation,

228

mass slope failure, and resulting sediment movement before, during, and after mechanical vegetation treatments. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Establish designated areas for equipment staging and parking to minimize the area of ground disturbance (see BMP Road-9 [Parking Sites and Staging Areas]). □ Use provisions in the timber sale contract or land stewardship contract to implement and enforce erosion control on the project area. o Work with the contractor to locate landings, skid trails, and slash piles in suitable sites to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential for erosion and sediment delivery to nearby waterbodies. □ Develop an erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed areas including skid trails and roads, landings, cable corridors, temporary road fills, water source sites, borrow sites, or other areas disturbed during mechanical vegetation treatments. □ Refer to State or local forestry or silviculture BMP manuals, guidebooks, and trade publications for effective structural and nonstructural measures to— □ Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the next growing season. o Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practicable. o Control, collect, detain, treat, and disperse stormwater runoff from disturbed areas. o Divert surface runoff around bare areas with appropriate energy dissipation and sediment filters. o Stabilize steep excavated slopes. □ Use suitable species and establishment techniques to cover or revegetate disturbed areas in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. □ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species. □ Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface- disturbing activities to the extent practicable.

□ Operate equipment when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and sediment runoff would be minimized. o Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet, or easily compacted soils and on steep slopes. o No ground based harvest will occur outside of the normal operating season.

229

o Evaluate site conditions frequently to assess changing conditions. o Adjust equipment operations as necessary to protect the site while maintaining efficient project operations. □ Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed areas and waterways on incomplete projects before seasonal shutdown of operations or when severe storm or cumulative precipitation events that could result in off-site sediment mobilization. □ Routinely inspect disturbed areas to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are implemented and functioning as designed and are suitably maintained. □ Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and effective functioning. o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures. □ Implement mechanical treatments that effectively disperse surface water before it has the energy to move sediment.

Local / Site Specific □ Maintain 70% or greater effective ground cover for site productivity and BMP erosion control Standards and Guidelines.

Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones Manual or Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2526, 2527 Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when conducting mechanical vegetation treatment activities in the AMZ. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-3 (AMZ Planning) to determine the need for and width of the AMZ considering the proposed mechanical vegetation treatments. o Modify AMZ width as needed to provide assurance of leave-tree wind firmness where high windthrow risk is identified. □ Clearly delineate AMZ locations and boundaries in the project area using suitable markings and structures. o Maintain or reestablish these boundaries as necessary during project implementation or operation. o Specify AMZ layout, maintenance, and operating requirements in contracts, design plans, and other necessary project documentation.

230

□ Use mechanical vegetation treatments in the AMZ only when suitable to achieve long-term AMZ-desired conditions and management objectives (see BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]). □ Modify mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions and operations in the AMZs as needed to maintain ecosystem structure, function, and processes. □ Design silvicultural or other vegetation management prescriptions to maintain or improve the riparian ecosystem and adjacent waterbody. □ Use yarding systems or mechanical treatments that avoid or minimize disturbance to the ground and vegetation consistent with project objectives. o Conduct equipment operations in a manner that maintains or provides sufficient ground cover to meet land management plan desired conditions, goals, and objectives to minimize erosion and trap sediment. o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize soil disturbance from equipment operations to stay within acceptable disturbance levels when conducting mechanical vegetation treatment operations. o Prescribe mechanical site preparation techniques and fuels and residual vegetation treatments that avoid or minimize excessive erosion, sediment delivery to nearby waterbodies, or damage to desired riparian vegetation. o Conduct operations in a manner that avoids or minimizes introduction of excess slash or other vegetative debris into the AMZ and waterbodies; damage to streambanks, shorelines, and edges of wetlands; and adverse effects to floodplain functioning. o Retain trees as necessary for canopy cover and shading, bank stabilization, and as a source of large woody debris within the AMZ. o Avoid felling trees into streams or waterbodies, except as planned to create habitat features. □ Locate transportation facilities for mechanical vegetation treatments, including roads, landings,and main skid trails, outside of the AMZ to the extent practicable. o Minimize the number of stream crossings to the extent practicable. o Evaluate options for routes that must cross waterbodies and choose the one (e.g., specified road vs. temporary road vs. skid road or trail) that avoids or minimizes adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Do not use drainage bottoms as turn-around areas for equipment during mechanical vegetation treatments. □ Use suitable measures to disperse concentrated flows of water from road surface drainage features to avoid or minimize surface erosion, gully formation, and mass failure in the AMZ and offsite movement of sediment. □ Monitor the AMZ during mechanical operations to evaluate compliance with prescription and mitigation requirements in the authorizing document. o Adjust operations in the AMZ to avoid, minimize, or mitigate detrimental soil impacts where they are occurring. o Use suitable mitigation or restoration measures on areas in the AMZ that show signs of unacceptable erosion or those with high potential for

231

erosion due to mechanical operations in the AMZ. o Remove unauthorized debris from waterbodies using techniques that would limit disturbance to bed and banks, riparian areas, aquatic- dependent species, and the waterbody unless considerable damage would occur during its removal or leaving it in meets desired conditions for the waterbody.

Local / Site Specific □ Refer to AqEco-2 BMP

Veg-4. Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations Manual or FSH 2409.15 Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during ground-based skidding and yarding operations by minimizing site disturbance and controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Use ground-based yarding systems only where physical site characteristics are suitable to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting potential, and other soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for ground-based yarding systems. □ Use existing roads and skid trail networks to the extent practicable. o Create new roads and skid trail where re-use of existing ones would exacerbate soil, water quality, and riparian resource impacts. □ Design and locate skid trails and skidding operations to minimize soil disturbance to the extent practicable. o Designate skid trails to the extent practicable to limit site disturbance. o Locate skid trails outside of the AMZ to the extent practicable. o Locate skid trails to avoid concentrating runoff and provide breaks in grade. o Limit the grade of constructed skid trails on geologically unstable, saturated, highly erodible, or easily compacted soils. o Avoid long runs on steep slopes. □ Use suitable measures during felling and skidding operations to avoid or

232

minimize disturbance to soils and waterbodies to the extent practicable. o Perform skidding or yarding operations when soil conditions are such that soil compaction, displacement, and erosion would be minimized. o Suspend skidding or yarding operations when soil moisture levels could result in unacceptable soil damage. o Avoid skidding logs in or adjacent to a stream channel or other waterbody. o Directionally fell trees to facilitate efficient removal along predetermined yarding patterns with the least number of passes and least amount of disturbed area (e.g., felling-to-the-lead). o Directionally fell trees away from streambanks, shorelines, and other waterbody edges. o Remove logs from wet meadows or AMZs using suitable techniques to minimize equipment operations in the sensitive area and minimize dragging the logs on the ground. o Winch or skid logs upslope, away from waterbodies. o Use low ground pressure equipment when practicable, particularly on equipment traveling over large portions of units with sensitive soils or site conditions. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to minimize and control erosion. □ Use suitable measures to stabilize and restore skid trails after use. o Reshape the surface to promote dispersed drainage. o Install suitable drainage features. o Mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions. o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate. o Use suitable measures to promote rapid revegetation. o Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.

Local / Site Specific □ No Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations outside the normal BMP operating season.

Veg-5. Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations Manual or FSH 2409.15. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during cable and aerial yarding operations by minimizing site

233

disturbance and controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Use cable or aerial yarding systems on steep slopes where ground-based equipment cannot operate without causing unacceptable ground disturbance. o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting potential, and other soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for cable or aerial yarding systems. o Consider slope shape, potential barriers, lift and deflection requirements, and availability of suitable landing locations when selecting cable-yarding systems. □ Identify areas requiring cable or aerial yarding during project planning and in the contract. □ Identify necessary equipment capabilities in the contract. □ Locate cable corridors to efficiently yard materials with the least soil damage. o Use suitable measures to minimize soil disturbance when yarding over breaks in slope. □ Fully suspend logs to the extent practicable when yarding over AMZs and streams. □ Postpone yarding operations when soil moisture levels are high if the specific type of yarding system results in unacceptable soil disturbance and erosion within cable corridors. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to minimize and control erosion in cable corridors to the extent practicable.

Local / Site No Site Specific BMP’s Specific BMP

Veg-6. Landings Manual or FSH 2409.15. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the construction and use of log landings. Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

234

□ Minimize the size and number of landings as practicable to accommodate safe, economical, and efficient operations. □ Locate landings to limit the potential for pollutant delivery to waterbodies. o Locate landings outside the AMZ and as far from waterbodies as reasonably practicable based on travel routes and environmental considerations. o Avoid locating landings near any type of likely flow or sediment transport conduit during storms, such as ephemeral channels and swales. o Locate landings to minimize the number of required skid roads. o Avoid locating landings on steep slopes or highly erodible soils. o Avoid placing landings where skidding across drainage bottoms is required. □ Design roads and trail approaches to minimize overland flow entering the landing. □ Re-use existing landings where their location is compatible with management objectives and water quality protection. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to minimize and control erosion as needed during construction and use of log landings. o Install and maintain suitable temporary erosion control and stabilization measures when the landing would be reused within the same year. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-6 (Hazardous Materials) and BMP Road-10 (Equipment Refueling and Servicing) when managing fuels, chemicals, or other hazardous materials on the landing. □ Use suitable measures as needed to restore and stabilize landings after use. o Remove all logging machinery refuse (e.g., tires, chains, chokers, cable, and miscellaneous discarded parts) and contaminated soil to a proper disposal site. o Reshape and subsoil the surface to promote dispersed drainage. o Install suitable drainage features. o Subsoil to mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions. o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate to prevent off-site sediment movement. o Use suitable measures to promote rapid revegetation. o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to cover and revegetate disturbed areas in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. Local / Site Specific □ BMP

235

Veg -7 Winter Logging Manual or FSH 2409.15. Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from winter logging activities. Practices □ Mark existing culvert locations before plowing, hauling, or yarding operations begin to avoid or minimize damage from plowing or logging machinery. □ Ensure all culverts and ditches are open and functional during and after logging operations. □ Manage hauling to avoid road distress. □ Restore crossings to near preroad conditions. □ Suspend winter operations if ground and snow conditions change such that unacceptable soil disturbance, compaction, displacement, or erosion becomes likely. □ Mark AMZ boundaries and stream courses before the first snow in a manner that would be clearly visible in heavy snows. □ Avoid leaving slash in streams or AMZs to the extent practicable. □ Install and maintain suitable erosion control on skid trails before September 15 (see BMP Veg-2 [Erosion Prevention and Control]). o Install erosion control measures during the dry season if needed.

Local / Site Specific □ Limit winter logging activities to skyline units only. BMP

Veg-8. Mechanical Site Treatment Manual or None known, Handbook Reference Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, chemical, or other pollutants to waterbodies during mechanical site treatment Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. □ Evaluate multiple site factors, including soil conditions, slope, topography, and weather, to prescribe the most suitable mechanical treatment and equipment to avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to soil while achieving treatment objectives. o Consider the condition of the material and the site resulting from the

236

treatment in comparison to desired conditions, goals, and objectives for the site when analyzing treatment options (e.g., a mastication treatment would result in a very different condition than a grapple pile and burn treatment). o Use land management plan direction, or other local guidance, to establish residual ground cover requirements and soil disturbance limits suitable to the site to prevent erosion. o Consider offsite use options for the biomass material to reduce onsite treatment and disposal. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-3 (Aquatic Management Zones) when conducting mechanical treatments in the AMZ. □ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to minimize and control erosion. o Conduct mechanical activities when soil conditions are such that unacceptable soil disturbance, compaction, displacement, and erosion would be avoided or minimized to less than 15% of the activity area. o Consider using low ground-pressure equipment, booms, or similar equipment to minimize soil disturbance to less than 15% of the activity area. □ Operate mechanical equipment so that furrows and soil indentations will carry water off the treated area. □ Subsoil the soil only to the extent necessary to meet reforestation objectives. o Use site-preparation equipment that produces irregular surfaces. o Avoid or minimize damage to surface soil horizons to the extent practicable. □ Conduct machine piling of slash in such a manner to leave topsoil in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles. □ Re-establish vegetation as quickly as possible. o Evaluate the need for active and natural revegetation of exposed and disturbed sites. o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Local / Site Specific o Subsoil all skid and forwarder trails, landings, and temporary roads to BMP a minimum depth of 20” using a winged subsoiler and excavator unless the ground is too rocky as agreed to by the soil scientist and sale administrator. Each pass shall be made with to 20” with complete fracturing of the soil between passes. Furrows and depressions from subsoiling shall be made in a manner that will carry water away from the treatment area.

237

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM The following people are members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) that participated in the preparation or review of all or part of this environmental assessment:

Mike Brown Hydrologist Ron McMullin Fishery Biologist Bryan Benz Botanist Monica Ramirez Fire/Fuels Specialist Angie Snyder Archaeological Technician Miguel Amat y Leon Recreation Specialist Steve Burns Project Lead Stu Carlson Logging Systems Specialist Greg Orton Soil and Climate Change Specialist Jeff Bohler Wildlife Biologist Steve Hanussak Roads Technician Mike Gebben Geographic Information Systems Specialist Stephanie Wessell-Kelly Silviculturist

In addition, the following people assisted in developing the proposal or in the editing and review of this document:

Josh Chapman Forest Wildlife Biologist Donni Vogel NEPA Specialist/Environmental Coordinator Carol Cushing District Ranger Mike Harris Economics Julie Merritt Forest Bridge Engineer Miles Barkhurst Forest Roads Engineer

238

References

LITERATURE CITED

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 493 pp.

Arora, D. 1986. Mushrooms Demystified. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, CA. 959 pp.

Beschta, R.L., J.R. Boyle, C.C. Chambers, W.P. Gibson, S.V. Gregory, J. Grizzel, J.C. Hagar, J.L. Li, W.C. McComb, T.W. Parzybok, M.L. Reiter, G.H. Taylor, and J.E. Warila. 1995. Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices in Oregon: Literature and Synthesis. Prepared for Oregon Department of Forestry. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 150 pp.

Beschta, R.L., and W.S. Platts. 1986. Morphological features of small streams: Significance and function. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 22: 369-379.

Beschta, R.L., M.R. Pyles, A.E. Skaugset, and C.G. Surfleet. 2000. Peakflow responses to forest practices in the western cascades of Oregon, USA. Journal of Hydrology 233: 102-120.

Bilby, R.E., and J.W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118: 368-378.

Bolander, P., and A. Yamada. 1999. Dust Palliative Selection and Application Guide. USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, CA. 20 pp.

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D'Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54: 677-688.

Carey, A.B., D.R. Thysell, and A.W. Brodie. 1999. The Forest Ecosystem Study: Background, rationale, implementation, baseline conditions, and silvicultural assessment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 129 pp.

Castellano, M.A., J.E. Smith, T. O'Dell, E. Cázares, and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1 fungal taxa from the Northwest Forest Plan. PNW-GTR-476. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 195 pp.

Castellano, M.A., E. Cázares, B. Fondrick, and T. Dreisbach. 2003. Handbook to additional fungal species of special concern in the Northwest Forest Plan. PNW-GTR-572. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 144 pp.

Chan, S.S., D.J. Larson, K.G. Maas-Hebner, W.H. Emmingham, S.R. Johnston, and D.A. Mikowski. 2006. Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 2696-2711.

Christner, J. 1981. Changes in peak streamflows from managed areas of the Williamette

239

References

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Williamette National Forest. Eugene, OR. 28 pp.

Christner, J., and R.D. Harr. 1982. Peak streamflows from the transient snow zone, western Cascades, Oregon. Pp. 27-38 in Proceedings: 50th Western Snow Conference, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251. http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf [Accessed 2 July 2012.]

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2005. Memo from CEQ on cumulative effects guidance. June 2005.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. USDI US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 132 pp.

Davis, R.J., K.M. Dugger, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W.C. Aney. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan— The first 15 years (1994–2008): Status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 147 pp.

Derr, C., R. Helliwell, A. Ruchty, L. Hoover, L. Geiser, D. Lebo, and J. Davis. 2003. Survey protocols for survey & manage category A & C lichens. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 86 pp.

Derr, C., R.D. Lesher, L. Geiser, and M. Stein. 2003. 2003 Amendment to the survey protocol for survey & manage category A & C lichens. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 43 pp.

Dixon, G.E. 2010. Essential FVS: A user's guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. Fort Collins, CO. 240 pp.

Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977.

Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. May 24, 1977.

Exeter, R.L., L. Norvell, and E. Cázares. 2006. Ramaria of the Pacific Northwestern United States. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Salem, OR. 157 pp.

Fiedler, C.E., C.E. Keegan, C.W. Woodall III, and T.A. Morgan. 2004. A strategic assessment of crown fire hazard in Montana: potential effectiveness and costs of hazard reduction treatments. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 48 pp.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Gebert, K.M., C.E. Keegan III, S. Wouldits, and A. Chase. 2002. Utilization of Oregon’s timber harvest and associated direct economic effects. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station. Portland, OR. 16 pp.

240

References

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: 308-319.

Graham, R.T., S.M. McCaffrey, and T.B. Jain. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. RMRS-GTR-120. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 43 pp.

Hann, W.J., and D.J. Strom. 2003. Fire regime condition class and associated data for fire and fuels planning: Methods and applications. pp. 397-434 in P.N. Omi and L.A. Joyce, editors. Fire, fuel treatments and ecological restoration. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Harr, R.D., and F.M. McCorison. 1979. Initial effects of clearcut logging on size and timing of peak flows in a small watershed in western Oregon. Water Resources Research 15: 90- 94.

Harrington, C.A. 2003. The 1930s survey of forest resources in Washington and Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 123 pp.

Harrod, R.J., and S. Reichard. 2001. Fire and invasive species within the temperate and boreal coniferous forests of western North America. pp. 95-101 in Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, FL.

Hicks, B.J., R.L. Beschta, and R.D. Harr. 1991. Long-term changes in streamflow following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources Bulletin 27: 217-226.

IMPLAN Professional, Version 2.0. June 2000. Social Accounting and Impact. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Stillwater, MN.

Johnston, N.T., S.A. Bird, D.L. Hogan, and E.A. MacIsaac. 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: 2231-2246.

Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32: 959-974.

Keeley, J.E. 2001. Fire and invasive species in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems of California. pp. 81-94 in K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson, editors. Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species; Fire Conference 2000: The first National Congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management. Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, FL.

Keisker, D.G. 2000. Types of wildlife trees and coarse woody debris required by wildlife of north-central British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. Working Paper 5/0/200. Victoria, B.C.

241

References

Kerr, A. 2012. Ecologically appropriate restoration thinning in the Northwest Forest Plan area: A policy and technical analysis. Bellingham, WA.

Kropp, B.R., and S. Albee. 1996. The effects of silvicultural treatments on occurrence of mycorrhizal sporocarps in a Pinus contorta forest: A preliminary study. Biological Conservation 78: 313-318.

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179-1188.

Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping and Analysis (LEMMA). 2010. Northwest Forest Plan GNN Vegetation Model: Oregon and California Cascades Province. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/splash.php [Accessed 2 July, 2012.]

Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE). 2011. LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer, 2008 Refresh Version. USDI US Geological Survey. http://www.landfire.gov/ [Accessed 9 July 2012.] Luoma, D.L., J.L. Eberhart, R. Molina, and M.P. Amaranthus. 2004. Response of ectomycorrhizal fungus sporocarp production to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Forest Ecology and Management 202: 337-354.

Luoma, D.L., C.A. Stockdale, R. Molina, and J.L. Eberhart. 2006. The spatial influence of Pseudotsuga menziesii retention trees on ectomycorrhiza diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 2561-2573.

Lyons, J.K., and R.L. Beschta. 1983. Land use, floods, and channel changes: Upper Middle Fork Williamette River, Oregon (1936–1980). Water Resources Research 19: 463-471.

McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990. Source distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 326-330.

Monleon, V.J., K. Cormack, and J.D. Landsburg. 1997. Short- and long-term effects of prescribed underburning on nitrogen availability in ponderosa pine stands in central Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 369-378.

Muir, P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner, J.D. Bailey, W.E. Elliott, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, E.B. Peterson, and E.E. Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. USDI US Geological Survey. 76 pp.

Murphy, M.L., and K.V. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9: 427-436.

Nedeau, E., A.K. Smith, and J. Stone. 2000. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific Northwest. The Xerces Society. Portland, OR. 46 pp.

Norvell, L.L., and R.L. Exeter. 2004. Ectomycorrhizal epigeous basidiomycete diversity in Oregon Coast Range Pseudotsuga menziesii forests – preliminary observations. pp.159- 189 in C. L. Cripps, editor. Fungi in forest ecosystems: Systematics, diversity, and

242

References

ecology. The New York Botanical Garden. New York.

Oakley, B.B., M.P. North, and J.F. Franklin. 2003. The effects of fire on soil nitrogen associated with patches of the actinorhizal shrub Ceanothus cordulatus. Plant and Soil 254: 35-46.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 1992. Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit- Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. OMB Circular No. A-94. Revised 1999. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Final 2002 303(d) database. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqldata/searchchoice02.htm [Accessed 2 July 2012.]

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Designated beneficial uses, Umpqua Basin. Oregon Administrative Rule 340-41-0320.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2012. Log price information, Regions 2 & 3 – Coos (Coos, Curry, Douglas Counties, and Roseburg Market) http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/state_forests/timber_sales/ [Accessed 2 July 2012.]

Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS). 2012. Local Area Employment Statistics, Douglas County, Oregon, 2012.

Ragon, R. 2003. Personal communication with Douglas Timber Operators Executive Director.

Reinhardt, E., and N.L. Crookston. 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. RMRS-GTR-116. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 209 pp.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. 390 pp.

Rosso, A.L., and R. Rosentreter. 1999. Lichen diversity and biomass in relation to management practices in forests of northern Idaho. Evansia 16: 97-104.

Scott, J.H., and R.E. Burgan. Standard fire behavior fuel models: A comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 72 pp.

Skov, K.R., T.E. Kolb, and K.F. Wallin. 2004. Tree size and drought affect ponderosa pine physiological response to thinning and burning treatments. Forest Science 50: 81-91.

Smith, J.E., R. Molina, M.P. Huso, D.L. Luoma, D. McKay, M.A. Castellano, T. Lebel, and Y. Valachovic. 2002. Species richness, abundance, and composition of hypogeous and epigeous ectomycorrhizal fungal sporocarps in young, rotation-age, and old-growth stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Cascade Range of Oregon, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 186-204.

Smith, J.E., D. McKay, G. Brenner, J.I. McIver, and J.W. Spatafora. 2005. Early impacts of forest restoration treatments on the ectomycorrhizal fungal community and fine root biomass in a mixed conifer forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 526-535.

Tague, C., and G.E. Grant. 2004. A geological framework for interpreting the low-flow regimes of Cascade streams, Williamette River Basin, Oregon. Water Resources Research 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002629 [Accessed 9 July 2012].

243

References

Turner, D., B. Kasper, P. Heberling, B. Lindberg, M. Wiltsey, G. Arnold, and R. Michie. 2006. Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Medford, OR.

US National Archives and Records Administration. 2002. Code of Federal Regulations. 36 CFR. Government Printing Office. USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Handbook, FSH 1909.12, Section 71.1. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices Handbook for the Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Forest Service Manual, FSM 2600 Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 701. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Upper North Umpqua Watershed Analysis. Umpqua National Forest, Diamond Lake Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Umpqua National Forest Roads Analysis Report: Forest Scale. USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest. Roseburg, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl: Standards and Guidelines for 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. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Record of Decision: Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven BLM Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. 19 pp.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies, Pacific Northwest. 54 pp.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies: Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) and Associated Tools. 52 pp.

244

References

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a.

Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. pp. 1155-1165 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. University of California Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Davis, CA.

Walker, G.W., and N.S. MacLeod. 1991. Geologic map of Oregon. Scale 1:500,000. USDI US Geological Survey.

Waters, J.R., K.S. McKelvey, C.J. Zabel, and W.W. Oliver. 1994. The effects of thinning and broadcast burning on sporocarp production of hypogeous fungi. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24: 1516-1522.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C N. Skinner. 1996. Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel management. pp. 1471-1492 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. University of California Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Davis, CA.

245

GLOSSARY

Hydrology

Class 1 stream – Streams (or segments thereof) that are direct sources of water used as a public water supply or provides habitat usable by anadromous salmonids

Class 2 stream – Streams (or segments thereof) that provide habitat usable by resident salmonids

Class 3 stream – Perennial streams or segments thereof which are not Class 1 or 2

Class 4 stream – Intermittent or seasonal streams which are not Class 1 or 2

Fish-bearing stream – Any stream containing any species of fish for any period of time

Periphyton – Sessile organisms, such as algae, that live attached to surfaces projecting from the bottom of a freshwater aquatic environment

Fire and Fuels

Crown or canopy base height is the lowest point to which branches reach.

Crown fire is a forest fire that advances with great speed jumping from crown to crown of trees ahead of the ground fire burning in surface fuels.

Fire Regime describes the historic role of fire on the landscape. Fire regimes for Oregon and Washington are from the 1999 National Fire Strategy and are redefined for Region 6 based on common severity type and the frequency of that expression on the landscape.

246

Fire regime Frequency Severity group for R6 (Fire return interval) I 0-35 years Low severity (underburn) II 0-35 years High severity (stand-replacing) III A < 50 years Mixed severity III B 50-100 years Mixed severity III C 100-200 years Mixed severity IV A 35-100 years High severity (stand-replacement), juxtaposed IV B 100+ years High severity (stand-replacing), patchy arrangement IV C 100-200 years High severity (stand-replacement) V. A 200-400 years High severity (stand-replacing) V B 400+ years High severity (stand-replacing) V C No Fire V D Non-forest

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) describes the degree of departure of current vegetation from the historic fire regime (Hann, et.al. 2003). FRCC 1 Fire regimes near historic range (departure is no more than one return interval) A low risk of losing key ecosystem components Vegetation attributes are functioning within historical range FRCC 2 Fire regimes have been moderately altered from historical range; moderate changes in fire size and intensity has resulted Moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered FRCC 3 Fire regimes have been substantially altered from their historical range; dramatic changes in fire size and severity has resulted Severe loss of ecosystem components Vegetation attributes have been substantially altered

Fuel loading refers to the amount of fuel present in terms of weight per unit area. Fuels are expressed by size and by hours required to dry. 0” – .24” or 1 hour fuels .25” – .99” or 10 hour fuels 1.0” – 2.99” or 100 hour fuels ≥3.0” or 1000 hour fuels

Grapple piling is done by an excavator that picks up and piles slash in large piles, which are later burned during moist conditions.

247

Resilience is the capacity of a system to undergo change and still retain its basic function and structure.

Recreation

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – An array of recreational activities, settings, and experiences used as a basic freamework in planning and managing the recreation resource, and divided into the following classes: Primitive – Area characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment of a size or location that provides the opportunity for isolation from sights and sounds of people. Motorized use is not permitted. Semiprimitive Nonmotorized – Area characterized by predominately unmodified natural environment of a size or location that provides a good-to-moderate opportunity for isolation from sights and sounds of people. Motorized use is not permitted. Semiprimitive Motorized – Area characterized by predominately unmodified natural environment of a size or location that provides a good-to-moderate opportunity for isolation from sights and sounds of people except for facilities essential for the use of motorized equipment. Roaded Natural – Area characterized by predominately natural-appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of people. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Roaded Modified – An area characterized by a natural environment with much evidence of the works of humans. Such evidence usually dominate the natural environment. Rural – Area characterized by substantial modified natural environment, with sights and sounds of humans readily evident and interaction between users often moderate to high. Urban – Area characterized by city and country parks, and highly organized recreational activities. Roadless Areas – Areas studied during the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation process (RARE II) which are roadless and at least 5,000 acres in size. Also applies to unroaded areas under 5,000 which are adjacent to existing wildernesses.

Visual Quality Objective (VQO) – The levels of visual quality that have been adopted by management through the Forest land management planning process. Preservation – Allows for natural ecological changes only. Retention – Where human’s activities are not evident to the average forest visitor. Partial Retention – Humans’ activities may be evident, but are subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Modification – Human activities may dominate the characteristic landscape; but, at the same time, utilizes naturally established form, line, color, and texture. Maximum Modification – Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but it should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed from a distance.

248