United States Department of Agriculture Salvage Project Final Environmental Assessment

Rogue River-Siskiyou Gold Beach Forest Service National Forest Ranger District June 2018

For More Information Contact:

Jessie Berner, Chetco Bar Fire Coordinator, Powers District Ranger Gold Beach Ranger District Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 29279 Ellensburg Ave. Gold Beach, OR 97444 Phone: (541) 439-6201

Website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=53150 Email: [email protected] Fax: (541) 439-7704

Cover photo: Chetco Bar Fire on the Gold Beach Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, , D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Contents Contents...... i Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1-1 Background ...... 1-1 Introduction...... 1-1 Format of this Environmental Assessment ...... 1-4 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ...... 1-4 Relationship to the Forest Plan ...... 1-5 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...... 1-10 Issues...... 1-12 Regulatory Framework ...... 1-13 Project Record ...... 1-14 Decision Framework ...... 1-14 Chapter 2 – Alternatives...... 2-1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 2-1 Consistency of Alternatives with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as Amended ...... 2-5 Alternatives and Treatments Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 2-5 Emergency Situation Determination ...... 2-6 Best Management Practices ...... 2-6 Design Criteria for the Action Alternatives ...... 2-7 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-7 Alternative Maps ...... 2-7 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 Specialist Reports, Project Record, and Use of “Best Available Science” ...... 3-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 3-2 Issue 1 –Complex Early Seral Habitat and Biological Legacies ...... 3-5 Wildlife ...... 3-11 Economics...... 3-61 Undeveloped Lands ...... 3-65 Transportation System ...... 3-75 Soils ...... 3-77 Hydrology ...... 3-95 Fisheries and Aquatic Biota ...... 3-117 Fire, Fuels and Air Quality ...... 3-123 Cultural Resources ...... 3-131 Botanical Resources ...... 3-139 Invasive Plants ...... 3-147 Recreation and Visuals ...... 3-151 Vegetation ...... 3-165 Climate Change ...... 3-171 Environmental Justice ...... 3-174 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 3-177 References ...... 3-182 Appendix A – Design Criteria...... A-1 Appendix B – Alternative Maps ...... B-1

i Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

List of Tables Table 1. Project Area 6th Field Subwatersheds...... 4 Table 2. Management Areas/Land Allocations ...... 6 Table 3. Smith and Cluck marking guidelines for 60% predicted mortality rate by species and diameter ...... 2 Table 4. Proposed Action Logging Systems ...... 2 Table 5. Alternative 3 Logging Systems ...... 5 Table 6. Key Issues ...... 8 Table 7. Basal Area Loss on Private Lands from RAVG ...... 3 Table 8. Vegetation Mortality Classification RAVG of Unmanaged NFS Lands ...... 7 Table 9. Acres of NRF within Potentially Affected Owl Habitat ...... 17 Table 10. Comparison of 2011 and 2018 Updates for MIS species for the RRSNF...... 28 Table 11. Federally Listed and Regionally Sensitive Wildlife Species (16) Not Analyzed ...... 36 Table 12. Regionally Sensitive Wildlife Species (10) not Analyzed Further ...... 37 Table 13. Total Acres of Snag Removal Considered for 5th Field Watershed Cumulative Effects 40 Table 14. Spotted Owl Habitats within Proposed Chetco Bar Fire Area Salvage Activities ...... 42 Table 15. NSO Habitat Pre-Treatment Condition and Alternative 2 Effects ...... 46 Table 16. Summary of Effects to Federally Listed and Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species ...... 61 Table 17. Costs for Determining Project Revenue...... 64 Table 18. Present Net Value and Benefit/Cost Ratio Comparison ...... 64 Table 19. Size Class and Acres of Other Undeveloped Lands in the CBF Salvage Project Area . 67 Table 20. Undeveloped Lands in CBF Salvage Project Footprint by Alternative ...... 70 Table 21. Selected Treatment Units with Estimated Existing Disturbance Above or Near Standards...... 82 Table 22. Total estimated acres of new detrimental soils disturbance...... 91 Table 23. Acres of project footprint activities on relative disturbances for action alternatives. .... 92 Table 24. Detrimental soil disturbance acres by action alternative...... 94 Table 25. Riparian Reserve Boundaries by Stream Class ...... 96 Table 26. Treatment Acres by Subwatershed for CBF Salvage Project ...... 97 Table 27. Acres of Harvest by Subwatershed ...... 104 Table 28. Acres of Soil Burn Severity by Subwatershed ...... 105 Table 29. Acres of Burn Intensity within the Project Footprint ...... 105 Table 30. Potentially Affected Aquatic Species, Status, and Habitats ...... 119 Table 31. Summary of Conclusion of Effects ...... 122 Table 32. Expected Fuel Models Common to Action Alternatives ...... 128 Table 33: Cultural Resources Consistency with Forest Plan Direction ...... 136 Table 34. Sensitive plant species known or with potential to occur in Chetco Bar Salvage proposed units and project area...... 141 Table 35 Department of Agriculture listed invasive plant species within the Chetco Bar Salvage Project footprint...... 148 Table 36. Chetco WS River Sections within the Project Area ...... 153 Table 37. Chetco WS River Critical Viewpoints ...... 154

ii Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project ...... 1-2 Figure 2. Project Area Boundary and Project Footprint: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project ...... 1-3 Figure 3. Land Use Allocations, Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project ...... 1-7 Figure 4. Post-fire Distribution, Snags > 10” Diameter per acre: Watershed ...... 3-20 Figure 5. Pre-fire Distribution, Large Snags per acre: Chetco River Watershed...... 3-21 Figure 6. Post-fire Distribution, Large Snags per acre: Chetco River Watershed...... 3-21 Figure 7. Post-fire Distribution, Snags >10 inches Diameter per acre: Watershed. 3-22 Figure 8. Post-fire Distribution, Large Snags per acre: Pistol River Watershed...... 3-23 Figure 9. Distribution, Down Wood > 5 inches Diameter per acre: Chetco River Watershed ... 3-24 Figure 10. Distribution, Large Down Wood by Percent Cover: Chetco River Watershed...... 3-25 Figure 11. Distribution, Down Wood > 5 inches Diameter per acre: Pistol River Watershed. .. 3-25 Figure 12. Distribution, Large Down Wood by Percent Cover: Pistol River Watershed...... 3-26 Figure 13. Pre-fire Distribution, Snags > 10in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds...... 3-29 Figure 14. Post-fire Distribution, Snags >10in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds...... 3-30 Figure 15. Pre-fire Distribution, Snags > 20 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds...... 3-31 Figure 16. Post-fire Distribution, Snags > 20 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds...... 3-32 Figure 17. Pre-fire Distribution, Snags > 20 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds...... 3-33 Figure 18. Pre-fire Distribution, Snags > 20 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds...... 3-34 Figure 19. Undeveloped Lands Greater than 1,000 acres and the Proposed Action ...... 3-74 Figure 20. Project Area Boundary: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project ...... 3-98 Figure 21. Riparian Width Contributing Shade ...... 3-108 Figure 22. Existing Conditions with Visible Salvage Units Overlay ...... 3-164 Figure 23. Simulation of Proposed Action Visual Effects ...... 3-164 Figure 24. Map Areas Vicinity Map: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project ...... B-2 Figure 25. Proposed Action Map: Area 1 ...... B-3 Figure 26. Proposed Action Map: Area 2 ...... B-4 Figure 27. Proposed Action Map: Area 3 ...... B-5 Figure 28. Proposed Action Map: Area 4 ...... B-6 Figure 29. Proposed Action Map: Area 5 ...... B-7 Figure 30. Proposed Action Map: Area 6 ...... B-8 Figure 31. Proposed Action Map: Area 7 ...... B-9 Figure 32. Proposed Action Map: Area 8 ...... B-10 Figure 33. Proposed Action Map: Area 9 ...... B-11 Figure 34. Proposed Action Map: Area 10 ...... B-12 Figure 35. Alternative 3 Map: Area 1 ...... B-13 Figure 36. Alternative 3 Map: Area 2 ...... B-14 Figure 37. Alternative 3 Map: Area 3 ...... B-15 Figure 38. Alternative 3 Map: Area 4 ...... B-16 Figure 39. Alternative 3 Map: Area 5 ...... B-17 Figure 40. Alternative 3 Map: Area 6 ...... B-18 Figure 41. Alternative 3 Map: Area 7 ...... B-19 Figure 42. Alternative 3 Map: Area 8 ...... B-20 Figure 43. Alternative 3 Map: Area 9 ...... B-21 Figure 44. Alternative 3 Map: Area 10 ...... B-22

iii Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank

iv Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action Background The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) had approximately 14 percent of its 1.8 million acres burn during the summer of 2017. The Chetco Bar Fire was the largest fire on the Forest, burning 191,197 acres of which 170,321 acres are on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Approximately 85 percent (~144,935 acres) of the NFS lands that burned within the Chetco Bar Fire occurred within lands where management allocations (such as congressionally reserved areas, late successional reserve (LSR) and riparian reserve) either prohibit post-fire salvage or have requirements to show ecological beneficial effects of treatments to aid in post-fire ecosystem recovery. The remaining 15 percent (25,386 acres) of the fire on NFS lands occurred on lands designated as matrix. Given the scale of fire-killed trees in the Chetco Bar fire, prioritization of where to focus post-fire salvage efforts was crucial for project success. The management objectives of matrix points to the need of harvesting timber; subsequently, it is important to salvage timber and reset the timber production for future harvest opportunities. This timber would be harvested, capturing the economic value that was intended to be sustainably and evenly harvested over time. Areas within matrix were prioritized for addressing the large amounts of smaller diameter fire-killed trees. Within the approximately 25,386 acres of lands designated by the Northwest Forest Plan as matrix, approximately 13,626 acres incurred 50-100 percent basal area loss (RAVG1 analysis). Focusing on burned areas with 50-100 percent basal area loss located on lands designated as matrix helped narrow the scope of the project. The January 2018 scoping letter described the need to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations that experienced 50-100 percent basal area loss, about 13,626 acres. The letter stated these areas would be evaluated for feasibility of treatment and that the treatment acreage would be reduced further, due to a combination of factors. The evaluation for feasibility has been ongoing and has reduced acres to 4,090 due to removing inventoried roadless areas (IRA), removing units lacking economically viable products, logging systems operability and accessibility, locating and avoiding unmapped riparian reserves, and considerations for post-fire wildlife habitat and other resources. Introduction The Forest Service is proposing to salvage harvest 4,090 acres burned in the 191,197-acre Chetco Bar Fire. The Chetco Bar Fire (CBF) Salvage project is located on the Gold Beach Ranger District within the RRSNF. The project is located in Curry County approximately 11 miles northeast of the city of Brookings, Oregon and approximately 12 miles southeast of the city of Gold Beach, Oregon. The main road access to the project area is via U.S. Highway 101, County Roads 784 and 800 and Forest Roads 1376 and 1407. See Figure 1 vicinity map.

1 Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after (RAVG), uses remote sensing, and Landsat data to assess the loss of basal area from wildfire. For detailed information on RAVG analysis, refer to the RAVG program’s website: http://www.fs.fed.us/postfirevegcondition.

Chapter 1 Page|1-1 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Vicinity Map: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project

The project footprint is within portions of the Chetco and Pistol River 5th field watersheds where ground disturbing activities would take place and includes the 4,090 acres of proposed salvage areas and the haul routes. All lands within the project footprint are National Forest System (NFS) lands (See Figure 2). The project area encompasses the 6th field subwatersheds that the project footprint intersects. The project area is approximately 143,047 acres (See Table 1 and Figure 2).

Page|1-2 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 2. Project Area Boundary and Project Footprint: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project

Chapter 1 Page|1-3 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Project Area 6th Field Subwatersheds

Subwatershed Name Acres Eagle Creek-Chetco River 30,830 East Fork Pistol River-Pistol River 18,695 Nook Creek-Chetco River 29,150 North Fork Pistol River-Pistol River 19,241 South Fork Chetco River 28,821 South Fork Pistol River 16,310 Total Acres in Project Area 143,047

Format of this Environmental Assessment This environmental assessment (EA) was prepared to determine whether implementation of CBF project may “significantly2” affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Preparation of this EA fulfills agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ regulations define an environmental assessment as: A concise public document that serves to “briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).” This environmental assessment focuses on what is relevant and important and concentrates on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail (40 CFR 1500.1). Legal requirements only requires to provide enough evidence to support our conclusions, address relevant environmental impacts and concentrates on whether the action would “significantly” affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore this environmental assessment does not include topics that are not required in an environmental document but have historically been included. Topics that have been eliminated are: NEPA process language, lengthy list of forest plan standard and guidelines, irreversible and irretrievable commitment section, and list of preparers. Purpose and Need for the Proposal

Purpose of the Project The purpose of the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project is to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations by harvesting dead, dying and/or damaged trees resulting from the 2017 Chetco Bar fire. Timber would be harvested following standards and guidelines outlined in the Siskiyou National Forest Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. This project would salvage fire-killed or dying trees to provide timber to local mills and economies. Dead or dying trees would be salvaged in areas where operations are economically feasible while considering potential impacts to sensitive resources and values. The timber value would be prioritized and captured using a salvage prescription as determined by a certified silviculturist.

2 Significance as defined by context and intensity of an action.

Page|1-4 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Need for the Proposal Stands of economically valued species such as Douglas-fir were burned in the 2017 Chetco Bar Fire area. As time progresses these fire-killed trees lose economic value due to insects, staining, and checking (cracks in the wood that occur as the burned wood dries). By the late spring or early summer of 2019 up to 30% of the economic value of these trees could be lost. There is a need for timely salvage harvest in order to capture merchantable timber values before further wood deterioration occurs. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) states that the Forest-wide goal is to "Provide a balance of resource management that will maintain a healthy Forest ecosystem, and help to supply local, regional and National social economic needs" (LRMP ROD page 10) and identifies salvage as an acceptable method for timber harvest (LRMP ROD page 21). The Forest Plan identifies the goal in MA-14 General Forest is to obtain a full yield of timber within the capability of the land (Forest Plan IV-139). Standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) states objectives for each allocation. The matrix consists of those federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas (Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). Most scheduled timber harvest takes place in the matrix. Standards and guidelines assure appropriate conservation of ecosystems as well as provide habitat for rare and lesser- known species. There is a need to harvest dead and/or dying timber in a manner that meets objectives of the LRMP, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose and need in the Northwest Forest Plan states that the Forests covered under this Plan are to maintain a sustainable supply of timber and other forest products that will help maintain the stability of local and regional economies on a predictable and long-term basis (NWFP 1-4). Relationship to the Forest Plan This EA is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (1989) and incorporates by reference the accompanying Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) (1989) as amended. The LRMP FEIS identified plan alternatives and effects for managing the Siskiyou National Forest, including identifying and meeting goals and objectives, delineating land use management areas, and setting standards and guidelines for these management areas. The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was subsequently amended several times. Primary amendments to the LRMP and guiding Forest documents also incorporated by reference follow (this list is not all-inclusive, and any guiding principles or management guidance adhered to for certain disciplines are further identified in the applicable resource sections).

Forest Plan Management Areas The National Forest System Land within the Siskiyou National Forest has been assigned to different management areas (MA), each with different management goals, resource potential and limitations. The following MAs are located within the CBF project footprint (Table 2).

Chapter 1 Page|1-5 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Management Area -13 – Partial Retention Visual (Matrix) This management area primarily consists of National Forest System land that is visible from major and secondary travel routes, rivers and other high use recreation areas (often in the middle to background). This area has multiple use goals which include the production of wood products. The objective of this management area is to protect scenic values while providing multiple-use development opportunities that are visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. There are about 1,155 acres of MA 13 Partial Retention Visual in the project footprint.

Management Area 14 – General Forest (Matrix) This management area primarily consists of National Forest System land that is managed for multiple uses including timber production and maintenance of many wildlife habitats. It is the major timber producing portion of the Forest. The objective of this management area is to provide multiple-use development opportunities and a high yield of timber, subject to multiple use constraints. There are about 2,935 acres of MA 14 General Forest in the project footprint.

Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations This EA is also tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. The NWFP amended the LRMP decision and provided additional land allocations (LAs) and standards and guidelines for each affected Forest Plan. Among other things, this document led to the development of late successional reserves, riparian reserves, the aquatic conservation strategy, and additional protections for the Northern spotted owl and other survey and manage requirements. These LAs overlay management areas (MAs) previously identified in the LRMP and supplement or supplant LRMP standards and guidelines, depending on whichever provides the most restrictive protection. Further details are available in the original documentation or are summarized later and throughout this document in applicable locations.

Table 2. Management Areas/Land Allocations

Forest Plan NWFP Acres Management Area Name and # Land Allocation Partial Retention Visual – MA13 Matrix 1,155 General Forest – MA14 Matrix 2,935 Total Acres in Project Footprint 4,090

Land Allocation – Matrix The matrix consists of those federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas (Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands, according to standards and guidelines.

Page|1-6 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 3. Land Use Allocations, Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project

Chapter 1 Page|1-7 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Standards and guidelines for the matrix are designed to provide for important ecological functions such as dispersal of organisms, carryover of some species from one stand to the next, and maintenance of ecologically valuable structural components such as down logs, snags, and large trees. All lands within the project footprint where salvage harvesting would occur are matrix land allocation.

Other Relevant Forest Plan Amendments Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines Survey and Manage Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). This decision provided additional requirements to identify, manage, and monitor certain special status species under the Forest Plan. These requirements and consistency are further described later in this document.

Record of Decision and associated 2004 Siskiyou National Forest Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004). This decision based on the supplemental EIS (SEIS) provided requirements on managing the prevention and spread of Port- Orford-cedar root disease, and developing risk management plans. Requirements and consistency are summarized later in this document.

Record of Decision and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plan Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005). This decision and its associated SEIS analysis provided additional requirements and guidelines for identifying, preventing, and managing invasive plants. Requirements and consistency are summarized later in this document.

Final Record of Decision and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2016). This decision is often referred to as Subpart B and followed the 2015, Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest Travel Analysis Report (referred to as the Subpart A analysis). This decision defines which roads are identified and included as designated forest system roads (FSRs), which includes those designated for motorized public access. The combination of these documents help analyze and define a minimum roads system and possible maintenance levels and requirements for FSRs in the planning area. When proposed travel management decisions would result in changes in motor vehicle use of routes or areas (such as changes in vehicle class, traffic patterns, and road standards) and where there may be adverse environmental effects, those decisions must be informed by travel analysis (FSM 7712.4). Travel analysis is also used to evaluate opportunities and priorities for road reconstruction, decommissioning, and conversion to other uses (FSM 7703.27).

Management Plan for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River; Siskiyou National Forest; OR (USDA Forest Service 1989). Designated Recreation, Scenic and Wild portions of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River are within the project area. In combination with the LRMP, this plan identifies outstanding values and provides specific management direction for activities in these designated corridors.

Page|1-8 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Wilderness Areas None of the alternatives evaluated here include any actions within the . The RRSNF has eight wilderness areas including the 180,095-acre Kalmiopsis wilderness. A wilderness area is a congressionally designated area whose natural growth is protected by legislation and whose recreational and industrial use is restricted. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-577) created the legal definition of wilderness in the United States, and protected some 9 million acres (36,000 km²) of federal land. Portions of the Kalmiopsis wilderness are within the CBF project area but not within the project footprint.

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) None of the alternatives evaluated here include any actions in the inventoried roadless areas. Though not indicated as a MA or LA, five inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are located adjacent or very near to the project footprint and are within the project area (they include: North Kalmiopsis, South Kalmiopsis, Kalmiopsis Addition, Windy Valley and Mt. Emily). These areas were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Most IRA boundaries are identical to those identified as “Roadless Areas” referred to in the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17) and were identified in the Siskiyou LRMP FEIS, Appendix C. IRAs contain provisions for their protection, within the context of multiple use management.

Wild and Scenic Chetco River None of the alternatives evaluated here include any actions (except haul routes on existing roads) in the Wild and Scenic Chetco River Corridor.

Portions of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River corridor are within the project area. The river was added to the National Wild and Scenic River System in 1988 based on the following Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV).

Water Quality The Chetco's water quality was found to be an ORV based on its striking color and clarity, its ability to clear quickly following storm events, its contribution to both recreation and fisheries, and its contribution of exceptionally pure and clean water for the domestic water supplies of both Brookings and Harbor.

The proposed project was determined to have no effect to water quality. The rationale for this determination is documented in the Hydrology section. The project incorporates a system of design features that ensure there can be no mechanism to affect water quality. Some examples of design features to protect water quality include no-cut riparian buffers on both sides of all streams, conditional restrictions on the haul of salvaged timber, and improving the drainage features of the road system that might be utilized for haul. For more information refer to the Hydrology section.

Fisheries The Chetco River fishery, typical of Pacific coastal systems, is dominated by salmon and trout. There are important populations of anadromous winter steelhead, fall Chinook salmon and sea-

Chapter 1 Page|1-9 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment run cutthroat trout. The Chetco provides excellent spawning and rearing habitat and has some of the highest salmonid smolt returns of any coastal stream in Oregon.

The proposed project was determined to have no effect to aquatic species, including Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) steelhead trout and Southern Oregon/Northern Coasts (SONCC) Chinook salmon. The rationale for this determination is documented in the Fisheries and Aquatic Biota section. The range of sea-run cutthroat trout is similar to that of KMP steelhead trout and the potential for effects to steelhead can be assumed to be similar for cutthroat trout. The project incorporates a system of design features that ensure there can be no mechanism to affect aquatic species. Some examples of design features to protect aquatic species include no-cut riparian buffers of 350’ on both sides of all fish-bearing streams, conditional restrictions on the haul of salvaged timber, and improving the drainage features of the road system that might be utilized for haul. For more information refer to the Fisheries and Aquatic Biota section.

Recreation The Chetco River and its adjacent corridor offer a wide diversity of recreational opportunities. In winter, salmon and steelhead fishing and whitewater kayaking are the primary recreational uses. In summer, fishing, four-wheel driving, swimming, boating, camping, sightseeing and picnicking are the major attractions. The primary fishing season for steelhead and salmon is between November and March.

The proposed project was determined to have no effect to recreation settings or opportunities in the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor. The rationale for this determination is documented in the Recreation and Visual Resources section. The project incorporates a system of design features that protect recreation settings and opportunities, examples of which include haul restrictions during high-use times, provisions protecting public access to recreation sites and areas, and implementation techniques to minimize scenic effects of project activities. For more information refer to the Recreation and Visual Resources section. Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) was directed to involve the public early and often throughout the pre-NEPA and NEPA process. The Forest has involved many individuals, organizations, and agencies in the NEPA process including Congressional Delegates, Curry County Board of Commissioners’, the Interim Curry County Administrator, multiple timber company representatives from southwest Oregon, American Forest Resources Council (AFRC), and Wild Rivers Coast Forest Collaborative (WRCFC).

30-Day Comment Period on ESD In a December 2017 letter to the public, then Forest Supervisor Robert G. MacWhorter (now retired) shared his intent to request an ESD. In the January 5, 2018 scoping letter, Mr. MacWhorter again shared his intent to request an ESD. Since then, other Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest line officers have discussed at public meetings and in news releases the need for an ESD in order to meet project objectives. During the comment period, the EA and project’s website repeatedly discussed the request for an ESD. However because the Forest inadvertently failed to formally notify the public of the intent to request an ESD under 36 CFR 218.24(b)(3) in the 30-day legal notice of comment period of the Preliminary EA, a separate 30-day legal comment period for the ESD was initiated on May 18, 2018. The legal notice was published in the newspaper of record for the RRSNF, the Medford Tribune.

Page|1-10 C h a p t e r 1 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

30-Day Comment Period on Draft Environmental Assessment A 30-day legal comment period was initiated on April 16, 2018. The Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project was made available to the public, agencies, and interested individuals for 30-day comment April 16th through May 16, 2018. The legal notice was published in the newspaper of record for the RRSNF, the Medford Tribune. A letter with information about the project, where the document was located and how to request a hard copy of the document was sent to the over 1,000 individuals who responded during scoping. The Forest Service received 3,574 responses during the 30-day legal comment period. About 3,141 (88%) of the letters were form letters. Three hundred sixteen (316) letters were duplicates. Therefore the forest received about 117 unique comment letters. Comment letters and agency responses are available in the project record.

Scoping The CBF Salvage project was announced on January 4, 2018 in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions. A scoping period was initiated on January 5, 2018 and continued through January 31, 2018. Information about the proposed action was sent to approximately 290 interested individuals and groups, including state agencies, adjacent property owners, environmental advocacy groups, recreation groups, and the general public (see list of agencies and persons consulted in Chapter 3). In response to scoping, the Forest Service received over 1,000 responses, including about 50 unique letters. Most of the responses, about 95 percent, were form letters. Scoping comments included two well defined form letters. Both form letters were generally in favor of salvaging the burned timber in the Chetco Bar Fire. One form letter thought salvage should be limited to matrix areas that have been previously managed (managed stands only). The other form letter expressed interest in speedy implementation of the project and maximizing recovery by seeking additional opportunities for salvage. To date, public opinion on the project is mixed. As evidenced by our scoping period comments, the majority of local citizens, county-elected government, and timber interest groups are supportive of the project. These members support any means by which timelines can be shortened to meet the purpose and need of the project. Local special interest groups like Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS Wild), Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, Oregon Wild, Friends of Del Norte Northwest Rafting Company, Native Fish Society, Oregon Wild Pacific Rivers Council, Western Environmental Law Center Cascadia Wildlands, Smith River Alliance, and Oregon Coast Alliance, would prefer that no salvage logging take place, and they appreciate and generally support our conservative approach by restricting logging to matrix lands. However, they would prefer salvage logging only take place in managed stands in matrix. For a complete account of public involvement for the CBF Salvage project refer to the project files. In the January 5, 2018 scoping letter, the Forest Supervisor Robert G. MacWhorter (now retired) shared his intent to request an emergency situation determination (ESD). Many interested parties, including local and national elected officials, local residents, county and state government representatives, and timber industry groups are asking for an expedited process to avoid a loss of commodity value and to speed up the eventual recovery and restoration of the areas affected by the Chetco Bar fire. For more information on the ESD, refer to Chapter 2.

Chapter 1 Page|1-11 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Tribal Government Consultation The forest conducts government to government consultation with eight federally recognized tribes that are associated with forest lands under treaties, adjudicated ceded land claims, and/or use forest lands for traditional and cultural purposes. A letter inviting consultation that provided details of the proposed action and invited comments and recommendations was sent to all eight tribes on January 5th, 2018: the Coquille Indian Tribe, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes of Indians, Confederated Tribe of Grand Ronde, Elk Valley Rancheria, the Klamath Tribes, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, and the Dee-ni’ Nation.

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted approximately 290 interested individuals and groups, including state agencies, adjacent property owners, environmental advocacy groups, recreation groups, and the general public during the development of this preliminary environmental assessment. For a complete list of persons consulted refer to the Agencies and Persons Consulted section in Chapter 3 on page 3-177. Issues Scoping is used to identify issues that relate to the effects of the proposed action. An issue is an unresolved conflict or public concern over a potential effect on a physical, biological, social or economic resource as a result of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to it. An issue is not an activity; instead, the projected effects of the proposed activity create the issue. Issues are generated by the public, other agencies, organizations and Forest Service resource specialists and are in response to the proposed action. Issues provide focus for the analysis of environmental effects and may influence alternative development, including development of project design criteria. In this document issues are tracked and are used to display differing effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. The issues were separated into three groups for the purpose of this analysis: Key Issues, Analysis Issues and Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study. A complete issue identification summary is in the project record files, including issues eliminated from detailed study along with the rationale for their elimination and this Environmental Assessment hereby incorporates by reference the EA Issue Statements in the CBF Salvage project file (40 CFR 1502.21).

Key Issues Key issues are defined as inherent conflicts that cannot be eliminated that are directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Usually an alternative is developed to address key issues. The Forest Service identified one key issue raised during scoping. Alternative Three was developed to address this issue. The key issue is:

Issue 1 – Effects to Complex Early Seral Habitat and Biological Legacies Stand-replacing events such as portions of the Chetco Bar fire often produce early-successional forest ecosystems which are diverse in species, processes, and structure. Post-fire ecosystems often contain biological legacies, including standing dead (snags) trees, and down woody debris. These legacies and post-fire plant communities provide resources that attract and sustain high watershed to landscape-scale species diversity, including numerous early-successional obligates. Post-fire salvage logging and dense tree planting can reduce species richness, especially for those species dependent on dead and decaying wood (Thorn eat al., 2018), and can reduce the duration

Page|1-12 C h a p t e r 1 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project of early-successional ecosystems (Swanson et. al. 2011). Early seral habitat with its associated habitat components is very valuable for many wildlife species as nesting or roosting, and foraging, and salvage harvest can reduce species presence and abundance (Caton, 1996; Bull et al., 2001; Hutto & Gallo, 2006; Saab et al., 2007; Forristal et al., 2007; Forristal, 2009). Salvage harvest has also been shown to adversely impact sensitive species such as the Northern Spotted Owl (Clark et al., 2013). Cause/Effect Relationship: Salvage logging within unmanaged stands may affect early seral habitat with biological legacies (large snags and downed wood) that these areas provide. Indicator for Analysis: Acres and percent of unmanaged stands salvaged.

Analysis Issues Analysis issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action and they illustrate the tradeoffs between alternatives. Analysis issues would be tracked in the relevant resource area effects analysis in Chapter 3 and in the Comparison of Alternatives section at the end of Chapter 2. Analysis issues considered for this analysis generated from public comments and/or the project interdisciplinary team are listed below.

Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Wildlife Species Cause/Effect Relationship: Salvage logging and other connected actions may directly or indirectly affect threatened or endangered terrestrial wildlife species (including the northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet) by modifying or removing habitat, and disturbance during breeding season. Indicator for Analysis: Acres of habitat affected, number of sites or habitat disturbed.

Economics Cause/Effect Relationship: Salvage logging and other connected actions may have varying levels of associated economic costs and benefits. Indicator for Analysis: Volume, revenue, cost/benefit analysis, and net present value (NPV) by each of the action alternatives.

Other Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped Areas: Salvage logging and other connected actions (temporary roads) within areas identified as having undeveloped character may make these areas no longer considered undeveloped lands. Indicator: Acres of salvage logging and miles of temporary roads in other undeveloped areas greater than 1,000 acres. Regulatory Framework This project is framed to be consistent with all laws or policies governing national forest management. These include but are not limited to the federal Clean Air Act and State Smoke Management Plan, the Clean Water Act of 1987, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and Threatened and Endangered Species Act.

Chapter 1 Page|1-13 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Project Record This EA hereby incorporates, by reference, the project record. The project record contains all project-specific information including resource reports and results of field investigations. The record also contains information resulting from public involvement efforts. The project record is available for review during regular business hours at Gold Beach Ranger District in Gold Beach, Curry County, Oregon. Decision Framework This EA will provide the decision maker, Forest Supervisor of the RRSNF, with a summary of current information on key issues to aid in the decision-making process. It will also provide the decision maker with information to help determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needs to be prepared or if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. If the decision is to proceed with a FONSI, it is anticipated that project operations could begin in late June 2018, and continue intermittently for at least one additional calendar years (through 2019 or beyond). To make a decision the Forest Supervisor would consider: x What actions are most appropriate to address the purpose and need to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations? x What are the effects to the issues by each alternative? x Is the selected alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan and other applicable laws?

Page|1-14 C h a p t e r 1 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Chapter 2 describes the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2), and Alternative 3 for the proposed CBF Salvage project. This chapter also describes the measures necessary to mitigate environmental effects, identifies management requirements called design criteria, and shows a summary comparison of the alternatives as they relate to the issues and the purpose and need for action. Affected environment and environmental consequences of implementing alternatives for the CBF Salvage project area can be found in Chapter 3. A detailed list of Alternatives and Treatments Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study along with the rationale for their elimination are included in the CBF Salvage project file and incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21). Alternatives Considered in Detail The no action, proposed action and alternative 3 were considered in detail:

No Action (Alternative 1) Under the No Action alternative, no salvage or other connected actions to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations would occur. The economic value of the burned timber would not be recovered. The No Action alternative serves as a baseline against which effects of the action alternatives could be measured and compared.

Proposed Action (Alternative 2) The Proposed Action was developed to meet the purpose and need for the project. Activities already under permit or contract, or authorized under other NEPA based decisions, would continue. The January 2018 scoping letter described the need to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations that experienced 50-100 percent basal area loss, about 13,626 acres. The letter stated these areas would be evaluated for feasibility of treatment and that the treatment acreage would be reduced further, due to a combination of factors. The evaluation for feasibility has been ongoing and has reduced acres to 4,090 due to removing inventoried roadless areas (IRA), removing units lacking economically viable products, logging systems operability and accessibility, locating and avoiding unmapped riparian reserves, and considerations for post-fire wildlife habitat and other resources.

Salvage Harvest Salvage harvest is proposed on 4,090 acres within the matrix land use allocation (LUA) in areas that burned 50-100% basal area loss. Treatment areas were developed using a combination of ground reconnaissance, soil and vegetation burn severity models, survey data, and aerial photo analysis. Standing dead or dying trees 7 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and greater would be available for harvest. For a complete list of units, acres and type of logging system refer to the project record. Refer to Appendix B, Figures 24-34 for maps of the Proposed Action.

Chapter 2 Page|2-1 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

The Forest consulted with the local entomologist expert to apply guidelines from the Marking guidelines for fire-injured trees in California (Smith & Cluck. 2011)[1] for predicting mortality of fire-injured trees. Douglas fir and incense cedar with a 60% or greater probability of mortality would be removed with this proposal (See Table 3).

Table 3. Smith and Cluck marking guidelines for 60% predicted mortality rate by species and diameter Species Diameter Remove trees with % length of crown scorch greater than or equal to: Incense Cedar 10-60” 85% Species Diameter Remove trees with volume % of crown scorch greater than or equal to: Douglas Fir 10”-40” 70%

Logging Systems Analyzed Trees would be removed and harvested by a variety of logging system methods including ground- based logging systems, skyline yarding and helicopter. Ground based logging systems would occur on slopes less than 30%. Skyline and helicopter based logging systems typically occur on slopes greater than 30%. Ground based logging systems typically harvest logs using mechanized heavy equipment to cut and/or skid logs to a landing area. Skyline or cable yarding systems typically transports logs using a wire rope cable that is suspended between a tower and a tail tree. The logs have their leading end suspended above the ground. In some cases, the entire log may be suspended above the ground. Helicopter logging systems use helicopters to transport logs from treatment areas to processing areas (landings). The use of helicopters allows for full suspension of logs.

Table 4. Proposed Action Logging Systems

Logging Systems Acres Helicopter 1,093 Skyline 2,378 Tractor 619 Total Acres 4,090

Created Slash Treatments Some created slash would be left within the treatment units to aid in soil stabilization, refer to the design criteria for a complete description. Material deemed to be in excess of soil resource needs would be treated to reduce the overall amount of slash remaining on site. Much of the existing surface fuels were consumed during the fire, activity created slash would be treated by one or a combination of methods. Yarding tops to landings for utilization or disposal by burning is one method. Machine or landing pile burning would occur during the first burning window after piling is complete and slash has cured. Another method proposed is removal of the slash for utilization, depending on market conditions. Other treatments include hand piling and burning,

[1] (Smith, S.L. and D.R. Cluck. 2011) Marking guidelines for fire-injured trees in CA. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Heath Protection. Report # RO-11-01. 11 p. (https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5331724.pdf )

Page|2-2 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project machine piling and burning, jackpot burning. These treatments reduce the surface fuel load generated as a result of harvest activities. All units include treatments to reduce the surface fuel levels to mitigate the possible increase in future fire activity.

Road Activities The following road activities would occur within the project footprint: x Road maintenance activities x Dust abatement x Opening and reclosing ML1 roads x Erosion Control

Road Maintenance Activities Forest roads used for salvage would have road maintenance activities to varying degrees, dependent upon severity of road damage, potential for erosion and sediment production, and designed maintenance level. Most commonly, maintenance would consist of danger tree removal and brushing for sight distance, although some ground-disturbing activity may be necessary. The following work is included in the maintenance requirements for roads: x Blade and shape road including existing drain dips and grade sags x Constructing water bars/cross ditches x Roadside brushing x Removing danger trees x Seeding and erosion control x Spot rocking in wet areas of the roadway x Snow removal x Minor realigning of road junctions x Cleaning culverts and catch basins x Ditch cleaning x Removing slides and excess material from roadway x Placing fill material for major rutting in the roadway x Installation of minor drainage features x Watering roadway for dust abatement x Clearing and grubbing of roadway x Resurfacing roads

Temporary Roads Temporary roads are roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management. Temporary roads are not intended to be included as part of the forest road atlas, as they are managed by the projects or activities under which they are authorized and decommissioned at the conclusion of the authorized activity. No new temporary roads would be constructed within riparian reserves. Temporary roads would be closed and restored after salvage and related activities are complete. About 13.5 miles of temporary roads would be constructed and rehabilitated after use.

Road Reconstruction None of the alternatives evaluated here propose any road reconstruction.

Chapter 2 Page|2-3 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

New Road Construction An activity that results in the addition of forest classified road miles (36 CFR 212.1). None of the alternatives evaluated here propose any new road construction.

Log Haul on Roads Approximately 4.8 miles of closed roads would be opened for log haul; and roads would be re- closed at completion of project. Approximately 103.7 miles of open roads would also be used for log haul. In the event of unexpected road failures, 26.4 miles of alternate haul routes have been identified and would follow all BMPs and PDCs described later in this chapter and in Appendix A.

Reforestation Following salvage harvest, the same 4,090 acres would be surveyed for natural regeneration. The intent is to rely on natural regeneration wherever possible. If natural regeneration is determined not to be adequate to comply with the NFMA five-year regeneration requirement to achieve stocking levels consistent with management objectives, site-specific appropriate tree species mix would be planted by hand. Trees would be planted at appropriate densities to achieve 125-150 trees per acre. Site prep for tree planting includes: x Lop and scatter of existing down wood to open up planting sites using chainsaw as needed. x Cutting competing shrubs within a 4-foot radius of planting sites using chainsaw as needed. x Removing ground vegetation within a 24-square inch planting site down to mineral soil (i.e. scalp) using a hoe dad. Trees would be manually planted with a hoe dad. Additionally, planted trees exhibiting wildlife browsing can have vexar tubing or netting installed to protect the seedling’s terminal leader from damage. Post planting stocking surveys would also be conducted the first and third years following initial planting to determine tree survival and determine replanting needs. Replanting may occur when deemed necessary.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed to address the key issue that salvage logging within unmanaged stands may affect early seral habitat with biological legacies (large snags and downed wood). Activities already under permit or contract, or authorized under other NEPA based decisions, would continue.

Salvage Harvest Salvage harvest activities under Alternative 3 are the same as those described above under the Proposed Action alternative with the following differences in acres. Salvage harvest is proposed on 1,868 acres of managed stands within the matrix land use allocation (LUA) in areas that burned 50-100% basal area loss (See Table 5). For a complete list of units, acres and type of logging system refer to the project record. Refer to Appendix B, Figures 24, 35-44 for maps of Alternative 3.

Page|2-4 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Table 5. Alternative 3 Logging Systems

Logging Systems Acres Helicopter 288 Skyline 1,244 Tractor 336 Total Acres 1,868

Logging Systems Analyzed Logging systems analyzed under Alternative 3 are the same as those described above under the Proposed Action alternative with the differences in acres displayed in Table 5.

Created Slash Treatments Created slash treatments analyzed under Alternative 3 are the same as those described above under the Proposed Action alternative above.

Road Activities Road activities under Alternative 3 are the same as those described above under the Proposed Action alternative with the following differences in miles of activities:

Temporary Roads About 9.36 miles of temporary roads would be constructed and rehabilitated after use.

Log Haul on Roads Approximately 3.5 miles of closed roads would be opened for log haul; and roads would be re- closed at completion of project. Approximately 88.6 miles of open roads would also be used for log haul. In the event of unexpected road failures, 26.4 miles of alternate haul routes have been identified and would follow all BMPs and PDCs described later in this chapter and in Appendix A.

Reforestation Reforestation activities under Alternative 3 are the same as those described above under the Proposed Action alternative but would occur on 1,868 acres.

Consistency of Alternatives with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as Amended Selection of either action alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (36 CFR 219.10(c)). Alternatives and Treatments Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that

Chapter 2 Page|2-5 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The Alternatives and Treatments Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study are fully described in the project record as well as the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail. Emergency Situation Determination As part of this project an Emergency Situation Determination (ESD) under 36 CFR 218 was requested for the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project. Deterioration agents, particularly wood boring insects and checking, are expected to reduce the available volume of the salvage sale over time. By June 2018, the value of fire killed timber in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project area is estimated to be minimally reduced. However the reduction in value would be even greater if the fire killed timber is not harvested until late October of 2018 or later; estimated to be reduced by 20-30%. An additional consideration is the health and safety of forest visitors and nearby private landowners due to numerous dead trees, as well as Forest Service staff and forest industry workers working in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project area. Traveling or working in forests where the majority of trees have been killed by fire is inherently dangerous. By delaying the sale date until late October of 2018 or later, there would be an increased risk to forest visitors, nearby private landowners, Forest Service staff, timber fallers and/or equipment operators in the project area. This is due to the ongoing deterioration of snags because of increased defect, weathering agents, over-wintering, and other environmental factors. Snags that would be felled in the summer of 2018 for timber harvest would have fewer defects and provide less relative risk to forest workers. An ESD would expedite the time period in which this salvage sale could be offered to the public by allowing implementation of the project immediately after a decision on the project has been signed and published. This is expected to be in June of 2018. On March 27, 2013, a final rule revising 36 CFR Part 218 was published in the Federal Register and became effective on that date. The new rule replaces the previous appeal rules defined in 36 CFR 215. The new rule provides the public an opportunity to comment and express concerns on projects during an objection period before decisions are made rather than after. The 36 CFR 218 objection period, however, does not apply to a project for which an ESD was requested and granted. An ESD has been requested from the USDA Forest Service Washington office; as of June 21 2018, the Washington office has granted the request. Best Management Practices The USDA Forest Service has a long history of using best management practices (BMPs) related to timber harvest, grazing, mining, and other land management activities to reduce adverse impacts to water quality. The 1988 General Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region) were intended to facilitate understanding of BMPs for protection of water quality. It included many of the key practices applicable in conducting land management activities. The practices are general in nature, and are intended to be made specific at the project level. In a letter dated May 2, 2012, the Forest Service initiated implementation of the National BMP Program, to advance the Agency’s compliance with management of nonpoint source pollution at local, regional, and national scales and address the new planning rule requirement for National BMPs (36 CFR 219.8(a)(4)). The National BMP Program consists of four main components: (1) a

Page|2-6 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project set of National Core BMPs, (2) a set of standardized monitoring3 protocols to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of those BMPs, (3) a data management and reporting structure, and (4) corresponding national direction. The National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1 (USDA Forest Service 2012) is a technical guide that contains the national core set of BMPs to be used in the National BMP Program. The national core set provides general, nonprescriptive BMPs for the broad range of activities that occur on NFS lands. Nearly every BMP in the national core set already exists in current regulations, guidance, or procedures. Therefore, adopting a standard national core set of BMPs may change what some national forests and grasslands refer to as their BMPs, but it would not change the substance of site-specific BMP prescriptions. This EA hereby incorporates by reference the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA Forest Service 2012) and the General Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1988). Additional BMPs may be added or existing BMPs can be modified as needed with interdisciplinary review and/or in cooperation with other state and federal agencies. Design criteria, described in the next section, are site-specific management activities for this project designed from BMPs. Design Criteria for the Action Alternatives The Forest Service developed design criteria and resource protection measures to be used as part of the action alternatives. Design criteria provide descriptions of how to implement the proposed action in ways that minimize or avoid potential adverse effects of the action alternatives. Through the project, all applicable best management practices (BMPs) for watershed and vegetative management would be used to enable the achievement of water quality standards (General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service 2011). Design criteria for the action alternatives are listed in Appendix A. For a complete list of design criteria, the objectives, where applicable, and reference material refer to the project record. Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 6 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Table 6 displays the alternatives and briefly summarizes the proposed activities in comparative form. Alternative Maps Maps of the proposed action (Figure 25 thru Figure 34) and Alternative 3 (Figure 35 thru Figure 44) are available in Appendix B. Due to the size of the project area, each alternative is described in 10 individual map areas to allow the viewer to see adequate detail. Figure 24 describes the on- the-ground locations for each map area for each alternative.

3 A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project and its mitigation activities are being realized.

Chapter 2 Page|2-7 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 6. Key Issues

KEY ISSUES

Issue #1 - Effects to Complex Early Seral Habitat and Biological Legacies

ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 3 NO ACTION ACTION Acres of Early Seral Habitat with Biological 0 2,222 0 Legacies Salvaged

Percent of Early Seral Habitat with 0 1.5% 0 Biological Legacies Salvaged

ANALYSIS ISSUES

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Wildlife Species ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION 3 Acres (%) Acres (%) Acres (%) PFF*1 High RHS 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) PFF1 Low RHS 0 (0%) 135 (12%) 0 (0%) PFF2 High RHS 0 (0%) 145 (11%) 0 (0%) Northern Spotted Owl PFF2 Low RHS 0 (0%) 638 (17%) 0 (0%) Potential Noise Disturbance on None 70 Acres 70 Acres Suitable Habitat

Suitable Habitat None None None Modified Marbled Murrelet Potential Noise Disturbance on None 70 Acres 70 Acres Suitable Habitat

*PFF – Post-Fire Foraging RHS - relative habitat suitability

Page|2-8 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

ANALYSIS ISSUES

Effects on Economics

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE

NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION 3

Volume In MBF* 0 71,476 MBF 14,953 MBF Revenue in $ 0 $37,882,466 $7,925,246 Present Net Value ($25,000) $2,830,596 $1,097,172 Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.0 1.08 1.16

ANALYSIS ISSUES

Effects on Undeveloped Lands

PROPOSED Measure NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTION

Total Acres (percent) of Undeveloped Lands 1,433 Acres 0 0 Salvaged (4%)

Miles of Temporary Roads in Undeveloped Lands 0 1.5 miles 0 Greater than 1,000 acres

Acres (percent) of Undeveloped Lands 826 Acres 0 0 Greater than 1,000 acres Salvaged (3.6%)

*MBF – million board feet

Chapter 2 Page|2-9 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Photos: Two examples of 75-100% basal area loss. Chetco Bar Fire

Page|2-10 C h a p t e r 2 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences Specialist Reports, Project Record, and Use of “Best Available Science” Specialist reports contain the detailed data, analysis methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the resource specialists relied upon to reach the conclusions in this environmental assessment. In those reports, the IDT members based their analyses on data collected during field surveys, skilled interpretations of data and maps, and application of professional judgment from observations and evaluation of data, and integrated relevant scientific information and responsible opposing views where raised by internal or external sources. This Environmental Assessment hereby incorporates by reference the following Specialist Reports: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report, Aquatic Biota Biological Evaluation, Soils Resource Report, Hydrology Resource Report, Recreation and Visuals Resource Report, Botanical Resources Report, Logging and Transportation Report Economic Analysis, Transportation System, Fire and Fuels Report, and the Silvicultural Prescription in the CBF Salvage project file (40 CFR 1502.21). Other resources not listed above wrote directly into the EA and no stand-alone specialist reports were written. The Project Record for the CBF Salvage project includes all project-specific information, including resource reports, the watershed analyses, and other results of field investigations. The record also contains information resulting from public involvement efforts. The project record is located at the Gold Beach Ranger District, RRSNF in Gold Beach, Oregon, and is available for review during regular business hours. The best available science is considered in preparation of this EA. The concept of “best available science” is also a matter of opinion to some degree since scientists can legitimately disagree about the meaning or impact of individual study results. As a general matter, we show consideration of the best available science when we insure the scientific integrity of the discussions and analyses in the project NEPA document. Salvage logging is one aspect of post-fire management and may be used to address a variety of issues including worker and public safety issues, risks along roads, and risks to infrastructure such as buildings and recreational facilities. Salvage logging may also be appropriate to recover economic value and support community resiliency. The ecological consequences of salvage, however, are often considered negative from the perspective of soils, hydrology, and wildlife habitat resources, although wildlife species responses vary. In 2015, scientists from Oregon State University and the Pacific Northwest Research Station completed a literature review concerning the Ecological Effects of Post-fire Salvage Logging in the Pacific Northwest (Reilly et al. 2015). These scientists found the ecological effects of post- fire salvage logging vary depending on the treatment, fire severity, and biological setting (Peterson et al. 2009). These scientists concluded that based on their literature review, in general, little research supports the idea that salvage logging has beneficial ecological effects on terrestrial or aquatic resources (Karr et al. 2004, Beschta et al. 2004, Lindenmayer and Noss 2006). To provide the proper context, they concluded that salvage logging needs to be addressed at landscape scales and in terms of tradeoffs with other ecological and economic objectives. Many of the ecological guidelines they recommend for post-fire management are included in the design of this project. For a complete list of ecological guidelines recommended refer to the EA Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detail Analysis documentation in the project record.

Chapter 3 Page|3-1 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

For purposes of the environmental assessment completed for this project, the Responsible Official has determined the appropriate comparison to address the tradeoffs between ecological considerations and economic objectives pertaining to salvage logging as recommended by Karr et al. (2004), Beschta et al. (2004) and Lindenmayer and Noss (2006), while also considering the economic value consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended, will be the comparison of effects disclosed in Chapter 3 between the No Action and the Action alternatives. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions The temporal and spatial scale of analysis is variable depending on the resource concern being evaluated, particularly when considering the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. During the interdisciplinary process the team followed guidance presented in CEQ’s letter dated June 24, 2005 regarding past actions. Using this guidance the following summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within and adjacent to the CBF Salvage project area was developed. These projects were considered where relevant, when addressing the cumulative effects for various resources. The effects are disclosed in this chapter.

Summary of Past Actions – The last sizable fire in the project area (prior to the 191,197-acre Chetco Bar fire) was the which occurred in 2002, and burned nearly 500,000 acres with about 139,076 acres occurring within the project area. A previous large fire in 1987, the Silver Fire, burned 23,460 acres in the project area. Since 1940 there have been 20 starts in the project area. Harvest – Since the 1980’s, past commercial thinning has occurred on about 2,370 acres, 1,210 acres of overstory removal, 18 acres of liberation cut, 13 acres of clear cut with leave trees, 23,410 acres of clearcut, and 460 acres of salvage cut. Precommercial Thinning – Precommercial thinning has occurred on about 14,800 acres. Tree release and weed activities has occurred on about 19,750 acres. Reforestation – Reforestation has occurred on about 34,500 acres. Site preparation for planting using chemicals has occurred on about 41,285 acres. About 99% of the chemical site preparation treatments occurred prior to 1989. Chemical site preparation treatments have not occurred since 2009. About 4,040 acres have had animal damage control activities. Prescribed Burning – Past prescribe burning has occurred on about 20,780 acres in the project area. Burning of piles has occurred on about 4,000 acres. Site preparation for planting by burning has occurred on about 2,520 acres. Wildlife Habitat Improvements – Seeding and planting has occurred on about 450 acres. About 10 nest structures or den development activities have occurred in the project area. Watershed Improvements – Non-structural improvements (riparian and erosion control) has occurred on about 675 acres. Fertilization – Fertilization treatments have occurred on about 6,500 acres. The last treatments were in 1999. SOD Treatments – Past treatments to limit the spread of SOD include herbicide use, cutting, piling and burning of host materials on 122 acres. Grazing – The CBF Salvage project is located within portions of 2 livestock grazing units– Pistol River East and West and Chetco grazing allotments. Grazing has occurred according to the permits issued.

Page | 3-2 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Invasive Plants – Past treatment of invasive plants including mechanical or physical methods has occurred on about 700 acres. Chetco Bar Fire Suppression Activities - Approximately 58.3 miles of dozer lines were constructed or reconstructed in and around the Chetco Bar Fire perimeter on National Forest System Lands, as well as 51 miles of hand line. Rehabilitation and repair of areas disturbed by suppression included pulling back hand line and dozer line berms and slash and seeding with native grasses where appropriate, installing water bars on fire lines, and grading road surfaces affected by fire vehicle and equipment use.

Summary of Present Actions Recreation – Ongoing use of developed recreation sites and trails, river access points, and dispersed use sites occurs year-round. Sightseeing, seasonally appropriate fishing and hunting, and public firewood gathering would continue to occur. Grazing – The southern portion of the Pistol River East and West allotment was burned by the Chetco Bar fire. This allotment is vacant and there are no plans to graze over the next 5 years or longer. The Chetco Grazing Allotment is an active allotment and the Chetco Bar fire burned throughout the entire grazing allotment at varying intensity levels. Livestock where moved out during the fire. The current permitted livestock numbers are: 9 yearlings from 6/1 to 10/1 or 6 cow/calf pairs from 6/1 to 10/1 each grazing season. The allotment is approximately 6 sections of land which is approximately 3,840 acres. The legal description T38S R12W Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11. At this time there is no rest period required on the Chetco Grazing Allotment. However the Forest Service would evaluate the allotment condition prior to allowing livestock onto the allotment. Salvage Logging on nearby Private Lands – The exact amount of logging and reforestation on nearby private lands is difficult to ascertain because private companies and individuals are not always willing to share that information. As of May 25, 2018 Oregon Department of Forestry has received notification of operations on 6,421 acres from private land owners. Using GIS analysis, there is about 13,843 acres of private land within the CBF perimeter. Approximately 4,377 acres incurred 0-25 percent basal area loss (RAVG analysis), 1,989 acres incurred 25-50 percent loss, 1,724 acres incurred 50-75 percent loss, and 5,742 acres incurred 75- 100 percent loss (see Table 7). Assuming no salvage logging is taking place in areas that incurred 0-25% basal area loss, we can estimate up to 9,455 acres of salvage on nearby private lands has occurred, is occurring, or may occur in the near future.

Table 7. Basal Area Loss on Private Lands from RAVG

Basal Area Loss Acres Class 1 = 0% - <25% 4,377 Class 2 = 25% - <50% 1,989 Class 3 = 50% - <75% 1,724 Class 4 = 75% - 100% 5,742 Total 13,843

2018 Danger Tree Abatement along Roadsides RRSNF – This project authorized the removal of roadside danger trees on about 318 miles of road forest wide. Within the Chetco Bar fire, about

Chapter 3 Page|3-3 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

250 miles of danger tree abatement along roadsides is ongoing within the project area and will continue thru 2018 and possibly 2019. Currently, the Packer (280 acres), Mineral (245 acres), and Snaketooth (204 acres) Roadside Danger Tree Abatement units have been identified on-the-ground and total about 729 acres. Within these roadside danger tree abatement areas, about 111 acres overlap with this project. The remaining Roadside Danger Tree Abatement units have not yet been specifically identified on- the-ground except for the roads that would be included in the treatments. Danger tree removal includes removing identified danger trees within the potential failure zone of major roads within the CBF perimeter, as well as road maintenance and reconstruction activities including: paving and repaving FS road 1376, Chetco slump, Chetco bridge and Upper Chetco bridge; culvert replacement, dust abatement, bridge work on first bridge on 1376 road, retaining wall on FS road 1376, and erosion control. BAER Activities – Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Treatments have occurred and continue to occur with the Chetco Bar fire area. BAER treatments include the following: x Road Treatments o Stabilization o Storm proofing/drainage (136 miles) o Inlet protection (47 points) o Culvert upsizing (4) or relief pipes (4) o Storm patrol o Danger trees (107 miles) o Gate installation (7) o Warning signs (74) o Bridge approach guard rail x Recreation Facilities o Trail storm-proofing/drainage (18.5 miles) o Vault toilet protection o Dispersed recreation site barriers o Hazard trees x Invasive Plants o Noxious weed early detection/rapid response (12,980 acres) x Heritage Resources o Cultural site protection (2 sites) Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Reforestation CE – A categorical exclusion would be completed in the near future for reforestation of areas burned in the Chetco Bar fire area but not salvaged under this project. Natural regeneration surveys would be completed and if natural regeneration is determined not to be adequate, site-specific appropriate tree species mix would be planted by hand. Site prep for tree planting could include, lop and scatter of existing down wood to open up planting sites using chainsaw as needed, cutting competing shrubs within a 4-foot radius of planting sites using chainsaw as needed, and removing ground vegetation within a 24-square inch planting site down to mineral soil (i.e. scalp) using a hoe dad. Trees would be manually planted with a hoe dad. It is unknown at this time the acres that would need to be planted because it depends on the level of natural regeneration.

Page | 3-4 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Salvage Logging on nearby BLM Lands – About 175 acres of salvage will occur on nearby BLM lands in the very near future. Issue 1 –Complex Early Seral Habitat and Biological Legacies There is no stand-alone report for this section; this section was written directly to the EA. Stand-replacing events such as portions of the Chetco Bar fire often produce early-successional (early seral) forest ecosystems which are diverse in species, processes, and structure. Post-fire ecosystems often contain biological legacies, including standing dead (snags) trees, and down woody debris. These legacies and post-fire plant communities provide resources that attract and sustain high watershed to landscape-scale species diversity, including numerous early- successional obligates. This section describes the effects to early seral habitat and biological legacies. Additional information on the effects specific to standing dead trees (snags), and down woody debris and the wildlife species that depend on these attributes are addressed in the Wildlife section.

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan There are no Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines specific to early seral habitat. Biological legacies are included in the wildlife section.

Affected Environment

Early Seral Habitat Early seral forest habitat is defined as “those ecosystems that occupy potentially forested sites in time and space between a stand-replacement disturbance and re-establishment of a closed forest canopy” (Swanson et al. 2011). Early succession is the only period when tree canopies do not dominate the forest site, and so this stage can be characterized by high productivity of plant species (including herbs and shrubs), complex food webs, large nutrient fluxes, and high structural and spatial complexity (Swanson et al. 2011). These habitats can persist for years to decades depending on the successful establishment of a new cohort of trees. It is well recognized that these early seral ecosystems provide a multitude of beneficial functions and processes, such as complex food webs, nutrient cycling, and high structural complexity (Swanson et al. 2011). Biological legacies in this document represent the organic debris, particularly the large organically-derived structures like standing dead trees (snags) and down logs. These structures are increasingly appreciated for their role in ecosystem functioning, such as the importance of large woody structures as animal habitat (Franklin 1990). It is well recognized that management activities, such as post-disturbance logging and dense tree planting, can reduce the richness within and the duration of early-successional ecosystems (Swanson et al. 2011 ), and can reduce the diversity and abundance of species dependent upon dead and decaying wood (Thorn et al., 2018). Generally, in areas without ample seed source, with shrub competition, and without artificial reforestation, establishment of a closed canopy stand may take more than 100 years (Sessions et al. 2004, Swanson et al. 2011). With planting, this successional pathway would occur on a shorter time scale, about 25 to 50 years. Where planting occurs, early seral forests would still persist on

Chapter 3 Page|3-5 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment the landscape for decades. Furthermore, many stand replacement areas within the fire will not be artificially regenerated, such as within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. These areas will provide additional acres of early seral habitat on the landscape for longer temporal scales. Local research on the Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, of three naturally regenerated stands following a large fire in 1881 noted most of the Douglas-fir regeneration established between 1890 and 1920 indicating a delayed and prolonged period of conifer establishment following wildfire (Little et al. 1995). The delayed Douglas-fir (and other conifer) regeneration is likely driven by the presence of hardwood trees and shrubs that quickly resprouted after the fire and dominated the sites for the first nine years. The timing of conifer natural regeneration at any given site will depend on the availability of seed, soil conditions, local climate, the presence and abundance of herbaceous and other woody plants, and the natural successional pathways that would normally follow a stand-replacing event. Desirable components of early seral habitats include species richness, biological legacies (such as snags and downed woody debris), and structural complexity. Persistence of biological legacies on the landscape is very important for ecosystem recovery and spatial heterogeneity (Noss et al. 2006, Swanson et al. 2011). Where socioeconomic considerations lead to post-fire logging, retention of snags, logs, and live trees is recommended to maintain structural complexity (Franklin et al. 2003, Swanson et al. 2011). The 2017-Chetco Bar fire burned approximately 191,197 acres. Approximately 60,500 acres (32%) burned at high mortality fire that resulted in, for all practical purposes, a stand replacement event. Of the approximately 60,500 acres of stand replacement fire, 55,428 acres occurred in the Chetco River watershed and 3,174 acres occurred in the Pistol River watershed. Additionally another 26,000 acres in the Chetco River watershed and 2,257 acres in the Pistol River watershed incurred mixed mortality of 50-75% basal area loss. These areas of stand replacement fire and many of the mixed mortality areas, will provide early seral habitat for many years. Low Mortality: These areas generally received low mortality fire that could be compared to a low to severe underburn. Mortality in the overstory trees was generally less than 25%. Much of the understory vegetation was killed. Mixed Mortality: These areas experienced a mix of mortality, with between 25% and 75% of the overstory trees expected to die. Della Salla et. al. (2014) describes mixed-severity fires, which include patches of high-severity fire, as creating coarse-grained, high-contrast heterogeneity that results in complex early successional forests, and, over time, a complex mosaic of seral stages at the landscape and local scales. High Mortality: These areas received very high intensity fire that resulted in, for all practical purposes, a stand replacement event. In most areas, the over-story mortality is 100% but can be as low as 75%, especially on the edges of these areas. These stands experienced greater than 75% tree mortality. Within the 191,197 acres burned by the 2017-Chetco Bar fire, approximately 170,321 were on NFS lands, and 146,260 acres have no history of timber harvest. Most of these lands with no history of harvest occur where management allocations (such as congressionally reserved areas, late successional reserve (LSR), and riparian reserve) either prohibit timber harvesting or are required to show ecological beneficial effects of treatments. However a small portion occur in matrix allocations where timber harvest and other silvicultural activities should be conducted, according to standards and guidelines. Acres of vegetation mortality classification that occurred within the 146,260 acres of unmanaged NFS lands are summarized in Table 8.

Page | 3-6 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Table 8. Vegetation Mortality Classification RAVG of Unmanaged NFS Lands

Basal Area Loss from RAVG Acres Mortality Classification Class 1 = 0% - < 25% BA loss 45,325 Low Mortality Class 2 = 25% - < 50% BA loss 32,274 Mixed Mortality Class 3 = 50% - < 75% BA loss 24,637 Mixed Mortality Class 4 = 75% - 100% BA loss 43,745 High Mortality Unknown 279 Unknown Total 146,260

Table 8 describes the level of basal area loss within the NFS lands portion of the Chetco Bar Fire that have no history of timber harvest, approximately 146,260 acres. Of these acres, approximately 43,745 incurred 75-100% basal area loss, which can be determined to be high mortality fire and complex early seral habitat and approximately 56,910 acres incurred 25-75% basal area loss, which are described as mixed mortality fire that can create patches of complex early seral habitat. These areas will provide complex early seral habitat for many years.

Natural Range of Variation (NRV) A Natural Range of Variation (NRV) analysis (Kuhn 2018) was completed for the watersheds that cover the majority of the fire and that may be impacted by post-fire salvage logging; the Chetco River and Pistol River watersheds. This analysis utilized the LANDFIRE biophysical settings (BpS), their reference conditions, and state-and-transition modeling to estimate the structural dynamics of pre-settlement forests in the Chetco River and Pistol River watersheds impacted by the Chetco Bar fire of 2017. The LANDFIRE BpS models are essentially descriptions of historic ecosystems that were shaped by natural disturbances prior to timber harvest and fire exclusion as well as Native American management and fire use. State-and-transition models (such as VDDT and ST-Sim) are used to model the frequencies of 3-5 forest structural stages or s-classes for each BpS. BpS models can also be viewed as aggregations of finer resolution vegetation types and dynamics, but that all have similar vegetation and disturbance processes. For the BpS models in the Chetco Bar fire area, five s-classes have been used: x Early Seral (A): early development after a stand-replacing disturbance x Mid-Seral Closed (B): mid-development with high canopy cover (generally >40-50%) x Mid-Seral Open (C): mid-development with lower canopy cover (generally <40-50%) x Late-Seral Open (D); late-development with lower canopy cover (generally <40-50%) x Late-Seral Closed (E): late-development with high canopy cover (generally >40-50%) These s-classes are defined by their successional state and transitions between them are governed by disturbances, types of disturbances, and disturbance frequency. Disturbances can include fire, insect and disease, flooding, and wind. Fire and other disturbances can be of different severities. NRV analysis was conducted on two watersheds within the Chetco Bar fire perimeter that encompass the majority of the fire area. Results include all BpS models that had at least 1% cover within the watershed, and show the modeled percentages of each of the five s-classes for each BpS.

Chapter 3 Page|3-7 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

The NRV analysis provides a historic mean (and slight variation) for the expected frequencies of each seral-structural class. At a landscape-scale and over long time periods, forests should have a structure similar to the NRV analysis, both spatially and temporally. Periodically, forests will be out of the historic NRV proportions, and this is not a concern, as long as they are not perpetually out of historic conditions. For instance, some watersheds may be below or above expected seral class proportion as long as other watersheds balance this out. This resource section of the EA focuses on the early seral (A) s-class within the tan oak/Douglas fir/Moist potential vegetation type (PVT) because this PVT makes up 78% of the Chetco River watershed and 86% of the Pistol River watershed. Refer to the Vegetation section of this EA for more information on these PVTs. The NRV analysis data (Kuhn 2018) suggests that within the Chetco River watershed the natural range of variability for the tan oak/Douglas fir/Moist potential vegetation type (PVT) early seral (A) s-class is 7.9% to 11.6% (13,880 to 20,382 acres); and 4,618 to 6,780 acres within the Pistol River watershed. About 70% of the 223,185-acre Chetco River watershed burned in 2017-Chetco Bar fire. Approximately 55,428 acres of high mortality (stand replacement) fire occurred in the Chetco River watershed and therefore the watershed is well above the natural range of variability (13,880 to 20,382 acres) for the tan oak/Douglas fir/Moist PVT, early seral (A) s-class. About 40% of the 59,650-acre Pistol River watershed burned in 2017-Chetco Bar fire. Approximately 3,174 acres of high mortality (stand replacement) fire and 2,257 acres of mixed mortality occurred in the Pistol River watershed. The watershed is below the natural range of variability (4,618 to 6,780 acres) for the tan oak/Douglas fir/Moist PVT, early seral (A) s-class. At the fire scale, the amount of early seral successional forest, occupied by grass, forbs, or shrubs is well above the natural range of variability for the tan oak/Douglas fir/Moist PVT, early seral (A) s-class. Using the RAVG data, the total amount of early seral condition within the fire area (NFS lands only) was estimated to be 43,745 acres, or 30% of the burned area (see Table 8).

Environmental Consequences to Complex Early Seral Habitat and Biological Legacies

Methodology The effects to early seral habitat were based on data created using geographic information systems (GIS) and remotely sensed data through the Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) map. The Chetco Fire perimeter was evaluated for NFS lands, and prior timber harvest.

Area of Effect for Complex Early Seral Habitat The geographic boundary for analyzing effects to early seral habitat is the 146,261 acres of NFS lands within the Chetco Bar fire perimeter that have no history of timber harvest. This area was chosen because unmanaged stands would contain complex early seral habitat due to no past management activities. Stands harvested and reforested more than 80 years prior to the Chetco Bar fire could be considered complex early seral habitat however they were not included in the analysis because that data is not readily available. To provide a conservative analysis, private lands and BLM lands for this analysis were all considered managed stands.

Page | 3-8 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Cumulative Effects Boundaries Activities occurring or reasonably certain to occur on NFS lands within the Chetco Bar fire perimeter that have no history of timber harvest, about 146,261 acres.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. The No Action Alternative would cause no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to early seral habitat or biological legacies. Without salvage, the NFMA requirement for reforestation within 5 years, post-disturbance, does not apply. However, Regional Office direction is, that reforestation should occur as quickly as possible after stand replacing fire. In places, post fire, the shrub component would maintain dominance for decades. Early seral habitat could persist for a century or more in some places of stand replacement fire, depending on the success of regeneration.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) There is concern that early seral habitat would be diminished or reduced beyond acceptable levels due to salvage harvesting and artificial reforestation (planting). Management activities, such as post-disturbance logging and dense tree planting, can reduce the richness within and the duration of early-successional ecosystems (Swanson et al. 2011). Though artificial reforestation may speed up the successional process, these areas would not be considered a loss to early seral habitat. It may take several decades to a century for these stands to develop into closed canopy forest depending on the success of seedling establishment. At the fire scale, currently about 30% (43,745 acres) of the 146,260 acres of unmanaged NFS lands within the Chetco Bar fire are considered early seral habitat, well above the NRV of 7.9% to 11.6%. Additionally, about 39% (56,910 acres) incurred 25-75% basal area loss, which are described as mixed mortality fire that can create patches of complex early seral habitat. Post-fire habitat is not rare or limiting in the Chetco Bar fire perimeter. Under the Proposed Action alternative, approximately 2,222 acres of unmanaged stands (1.5% of the unmanaged NFS lands) are planned for salvaging and potentially artificial reforestation if natural regeneration is not sufficient. The 2,222 acres (1.5%) of salvaged and planted unmanaged stands are within matrix allocations where timber harvest and other silvicultural activities should be conducted, according to standards and guidelines. These areas after salvage, will still be considered early seral habitat but are expected to have reduced diversity in species, processes, and structure (complexity). Traditional forestry activities (eg clearcutting or post-disturbance logging) reduce the species richness and key ecological processes associated with early-successional ecosystems; other activities, such as tree planting, can limit the duration (eg by plantation establishment) of this important successional stage (Swanson et al. 2011). The 2,222 acres of salvaged and planted unmanaged stands are also expected to become established more rapidly than naturally seeded acres, limiting the duration spent in the early seral stage. The remaining 98.5% of unmanaged stands (144,066 acres) would not be salvaged and left to provide natural rates of succession. Within these areas, about 98,000 acres would provide complex early seral habitat in large patches and smaller mixed patches for many years. At the watershed scale, within the Chetco River watershed, about 1,882 acres of unmanaged stands would be salvaged and potentially planted, depending on natural regeneration. The Chetco River watershed would continue to be about 33,000 acres above the high end of the natural range of variability for the tan oak/Douglas fir/Moist PVT, early seral (A) s-class.

Chapter 3 Page|3-9 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

At the watershed scale, within the Pistol River watershed about 340 acres of unmanaged stands would be salvaged and potentially planted, depending on natural regeneration. The Pistol River watershed would be about 1,784 acres below the natural range of variability for the tan oak/Douglas fir/Moist PVT, early seral (A) s-class. This is not a concern because the NRV analysis provides a historic mean (and slight variation) for the expected frequencies of each seral- structural class. At a landscape-scale and over long time periods, forests should have a structure similar to the NRV analysis, both spatially and temporally. Periodically, forests will be out of the historic NRV proportions, and this is not a concern, as long as they are not perpetually out of historic conditions. For instance, some watersheds may be below or above expected seral class proportion as long as other watersheds balance this out. The adjacent Chetco River watershed is 33,000 acres above NRV which balances out what the Pistol River watershed’s lacks. Additionally, landscapes are dynamic and stand disturbance will continue over time, across the fire area. Within the CBF Project area, all live trees, except those trees expected to die (as per the guidelines from the Marking guidelines for fire-injured trees in California (Smith & Cluck. 2011) for predicting mortality of fire-injured trees (See Table 3)), would be retained, as well as snags and down wood as described in the design criteria. Snag and down wood retention per the project PDCs for both action alternatives would lessen the loss of these habitat elements that are important to these species and ensure that some of this habitat will remain where it is available in harvest units. Additional details on snags and down wood retention can also be found in the wildlife section of this EA. Reforestation treatments within the Chetco Bar fire area would not include any herbicide treatments or other extensive site preparation methods to remove shrubs. The extent of vegetation removal would be confined to 2 square feet of scalping, and 4-foot radius removal of existing competing vegetation using chainsaw, where a seedling is to be planted.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from Alternative 3 Salvage logging would not occur in unmanaged stands under this alternative, therefore there would be no reduction in the acres of complex early seral habitat across the project area. Alternative 3 would cause no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to complex early seral habitat or biological legacies in unmanaged stands. Effects to snags and downed wood are described in the Wildlife section.

In unmanaged stands, post fire, the shrub component would maintain dominance for decades. Early seral habitat could persist for a century or more in some places of stand replacement fire, depending on the success of regeneration.

Cumulative Effects from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Past timber harvest has produced the amount of unmanaged stands (146,261 acres) in the fire perimeter. Current projects include the Roadside Danger Tree Abatement project. There are no known future projects within the unmanaged stands in the Chetco Bar fire perimeter that would reduce early seral habitat or biological legacies. The current Roadside Danger Tree Abatement project would have cumulative effects to complex early seral habitat and biological legacies. Roadside danger tree abatement operations would be conducted concurrently, or nearly concurrently, with project activities on ML 2 and higher roads in the project area. These activities would fell current danger trees and those that will become danger trees in the next five years, from road-edge to 1.5 times the average co-dominant tree height on both sides of the road. In steep terrain, this distance could extend out to 400 feet slope-

Page | 3-10 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project distance to address hazardous rollout conditions. In combination with project activities, this would result in fewer biological legacies along roadsides, and less complex early seral habitat along roadsides. However, the difference from existing conditions would be one of frequency rather than of type or scale. Without human intervention, the dead and dying trees that would be removed by cumulative project activities would fall; just less predictably and over a longer time period. The cumulative result would be an acceleration of ongoing natural processes, arriving at an equivalent impact to complex early seral habitat and biological legacies. A future Reforestation CE would artificially reforest some of the non-salvaged burned areas within the fire perimeter (at this time the exact number of acres is unknown). Areas successfully artificially reforested would not reduce biological legacies but could reduce the duration of time spent in the early seral stage. However, artificial reforestation would occur at appropriate densities and with site-specific appropriate tree species mix. Therefore these areas may provide additional diversity in species and structure. Some areas not artificially reforested may never achieve full stocking or a closed crown status and may provide complex early seral habitat for decades. In addition, it would be expected, given fire return intervals, that more disturbance would occur within the CBF area before crown closure is achieved, thus providing additional early seral habitat. There would be no cumulative effects to complex early seral habitat from salvage logging on private and BLM lands because the geographic boundary for analyzing effects to early seral habitat is the 146,261 acres of NFS lands within the Chetco Bar fire perimeter that have no history of timber harvest. Additionally, in this analysis, private and BLM lands were not considered unmanaged, so they would not provide complex early seral habitat. Wildlife The following is a summary of the Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework

Forest Service Policy Forest Service Manual 2600, section 2672.4, guides development of a biological evaluation to determine possible effects to endangered, threatened, proposed or sensitive species. The primary objective of this evaluation is to document that the proposed activities would not contribute to a loss of viability of native species or a trend towards federal listing. FSM 2672.43 provides a description of the administrative and field procedures associated with the preparation of a BE. Habitat examination direction is included in FSM 2634. All documents are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm_2000.html.

ESA The Endangered Species Act, section 7(a)(2), requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure proposed actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitats. In addition, section 7(a)(1) specifies our obligation to conserve listed species, including measures necessary to recover the species and remove them from the ESA list. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The

Chapter 3 Page|3-11 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment resulting consultation document usually contains project design criteria or other conservation measures which are mandatory.

Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service During development of the CBF Salvage project, the Forest Service began early conversations with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) on potential effects to federally listed wildlife species. This included participation by the USFWS field biologist on the interdisciplinary team field visits to the project area on December 13 and 14, 2017, and February 6 and 7, 2018. Formal consultation between the Forest and the Fish and Wildlife Service for this project began April 26, 2018 and a Biological Opinion was received by the Forest June 5, 2018. All activities would be implemented consistent with project descriptions and mandatory project design criteria (PDCs) identified in the final biological assessment and the Service’s corresponding biological opinion.

Region 6 Sensitive Species A full description of the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP), agency direction, species lists and criteria for inclusion, conservation planning tools and species fact sheets are available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/. Sensitive species are species for which there is a documented concern for viability within one or more administrative unit within the species’ historic range (FSM 2670.22, WO Amendment 2600- 95-7). These species may require special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. The Siskiyou LRMP requires the maintained viability of special status species. Protection includes managing habitat to minimize impacts, as well as prohibition of noise disturbance during the breeding season.

Northwest Forest Plan (Survey and Manage Species) Additional information on the Northwest Forest Plan, including documents for download, is available on the internet at: http://www.reo.gov/general/aboutNWFP.htm. Survey and manage policy is available at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/. Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl and Oregon red tree vole are subject to the provisions in the Northwest Forest Plan including survey and management standards and guidelines. The NWFP amends the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Survey and Manage The CBF Salvage Project is within the range of the northern spotted owl and Oregon red tree vole. The Project is consistent with the survey and management standards and guidelines in the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001) and is based on the district court’s remedy order issued on February 18, 2014 (Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA No. C08- 1067-JCC). This remedy order followed after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the 2011 Consent Decree executed in resolution of the district court action (Conservation Northwest, et al v. Harris Sherman, et al and D.R. Johnson Company, 715 F.3d. 1181, C.A. 9 (Wash), April 25, 2013).

Page | 3-12 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Siskiyou NF LRMP Direction Following are standards and guidelines pertaining to wildlife habitat management from the Siskiyou NF LRMP (USDA 1989) applied to the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project:

MIS The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires that each national forest identify management indicator species in the planning process and that "fish and wildlife habitats would be managed to maintain and improve habitat of selected management indicator species." By monitoring the habitat changes or trends of these particular indicator species, the effects of management activities on the associated animal communities can theoretically be determined. Since the habitats of these indicator species cover the majority of the vegetative seral stages on the Forest, it is assumed that meeting the requirements of these species would assure that the needs of associated species would be met over time. (16 USC 1604 Sec. 6 g3b) Management indicator species associated with the Siskiyou NF LRMP (USDA 1989) represent the issues, concerns, and opportunities to support recovery of federally-listed species, provide continued viability of sensitive species, and enhance management of wildlife and fish for commercial, recreational, scientific, subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses. Management indicators representing overall objectives for wildlife, fish, and plants may include species, groups of species with similar habitat relationships, or habitats that are of high concern (FSM 2621.1). Indicator species represent other wildlife species which utilize a similar habitat type. As such, MIS act as a barometer for the health of various habitats and would be monitored to quantify habitat changes predicted by implementation of the Siskiyou LRMP (1989 pages IV-10 and 11, FEIS page III-102).

Migratory Birds 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 (below) all other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and the habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the BLM and Forest Service have 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 (EO) 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001) lists several responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. It 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

Chapter 3 Page|3-13 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment 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. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service was signed December, 2008, and extended August 1, 2016 through December 17, 2017. 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.”

Pollinators In June of 2014 a Presidential Memorandum was issued to create a federal strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. It outlined new steps for reversing pollinator losses and restoring populations, including establishment of the pollinator health task force which was tasked with developing a national pollinator health strategy. Primary components of the strategy are research, education and development of public-private partnerships. Federal agencies were also tasked with enhancing pollinator habitat on their managed lands, consistent with their mission and public safety. Specific tasks include the development of best management practices for enhancing pollinator habitat and establishment of a pollinator-friendly native seed reserve.

Affected Environment The project boundary is entirely within the Chetco River and Pistol River 5th field watersheds. These two watersheds are in the Oregon Klamath Province with documented northern spotted owl (NSO) and marbled murrelet (MAMU) occupancy. According to the 2011 NSO Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b), the Oregon Klamath Province experienced the greatest amount of habitat loss on federal lands of all provinces between 1996 and 2006 due to wildland fire (93,600 acres) much of this was in the 2002 Biscuit Fire which burned in the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds. In 2017, the Chetco Bar fire burned within the Biscuit fire and an additional 77,900 acres beyond the Biscuit Fire boundary in these two watersheds. Preliminary post-fire habitat mapping estimates 12,450 acres of NRF burned with moderate-high severity in the Chetco Bar fire. Post- fire landscape-scale habitat conditions within the Chetco Fire NSO action area (defined later) provide some long-term concern for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The distribution and availability of spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging (NRF) and dispersal habitat was fragmented prior to the fire due to ownership patterns and effects of past management; the scale of high severity fire and subsequent private land salvage harvesting has exacerbated those conditions. NRF habitat is still present in areas that either did not burn or had low burn severity (24 percent of NFS lands in the fire). NRF habitat that burned at higher severity may still provide foraging habitat for spotted owls, especially in areas adjacent to existing NRF. The ability of this landscape to provide dispersal habitat that facilitates movement between large functional NRF habitat blocks will be limited and fragmented for a long period of time.

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat In the Oregon Klamath Province, owl dispersal-only habitat is forest stands with average tree diameters are ≥ 11inches DBH, canopy closure is ≥ 40 percent and there is enough open space beneath the canopy for an owl to fly through. Nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF) habitat for owls is generally older than 80 years with average tree diameter of 21 inches DBH, basal areas between 180 and 240 square feet/acre and canopy closure ≥ 60 percent. NRF habitat also serves

Page | 3-14 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project as dispersal habitat and contains adequate dead wood to support owl prey species; such as, northern flying , red tree voles, wood rats and other small . Post-fire foraging (PFF) for the northern spotted owl is NRF that has burned at moderate to high intensity and may include occasional individual or small clumps of green trees but for the most part are completely stand replaced and no longer function as nesting or roosting habitat, nor do they provide enough canopy cover for functional dispersal habitat. However, recent studies have shown that spotted owls may continue to utilize this habitat post fire. This is likely incumbent on the patch size of this habitat and its relationships to known owl sites, juxtaposition on the landscape, and other factors. There are differences in the spatial arrangement of spotted owl habitat, locations of activity centers, burn severities and scales of this type of habitat. Comprehensive analyses of the long-term effects of fire on use and occupancy within a landscape, especially the small scale effects to pairs or individuals, are limited. Recognizing these variations in study area conditions and methodologies, the best available literature indicates that NSOs may to some degree, use burned areas that were previously habitat, for nesting, roosting, and/or foraging, depending on the complex interaction of factors such as habitat quality pre-and post-fire, location of the burns in relation to NSO core use areas, and the size, severity, and patterns of the burn. For this analysis, the Forest stratified PFF based on factors that influence the likelihood of use by owls. Primary PFF (PFF1) is post-fire foraging within 500 feet of existing NRF having high relative habitat suitability (RHS) which more likely to be used by foraging owls than secondary PFF (PFF2) which is beyond 500 feet from existing high RHS NRF. This is based on a study of the Timbered Rock fire in southern Oregon by Comfort et al. 2016 which evaluated the likelihood of post-fire habitat use by NSO based on the degree of contrast between edges of burned and unburned habitat within 90m (approx. 300ft) along those mapped edges. This study found that NSO favored “diffuse” edges of low and mixed-severity fire rather than abrupt edges of high severity fire. In this action area, PFF1 represents an estimate of the diffuse edges in the action area. This stratification accounts for the degree that the PFF contributes to habitat fitness (survival and reproduction) of NSOs at least in the short-term. For example, PFF2 is characterized as patches of NRF burned at moderate to high severity and have reductions of important habitat components (i.e. lack of stand structure, diversity, cover, or heterogeneity) which may have been the condition of the stand prior to the fire influenced by abiotic factors such as aspect or slope position which also favor a high severity fire regime (Skinner 2002). PFF1 is characterized as patches of NRF that burned at moderate to high severity, but are interspersed in a mosaic of mixed severity and unburned habitat (within 500 ft of existing NRF) and could still be utilized by NSOs. There is much debate currently on the value of PFF to spotted owls, and the effects of salvage in burned habitat on owls. For a summary of research into the use of PFF by owls, and owl habitats see Bond et al. 2009, Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2011, Clark et al. 2013, Elliott 1985, Eyes et al. 2017, Gaines et al.1995, Jenness et al. 2004, Lee and Bond 2015a, Lee and Bond 2015b, Roberts et al. 2011, Jones and Peery 2018, Ganey et al. 2017, and Hansen et al. 2018. Furthermore, the MAXENT relative habitat suitability (RHS) model described in the Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b) was used to evaluate the abiotic suitability of a site for NSO nesting and PFF habitat. For example, NRF habitat on ridgelines is generally considered low quality nesting habitat for spotted owls with low relative habitat suitability. Owls are not known to nest on these ridges; they tend to be warmer, drier and more exposed than drainages and northerly aspects commonly occupied by NSO. Conversely, efforts are made to conserve important habitat elements such as large legacy snags and down wood in PFF habitat that is

Chapter 3 Page|3-15 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment located on lower slope-positions and in drainages where relative habitat suitability is high. Legacy snags form from old standing “legacy” trees that have persisted on the landscape after human and/or natural disturbances. Legacy trees or snag size vary depending on site productivity, and are usually disproportionately large diameter trees that are often remnants of the previous stand. Legacies trees or snags containing one or more of the following characteristics are desired for wildlife habitat: split or broken tops; large mistletoe brooms; heavy decadent branching; burned out cavities; otherwise damaged to the degree that a cavity may form; basal fire, lightning scars or other features that indicate decay or defect.

NSO Habitat within Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Action Area The CBF Salvage Project NSO Action Area is the area within 1.3 miles of proposed treatment units plus any home ranges that are affected by project activities. This distance represents the approximate home range distance of northern spotted owls in the Oregon Klamath province. The NSO Action Area is 76,576 acres of which 82 percent is the RRSNF, 3 percent is managed by BLM, and 15 percent is private individual or company land. Approximately 28 percent of RRSNF lands in the NSO Action Area is spotted owl NRF habitat, 19 percent is dispersal-only and 14 percent is PFF. Furthermore, 44% of RRSNF acres in the NSO Action Area are in reserved land allocations (e.g. LSR). The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl provides considerations and guidelines when designing post-fire management projects. Specifically, Recovery Action 12 recommends conserving habitat elements that take a long time to develop such as large snags and large down wood (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). During the Project planning process, approximately 260 acres of primary PFF habitat were dropped from the proposal in consideration of this recovery action.

Known (Historical) NSO Sites There are thirteen NSO home ranges within 1.3 miles of proposed salvage units and along haul routes. Of these, eleven home ranges overlap portions of proposed units. Habitat (NRF) within known owl sites is based on the 2014 modified GNN habitat data which was updated for habitat lost to large fires since 2012 (imagery date) and accounts for anticipated loss of PFF habitat from roadside danger tree abatement in the Chetco Bar fire area. Table 9 displays the current NSO habitat data for sites affected by the project. Minimum NRF thresholds for owl site viability are 50 percent for the core area and 40 percent for the home range (Courtney et al. 2004; Thomas et al. 1990). None of the thirteen core areas or home ranges currently have minimum habitat for viability and are less likely to support successful NSO reproduction and fledging. However, NSO are known to have high site fidelity even after fires, and it’s possible that individuals or pairs may shift their activity centers to larger patches of NRF remaining in the vicinity of their historic site. Surveys conducted in the 2018 breeding season are expected to provide insight into NSO occupancy of remaining habitat.

Page | 3-16 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Table 9. Acres of NRF within Potentially Affected Owl Habitat

Acres of NRF and PFF (% of Nest Patch, Core Area, Home Range)

Nest Patch Home Range Home Range Owl Site # Nest Patch PFF Core Area Core Area NRF NRF NRF PFF PFF

98 2 (3) 17(25) 36 (7) 95 (19) 414 (12) 496 (15) 101 34 (49) 0 (0) 200 (40) 15 (3) 793 (23) 323 (9) 102 18 (26) 25 (36) 115 (23) 95 (19) 1148 (34) 360 (11) 128 3 (4) 41 (59) 30 (6) 239 (47) 537 (16) 831 (24) 142 33 (48) 11 (16) 212 (42) 93 (18) 1079 (32) 393 (12) 143 25 (36) 16 (23) 219 (43) 87 (17) 1009 (30) 584 (17) 162 10 (14) 13 (19) 96 (19) 137 (27) 715 (21) 703 (20) 200 14 (20) 35 (50) 112 (22) 92 (18) 975 (29) 385 (11) 256 11 (16) 3 (4) 124 (25) 3 (0) 737 (22) 271 (8) 307 2 (3) 44 (64) 9 (2) 243 (48) 376 (11) 938 (29) 308 14 (20) 1 (1) 144 (29) 4 (1) 1083 (32) 127 (4) 309 29 (42) 3 (4) 199 (39) 10 (2) 1095 (32) 137 (4) 367 34 (49) 18 (26) 200 (40) 124 (24) 1252 (37) 569 (17) Table 9 displays acres of NRF within potentially affected owl site nest patch (70 ac), core area (500 ac) and home ranges (3398 ac) in the Chetco Bar Analysis Area.

NSO Designated Critical Habitat Approximately 28,002 acres of critical habitat subunit (CHU) KLW 3 (Klamath West, subunit 3) overlap the action area. Of these acres 3,734 are PFF habitat. These acres in combination with existing NRF and dispersal provide similar physical and biological features (large snags) to critical habitat making up 18,039 acres of the KLW3 in the action area and 73,707 acres of the entire KLW3. Additional details of this critical habitat subunit are included in the project BA and BO, and the full designation of critical habitat can be found in Federal Register notice Vol. 77, No. 233 at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12- 04/pdf/2012-28714.pdf.

Marbled Murrelet Habitat A more detailed description of marbled murrelet (MAMU) identification, range, habitat and life history can be found in the 1996 final rule designation of critical habitat in 61 FR 102:26256- 26320, and the 2011 revised 77 FR 193:615990-61621. Relevant information is summarized here. The project is within the “Siskiyou Coast Range Zone 4” MAMU conservation zone. The project is approximately 8 miles from the ocean where MAMU forage and is within MAMU zone 1, survey area A; western hemlock. Murrelet nesting habitat is generally mature forest with or without an old-growth component, but having trees with platform structure of at least 4-inches in diameter. Platforms can be branches with or without moss and lichens, witches brooms, mistletoe or other deformities. Murrelets are known to have occupied smaller patches of habitat within areas of unsuitable habitat. Forest within 0.5 mile of individual trees with nesting platforms having a canopy height of at least one- half the site potential is considered a physical and biological feature essential for murrelet nesting.

Chapter 3 Page|3-17 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Murrelet Habitat within the Project Area Proposed units do not contain suitable habitat for marbled murrelets. Any living trees in these units either do not have platforms, or do not have adequate surrounding forest canopy to provide cover over potential suitable platforms. NSO NRF is used by the forest as a surrogate for estimating suitable habitat, as mentioned previously approximately 28 percent of the area within 1.3 miles of proposed units including entire NSO home ranges that overlap units (NSO Action Area) may provide suitable habitat for MAMU.

Known Murrelet Occupied Sites Portions of occupied sites burned with moderate to high severity no longer provide suitable habitat for MAMU. A total of 9.6 acres ranging from 0.5 to 5 acres of units #147, 149, 160 and 165 overlap these burned areas in occupied habitat Occupied sites are within disturbance distances of four additional units #144, 145, 146 and 167.

MAMU Critical Habitat None of the proposed salvage units are within designated marbled murrelet critical habitat, however most of them are adjacent to critical habitat (unit numbers OR-07-c and OR-07-d) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). Approximately 0.8 miles of proposed haul route which would include 25 acres of roadside danger tree abatement and 3 proposed landings along existing roads occur along the edge of critical habitat unit OR-07-c.

Dead Wood The project focus is removal of dead and dying trees with commercial value, therefore dead wood is the habitat element that would be most impacted by project activities and the evaluation of those impacts begins with the following discussion. The Forest Service Region 6 uses the DecAID model to evaluate snag and down wood densities at the watershed scale (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/). DecAID is an advisory tool based on best available science to help determine reference and current conditions for large snags and other dead wood at the watershed scale (Mellen-McLean and others 2012). It is based on data from plots in unharvested stands to provide dead wood distribution that represents natural variation for comparison with the current distribution of dead wood in a watershed. This provides a basis to evaluate the effects of management activities on dead wood levels and the organisms that use decayed wood and considerations for dead wood management. The current condition is the actual, current forest condition given all historic and modern human disturbances (including harvests, fires, etc). The RAVG post-fire data was used to update the current vegetation condition for this analysis which was the best data available for the project timeline. For this project, southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood is the forest habitat type characterized by the plot data used for the DecAID analysis. This habitat consists of a diverse array of plant species. In the fire area, Douglas-fir and incense cedar are the dominant conifer species mixed with Port-Orford-cedar, tanoak, canyon live oak, golden chinquapin, and Pacific madrone. Common shrubs include dwarf Oregon grape, Ceanothus species, salal, Pacific rhododendron, evergreen huckleberry, serviceberry, manzanita, oceanspray, snowberry, hazel, vinemaple, and poison oak. The mortality and subsequent decomposition of woody vegetation plays a vital role in forest ecosystem processes, affecting aspects such as resilience, biodiversity and fundamental regulating services. There are a wide array of nutrient cycling, trophic interactions and ecosystem processes

Page | 3-18 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project that function as a result of carbon being slowly released back into the ecosystem through decomposition of dead wood. One of the most beneficial aspects for the ecosystem as a whole is the relationship between mycorrhizal fungi, down wood and most of the land plants, particularly conifer trees. Mutualistic symbiosis in the form of mycorrhizal association should be a fundamental consideration for project planning because of the importance it has on all other life in the forested environment. Regional scale gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) modeling data from 2012 with RAVG updates from 2017 were utilized to estimate the current distribution of dead wood within this landscape (Figure 13 thru Figure 18). The DecAid analysis assumes that GNN provides the best current scientific data on dead wood ecosystem attributes (see this website for an explanation of GNN spatial data http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/methods). While not perfect at a site specific or stand level scale, GNN vegetation data helps to show general trends at a landscape scale. The following figures display the snags per acre and percent cover of down wood for each watershed. In addition, 50 percent tolerance levels for certain species that use snags are also displayed. These tolerance levels indicate the density of snags per acre that 50 percent of individuals in the population of a species would use within this habitat type, while the other 50 percent would use a higher amount. For example, 50 percent of fringed myotis (bats) in the population would use habitat with approximately 33.2 snags per acre while the other 50 percent would use habitat with more snags per acre (Figure 4).

Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds The 2017 Chetco Bar fire is the largest fire to burn in the Chetco and Pistol River 5th field watersheds since the 2002 Biscuit Fire. RAVG fire severity mapping estimates approximately 25 percent of the Chetco watershed burned with 75-100% basal area mortality and 12 percent with 50-75% mortality. For the Pistol River watershed, approximately 5 percent burned with 75-100% mortality and 3 percent with 50-75% mortality. These areas currently contribute to the largest concentrations of dead wood in these watersheds shown in Figure 14 and Figure 17. Snag Distribution Inventory data prior to the fire suggest that the Chetco River watershed was 11 percent deficient overall in snags per acre than reference conditions, although it had 3.5 times more area with over 24 snags per acre (15 vs 4 percent). After the fire (Figure 4), the watershed now has 2 percent more area with snags >10 inches diameter than reference, and nearly 10 times more area with more than 24 snags per acre than reference condition (39 vs 4 percent) potentially providing suitable habitat for bat roosts and cavity-nesting birds (Figure 13 and Figure 14).

Chapter 3 Page|3-19 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Inventory data for large snags (>20 inches diameter) prior to the fire suggest the Chetco River watershed was 23 percent deficient in area with large snags than reference conditions (51 vs 28 percent area with no snags) with deficiencies in all ranges of snag density (Figure 5). The post- fire distribution of large snags for the Chetco River watershed displayed in Figure 6 suggests the watershed is now 12 percent deficient in large snags overall than reference conditions. Note that this deficiency is in area with fewer than 6 snags per acre, whereas the watershed now has nearly 4 times more area with more than 6 snags per acre than reference conditions and potentially provides more suitable habitat for cavity nesters and bat roosts (Figure 15 and Figure 16).

Figure 4. Post-fire Distribution, Snags > 10” Diameter per acre: Chetco River Watershed

Page | 3-20 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 5. Pre-fire Distribution, Large Snags per acre: Chetco River Watershed.

Figure 6. Post-fire Distribution, Large Snags per acre: Chetco River Watershed.

Chapter 3 Page|3-21 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Snag distribution for the Pistol River watershed prior to the fire was 20 percent lower than reference conditions for snags greater than 10 inches diameter, however it had two times more area with over 24 snags per acre (8 vs 4 percent). After the fire, the overall margin of deficiency was reduced to 14 percent (27 vs 13 percent, Figure 7). Though the watershed is still deficient in area with lower densities of snags, it now has nearly 4 times more area with over 24 snags per acre, and potentially provides more suitable habitat for bat roosts and cavity-nesting birds.

Figure 7. Post-fire Distribution, Snags >10 inches Diameter per acre: Pistol River Watershed.

Furthermore, pre-fire inventory data suggest the Pistol River watershed was 27 percent lower than reference in area with large snags (>20 inches diameter), with deficiencies in all snag densities. After the fire, that margin of deficiency was reduced to 25 percent (53 vs 28 percent, Figure 8). Though it is still deficient in area with lower densities of large snags per acre, it now has two times more area than reference condition with over 18 large snags per acre and potentially provides more suitable habitat for bat roosts and cavity-nesting birds.

Page | 3-22 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 8. Post-fire Distribution, Large Snags per acre: Pistol River Watershed.

Figure 9 compares reference and current distributions of all down wood greater than 5 inches diameter in the Chetco River watershed. Down wood distribution is represented by percent cover which represents the abundance of down wood in an area providing cover for wildlife species. Overall, the Chetco River watershed currently has more down wood than the reference condition indicated by the amount of the watershed with 0 percent cover (22 vs 28 percent). This is due to the amount of the watershed that now has more than 4 percent cover. Figure 17 displays the current distribution of down wood greater than 5 inches at the large end throughout the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds.

Chapter 3 Page|3-23 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 9. Distribution, Down Wood > 5 inches Diameter per acre: Chetco River Watershed

Down wood greater than 20 inches diameter is used by fisher and marten. Figure 10 compares the distribution of large down wood between current and reference conditions in the Chetco River watershed. Overall, the watershed is a little lower in large down wood cover than reference conditions. Figure 18 displays current distribution of large down wood.

Page | 3-24 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 10. Distribution, Large Down Wood by Percent Cover: Chetco River Watershed.

Figure 11. Distribution, Down Wood > 5 inches Diameter per acre: Pistol River Watershed.

Chapter 3 Page|3-25 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 11 compares the reference and current distribution of all down wood greater than 5 inches diameter in the Pistol River watershed. Overall, the watershed has a higher amount of down wood with less of the area having zero cover (22 vs 28 percent of the watershed). The Pistol River watershed now has 4 times more down wood with higher percent cover than reference. Figure 12 compares the distribution of large down wood (greater than 20 inches diameter) between current and reference conditions for the Pistol River watershed. Overall, the watershed has a little higher amount of large down wood than reference conditions, but is lower than reference conditions in large down wood above 4 percent cover (2 vs 6 percent).

Figure 12. Distribution, Large Down Wood by Percent Cover: Pistol River Watershed.

Site Specific Dead Wood Project units would affect areas in the watersheds with more than 18 snags per acre (20 snags per hectare, Figure 14). Down wood in both watersheds is higher than reference except for areas with greater than 4 percent cover of large down wood. Areas next to roads where roadside danger trees have been felled and left, and where trees were cut for control line preparation during the fire have higher concentrations of down wood. Snags are expected to continue to accrue in and adjacent to the proposed units due to delayed stress response from fire effects, and down wood will also increase as snags decay and fall. Guidelines for stand level retention of snags is based on Forest Plan direction supplemented by best available science. The DecAID tool and dead wood management guidance developed for Region 6 is a synthesis of applicable scientific literature about snag and down wood use by wildlife for a given habitat type. Current information in DecAID for dead wood in southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood is the same or surpasses Siskiyou Forest Plan Standards and Standards and Guidelines for Matrix in the NWFP. DecAID advises managing the distribution of dead wood for a landscape (e.g. watershed) to reach general natural conditions that mimic the distribution of unharvested acres (i.e. reference condition). For both snags and down wood it is

Page | 3-26 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project desirable to provide a combination of aggregations and more widely spaced pieces throughout stands to benefit wildlife. For down wood, it is recommended to leave higher amounts where fire is less likely to consume it and where it would not produce a fuel problem. This is typically on north and east aspects and on the lower 1/3 of slopes (Skinner 2002). Guidelines for retention of large snags to provide structure for northern spotted owl post fire foraging habitat and future NRF habitat are stratified by the distance from existing NRF (e.g. burned NRF within 500 feet of existing NRF is more likely to be used by foraging owls for a number of years), and the topographic position of the burned habitat on the landscape which influences habitat suitability (e.g. ridgelines are less likely to be used for nesting than lower slopes). This project design criteria is described in detail in Chapter 2. Given that the fire area in the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds is contributing to higher densities of snags and down wood (except for > 4 percent cover of large down wood), the fire area outside of proposed treatment units and haul route danger tree abatement (more than of the watersheds) would continue to provide areas of high snag density to support wildlife associated with post-fire habitat. The DecAID advice for southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood habitat consisting of small to medium trees was considered for snag retention to meet 30 percent tolerance levels of an unharvested landscape composition. This includes leaving 4 snags greater than 10 inches dbh per acre, of which 2 are greater than 20 inches dbh (DecAID figures SWOMC_S.inv-14, SWOMC_S.inv-15). This lower density is more suitable for drier parts of the landscape with topographic position more prone to fire. DecAID also recommends including hardwood snags in the retention mix. Compared to the Siskiyou Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (pp IV-34 thru 35) snag requirements per 100 acres for the most common species of woodpeckers on the Forest, the DecAID snag density recommendations are two times higher than those in the Forest Plan (400 snags/100 acres vs 185 snags/100 acres). The DecAID recommendations also exceed recommendations in the Chetco and Pistol River watershed analyses and the Siskiyou Supplement Guidelines with the addition of 2 snags per acre that are at least 10 inches dbh. In PFF habitat, focus on retention of legacy snags first (see flow chart in Appendix A), then add additional snags as described below to meet 4 snags per acre retention for the unit. In order to maintain 30 percent tolerance levels based on best available science in these matrix stands (outside of northern spotted owl post-fire foraging habitat in NSO core areas, home ranges or critical habitat), project units will retain aggregates or individual snags where feasible to meet 4 snags per acre greater than 10 inches with 2 snags per acre larger than 20 inches dbh where available. These should include hardwoods where available. Snag retention should be a priority near unburned edges, rock outcrops, riparian avoidance areas or remaining individual or clumps of green trees. As described previously, the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds overall have more down wood cover than reference (unharvested) conditions (Figure 9 and Figure 10, Figure 17). Given that the proposed units comprise 2 percent of these watersheds combined and the remainder will provide higher levels of down wood than reference conditions, the DecAID recommendations for down wood to maintain the 30% tolerance level for wildlife were considered, which is 1.4 percent cover in areas with low to moderate-severity fire regime (DedAID figures SWOMC_S/L.sp-10 and SWOMC_L.inv-10). In comparison, the Siskiyou Supplement down wood guidance is based on potential vegetation plant series which is more refined than the DecAID habitat types. This project is almost entirely within the tanoak plant series with a small amount of the dry Douglas fir series. For tanoak, the down wood guidance is 0-39 pieces per acre (20 inch diameter at large end by 20 foot long) with

Chapter 3 Page|3-27 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment a mean of 10 pieces per acre. For dry Douglas fir, the guidance is 0-15 pieces per acres with a mean of 5 pieces per acre. A conversion of pieces per acre to percent cover is provided in the DecAID guidance (https://apps.fs.usda.gov/r6_decaid/views/why_down_wood_percent_cover.html#tbl7). To achieve the DecAID recommended 1.4 percent cover with logs 20 inches diameter at large end by 20 feet long would take approximately 19 pieces per acre, however it’s not required by the Forest Plan that every acre meets this, or necessarily desired that all down wood cover be one size. One way to meet both the Forest plan requirement and current down wood guidance would be to leave ten 20 inch diameter pieces ( 0.72 percent cover), then add smaller diameter down wood to reach 1.4 percent cover which may include hardwood (e.g. forty 20-foot pieces of 6 inches diameter at large end = 0.7 percent cover). The Forest Plan states that retained snags may contribute towards down wood levels. This will obviously be site specific depending on what sizes and quantities of material are available and consider that retained snags will also contribute to future down wood. Desired down wood retention for wildlife is to protect existing large down wood to the extent possible and add wood (including retained snags) to meet the Siskiyou Supplement Standards for tanoak and dry Douglas fir plant series (10 pieces of down wood 20 inches at large end and 20 feet long, 5 pieces of down wood of same size in Douglas-fir series); and add smaller down wood to meet 1.4 percent cover where possible. Down wood retention should be a priority near unburned edges, rock outcrops, riparian avoidance areas or remaining individual or clumps of green trees.

MIS habitat existing condition Management indicator species represent other wildlife species which utilize a similar habitat type. As such, MIS act as a barometer for the health of various habitats and are monitored to quantify habitat changes predicted in the Siskiyou LRMP (1989 pages IV-10 and 11, FEIS page III-102). MIS habitat for the entire Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest updated with 2011 imagery is summarized in Table 10 along with preliminary updates from fires across the forest between 2011 and 2017.

Table 10. Comparison of 2011 and 2018 Updates for MIS species for the RRSNF. Preliminary Percent Habitat Loss Habitat in 2011 Species Habitat in (acres) 2018 Bald eagle 39,536 39,536 0% Osprey 39,536 30,536 0% Spotted owl NRF 355,467 339,286 4% American marten den/rest 402,794 382,615 5% Pileated woodpecker 536,829 511,872 5% Woodpeckers 656,829 573,899 13% Deer and elk (thermal/hiding) 762,219 723,501 5% Deer and elk (forage) 324,926 363,644 +12%

Page | 3-28 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 13. Pre-fire Distribution, Snags > 10in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds.

Chapter 3 Page|3-29 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 14. Post-fire Distribution, Snags >10in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds.

Page | 3-30 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 15. Pre-fire Distribution, Snags > 20 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds.

Chapter 3 Page|3-31 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 16. Post-fire Distribution, Snags > 20 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds.

Page | 3-32 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 17. Pre-fire Distribution, Down Wood > 5 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds.

Chapter 3 Page|3-33 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 18. Pre-fire Distribution, Down Wood > 20 in dbh: NFS lands, Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds.

Page | 3-34 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Migratory Bird Habitat Focal bird species used for this analysis are those which have primary habitat attributes of large snags, edges or post-fire habitats. The concept is described in detail in Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington (Altman and Alexander 2012). In addition, Partners in Flight published a revised Landbird Conservation Plan for Canada and the Continental United States in 2016. This plan identifies additional species for BCR 5 of high conservation concern and common species in steep decline for which proactive management of habitat and reduction of threats are expected to reverse population declines. The full list of these species that could occur in the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds, and their habitat attributes, is in the Project BE Appendix E. Migratory bird habitats within the Chetco Bar Salvage project footprint is primarily a mix of fire-killed confer and hardwoods associated with the southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood habitat type described in the dead wood section of this report. Living trees and other vegetation occur primarily within riparian reserves adjacent to proposed salvage units. Shrub species such as evergreen huckleberry have resprouted over the winter as has madrone and tanoak.

Pollinator Habitat Habitat for pollinators is varied and will probably increase as a result of the fire. The best pollinator habitat consists of open landscapes with good sun exposure and many types of native, herbaceous plants (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2015). One key is having a variety of plants that produce pollen and nectar from spring through early fall. The Project area includes manzanita, huckleberry, pacific madrone and Oregon grape which all provide nectar and some pollen. Native forbs are available mostly along roadsides and riparian areas and are expected to increase from stored seed banks in the burned area. Depending on the pollinator species present, other important components are dead wood and open soil for nest sites, and open water. Furthermore, in 2016 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) identified Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA) across the State of Oregon which are priority areas for reaching fish and wildlife conservation goals (http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/conservation-opportunity-areas/) in partnership with federal public land management. One of these, the Kalmiopsis Area, overlaps the lower part of the Chetco River 5th field watershed which was affected by the fire. Species recommended for habitat conservation in this area include fisher, marten, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, Del Norte salamander and Coastal tailed frog and many of the Region 6 sensitive species and forest MIS species addressed in this evaluation.

Environmental Consequences to Wildlife

Methodology

Species Reviewed The full list of species reviewed can be found in the Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report Appendix C in the project file, and all migratory birds reviewed are listed in the Appendix E. We reviewed all terrestrial wildlife species which are documented or suspected to occur on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and are designated as sensitive within USFS Region 6 (Pacific Northwest Region). In addition, we reviewed survey and protection buffer requirements for species listed as survey and manage under the Northwest Forest Plan (December 2003 species list but with red tree vole

Chapter 3 Page|3-35 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment as category C and giving special consideration to 12 species), assessed population viability of management indicator species (MIS) from the Siskiyou National Forest LRMP, and assessed project impacts on groups of species covered under a presidential executive order or an agency memo of understanding (e.g. migratory birds).

Species Not Impacted Table 11 lists regionally sensitive species whose occurrence are neither documented nor suspected on Gold Beach Ranger District. Because their ranges are unlikely to overlap the analysis area, they are not being analyzed further.

Table 11. Federally Listed and Regionally Sensitive Wildlife Species (16) Not Analyzed

Common Name Common Name Common Name Gray wolf (endangered) Modoc Rim sideband salamander Oregon spotted frog (threatened) Black salamander Oregon shoulderband Wolverine Tri-colored blackbird Siskiyou hesperian Sierra Nevada red fox White-headed Traveling sideband woodpecker Franklin’s bumblebee Gray-blue butterfly Coastal greenish-blue butterfly Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper

Table 11 lists federally listed and regionally sensitive wildlife species (16) not analyzed further because their known ranges do not overlap the area of impacts. These species are not suspected to occur on Gold Beach Ranger District.

Table 12 lists regionally sensitive species whose occurrence is either documented or suspected on the Gold Beach Ranger District, however there is no habitat for these species in the project area that would be affected by project activities. The Forest NRIS database, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology ebird database, and any known documentation on Gold Beach District were consulted for species occurrences. No impacts are anticipated to these species and rationale is provided in the table. These species will not be analyzed further. In addition to these species, habitat for other aquatic strategy species (e.g. coastal tailed frog) identified in the Kalmiopsis COA would not be affected by project activities. Project best management practices (BMPs) and forest plan standards and guidelines would provide protection of streams and other wet riparian habitats.

Survey and Manage Species The Project utilized the December 2003 species list which incorporates species changes and removals made as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews with the exception of the red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus. For the red tree vole, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in KSWC et al. v. Boody et al., 468 F3d 549 (9th Cir. 2006) vacated the category change and removal of the red tree vole in a portion of its range, and returned the red tree vole to its status as existed in the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines, which makes the species category C (Project BE, Appendix C) throughout its range. The Oregon red tree vole is the only Survey and Manage species present in the project area. There are no documented red tree vole nest sites within proposed salvage units. Red tree voles require stands of live Douglas-fir trees with at least 60 percent canopy cover for nest sites and foraging habitat. Proposed salvage activities would not affect suitable habitat for this species, therefore pre-disturbance surveys are not required.

Page | 3-36 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Table 12. Regionally Sensitive Wildlife Species (10) not Analyzed Further

Common Name Rationale for No Impact American No activities near any known eyrie or cliff suitable for an eyrie. Nearest peregrine peregrine falcon management area is 9 miles northeast of the project area. Harlequin duck No activities would occur in riparian reserves that may provide habitat for this species, no impacts anticipated that would affect habitat suitability. No documented sightings on the Forest. Nearest sighting in Curry County is Cape Sebastian (Stevens, M .B. 2017.) Northern No activities would affect bogs or wet areas with riparian thickets of willow and other waterthrush vegetation. Nearest recorded sightings are in coastal wetlands at Nesika and Harris Beach (eBird 2018). White-tailed kite These birds are associated with low elevation valleys and deciduous woodlands, large grassy areas and agricultural fields. No documented occurrences in Chetco or Pistol River watersheds. Coronis fritillary Activities would not affect suitable serpentine habitat for this species. No occurrences documented in Chetco or Pistol River watersheds.

Johnson’s No activities would remove live conifers that may host suitable mistletoe species. No hairstreak occurrences documented in Chetco or Pistol River watersheds.

Mardon skipper Activities would not affect suitable serpentine bunchgrass meadow habitat. The nearest known population is Windy Valley, approximately 2 miles north of project units. Proposed units were dominated by trees and brush prior to the fire and do not include habitat comparable to known sites. Foothill yellow- No activities would affect suitable habitat for these frogs. No activities will occur in legged frog riparian reserves. Project BMPs and standards and guidelines for riparian reserves would protect potential stream habitat. This species is documented in both the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds. Western pond turtle No activities would affect suitable habitat for these turtles. Project BMPs and standards and guidelines for riparian reserves would protect streams and other wet riparian habitat. No documented occurrences of this species in the Chetco or Pistol River watersheds. Townsend’s big- No activities would affect caves, mine adits, abandoned buildings or large bridges in eared bat this project. This species is documented to occur in both watersheds. Table 12 lists Regionally sensitive wildlife species (10) not analyzed further because no measurable impacts to primary habitat would occur or species is unlikely to be present in project area.

Species Potentially Impacted Following are those regionally sensitive species and Siskiyou National Forest management indicator species (MIS) analyzed further because their habitat or individuals might be impacted by activities. All adverse impacts are minimal and would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. R6 Sensitive: Pacific fisher Pacific (coastal) marten Bald Eagle Lewis’ woodpecker Purple martin Western bumble bee Green sideband Pallid bat Fringed myotis MIS: Spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, other woodpeckers, Pacific marten, deer & elk

Scale of Analysis Project effects to wildlife are evaluated by number of known sites affected, acres of impacts or changes to specific habitat(s), and extent, duration and timing of disturbance. The scale and methodology for evaluating effects differ by species based on their habitat requirements and the

Chapter 3 Page|3-37 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment type of status they have (Federally listed, Region 6 sensitive, MIS etc.). The following section describes habitat requirements and scale of effects analysis for each species.

Mechanisms for Effects Following are potential effects to wildlife and their habitat, both negative and positive, that could result from proposed salvage activities. The extent and intensity of these effects will be evaluated for each species identified previously as potentially affected by the project. x Cutting and yarding activities o Disturbance of existing habitat; snags, small patches of living vegetation o Incidental destruction of existing down wood o Felling and removal of existing snag habitat o Direct mortality from equipment, snag felling and yarding. o Noise disturbance x Pile burning o Smoke disturbance during breeding season. o Direct mortality from burning (e.g. mollusks, insect larvae) o Reduced fuel loading x Temporary road and landing construction or reconstruction o Localized habitat removal/modification o Noise disturbance x Hauling of removed material o Noise disturbance x Revegetation site prep and planting o Localized habitat disturbance, removal, or modification

Effects common to all species

Direct and Indirect Effects of Action Alternatives Snag and down wood retention per the project PDCs for both action alternatives would lessen the loss of these habitat elements that are important to these species and ensure that some of this habitat will remain where it is available in harvest units.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 – No Action By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. With no action, existing post-fire habitats in proposed units would continue to recover with new and re-sprouted vegetation that initially provide early seral habitat in these areas. Snags and down wood would continue to accrue at variable rates and would initially provide levels of dead wood at higher than natural conditions until most of it decays or is consumed in future fires. Species that use post-fire, early seral habitat and snags and down wood are expected to use these areas until they develop into later successional habitat that no longer provide the open shrub/forb structure of early seral habitat.

Dead Wood

Direct and Indirect Effects to Snags from the Action Alternatives Proposed Action activities, (Alternative 2) would reduce snags on approximately 4,378 acres.

Page | 3-38 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Under alternative 2, proposed salvage outside of the RRSNF danger tree treatment areas would retain 4 snags per acre on approximately 357 acres of the Pistol River watershed and 2,588 acres of the Chetco River watershed which would not increase the area of either watershed with 0 snags because at least 4 snags per acre would be retained. Under alternatives 2 about 182 acres of danger tree abatement and 5 acres of temporary road construction would occur outside of the RRSNF danger tree treatments in the Chetco River watershed and for the purposes of the analysis are considered to reduce snags to 0 per acre which would affect less than 0.1 percent of the Chetco River watershed. Landing acres are considered to overlap the roadside danger tree treatment areas. No danger tree abatement or temporary road construction would occur outside of salvage units or RRSNF danger tree treatment that would increase the area of the Pistol River watershed with 0 snags per acre. Under Alternative 3 proposed salvage outside of the RRSNF danger tree treatment area would reduce snags on 106 acres of the Pistol River watershed and 1,185 acres of the Chetco River watershed. PDC for snag retention in harvest units would retain at least 4 snags per acre so proposed salvage outside of danger tree treatments would not increase the area of either watershed with 0 snags because at least 4 snags per acre. The same 187 acres of danger tree and temporary road construction would occur in the Chetco River watershed that are considered to reduce those acres to 0 snags per acre. No activities would occur within the Pistol River watershed outside of the RRSNF danger tree treatments that would reduce snags per acre to 0.

Cumulative Effects to Snags from the Action Alternatives The western 1/3 of the land base in the two watersheds has a checker board pattern of ownership with private land interspersed with lands managed by BLM along the boundary of the RRSNF. Approximately 67,000 acres of private land in the watersheds combined is generally managed for timber production, recreation and residential use. Industrial lands are managed in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Specific to the Chetco Bar fire, timber industry lands have ongoing active salvage within the Chetco Bar fire. Within this ownership, the Forest estimates it is reasonably foreseeable that 9,455 acres has been or will be harvested within the near future. Approximately 8,310 acres are within the Chetco River watershed and 1,145 are in the Pistol River watershed. The BLM has approximately 170 acres of foreseeable harvest within the Chetco River watershed and about 5 acres in the Pistol River watershed. All with more than 50% basal area loss. In addition, about 250 miles of roadside danger tree removal in 2018 and 2019 is proposed throughout the fire area for a maximum of 13,540 acres. Not all of these acres have burned. In fact, 34 percent (4,642 acres) currently have less than 25% basal area loss or are unburned. However, the maximum footprint of 250 feet on either side of the road (13,540 acres) was used for wildlife analysis purposes in the danger tree project CE. Of these acres, approximately 12,550 are within the Chetco and Pistol River 5th field watersheds, of which approximately 1,145 acres overlap with salvage units in alternative 2. Approximately 10,166 acres within the Chetco River watershed are in the roadside danger tree treatment area and 2,386 acres are in the Pistol River Watershed. Table 13 displays the acres for each watershed considered for cumulative effects to snags. Under either alternative snag retention PDC would shift the salvage units to the 2-4 snag/acre category but would not increase the area in either watershed with 0 snags per acre. Under both alternatives, the additive effects of approximately 187 acres of danger tree treatments and temporary road construction considered to result in 0 snags per acre in the Chetco River

Chapter 3 Page|3-39 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment watershed would be a minor (<1%) when combined with effects of the RRSNF danger tree treatment, BLM lands and private lands. If all of these acres were reduced to 0 snags per acre, it would increase the area of 0 snags per acre in the Chetco River watershed by 8 percent. Neither alternative would be additive to acres with 0 snags per acre in the Pistol River watershed. Approximately 39 percent of the Chetco River watershed has more than 24 snags per acre. Even if all of the acres treated in Chetco were currently in the >24 snags/acre category, the watershed would still have 31 percent in the high snag category and would remain above the reference condition for >24 snags per acre.

Table 13. Total Acres of Snag Removal Considered for 5th Field Watershed Cumulative Effects

Proposed 5th Field Watershed Snag Removal Project Action Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Danger Tree & Tmp Rd 187 187 outside RRSNF Treatment Chetco River RRSNF Danger Tree (223,185 acres) Treatment CE (burned and 10166 10166 unburned) BLM 170 170 Private Lands 8,310 8,310 Total Acres Reduced to 0 18,833 18,833 snags per acre Danger Tree & Tmp Rd 0 0 outside RRSNF Treatment Pistol River RRSNF Danger Tree (59,650 acres) Treatment CE (burned and 2,386 2,386 unburned) BLM 5 5 Private Lands 1,145 1,145 Total Acres Reduced to 0 3,536 3,536 snags per acre

Direct and Indirect Effects to Down Wood from the Action Alternatives The Chetco and Pistol River watersheds both currently have more acres with >5” diameter down wood cover than reference conditions (Figures 9 and 11). Both watersheds are close to reference conditions with total acres having >20” diameter down wood; the Chetco below reference by 2 percent (Figure 10) and the Pistol above reference by 4 percent (Figure 12). All activities would protect and avoid existing large down wood to the extent possible. All acres harvested for area salvage would retain 1.4 percent down wood cover as described on in Appendix A, A-2. Therefore, acres treated would increase percentage of the watershed with cover of down wood in the 1-2 percent cover category shown in the figures referenced above. The overall acres with 0 down wood would not change in either watershed.

Cumulative Effects to Down Wood from the Action Alternatives The retention of down wood in the Action Alternatives would not be additive to any increase of the acres in either watershed with 0 percent cover caused by other projects as identified in the

Page | 3-40 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project table above. The project may be additive to redistribution of down wood cover to a lower category (1-2 percent cover). Incidental loss of down wood greater than 20” diameter may contribute a minor amount of cumulative loss of large down wood cover ≥4 percent in either watershed, but would not be expected to change the overall acres with 0 percent cover of down wood >20” diameter in these watersheds. In the near and long-term, down wood cover of all sizes is expected to increase steadily as snags fall throughout the untreated area of the burn.

Northern Spotted Owl

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives The project biological assessment and biological opinion resulting from formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service provide detailed evaluation of effects to NSO for alternative 2. This evaluation provides a comparison of effects to this species for each alternative. Methods used to analyze effects to spotted owls incorporates the amount and juxtaposition of proposed harvest in PFF habitat to existing NRF, spotted owl nest patches, cores areas, and home ranges. It also incorporates the Relative Habitat Suitability (RHS) Model developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in its current Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (FWS 2011) whereby authors found strong selection against habitats classified as low RHS. Given those findings, and for the purposes of this analysis, we assume that in areas or habitats (NRF/PFF) identified as low RHS, there is a very low potential for spotted owls to use these habitats for nesting. They may roost or forage in these habitats (depending on proximity to high RHS NRF) but they are unlikely to select these areas for nesting. Areas identified as low RHS in the Klamath province are generally on or near primary ridgetops, southerly tending slopes and in habitat not likely to support nesting and roosting habitats. Depending on scale, changes to stand structure and habitats likely used by NSO for foraging, could occur from harvest in PFF habitat. Effects could be adverse when PFF is removed in high RHS, within diffuse edges of existing high RHS NRF (PFF1), within nest patch or core areas, or if a considerable amount of PFF will be removed relative to the amount of NRF in a spotted owl site. Effects are expected to be inconsequential to a site when they are very small isolated amounts or distributed within in a home range such that it would not preclude or reduce the function of that site to persist. In addition, the effects of associated activities such as temporary road construction, roadside danger tree treatment, landing construction, etc. to NSO and habitat are also evaluated. The effects of the RRSNF Roadside Danger Tree Project are accounted for where the acres that overlap area salvage activities are considered to be capable since the reduction of PFF in those acres was included in the consultation for that project. The extent of effects differs between alternative 2 and 3 due to the difference in total acres treated as detailed in Table 14 below. The “action area” analyzed for effects to NSO is a 1.3 mile buffer (provincial home range distance from nest) of proposed salvage units and includes evaluation of the entire home range for owl sites that overlap units and haul routes. All known NSO sites are buffered 1.3 mi for the home range, 0.5 mile for the core area (500 ac) and 300 m for the nest patch (70 ac) to evaluate effects to individual sites.

Chapter 3 Page|3-41 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 14. Spotted Owl Habitats within Proposed Chetco Bar Fire Area Salvage Activities

PFF1 PFF1 PFF2 PFF2 Non- Dispersal Activity Capable NRF High Low High Low Total Forest Only RHS RHS RHS RHS Alternative 2 Salvage 4 3,217 0 0 0 135 133 601 4090 Units Landings 0 100.5 0 0 0 0 0 .25 101 Temp <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 5 Roads Haul Rte Danger 13 94 12 12 3 0 11 37 182 Trees* Total Alt 2 18 3,413.5 13 12 3 135 145 638 4378 Alternative 3

Salvage 3 1,865 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,868 Units Landings 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 54 Temp <1 2 <1 <1 <1 0 0 0 3 Roads Haul Rte Danger 13 94 12 12 3 0 11 37 182 Trees* Total Alt 3 16 2,015 13 12 3 0 11 37 2,107 * This is in addition to the RRSNF Danger Tree Treatment Project.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

Cutting and yarding, temporary road and landing construction Gaps in areas dominated by standing dead trees are expected to result from project activities including the cutting of salvaged material and creation of landings and temporary roads. Removal of snags and possible destruction of existing down wood in areas identified as post-fire foraging habitat (PFF) may reduce foraging perches and modify habitat structure for prey species such as and mice, wood rats, and voles. The effects of removing PFF are influenced by proximity to existing NRF habitat, and location in areas with high vs. low relative habitat suitability (RHS) for nesting habitat. PFF on locations with low RHS are less likely to develop into future nesting habitat due to exposure to wind, temperature and precipitation extremes, and lower prey base during the breeding season compared to more moderate climate conditions on moist, northerly slopes and in drainages where NRF stands have more structural complexity. Secondary PFF (PFF2) habitat with low RHS would have the lowest probability of being used by NSO now and would not likely provide future nesting habitat. Primary PFF (PFF1) would be more likely to be used for foraging now, and if located on a site with high RHS would potentially develop future NSO nesting habitat.

Page | 3-42 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

In PFF habitats, retention of legacy4 snags would minimize loss of structure that would contribute to future NRF habitat. Legacy snag sizes vary depending on site condition, but are usually disproportionately large diameter trees that are often remnants that have persisted on the site after man-caused and/or natural disturbances. For example, these large snags contain one or more of the following characteristics: split or broken tops, burned out cavities, heavy decadent branching, large mistletoe brooms, or otherwise damaged to the degree that a cavity may form such as basal fire, lightning scars or other defect or decay. Table 14 summarizes the degree of PFF habitat modification for individual home ranges affected by alternative 2. No harvest, danger tree abatement or temp road construction would occur in any nest patches. Only one core area (site 162) has a portion of proposed salvage unit (#137) within it which is 9 acres of capable lands that do not currently provide habitat for owls. Therefore, salvage harvest would not affect suitable NSO habitat within any core areas. There would be no danger tree abatement or temp road construction in any core areas. Of the thirteen home ranges, four would have no change in habitat under Alternative 2. Seven home ranges would have no change in proportion of PFF1, and two would have 1 percent or less reduction in low RHS PFF1. Seven home ranges would have a reduction in total PFF2, site 142 would have a 1 percent reduction and site 307 would have a 4 percent reduction, with the other 5 sites having a 2 percent reduction. Because the proposed project would reduce PFF habitats in seven home ranges that have less than 40 percent suitable habitat, the effects of alternative 2 are considered likely to adversely affect NSO habitat. Temp road construction would occur at the outer edges of the following home ranges; 0.25 mi in HR 256, 0.1 mi in HR 307, and 0.1 mi in HR 143 and 367. These temp road locations are primarily non-habitat for owls, but would occur within less than 0.1 acre of low RHS NRF in home ranges 143, 367 and 307 and less than 0.1 acre of low RHS dispersal in home range 256. Approximately 0.1 acre of low RHS PFF would be affected by temp road construction in site 256. These very small amounts of impacts on sites with low RHS are discountable at the home range scale. No landings would be constructed in any nest patches and are not anticipated in any core areas. Landings are proposed within eight home ranges outside of core areas and would be constructed within capable or non-forest. One ground-based landing may occur in high RHS PFF1 where temporary road construction is proposed within one home range beyond the core area. This small amount of PFF1 reduction would be discountable at the home range scale. Project design criteria include a decision tree for determining the priority of legacy snag retention for a given unit and identifies the units that meet those criteria. Retained snags should occur as aggregates and occasional individuals where they would not be damaged by operations. Snag retention is desirable near areas of living trees or adjacent unburned vegetation, rock outcrops, and riparian avoidance areas. Some effects to spotted owl prey species may occur due to implementation of this proposed action, however most scientific literature focuses on high-severity fire and its effects to prey species, not on the effect of salvage on prey species. Hayes and Cissel (1995) found “no

4 Legacy Features - old standing trees that have persisted on the landscape after human and/or natural disturbances. Legacy trees or snag size vary depending on site productivity, are usually disproportionately large diameter trees that are often remnants of the previous stand. Legacies are large trees or snags containing one or more of the following characteristics: split or broken tops, burned out cavities, heavy decadent branching, large mistletoe brooms, otherwise damaged to the degree that a cavity may form such as: basal fire or lightning scars, or other features that indicate decay or defect.

Chapter 3 Page|3-43 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment significant effect on small mammals that they studied, yellow-pine (Tamias amoenus), Siskiyou chipmunk (T. siskiyou), golden-mantled ground ( lateralis) and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), from salvage operations”. https://www.firescience.gov/projects/04-2-1-95/project/04-2-1-95_final_report.pdf In the short term, some small isolated pockets of fire-damaged trees in and adjacent to the salvage units will have needles and leaves and may provide some cover for NSO prey species. Depending on the affected stands’ structural complexity and presence of unique habitat features, some prey species may be using burned habitats, especially as herbaceous and shrub species respond positively to the disturbance. However, much of the areas proposed for salvage harvest no longer provide habitat for primary prey such as flying squirrel or red tree vole due to the loss of canopy and green trees. Other mammalian (e.g. mice, woodrats) and avian secondary prey species may respond positively to the new forest openings, or to the newly-created ecological edges, especially as herbaceous and shrubs respond in growing seasons immediately following fires. Fontaine (2008) found that just after a single high severity fire event (The Biscuit Fire in SW Oregon), small communities transitioned from low abundance and high species richness to high abundance and low species richness that was largely dominated by deer mice. Partial recovery to pre-fire conditions was observed at about 17 years after the fire with wood rats being present but vole species still absent relative to unburned mature forest. Post-fire salvage logging created a significant pulse of woody debris but no significant changes in densities or biomass of small mammals were observed. He concluded that fire effects on small mammal communities were much larger than those of post-fire salvage logging in the short term. Zwolack and Foresman (2007) found varying degrees of response to stand replacement fire in their study with a large negative response from red back voles, a relatively common prey item for spotted owl. Zwolak and Foresman (2007) also found that relatively rare species such as northern flying squirrels and bushy-tailed woodrats were largely restricted to unburned areas in severely burned landscapes. Harvest activities may cause direct mortality or disturbance of prey that use these post-fire habitats that could reduce foraging opportunities in the short-term, but would be a small proportion of any home range (Table 15) or the entire NSO action area (5 percent).

Danger Trees, Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Felling of danger trees may occur in small scattered locations at landings and along 4.5 miles of haul routes associated with this project. Most of these routes are within non-habitat, however home range 307 may have 4 acres of low RHS PFF removed; and 8 acres of low RHS dispersal and 6 acres of low RHS NRF treated while maintaining the functionality of these habitats. No living trees would be felled, and snags that do not meet the definition of roadside danger trees would be retained. Research has shown that noise above ambient levels can increase stress responses in nesting birds and may cause them to flush from a nest during incubation of eggs or nestlings which can cause mortality and reproductive failure. Project activities that generate noise above ambient levels such as cutting, heavy equipment operation, and hauling within specific distances of known owl sites or unsurveyed NRF habitat would be restricted during the critical breeding period to minimize disturbance to nesting owls. Details about application of this seasonal restriction are provided in Chapter 2. Given that occupancy of NSO sites in the action area has not been known for many years and owls in sites severely affected by the fire may have shifted their activity centers, it is assumed that

Page | 3-44 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project any substantial patches of remaining high RHS NRF may be occupied by NSO. Any NSO nest sites found outside of known nest patches in the project area would be evaluated for additional unit restrictions. Roadside danger tree treatments in this proposal are not within disturbance distances of high RHS NRF. Hauling would be restricted from March 1 through June 30 in NRF habitat along low use roads. Haul may occur on two low use roads for which this restriction would not apply: FSR 1407-150 and 1917-060. Approximately 70 acres of high RHS NRF occur within 35 yards of these roads. There are two areas where it is possible that NSO may nest within that distance, and therefore haul on these roads could potentially have adverse effects to breeding NSO. Haul would not be restricted on maintenance level 3, 4 or 5 roads or other haul routes not listed above with restrictions, or not having marbled murrelet restrictions during the same time period. Project pile burning would be restricted during the critical breeding season to minimize the potential for smoke to disturb nesting spotted owls depending on smoke dispersal. This restriction is applied within ¼ mile of unsurveyed NRF habitat or known nest sites when drift smoke would settle into the stand rather than lift and disperse above the forest canopy. Project burning would most likely occur in late fall through early spring depending on precipitation, smoke management regulations and access to the project area during winter. A mix of site appropriate trees would be planted in units where monitoring identifies areas that are not meeting standards for regeneration within matrix. Manual site prep for reforestation would minimally disturb prey that use early seral habitat where shrubs or small hardwoods are cut and the ground is scalped to plant tree seedlings. Similar disturbance to prey may occur several years later when brush is cut away from planted trees (release).

Chapter 3 Page|3-45 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 15. NSO Habitat Pre-Treatment Condition and Alternative 2 Effects (HR = Home Range, Core = Core Area)

HR PFF2 HR PFF1 Reduced HR HR Effects Rationale Pre-treatment PFF1 Pre-treatment Reduced (acres Post-Treatment Post-Treatment

Habitat PFF2 Habitat (acres harvest/ harvest/ PFF1 Habitat PFF2 Habitat NRF Habitat Site (acres)/%HR (acres)/%HR acres other) acres other) (acres)/%HR (acres)/%HR (acres)/%HR

High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low HR Core

Salvage harvest would reduce low 160 51 133 153 414 36 98 0 14 5 1 160 37 128 152 RHS PFF1 by 1%. No change in (5) (2) (4) (4) (12) (7) (5) (1) (4) (4) proportion of any other PFF habitat.

No change in proportion of PFF1 at 186 41 51 48 186 23 46 40 793 200 101 0 18 5 8 the HR scale. Harvest of PFF2 would (5) (1) (2) (2) (5) (1) (1) (1) (23) (40) result in 2% reduction of PFF2.

165 95 6 95 165 95 6 95 1148 115 No NSO habitat affected within this 102 0 0 0 0 (5) (3) (<1) (3) (5) (3) (<1) (3) (34) (23) Home Range.

300 76 191 265 300 74 191 265 537 30 No NSO habitat affected within this 128 0 0 0 0 (9) (2) (6) (8) (9) (2) (6) (8) (16) (6) Home Range.

Salvage harvest of low RHS PFF2 237 51 13 91 0 0 237 51 13 75 1079 212 would reduce the proportion available 142 0 16 (7) (2) (<1) (3) (7) (2) (<1) (2) (32) (42) at the HR scale by 1%. No other habitat would be affected.

No change in PFF1 habitat. High RHS 226 108 105 148 226 108 38 128 1009 219 PFF2 would be reduced by 1%, no 143 0 0 47 20 (7) (3) (3) (4) (7) (3) (1) (4) (30) (43) change in proportion of low RHS PFF2.

Page | 3-46 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project HR PFF2 HR PFF1 Reduced HR HR Effects Rationale Pre-treatment PFF1 Pre-treatment Reduced (acres Post-Treatment Post-Treatment

Habitat PFF2 Habitat (acres harvest/ harvest/ PFF1 Habitat PFF2 Habitat NRF Habitat Site (acres)/%HR (acres)/%HR acres other) acres other) (acres)/%HR (acres)/%HR (acres)/%HR

High Low High Low HR Core High Low High Low High Low High Low

No change in proportion of PFF1 or 352 99 41 210 352 99 41 150 715 96 162 0 0 0 60 high RHS PFF2 habitat. Low RHS (10) (3) (1) (6) (10) (3) (1) (4) (21) (19) PFF2 reduced by 3%.

193 94 7 92 193 94 7 92 975 112 No NSO habitat affected within this 200 0 0 0 0 (6) (3) (<1) (3) (6) (3) (<1) (3) (29) (22) Home Range.

No change in proportion of PFF1 or 140 25 30 77 140 25 30 73 737 124 256 0.25 0 0 4 PFF2, landing construction (4) (1) (1) (2) (4) (1) (1) (2) (22) (25) discountable.

No change in proportion of PFF1. 176 107 215 487 176 99 184 364 376 9 High RHS PFF2 would be reduced 307 0 8 31 123 (5) (3) (6) (14) (5) (3) (5) (11) (11) (2) 1%. Low RHS PFF2 would be reduced 3%.

No change in high RHS PFF1 or 39 32 1 59 39 13 1 20 1083 144 PFF2; Low RHS PFF1 reduced by 308 0 19 0 39 (1) (1) (<1) (2) (1) (<1) (<1) (<1) (32) (29) 0.5% Low RHS PFF2 reduced by 2%

75 14 1 47 75 14 1 47 1095 199 No NSO habitat affected within this 309 0 0 0 0 (2) (<1) (<1) (1) (2) (<1) (<1) (1) (32) (39) Home Range.

276 93 64 137 276 93 40 79 1252 200 No change in PFF1; High and Low 367 0 0 24 58 (8) (3) (2) (4) (8) (3) (2) (2) (37) (40) RHS PFF2 reduced by 1% each.

Table 15 describes NSO Habitat Pre-Treatment Condition and Alternative 2 Effects for sites analyzed in Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Action Area

Chapter 3 Page|3-47 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction Alternative 3 salvage harvest would not occur in PFF or any other suitable habitat for northern spotted owls. There would be no effects to habitat within any nest patches. There would be no harvest or temp road construction in any nest patches. There would be no temp road construction or danger tree abatement in any core areas. Temp road construction would occur at the outer edges of the following home ranges; 0.25 mi in HR 256, 0.1 mi in HR 307. These temp road locations are primarily non-habitat for owls, but would occur within less than 0.1 acre of low RHS NRF in home range 307 and less than 0.1 acre of low RHS dispersal in home range 256. Approximately 0.1 acre of low RHS PFF would be affected by temp road construction in site 256. These very small amounts of impacts on sites with low RHS are discountable at the home range scale. Alternative 3 would have about 30 percent fewer landings, however the one landing in low RHS PFF1 proposed within NSO home ranges 256 (beyond the core area) is included in Alternative 2. Snag retention in these units would not require additional legacy feature protection other than the Forest Plan direction supplemented by the DecAID recommendations for 4 snags/acre and 1.4 percent cover of down wood. Retained snags should occur as aggregates and occasional individuals where they would not be damaged by operations. Snag retention is desirable near areas of living trees or adjacent unburned vegetation, rock outcrops, and riparian avoidance areas. Similar effects to spotted owl prey species as Alternative 2 would be expected, but would occur on 54% less acres under alternative 3. Alternative 3 units are not considered as valuable for foraging due to lack of PFF or any other suitable habitat.

Danger Trees, Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Felling of danger trees may occur in small scattered locations at landings and along 3.5 miles of haul routes associated with this project. Though this a lower area of an impact, the same segments of haul routes are needed for alternative 3. Home range 307 may have 4 acres of low RHS PFF removed; and 8 acres of low RHS dispersal and 6 acres of low RHS NRF treated while maintaining the functionality of these habitats. No living trees would be felled, and snags that do not meet the definition of roadside danger trees would retained. The same seasonal restrictions under alternative 2 to minimize potential noise disturbance to NSO would be applied under alternative 3 for project activities and haul. Potential adverse effects from haul on FSR 1407-150 and 1917-060 during the breeding season may also occur under alternative 3 and would have the same potential for adverse effects to breeding NSO as alternative 2. Seasonal restrictions for project pile burning would be the same as under alternative 2, however less pile burning is expected under alternative 3 due to 54% fewer acres harvested. Potential disturbance to prey for reforestation activities would be the same, though less extensive than alternative 2 due to fewer acres harvested.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives The western 1/3 of the land base in the action area has a checker board pattern of ownership with private land interspersed with lands managed by BLM along the boundary of the RRSNF. There is one 174-acre parcel of private land within the RRSNF boundary. Within the action area, a range

Page | 3-48 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project of management practices occur on private lands from residential home site development to intensive industrial timber management. Private industrial forest lands are managed for timber production and will typically be harvested between 40 and 60 years of age, in accordance with State Forest Practices Act standards. In 2008, data was requested from Oregon Department of Forestry and the Pacific Northwest Inventory and Analysis team to help determine harvest rates in the past decade on private lands within the Rogue Basin. These records indicated private harvest rates in Jackson and Josephine Counties have never exceeded 1.08 percent of the total private lands per year since 1998. These records did not provide information of pre-treatment habitat conditions. We anticipate losses of owl habitat on private lands, but cannot predict the rate of loss, or the specific location of harvest. Specific to the Chetco Bar fire, timber industry lands have ongoing active salvage within the Chetco Bar fire. Within this ownership, post fire there are up to 677 acres of PFF. It is assumed that all of this habitat has been or will be harvested within the near future. The BLM has approximately 153 acres of PFF habitat. The BLM has proposed fire salvage within the burned area and for the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that they will have similar PDCs for snag retention. Approximately 1,149 acres of PFF removed within the RRSNF roadside danger tree treatment area were consulted on separate from this project, and are considered capable habitat in this analysis. In addition, danger trees would be treated in approximately 2,361 acres of NRF and 2,703 acres of dispersal with the function of those habitats maintained by the RRSNF roadside danger tree project. Under Alternative 2, the effects of proposed removal of 921 acres of PFF combined with potential harvest of 145 acres of PFF on BLM and 619 acres on private lands may be additive to cumulative, effects resulting in removal of less than 4 percent of PFF in the NSO action area. Alternative 3 would not harvest PFF, but would reduce a small amount due to danger tree treatments that are not included in the RRSNF danger tree treatment area. Therefore alternative 3 would have minor additive effects to BLM and private land harvest in PFF within the NSO action area. Under both alternatives, additive effects of haul on two low use roads within disturbance distances of high RHS NRF during the breeding season would be minor when added to disturbance from haul required at the same time for the ongoing RRSNF roadside danger tree abatement project.

NSO Designated Critical Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives The biological assessment prepared for this project determined that implementation of alternative 2 would likely have adverse effects to critical habitat for the northern spotted owl due to loss of large snags within 209 acres PFF habitat that would otherwise contribute to physical and biological features (PBFs) of future suitable habitat for NSO. This removal amounts to 1.2 percent of the total habitat providing the same PBFs (NRF, PFF) within the action area, and 0.2 percent of these habitats in the entire KLW3 subunit. Therefore this reduction of PBFs is not expected to alter the subunits’ ability to provide demographic support or connectivity for northern spotted owls because treatments would not result in loss of functioning NRF and dispersal across the entire unit or subunits for spotted owls to disperse and reproduce.

Chapter 3 Page|3-49 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Under alternative 3, there would be no reduction of PFF habitat due to harvest activities. Approximately 0.25 acres PFF may be removed for landing construction which would be a discountable portion of the PBF habitat available within the KLW3 subunit.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Designated critical habitat for NSO does not include Private Lands. There are approximately 30 acres of BLM land that burned at high severity within the KLW3 subunit. The effects to PFF habitat under alternative 2 may be additive to cumulative effects if those BLM acres are included in their salvage project. However, 30 additional acres combined with alternative 2 would not result in any more removal than 1.3 percent of the PBF habitats available within KLW3 in the action area and 0.3 percent of these habitats available in the entire subunit. The effects of alternative 3 would be a discountable contribution to effects to KLW3 when combined with the potential effects of salvage harvest on BLM lands within the subunit.

Marbled Murrelet The project biological assessment and biological opinion resulting from formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service provide detailed evaluation of effects to MAMU for alternative 2. This evaluation provides a comparison of effects to this species for each alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction None of the proposed activities would modify or remove existing suitable habitat for Marbled Murrelet. Murrelets nest in large trees with cover provided by the living canopy of the tree or adjacent trees. A total of 9.6 acres of burned occupied habitat ranging from 0.5 to 5 acres of units #147, 149, 160 and 165 overlap proposed units. These portions of occupied habitat burned with moderate to high severity and no longer provide suitable habitat for MAMU. Salvage harvest of large legacy trees directly adjacent to potential suitable habitat for marbled murrelet could increase sun and wind exposure for a nest if located within a tree-height of a nest tree. Studies of edge effects from clear cuts into forested stands suggest that effects including increased understory vegetation growth and wind throw can be measured up to approximately 120 meters (393 feet) into the forested stand. Wind throw would be more likely for large trees that have weakened roots and/or reduced soil stability (Burton 2002, Ruel 1995). Suitable marbled murrelet habitat (NRF) within 400 feet of the proposed units was identified for potential edge effects. Twenty-six proposed units with low RHS PFF1 or scattered large legacy snags that did not meet the 40% canopy cover criteria for PFF, could have burnt legacy snags adjacent to existing marbled murrelet habitat. The amount of edge these units share with potential marbled murrelet habitat varies from 50 to 1500 feet and could affect up to 230 acres of suitable habitat. Project design criteria to protect live legacy trees with potential structure for nest habitat with a 70 foot no-treat buffer directly adjacent to salvage units would minimize potential for increased exposure of potential nest trees. This would be implemented for the following units adjacent to occupied habitat: 147, 148, 167, and 159. The following units would also be field checked for suitable nest trees adjacent to legacy snags where this PDC would also apply: 25, 29, 49, 53, 55, 58, 69, 99, 100, 103, 106, 107, 127, 132, 140, 141, 155, 157, 160, 168, 169, and 170. This buffer of potential nest trees adjacent to salvage units would minimize effects to marbled murrelet habitat which would not likely adversely affect habitat for MAMU.

Page | 3-50 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Danger Trees, Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting There is potential for disturbance or disruption of marbled murrelets if activities that produce noise above ambient levels during the breeding season. The proposed project would restrict salvage cutting, temp road construction, and danger tree abatement on low use roads to minimize disturbance to marbled murrelets during the critical breeding season. Haul on maintenance level 3, 4 or 5 (high use) roads would not be expected to disturb murrelets due to the normal amount of public use on these roads and would not be restricted. The following low use roads proposed for haul under alternative 3 would have seasonal restrictions described in the project design criteria: 1170-540, 1407-130, 1407-133, 1407-136, 1407-150, 1909-120,1917-125, 1917-060 Haul may occur during the breeding season on FSR 1407-150 and 1917-060. Approximately 70 acres of suitable habitat for MAMU has been verified to occur within the disturbance distance along these roads where seasonal restrictions would not be applied and adverse effects to breeding MAMU may occur.

Direct and indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction Implementation of Alternative 3 would not affect suitable habitat for marbled murrelets. None of the remaining portions of units under alternative 3 would have substantial snags large enough to contribute to potential edge effects to any adjacent nest trees.

Danger Trees, Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting The same potential for disturbance from haul on low use roads FSR 1407-150 and 1917-060 would occur under alternative 3 which may result in adverse effects to breeding MAMU.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Indirect effects of Alternative 2 would be minimized with no-treatment buffers within 70 feet of adjacent potential nest trees and may have a very small contribution to effects of the RRSNF danger tree project, BLM or private lands that may be adjacent to potential nest trees. Alternative 3 would have no direct effects and is not expected to contribute to edge effects that would be additive to cumulative effects to habitat for MAMU. However, both alternatives would have haul on two low use roads within disturbance distances of suitable MAMU habitat during the breeding season which may have small incremental effects when combined with haul required at the same time for the ongoing RRSNF roadside danger tree project in the fire area.

Marbled Murrelet Designated Critical Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives None of the proposed units or temporary roads are within critical habitat for Marbled Murrelet. Three landing locations are proposed under alternative 2 within critical habitat, but will be located directly adjacent to roads in burned areas that do not provide suitable habitat for MAMU. No landings are proposed within critical habitat under alternative 3. Approximately 24 acres of potential danger tree treatment on maintenance level 1 roads would occur within critical habitat but would not affect any suitable habitat. Neither alternative would affect critical habitat for marbled murrelet.

Chapter 3 Page|3-51 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives There are no direct or indirect impacts of either action alternative that would be additive to cumulative effect to critical habitat for the marbled murrelet.

Pacific Fisher and Pacific (coastal) Marten

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement Fishers and martens are associated with late successional habitat with high canopy cover and decadence components (large snags, large down wood). Martens are more associated with high densities of understory shrubs and large down wood which gives them a predatory advantage. Harvest activities and landing construction would have no impact on existing suitable habitat for these species. Harvest in 2,222 acres of unmanaged stands that may have legacy snags could reduce future rest and denning sites for these species. Snag and down wood retention in these stands per the project design criteria would ensure that some of these habitat features will remain in units that have them. While salvage harvest of the proposed units may reduce the quality and connectivity function of this early seral habitat in the fire area, salvage units are spread across the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds and situated within a larger mosaic of untreated acres that would continue to provide more complex early seral habitat. These units comprise less than 1 percent of the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds combined and would not increase the amount of these watersheds that have 0 snags. Temporary road construction and roadside danger tree abatement may result in minor loss of large snags or down wood in small patches of live forest, however this would be discountable at the watershed scale.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Pile burning of activity fuels would not affect habitat for fishers or marten. Site preparation for reforestation may disturb prey habitat and temporarily reduce foraging opportunities. Seasonal restrictions to avoid disturbance to spotted owls and marbled murrelet would also benefit fishers and martens during the breeding season. They would likely avoid habitat in close proximity to project activities during implementation.

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement Managed stands proposed for harvest under Alternative 3 would have no impact on existing habitat for fishers or martens. These stands lacked large legacy trees and likely have few legacy snags or large down wood and do not provide complex, early seral habitat. Harvest and associated activities may result in minor loss of large snags or down wood that would be discountable at the watershed scale.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Pile burning of activity fuels would not affect habitat for fishers or marten. Site preparation for reforestation may disturb prey habitat and temporarily reduce foraging opportunities though may occur on less acres than alternative 2. Seasonal restrictions to avoid disturbance to spotted owls

Page | 3-52 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project and marbled murrelet would also benefit fishers and martens during the breeding season. They would likely avoid habitat in close proximity to project activities during implementation, which would be less extensive than alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Though salvage harvest of 2,222 acres of unmanaged stands under alternative 2 would retain snags and down wood which would provide some complexity in this early seral habitat, the reduction of complexity may be additive to cumulative effects from similar salvage activities on 145 acres of PFF on BLM, 619 acres of PFF on private lands, and the 1,149 acres of PFF in the RRSNF roadside danger tree treatments. These acres combined comprise 1 percent of these watersheds that would experience a reduction of large snags and down wood. The remaining untreated areas of the watershed would continue to provide these features and complex early seral habitats. Due to lack of salvage harvest in PFF habitat, the effects of Alternative 3 would have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to fisher and marten. Furthermore, proposed project activities that may occur concurrently and in proximity to ongoing or future salvage activities on BLM or private lands may be additive in that more acres would be avoided by fishers and martens during treatment activities under both alternatives, though effects of alternative 3 would be less extensive than alternative 2.

Conclusion Implementation of alternative 2 or alternative 3 May Impact Individuals and or Habitat, but not likely contribute towards a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species of Pacific fisher or Pacific marten (coastal population) due to potential disturbance to individuals. Alternative 2 would be more extensive in the reduction of large snags and down wood that could contribute to future habitat, though still a small proportion of the affected watersheds.

Bald Eagle

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement Bald eagles are known to use large snags for rest and forage perches. There are no known bald eagle nest sites in the affected watershed on the RRSNF. Salvage harvest of 2,222 acres of unmanaged stands with snag retention PDC would retain snag densities at 4 snags per acre, however 182 acres of danger tree abatement and 5 acres of temporary road construction would cause a minor increase in acres with 0 snags (<1 percent) of the Chetco River watershed.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Pile burning of activity fuels, and reforestation activities may cause eagles to avoid habitat in these areas when they occur, but would not affect habitat for bald eagles. Seasonal restrictions to avoid disturbance to spotted owls and marbled murrelet would also benefit eagles.

Chapter 3 Page|3-53 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement Managed stands proposed for harvest under Alternative 3 likely have few large snags. Harvest and associated activities may result in minor loss of large snags that would be discountable at the watershed scale.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Pile burning of activity fuels, and reforestation activities under alternative 3 may cause eagles to avoid habitat in these areas when they occur, but would not affect habitat for bald eagles. They would likely avoid habitat in close proximity to project activities during implementation, which would be less extensive than alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Activities in PFF habitats within the RRSNF roadside danger tree treatment area, BLM lands, and private lands (1,979 acres total) may increase the acres with 0 large snags in these watersheds, which represent 0.7 percent of these watersheds combined. In addition, the RRSNF roadside danger tree project may reduce large snags within 2,361 acres of NRF habitat (0.8 percent of the watersheds), though the actual affected acres is expected to be much smaller due to low or unburned conditions. Potential removal of large snags within 182 acres of danger tree treatments on haul routes and up to 5 acres of temporary road construction in the action alternatives that are outside of the RRSNF danger tree project may increase acres with 0 snags would be a minor contribution (< 0.1%) to cumulative effects. Proposed project activities that may occur concurrently and in proximity to ongoing or future salvage activities on BLM or private lands may be additive in that more acres would be avoided by bald eagles during treatment activities under both alternatives, though effects of alternative 3 would be less extensive than alternative 2.

Conclusion Implementation of alternative 2 or alternative 3 May Impact Individuals and or Habitat, but not likely contribute towards a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species of the Bald Eagle due to potential disturbance to individuals. Alternative 2 would be more extensive in the reduction of large snags that could contribute to rest or foraging perches, though still a small proportion of the affected watersheds.

Lewis’ Woodpecker, Purple Martin, Pallid Bat and Fringed Myotis

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement Lewis’ woodpecker use large conifer or mature oak snags with cavities for nesting. They also use riparian edge habitats for foraging. Purple martins use snags with cavities, usually near open water for nesting. Pallid bats and fringed myotis use large snags for roosts. Salvage harvest of 2,222 acres of unmanaged stands, landing and temporary road construction, and danger tree abatement may reduce snags that could potentially provide nest cavities for these species,

Page | 3-54 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project however this is less than 1 percent of the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds combined. Potential removal of large snags within 182 acres of danger tree treatments on haul routes and 5 acres of temporary road construction that are outside of the RRSNF danger tree project may increase acres with 0 snags in a minor proportion of the watersheds (< 0.1%). Snag retention PDC for salvage units would retain large snags and not add to acres having 0 large snags in the watershed. Snag retention adjacent to riparian protection areas may provide higher value snag habitat for these species.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Pile burning of activity fuels, and reforestation activities may cause any of these species to avoid habitat in these areas when they occur, but would not directly affect their habitat. Seasonal restrictions to avoid disturbance to spotted owls and marbled murrelet would also benefit these species.

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement Managed stands proposed for harvest under Alternative 3 likely have few large snags with cavities. Harvest and associated activities may result in minor loss (<0.1 %) of large snags or down wood that would be discountable at the watershed scale.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Pile burning of activity fuels, and reforestation activities may cause these species to avoid habitat in these areas when they occur, but would not directly affect their habitat. Seasonal restrictions to avoid disturbance to spotted owls and marbled murrelet would also benefit these species.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Activities in PFF habitats in the RRSNF roadside danger tree treatment, BLM and private lands (1,979 acres total) may increase the acres with 0 large snags in these watersheds, but these acres represent 0.7 percent of these watersheds combined. In addition, the RRSNF roadside danger tree project may reduce large snags within 2,361 acres of NRF habitat (0.8 percent of the watersheds), though the actual affected acres is expected to be much smaller due to low or unburned conditions. Potential removal of large snags within 182 acres of danger tree treatments on haul routes and up to 5 acres of temporary road construction in the action alternatives that are outside of the RRSNF danger tree project may increase acres with 0 snags would be a minor contribution (< 0.1%) to cumulative effects. Proposed project activities that may occur concurrently and in proximity to ongoing or future salvage activities on BLM or private lands may be additive in that more acres would be avoided by these species during treatment activities under both alternatives, though effects of alternative 3 would be less extensive than alternative 2.

Conclusion Implementation of alternative 2 or alternative 3 May Impact Individuals and or Habitat, but not likely contribute towards a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species of Lewis’ woodpecker, purple martin, pallid bat or fringed myotis due to potential

Chapter 3 Page|3-55 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment disturbance to individuals. Alternative 2 would be more extensive in the reduction of snags that could contribute to nest habitat, though still a small proportion of the affected watersheds.

Green Sideband

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement This species is more likely to be present in unmanaged stands that have large woody debris or rocky areas. Potential impacts for these low-mobility species may include mortality from tree felling and equipment operation. Large down wood, large hardwoods and rocky areas would be retained and avoided to the extent possible, but some incidental loss or disturbance of these habitats may occur. Riparian protection buffers would likely protect potential habitat and any individuals that may occur there. Down wood retention near riparian protection buffers would improve habitat quality for these snails.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Direct mortality could occur from pile burning especially if they are created several months prior to burning, but piles created by this project wouldn’t likely be located where these snails are most likely to occur. Reforestation activities may disturb this species but not likely to cause mortality.

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement Managed stands proposed for harvest under Alternative 3 usually do not provide suitable habitat for these snails. Harvest and associated activities may result in minor loss of down wood that would be discountable at the watershed scale.

Noise, Pile Burning and Revegetation Site Prep and Planting Direct mortality could occur from pile burning especially if they are created several months prior to burning, but piles created for these units would not likely be located where these snails are likely to occur. There is a low likelihood of disturbance of individuals by reforestation activities in these units.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Activities in PFF habitats in the RRSNF roadside danger tree treatment, BLM and private lands (1,979 acres total) may provide similar habitat for the green sideband as the unmanaged stands considered above. In addition, the 2,361 acres of NRF potentially affected by the RRSNF roadside danger tree project would also likely provide habitat, though the actual affected acres is expected to be much smaller due to low or unburned conditions. Harvest activities on 2,222 acres of unmanaged stands under alternative 2 may be additive to cumulative effects from salvage activities in similar habitat on BLM and private lands, and within the RRSNF roadside danger tree treatments. Therefore, potential habitat disturbance or loss of individuals may occur within 7,711 acres (3 percent) of the watersheds combined, which is a small proportion of the area these snails may inhabit in these watersheds.

Page | 3-56 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Pile burning may also minimally additive in the scale (acres) of potential habitat disturbance or loss of individuals because piles from these activities would not likely be located where this species is likely to occur. Effects of Alternative 3 may have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to green sidebands.

Conclusion Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 May Impact Individuals and or Habitat, but not likely contribute towards a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species for the Green Sideband due to potential loss of individuals during treatments and loss or disturbance of down wood habitat. This would be more likely to occur in Alternative 2 where suitable habitat and individuals are more likely to occur.

Western Bumblebee

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement, Pile Burning, and Reforestation Activities There is a very low likelihood that these species are present in proposed units based on the rarity of them in more suitable habitat where western bumble bees have been documented recently in Oregon. However, the likely increase in nectar and pollen producing shrubs and forbs in the recovering burned area would likely provide more potential habitat than was available prior to the fire. Potential impacts for this species may include disturbance or mortality of individuals or destruction of ground nests from tree felling, equipment operation, and pile burning. Incidental loss or disturbance of suitable burrows or foraging habitat may also occur from these activities. The extent of these effects under Alternative 2 is approximately 1 percent of the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds, and 5 percent of the area in these watersheds that burned with >50% basal area loss. These areas are expected to continue providing suitable habitat for bees after project activities with continued growth of nectar and pollen producing vegetation.

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Cutting and Yarding, Temporary Road and Landing Construction, Danger Tree Abatement, Pile Burning, and Reforestation Activities Direct and indirect effects to western bumblebees under alternative 3 are the same as alternative 2 though less extensive since the acres harvested would be reduced by 54 percent. The extent of these effects under Alternative 3 is less than 1 percent of the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds, and 2 percent of the area in these watersheds that burned with >50% basal area loss. These areas are expected to continue providing suitable habitat for bees after project activities with continued growth of nectar and pollen producing vegetation.

Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives Proposed harvest and associated activities under alternative 2 may be additive to cumulative effects from similar salvage activities occurring concurrently in the RRSNF roadside danger tree treatment area, BLM, and private lands that may result in disturbance of habitat and potential loss of individuals or nest sites. This would occur within approximately 10 percent of the watersheds combined.

Chapter 3 Page|3-57 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Additive effects of Alternative 3 to cumulative effects would be less extensive since salvage activities are proposed on fewer acres that when combined with concurrent, similar activities on RRSNF roadside danger tree treatment area, BLM, and private lands would affect approximately 8 percent of the watersheds combined.

Conclusion Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 May Impact Individuals and or Habitat, but not likely contribute towards a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species for the western bumble bee due to potential loss of individuals or nests during project activities. Alternative 2 would have a higher potential for impacts due to more affected acres.

MIS Species

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives As previously described, alternative 2 may reduce potential rest and foraging perches, but would not impact primary riparian habitat for eagles. Implementation of alternative 2 or 3 would not affect habitat primary nesting habitat associated with large creeks or rivers identified for management by the Siskiyou LRMP for bald eagles or osprey. Alternative 2 is expected to reduce large snags that may contribute to future legacy structure associated with suitable mature and old growth forest habitats for NSO and marten. This reduction would not occur within current functioning mature and old growth habitat for these . The reduction of post-fire legacy features would affect less than 1 percent of the total mature and old growth habitat available across the forest. The reduction of these features under alternative 3 would be discountable. Therefore, implementation of either alternative would not affect continued viability of the spotted owl or American (or coastal) marten at the Forest scale. A study of post-burn occurrence of pileated woodpeckers after the Biscuit fire found that their occurrence in unburned and recently burned habitat was nearly the same (Fontaine, 2009). However, the study did not indicate if they were nesting in that habitat or only foraging. The preliminary update for MIS habitat (Table 10) shows that there has been a 5 percent reduction of suitable forested habitat for these woodpeckers since 2011. Implementation of alternative 2 would have similar effects to pileated woodpeckers as for spotted owl and martens by reducing the amount of large snags that may contribute to future habitat. This loss would occur within less than 1 percent of available habitat. Therefore, implementation of either alternative would not affect continued viability of the pileated woodpecker at the Forest scale. The woodpeckers include acorn, pileated, downy, hairy, and white-headed woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsuckers. Fontaine (2009) found that downy woodpeckers occurred more frequently in post-burn habitat than unburned, but again it did not indicate if any nests were confirmed in that habitat. Like pileated woodpeckers, it appears that forested habitat for woodpeckers has been reduced by 5 percent at the forest level since 2011. Implementation of alternative 2 or 3 is expected to reduce snag habitat that these woodpeckers may use, though these watersheds are currently above reference conditions for snags greater than 10 inches DBH. This would occur within less than 1 percent of available habitat under alternative 2 and even less under alternative 3. Therefore, implementation of either alternative would not affect continued viability of the woodpeckers at the Forest scale. Black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk use all successional stages to meet their habitat needs for cover, forage and reproduction. Natural or created openings provide the majority of foraging habitat, which is assumed to be the most restrictive habitat component in this region (Forest Plan

Page | 3-58 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

FEIS, III-106-107). Forage habitat is available within existing meadows, harvest units and burned areas less than 10 years old, and open canopy forested areas. Deer and elk are frequently seen in the project area. ODFW Roosevelt elk population survey data estimate a slight population increase in the Chetco unit since 2011. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has suggested a population objective of 32,600 deer for the Siskiyou National Forest. Forest Service and ODFW estimates of habitat capability vary however, both methods resulted in a proposed cover/forage ratio of 80:20 for the Siskiyou National Forest. Fires have contributed to a 12 percent increase in early seral habitat (forage) since 2011 and a 5 percent decrease in thermal and hiding cover (Table 10). The increase in forage habitat and has brought the forest-wide ratio for cover/forage to approximately 67:33 rather than 71:29 prior to the fires. Short-term disturbance to early seral habitat from proposed activities under alternatives 2 or 3 would not measurably affect thermal or foraging habitat for these species and continued viability of black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk is expected at the Forest scale.

Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives Implementation of either action alternative may be additive to ongoing or foreseeable projects on the Siskiyou portion of the RRSNF (SNF) that remove roadside danger trees or hazard trees at administrative sites or project work sites which contribute to legacy features for existing or future snag and down wood habitat used by northern spotted owls, Pacific marten, pileated woodpeckers and other woodpeckers. The extent of danger tree or hazard tree cutting across the SNF is roughly 200 snags per year, approximately 25 percent of which are usually greater than 20 inches dbh. In addition, the RRSNF 2017 Fire Danger Tree Project would remove danger trees within approximately 13,540 acres across the Siskiyou National Forest all related to the Chetco Bar Fire. DecAID analysis of snags per acre for the southwest Oregon mixed conifer habitat type across the Siskiyou NF, which is the habitat type that the proposed project would affect, show that current snag levels are lower than reference for both snags greater than 10” dbh (8 percent more acres with 0 snags per acre) and snags greater than 20” dbh (15 percent deficit). As described earlier, PDC to retain snags in proposed salvage units would not increase acres with 0 snags per acre and would not be additive to effects of other foreseeable activities that may result in an increase of acres with 0 snags. Up to 187 acres of danger tree treatment and temporary road construction described previously for either alternative may result in a minor increase in acres with 0 snags which would be very minor (< 0.1%) at the scale of the Siskiyou NF. The effects of snag reduction and habitat disturbance for all acres under the action alternatives (4,378 acres in alt 2 and 2,107 acres in alt 3) when combined with foreseeable danger treatments (13,540) would affect up to 3 percent of habitat available for woodpeckers across the Siskiyou NF. The effects of large snag reduction (2,222 acres harvest, plus 182 acres danger trees, and 5 acres temp roads) and habitat disturbance for 2,409 acres under alternative 2 when combined with 13,540 acres of snag removal for roadside danger trees and administrative site hazard trees would affect less than 5 percent of habitat available across the Siskiyou NF for NSO, marten, and pileated woodpeckers. There would be no measureable direct or indirect effects of either action alternative that would contribute to cumulative effects to hiding/thermal or foraging habitat for black-tailed deer or Roosevelt elk.

Chapter 3 Page|3-59 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Migratory Birds

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives Effects to migratory birds are considered by habitat attributes similar to MIS species, but are evaluated at the watershed scale rather than the forest scale. All treatments have potential to disturb active bird nests during the breeding season which could cause failed reproduction or mortality of young, though seasonal restrictions for spotted owls would also provide protection for other nesting birds. To the extent possible, any active bird nests encountered during project activities would be given a no-treat buffer adequate to avoid a stress response (eg. flushing an adult from incubating eggs or nestlings, avoid feeding young, or defensive behavior) or mortality until young have fledged. Otherwise, adult birds and fledglings would likely avoid an area during activities until disturbances such as noise and smoke end. For all treatments, noise and smoke disturbance may cause short-term avoidance outside of habitat which may be cumulative with any concurrent treatment of adjacent plantations resulting in a larger area avoided. Harvest and associated activities that reduce vegetation regrowth may displace species that prefer early seral and post-fire habitats. Reduction of suitable habitat for birds that use snags would also occur, though snag retention PDCs would ensure some snags remain post-harvest. This would be more extensive under alternative 2 since alternative 3 would treat 54 percent less acres. Both alternatives would affect up to 1 percent of the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds combined.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Both alternatives would have effects to migratory birds that could be additive to similar salvage harvest and danger tree activities occurring concurrently on the RRSNF, private and BLM lands. This would occur within up to 8 percent of watersheds combined.

Pollinators

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives All proposed activities under both action alternatives could result in short-term loss of nectar and pollen due to ground and vegetation disturbance (e.g. ground-based harvest, equipment operation, reforestation activities). They could also result in disturbance or mortality of individuals from equipment operation, tree felling and pile burning. Alternative 2 would have more potential for these effects since alternative 3 would have a 54 percent fewer acres harvested. Both would affect less than 1 percent of the watersheds combined and 5 percent of the area in these watersheds that burned with >50% basal area loss

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Proposed harvest and associated activities under alternative 2 may be additive to cumulative effects from similar salvage activities occurring concurrently in the RRSNF danger tree treatments and on BLM and private lands that may result in disturbance of habitat and potential loss of individuals or nest sites. This would occur within approximately 8 percent of watersheds combined. Additive effects of Alternative 3 to cumulative effects would be less extensive since the acres harvested would be reduced by 54 percent.

Page | 3-60 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Summary of Effects and Determinations Determinations and effects for federally listed and Region 6 sensitive species are summarized in Table 16. Overall, Alternative 2 would harvest over twice as many acres as Alternative 3 including some acres with larger snags that contribute to important habitat elements for many of the species analyzed. Alternative 2 would have removal of PFF habitat with adverse effects to NSO, while alternative 3 would not harvest PFF, but would have a smaller degree of PFF impacts from danger tree abatement and landing construction. The potential disturbance to federally listed species during critical breeding season from haul route use is the same under each action alternative. Effects to sensitive species, MIS habitat, migratory birds and pollinators is also a difference of degree with Alternative 3 having the lowest potential for impacts of the action alternatives. Both action alternative would be expected to maintain viability of populations of MIS species on the RRSNF.

Table 16. Summary of Effects to Federally Listed and Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species

No Action Proposed Action Federally Listed Species Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Marbled Murrelet Disturbance NE LAA LAA Marbled Murrelet Habitat NE NLAA NLAA Northern Spotted Owl Disturbance NE LAA LAA Northern Spotted Owl Habitat NE LAA NLAA Region 6 Sensitive Species Pacific fisher NI MIIH MIIH Pacific (coastal) marten NI MIIH MIIH Bald eagle NI MIIH MIIH Lewis’ woodpecker NI MIIH MIIH Purple martin NI MIIH MIIH Green sideband NI MIIH MIIH Pallid bat NI MIIH MIIH Fringed myotis NI MIIH MIIH Western bumble bee NI MIIH MIIH

Economics The following is a summary of the Logging and Transportation Report Economic Analysis. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework FSM 1970 provides policy and principles for conducting economic evaluation of projects in the Forest Service.

Chapter 3 Page|3-61 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment

Planning Area Land Allocation The CBF Salvage project units are completely within land allocation designated as Matrix by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA and USDI 1994 b, c). Matrix allocation emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the Matrix with suitable forest lands (NWFP, page C-39). Matrix lands allocated under the NWFP that include all areas not otherwise designated to a more protective status under the LRMP. The project area includes lands allocated to Matrix, as carried forward from the 1989 LRMP as General Forest Prescription (Management Area 14). Within this area, several areas are further managed for the visual resources. The Partial Retention Visual is intended to be restrictive to the application of regeneration harvests which uses partial retention to mitigate the visual concerns. More detailed descriptions can be found in the Northwest Forest Plan, and the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Logging Systems and Treatment Methods The proposal of systems to be used in any given stand is based on existing road access, new system or temporary road construction needs, as well as economic and technical feasibility identified for each treatment unit. The two primary concerns involved with use of the various logging systems is the potential detrimental effects to soils and the construction of new roads. No new roads are proposed in this project. Temporary roads are proposed and may be necessary due to the need for a change in the logging system design or to access areas that have no access, reflecting an adherence to current standards and guidelines set forth in the Forest Plan. Soil concerns elevate when ground based equipment is considered for use on steeper slopes, sensitive riparian areas, sensitive soil types, or unstable areas. No salvage is proposed in riparian reserves, or unstable areas. Ground based equipment would not operate on slopes greater than 30%. Conversely, there is an operational concern for economics between the various systems being considered, i.e., ground based systems are most economic from an operational cost viewpoint, skyline systems increase in operational costs, and aerial (full suspension or helicopter) systems are the most costly. Road access and landing accessibility with construction costs are also factors to consider. Treatment units that provide opportunities for commercial extraction proposed in this project include ground-based systems, skyline cable systems, and aerial (helicopter) systems.

Timber Markets Current timber markets have a relatively high value for Douglas-fir saw grade material. While the timber market fluctuates regularly based on global markets, local supply, and domestic demand, timber values have been relatively high following recovery after the 2008 recession. The average log prices by species and grade from 2016-2000 pond value for Douglas-fir is approximately $530 per Mbf (https://data.oregon.gov/Natural-Resources/Log-Prices/4v4m-wr5p/data). Federal timber sales in 2015 through 2017 have been selling for high prices and attracting many bidders to each sale in these local markets. The bid rates have ranged from $230 per Mbf to $282 per Mbf. Variables that affected bid rates include logging systems, haul distance to mills, quality of timber grades, and restrictions on operations. The salvage units have large areas of skyline with a lesser amount of ground based logging, and a portion of helicopter yarding. The proposed sale areas have fire damaged but quality timber grades, which will likely be appealing to local timber markets. These market conditions should result in good value for this project, resulting in revenue available for more restoration and enhancement.

Page | 3-62 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Environmental Consequences to Economics

Methodology An economic efficiency analysis is used to compare expected revenues from the project to costs for the agency to implement the project. This allows for the calculation of a cost to benefit ratio, providing a simple method for analyzing alternatives. Zone average costs from recent timber sale appraisals will be used for the costs associated with the activities proposed. These costs will be subtracted from the expected value for Douglas-fir saw logs to give a total value that a timber sale contract or stewardship might expect to generate. This analysis compares expected revenues from value created mostly from timber harvest to the costs that are expected to be incurred by the Forest Service to implement the project. No planning or NEPA costs are considered. This analysis only considers short term costs and revenues and doesn’t consider future, long term costs or revenues.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Under No Action, no revenue would be generated because no salvage would occur. Road maintenance which is normally scheduled would have to be paid by other means. There would be no monies available for other restoration type activities like reforestation.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives

Methods for Analysis Project revenue is calculated by subtracting all costs required by the contract from the value of the timber delivered to the mill. The current pond value of $530/MBF east side scale and adjusted for product type and grade, and applied for southwest Oregon for the timber value delivered to the mill. The costs of getting the wood to the mill include logging and haul costs, road reconstruction and maintenance, and work required by the timber sale contract or stewardship contract. Averages from recent timber sale appraisals were used for the costs in the analysis. Costs are listed by dollars per Mbf (thousand board feet). Refer to the Economics Specialist Report in the project record for tables of projected costs by stand. For the proposed action, the total costs of $35,051,870 are subtracted from the timber value of $37,882,466 resulting in total revenue of $2,830,596. The expected bid rate under the analysis scenario for the proposed action would be $240 per Mbf. Volumes per acre were projected from potential treatment scenarios. Predicted volume (Mbf) per acre removed for the proposed action is averaging 17.5 Mbf/acre. To calculate economic efficiency, we subtract the total costs from the project revenue. This can be displayed as a ratio as well, which is the revenue to cost ratio (revenue/cost). Revenue to cost ratio value of 1 would mean that revenue would equal the costs to implement the project. The economic efficiency ratio tends to increase for the Forest Service with larger volumes and projects because such projects usually generate higher revenues vs. cost. The financial cost not considered but incurred by the Forest Service include agency costs for contract administration, contract preparation, specialist time, engineering, and any mitigation measures that might be needed as a result of the project. The numbers used for this analysis are from previous projects and comparison of projects of similar complexity and size. The numbers should be used for relative comparison purposes only.

Chapter 3 Page|3-63 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 17. Costs for Determining Project Revenue.

Zone Averages Costs per Mbf $/Mbf Tractor Logging - Stump to Truck $187 Skyline Logging - Stump to Truck $245 Helicopter Logging – Stump to Truck $400 Haul Costs $87 Road Maintenance $26 Road Reconstruction $25 Brush Disposal $9 Other Contract Costs $11

Alternative Comparison There are slight differences in economic effects between the alternatives. The proposed action has a lower economic efficiency for the Forest Service, while alternative 3 has a higher economic efficiency. The proposed action has an economic efficiency ratio of 1.08. The proposed action alternative has total present net value of $2,830,596. This value is high due to more acres treated and timber volume removed in the proposed action when compared to Alternative 3. The proportion of tractor and skyline logging, compared to helicopter yarding, also helps reduce logging operational costs. A comparison of economic efficiency when helicopter yarding shows the ratio goes up to 1.23. Helicopter yarding requires a higher cost of meeting resource objectives. If the efficiency considerations are incorporated into the project implementation, every effort would be needed to help offset those higher costs. The timing of the year is a big factor as helicopters can lift more efficiently with cold dense air, usually occurring during the winter months, but road use and improvements also need to be realized. Utilizing machines to harvest timber and pre-bunch the loads would also help offset these higher costs. The economic efficiency ratio tends to go up for the Forest Service with larger volumes and projects. Larger projects and volumes equal higher revenues and relatively lower costs for the Forest Service, resulting in better economic efficiency ratios. See Table 18 for the revenue calculations, and economic efficiency comparison of alternatives.

Table 18. Present Net Value and Benefit/Cost Ratio Comparison

Alternative Volume Total Estimated Total Estimated Present Net Benefit in MBF Benefit or Cost Value -Cost Revenue from Ratio Sale of Timber (B/C) 1 No Action 0 0.00 $ 25,000 $ (25,000) 0.00 2 Proposed Action – Alt 2 71,476 $ 37,882,466 $ 35,051,870 $ 2,830,596 1.08 3 Alternative 3 14,953 $ 7,925,246 $ 6,828,074 $1,097,172 1.16 2 Alternative 2 w/o Heli 46,309 $ 24,544,020 $ 19,992,007 $ 4,552,013 1.23 3 Alternative 3 w/o Heli 12,646 $ 6,702,396 $ 5,447,407 $ 1,254,989 1.23 Note: - Values are meant to be used for the comparison of alternatives only and do not represent an expected selling value.

Page | 3-64 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Alternative 3 has a higher economic efficiency ratio of 1.16. This effectively means the revenue generated by the project exceeds the costs incurred by the Forest Service to implement the project. The present net value for the helicopter portion of the project equals $(157,817). This is largely due to the decreased acres being treated and $1,380,667 of helicopter costs included for the alternative. This analysis shows that there are some differences between the alternatives. The economic efficiency ratio of the proposed action is slightly lower than Alternative 3. The $2,830,596 revenue that can potentially be generated by the proposed action in the form of retained receipts from a stewardship could potentially pay for a good amount of restoration projects. Revenue of $1,097,172 could be potentially generated from Alternative 3, but when considering the helicopter work to implement the contract, this equals very little net gain for the investment. Refer to the Economics Specialist Report in the project record for a breakdown of costs per treatment unit and by alternative.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives There are present and foreseeable projects (salvage on private and BLM lands, and Roadside Danger Tree Abatement project) in various stages of planning and implementation that potentially may add to the local or regional economies.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction Proposed project activities would be consistent with FSM 1970 because 1970.6 states “The responsible line officer determines the scope, appropriate level, and complexity of economic and social evaluations to meet overall objectives and policy (FSM 1970.2 and 1970.3).” Undeveloped Lands There is no stand-alone report for this section; this section was written directly to the EA.

Regulatory Framework During public involvement for this project, and in past similar projects, a wide range of terms have been used by respondents, the courts, and the Forest Service when referring to these areas such as roadless, inventoried roadless area, unroaded, un-inventoried roadless, undeveloped lands, and roadless expanse. Local interest groups have created their own inventories, including lands on the RRSNF, using inventory criteria they developed for their purposes. Polygons on their maps are referred to as “un-inventoried roadless areas,” “inventoried roadless areas,” “roadless areas,” or “unroaded.” There are conflicts between the Forest Service maps and maps presented by these interest groups. Each map appears to be based on different definitions and inventory criteria. The terms and definitions as stated below will be used in this site-specific analysis. The three resource topics are based on current law, regulation, agency policy, and the Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended (USDA Forest Service 1989).

Wilderness Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation as defined under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions which (1) generally appear to have been affected primarily

Chapter 3 Page|3-65 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment by forces of nature with the imprint of human actively substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and confined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to make practical its preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value as well as ecologic and geologic interest (USDA Forest Service 1989). None of the alternatives evaluated here include any actions within any wilderness area.

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) These areas were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000 (or any subsequent update or revision of those maps) which are held at the National headquarters office of the Forest Service (36 CFR 294.11). These areas were set aside through administrative rulemaking and have provisions, within the context of multiple use management, for the protection of inventoried roadless areas. Most inventoried roadless area boundaries are substantially identical to those identified as “Roadless Areas,” referred to in the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17) and identified by the Siskiyou Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C; however some localized, minor differences in boundaries may exist.

None of the alternatives evaluated here include any actions within any inventoried roadless area.

Other Undeveloped Lands The term “other undeveloped lands” is presented and used in this document to provide a consideration for the balance of those remaining lands that are not designated wilderness, were not designated as IRA under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and do not contain roads and evidence of timber harvest (see definition below).

Affected Environment Other undeveloped lands include acres of land that have no history of harvest activity and do not contain forest roads and are not inventoried roadless areas, or a designated wilderness area. They are stand-alone polygons of varying acreages within the project area (Table 19). There are no Forest-wide or management area standards specific to undeveloped lands in the Siskiyou Forest Plan. All lands, including undeveloped lands, are managed consistent with Forest-wide standards and guidelines and by designated Forest Plan management area allocations. The CBF Salvage project was reviewed for areas of undeveloped lands using GIS generated maps. One hundred-twenty-seven individual polygons were identified as other undeveloped lands. Many individual polygons were located both inside and outside the project footprint. Individual polygons of other undeveloped lands less than an acre were eliminated from further study because no special or unique resource values were identified and the description of effects to individual pieces of land less than one acres are better disclosed as part of the other resources environmental effects analysis in previous sections in this chapter. Table 19 below shows the number, size class, and approximate acres represented. Approximately 94 percent of the polygons are less than 1,000 acre in size. For perspective, one square mile is about 640 acres and the closest designated wilderness area (Kalmiopsis) is over 180,095 acres. The residual shape of each undeveloped polygon is the result of boundaries created by past harvest, and road building. The largest polygon of other undeveloped lands is approximately 5,416 acres.

Page | 3-66 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Table 19. Size Class and Acres of Other Undeveloped Lands in the CBF Salvage Project Area Acres Number of (Percent) Acres Total Polygons Size Class (acres) Treated in Treated in Acres (percent) Proposed Alternative 3 Action 83 (65%) 1 to 99 1,291 91 (7%) 0 30 (24%) 100 to 499 7,218 129 (2%) 0 6 (5%) 500 to 999 4,144 387 (9%) 0 7 (6%) 1,000 to 4,999 17,549 822 (5%) 0 1 (<1%) Greater than 5,000 5,416 4 (<1%) 0 127 TOTAL 35,619 1433 (4%) 0

The majority of the approximate 35,619 acres of other undeveloped lands in the project area are allocated in Forest Plan management areas as matrix or late-successional reserves with a smaller portion in administratively withdrawn areas, congressionally reserved areas, and riparian reserves. However, all undeveloped land within the project footprint are matrix land allocation. Matrix land allocation allow that timber be managed on a scheduled basis, all types of prescribed fire may be used to accomplish management objectives, and road reconstruction and maintenance are permitted within Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Past management and current developed conditions within the project boundary reflect the intent and decisions made in the Forest Plan (as amended), and reflects consistency with Forest Plan management area allocations.

Any areas with unique ecological values within the project area are currently maintained for those values with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for management area allocations such as, administratively withdrawn areas, congressionally reserved areas, and riparian reserves. Refer to the EA, Chapter 1 for more information on Forest Plan management area allocation.

Undeveloped Lands Greater than 1,000 Acres Scoping comments on undeveloped lands greater than 1,000 acres centered on the value these areas provide for the production of fish and other aquatic and terrestrial species, as well as sources of high quality water. Human influences have had limited impact to long-term ecological processes within the other undeveloped lands. Disturbances by insects and fire have been and most likely would continue to be the factors with the most potential to impact the area. However, human influences have had an impact on the size and shape of undeveloped lands. Figure 19 visually displays the effects human influences have had on the size and shape of undeveloped lands greater than 1,000 acres. The size and shape of undeveloped lands determine the quality and value of fish and other aquatic and terrestrial species production, as well as sources of high quality water. The optimum shapes would have the least amount of edge. Long narrow shapes provide less distance from disturbance at their midpoint. The lands identified in polygons 1068, 1206, 1622, 2615, 2827, 3877, 4334, and 5416 represent tracts of land that are considered “undeveloped” from past management activities. Following is a description of each undeveloped land polygon greater than 1,000 acres. The polygon number references the total acres of undeveloped lands within that polygon. Figure 19 displays each undeveloped land polygon greater than 1,000 acres. Any special or unique resource values in undeveloped lands that have been identified by project resource specialists are described below

Chapter 3 Page|3-67 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment for each polygon. If special or unique resources were not identified for a polygon, the affected environment for resources such as, soils, water quality, vegetation, fuels, air quality; plant and animal communities, habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; noxious weeds, roaded modified and roaded natural recreation, semi-primitive non-motorized and motorized recreation, scenery, and cultural resources are the same as disclosed in previous sections of this chapter and not reiterated here. Several of these polygons represent lands that are adjacent to or encompass the Chetco and Pistol Rivers and/or their tributaries. The Chetco River and Pistol River Watersheds contain ESA-listed Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho salmon and their designated critical habitat, Forest Service Sensitive SONCC Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) steelhead trout. The range of the species described above are all found within polygons 5416, 1622, 3877, and 4334. The other identified undeveloped lands within the project area are all in close proximity to stream channels that contribute to the habitat needs of the species described above. However, there are no anticipated project related effects to any of these species, as is described in the Fisheries section of the Chetco Bar Area Salvage EA, therefore the unique qualities of these species will not be affected in any way from project-related activities. NFS lands identified in polygons 1206, 1622, 2615, 2827, 3877, 4334, and 5416 have previously recorded historic properties and cultural resource sites identified. Within the polygons there are several locations considered to be high probability for cultural resources. These areas will be surveyed by qualified archaeologists or archaeological technicians prior to implementation. Newly identified cultural resource sites will be considered historic properties until concurrence with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been achieved. These sites will be flagged and avoided prior to the occurrence of ground disturbing activities.

Polygon 1068 1068 is the smallest polygon located on BLM lands and is described here for cumulative effects. A known population of Arctostaphylos hispidula (r6 sensitive species) on top of Bosley Butte at the communication tower site existed before the fire. Twenty-seven (27) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 1% are PFF, and 34% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Polygon 1206 1206 appears to be two separate areas connected by a stringer of undeveloped land that is about 500 feet wide. There is a population of Erigeron cervinus (R6 sensitive plant) within this polygon. There are also existing dozer lines from fire suppression activities of the Chetco Bar Fire in the northern part of this polygon. Fifty-eight (58) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 5% are PFF, and 29% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Polygon 1622 1622 is a fairly large polygon dissected by several roads, including the 1107 road. This polygon also has two appendages that are dissected by managed stands. This polygon borders the South Kalmiopsis IRA on the east side. Twenty-five (25) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 22% are PFF, and 23% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Polygon 2615 2615 is a fairly large polygon dissected by managed stands and a large block of private lands, which most likely has or will be salvaged. There are four small meadows (less than an acre)

Page | 3-68 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project within the polygon. Forty-two (42) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 8% are PFF, and 29% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Polygon 2827 2827 is a large polygon on both NFS lands and BLM lands. There are 11 small meadows (less than an acre) within this polygon around Hog Mountain. Thirty-nine (39) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 1% are PFF, and 37% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Polygon 3877 3877 is a large amoeba (or octopus) shaped poly with multiple appendages and stringers, some less than 200 feet wide on both NFS lands and BLM lands. This undeveloped polygon wraps around the south end of Windy Valley IRA, however this portion is less than 200 feet in some areas. There are multiple small meadows ranging from 0.1 to 4.7 acres within the polygon. There is one 1.5 acre meadow near Robbins Spring right on the boundary with BLM. There are also areas with deciduous oaks along Eagle Creek, some within proposed salvage units. These areas would be planted with Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) and California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) in this project. Thirty-two (32) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 20% are PFF, and 14% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Polygon 4334 4334 is a large polygon dissected on one end by managed stands. There is a 13.6 acre meadow within this polygon, which is part of the long ridge meadow system. Thirty-three (33) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 9% are PFF, and 26% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Polygon 5416 5416 is a large polygon with smaller appendages on both ends. This polygon borders the North Kalmiopsis IRA and includes portions of the Chetco River. The northern end of this polygon has serpentine soils and there are two populations of Arctostaphylos hispidula (R6 sensitive plant). There are four meadows within this polygon (24, 14.4, 3.6, and 11.6 acres). There is also an existing dozer line from fire suppression activities of the Chetco Bar Fire that cuts down through Tincup meadows ending at the Tolman ranch. Twenty-eight (28) percent of the undeveloped lands in this polygon are NRF, 17% are PFF, and 15% are dispersal habitat for NSO.

Environmental Consequences to Other Undeveloped Lands The cumulative effects analysis boundary for other undeveloped lands is the full extent of the undeveloped areas. Therefore, other undeveloped lands extends beyond the project footprint but is bounded by the farthest out polygons.

Methodology The effects to other undeveloped lands were based on maps and polygons created using agency inventory procedures. These maps and polygons were created utilizing geographic information systems (GIS). The project area was evaluated for evidence of roads (open roads including a 300- foot buffer on each side of the road), and prior timber harvest. Information regarding the effects of prior harvest, including previously harvested lands acquired by the Forest Service, were discussed and reviewed with the project silviculturist and logging systems specialist. Based on field review and professional judgement, these lands still show

Chapter 3 Page|3-69 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment evidence of past harvest, including stumps and vegetation conditions outside those expected and reflective of historical, pre-harvest conditions. Individual polygons of other undeveloped lands less than 1 acre were eliminated from further study because no special or unique resource values were identified and the description of effects to individual pieces of land less than 1 acre are better disclosed as part of the other resource effects sections in this document.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Therefore, under the No Action alternative there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to undeveloped lands because no activities would occur in these areas. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes and ongoing management activities. All polygons of undeveloped lands would continue to not be an inventoried roadless area, or a designated wilderness area.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Under the proposed action alternative all acres of undeveloped lands would continue to not be an inventoried roadless area or a designated wilderness area. Acres changed from undeveloped to developed acres include areas of salvage treatments. Table 20 below is a summary showing the changes in acres after implementation of salvage activities for other undeveloped lands by alternative.

Table 20. Undeveloped Lands in CBF Salvage Project Footprint by Alternative Acres Remaining Percent of Area Acres Prior Acres Percent Alternative After After to Activity Changed Change Salvage Implementation Harvest

No Action 35,619 35,619 0 100% No change Proposed 35,619 34,186 (-1,433) 96% (-4%) Action Alternative 3 35,619 35,619 0 100% No change

Under the Proposed Action, salvage harvest and associated activities would occur on approximately 1,433 acres of other undeveloped lands, making these areas no longer considered undeveloped. Under the Proposed Action, salvage harvest would occur on approximately 826 acres and 1.5 miles of temporary road would be constructed on other undeveloped lands greater than 1,000 acres. Effects to undeveloped areas greater than 1,000 acres are also displayed in Table 19 and Figure 19. Other undeveloped lands with no proposed activities would remain the same as described in the affected environment. They would still remain free of developments such as forest roads or timber harvest units. They would still not be considered inventoried roadless areas, or a designated wilderness area. In areas where proposed project activity would occur on other undeveloped lands, the impacts to soil, water quality, air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; noxious weeds; and cultural resources, etc. are the same as

Page | 3-70 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project disclosed for areas of proposed project activity in previous resource sections of this chapter and are not reiterated here. Environmental effects to resources in other undeveloped lands due to the implementation of proposed project activities would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Plan management area standards and guidelines.

Effects Specific to Undeveloped Lands Greater than 1,000 acres If special or unique resources were not identified for a polygon, the effects for resources such as, soils, water quality, vegetation, fuels, air quality; plant and animal communities, habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; noxious weeds, roaded modified and roaded natural recreation, semi-primitive non-motorized and motorized recreation, scenery, and cultural resources are the same as disclosed in previous sections of this chapter and not reiterated here.

Polygon 1068 About 5 acres of BLM salvage harvest is proposed on the perimeter of the polygon and/or near roads. Proposed BLM salvaging would not take the polygon below 1,000 acres and would leave the core of the polygon intact because salvaging would take place on the outside perimeter. There should be no effect to this sensitive plant population from proposed BLM salvage. There is no salvage proposed in this polygon with this project.

Polygon 1206 The population of Erigeron cervinus (R6 sensitive plant) within this polygon would not be effected by the proposed action. About 9.6 acres of salvage are proposed on the perimeter of one end of the polygon, near private lands and situated between two roads. Salvaging would not take the polygon below 1,000 acres and would leave the core of the polygon intact. Proposed salvage units are nowhere near the dozer lines or the sensitive plant population. There is no salvage proposed within PFF.

Polygon 1622 Proposed salvage of 52.3 acres would occur in the two appendages and is located on the perimeter of the polygon near roads. Salvaging would not take the polygon below 1,000 acres and would leave the largest core of the polygon intact. No proposed salvaging takes place near the IRA. There is no salvage proposed within PFF.

Polygon 2615 Salvage is proposed on 218.3 acres, some of which occurs on the perimeter of the polygon and near managed stands and roads. Proposed salvage in four interior harvest units would further dissect this polygon of undeveloped lands. However, salvaging would not take the polygon below 2,000 acres. There are also 4 proposed temp roads for a total of 0.4 miles within this polygon. None of the four small meadows (less than an acre) would be affected by the project. About 84% of the PFF in this polygon would be salvaged under this project. The effects of salvaging PFF are no different in undeveloped lands as they are for developed areas. Therefore, for a complete description of the effects of salvaging PFF refer to the Wildlife section of this document.

Polygon 2827 About 3.7 acres of proposed salvage would occur on the perimeter of the poly adjacent to managed stands and roads. Proposed salvaging would not take the polygon below 2,800 acres and would leave the core of the polygon intact. None of the small meadows would be affected by the proposed action. About 9% of the PFF in this polygon would be salvaged under this project. The effects of salvaging PFF are no different in undeveloped lands as they are for developed areas.

Chapter 3 Page|3-71 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Therefore, for a complete description of the effects of salvaging PFF refer to the Wildlife section of this document.

Polygon 3877 About 336 acres of salvage is proposed in this polygon, plus about 2 acres of BLM salvage on the BLM portion of the polygon. The northern most portion of this polygon is a fairly large intact area that may be greater than 1,000 acres and has proposed salvage on the perimeter near managed stands between two roads. Salvaging these areas would still leave the majority of the core of the polygon intact. Another portion of the polygon is the southernmost piece primarily adjacent to private lands and closed roads. Salvaging this portion of the polygon would further dissect this polygon of undeveloped lands. No salvage is proposed directly adjacent to the IRA. Where salvaging does occur near the IRA, it occurs adjacent to roads and along long stringers of undeveloped lands that are less than 500 feet wide. There are 5 temp roads for a total of 1 mile proposed in this polygon. Proposed temporary roads are all located in the southernmost piece primarily adjacent to private lands and closed roads. There are also areas with deciduous oaks along Eagle Creek, some within proposed salvage units. These areas would be planted with Oregon white oak and California black oak in this project. The meadows would not be affected by the action alternatives. About 3% of the PFF in this polygon would be salvaged under this project. The effects of salvaging PFF are no different in undeveloped lands as they are for developed areas. Therefore, for a complete description of the effects of salvaging PFF refer to the Wildlife section of this document.

Polygon 4334 Proposed salvage on 202.5 acres would take place on the perimeter of the polygon adjacent to managed stands and roads. Proposed salvaging would not take the polygon below 4000 acres and would leave the core of the polygon intact. Two temp roads for a total of 0.05 miles are proposed near the perimeter. The meadow would not be affected by the proposed action. About 26% of the PFF in this polygon would be salvaged under this project. The effects of salvaging PFF are no different in undeveloped lands as they are for developed areas. Therefore, for a complete description of the effects of salvaging PFF refer to the Wildlife section of this document.

Polygon 5416 About 4.3 acres of proposed salvage occur in this polygon within one of the smaller appendages and on the perimeter of the polygon near roads and managed stands. Proposed salvaging would not take the polygon below 5000 acres and would leave the core of the polygon intact. Neither the four meadows nor the sensitive plant populations would be effected by the proposed action. Less than 1% of the PFF in this polygon would be salvaged under this project. The effects of salvaging PFF are no different in undeveloped lands as they are for developed areas. Therefore, for a complete description of the effects of salvaging PFF refer to the Wildlife section of this document.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from Alternative 3 Under alternative 3 there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to undeveloped lands because no activities would occur in these areas. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes and ongoing management activities. All polygons of undeveloped lands would continue to not be an inventoried roadless area, or a designated wilderness area.

Page | 3-72 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Cumulative Effects from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Past harvest and road building have reduced the acreage of other undeveloped lands across the watershed. Salvage logging on nearby BLM lands would reduce undeveloped lands by an additional 7 acres within polygons 1068 and 3877. The Roadside Danger Tree Abatement project would have no cumulative effects to undeveloped lands because it would occur within the undeveloped land 300 foot buffer along roads. No other future projects have been identified that would further reduce other undeveloped areas within the project area.

CBF Salvage project, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for other undeveloped lands, where project activities would occur, would reduce the acres of other undeveloped lands. These areas would have the same cumulative effects to soil, water quality, air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; noxious weeds; and cultural resources which are disclosed in previous sections of this chapter and are not reiterated here.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction Environmental effects to resources in other undeveloped lands due to the implementation of proposed project activities would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Plan management area standards and guidelines (see the CBF Salvage PEA chapter 3 for Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans sections for each resource).

Chapter 3 Page|3-73 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 19. Undeveloped Lands Greater than 1,000 acres and the Proposed Action

Page | 3-74 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Transportation System The following is a summary of the Logging and Transportation Report Economic Analysis, and the Transportation System reports. The entire reports are incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework

Management Direction for Roads Current direction for road management is found in the Siskiyou National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) (1989). The LRMP states, in part, to “Plan, design, operate and maintain a safe and economic transportation system to provide efficient access for the movement of people and materials involved in the use and protection of national forest lands.” (Forest Management Goal 15; LRMP Page IV-2). Within the Forest Plan, specific Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines for the Transportation System are summarized below.

Facilities: Transportation Planning Guidance for transportation planning is found on page IV-56 of the LRMP. Transportation planning analysis shall be conducted to compare feasible alternatives where choices that maximize net public benefits are not obvious from environmental and resource considerations. Direction for transportation planning is found in FSM 7710, Transportation Planning, and the Transportation Planning Handbook, FSH 7709 55. The analysis for transportation alternatives should: x Identify viable alternative routes from the planning area to available access points. x Identify the long- and short-term needs for each road (service life). x Determine the traffic criteria for each route. x Evaluate existing and potential mineral material sources considering site development and rehabilitation as described under Minerals. x Estimate development, maintenance, and user costs for economic comparison of alternatives. x Recommend the road system and standards to meet the needs identified. x Document the analysis, decisions, and management direction for preferred routes.

Temporary Roads Guidance for use of temporary roads is found on page IV-57 of the LRMP. Construction of temporary roads should normally be discouraged. Rather, we are proposing to re-use existing roads or skid trail templates that were used decades ago to harvest the same areas we are proposing to salvage. In a very few instances, new temporary roads are proposed and limited to relatively short segments. The forest realizes a cost savings due to no increase in road maintenance costs, no engineering services required and minimal construction/obliteration costs when compared to a designed system road. The existing templates meet the definition of temporary as they were all revegetated until the fire. Post fire salvage, the roads would need to again meet the conditions of revegetation within 10 years. Roads planned and constructed as temporary roads would be obliterated as part of the project work. Methods used, timing, and mitigation and designed to re-establish vegetative cover on the

Chapter 3 Page|3-75 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment disturbed area within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years after the termination of contract, lease or permit (36 CFR 219.27(a)(Il)).

Affected Environment The Chetco Bar Project area is accessed by county road North Bank Chetco River Road, east of Brookings Oregon. The project area encompasses land along Forest Service collector road 1107, 1407, 1376, 1909, 1917 and associated spur road. FS Roads 1376 would be the primary route of commercial access to the project area, all of the individual collector roads that provide access into the burned areas connect to North Bank Chetco River Road. The majority of roads within the project area have been in existence for more than 40 years, with some additions having been constructed in the recent past. With few exceptions, the roads in this project area have been constructed for access to timber harvest areas. Forest Service Road 1376 provides access to the community of Wilderness Retreat, private land inholdings, the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, and recreation opportunities on the wild and scenic Chetco River, as well as resource extraction. The roads within the project area generally have a pattern of use common to roads in the RRSNF. Most roads see moderate public use and administrative traffic through the course of the spring with recreational traffic increasing through the summer. Peak use occurs in the summer with increased recreational uses. Timber sale activity can contribute to daily traffic values, but the pattern of such activity is usually isolated to one particular area at any given time. The bulk of the roads within the project area do not generally serve any particular destinations. Rather, they provide access to areas of interest for various users. For land managers, these roads serve as access to areas where vegetative management activities are ongoing or planned. Road Restoration work has recently been completed or is scheduled for completion as part of the Chetco Bar Fire Burned Area Emergency Response and Roadside Danger Tree Abatement projects.

Environmental Consequences to Transportation System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Under the No Action alternative, the existing road system would experience no changes in its current status and condition. Roads that are currently in custodial status (Maintenance Level 1) would remain closed and open roads would continue to provide access for recreational, commercial, and administrative functions in the same manner that they currently do. Open roads would receive no maintenance beyond that which is normally scheduled, which is generally devoted to the higher standard roads within the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives As a function of use during harvest activities, road maintenance activities would be conducted on roads designated for use. As a direct effect, some roads that do not receive recurring maintenance, primarily low standard roads in the Maintenance Level (M/L) 2 category, would see some improvements in both safe drivability and in their ability to handle surface runoff. Maintenance Level 2 roads, as a result of use and infrequent blade maintenance, tend to develop shallow ruts in their wheel tracks, which can concentrate shallow flow and lead to increased sediment rates. Post-

Page | 3-76 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project haul maintenance that would occur on these roads would restore the road surface (without ruts) and would correct road drainage issues; post-haul water-barring would also correct roadway drainage issues. Implementation of the proposed action would result in a temporary increase in open road densities in and adjacent to the project area, during the periods when roads are being used for timber haul and post-harvest/project activities (e.g., silvicultural treatments). Under Alternative 2 and Alterative 3 approximately 6 miles of closed roads would be re-opened. Closed roads that are opened for project activities would be re- closed long-term with the same type of closure devices that were present before, using earthen berms or gates and roadway slash. Alternative 2 and Alterative 3 would not construct or decommission National Forest system roads, so there would be no change to the overall miles of open National Forest System Roads. No permanent road reconstruction is planned for this project.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Within the planning area, many of the roads on private lands are gated and not open to the general public. As a result, their contribution to the transportation system is limited to emergencies and by permission. The Forest Service has no current or planned permanent system road construction or decommissioning projects within the project area. As a result, there would be no cumulative effects from road construction or decommissioning projects to the transportation system. Road reconstruction and maintenance activities occurring under the Chetco Bar Fire Burned Area Emergency Response and the Roadside Danger Tree Abatement Project would have beneficial cumulative effects to the road system because activities would improve drivability, improve the ability to handle surface runoff, restore road surfaces, and correct roadway drainage issues.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction Proposed project activities would be consistent with Forest Plan management area standards and guidelines for roads and FSM 7710, Transportation Planning, and the Transportation Planning Handbook, FSH 7709 55. This is because the proposed projects would improve the safety and drivability of roads, increase their ability to handle surface runoff, restore road surfaces, and correct roadway drainage issues. Closed roads used for timber haul would be re-closed long-term with the same type of closure devices that were present before, using earthen berms or gates and roadway slash. Soils The following is a summary of the Soils Resource Report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework The authorities governing Forest Service soil management are outlined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2550 – Soil Management (WO Amendment 2500-2010-1, Effective November 23, 2010). Regional direction for maintaining and protecting the soil resource from detrimental disturbance to soil productivity is given in FSM 2500 – Watershed Protection and Management, Region 6 Supplement No. 2500-9801.

Chapter 3 Page|3-77 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

The Siskiyou National Forest (SNF) LRMP provides standards and guidelines (S&Gs) for soil and water resources on pages IV-44 through IV-48. In regard to soils and geology, they include S&Gs for detrimental soil conditions, soil erosion, mass movement, and large woody material. Forest- wide standards and guidelines ensure that land management activities shall be planned and conducted to maintain soil productivity and stability (S&G 7-1, pg. IV-44) (SNF, 1989). On the Siskiyou National Forest, the total area of detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings (S&G 7-2, page IV-44) (Siskiyou National Forest, 1989). Operations would also be restricted to existing logging facilities (I.e. temporary roads, skid trails, and landings) and roads whenever feasible. Detrimental soil impacts are defined as those that meet the criteria described in the Soil Quality Standards listed below (Region 6 Supplement No. 2500-9801). In addition, the Region 6 Soil Quality Standards emphasizes that “The cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration must, at a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality.” (ibid.). x Detrimental Soil Compaction in other soils (non-volcanic ash/pumice soils) is an increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent, or more, over the undisturbed level, a macropore space reduction of 50 percent or more, and/ or a reduction below 15 percent macro porosity. x Detrimental Soil Puddling occurs when the depth of ruts or imprints is six inches or more. x Detrimental Soil Displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon from an area greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width. x Severely Burned Soils are considered to be detrimentally disturbed when the mineral soil surface has been significantly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and the next one half inch blackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer. The detrimentally burned soil standard applies to an area greater than 100 square feet, which is at least five feet in width. Surface organic matter (duff, litter) is vital for protecting surface soils from erosion. The SNF LRMP provides standards and guidelines for mineral soil exposure (loss of duff and litter) not to be exceeded on page IV-44 based on each soil’s erosion hazard rate, however due to reduction or loss of the surface organic matter and canopy interception after moderate and high severity burn, the Chetco Fire Salvage project would prescribe the most stringent guideline of 85% effective ground cover (EGC) on all soils to mitigate soil disturbance from salvage operations. Standards and Guidelines for large woody material stress the importance of addressing site- specific needs. In general, five to twenty pieces of large woody material per acre should remain on each site; material should be from a range of decomposition classes; each piece should be at least 20 inches in diameter at the large end and contain at least 40 cubic feet volume (S&G 7-8, pg. IV-45) (SNF, 1989). To better guide site-specific needs, additional tools based on Plant Association Groups (PAGs) and DecAID, an interagency developed internet-based summary, synthesis, and integration (a "meta-analysis") of the best available science: published scientific literature, research data, wildlife databases, forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience, are used to refine the large woody material prescriptions. For more information on DecAID, refer to the Wildlife analysis.

Affected Environment Soils within the CBF Salvage project footprint were first mapped as part of the Siskiyou National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Meyer and Amaranthus 1979). The SRI provides soil

Page | 3-78 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project landtype unit information and interpretations that were specifically geared towards forested landscape management, and this information is still pertinent for forest management today. The area was later mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as part of the Curry County Oregon Soil Survey (USDA, NRCS 1995), providing soil survey data that is consistent with national soil survey standards. This analysis utilizes data generated from the Curry County Oregon Soil Survey, unless specifically noted. Soils within the project footprint are developed from metamorphic and sedimentary rocks from the Dothan Formation. The topography of the Dothan Formation varies from low, rolling ground to steep hillslopes as well as prominent ridges and rock outcrops. Soils are mostly in a mesic soil temperature regime, with highest elevations in the frigid soil temperature regime. The areas of low relief are predominantly in mudstone, siltstone, and shale. Soils in mudstone, siltstone, and shale are generally silty and clayey, deep (40 to 60 inches), and poorly drained. Areas of steeper relief are predominantly sandstone or overlaid with sandstone. Soils in sandstone tend to be sandy, well drained, and depths of moderately deep (20 to 40 inches) on slopes to shallow (< 20 inches) on ridges. Dothan volcanics form thin, rocky soils or outcrops. A soil map unit for the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project with harvest units is available in the Soils Resource report in the project record. Inceptisols and ultisol soil orders are represented in the project footprint. Inceptisols are soils that generally exhibit only moderate degrees of soil weathering and development. Ultisols are soils that form in humid areas, from fairly intense weathering and leaching processes that result in a clay-enriched subsoil dominated in minerals, which, in some of the ultisols in project footprint area, is kaolinite. Ultisols are typically acid soils in which most nutrients are concentrated in the upper few inches. A table describing the soil map unit name, approximate acres within the project footprint, and relative sensitivities to disturbance, based on soil properties is available in the Soils Resource report in the project record. The following sections give a brief explanation of each rating, summarized from the Descriptions in the Web Soil Survey. Refer to the complete descriptions in the Soils Resource report in the project record for more detail.

Forest Productivity The "site index" is the average height, in feet, that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years. Within the project footprint the dominant tree measured for site index is Douglas Fir, and the site index base was developed following James E. King (1966 (795)). The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stands. The site index within the project footprint ranges from 82 to 126 feet. However, the dominant soils (soil map units: 122F, 123F, and 238E) is high. All soils within the proposed units, with the exception of a few small, shallow, rocky inclusions, support forest vegetation.

Erosion Hazard (Off Road/Off Trail) Ratings indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Ratings are based on slope and soil erosion factor K, with soil loss caused by sheet or rill erosion where 50 to 75 percent of the surface has been exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance. The dominant erosion hazard off road/ off trail for soils ranges from moderate to severe. This is due to moderate to steeper slopes and soils with hydrologic group C and D ratings. Hydrologic Soil Groups are a useful index reflecting a soil’s inherent potential for runoff and erosion. x Hydrologic Group A- Low runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water is transmitted freely through the soil. These soils typically have less than 10 percent clay and more than

Chapter 3 Page|3-79 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

90 percent sand or gravel and have gravel or sand textures. Some soils having loamy sand, sandy loam, loam or silt loam textures may be placed in this group if they are well aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock fragments. x Hydrologic Group B- Moderately low runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water transmission through the soil is unimpeded. These soils typically have between 10 percent and 20 percent clay and 50 percent to 90 percent sand and have loamy sand or sandy loam textures. Some soils having loam, silt loam, silt, or sandy clay loam textures may be placed in this group if they are well aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock fragments. x Hydrologic Group C- Moderately high runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water transmission through the soil is somewhat restricted. Group C soils typically have between 20 percent and 40 percent clay and less than 50 percent sand and have loam, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, and silty clay loam textures. Some soils having clay, silty clay, or sandy clay textures may be placed in this group if they are well aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock fragments. x Hydrologic Group D: High runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water movement through the soil is restricted or very restricted. Group D soils typically have greater than 40 percent clay, less than 50 percent sand, and have clayey textures. In some areas, they also have high shrink-swell potential. All soils with a depth to a water impermeable layer less than 50 centimeters (20 inches) and all soils with a water table.

Erosion Hazard (Road/Trail) Ratings indicate the hazard of soil loss from un-surfaced roads and trails. Ratings are based on soil erosion factor K, slope, and content of rock fragments. “Slight” indicates that little or no erosion is likely; “Moderate” indicates some erosion is likely, and roads/trails may require occasional maintenance, and that simple erosion-control measures are needed; “Severe” indicates that erosion is expected, roads/trails require frequent maintenance, and costly erosion-control measures are needed. The dominant erosion hazard on road/ trail for soils is severe. This is due to the high clay content of most subsurface horizons, which limits water movement through the soils. Runoff from these soils is common. Project Design Criteria described in Chapter 2 would reduce the likelihood of erosion in skid trails within these units, thus reducing the risk of overland flow and erosion. Proper surface drainage is also necessary on all roads and skid trails that cross these soils. Temporary roads would be subject to compaction and runoff when wet, increasing the potential for erosion. Operations timed to coincide with the dry soil moistures is the best options for these soil types.

Soil Susceptibility to Compaction Soils are rated based on their susceptibility to compaction from the operation of ground-based equipment for planting, harvesting, and site preparation activities when soils are moist. Interpretation ratings are based on soil properties in the upper 12 inches of the profile. Factors considered are soil texture, soil organic matter content, soil structure, rock fragment content, and the existing bulk density. Ratings for susceptibility to compaction include: x Low - The potential for compaction is insignificant. This soil is able to support standard equipment with minimal compaction. The soil is moisture insensitive, exhibiting only small changes in density with changing moisture content.

Page | 3-80 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

x Medium - The potential for compaction is significant. The growth rate of seedlings may be reduced following compaction. After the initial compaction (i.e., the first equipment pass), this soil is able to support standard equipment with only minimal increases in soil density. The soil is intermediate between moisture insensitive and moisture sensitive. x High - The potential for compaction is significant. The growth rate of seedlings will be reduced following compaction. After initial compaction, this soil is still able to support standard equipment, but will continue to compact with each subsequent pass. The soil is moisture sensitive, exhibiting large changes in density with changing moisture content. The dominant rating for soil susceptibility to compaction within the project footprint is medium. The remaining soils are categorized as low. Therefore, soil compaction would be low and further reduced due to design criteria described in Chapter 2. Project design criteria such as, designating skid trails and temporary roads prior to operations and harvesting during dry soil moisture conditions have been developed to mitigate these disturbances.

Mass Failure To identify soils that may be prone to mass failure, the SRI was utilized. The SRI characterized landtype units 8 and 9 as landflow and landslump terrain derived from sedimentary rocks. These landtypes tend to have slopes that are benchy and hummocky, which is evidence there has been past or present movement. Other areas of mass movements in the watershed are concentrated in the inner gorges and tributary headwalls underlain by Dothan mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone units and in contact zones. The majority of proposed ground-based, mechanized treatments are planned for areas with slopes less than or equal to 30 percent, which greatly reduces the risk of mass failures. The occurrence of any mass failure activity as a result of implementation of any of the activities is unlikely because potentially unstable or unstable areas would be avoided during layout and implementation as described in the project design criteria in Chapter 2.

Soil Disturbance Evaluations Past forest management activities have affected soils in the project area boundary through compaction, displacement, removal of organic matter, burning, and erosion. Based on agency records, approximately 12,703 acres (9 percent) of the project area boundary has had previous harvest entries. Past management included clear cuts, precommercial thinning, salvage cuts, thinning for hazardous fuels reduction, planting, and commercial thinning. These activities date back to the 1954 through 2009. Clear cuts occurred in the 1960s through 1980s. In addition, recent fire suppression activities from the 2017 Chetco Bar Fire have been included in the estimated existing disturbance where activities overlap with the harvest units and temporary roads. Under alternative two, there is an estimated 2.8 miles of dozer line, and under alternative 3 an estimated 1.2 miles. Generally, on average the width of dozer lines are 20 feet. Harvest units impacted from Chetco Bar Fire suppression activities include: 31, 42, 66, 104, 106, 107, 139, 140, and 150. A potential for soil rehabilitation activities exists in areas that have had past management. A complete table summarizing existing condition disturbance values for proposed units within the project footprint is available in the Soils Resource report in the project record. The method used was not uniformly reliable as the canopy cover, where dense, would obstruct the view. In these cases, additional percentages were added for detrimental compaction, puddling, burning, and soil displacement based on stand management history recorded in agency files (FACTS database).

Chapter 3 Page|3-81 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

The extent of ground disturbance within proposed activity areas is moderate to low and currently well below the limits of the Siskiyou National Forest Plan standard of 15% for maintaining soil productivity with the exception of units 29 and 166 (See Table 21). In activity areas where more than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration must, at a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move conditions toward a net improvement in soil quality, as per Region 6 soils policy (Forest Service manual R-6 supplement no. 2500-9801). In addition, harvest units that are approaching the threshold for detrimental soil conditions include 39, 81, 93, and 144 (See Table 21). These units would also be highlighted in the project design criteria to avoid exceeding limits set in the SLRMP and moving these sites towards a net improvement in soil quality over time. Any units not listed in the table in the Soils Resource report in the project record, which includes both natural stands and managed stands with treatment activities that created light disturbances, have a detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) of zero percent from past harvest activities.

Table 21. Selected Treatment Units with Estimated Existing Disturbance Above or Near Standards.

Unit Area of Existing Soil Disturbance Prior to Salvage Unit # Acres Acres DSD Percent of Unit

29 13.2 2.7 20 39 3.7 0.4 11.0 81 40.8 4.1 10.0 93 16.7 2.2 13.2 144 10.4 1.0 10 166 30.5 5.5 18.0 For a complete list of proposed treatment units and their estimated existing disturbance levels refer to the project record

Fire The Chetco Bar Fire is the most recent, large-scale disturbance in the project area boundary, and effects from the fire are discussed throughout the existing condition, environmental consequences, and cumulative effects sections. This analysis uses post-fire burn severity to describe potential watershed effects of the fire, and potential interactions with treatments in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project area. Soil burn severity is the effect of fire at and below the ground surface, specifically how the fire changes the physical and chemical composition of the soils. Fire severity that detrimentally effects soil conditions leads to further degradation of soil productivity and soil-hydrologic function. Existing condition of soils burned in the Chetco Bar Fire is based on the Final Soil Burn Severity map developed during the Chetco Bar Fire BAER assessment. Details of how that assessment and the final map was developed can be found in the 2017 Chetco Bar Fire BAER soils report. The ERMiT estimates from the BAER assessment were generated for each soil map unit and burn severity, and apportioned to watersheds on a per-acre basis. The ERMiT model refines estimates by incorporating customized climate parameters that are initially based on readings from local weather stations. Model output was in tons per acre on a 5 year storm event basis, so these are not annual estimates. Maximum sediment delivery rate modeled was 96.8 tons per acre. However, accuracy of model output is estimated to be +/- 50%. The proposed salvage project is located on the western perimeter of the wildfire. Burn conditions are largely high and moderate burn severity within proposed treatment units. Soils burned at these

Page | 3-82 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project severities would take longer to recover than low burn severity due to the consumption of organic matter and soil surface experiencing high temperatures. However, the model may have over predicted sediment delivery rates based on observations made from recent and this winter’s field visits. Within low and moderate burn severities a layer of needle and leaf litter (i.e. “needle cast”) has begun accumulating from scorched canopy and increasing groundcover. Resprouting of vegetation, such as tanoak, pacific madrone, evergreen huckleberry, ferns, beargrass, bigleaf maple, and other understory vegetation, has been noticed in all soil burn severity types, including what was classified as high soil burn severity. In high soil burn severity sites the groundcover and future leaf litter will be important contributions to prevent future soil erosion and begin the soil recovery processes. Additionally, there was no evidence of soil movement being transported long distances. Generally, localized sheetwash is getting intercepted by the uneven terrain and large decaying logs are limiting long distance transport. No gullies have been observed due to post-fire conditions, however rilling on road cutbanks of hillslopes have been noticed due to bare soil conditions on these sites. Localized pedestalling under the dripline of dead trees has also been noted on burned soils. Following the 2002 Biscuit Fire, soil erosion monitoring was conducted in order to document the effects of fire on surface erosion in areas of high and low burn severity, in addition to other objectives set by the Siskiyou N.F. (GSA & Geocorps, 2005). Results were concluded based on 240 sediment plots installed before the first winter storms. Sites were based on various soil, geologic, and landscape characteristics as well as previous management history and burn severity. The monitoring studies found: plots showed either erosion or net accumulation of soil, needle cast and leaf litter appeared to have the greatest effect on erosion vs accumulation and percent slope on similar burn severities had a greater affect to erosion rates (GSA & Geocorps, 2005). Additionally, over three winter seasons there did not appear to be a significant increase in soil movement due to the fire (GSA & Geocorps, 2005). The Chetco fire affected 29 percent of the proposed treatment acres at high soil burn severity, and of that 4 percent is ground based harvest systems. The Soils Resource report in the project record contains a map that displays and a table that lists units mapped by soil burn severity, acres of harvest method, and the acres of high burn severity.

Environmental Consequences to Soil

Undeveloped Lands Undeveloped lands within the project footprint were not identified to have special or unique soil resource values. Soils identified within the project footprint are summarized above and fully described in the Soils Resource report in the project record. Effects to the soil resource from proposed project treatment activities would not differ based on the description of land (undeveloped). Management direction and project design criteria are required to ensure compliance and avoid adverse impacts to soils, and would be implemented during operations across all NFS lands. Therefore, the description of effects are not differentiated further in the analysis, and include salvage logging activities and the associated connected actions to complete project activities. Approximately, 826 acres (about 20% of the salvage areas proposed) of undeveloped lands are proposed for salvage under Alternative 2, and an estimated 1.5 miles (about 11% of the temporary roads proposed) of existing legacy templates reused for operations as temporary roads.

Chapter 3 Page|3-83 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Logging Systems

Ground Based Harvest Systems Ground-based logging systems have the greatest potential to adversely affect short and long-term soil productivity. Logging and other equipment can compact and ‘puddle’ soils over which they operate (landings, skid roads, roadways, etc.). Tractor, or ground based logging has the greatest potential to cause soil compaction, which decreases soil volume and pore space and modifies soil structure and results in a decrease in gas, water, and nutrient exchange, slows root penetration, and can aggravate soil drought, especially in Mediterranean climates such as that of SW Oregon (Atzet et al., 1989), though soil drought may be less of a concern here where there is a much stronger maritime weather influence. Puddling is the destruction of soil structure, primarily when wet, by severe compaction, to the point where ruts or imprints are made and the soil structure has been so destroyed as to prevent water from infiltrating into the soil profile. Compaction may inhibit occupation of the soil by organisms that assist in the decomposition of wood to soil organic material that improves site productivity, and help to aerate the soil. Compaction also possibly inhibits the growth of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) that provide nutrients to plant roots (Keslick, 1997). Ectomycorrhizal fungi form an essential interface between soil and trees. They usually colonize more than 90 percent of the feeder roots of host plants (Goodman and Trofymow, 1998). Plant development is also restricted in compacted soils due to poor aeration and impeded root growth. As a result, soil productivity is adversely affected (Floch, 1988). Soil moisture content, soil characteristics, and force affect the level of compaction that can occur from harvest systems. Fine-textured soils dominated by expandable clay minerals, and well- graded, coarser textured soils are most likely to compact when moist, whereas finer textured soils dominated by non-expandable clay minerals, and of poorly graded, coarser textured soils such as most pumice and coarse ash soils, are less affected by soil moisture (Atzet et al, 1989). Compaction from logging activities is now routinely mitigated, by designating and minimizing the number of skid trails used (Froehlich and McNabb 1983); by requiring logging equipment to use only those roads and skid trails created during past timber harvest where feasible; using equipment and or techniques shown effective to prevent or minimize compaction (such as operating on slash to disperse weight); and allowing operations only during conditions when soils are unlikely to be detrimentally compacted beyond the 15% LRMP allowances (such as on dry or frozen ground; or over deep snow with a firm base). Furthermore, to increase infiltration in areas with deep compaction, subsoil ripping was shown to be effective (Luce, 1997). These design criteria have been proven successful and are applied to all Action Alternatives in this project Detrimental displacement is defined as the removal of more than 50% of the soil’s ‘A’ horizon (topsoil) from an area greater than 100 square feet that is at least 5 feet in width. This displacement occurs by natural means, such as heavy rains that cause erosion on exposed surfaces (such as skid trails and skyline corridors), or by mechanical means such as churning tractor treads or dragging of logs across the ground. Erosion is a form of detrimental displacement. The majority of erosion occurs by sheet erosion (the even removal of thin layers of soil by water moving across extended areas of gently sloping land) and is difficult to detect, as there are no dramatic effects to alert one to its occurrence. Rills and gullies, however, are dramatic examples of erosion that are easily detected. Detrimental displacement is routinely mitigated by designating and minimizing the number of skid roads and skyline corridors used; requiring a minimum of one-end log suspension to prevent soil gouging; and placing percent slope limitations on ground-based harvest equipment.

Page | 3-84 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Additionally, erosion associated with skid trails and skyline corridors can be effectively mitigated by the placement of cross drains (water bars); drainage dips; placement of down wood and slash; and erosion control seeding (or any vegetative cover on exposed soil). Design criteria specifically designed for this project can be found in Chapter 2.These measures have been used for many decades and there has been considerable monitoring and demonstration of their effectiveness. Large woody material, such as large logs, and standing snags (future large down logs), are important components in the development and retention of productive soils. Snags are routinely felled if they are believed to be a safety hazard to operations. Operation of logging equipment can mechanically damage/destroy downed logs in advanced stages of decay. Logging and burning has the potential to eliminate these features, particularly those in advanced degrees of decay, from the landscape if care isn’t taken to retain them in adequate sizes, numbers, and distribution across the landscape. Project Design Criteria for maintenance of snags and downed wood is located in Chapter 2.

Skyline-Cable Systems Using cables to suspend one or both ends of logs as they are pulled from the stand to the landing largely eliminates the potential for compaction and puddling within the stand. What remains, however, is the potential for detrimental soil displacement if one or both ends of the log are dragged across the ground from the stump to the landing. Full suspension (where the log is lifted entirely off the ground during yarding to the landing) and one-end suspension (where one end of the log is allowed to drag along the ground), are effective mitigations that are now regularly employed to minimize detrimental displacement, as well as the use of a pre-designated skid trail or skyline corridor layout. Skyline systems typically result in approximately 5% or less detrimental soil conditions.

Aerial (Helicopter) Systems Helicopter logging has the least impact of all logging systems on soil productivity. This is a form of full suspension, with no part of the log being drug across the ground, except for very short distances as logs are lifted off the ground from a central point between logs. Such logging eliminates any potential for equipment-generated detrimental soil displacement, compaction, or puddling and their attendant erosion effects. Helicopter logging does, however, require larger (greater than 1 acre), though fewer landings. According to a study prepared by Ed Gross, Soil Disturbance from Helicopter Yarding, less than two percent of the soil surface within the harvest units was disturbed from these operations (Gross, 1997).

Activity Fuels Treatments Activity fuels treatment refers to the slash and accumulated fuel resulting from the proposed density management treatments. Activity fuels treatments can include whole tree yarding or leave tops attached and landing pile burning. Fuel management treatments include: hand piling and burning, machine piling and burning, and jackpot burning. Other treatments proposed is the utilization of the removed slash, such as in the form of woodchips. Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures that have been designed for the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project, including applicable best management practices (BMPs) in the National Core BMP Technical Guide (USFS 2012), as well as Regional and Forest level Standards and Guidelines, have influenced the planning of fuels treatment activities during project development, and would be implemented to minimize impacts of fuels treatments on soil productivity.

Chapter 3 Page|3-85 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Mycorrhizal Associations Mycorrhizal fungi are an important component for survival and growth of tree species in the Pacific Northwest. These mutual and symbiotic fungi species use their fine mycelial strands to penetrate the root tips of trees. The trees provide energy to the fungus in the form of sugars and the fungus provides nutrients and water to the tree. The fine mycelial strands increase the surface area of nutrient collection and provide an important soil link for forest trees. Much of the biomass of mycorrhizal fungi resides in the top 4 inches (10 cm) of soil—a region likely to be affected by forest fire—the implications of fire induced changes in the mycorrhizal community could be significant to post-fire forest recovery and productivity (Fire Science Brief, 2009). Furthermore, according to the Chetco Bar Fire BAER Soils report (2017), a loss of soil nutrients and microbial communities may be expected, with these adverse effects increasing by soil burn severity class. Harvest treatments such as clearcut harvest, followed by machine piling can have greater impacts especially if all host trees are removed, there is a high amount of ground disturbance, and introduced grass species are allowed to dominate the site. However, according to studies by Barker et. al. (2013), greater impact to mycorrhizal fungi community assembly on regenerating seedlings are seen from wildfire than clearcutting and undisturbed forest. Treatments proposed in all action alternatives are mostly salvage logging operations, however project design criteria and best management practices, such as limiting the amount of detrimental soil disturbance to 15% or less, including roads and landings, operating in dry soil moisture conditions, and identifying skid trails, temporary roads, and landings prior to implementation would limit the high amount of ground disturbance. In addition, within the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Area Boundary the soil burn severity at the unburned and low severity classes would for the large part be outside the project footprint leaving live trees and dying host trees thereby ensuring the vigor and persistence of forest mycorrhizal species. Post-fire fungi, or fungi that fruit following wildfire or eruption disturbances also serve as soil stabilizers, restoration of habitat, recovery of damaged plants or replacement of dead vegetation, decomposers of woody debris, and binding soil aggregates through mycelial networks to improve water and air filtration (Claridge et. al. 2009). Post-fire fungi were noted during field observations in the project footprint, and may help to aid against soil erosion while vegetation recovers in sites not disturbed by salvage logging operations.

Road Maintenance Existing system roads are considered a long-term commitment of the soil resource to something other than soil productivity. The use of existing system roads during implementation of this project would not result in a change to the current condition of the soils that are committed to supporting the transportation system. However, where system roads have been closed for a period of years, some level of road maintenance would be necessary to make them suitable for treatment access. Road maintenance activities includes: removing danger trees, roadside brushing, culvert and ditch cleaning, resurfacing roads, and blading/reshaping road (see Chapter 2 for the full list of activities). Nonetheless, soil is compacted and short-term erosion from newly exposed soils is likely.

Temporary Roads and Landings Construction of temporary roads (and their associated landings) detrimentally compacts soils and contributes to erosion by allowing water to run overland rather than naturally infiltrating at the point of raindrop impact. Roads are an example of detrimental soil compaction with adverse indirect impacts on water movement pathways. Properly designed and constructed roads (including temporary roads) require structures for channeling this now-redirected water flow to

Page | 3-86 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project desired locations. Temporary roads and landings are expected to have an irretrievable reduction in soil productivity since they are bladed (soil is mixed and displaced) and compacted. Once rehabilitated, the hydrologic function of the soil profile may be re-established, but the soil profile in relation to organics and nutrient cycling is modified to a degree that may take many decades to return to the productive state of the undisturbed forest soils adjacent to it. Landings also, with their likely deep compaction, and soil mixing from construction and recurrent disturbance are expected to cause an irretrievable decrease in soil productivity. Nonetheless, their use is temporary, with the expectation that following use they would be returned to the highest degree of productivity reasonably achievable. Existing legacy templates would also be used to construct temporary roads, and is largely what is proposed for all Action Alternatives. By using these routes as temporary roads where feasible during project implementation, instead of creating new temporary roads, the area of new detrimental soil disturbance would be minimized. The Siskiyou National Forest Plan establishes that no more than 15 percent of an activity area should be compacted, puddled, or displaced upon completion of a project (including permanent roads and landings).

Methodology Spatial analysis utilized ArcGIS and the following data layers: 10 meter digital elevation model (DEM), soil burn severity, Soil Survey of Curry County, Oregon (USDA, NRCS 1995), forest service roads, land status/management allocations, aerial photographs, managed stand harvest and burn history output from the FACTS database, and the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) OGDC-5 geographic information systems (GIS) geology layer. Existing condition values for soil disturbance were obtained from review of aerial photographs using Google Earth Imagery that dated back to 1994, as well as, field review of the project footprint. Existing condition review quantify soil detrimental disturbance, by calculating the average clearing width and length used for past management activities and dividing it by the total area for each unit. The results are compiled and evaluated against thresholds in the Siskiyou National Forest Plan and the FS Regional Manual to investigate long-term reductions to productivity (Forest Service manual R-6 supplement no. 2500-9801). Soils having detrimental disturbance are assumed to have long-term reductions in productive capacity. However, interpretation depends on soil type and environmental setting. Data to determine the productive capacity and relative sensitives to disturbance (i.e. erosion hazard) from associated activities was generated using soil properties and interpretations from the Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx). An erosion hazard assessment was evaluated for each soil map unit in the project footprint for all action alternatives. Acres of harvest units proposed overlapping with severe to very severe erosion hazard ratings (off road/off trail) were calculated to estimate the likelihood for potential erosion. This same method was completed for temporary roads, however, the acreage calculated was based off of erosion hazard (road/trail). Descriptions of what these ratings are based on is described below. Soil map units are described to pinpoint any erosion hazard concerns.

Slope Stability and Erosion Risk Mapping Modelling was conducted utilizing tools in ArcMap to estimate the relative risk of slopes in the planning area to instability and erosion. Slope gradient, slope aspect, slope curvature, and upslope contributing area were used to model the spatial variability of soil properties. The use of individual terrain attributes have proven useful for soil-landscape modeling and has been

Chapter 3 Page|3-87 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment demonstrated that landform element classifications can aid in delineating soils (Pennock et al. 1987, Park et al. 2001). This modeling of terrain attributes provides for a site-specific inventory (based on a 10 x 10 meter grid) that was modeled using digital terrain information and modeling tools within ArcMap, a geographic information system (GIS). The base set of data used to model terrain characteristics is a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). These DEMs meet U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) standards for content, format, and accuracy. DEMs for lands in the conterminous United States are produced in a 7.5-minute latitude by a 7.5-minutes longitude quadrangle format, with elevations spaced at 10 meter intervals (horizontally). For more information regarding the slope stability and erosion risk model refer to the project record.

Spatial and Temporal Scale

Spatial Scale Slope stability effects focus on areas directly within, and upslope and downslope of proposed activities, since slope stability is affected by actions that would occur directly or immediately adjacent to the slope. Soil productivity effects focus on soils that are directly within the proposed project footprint, since soils are affected by actions that occur directly upon them. Cumulative effects use the same treatment unit as reference to estimate the combined effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities.

Temporal Scale Slope stability short term effects first 1-3 years; captures direct impacts from vegetation changes or disturbance that can trigger instability due to changes in precipitation/soil interaction on a site. Long term impacts starting at 7 to 10 years; captures changes in root strength on a slope, as roots from cut conifers decay and can cause shallow groundwater piping, etc., and roots from any remaining trees potentially expand in extent. Soil productivity effects short term effects first 1-5 years, which would include the expected recovery of organic matter and nutrients in soils that have experienced disturbance, such as displacement, erosion, or shallow surface compaction at a level that is not considered detrimental. Long term effects are expected to last 25 years or greater, and refer to soil effects that are considered detrimental, such as deep compaction and extensive displacement and loss of the A horizon.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. No adverse impacts to soils related to this project would occur under Alternative 1, as no ground- disturbing or road management activities (road reconstruction and maintenance) would be implemented. The existing conditions resulting from the Chetco Bar Fire would persist. This alternative would not alter the current erosion and landslide potential and would retain the same amount of coarse woody debris, although more of the coarse woody debris would fall to the ground and come in contact with the soil surface. Over time, organic matter would increase where high burn severities eliminated the surface litter and duff. Mycorrhizal fungi would continue to recover where the fire burned at high severity. This would increase water holding capacity on the site over time. As vegetation resprouts, nutrient cycling would increase and litter layers would backer-establish and soil productivity trend towards pre-fire levels.

Page | 3-88 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives The direct and indirect effects for both Action Alternatives are analyzed together because effects are not expected to differ between the two alternatives. The effects of treating in managed stands only do not change the effects from harvesting systems, temporary roads, landings, activity fuels treatments, and haul roads. The difference would be in the amount that could be potentially detrimentally disturbed, and the potential for erosion and mass failure since less acres would be treated. Fewer connected actions (i.e. temporary roads, landings, and skid trails) would also be constructed in Alternative 3.

Soil and Site Productivity Compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, loss of surface organic matter, and mass failures can all reduce site productivity. The main effects from the proposed action would be soil disturbance from salvaging, skidding, temporary roads, landings, and transporting logs. Proposed activities have the potential for both short and long term effects. However, soil productivity would be maintained since project-created soil disturbance would be short term and DSD below the thresholds where long-term impairment is evident. These disturbance types and the criteria used to define when a disturbance results in a detrimental soil condition are defined in the Siskiyou National Forest LRMP and the US Forest Service Manual (Region 6 Supplement No. 2500-9801). Since existing system roads are considered a long-term commitment of the soil resource to something other than soil productivity, road maintenance would have no effect to the current condition of the soils that are committed to supporting the transportation system. During maintenance activities, some temporary and short-term soil erosion could occur. Best management practices and mitigation measures have been developed that are highly effective at minimizing these effects, and would be implemented to greatly minimize erosion and the movement of sediment from these activities. Any potential effects are expected to be localized and short-term in duration. Logging method and season of harvest are the dominant variables that determine the amount of detrimental disturbance that is likely to result from harvest activities. Table 22, below, provides an estimate of the maximum amount of detrimental disturbance that could potentially occur with each harvest system, per Action Alternative. However, implementation of Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures, such as limiting use of vehicles and equipment to dry soil conditions, or reuse and designation of skid trails before implementation, is expected to result in less than the estimated acreages actually resulting in detrimental disturbance (in particular displacement and compaction), since these measures are designed to limit or reduce the overall impacts of the actions to prevent the creation of a detrimental condition. Furthermore, design measures, such as not allowing new disturbance and requiring rehabilitation treatments (i.e. subsoiling), also have been developed based on the current estimated detrimental disturbance conditions within units described in the project record. Harvest units identified in Chapter 2 will have these mitigation measure to assure Forest Plan S & G’s will not be exceeded, and that soil quality would move towards a net improvement. Estimates for ground based harvest systems is 15 percent DSD. The estimate for DSD from skyline harvest systems is five percent. The DSD estimate for aerial harvest systems is two percent. DSD estimates include average impacts from travel off of designated roads and log landing construction. Approximately 12.2 miles of temporary road would be constructed on existing legacy templates for Alternative 2 and 9.4 miles for Alternative 3. There would be no detrimental disturbance associated with the use of these templates as soils have been compacted and displaced from past

Chapter 3 Page|3-89 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment use. These actions have the potential to create short-term and localized erosion from newly loosened and exposed soils. Effects to soil from new temporary road construction in Alternative 2 are expected to span an average width of 25 feet wherever roads are built. This estimate is based on the assumption of a running road surface 12–15 feet wide and an additional 3–6 feet, cleared of vegetation, on each side of the road, where the soil would likely be displaced and the organic litter layer disturbed and/or removed. Approximately, 1.3 miles of new temporary road construction would be constructed, which would result in an estimated of 4 acres being detrimentally disturbed through compaction and displacement. This effect would be mitigated as these roads, following use, would be returned to the highest degree of productivity reasonably achievable. In addition, the majority of these new temporary road segments would be constructed over relatively flat terrain. However, new temporary road segments include soils that contain higher clay content in the subsoil, and thus have a higher susceptibility to compaction and rutting if constructed and driven over in wet soil conditions. Restoration of soil productivity on these sites would be more successful if operations are limited to dry soil moisture conditions, when soil strength is greater to withstand the weight of equipment. No new temporary roads would be constructed in Alternative 3. Forest Service Roads 1400.092, 1107.576, and 1107.570 lists non-system, historic road prisms planned for temporary access in the proposed action. Reconstruction of these non-system roads for management activities would reverse soil recovery gained since decommissioning, however more effective methods of rehabilitating these roads than were employed historically may be implemented post-harvest, such as recontouring to natural contour, removing culverts, and subsoiling. Activity-generated slash piled along roadsides and in landings would be removed when effective groundcover (85%) needs and large woody material, for soil productivity, have met SLRMP standards and guidelines. Activity generated slash would be machine piled and burned, hand piled and burned, or removed as biomass, such as woodchips. Treatment of slash is incorporated in the estimated DSD in Table 22. Effects to mycorrhizal fungi from salvage logging in burned areas would reduce the levels of microbial communities where ground disturbing operations would occur. Timber harvest and soil compaction can alter forest soil productivity by reducing organic matter; which ectomycorrhizal diversity may also be tied to the diversity of organic matter on the forest floor (Amaranthus et. al. 1996). However, this is anticipated to occur only on designated skid trails, temporary roads and landings. Maintenance of the soil organic layer would be achieved in all of the action alternatives. Tractor harvest operations would be on designated skid trails and landings which are largely pre- existing due to multiple entries from prior harvest. Operating on dry soil moisture conditions would also reduce soil compaction and effects to mycorrhizal fungi. The detrimental soil conditions Standards and Guidelines are the same across all management areas and land allocations, and therefore no distinction between land allocations is made in estimating the acres of detrimental disturbance. Additional Project Design Criteria excluding new disturbance in Riparian Reserves, for example, no new temporary road or landing construction limits detrimental disturbance adversely affecting soil infiltration capacity (i.e., detrimental compaction), and would result in even less total area experiencing detrimental disturbance from project activities.

Page | 3-90 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Table 22. Total estimated acres of new detrimental soils disturbance. No Action Proposed Action Activities Alternative 3 (Alternative 1) (Alternative 2)

Ground-based harvest system (est. 15%) 0 acres 93 acres 50 acres Skyline harvest system (est. 5%) 0 acres 119 acres 62 acres Aerial harvest system (est. 2%) 0 acres 22 acres 6 acres New Temporary Roads 0 acres 4 acres 0 acres Totals 0 acres 238 acres 118 acres

Soil Stability and Erosion Hazard Potential Unstable areas were preliminarily identified using the Slope Stability and Erosion Risk mapping model, described above and in the Soils Resource report in the project record. All potential unstable areas were excluded from the salvage harvest units in all Action Alternatives. If additional unstable areas are identified during layout, the area would be excluded from harvest and the appropriate riparian reserve buffer would be added. No harvest activities would occur in these areas. Indicators of unstable areas include: steep (>65%) concave slopes; slumps, draws, and headwalls; past landslide locations; and obvious soil movement areas (typically indicated by curved and/or pistol butted trees, soil creep, tension cracks, etc.). Slopes less than or equal to 30 percent would be allowed to be tractor logged, otherwise skyline or helicopter harvest systems are to be prescribed in order to avoid using logging equipment on steep slopes, which would avoid potential for slope failures. In addition, it is not expected that harvest would impact root strength, which aids in slope stability, since activities would only be cutting dead, dying, or damaged trees. When trees die or are cut, the roots die and decay, resulting in a decline of reinforcement by the roots; approximately 50% of the original root reinforcement is lost within 2 years after deforestation, with 90% gone within 9 years (Ziemer 1981a). Furthermore, as stated in existing conditions, resprouting of surface vegetation (i.e. understory, shrubs, and forbs) has been observed in all classifications of soil burn severity. In particular, tanoak was noted as one of the major species returning post fire, which maintains a live root system despite being burned over, which can make up for the loss of conifer root systems and improve stability and erosion concerns (refer to the Silviculture assessment for further information on vegetation composition.). The project footprint has been mapped by soil map unit and has referenced the landtypes described in Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) of the Siskiyou National Forest (Meyer and Amaranthus 1979) to rate for relative disturbances based on inherent soil properties. Table 23 is an erosion hazard assessment based on the soil map unit or landtypes to determine erosional characteristics of the project units and temporary roads. SRI landtypes are defined by the soils, landform, geology, and vegetation characteristics. This assessment was used to develop project design criteria to minimize erosion potential, such as scattering generated slash to 85% effective ground cover post operations, designating skid trails, and limiting off road harvest to dry soil moisture conditions. Mass wasting, erosion hazard (off road/ off trail), and erosion hazard (road/trail) ratings were evaluated for the soil types overlapping within the proposed harvest units temporary roads constructed.

Chapter 3 Page|3-91 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 23. Acres of project footprint activities on relative disturbances for action alternatives. No Action Proposed Action Hazard Alternative 3 (Alternative 1) (Alternative 2)

Temporary roads Erosion Hazard 0 acres 52 acres 42 acres (Road/Trail) Harvest Units Erosion Hazard 0 acres 2,640 acres 1,201 acres (Off-Road, Off-Trail) Mass Failure 0 acres 902 acres 543 acres (SRI Landtypes 8 and 9)

Erosion hazard (road/trail) was rated as severe or very severe for all temporary roads under Alternative 2 and under Alternative 3. Erosion hazard (off road/off trail) was rated as high on 2,640 acres (64%) of proposed units under Alternative 2 and 1,201 acres (64%) of units under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, approximately 902 acres (22%), is considered high mass failure potential. Under Alternative 3, approximately 543 acres (29%) is considered as high mass failure potential. Landslide prone areas such as Landtype 8 and 9 were identified using GIS analysis and by using the Slope Stability and Soil Risk Erosion Model by the project soil scientist. Prior to implementation, units will be field verified by a Soil Scientist and/or Hydrologist (Refer to PDCs). If additional unstable or potentially unstable areas are identified during field reviews, the area would also be excluded from treatment activities and the appropriate riparian reserve buffer would be added. For example, field observations in the Basin Creek 7th field watershed found areas of instability including: steep cliffs causing rock fall, landslides in steep inner gorges, relict landslides, and talus slopes. Areas of instability were avoided and buffered by 25 feet or greater, according to the Northwest Forest Plan riparian buffers (refer to the Hydrology Report, pg. 4 (Table 2)). In addition, field observations concluded in relict landslides and talus slopes large trees were growing straight and showed no signs of active movement. No harvest activities would occur in landslide prone areas (i.e. steep slopes, headwalls, slumps, past landslide areas, active soil movement areas, etc.). Therefore no change in mass failure potential is expected from the action alternatives. Soil erosion hazards used to assess the effects of the alternatives on erosion potentials indicate an overall increase of erosion potential for each of the action alternatives. However, Biscuit monitoring studies from 2002 to 2005 concluded that needle cast and leaf litter appeared to have the greatest effect on erosion vs. accumulation, which has been observed in many of the low and moderate burn severity sites; and after three winter seasons, there did not appear to be a significant increase in soil movement due to the fire (GSA/Geocorps, 2005). Additionally, project design criteria to reduce the potential for erosion include the following: limiting the amount of skid trails and landings; fully decommissioning all skid trails, temporary roads, and landings on erosive soil map units; and placing large woody material and scattering slash as effective groundcover post operations (complete list of project design criteria for soils in Chapter 2 The proposed temporary roads would be located on ridgetops and upper slopes, and only short, discontinuous portions would require some form of excavation. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, and rehabilitation treatment would be implemented to aid in soil stability. On road gradients of 10 percent or greater, an increased number of water bars and/or the addition of slash material to the road bed would be necessary to minimize the potential for erosion while the road is in use. Even if small segments in these roads cut into the subsurface material and some erosion does occur, the likelihood of sediment delivery to streams is not predicted, because temporary roads would be located on ridgetops far from stream channels.

Page | 3-92 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Erosion control structures must be working effectively at all times during and at the end of treatments (Soils PDCs).

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Cumulative effects consist of the impacts from all past, present, reasonably foreseeable future and proposed activities effects overlapping in time and space. The spatial scope for cumulative effects is the individual salvage harvest units (variable acres) and associated temporary roads. Units proposed for harvest treatment were reviewed for disturbances (i.e. temporary roads, landings, skid roads, and yarding corridors) using aerial photos and GIS corporate data identifying past management actions dated back to 1994 in Google Earth. The effects from past activities were quantified and determined if existing levels of detrimental disturbance exceeded the Region 6 Soil Quality Guidelines. Past actions in these areas that could have added to detrimental soil disturbance include timber harvest (stand clearcuts and thinning and related burning/wildfires from 1954 thru 2018) which are described the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions section of Chapter 3. Fire suppression activities, such as manual and machine-based building of fire breaks, can also disturb soil and increase erosion potential. However, these activities probably occurred over a relatively small area of the proposed treatment units. In addition, fire lines are water barred and have woody debris applied to control erosion. The Chetco Bar Fire suppression activities resulted in approximately 58.3 miles of dozer line constructed or reconstructed, as well as, 51 miles of hand lines within the Chetco Bar Fire Perimeter. However, within the project footprint (i.e. harvest units and temporary roads) there are 6.8 acres under alternative two overlapping project activities, and under alternative three 2.9 acres. This is less than one percent of the total acres proposed under both action alternatives. Additionally, under both action alternatives, the addition of slash material and waterbarring during suppression repair work was completed to mitigate erosion potential from these suppression activities. Ongoing and upcoming projects within the project footprint include forest restoration, firewood cutting, invasive weed control, and roadside danger tree abatement. Although there are several disturbances in the project footprint, the Chetco Bar Fire is the largest factor that could affect DSD and erosion. However, 85 percent effective ground cover is required post operations and will mitigate potential soil erosion and loss of organic matter and nutrients by increasing the amount of woody debris in the project footprint over existing conditions, and add vegetative debris to the ground surface at a greater rate than what would occur under natural conditions. In addition, following salvage harvest the project footprint will be surveyed for natural regeneration. In sites where natural regeneration is not viable, tree planting would be manually planted to achieve stocking levels consistent with management objectives, mitigating soil effects from areas burned at high soil severity. Under the current projects, roadside danger tree abatement would be harvesting potentially 111 acres under alternative 2, and 82 acres under Alternative 3 which may overlap in time and space within the project footprint. Layout of roadside danger tree abatement has not been completed within the project footprint, and therefore these numbers are likely to increase. Roadside danger tree abatement is likely to end in 2019. Overlapping units could potentially be salvaged under the same operator, which could aid in minimizing soil disturbance since the layout would be coordinated, implemented, and restored at the same time for two units. For example, coordinating how skid trails or cable corridor patterns will be laid out to meet the objectives of both projects. In other instances they may be implemented separately, which will require the re-use of the existing disturbed templates in order to minimize or eliminate additional detrimental soil disturbance in the overlapping units. These locations would be evaluated by a Forest Service soil scientist in cooperation with FS sale administration during layout planning of the second

Chapter 3 Page|3-93 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment operation to assure operating conditions are in compliance with the Forest Plan on detrimental disturbance. Evaluating overlapping units prior to management activities will minimize cumulative effects to the soil resource. South Coast Lumber Company has recently entered a request for a special use permit to access their private lands to accommodate salvage operations. The proposed road would be constructed on an old unclassified 4WD legacy template, and therefore the area of new detrimental disturbance would be minimized. The existing template would need to be brushed and bladed, causing compaction and temporarily increasing short term erosion, mixing, and displacement of soils. The approximated acreage being proposed for this private road would be 3.35 acres. Once operations are complete the road would be closed and gated. Project specific PDCs and mitigation measures would be developed to minimize effects to resources and would be incorporated into the SUP. Table 24 displays the total acres of detrimental soil disturbance expected from the proposed cumulative activities. The action alternatives are designed to reduce the amount of detrimental soil disturbance by implementing the design features described in Chapter 2.

Table 24. Detrimental soil disturbance acres by action alternative. Proposed Action Description Alternative 3 (Alternative 2)

Acres of Detrimental Disturbance from Past Activities 120.5 acres 91.5 acres Acres of Detrimental Disturbance from Proposed Activities 238 acres 118 acres

Acres of Cumulative of Detrimental Disturbance 358.5 acres 209.5 acres

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction Siskiyou NF Forest Plan Management Direction – Forest-wide standards and guidelines for soil and water resources, (USDA 1989, pages. IV-44 through IV-48) are: x Ensure land management activities are planned and conducted to maintain soil productivity and stability. The S&Gs specific to the Soils resource are listed below: o The total area of detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings (S&G 7-2, page IV-44) (Siskiyou National Forest, 1989) o Mineral soil exposure guidance (specific to Chetco Bar Fire project footprint, minimum 85 percent effective ground cover) (S &G 7-4) o Avoiding mass movement (S&G 7-7) o Retention of large woody material (S&G 7-8) x Design or modify all management practices as necessary to protect land productivity and stability. The General Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA-FS 1988) document is referenced as a Best Management Practices guidance document in the Siskiyou LRMP (USDA 1989, Page IV-47), however the National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA FS, 2012) now supersedes the document and is used to develop to project design criteria and best management practices. Best

Page | 3-94 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Management Practices (BMPs) are to be used in the planning and implementation of timber sale and associated activities. Specific BMPs for this project are described in Chapter 2 Regional guidance is available from the Region 6 Forest Service Manual for Soil Management Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2550 – Soil Management WO Amendment 2500-2010-1, (USDA 2010) and FSM 2500 – Watershed Protection and Management, Region 6 Supplement No. 2500- 9801 (USDA 2009). Forest Plan guidelines are met by all alternatives by conducting this environmental analysis, designing logging systems to minimize disturbance, and implementing soil and water conservation practices. Hydrology The following is a summary of the Hydrology Resource Report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework The Northwest Forest Plan’s (NWFP) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) has four components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. It is guided by nine objectives which are meant to focus agency actions to protect ecological processes at the 5th-field hydrologic scale, or watershed, at the 6th and or 7th fields (subwatershed and or drainage), and at the site level. The Chetco Fire Salvage project area contains Emily Creek as a Tier 1 Key Watershed, managed for at risk anadromous salmonids and resident fish. There are no proposed treatment activities in the Tier 1 Key Watershed, with the exception of approximately one mile of road used for haul, in Emily Creek watershed. Based on the location of the road on the ridgetop, the distance from streams, and the implementation of BMPs, there would be no measureable effects to Emily Creek watershed, and therefore will not be included in the analysis. Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves are located on pages C-30 through C-38 in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Timber harvest is prohibited in Riparian Reserves except where needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (refer to NWFP, page B-11). Riparian Reserves are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. Riparian Reserves include those portions of a watershed directly coupled to streams and rivers required for maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes that directly affect standing and flowing waterbodies such as lakes and ponds, wetlands, streams, stream processes, and fish habitats (NWFP, pages B-12 through B-13). Defined by the NWFP on pages C-30 through C-31 are Riparian Reserves specified for five categories of streams or waterbodies. A site potential tree height is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or older) for a given site class (NWFP, page C-31). All federal land management activities must follow standards and guidelines (S&Gs) listed in the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA Forest Service 1989), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994), and any applicable Wild and Scenic River Plans. The Siskiyou National Forest typically utilizes a standard site potential tree height of 175 feet for analysis purposes. For the project footprint, a stream network was modeled using the Slope Stability and Erosion Risk Hazard model (See Soils Resource Report for further discussion).

Chapter 3 Page|3-95 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Field work verifying the presence of stream channels was used to validate the models accuracy. Currently unmapped Riparian Reserves within the project area will be identified prior to implementation of treatments by watershed specialists and/or fisheries biologists and excluded from harvest. Mapping used for analysis of the alternatives displays the Riparian Reserve buffer widths described below in Table 25. Water quality in Oregon is managed in compliance with Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DEQ is responsible for designating streams and water bodies that require effluent limitations, and, for developing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations that will ensure water quality standards are met. The most recent listing of impaired waters is available on a DEQ website as “Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report” (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2012/search.asp). On National Forest System lands, water temperature is the water quality parameter of most concern in this area.

Table 25. Riparian Reserve Boundaries by Stream Class

Stream Description Riparian Reserve Width Class (slope distance (ft) from edge of channel) 1&2 Perennial, fish-bearing streams 350 feet 3 Perennial, non-fish bearing streams 175 feet N/A Constructed ponds, lakes reservoirs, and 175 feet wetlands > 1 acre N/A Lakes and natural ponds 350 feet 4 Ephemeral or intermittent streams 175 feet 5 Wetlands < 1 acre, and unstable or potentially 25 feet unstable areas

Executive Orders The following Executive Orders pertain to this project: x Executive Order 12088 requires Federal compliance with pollution control standards (i.e. the Clean Water Act). x Executive Order 11988 requires agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. x Executive Order 11990 requires agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands

Affected Environment The CBF Salvage project is located within two 5th field watersheds in the Chetco Sub-basin (Figure 20). The majority of the project footprint is within the Chetco watershed, however, the project footprint also includes the Pistol River watershed. There is less than 1 percent treatment proposed in the project area boundary for East and South Fork Pistol River within the Pistol River watershed. Thus, these subwatersheds will not be included in the following analysis. Treatment acres within the project area boundary are described in Table 27. There are approximately 602 total miles of stream in the project area boundary. There are an estimated 160 miles perennial, fish bearing streams, 419 miles of perennial, non-fish bearing streams, and 23 miles of intermittent and ephemeral streams. However, riparian reserve modeling

Page | 3-96 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project has added an additional 24 miles of intermittent and ephemeral streams (refer to the soils assessment for additional information on the Slope Stability and Erosion Risk model). Additional miles of streams is likely to be found during layout and implementation. The drainage density is approximately 2.7 miles of stream per square mile within the project area boundary. For a complete list of known streams in the project area, refer to the Hydrology Resource Report in the project record.

Table 26. Treatment Acres by Subwatershed for CBF Salvage Project

Subwatershed Proposed Action Treatment Subwatershed Watershed Name Acres Acres (Number) (percent watershed treated) 1,281 Eagle Creek 30,830 (4%) 771 Chetco River Nook Creek 29,150 (3%) 1,522 South Fork Chetco River 28,821 (5%)

East Fork Pistol River 18,695 0

389 Pistol River North Fork Pistol River 19,241 (2%) 129 South Fork Pistol River 16,310 (<1%)

The hydrology of the Chetco River is complex and varied; discharge on the Chetco River can be very flashy. The majority of the subwatersheds in the project area boundary are within the rain dominated zone below 2500 feet and contain a mean annual precipitation of 122 inches. Streamflow on the Chetco River has been recorded at the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Gage No. 14400000 since October, 1969. Data from the Chetco River gaging station showed that average peaks flows were 29,016 cubic feet per second (CFS) during storm events to 61 CFS during average low flows (USDA 1996). The Pistol River watershed does not have a streamflow gage, and therefore streamflow data is unavailable. The majority of the subwatersheds within the Pistol River watershed are also within the rain-dominated zone. Winter storms bring high flows and the transient snow zone contributes to even higher peak flows when warm rains melt an existing snow pack.

Chapter 3 Page|3-97 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 20. Project Area Boundary: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project

Page | 3-98 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Watershed Analysis Summaries-Prefire conditions

Chetco Watershed (USDA, 1996)

Channel Morphology- Physical Characteristics Eagle Creek Eagle Creek is very rugged. According to the Chetco River Watershed Analysis, surveys of Eagle Creek in 1980 noted multiple log jams and waterfalls in the steep inner gorges with near vertical walls. Named tributaries of Eagle Creek are Mineral Hill Fork and Robinson Spring Creek. Tributaries are very steep and unstable due to the faults and sheared and erosion resistant volcanic rocks. Stream channels reflect the high natural and human-caused disturbance (timber harvest and road construction) levels. Nook Creek At the time of the watershed assessment, Nook Creek had the greatest amount of harvesting in its subwatershed. Before 1978, approximately 45 percent had been harvested, and since then 28% . The hydrology of the channel may still be experiencing continued effects. South Fork Chetco The South Fork Chetco flows from a steep (>10%) to a low gradient (<1%) within an inner gorge with steep, unstable side slopes that contribute to large amounts of sediment. The large terraces and depositional bars in the Chetco River may be indicators that the sediment carried within the South Fork is transported and not deposited within the mainstem of the South Fork Chetco River. There is little large wood in the channel, however this is most likely due to high stream energy. Named tributaries of South Fork Chetco River are Quail Prairie, Coon Creek, Red Mountain Creek, West Coon Creek, and Basin Creek. According to the Chetco River Watershed Assessment, surveys of Red Mountain Creek found it to be steep, with step pools, cascades, and falls; surveys of Basin Creek found cascades, rapids, and large wood; West Coon Creek surveyors also observed large wood within the channel. Quail Prairie Creek has two forks, known as the north and south fork. Stream surveys of the south fork noted human caused disturbances that have changed the natural sediment regime. Landslides were noted at four locations along the reach. Riffles and pools, as well as log jams were also noted. The North Fork and South Fork Chetco mainstems were noted to have had erosion and sedimentation effects from historical harvest and road management activities. Since these surveys were conducted in 1987, time would have allowed for tree re-growth and recovery of these sites, and it would be expected to be mostly recovered in terms of these sources of erosion and sedimentation. This subwatershed offers high value spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook and steelhead as well as trout. Stream Temperature Warmer stream temperatures are naturally occurring in the Chetco River watershed. This is attributed to the limited vegetation for shading in the headwaters due to ultra-mafic soils toxic to most plants, and also to the wide, single channel characteristic of the main stem that lacks riparian vegetation. Loss of shade from large trees due to timber harvest and Port-Orford-cedar root disease may also have contributed to warmer stream temperatures. Sedimentation Sediment processes are largely a function of slope and gradient, with the added factor of human influences. Steep inner gorge landforms with accompanying landslides are the main drivers of

Chapter 3 Page|3-99 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment sediment delivery to streams. Older, dilapidated road networks existing in the watershed exacerbate the occurrence of landslides and sediment delivery. Increased fuels due to fire suppression amplifies the risk of higher intensity fires which would further degrade the stability of steep slopes in the watershed. Areas exposed to high intensity fires would lose root strength and increase the risk of debris flows. Turbidity The Chetco River has high water clarity that when disturbed by storm events, increased runoff causes turbidity. Increased sedimentation due to human influence has been observed, however turbidity has not been a chronic issue. Riparian Vegetation Conifer forest is the most common type of riparian area in the watershed and also contains the highest amount of human influence. Hardwood, meadow and ultra-mafic riparian areas also occur in specific environmental conditions and provide special and unique habitats. Hardwood riparian areas occur where conifer areas have been disturbed or where groundwater is lacking. Meadows occur in areas with a high fire frequency and hydric soils. Ultramafic conditions occur mostly in the higher reaches and is home to the Port Orford and incense cedars. Roads At the time of the watershed analysis in 1996, the road density within the non-wilderness area of the Chetco watershed was 2.6 miles per square mile. This accounts for much of the project area and includes the Middle, Lower, North, and Upper Chetco subwatersheds. Older networks of roads built midslope in steep areas lack design features that help prevent erosion. High levels of timber harvest and road construction has altered hydrologic patterns from the mouth of the Chetco River to Eagle Creek. Large Wood The main stem and the riparian areas of the Chetco River is deficient in structure, especially large wood. This is because of past logging operations and stream cleanouts that removed natural wood from logging areas and upstream of roads in order to reduce the hazards of logjams. The main stem of the Chetco River is deficient in large wood mainly because of its wide channel coupled with high winter flows that flush debris downstream. Most tributaries have high amounts of large wood with the exception of ones that occur in ultramafic areas or that have been scoured by debris flows. Channel Erosion The Chetco River watershed historically consisted of well-developed conifer forest riparian areas that are naturally protected from excessive channel erosion due to structural diversity of plant communities and established wetlands. Fire, landslides, grazing, logging and road construction all contribute to channel erosion and morphology. The riparian areas have been heavily impacted by human disturbances that influence channel erosion. Stream cleaning and the removal of large structures in the channel during the mid-20th century caused increased stream velocity and energy. This contributed to channel scour, increased peak flows, bank instability and sediment transport.

Pistol River Watershed (USDA, 1998) Stream temperature

Page | 3-100 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

It is thought that the warmer temperatures in the Pistol River watershed is due to streamside harvesting and road construction. Logging along the streams removed much of the shade, and road construction created broader, flatter channels that collect sediment and heat more quickly. Sedimentation Natural sources of sedimentation into streams is caused by landslides in the inner gorges and tributary headwalls and by mass movement triggered by saturated soils due groundwater flowing through the highly fractured underlying geology. Human activities such as road construction and timber harvest dramatically increase the sediment delivery to streams. Turbidity Turbidity in the Pistol River watershed is typically caused by storms and clears quickly. Areas with higher levels of human activities that increase peak flows and erosion have affected the frequency and duration of turbidity.

Riparian Vegetation The Pistol River watershed is made up of four types of riparian areas: conifer forest, hardwood forest, meadow, and ultramafic. Conifer forest is the most common type and is located in areas with more productive soils. Because of the tall conifers that naturally occurred, these areas have been more disturbed by human activities. Hardwoods often come in after disturbances in the conifer riparian areas. The ultramafic riparian areas mainly occur in the North Fork Pistol drainages and have higher stream temperatures due to less conifers and vegetation. Port-Orford- Cedar occurs in this area and provide lasting structure to streams due to is low rate of decomposition. Roads During the watershed analysis in 1998, the road density of the subwatersheds ranged over 2.0 to 4.24 miles per square mile. A study showed that sedimentation rates from roads within the Pistol River watershed produced sediment up to 32 times that of the surrounding undisturbed forest lands. Large Wood Historically, large woody debris entered the streams from nearby fallen conifer trees and from landslides delivering wood into streams. A large portion of the watershed has been either clear-cut or managed for agriculture and settlement that has ultimately depleted the system of large wood. Channel Erosion Pistol river streams are steep, incised inner gorges that mainly form transport reaches. Only the lower South Fork and the main stem downstream have well developed flood plains. The impact of timber harvest and road construction increased peak flow and sedimentation and caused channel erosion and bank instability. It also has caused an excessive buildup of sediment in the lower South Fork and main stem of the Pistol River. No available information regarding the North Fork Pistol River subwatershed was able to be retrieved to characterize the site specific conditions of the channel morphology and physical characteristics.

303 (d) Listed Streams The State of Oregon is required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards. Several streams within the project area boundary were

Chapter 3 Page|3-101 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment considered water quality limited by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and were placed on the 303(d) list beginning in 1998. ODEQ 303(d) listed streams include: Chetco River, Crook Creek, Eagle Creek, East Fork Pistol River, Emily Creek, North Fork Pistol River, Piston River, South Fork Chetco River, South Fork Pistol River, and Windy Creek. For more information on each listed stream, the parameters for which they were listed, beneficial uses of the stream, and the section of stream listed (river mile) refer to the Hydrology Resource Report in the project record.

Chemical Contamination/Nutrients The Forest Service National Best Management Program (BMP) was developed to improve agency performance and accountability in managing water quality consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and State water quality programs. Forest Service policy requires the use of BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution to meet applicable water quality standards and other CWA requirements. As mentioned in Forest-wide Standard and Guidelines above for water, water quality for the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project will be managed by implementing BMPs. Therefore, chemical contamination and nutrients will not be analyzed.

Fire The percentages of each 6th-field watershed burned since 1951 are as follows: x Eagle Creek: 47% x Nook Creek: 3% x South Fork Chetco River: 58% x East Fork Pistol River: 49% x North Fork Pistol River: <1%

Because the percentage of the watersheds burned in Nook Creek was 3 percent and was<1% in North Fork Pistol River, and trees would have grown since these fires burned in 1971 and 1999, existing effects from fire on water yield and runoff timing is expected to be approximately zero. For a complete list of recorded fire by year of occurrence, and acres in each 6th-field watershed in the project area boundary refer to the Hydrology Resource Report in the project record. In the South Fork Chetco, Eagle Creek, and East Fork Pistol River, where the change in vegetation was estimated to be meaningful, the change ranged from areas with more green trees than dead, to areas with all dead trees. In terms of impact to water yield and runoff, the areas of meaningful vegetation change in these subwatersheds would be equivalent to a partial cut. A water yield increase could potentially be detected in a timbered watershed over which 48 percent of the land received a partial cut, depending on whether the partial cut removed approximately 25 percent or more of the timber in the watershed. The water yield increase in Eagle Creek, South Fork Chetco, and East Fork Pistol River subwatersheds from fire was undetectable and minor. A timbered watershed over which 48 percent of the land received a partial cut, would be below the level at which changes to runoff timing could be detected. Consequently, it is expected that the effects of fire on runoff timing in these three subwatersheds would have been undetectable and minor. The effects of the Chetco Bar Fire will be discussed within each indicator. Because there is no data available post-fire of the project area, professional judgment and field observations were used to qualitatively assess the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of the fire.

Page | 3-102 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Undeveloped Lands These acres of land have no history of harvest activity, do not contain forest roads, and are not designated as a wilderness area or identified as an inventoried roadless area. They are areas that have no obvious previous activity and are “leftover” areas from other analyses. Undeveloped lands within the project area boundary were not identified to have special or unique hydrologic resource values, with the exception of an estimated four acres adjacent to the Chetco Wild and River Scenic section, and undeveloped lands intersecting riparian reserves. Riparian reserves are often overlapped by management areas 1 through 10. Since the residual shape and small 4 acre parcel of undeveloped land is minor compared to other size classes of undeveloped lands, effects to this land are disclosed in the Environmental Consequences section below. Riparian Reserves have specific requirements that must be followed to meet Management Direction. Effects to the riparian reserves from proposed project treatment activities would not differ based on the designation of land since it overlaps. Management direction and project design criteria are required to ensure compliance and avoid adverse impacts to water quality and hydrologic resources, and were developed specific for project activities in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project. Therefore, the description of effects are not differentiated further in the analysis. Approximately, 826 acres (20%) of undeveloped lands are proposed for salvage under Alternative 2, and an estimated 1.5 miles (11%) of existing legacy templates reused for operations as temporary roads.

Environmental Consequences to Hydrology

Methodology Activities in areas that contribute water, shade, or sediment to streams or wetlands can affect water quality or quantity; therefore activities within Riparian Reserves and potentially hydrologically connected areas, such as roads, are the focus of this analysis. Treatment alternatives will be analyzed based on their potential effects to water quality, water yield, peak flow, and hydrologic function and condition. Specifically, erosion and sedimentation, stream temperature, water yield, peak flow, and waterbody condition will be analyzed. Since there are no treatment activities proposed, with the exception of haul, there would be no measureable effects to the water quality Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV) for the Chetco River Wild and Scenic River, and therefore will not be included further in the analysis. The Project Area Boundary for hydrologic analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project includes the six subwatersheds where treatments are proposed. Acres of treatment for the Action Alternatives within each subwatershed within the analysis area are shown in Table 27 and Figure 20. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects within the Analysis Area were evaluated to determine potential cumulative effects from the project. These activities are shown in Chapter 3 of this EA.

Chapter 3 Page|3-103 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 27. Acres of Harvest by Subwatershed

Proposed Action Subwatershed Alternative 3 Subwatershed (Alternative 2) Acres Acres Treated Acres Treated Eagle Creek 30,830 1,281 502 East Fork Pistol River 18,695 0 0 Nook Creek 29,150 771 510 North Fork Pistol River 19,241 389 99 South Fork Chetco River 28,821 1,522 680 South Fork Pistol River 16,310 129 79 Total 143,047 4,091 1,869

The Chetco Bar Fire is the most recent, largest-scale disturbance in the Analysis Area, and effects from the fire are discussed throughout the affected environment and existing condition, direct and indirect effects, and cumulative effects sections of this report. This report uses both soil burn severity and vegetation burn intensity to describe potential watershed changes from the Chetco Bar Fire, and potential interactions with treatments in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage. Soil burn severity describes the effects of the fire on soil structure, infiltration capacity, and biotic components. It is used to indicate runoff and soil erosion potential from the fire. Soil burn severity maps were produced and field-verified as part of the Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) assessment for the Chetco Bar Fire. Soil burn severity is defined through differences in surface organics, duff cover, and characteristics of mineral soils (Debano et al, 1998): x Low severity – low soil heating, litter scorch or consumption with duff largely intact, mineral soil is not changed. x Moderate severity – litter consumption with moderately charred or consumed duff, no visible alteration of mineral soil surface. x High severity – complete consumption of duff and mineral soil surface visibly reddish or orange color. Acres burned in each subwatershed by severity are shown in Table 28. Vegetation burn intensity describes fire effects to vegetative characteristics including tree mortality and consumption of understory vegetation and down wood. x Underburn-<25% tree mortality, live green tree crowns predominate. x Mixed mortality- 25-50% tree mortality, tree crowns are generally not consumed. x Mixed Mortality- 50-75% tree mortality, tree crowns are generally not consumed. x Stand replacement->75% tree mortality, tree crowns are generally consumed. Acres burned in each subwatershed by vegetation burn intensity are shown in Table 27. Treatments in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project are located in areas that experienced mixed mortality and stand replacement conditions in the Fire. In this report, soil burn severity is used to understand and predict effects from potential erosion increases. Vegetation burn intensity is used to understand and predict changes in water yield, peak flows and canopy cover. Based on acres proposed for treatment (direct and indirect effects) and the number of acres affected by the Chetco Bar Fire (cumulative effects), the Eagle Creek and South Fork Chetco River subwatersheds have the highest potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects;

Page | 3-104 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project however, as discussed in the Effects Analysis there are no long-term direct, indirect, or cumulative effects expected from the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project. The treatment stands in East Fork and South Fork Pistol River subwatersheds have less than 1 percent proposed treatment acres for all action alternatives. In addition, treatment stands in Nook Creek and North Fork Pistol River subwatershed have less than or equal to 3 percent proposed treatment acres for all action alternatives.

Table 28. Acres of Soil Burn Severity by Subwatershed

% Subwatershed High and High Moderate Low Burned by Subwatershed Moderate Severity Severity Severity High and Severity Moderate Severity Eagle Creek 3,497 12,373 10,779 15,870 51% East Fork Pistol River 120 3,081 4,771 3,201 17% Nook Creek 1,660 2,166 4,543 3,826 13% North Fork Pistol River 363 1,913 3,609 2,276 12% South Fork Chetco River 1,406 6,387 14,236 7,793 27% South Fork Pistol River 6 341 897 347 2%

Table 29. Acres of Burn Intensity within the Project Footprint

Percent Subwatershed Stand Mixed Underburn Burned by Subwatershed Replacement Mortality Acres Stand Acres Acres Replacement Fire Eagle Creek 909 364 8 3% East Fork Pistol River 0 0 0 0% Nook Creek 722 49 0 3% North Fork Pistol River 182 195 11 1% South Fork Chetco 1,091 427 4 4% River South Fork Pistol River 56 72 1 <1%

Spatial and Temporal Scale Project treatment activities are within the Chetco River and Pistol River watersheds. Figure 20 illustrates the project area boundary to be used as the spatial bounds for the hydrologic analysis. This includes subwatersheds: Eagle Creek-Chetco River, East Fork Pistol River Nook Creek- Chetco River, North Fork Pistol River, South Fork Chetco River, and South Fork Pistol River. Past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the activity area and within the watersheds were considered for the cumulative effects analysis. Wildfires, timber harvesting, mining, and road construction activities have occurred throughout the watersheds. Project treatments within the subwatersheds and their effects were analyzed using the methods listed below and incorporated into the existing conditions. Ground-disturbing projects older than 1960 were not included, partly because more reliable record keeping started after 1960, recorded

Chapter 3 Page|3-105 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment timber harvest activity on National Forest System (NFS) land was less intense and more widespread up to that point, and partly because it was determined that the effects of timber harvest on activities that occurred prior to that year would have minimal effects on water quality. Cumulative effects were considered out to the completion of the salvage harvest. The direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives regarding road maintenance and temporary roads are also analyzed in terms of their immediate, short-term effects on sedimentation to streams, as well as their long-term effects that might be realized after the complete implementation of the project.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, no project activities would occur. Hillslope erosion may increase from a reduction in live canopy and consumption of organic material on the forest floor from the Chetco Bar Fire, especially in stands that burned at high intensity and soil burn severity. The hydrologic effects of roads and the interaction between road and fire effects would continue. Roads in unstable condition would continue to deteriorate, and sediment delivery would continue to occur, especially on hydrologically connected roads that were impacted from increased runoff following the Chetco Bar Fire. There would be no improvement of road conditions on hydrologically connected roads, or haul routes in riparian reserves, except those occurring through BAER rehabilitation efforts. There would be no reforestation activities under the No Action Alternative within the project footprint; however recovery of soil stability would occur once shrubs, grasses, and tree seedlings reestablish, which have been observed from recent field observations. Hillslope erosion may continue longer on uncompacted soils in Alternative 1 than on uncompacted soils in the Action Alternatives because tree regrowth and evapotranspiration, precipitation, and interception would occur at natural rates which are estimated to be slightly lower than in areas where conifers are planted and effective ground cover (85%) is placed in disturbed sites. Re-growth and needle-fall established since the fire would not be disturbed by mechanical treatments. The No Action Alternative would have no direct effects to peak flows since there would be no salvage logging or connected actions implemented. Roads in poor condition would continue to intercept flow and could contribute to slight increases in peak flows. Effects of the Chetco Bar Fire could increase water yield and peak. Although soil infiltration is naturally high in the Hydrologic Analysis Area, with overland flow rarely occurring, decreases in evapotranspiration from the Chetco Bar Fire could affect water yield and peak flows. There would be no effect to stream temperature because no stream shade would be removed. Stream temperatures could increase through a reduction in shade from burned Riparian Reserves in the Chetco Bar Fire. Increases in channel large woody debris could mitigate these effects. There would be no effect on waterbody condition because no project activities would occur. Between < 1% and 4% of Riparian Reserves within subwatersheds in the hydrologic analysis area experienced stand replacement conditions in the Chetco Bar Fire. In-stream wood is expected to increase substantially as standing dead trees in riparian areas fall; however, long-term large wood recruitment would be reduced as riparian vegetation recovers. In-stream wood would help mitigate potential increases in sedimentation from the Chetco Bar Fire by creating new pools and trapping sediment.

Page | 3-106 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to the Action Alternatives None of the Action Alternatives are proposing the salvaging of fire effected trees within the riparian area. Riparian Reserves are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. See Management Direction and Regulatory Framework section for riparian reserves widths.

Erosion and Sedimentation Surface erosion, landslides, and stream flows increase following large fires (Everett et al. 2002, Wondzell and King 2003, and Dunham et al. 2003). Soils are particularly susceptible to increased erosion and reduction of productivity after wildland fire (Amaranthus, 1989; Beschta, 1995). Wildland fire removes ground vegetation and exposes bare soil increasing the potential for increased surface erosion. Erosion is accelerated by surface runoff or over-land-flow from precipitation. In the CBF area the soils have a high infiltration capacity reducing the likelihood of over-land-flow occurring. Because of the high infiltration capacity of the soils, the increase in surface erosion is less following a wildfire than may be found in other areas that have reported high rates of erosion, such as eastern Oregon, Idaho and Colorado. Research in the Pacific Northwest (Wondzell and King, 2003), and post fire soil erosion monitoring on both the Silver and Biscuit Fires support this finding. The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, in association with the Siskiyou National Forest, established a 450-acre experiment (27 experimental units in five blocks) in the upper reaches of the Pistol River drainage in 1991 as part of the Long-Term Ecosystem Productivity (LTEP) project. Two of five LTEP blocks were burned by the Biscuit Fire on August 16, 2002, and one block was partly burned by the wildfire and by a back-burn lit to contain the Biscuit Fire. The two remaining blocks were untouched by the 2002 fires. Wondzell and King (2003) suggest that, based on precipitation intensity maps, surface erosion should occur in the Coastal and Cascade Mountains of the Pacific Northwest after fires, but it has not been documented in the literature. Erosion was greater on burned soil relative to unburned soil, at least at small scales. Evidence indicating large short-distance transport included controlled erosion boxes and pins. Boxes showed a relation between slope and transport for burned soil as expected. Pins demonstrated fluctuating soil surface heights (relative to the top of rebar grid-point posts). Significant movement at the base of hotly burned units was not seen (Bormann et.al. 2003). Following the 2002 Biscuit fire, 240 erosion pin plots were established before the first winter following the fire. Plots were established on both the east and west side of the forest in an effort to quantify the effects to soils. After three winter seasons there did not appear to be significant movement in soils due to the fires (McHugh, 2005). The increase in erosion production varies from watershed to watershed based on the severity of the fire in the watershed, parent material, and precipitation range. Monitoring results from the Biscuit Fire indicate that increases in post fire surface erosion on severely burned soils were not great enough to cause measurable changes in water quality or stream channel morphology.

Water Quality

Stream Temperature Stream temperature is protected under the “Clean Water Act” and State Water Quality Standards. On March 1, 2004, new water temperature standards were adopted by the State of Oregon. Water

Chapter 3 Page|3-107 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Temperature Standards are found in ORA, Chapter 340, Division 041, Water Quality Standards: Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon, 340-041-0028, Temperature. The temperature policy of the Commission is to protect aquatic ecosystems from adverse warming and cooling caused by anthropogenic activities. Several streams within the Chetco Fire area are listed as water quality limited (303(d) including the Chetco River, Crook Creek, Eagle Creek, East Fork Pistol River, Emily Creek, North Fork Pistol River, Pistol River, South Fork Chetco River, and Windy Creek). For a complete list of water quality limited streams, their beneficial uses, parameters for listing, and river miles; refer to the Hydrology Report in the Project Record. Stream temperature is affected by channel form and by shading from channel morphology and riparian vegetation. Increased sediment loading can cause the channel to become wider and shallower, exposing more surface area to solar radiation and resulting in higher stream temperatures. It is unlikely that any action alternative will alter a stream channel enough to affect the stream temperature in any of the watersheds. Fire killed trees in the riparian area still provide some stream shade. Removal of riparian vegetation that allows additional solar energy to reach the stream contributes to elevated stream temperature (Rishel et al. 1982; Brown, 1983; Beschta et al., 1987). All alternatives maintain a no cut buffer within at least one or two SPT (175 or 350 feet) on fish bearing and perennial non-fish- bearing streams to protect remaining stream shade.

200

165 150

100

50 Riparian Width (feet)

0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 180 Tree Height (feet) Figure 21. Riparian Width Contributing Shade

Figure 21 illustrates the riparian buffer widths required to maintain riparian vegetation that has the potential to provide stream shade (tree height and 70% hillslope (SHADOW model)). For trees 180 feet tall, the farthest tree that can provide stream shade is 165 feet from the stream. Maintaining a no-cut buffer of one site potential tree (175 feet) or greater from perennial streams adjacent to areas proposed for salvage logging assures all potential stream shade would be maintained. All alternatives would maintain existing stream shade adjacent to areas proposed for salvage logging.

Turbidity (fine sediment delivery) Turbidity, or the loss of water clarity, is due to the presence of suspended particles of silt and clay. Other materials such as finely divided organic matter also contribute to the loss of water clarity. Soil displacement from natural disturbance such as a wildfire or from management activities can cause sediment to be delivered to a stream. Sediment delivered to a stream most often is comprised of both fine sediment that is suspended in water and coarser materials (sands and gravels) that are transported as bedload. Suspended sediment is usually quickly transported

Page | 3-108 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project through the stream system, but can deposit out in very low gradient areas or when flow subsides after a storm event. Three severely burned tributaries to the Illinois River as well as the Illinois River were measured in 2002 and 2003 to determine whether any changes in turbidity occurred following the first winter after the Biscuit Fire. The winter following the Biscuit Fire was normal with one storm of magnitude between a 2 and 5 year event that occurred the last week of December and first week of January. No increase in turbidity was noted in the fire area. The Illinois River below Six Mile Creek showed an increase on December 16 but the sediment source was upstream of the fire area. Turbidity was also monitored following the 1987 Silver Fire for the effects of wildfire and for subsequent salvage logging. For two years following the Silver Fire turbidity was monitored, a period when sediment are at their peaks following a wild fire. Approximately 40% of Silver Creek and 37% of Indigo Creek burned in that fire. A summary of the monitoring data concluded: “There have been no noticeable effects in increases in turbidity or sediment” and “turbidity does not appear to be a significant area of concern” (Kormeier, 1995). There were reports this winter of elevated turbidity on the lower Chetco River. The source was identified to be active private log haul during winter storm events causing road fines to be delivered to the road ditch and then to the Chetco River. Oregon Department of Forestry notified the company of the situation. As mitigation measures, they placed additional road rock surfacing and put hay bales in the ditches to filter out fine sediment. Forest Service resource specialist’s field surveyed Chetco Bar high burn severity areas during winter storm events. The small streams in these areas were running clear with no signs of streambank or channel bottom instability. Larger streams below these areas were also clear. This is consistent with the turbidity monitoring of both the past Silver and Biscuit fires that concluded elevated turbidity from the fires is not a concern.

Peak Flow Wildfire-induced increases in sedimentation, turbidity, and summer stream temperature as well as peak runoff have the potential to adversely affect downstream values including life property, public water supplies, domestic water supplies, and irrigation uses. Other values at risk include federally listed fish including Coho salmon, as well as sensitive fish Chinook salmon, steelhead and lamprey. Following wildfires, Burn Area Emergency Response (BAER) team are assigned with the objective to characterize post-fire hydrologic conditions in order to estimate the risk of post-fire flooding and reduced water quality and their potential impacts to downstream values. A hydrologic model is used by the BAER team to estimates the effects of fire on peak flows. The 2002 Biscuit fire, which is in the same area as the Chetco Bar fire, had a BEAR team as well with both estimating changes in peak flow from the fires. There are different models available to use and some are a better fit for a specific area than others. The type of model selected along with the information put into it can result in different flow estimates for the same area. The design storm selected by both the Chetco Bar BAER team as well as the Biscuit BAER team was a 25-year, 24 hour rainfall event. Different hydrologic models were used. Increases in peak flow from fires is caused mostly in high burn severity areas where the infiltration rate of water is reduced by hydrophobicity that results in water repellency. Rain that normally infiltrates flows overland causing erosion and rapid runoff that increases peak flows. The Chetco Bar BAER team concluded that peak flows would increase by 30% on the Chetco River and roughly 30% to 50% on smaller streams. This greatly increases the risk of post-fire flooding that could lead to stream and property damage, and the concern for human safety.

Chapter 3 Page|3-109 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

The Biscuit BAER team estimated only a small increase in peak flow from the fire with an increase 0.7% for the Chetco River and 2% to 13% for smaller streams. Channel cross-sections on small streams in severely burned area were monitored for the Silver and Biscuit fires to detect increases in runoff and sediment delivery. Three small stream channels on the east side of Bald Mountain, tributary to the South Fork Silver Creek, were measured in 1988, 1989, and 1995 to determine whether any changes could be found after the Silver Fire of 1987. For the Biscuit fire, two small tributaries to the Illinois River were measured in 2002 and 2003 to determine whether any changes could be found following the first winter after the Biscuit Fire of 2002: Spring Creek (.5 square miles), and an unnamed stream referred to as Annsylinn Creek (.4 square miles) were used in this study. The measured cross-sections were compared for changes in average depth, maximum depth, width to depth ratio, wetted perimeter, area of cross section, and GINI coefficient. The GINI coefficient is a number between zero and one that is a measure of the variability in the depth of a channels cross- section. The channel measurements for both the Silver and Biscuit fire found no difference in channel response in the winters following the fire. There was no increase in sediment delivery or peak flows in severely burned areas. As stated in Turbidity Section, Forest Service personnel field visits to severely burned areas on the Chetco Bar area over the winter also found no evidence of increased in peak flows in small channels. The Rogue River-Siskiyou hydrologists have closely monitored the Chetco River stream gage during storm events post-fire and detected no indication of increased runoff from storm events. There is nothing to support any significant increase in peak flow from the Chetco Bar fire. Recent literature addresses the effects of forest practices on peak flows and the consequent channel response in western Oregon (Grant et al 2006). Grant et al. synthesizes the findings of an extensive array of existing literature linking forest practices in the Pacific Northwest with changes to peak flow based on the hydroregions developed by Grant et al. For basins within the transitional zone, Grant et al. found that the detection threshold for changes in peak flows occurs at 20% of watershed area harvested. While this study applies to clear-cut harvest, similarly severely burned areas result in loss of tree canopy creating open areas where snow fall could accumulate. Most of the Chetco Bar fire area is below the transitional snow zone and located in the rain dominated zone. No increase in peak flow will occur. A study by Jones and Grant, 1996 concluded that road surfaces and cut slopes intercept water, and road ditches act as intermittent streams, transporting water more rapidly than natural processes and can increase peak flow for a less than a 2-year return interval. No new permanent road construction or reconstruction is proposed.

Large Woody Debris The FEMAT Report (FEMAT, 1993. page V-26) established that many riparian ecological processes are a function of distance to the channel. Many effects of riparian vegetation decrease with increasing distance from the streambank. The report concluded that, in general, 100% of the potential large woody debris (LWD) delivery to stream channels occurred within one site tree distance of the stream (FEMAT, 1993. pages V-26 and V-27). For this analysis, the LWD recruitment zone for fish-bearing and perennial non-fish-bearing streams is considered to be the distance equal to the height of one site potential tree. Because the average height of a site potential tree on the Forest is 175 feet, this distance will be used. Based on recent research conducted on intermittent channels in the Coast Range of southern Oregon, roughly 50% of the LWD delivered to intermittent streams originates from slope

Page | 3-110 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project instability (May and Gresswell, 2003, page 1356). A mitigation measure common to all alternatives prohibits timber harvest on active unstable areas. This mitigation alone ensures roughly 50% of potential LWD recruitment to intermittent stream channels. The remainder of LWD recruitment is delivered by direct fall. The LWD recruitment zone for intermittent streams, outside of all unstable and past-active unstable areas, is considered to be equal to the direct fall zone. Tree blow down has been identified as the principal agent for supplying large woody material into small to medium size streams (Keller and Swanson (1979). When a tree falls in a forest, the probability of its falling into a stream is primarily a function of tree height and distance from the stream (Figure 4). The probability of a tree falling into a stream and providing coarse woody debris decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the stream (Robison and Beschta, 1990). LWD usually consists of pieces of wood that exceeds a specific diameter and/or length. Thus a diameter effective tree height (He the minimum) and length of which is assumed to provide some benefit to a stream) is defined as 8 inches in diameter and 5 feet in length. The average site potential tree of 175 feet has an average diameter at breast height (DBH) of 32 inches. Considering the taper factor with height, the effective tree height is reached at 95 feet.

Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Alternatives 2 and 3

Erosion and Sedimentation from Salvage Logging Logging activities increase the rate of erosion through soil displacement by logging equipment, cable yarding and skidding of logs, and landing and temporary road construction. The extent and persistence of the disturbance is dependent on the logging system used and the site condition, such as soil type and the amount of ground cover present or introduced by logging operations. Numerous studies have determined that the greatest increase in soil displacement is from ground- based logging systems such as tractor logging, with the least from helicopter logging (McIver and Starr, 2000). These studies also report a range of percent ground disturbance. The percent disturbance below is based on data collected after the Silver Fire on the Siskiyou National Forest (Fong, 1992):

Logging System Percent Ground Disturbance Ground-Based (Tractor) Logging 36% Skyline Cable Logging 8% Helicopter Logging 2%

Soil displacement could result from the proposed salvage activities. Several studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of riparian areas in buffering sediment delivery to a stream from upslope timber harvest. Buffer widths of 100 feet were found to be effective in preventing sediment delivery from timber harvest (Corbett et at. 1978, Lynch et al, 1985, Moring 1982). A master thesis conducted in Washington concluded a 50 foot buffer as effective on slopes less than 50% with a maximum width of 200 feet on steep slopes (Broderson, 1973). All the studies assume overland or sheetflow occurs to mobilize sediment. Post fire infiltration-excess overland flow has not been reported in the Pacific Northwest (Wondzell and King, 2003). Following the salvage of the fire killed trees from the 1987 Silver Fire on the Siskiyou National Forest, the effectiveness of riparian buffers were monitored. A summary of the monitoring results found that buffer areas were very effective in maintaining stream bank integrity as well as reducing sediment delivery (Kormeier, 1995). The Silver Fire used the following Siskiyou Forest Plan buffer widths:

Chapter 3 Page|3-111 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

x 150 feet on fish-bearing streams x 100 feet on nonfish-bearing perennial streams x 25 feet on intermittent streams Both alternatives have no harvest riparian areas with a width of 175 feet or greater that exceeds the buffer width needed to protect streams from sediment delivery form salvage operations.

Increases in Peak Flow from Salvage Logging For basins within the transitional zone, Grant et al. found that the detection threshold for changes in peak flows occurs at 20% of watershed area harvested. Most of the Chetco Bar fire area is below the transitional snow zone and located in the rain dominated zone. There will be no increase in peak flow from salvage logging, see Peak Flow section.

Timber Haul and Turbidity Both alternatives have Project Design Criteria for timber haul that mitigates the potential for fine sediment delivery from log haul in wet weather.

Landslides New or reactivated landslides may occur during the period between the loss of root strength of dead trees and new root growth –between 5 to 12 years (Wondzell and King, 2003; Ziemer, 1981. Common to both alternatives, active landslide and unstable areas have been removed from salvage activities. Reactivation of these areas (either as a slope failure or as accelerated rates of movement on existing slides) would deliver a range of sediment and rock size, and whatever large wood was left after wildland fires. Vegetation would be reduced at the site, but productivity for aquatic and riparian organisms could increase downstream where the mix of material is redeposited. None of the alternatives include activities that will alter the natural frequencies of landslides.

Temporary Roads and Landing There is no system permanent road reconstruction proposed in this project. Temporary roads would increase soil compaction, reduce infiltration at the road site, and potentially increase erosion in the short term until vegetative cover is restored. There would be a maximum of 13.5 miles of temporary road constructed under Alternative 2, and 9.4 miles of temporary road constructed under Alternative 3. From the 13.5 miles of temporary road proposed under Alternative 2, 1.3 miles is new construction. Temporary roads would be defined as a created travel way, for the purpose of transporting logs that is built, utilized, and decommissioned (obliterated) over the course of the treatment. Obliteration of these roads would occur at the completion of their intended use and use methods such as subsoiling to alleviate compaction and reduce concentrations of overland flow. In addition, scattering slash material to 85 percent effective ground cover would control sediment and runoff until productivity was restored. Temporary roads would include reuse of existing (Unclassified) prisms where there is an existing road template. These temporary roads would be located near ridgelines and on gentle slopes. In addition, new temporary roads or landings would not be located within Riparian Reserves as stated in the project design criteria in Chapter 2. Therefore, there is no loss of vegetation and no effect to stream temperature from temporary roads. No sediment from temporary road construction will impact stream channel morphology of perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streams. Thus, no increase in stream temperature would occur from channel widening due to temporary roads.

Page | 3-112 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives There are no measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to erosion or sedimentation, peak flows, stream temperature, or waterbody condition expected from the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project because there are no effects to the measures used to predict potential effects. There would be zero acres of soil detrimentally impacted in Riparian Reserves or potentially hydrologically connected areas. There is approximately 1.3 miles of new temporary road construction proposed under alternative 2 that could increase erosion in the short-term, however these effects would be addressed by project design criteria. In addition, using the proposed 12.2 miles under Alternative 2 and 9.4 miles under Alternative 3 of existing road templates to harvest timber reduces the need to build new temporary roads, limits soil disturbance and compaction to areas previously disturbed and compacted, and allows the opportunity to repair roads that were not built to current standards and design criteria. All temporary roads (new and existing) would be water-barred and closed after projects are completed, and erosion control measures (placement of effective ground cover (85%) and subsoiling) would be implemented. These measures are expected to prevent or minimize the potential for these roads to become chronic sources of fine sediment. In addition, drainage would be improved on haul routes through road maintenance. The effect to water yield and peak flow from CBF Salvage project would not incrementally add to cumulative effects because no effects to evapotranspiration or compaction in Riparian Reserves or hydrologically connected areas are predicted. There would be no acres harvested in Riparian Reserves and therefore temperature and the 303(d) listing status of streams within the project area boundary would not be affected by the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project. The CBF Salvage project would not incrementally add to cumulative effects because no measurable effects to sedimentation, water yield, riparian vegetation, or in-stream wood in Riparian Reserves or hydrologically connected areas are predicted. Salvage activities would not impact waterbody condition. The project footprint is 3% of the hydrologic analysis area, and none of these treatments would occur within Riparian Reserves or other potentially hydrologically connected areas. There would be no cumulative effects to water yield and peak flows because no live trees would be harvested, and detrimental soil conditions from ground-based harvesting methods would be minimized through BMPs and PDC. There would be no cumulative effects to instream woody debris because no trees would be removed from Riparian Reserves.

Watershed Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities that were considered for the Hydrology Report include: historical timber harvest since the 1980s, precommercial thinning, prescribed burning, watershed improvements, fire suppression, past wildfires, Chetco Bar Fire BAER activities, Chetco Bar fire roadside danger tree abatement, recreation, grazing, salvage logging on nearby private and BLM lands, and reforestation. The geographical scale analyzed for cumulative effects extends to the project area boundary.

Past Projects The effects of the CBF Salvage project would not add incremental effects to past activities implemented on NFS lands in the Chetco and Pistol River Watersheds. Historical timber harvests occurred prior to BMPs. Water quality issues may have occurred more frequently during those activities. Historic activities like timber harvesting since the 1980s occurred on streambanks and removed coarse woody debris from streams. The recent timber projects implemented BMPs to control sedimentation patterns and meet water quality goals. Fire suppression has altered primary

Chapter 3 Page|3-113 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment and secondary productivity and may have degraded episodic wood and sediment recruitment processes. However, it is determined these projects are no longer having an effect to hydrologic resources due to either their distance from streams and riparian reserves or the length of time that has passed since they were implemented.

Future and Ongoing Projects

Chetco Bar Fire The Chetco Bar Fire burned 191, 197 acres crossing several lands, such as private, Bureau of Land Management, and NFS. The fire burned 170, 321 acres on NFS over several land management allocations. Salvage would occur on approximately 2% of the total area burned by the Chetco Bar Fire. Additionally, areas that are more susceptible to erosion, including Riparian Reserves, including unstable slopes would not be treated. In terms of fire suppression for the Chetco Bar Fire, approximately 58.3 miles of dozer lines were constructed or reconstructed, as well as 51 miles of hand line. Estimated within the project area boundary, approximately 30 miles of dozer lines and 10 miles of hand lines were constructed or reconstructed within Eagle Creek, Nook Creek, and South Fork Chetco River. In addition, 34 miles of dozer line and 20 miles of hand line were constructed in East Fork Pistol River, North Fork Pistol River, and the South Fork Pistol River. Generally the average width of a dozer line for fire suppression activities is 20 feet, and hand line 2 feet. Rehabilitation and repair of areas disturbed by suppression included pulling back hand line and dozer line berms and slash and seeding with native grasses where appropriate, installing water bars on fire lines, and grading road surfaces affected by fire vehicle and equipment use. These restoration efforts will minimize the effects to riparian areas but until vegetation is established there will be approximately 126 acres within the project area boundary that has some continued erosion from these bared soils into riparian areas. It is expected there will be increased hillslope erosion and subsequent instream sedimentation following the Chetco Bar Fire, and will continue until vegetation recovery has occurred on these burned areas (at least 5 years). However, observations made during winter storms noted small streams in these areas were running clear with no signs of streambank or channel bottom instability. Larger streams below these areas were also clear. Sedimentation observed was due to private logging activities within the project area boundary, however mitigation measures to rectify these impacts were made between Oregon Department of Forestry and company as well as Forest Service personnel. As mitigation measures, they placed additional road rock surfacing and put hay bales in the ditches to filter out fine sediment. The Chetco Bar Fire stand mortality would continue to have the greatest influence on water yield and peak flows and stream temperature in the Hydrologic Analysis Area. Potential effects of the Chetco Bar fire on water yield and stream temperature are dependent on fire severity and vegetative condition before the fire, with areas exhibiting a high percentage live trees killed by fire having the greatest potential for increased water yield and stream temperature. However, the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project would not impact this increase because there would be no removal of trees within the Riparian Reserves.

Chetco Bar Fire Roadside Danger Tree Abatement Currently, the Packer (280 acres), Mineral (245 acres), and Snaketooth (204 acres) Roadside Danger Tree Abatement units have been identified on-the-ground and total about 729 acres. The hydrologic analysis for the Roadside Danger Tree Abatement project indicated that project design criteria would be implemented and therefore no sediment delivery to streams that would affect

Page | 3-114 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project water quality or channel morphology including floodplains would occur (USDA, 2018). In addition, no effect to the water quality of the Chetco River municipal watershed would occur; and Clean Water Act and state water quality standards would be met through actions prescribed in the project design criteria (USDA, 2018).

Chetco Bar Fire BAER Activities Road and trail work associated with BAER in the project area boundary will have beneficial effects on aquatic resources due to long-term reductions in fine sediment from roads. Future culvert replacement projects on FSR 1909 and 1376 should reduce risk of culvert failure at these crossings. Work has either been implemented or will be accomplished by summer of 2018.

Private and Bureau of Land Management Salvage Logging By assessing the percent of watershed with young stands, or stands less than 30 years old, the relative risk of adverse cumulative effects of the watershed can be identified. Hydrologic recovery can be assessed in terms of relative watershed risks. If less than 15 percent of the watershed is young stands, the watershed risk is considered low. If 15 to 30 percent of the watershed is young stands, there is a moderate risk, and there is a high risk if greater than 30 percent of the watershed is comprised of young stands (USDA Forest Service 1993). On private land and Bureau of Land Management, 100 percent of harvested stands are expected to be young (9, 630 acres, 7 percent of the project area boundary). This assumption was made because the Forest Service does not have accurate data for the type of treatments nor stand age on private and BLM lands. GIS Analysis of burn intensity based on stand replacement acres for Forest Service- managed lands in the project area boundary showed there are 28, 390 acres of stands that are less than 30 years old (20 percent). Therefore, since approximately 27 percent (37, 750 acres) of the watershed is likely young stands, there is currently a moderate cumulative watershed risk in terms of hydrologic recovery (USDA Forest Service 1993). South Coast Lumber recently requested a special use permit to access their private lands using an existing 4WD unclassified prism for timber salvage log haul. Road activities would include brushing and blading of the road. Long term access would be needed for future management activities, however a gate would be installed and closed at the completion of activities. Length of road proposed for use on NFS lands is approximately 9,110 feet (1.7 miles) and approximately 16 feet wide. Estimated acreage for road right-of-way is approximately 3.35 acres. Since this project is currently undergoing review, if approved, the appropriate project design criteria and mitigation measures, as well as, terms and conditions for private log haul would be applied to prevent water quality degradation. Road use can be limited to dry season and dry soil moistures only and users are required to suspend operations when indications of rutting or turbid water are observed. Additional requirements can include: installation of effective erosion control measures, changing method of operations, strengthening of road surface to avoid damage, and suspending operations until conditions change. Furthermore, with the exception of short term erosion during improvements to the road prism, no cumulative effects is expected to occur if this project is approved since sediment is not expected to reach the streams based on the project design criteria developed. Additionally, streams crossed by the proposed road would be ephemeral or intermittent and are dry during the summer months, only a few feet wide, and have small discharges. Constructed stream crossings would be applied where these intersect.

Chapter 3 Page|3-115 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Recreation Road use for recreation may impact the road surface if driven during wet conditions. However, much of this sediment will stay within the road prism and due to improved road conditions from pre-haul maintenance and BAER treatments, it is expected sediment sources would be reduced.

Grazing Because the effects from the action alternatives are determined to have a no cumulative effects, the action alternatives would not impact the baseline conditions from grazing.

Reforestation There would be no cumulative effects to hydrology from reforestation. Reforestation would have a beneficial effect in areas proposed for planting. Natural regeneration surveys would be completed and if natural regeneration is determined not to be adequate, site-specific appropriate tree species mix would be planted by hand. Planting a mix of native species would have a positive effect in riparian reserves, particularly the resistant POC which should allow for re-establishment of this native species in the project area. Ultimately, some of these resistant POC should survive and contribute to long lasting decay resistant in-channel structure to the project area. A riparian plant community would be established in the riparian area and across the floodplain over time. Areas that were previously impacted from past fire would be revegetated. The conifers that were burned at stand replacement or mixed mortality conditions would be re-established with recovery time. It is unknown at this time the acres that would need to be planted because it depends on the level of natural regeneration.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Polices

Forest Plan This project is consistent with Siskiyou Forest Plan direction for soil and water resource protection because it would not measurably increase watershed impacts, over the existing conditions at the 6th field scale. The application of all BMPs to mitigate sediment effects would be required under all action alternatives. The Project Design Criteria designed for this project will also ensure that harmful effects to water quality resources will be properly and rapidly addressed. Associated new ground disturbing logging activities (i.e. temporary roads, landings, and skid trails) would not be located within Riparian Reserves. A review of the Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves found that activities in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project are within direction of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP).

Clean Water Act This project is consistent with the Clean Water Act and Forest Service responsibilities under the Clean Water Act as described in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2014) because the proposed action under normal conditions would not measurably increase watershed impacts, including sedimentation, over the existing condition. The MOU also directs that the Forest Service cannot further degrade water quality impaired streams, although short-term adverse impacts which occur with long-term benefits are allowed. Several streams in the project planning area were on the Oregon 303(d) list for above normal stream temperatures. All alternatives comply with the Clean Water Act, since none would raise stream temperatures, and since all follow Best Management Practices as specified in “National

Page | 3-116 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands” (2012). The Forest Service is directed to comply with State requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for protection of waters of the State of Oregon (OAR chapter 34041) through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are recognized as the primary means to control non-point source pollution on National Forest lands. BMPs would be monitored by the West Zone hydrologists, fish biologist, sale administrators, and harvest inspectors. The MOU also directs that the Forest Service cannot further degrade water quality impaired streams.

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) Executive Order 11988 says that Federal agencies shall avoid adverse effects to floodplains or minimize potential harm. Floodplains several to hundreds of feet wide occur in the project area boundary. The floodplains are primarily contained within Riparian Reserves. Implementation activities proposed would not impact the function of floodplains since no treatment activities are allowed within Riparian Reserves. The proposed action would avoid adverse effects to the floodplains, and thus be consistent with Executive Order 11988.

Wetlands Executive Order 11990 says that Federal agencies shall avoid management practices that would adversely affect wetlands. Wetlands would be avoided in this project through mapping Riparian Reserves during layout and implementation.

Monitoring Best Management Practices monitoring would occur randomly at a treatment unit within proximity of a waterbody. An interdisciplinary team would evaluate if sediment was observed exiting the treatment unit and if it was entering a waterbody. Monitoring of BMP implementation and effectiveness using the national BMP protocols has taken place on the RRSNF for several years. If this occurs, an investigation would occur to identify the source of the sedimentation to understand if it is occurring from the proposed action. If the proposed action is illustrating water quality issues, corrective measures or adaptive management would be employed. Fisheries and Aquatic Biota The following is a summary of the Aquatic Biota Biological Evaluation. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Forest Service Biological Evaluation (BE) process for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Sensitive fish species (Siskiyou LRMP S&G 4-2; page IV-27), the USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species List (updated July 13, 2015) was reviewed and field reconnaissance was conducted in regard to potential effects on any of these species by actions associated with the Chetco Bar Area Salvage Project.

Chapter 3 Page|3-117 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment The Action Area, as defined by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR § 402.02]. The Action Area not only includes the immediate footprint of the proposed salvage and road related activities, but any downstream reaches which may be affected indirectly. The ESA Action Area is also analyzed for Forest Service Sensitive Species. The proposed project is located within the Chetco River and Pistol River 5th field watersheds. All proposed project activities would occur within the South Fork Chetco River, Nook Creek, Eagle Creek, East Fork Pistol River-Pistol River, South Fork Pistol River, and North Fork Pistol River 6th field subwatersheds. All potential effects are also expected to occur within the boundaries of these subwatersheds.

Potentially Affected Species, Status, and Habitats

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon and Critical Habitat (Threatened) Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is listed as threatened (75 FR 29489). Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.” Section 7 of the ESA prohibits the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (CCH).

Essential Fish Habitat Interim final rules for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) were published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 62, No. 244, December 19, 1997 and final rules published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 12, January 17, 2002. These rules are pertinent to Chinook salmon and coho salmon habitat within the Southern Oregon Coastal Basin. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been defined by NMFS as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” This definition includes all waters historically used by anadromous salmonids of commercial value. Because federally listed Threatened fish species and/or critical habitat are present as associated with this project, consultation requirements were conducted in accordance with the ESA (SIS LRMP S&G 4-2).

Pacific Lamprey (Sensitive) On the RRSNF, Pacific lamprey might occur within the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds, although they have not been documented by RRSNF biologists. For this analysis, the watershed is considered occupied by Pacific lamprey. The Pacific lamprey has and continues to face a variety of threats associated with: passage and entrainment at dams and water diversion structures, altered stream flows including dewatering of stream reaches, dredging, chemical poisoning, degraded water quality, poor ocean conditions, disease, over-utilization, introduction and establishment of non-native fishes, predation, and stream and floodplain degradation/simplification (Luzier et al 2009).

Page | 3-118 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Table 30. Potentially Affected Aquatic Species, Status, and Habitats R6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Aquatic Biota on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 3rd and 4th columns completed for the Chetco Bar Area Salvage Project Species/Habitat Pre-field Review Field Surveys Habitat or Existing Sighting or Species Common name Scientific Name Potential Habitat Confirmed (Yes/No) (Yes/No) ESA Threatened Species SONCC coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Y Y OC coho salmon O. kisutch N N S. DPS North American green Acipenser medirostris N N sturgeon S. DPS Pacific eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus N N ESACritical Habitat (CH) SONCC coho salmon O. kisutch Y Y OC coho salmon O. kisutch N N MSA Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Coho salmon O. kisutch Y Y Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha Y Y

R6 Forester’s Sensitive Species Fish Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridenttatus Y Y KMP steelhead O. mykiss Y Y OC steelhead O. mykiss N N SONCC Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha Y Y Mollusk California floater Anodonta californiensis N N Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata N N Highcap lanx Lanx alta N N Scale lanx L. klamathensis N N Rotund lanx L. subrotunda N N Robust walker Pomatiopsis binneyi N N Pacific walker P. californica N N Insect Haddock’s Rhyacophilan Rhyacophila Haddocki N N caddisfly *Yes – The proposed project’s potential effects on these species will be further analyzed in this document. **No – No further analysis is necessary, and a determination of “No Impact” is rendered.

KMP Steelhead (Sensitive) On the RRSNF, Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) steelhead occur within the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds. KMP steelhead is currently listed as a species of concern by NMFS and as a Sensitive Species by the USFS Region 6.

Chinook Salmon (Sensitive) On the RRS, SONCC Chinook Salmon occurs within the Chetco and Pistol River watersheds. The SONCC ESU is listed as a Sensitive Species on the USFS Region 6 Special Status Species List.

Chapter 3 Page|3-119 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Other Species (Sensitive) California floater, Western ridged mussel, highcap lanx, scale lanx, rotund lanx, robust walker, Pacific walker, Haddock’s Rhyacophilan caddisfly, Oregon Coast (OC) steelhead are not known to occur or have suitable habitat within proximity to any of the proposed changes included within any of the action alternatives. As such, a No Impact determination is rendered and these species will not be discussed further within this document.

Environmental Consequences to Fisheries and Aquatic Biota This analysis evaluates the direct and indirect potential effects of the proposed actions on SONCC coho salmon, SONCC Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead trout, and Pacific lamprey. Because these species evolved with similar habitat requirements, are co-located within the Action Area, and their range distributions are all included within the extent of coho salmon CH the analysis will focus on the SONCC coho salmon CH distribution. For purposes of this analysis, any effect realized within the range of coho salmon CH would potentially result in an effect to the other anadromous species listed above.

Methodology Information used in this analysis includes Geographic Information System data, Aquatic Habitat Inventories, Properly Functioning Condition ratings are based on the NMFS Table of Population and Habitat Indicators, as modified by the Rogue River/South Coast Level 1 Team for the Klamath Province/Siskiyou Mountains.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. With this alternative, no activities would occur; there would be no direct or indirect effects from this alternative. With no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives The Action alternatives would have no direct effects to aquatic biota because there are no instream activities proposed within the range of any federally listed threatened or endangered species nor within the range of any Forest Service Sensitive species. Potential indirect effects are briefly described here. An in-depth discussion of potential effects to stream channels, temperature, sediment, Riparian Reserves, and wood recruitment can be found in the hydrology section.

Temperature Stream temperature is protected under the “Clean Water Act” and State Water Quality Standards. Stream temperature is affected by channel form and by shading from channel morphology and riparian vegetation. Increased sediment loading can cause the channel to become wider and shallower, exposing more surface area to solar radiation and resulting in higher stream temperatures. Fire killed trees in the riparian area still provide some stream shade. Removal of riparian vegetation that allows additional solar energy to reach the stream contributes to elevated stream temperature (Rishel et al. 1982; Brown, 1983; Beschta et al., 1987). It is unlikely that any action alternative will alter a stream channel enough to affect the stream temperature in any of the watersheds. All action alternatives maintain a no cut buffer within at least one or two SPT (175 or 350 feet) on fish bearing and non-fish-bearing streams to protect all

Page | 3-120 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project remaining stream shade. Stream shade would not be altered or reduced from the implementation of this project and therefore no indirect effects would occur related to stream shade and temperature.

Sediment and Turbidity Soil disturbance from management activities can cause sediment to be delivered to a stream. Sediment delivered to a stream most often is comprised of both suspended sediment (silt and clays) and coarser materials (sand and gravels) that are transported as bedload. Suspended sediment that can affect water clarity is usually quickly transported through the stream system. Harm from sediment may include habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures an aquatic species by substantially impairing essential behavior patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 217.12). In general, roads and their use can have adverse effects to fish habitat through a variety of mechanisms including habitat fragmentation, and sediment and chemical delivery. Forest roads built for timber harvest and access to other natural resources can be abundant sources of sediment to aquatic systems, both through increased surface erosion, landslide risk, and drainage density (Cederholm et al. 1980; Furniss et al. 1991). Specifically, increased sediment production in stream systems has been shown to adversely affect Pacific Northwest salmonid species through reduction in gravel permeability and reduced egg to fry survival (Cederholm et al. 1980; Furniss et al. 1991). Further, sediment can reduce macroinvertebrate production and fill pools, reducing habitat quantity and salmonid food availability (Suttle et al. 2004; Harvey et al. 2009). A direct linkage also exists between sediment supply and stream habitat indicators such as gravel permeability and pool depth. Likewise, inverse relationships exist between sediment-related stream habitat indicators and fish survival (Suttle et al. 2004; Harvey et al. 2009). The Chetco Bar Area Salvage Project will implement full riparian reserve no cut buffers of 175’ on non-fish bearing stream and 350’ on fish bearing streams. By implementing the mandatory full buffer widths on all streams as part of the project’s design criteria, there would be no increase in fine sediment delivery to any stream or associated increase in turbidity from salvage harvest and yarding activities. No new temporary roads would be constructed in Riparian Reserves or across any stream channels, therefore temporary road construction does not have a mechanism to contribute sediment to the aquatic system. Road maintenance associated with the project will be required to follow all criteria in the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA, 2012) to mitigate any potential for road related sediment from entering any watercourse or ditch connected to the stream network. Proposed road maintenance 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. No-harvest riparian buffers, intermittent stream status, and proximity to fish bearing streams would be sufficient to prevent any sediment delivery from temporary spur road construction and road maintenance activities to downstream occupied habitat. Haul routes will be sufficiently rocked and PDCs related to haul would be implemented to eliminate the chance of road derived sediment from reaching occupied anadromous habitat. These PDCs include limiting haul due to precipitation events and/or road damage from heavy use. Based on the above information, no sedimentation with a connection to stream channels is expected to occur from any project activities within proximity to anadromous fish habitat.

Chapter 3 Page|3-121 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Therefore, project activities would not result in any indirect effects to aquatic threatened, endangered and sensitive species in the project area.

Large Wood Large wood recruitment over time will be maintained and enhanced by the same strategy employed to protect stream shading as described above in the temperature section. The majority of instream large wood in Chetco River tributaries originates within 70 feet of stream channels. The minimum no-cut buffer in Riparian Reserves around perennial streams with trees greater than 100’ tall would be 175’ or greater, ensuring that wood recruitment rates over time will be completely unaffected by project activities. Because there is no mechanism to affect wood recruitment rates by project activities with minimum buffers of 175’ on all streams, there will be no indirect effects to wood recruitment in streams found within the project area.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Past, present, and future activities have the potential to work synergistically with the proposed activities in the Upper Chetco River. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have occurred on National Forest System lands are documented in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions section of this document. There are no direct or indirect effects identified to aquatic resources from proposed activities associated with the Chetco Bar Area Salvage Project. Because there are no effects associated with proposed project activities to aquatic resources, there can be no negative cumulative effects.

Summary of Effects and Determinations

Table 31. Summary of Conclusion of Effects

Endangered, Threatened, Proposed No Action Proposed Action Alternative 3 or Sensitive Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SONCC coho salmon NE NE NE SONCC coho CH NE NE NE EFH – coho NE NE NE EFH – Chinook NE NE NE KMP steelhead NI NI NI Pacific lamprey NI NI NI SONCC Chinook salmon NI NI NI California Floater NI NI NI Western ridged mussel NI NI NI Rotund lanx NI NI NI Highcap lanx NI NI NI Scale lanx NI NI NI Robust walker NI NI NI Pacific walker NI NI NI Haddock’s Rhyacophilan caddisfly NI NI NI NE = No Effect NI = No Impact MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

Page | 3-122 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

No Action (Alternative 1) Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to SONCC coho salmon, SONCC coho CH, Pacific eulachon, North American green sturgeon, and Essential Fish Habitat since there is no action, therefore there is No Effect to these species/habitats. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to California floater, Western ridged mussel, highcap lanx, scale lanx, rotund lanx, robust walker, Pacific walker, Haddock’s Rhyacophilan caddisfly, Oregon Coast (OC) steelhead, and SONCC Chinook salmon since there is no action. Therefore, a No Impact determination is rendered.

Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 There are no direct, indirect, or cummulative effects from Alternatives 2 and 3. As a result, project activities would have No Effect to SONCC coho salmon, SONCC coho CH, Pacific eulachon, North American green sturgeon, and Essential Fish Habitat. These Alternatives would have No Impact to KMP steelhead, Pacific lamprey, SONCC Chinook salmon, California floater, Western ridged mussel, highcap lanx, scale lanx, rotund lanx, robust walker, Pacific walker, and Haddock’s Rhyacophilan caddisfly because these species are not known to occur, do not have suitable habitat within proximity to any of the proposed activities, or project activities are disconnected from the aquatic system within their range distribution. Fire, Fuels and Air Quality The following is a summary of the Fire and Fuels Report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon. This analysis is generated from pre-fire reference conditions compared with the post-fire Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after fire (RAVG, Miller 2007) to determine percentage of over story canopy that was killed during the fire based on estimated basal area loss (Miller 2007).

Fire Regime Coarse scale definitions for natural (historical) fire regimes have been developed and interpreted for fire and fuels management. The five natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the fire on the dominant over story vegetation (Hann et al.2001). These five regimes are as follows: x I – 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant over story vegetation replaced); x II – 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75% of the dominant over story vegetation replaced); x III – 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant over story vegetation replaced); x IV – 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75% of the dominant over story vegetation replaced); x V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity. Condition classes describe the amount of departure from the natural fire regime (Hann and Bunnell 2001) and help to describe current conditions of vegetation (structural stages, species

Chapter 3 Page|3-123 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment composition, mosaic pattern) compared to historical conditions. Condition classes, numbered from 1 to 3, are generally equivalent to low, moderate, and high departure from the HRV. Condition classes also represent increasing levels of risk from uncharacteristic wildland fire behavior and effects (Hann 2004). x FRCC I- 0-33% departure from historic condition x FRCC II- 34-66% departure from historic condition x FRCC III- 67+% departure from historic condition While high severity fire effects are within the natural range of variability for the Chetco Bar fire, the spatially large and contiguous area of high severity fire has created large patches that may develop into homogenous fuel profiles in the future. Except for riparian and other low lying areas, most of the Chetco Bar salvage is categorized as Fire regime 1 (Landfire, FS GIS data). Areas of Fire regime 1 that have less than 75 percent of overstory vegetation loss are considered within HRV and characterized as condition class 1. Fire regimes in Douglas Fir/hardwood forests are considered to be one of the most variable (Agee 1993). This variability makes generalizations about the fire regime and its effects difficult. Recent events as well as historical records, combined with vegetation patterns indicate intense stand replacing events have been and will be part of the system. Fire behavior can range from low intensity surface fire, to mixed severity to stand replacement, often times within the same perimeter. Historically, high frequencies of low and medium intensity fire broke up large uniform patches into complex mosaics of age, size and structure (Wills 1991). Resulting vegetation patterns are a mosaic of patches of differing sizes and multi aged stands. Current fire suppression has allowed homogenization of stand conditions and removed much of this mosaic. Will and Stuart (1994) found mean return intervals in NW California of 13-22 years. Other studies reported median fire return intervals of 10-30 years (Atzet et al. 1996, Atzet and Martin 1992, Agee 1991, Adams and Sawyer 1980). Intense stand replacing fires still maintain patchiness with some green trees surviving (Wills and Stuart 1994, Wright and Bailey 1982.) Severely burned areas may account for only 15-20% of the total area burned (Atzet and Martin, Adams and Sawyer 1980).

Regulatory Framework The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides standards and guidelines for fire and fuels treatments. The Siskiyou National forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1989) includes fire management direction consistent with other resource goals. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Fire Management Plan (FMP), (USDA 2009) is an annually updated operational guide that defines how the Fire Management Program will be implemented on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Fire Management Program is based on achieving the resource objectives defined in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Forest. The FMP is updated annually or as policy and Land and Resource Management Plans change. The fuels management portion states that the appropriate type and amount of fuel treatment is related to the Forest Plan Management Area specific Standards and Guidelines. Levels and methods of fuel treatment are to be guided by the protection and resource objectives of each management area. Emphasis will favor ecological restoration treatments. Where appropriate, fuels treatments would allow for the utilization of wood residues.

Page | 3-124 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Affected Environment Throughout the RRSNF, wildland fire processes have been altered due to fire exclusion and timber harvest. As a result, fires are now larger and more severe than historic levels, (Campbell 2004; Hessberg 2015; Peterson 2005). Forest structure has been altered. Studies have specifically shown changes in forest types (Agee 1993; Campbell 2004; Heyerdahl 1996). Ultimately, these changes have created a set of systems that are less resilient in the wake of disturbances, such as periodic insect infestations or recurring wildfires. The area proposed for treatment is well represented by Fire Regime I with a fire return interval of <35 years (Landfire 2012). The following regimes characterize the area of the Chetco Bar fire. x Fire Regime I: 0 to 35 year frequency, low severity to mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant over story vegetation replaced). In northwestern California, Miller 2012 found the inter-annual mean percentage of high severity fire to be 25% across a 22 year study period. As the amount of acres burned in any given year, the amount of high severity fire decreases. For Douglas fir forests, the amount of high severity fire was around 10%. The Chetco Bar fire which occurred in similar topography, climate and vegetation experienced 39% high severity. Kuhn and Hochhalter 2018, concluded through NRV analysis that the early seral condition for both Oregon coastal tanoak and mixed conifer plant associations were 10 and 15% respectively. Siskiyou National forest records indicate the forest has managed fires in this area, but most have been contained during initial attack. The area identified for harvest activities has missed one or several fire returns due to current fire management. “Recent research suggests that landscapes with unaltered fire regimes are more “self- regulating” than those that have experienced fire- regime shifts; in self-regulating systems, fire size and severity are moderated by the effect of previous fire.” (Parks et al. 2013) Observations from the Chetco Bar fire confirm this phenomenon. The Collier Butte fire which burned just North of Chetco Bar during 2015 halted the forward rate of spread stopped, and the area acted as a control feature. Additionally, ultra mafic sites that have retained light fuel loadings after the Biscuit fire of 2002 also acted as a barrier to slow or stop fire spread during Chetco Bar. When compared with the RAVG map severity classifications, all of the treatment units are classified as having lost 75 to 100 percent of pre fire basal area. This provides a framework to compare departure from HRV and description of condition class. Trees identified for harvest were selected using the Smith and Cluck guidelines.

Desired Condition Lands managed by the RRSNF would be in and maintained in condition class 1, or less than 33% departure. Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances would be similar to those that occurred prior to fire exclusion (suppression) and mimic the natural fire regime. Composition and structure of vegetation and fuels characteristics would be similar to the conditions that existed under the historical fire regime. Risk of loss of key ecosystem components would be reduced.

Air Quality Activities that create smoke emissions must follow the State of Oregon Smoke Management Plan (SSMP). The surrounding communities of Brookings are not listed in the SSMP as Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas. The Kalmiopsis Wilderness, a Class I air shed, is approximately 5-15 miles east of the project. In class I areas, only very small increments of new pollution above already existing air pollution levels are allowed. The State haze designated visibility protection periods for class 1 air sheds from July 1st to September 15th for all of Oregon.

Chapter 3 Page|3-125 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

In compliance with the Clean Air Act, prescribed burning of any kind would not occur unless prior approval is granted by Oregon Department of Forestry. The Clean Air Act sets air quality standards for particulate matter (PM) for particles less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10) and less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5). All amounts of PM10 and PM 2.5 emissions will be calculated using the CONSUME software in the reporting system, which is also submitted with planned burn operations to the Oregon Department of Forestry to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Environmental Consequences to Fire, Fuels and Air Quality

Methodology As outlined in the purpose and need, the project is focused on specific areas meeting a defined set of criteria to provide data to inform management. These criteria focus on areas of high severity and mortality and must also fall with in matrix land classification. By using remotely sensed data through the Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) map, areas that met these criteria were identified for treatment. RAVG data is collected 30-45 days after fire containment, and therefore may underestimate acres due to delayed tree mortality.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis This analysis is limited to those areas of high basal area loss according to RAVG assessment and within matrix land allocation. Due to the overall fragmented and small size of these treatment areas, the action alternatives are unlikely to have effects on fire behavior and spread at a larger scale. This analysis uses the high severity patches found in matrix. According to the rapid assessment performed in the fall of 2017, approximately 13,626 acres were identified as meeting these criteria. Based on research comparing fuel loading profiles in treated and untreated stands post fire (Brown 2003; Dunn 2012, 2015; Peterson 2014), the short-term timeframe is within the next 5-10 years and the long-term time frame is 20 years. These time frames are based on personal observations of fire behavior from the Chetco Bar and when live fuels (brush and small trees) fully occupied the site, creating a continuous fuelbed. There can be a strong shrub response after fires (Collins and Roller 2013). Personal observations from the Chetco Bar fire demonstrated that areas that burned during the 2002 Biscuit fire were again available to burn primarily from the live brush fuels. At approximately 20 years is when surface fuel loadings begin to reach equilibrium between unlogged and logged stands and when post-fire fuel loading effects tend to diminish regardless of treatments (Peterson 2014).

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Management actions that occurred in this area including fire suppression and timber management activities have contributed to the fuel loading and departure from historic structural conditions. The impact of the Chetco Bar Fire itself has been the most meaningful activity relevant to this project and is likely to remain so in the near term. These treatment areas reflect approximately 1- 2% of the overall fire area, and 2-4% percent of the high severity patches within the fire. Within the initial scoping letter 13,626 acres of high severity matrix land was proposed for analysis, the action alternatives would treat approximately 14-30% of these initial acres. The impact of this treatment in the treated areas would result in reduced coarse woody debris and snag density but increased fine fuels (Dunn 2015; Peterson 2014). In the short term, (<15 years) and within these treated areas, we can expect higher flame lengths and rates of spread compared to

Page | 3-126 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project untreated areas, it is expected that the effect on fire behavior created by these conditions would be over ridden by the increase of live fuels (brush) sometime after 15 years. Within the action alternatives, reduced snag densities can enhance the range of suppression options and improve access and fire fighter safety. Areas adjacent to treatment units will remain untreated, this will reduce continuity in fuels and overall fire danger in the near term, mitigating the potential for fire spread from these treatment units. “Reducing connectivity of surface fuels at landscape scales is likely the only way to decrease the size and severity of reburns until vertical diversification and fire resistance is achieved.” (Thompson et al, 2007) From a fire standpoint the changes in fuels continuity on the landscape due to this project is considered negligible in the context of the broader event.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Fire and fuels management are often discussed as a concern in post-fire environments because of the changes in fuel loading, composition, and continuity after wildfire. Recent research (Donato 2013; Dunn 2012 and 2015; McGinnis 2010; Monsanto and Agee 2008; Richie 2013) does not consistently validate this concern. The density of large, dead, over story trees can provide a safety concern for firefighters, resulting in limiting the strategies available during fire suppression operations, or delaying response. This is likely to be reduced over time as these trees fall. Standing snags influence fire spread by acting as a source and as a receptive fuel from embers (Van Wagtendonk 2006). Over time as snags fall they will contribute to surface fuel loadings and increase fire residence time as large logs can burn for long periods. (Brown et al. 2003, Monsanto and Agee 2008). As live fuels (shrub layer, young conifer regeneration) become more homogenous, (generally >15 years) they will become the dominant fuel loading to influence fire spread. When this shrub layer becomes more continuous and before the snags fall there is a period where the fine dead branches fall and can become suspended off the ground within the shrub canopy. Suspended dead wood decays much slower than wood in contact with the ground (Harmon et al. 1986). This suspended material can add to the fuel load and increase fire behavior intensity and rate of spread. Just over 48 percent, or 91,118 acres within the fire perimeter are classified as having 50 percent or more basal area loss. Of this, 13,626 acres or 8 percent of this high severity area is designated as matrix under the Northwest Forest Plan. Because the patch sizes (treatment units) under consideration are small and within larger patches of high basal area loss, the lack of treatment in these specific patches is unlikely to contribute to success or failure of fire suppression activities. In the longer term, (>20 years) increased shrub continuity and snag decomposition would reduce firefighter effectiveness and pose safety hazards for safe suppression options.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives Fuel loading within the treatment units would increase immediately post-harvest. As coarse fuels would be removed during harvest, much of the fuel accumulation would consist of finer fuels, primarily in the form of branches. Fuel loadings after harvest can be considered a hazard as needles dry and turn red. Fire behavior in these units can burn with greater intensity and greater rates of spread. To meet the purpose and need of the CBF salvage, only dead and dying trees are proposed for harvest (as identified using Smith and Cluck guidelines), therefore there will be very little to no needles remaining to dry and turn red, the red slash phase lasts approximately 1-2 years. Project design criteria for the CBF salvage require limiting fuel bed depth to an average of

Chapter 3 Page|3-127 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

12” after harvest operations. The lack of needles, can greatly reduce rates of spread as fine fuels are recognized as the greatest contributor to fire spread. Resource concerns from soil and hydrology require some organic material to be left on site to mitigate the effects of lack of ground cover. Slash fuels remaining on site will be represented by the SB1 and SB2 model as shown below in terms of the size and depth of the material. Fuel loads will vary depending on the type of material harvested, and basal area prior to harvest. Fuel bed depth has a greater influence on future fire behavior than overall loadings (see Table 32). Activity fuels would increase in all treatment areas in the near term. Research on fuel loading (Scott 2005) describes increased rates of spread and flame lengths based on the fuel model changes resulting from treatment. This would vary based on ambient conditions (weather and fuel moistures). Fire weather had a strong influence on reburn severity. (Coppoletta et al 2016) Greater rates of spread and flame lengths would make suppressing fires more challenging, Project Design Criteria (PDCs) limit concentrations and depth of fuels, modeled fire behavior outputs indicate flame lengths and rates of spread will allow for successful initial attack. Material in excess of meeting resource concerns will be redistributed within the unit or yarded to a landing to be piled and burned. In ground based units activity fuels can be piled and burned throughout the unit.

Table 32. Expected Fuel Models Common to Action Alternatives Fuel model Description Photo example SB1 (201) Low Load The primary carrier of fire in SB1 is light dead Activity Fuel and down activity fuel. Fine fuel load is 10 to 20 tons/acre, weighted toward fuels 1 to 3 inches diameter class, depth is less than 1 foot. Spread rate moderate; flame length low.

SB2 (202) Moderate Load The primary carrier of fire in SB2 is moderate Activity Fuel or Low Load dead and down activity fuel or light blowdown Blowdown fine fuel load is 7 to 12 tons/acre, evenly distributed across 0 to 0.25, 0.25 to 1, and 1 to 3 inch diameter classes, depth is about 1 foot. Spread rate moderate; flame length moderate

SB3 (203) High Load The primary carrier of fire in SB3 is heavy dead Activity Fuel or Moderate and down activity fuel or moderate blowdown. Load Blowdown Fine fuel load is 7 to 12 tons/acre, weighted toward 0 to 0.25 inch diameter class, depth is more than 1 foot. Spread rate high; flame length high.

Page | 3-128 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

In productive fire prone, systems such as the Siskiyou, “fast decay may reduce the contribution of residual post-fire wood to early-seral fire potentials” (Hobbs et al 1992). Based on observations from recent fires on the RRSNF, this accumulated fuel is likely to remain the dominant fuel loading in the units until such time (>15 years) as live fuels, mainly brush and small conifer regeneration completely occupy the growing space on the site. As live fuels (shrub layer and young conifer) become more homogenous, they will become the dominant fuel loading to influence fire rates of spread and intensity. When this new shrub layer become more continuous and before the snags fall there is a period where the fine dead branches fall and can become suspended off the ground within the shrub canopy. Suspended dead wood decays much slower than wood in contact with the ground (Harmon et al. 1986). This suspended material can add to the dead fuel load and increase fire behavior intensity and rate of spread. Standing dead trees (snags) are recognized as a safety hazard in future fires. Fire weakened trees or snags that experience fire again are weak and unpredictable and until mitigated can prohibit or delay response to wildfire. Reducing the amount of snags within the treatment areas would serve to mitigate safety concerns for firefighters in these areas, allowing them to use the full range of suppression tactics available. As stated in the no action alternative, this does not considerably alter firefighting opportunities in the broader area affected by the 2017 Chetco Bar Fire, it does counter the issues raised by the initial increase of activity fuels. Reforestation in the action alternatives will also add to the continuity of fuels on the site. Appropriate species mix and planting densities will help to ensure that there is sufficient regeneration but only in amounts required to meet reforestation requirements. Current guidelines are to achieve 125-150 trees per acre. The preferred method is for natural regeneration, artificial reforestation will occur where a natural seed source is not available. Young conifer regeneration will combine with shrub species to occupy the growing space on the site, when full site occupancy is realized, ambient conditions will determine when and if these live fuels are available to burn. It is anticipated that even with natural or artificial regeneration, the continuity of shrub layer will drive future fire events for the near term, overriding the influence of conifer regeneration in activity units. Allowing for unplanted areas, openings and planting at lower densities can serve to break up continuity of fuels and reduce future fires intensity and severity. In all, the effects of this treatment in terms of potential fire behavior are minimal due to the small acreage of treatments relative to the larger areas of high severity in the Chetco Bar footprint. State smoke forecasts which predict wind direction and smoke mixing height, would be obtained prior to all burning to insure smoke intrusions would not occur in the local smoke sensitive receptor areas. Material created as a result of harvest operations would be piled to be burned under favorable conditions. Piling material in a haystack fashion creates optimal burning conditions to allow for efficient consumption of residue. These activities may create short term impacts to the surrounding area but will not create long lasting impacts from smoke.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Surface fuel loading in both treated and untreated areas would accumulate post-fire, beginning to decline as early as 20 years post-fire within the activity units (Peterson 2014; Ritchie 2013). Treatment units will have greater fuel continuity after harvest, this can increase fire rates of spread. Reburn severity is often a concern after harvest activities. However, logging slash is only part of the fire risk story, and it may not be the most important after a few years. (Thompson et al, 2007) Adjacent untreated areas will retain lower fuel levels and high spatial heterogeneity which

Chapter 3 Page|3-129 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment can aid in slowing fire growth. The proposed treatment areas account for approximately 2 percent of the high severity footprint of the Chetco Bar fire, and many of these high severity areas are in the immediate vicinity of treatment, it is expected that these treatments would have little effect on future fire management activities due to this fragmented nature of unit locations. The treatment units are relatively isolated and small in comparison to the larger, adjacent areas of moderate and high severity. This heterogeneity is important in terms of fire spread and improved conditions into the future. The project design criteria will allow for effective fire suppression activities without further treatment. Lands adjacent to the project footprint that are managed by other entities are also receiving some form of active management. The Bureau of land management is proposing 175 acres of harvest. Similar project design and effects are expected on BLM managed lands. Salvage harvest with reforestation will have little to no impact to this project. Private land owners with adjacent property have already implemented salvage harvest activities. These activities have been observed during the fall and winter months. Both dead and live trees were harvested, in most cases whole tree yarding or leave top attached to the last log were implemented. Resulting slash was machine piled at landings or within units for later disposal through burning. It is expected that these private lands will be reforested with higher densities of conifer seedlings. These areas will also have more continuous live fuels after 10-15 years when they fully occupy the site. Other treatments often utilized on private lands include herbicide applications to reduce the amount of brush regeneration. This reduction in brush species will create a more continuous area of conifer. The Douglas fire of 2014 demonstrated that young intensively managed plantations can burn with high severity, as compared to older adjacent stands (Zald and Dunn 2018). These harvest activities on private property will reduce snags and improve access, these serve to improve firefighter safety, but may add cumulatively to the continuity of live fuels, and future fire risk. “Young forests, whether naturally or artificially regenerated may be vulnerable to positive feedback cycles of high severity fire” (Thompson et al 2007). The severity of a fire depends on the fire intensity and the degree to which ecosystem properties are fire resistant. For example, a fire of exactly the same fireline intensity might kill thin-barked trees but have little effect on thick-barked trees. Therefore, fire severity is, in part, a function of the ecosystem being burned and is not simply indexed from fireline intensity. If a fire has a long residence time, fire severity will usually increase (Agee 1993). The current extent of stand replacing fire effects are thought to be outside the historical range of variability (Kuhn & Hochhalter 2018, Miller and Safford 2012). There are concerns that active management in post fire environments will exacerbate or provide a continuous trend of high severity fires. Surface fuel loadings and live fuels are important factors when considering reburn, however the most important variables for predicting future reburn severity are time since the last fire and fire weather, specifically average temperature, relative humidity as well as shrub cover. At longer intervals between fires, vegetation characteristics have a stronger relationship to reburn severity. (Grabinski, et al 2012) The action alternatives identified here are not expected to impact future fire management due to the fragmented and dispersed nature of unit locations on Rogue River-Siskiyou managed lands.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction Environmental effects to fire and fuels would be consistent with applicable law, regulation, and Forest Plan management area standards and guidelines. x The fire hazard presented by natural, activity or prior activity fuels should be reduced to appropriate levels, considering the site specific risk, and utilizing economically efficient

Page | 3-130 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

treatment methods. The selected treatment methods should meet fuel management objectives which integrate consideration for all resource values. x Proposed activity units (harvest, thinning, conversion, release, etc.) should be designed and coordinated on the ground so that size, shape, location, timing, spatial distribution, and management risk are considered for fire management and other resource requirements and help make the fuel treatment and fire protection of the units as practical and economical as possible. x Fire intensity and spread can be reduced by implementing such measures as: o Reducing the fuel bed depth, especially fuels in the 0-3 inch diameter class, which will reduce the flame lengths. o Reducing the amounts of large-diameter fuels on the site, which will reduce the total burning residence time and reduce the total amount of heat pulsed into the soil. o Reducing the amount of snags in treatment areas will improve access and enhance firefighter safety. The no action alternative does not result in a short-term increase in activity fuel loading and this meets Rogue River-Siskiyou Forest Plan goals for fire management. The action alternatives aim for maintaining activity generated fuel levels within the capabilities of initial attack firefighting resources and provides improved safety and access to the treated areas by reducing snag density. Cultural Resources There is no stand-alone report for this section; this section was written directly to the EA. Cultural resources are the material evidence of human occupations and activities. They can include, but are not limited to, objects (i.e., artifacts), buildings, features, places, and landscapes. They document the cultural legacy of human land use by diverse peoples and, as such, are important to our understanding and appreciation of the past. Cultural resources are finite and non- renewable. Cultural resources are the material evidence of human occupations and activities. They can include, but are not limited to, objects (i.e., artifacts), buildings, features, places, and landscapes. They document the cultural legacy of human land use by diverse peoples and, as such, are important to our understanding and appreciation of the past. Cultural resources are finite and non- renewable. Cultural resources can include more than the tangible evidence found on archeological sites. Cultural resources may also include, but are not limited to, sacred places, traditional cultural properties (TCP) that are important to a group’s traditional beliefs, religion or cultural practices,. Native American peoples, for instance, consider biological, mineral, and other natural resources as cultural resources important to their subsistence and economic, medicinal, and religious or spiritual values. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations require that Federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on “historic properties”. The term “historic properties” refers to cultural resources, both prehistoric and historic, that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for National Register eligibility and procedures for implementing Section 106 of the NHPA are outlined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Parts 60 and 800, respectively).

Chapter 3 Page|3-131 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Regulatory Framework Cultural resources management on National Forest System (NFS) lands is performed in accordance with public law, which includes the Antiquities Act, the Historic Sites Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. As provided for in the Historic Sites Act and subsequent public laws, the Secretary of the Interior provides oversight and guidance to all federal agencies through the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officers. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the principle, guiding statute for the management of cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their activities and programs on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the opportunity to comment on Agency undertakings. Federal activities and programs are defined as “undertakings” by the 36 CFR 800 regulations implementing NHPA Section 106. At the state level, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reviews federal undertakings on behalf of the ACHP. The Pacific Northwest Region has developed a programmatic agreement (PA) with the ACHP and the Oregon SHPO that stipulates the Forest Service’s responsibilities for complying with NHPA. The Forest is proposing alternate procedures to comply with Section 106 for this undertaking pursuant 36 CFR 800.14. The RRSNF has developed a Programmatic Agreement for the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage, Recovery and Restoration (Chetco PA) with the ACHP and the Oregon SHPO to allow for the phased identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties and consultation for current and future undertakings within the Chetco Bar Fire Emergency Area. The RRSNF has consulted the ACHP, SHPO and Tribes regarding the terms of the Chetco PA. The Chetco PA stipulations allow for the appropriate level of cultural resource surveys to be completed after the NEPA decision, but prior to implementation of the project activities, or post implementation. By following the stipulations of the Chetco PA, the ACHP and the SHPO have agreed that the RRSNF will satisfy legal requirements for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties in lieu of standard consultation procedures in the Region 6 PA and the Council’s regulations (36 CFR 800). The initiation of work in any phase of the project will be contingent upon completion of the identification and protection of historic properties and compliance with applicable provisions of the NHPA in accordance with the Chetco PA.

Affected Environment The area of potential effect direct effect (APE-DE) for this project is identified as the project footprint. The APE is further defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist (36 CFR Part 800.16). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their activities and programs on historic properties within the APE. The footprint for this project corresponds to the proposed action and associated acreage is defined and fully described in Chapter 2 of the environmental assessment (EA). The Forest consulted the following eight Federally Recognized Tribes concerning the proposed action: The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Indian Tribe, the Klamath Tribes, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, Elk Valley Rancheria, and the Tolowa Dee-ni Nation. During past and ongoing consultation the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Coquille Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, and the Tolowa Dee-ni Nation have expressed interest in management of cultural resources on the Gold Beach Ranger District of the RRSNF. The project area is within

Page | 3-132 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project the enforced but unratified Coast Treaty of 1855, and within the adjudicated ceded territory of the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians. Past and current cultural resource inventory surveys of the project area identified one hundred twenty-nine (129) previously recorded cultural resource sites and fifty-three (53) isolated resources within or adjacent to the project area, for a combined total of 182 resources. These resources reveal evidence of human use and occupation of the area beginning in the early Archaic period and continuing into the present. Review of existing site records identified two archaeological sites as potential traditional cultural properties (TCP). In addition, the Chetco and Pistol rivers are also known to be important for traditional uses. TCPs that are important for their association “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King, 1998) may be eligible for listing on the National Register. TCPs range from mountains and other landforms to plant gathering locations to communities. The tribes consider American Indian sites in the area to be very important to their respective cultures. At present, consulted tribes have not identified any specific traditional cultural properties that would be affected by project activities. Tribal groups have previously commented to the Forest that they use timber, plants, and wildlife resources for traditional practices. Traditionally used vegetation located in the APE includes mixed conifer and hardwoods, including Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, Port-Orford-cedar, incense cedar, tan oak, white oak, black oak and madrone. Edible and other traditionally used plant products within the area include blackberries, huckleberries, manzanita berries, bulbs (such as onion or lily), bear grass, hazelnuts, and acorns. Elk, Black-tailed deer, black bear, grouse, quail, and other animals inhabit the general area. Native fish, are present in many of the streams in this area. The effects of the Chetco Bar Fire to cultural resources vary depending on temperature and duration of exposure to heat. Generally, higher temperatures and longer duration of exposure to heat increase the potential for damage to cultural resources. Most of the lands within the Forests are located in a fire-adapted ecosystem and lands within the project area have burned before (Silver and Biscuit Fire). Generally, low intensity fires have not adversely impacted precontact sites that are not fire sensitive or composed of combustible material. Fire will generally not impact material buried below the ground surface. Previous studies indicate that ~10 cm of soil cover is sufficient to protect cultural materials (Oster, n.d.). However, if sites contain fuel types that smolder and burn for prolonged intervals (i.e. heavy duff, surface logs, and large tree roots) there is greater potential to adversely impact subsurface materials (Winthrop 2004).

Environmental Consequences to Cultural Resources Under the 36 CFR 800 regulations, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify the property for inclusion to the National Register. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for inclusion to the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. Impacts to cultural resources, especially archeological sites, can be generally defined as anything that results in the removal of, displacement of, or damage to artifacts, features, and/or stratigraphic deposits of cultural material. In the case of traditional cultural properties and sacred places, additional considerations may include alterations that would affect the character and use of the location, and/or presence and availability of a specific traditionally used natural resource.

Chapter 3 Page|3-133 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Cultural resources inventories have identified past and ongoing adverse effects to historic properties within and adjacent to the project area from mining, logging, road construction, recreation, and special uses. Prohibited activities, such as artifact collection and vandalism, have also damaged and destroyed sites. Since the 1970s, when the implementing regulations for Section 106 were introduced, the Forest Service has worked to avoid or minimize impacts to cultural resources from activities on NFS lands.

Methodology Existing information from the online Oregon SHPO archaeological database, existing cultural resource records, historical archives, historical maps and records, and geographic information system (GIS) spatial data was reviewed to provide specific information about historic properties or the likelihood that unidentified properties might exist in non-inventoried areas. The National Register and the most recent listings to the National Register of Historic Places were consulted. The specific location of a historic property is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects of alternatives.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Under this alternative, no new management activities would occur, although all other ongoing activities (e.g., recreational activities, public fuelwood gathering, motorized travel) would continue in the area. Suppression of wildfires within the project area would also continue as needed. Under Alternative 1, there is no area of potential effect because there are no activities proposed. Implementation of Alternative 1 would likely have No Effect to historic properties for direct and indirect effects. Therefore, implementing Alternative 1 would result in no cumulative adverse effects to historic properties.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives Under Alternative 2, twenty-nine (29) cultural resources are within or directly adjacent (within 30 meters) to the APE-DE. Those resources include five (5) historical trails, two (2) historical trails and camps, one (1) historical trail and cabin, one (1) historical Forest Service cabin, four (4) historical artifact scatters, fifteen (15) lithic scatters, and one (1) multicomponent site containing lithic and historical artifact scatters. Of the twenty-nine (29) identified cultural resources within the Alternative 2 APE-DE, the Forest previously evaluated and determined sixteen (16) sites are not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. SHPO has concurred on the eligibility of four (4) ineligible sites (historical trails). One (1) site (lithic scatter) has been found eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The SHPO has not concurred on this determination. The National Register status of eleven (11) sites remain unevaluated. These sites and sites without SHPO eligibility concurrence would be treated and managed as eligible until a formal determination is made. The most recent listings of the National Register of Historic Places were consulted for nominated and listed properties. No listed properties are located within the Alternative 2 APE- DE. There are two potential traditional cultural properties located within the project area boundary. Neither TCP is in danger of being directly affected by the proposed project activities. Both sites are at a distance and angle such that it is unlikely that there will be any adverse visual impacts to these sites.

Page | 3-134 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Under Alternative 3, twenty-one (21) cultural resources are within or directly adjacent (within 30 meters) to the APE-DE. Those resources include five(5) historical trails, two (2) historical trails and camps, one (1) historical trail and cabin, one (1) historical Forest Service cabin, two (2) historical artifact scatters, ten (10) lithic scatters, and one(1) multicomponent sites containing lithic and historical artifact scatters, a Forest Service cabin, and a trail. Of the twenty-one (21) identified cultural resources within the Alternative 3 APE-DE, the Forest previously evaluated and determined thirteen(13) sites are not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. SHPO has concurred on the eligibility of four (4) ineligible sites (historical trails). One (1) site (lithic scatter) has been found eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The SHPO has not concurred on this determination. The National Register status of seven (7) sites remain unevaluated. These sites and sites without SHPO eligibility concurrence will be treated and managed as eligible until a formal determination is made. The most recent listings of the National Register of Historic Places were consulted for nominated and listed properties. No listed properties are located within the Alternative 3 APE- DE. All of the proposed activities have the potential to alter, damage or destroy eligible and potentially eligible cultural resources that are located within the proposed project footprint. No adverse impacts to known cultural resources are anticipated from the proposed action because historic properties would be protected through avoidance and monitoring of project activities under stipulated design features (CR-1, CR-2, CR-3) and criteria set forth in the Chetco PA. Since historic properties are protected and avoided, it is likely that the implementation of the action alternatives will have no adverse effects to historic properties and would result in a No Adverse Effect determination.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives The Forest Service has evaluated the proposed management activities and anticipates that No Adverse Effects to historic properties from the Proposed Action or Alternative would occur. Historic properties would be avoided and monitored during project implementation. Therefore, the implementation of either Alternative would likely result in no direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects to historic properties.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction Implementation of either alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines established for the protection of cultural resources (see Table 33). The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) direction stipulates that cultural resources will be managed consistent with public laws and federal regulations (USDA Forest Service, 1989). The desired future condition for cultural resources in the project area is protection of historic properties. Historic properties are inventoried, protected, and, if warranted, nominated to the National Register of Historic Places.

Chapter 3 Page|3-135 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Table 33: Cultural Resources Consistency with Forest Plan Direction

Forest- Forest-Wide Standard and Guideline Applicable If applicable, Where, Why Wide Description to the and How do you Standard Proposed Implement and Show and Actions? Compliance? Guideline 3-1 A cultural resource overview of the Forest Yes Through previous cultural shall be completed and maintained. resource inventories, the RRSNF has collected information regarding the location, type, theme, and temporal association of cultural resources. Present and future projects would yield additional information about past use of RRSNF lands. 3-2 A cultural resource inventory program shall be Yes By following the stipulations conducted under the leadership of an set forth in the programmatic Archaeologist on a project-specific level for agreement for activities major ground disturbing activities in associated with the 2017 compliance with applicable Federal historic Chetco Bar Fire, the project preservation legislation. would be in compliance with NRHP legislation. The PA The Forest’s cultural resource inventory provides specific direction for strategy, the Sample Survey Design, shall phased survey and guide the inventory of all National Forest lands consultation, mitigation to identify all reasonably located cultural strategies, and site recording resources. The Sample Survey Design should in accordance with a newly be reviewed annually and updated as needed defined Sample Survey to reflect advances or changes in the site Design. inventory data base, management objectives, legislation and Regional or Forest research designs. 3-3 The significance of inventoried sites shall be Yes Known sites within the APE evaluated by applying the criteria for eligibility would be visited by a to the National Register of Historic Places. A qualified archaeologist or plan should be developed to evaluate all other archaeological technician cultural resources through cost effective and evaluated for eligibility means as the Forest-wide inventory nears for inclusion on the NRHP. completion. Through protect measures Cultural resources that meet the appropriate identified in the EA and criteria for eligibility to the National Register of programmatic agreement, no Historic Places shall be nominated. sites would be adversely The effects of all Forest Service undertakings effected. Additional on significant cultural resources shall be mitigation strategies would considered, and measures shall be developed be provided for sites on a to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects. case by case basis.

Page | 3-136 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Forest- Forest-Wide Standard and Guideline Applicable If applicable, Where, Why Wide Description to the and How do you Standard Proposed Implement and Show and Actions? Compliance? Guideline 3-4 Measures shall be developed in consultation Yes All known sites without with the Oregon State Historic Preservation SHPO concurrence and all Officer (SHPO), or the State Historic eligible and potentially Preservation Office of California and, if eligible sites would be necessary, the National Advisory Council, to flagged and avoided. All protect significant sites from adverse effects newly identified cultural due to ground-disturbing activities. resources would be flagged and avoided and treated as potentially eligible. During implementation, should a site be uncovered by an operator, all work in the immediate vicinity would cease until the Forest Archaeologist or qualified Archaeologist can make a determination on the resource. 3-5 Eligible cultural resources should be protected Yes All known eligible and from degradation due to vandalism or potentially eligible sites as unauthorized public use. well as sites without SHPO concurrence would be flagged for avoidance. If the site is located within a high traffic area that may attract visitors, the site will be flagged just before implementation will occur. 3-6 Eligible cultural resources should be protected Yes The 2017 Chetco Bar from degradation due to natural deterioration Wildfire has burned through such as that caused by fire, flood, earthquake, the area, exposing cultural precipitation, or wind. resource sites to the elements, If the aspects of integrity would be drastically changed or lost due to this exposure, the site shall be protected. 3-7 Opportunities may be provided for No This standard is not scholarly/scientific use of designated applicable to the proposed prehistoric sites after coordinating selection of undertaking but may be appropriate sites with relative Native American associated with future groups. actions related to the 2017 Chetco Bar Fire. 3-8 Eligible historic sites and historic trails shall be Yes Historic properties would be maintained or adverse effects shall be avoided during project mitigated. Stabilization or rehabilitation may implementation. Adverse be carried out for significant sites which have effects would be mitigated by been damaged. avoidance on all trail segments that have not been previously impacted by ground disturbance.

Chapter 3 Page|3-137 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Forest- Forest-Wide Standard and Guideline Applicable If applicable, Where, Why Wide Description to the and How do you Standard Proposed Implement and Show and Actions? Compliance? Guideline 3-9 Suitable cultural resource properties may be No This standard is not interpreted for the recreational use and applicable to the proposed educational benefit of the general public. The undertaking but may be measure of suitability should be based on associated with future accessibility to the public, feasibility for actions related to the 2017 protection, condition of the property, Chetco Bar Fire. compatibility with other resource management activities within or adjacent to the area, thematic representation, and value to public groups. Interpretive service and facilities should be compatible with the nature, qualities, and integrity of the cultural sites selected for enhancement. 3-10 Mitigation measures established during the Yes All known historic properties environmental analysis of a given project shall would be flagged for be monitored to ensure all stipulations are avoidance during being met. implementation. Inadvertent discoveries during would be reported to and examined by a qualified Archaeologist. All proposed mitigation measures would be in compliance with the programmatic agreement. 3-11 The long-term management of cultural Yes The RRSNF is in resources shall be coordinated with the State consultation with the Oregon Historic Preservation Office and others as SHPO. Qualified necessary. Cultural resources shall be archaeologists are managing assigned to appropriate management project data and assigning categories for present and future uses such as the appropriate management interpretation, scientific investigation, adaptive category for new and uses, and preservation in place for developing previously recorded cultural future scientific needs. A data redundancy resource sites. category should be developed in the future when inventory and excavation data become sufficient to make such a judgment. 3-12 Management of traditional religious sites shall Yes There are two potential be coordinated with American Indian groups. traditional cultural properties Information about planned project activities located within the project shall be presented to American Indian groups area boundary. Neither TCP for coordination concerning effect on is in danger of being directly traditional religious sites. affected by the proposed project activities. Both sites are at a distance and angle such that it is unlikely that there will be any adverse visual impacts to these sites.

Page | 3-138 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Botanical Resources The following is a summary of the Botanical Resources Report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan The Chetco Bar Salvage Project is subject to the standards and guidelines contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter, referred to as the LRMP) (USDA 1989a) and as amended. The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Record of Decision (USDA 1989b) was issued based on the evaluation presented in the 1989 LRMP. Primary amendments are: the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan) (USDA and USDI 1994a). Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for TES Plants (see LRMP- IV pg. 26-27, 37) 1. Monitor the effects of management activities on TES plant species. If the results of monitoring show a decline in species viability then, alter the management strategy. 2. Analyze the potential effects of all ground disturbing projects on TES plant species and habitat. Mitigate project effects to avoid a decline in species viability at the Forest level. 3. Map, record, and protect essential habitat for TES plant species. Species management guides should be prepared to address the effects of land management activities on local populations of TES species at a broader scale, and to identify opportunities to enhance and develop habitat locally.

Endangered Species Act It is mandate that the Forest Service (FS) conduct its activities and programs to assist in the identification and recovery of threatened and endangered plant species and avoid actions which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered. The RRSNF currently has two known and one suspected plant species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; however, these three plant species have no potential habitat within the proposed project footprint.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 contains language relating to diversity and species viability that guides decisions and management for native plant species on Forest Service lands. The language in the 1982 planning rule that informed the Siskiyou NF LRMP states that “management prescriptions, where appropriate and to the extent practicable, shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities, including endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal species, so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest and the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the Planning Area.”

Chapter 3 Page|3-139 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment

Region 6 Sensitive Species Additional information on regionally sensitive species can be found at the interagency special status/sensitive species program (ISSSSP) website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/. The Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List, July 13, 2015, identifies the RRSNF as having 138 special status plant or fungi species documented from well over a thousand known populations. The listed taxa include 2 federally endangered vascular plants, 76 sensitive vascular plants, 14 sensitive bryophytes, 11 sensitive fungi and, 1 sensitive lichen species. A pre-field review was completed to determine areas of high probability habitat within the project planning area to survey specific sites for sensitive species. Field checks of potential habitat for sensitive species were done during Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) reconnaissance immediately following the fire. Pre-disturbance surveys have been completed on roughly 1,020 acres of high probability sensitive plant habitat within the project footprint. Surveys will continue to occur through spring of 2018 and if any additional sensitive plant populations are found during implementation, mitigations for protection would be developed.

Sensitive Fungi Rare ephemeral fungi, such as gilled mushrooms, coral’s, and clubs are treated separately from the above species because of the difficulty in surveying and detecting them prior to projects being implemented. Surveys for species presence are often difficult, because fungi can be seen only when fruiting bodies are produced. Even with above-ground fruiting bodies present, their correlation with the extent and abundance of the fungal organisms underground is unknown (Straatsma and Krisai-Greilhuber 2003). Because of the logistics and costs involved with completing surveys, which takes two years with several visits to each unit, the Forest Service Region 6 policy has been to manage these species at a broader landscape scale by conducting regional “strategic” surveys. These are surveys for the sake of finding new sites, not for clearance of a project. Therefore the effects analysis for fungi is based on existing knowledge of the distribution of each species and focuses on the likelihood of extirpation of a population at a 5th field watershed scale. In accordance with Region 6 Forest Service direction, Sensitive fungi surveys were not conducted in the Chetco Bar Salvage Project. There are fourteen fungi species listed as Forest Service Region 6 sensitive that are suspected or documented on the RRSNF (Albatrellus avellaneus, Chamonixia caespitosa, Dermocybe humboldtensis, Gastroboletus vividus, Gastrolactarius amphorate, Gymnomyces fragrans, Phaeocollybia californica, Pseudorhizina californica, Ramaria amyloidea, Ramaria rubella forma blanda, Rhizopogon chamaleontinus, Rhizopogon ellipsosporus, Rhizopogon exiguous, and Stagnicola perplexa). None of these fourteen fungi have a reasonable likelihood of occurrence within the project area. There is no suitable habitat in the project area due to fire effects to habitats including loss of host tree and shrub species, significantly modified microclimates, consumption of the woody substrate, forest floor litter, or shrub hosts and damage to mycorrhizae caused by high heat intensity or prolonged heat residence time.

In order to determine the likelihood of finding these Sensitive fungi species in the project area, several documents written by the Region 6 ISSSSP were referenced. These documents include:

x Fungi Effects Analysis Guidelines, 10/2008

Page | 3-140 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

x Attachment 1- Likelihood of Occurrence Key, 9/2004 x Attachment 2- Conservation Assessment for Fungi in Region 5 & 6, 7/2007 x Attachment 4 – Potential Impacts to Fungi Table; and Habitat Summary for Sensitive Fungi Species, 2007. (ISSSSP website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species- index/flora-fungi.shtml)

Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes and Lichens

Table 34. Sensitive plant species known or with potential to occur in Chetco Bar Salvage proposed units and project area. Species Habitat/Distribution Known to occur within the Chetco Bar Salvage project footprint. Forest edges, brush fields and barren ridgelines with little to no conifer canopy cover. Often associated with serpentine soils and ultramafic geology, but not always. It is usually found growing with other manzanita species, especially the very common hairy Arctostaphylos manzanita (Arctostaphylos columbiana). Arctostaphylos hispidula is a fire dependent hispidula species with refractory seeds (Emerson 2010; Keeley 1991), though the needed (Gasquet intensity level of the fire is not known. It is an endemic species occurring in the western manzanita) Siskiyou Mountains grading narrowly into the Coastal Range from Coos County, OR south into Humboldt County, CA. There are 10 known occurrences of this species within 100 feet of the Chetco Bar Salvage Project Area, three of which occur within 100 feet of the project footprint, and one of which occurs within a proposed salvage unit. Known to occur within the Chetco Bar Salvage Project area, with potential to occur within the project footprint. Seeps, springs, moist meadows and wet roadside ditches along upper slopes and Bensoniella ridges. Range is restricted to the Coast and Siskiyou Mountains In extreme SW Oregon oregana and NW California. Elevations 2,800 to 5,200 feet. There are 4 known occurrences of (Oregon this species within 100 feet of the Chetco Bar Salvage Project area, but none within the bensonia) project footprint. In Oregon, this species is known to occur in openings of Douglas-fir forest; disturbance Ericameria and fire are necessary for germination. 1200-2700 ft. There are 4 occurrences of this arborescens species within 100 feet of the Chetco Bar Salvage Project area. Two of these within (goldenfleece) 100 feet of the project haul routes on FSR 1107 and FSR1909, but do not occur within any proposed salvage units. This species prefers open canopied conditions but sometimes is found in partial shade. Iliamna latibracteata is found almost exclusively within openings in recently-burned forests dominated by white fir (Abies concolor) or Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Iliamna It can occur in the understory of top-killed stands, as well as at edges of or in gaps latibracteata within live burned stands (Kalt, 2008). Many sites are adjacent to or within riparian (California areas. It is known to occur from 300-4000 feet in elevation. The species is endemic to globe-mallow) the Siskiyou, western Cascade and Coast Range Mountains in Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson and Josephine Counties of southwest Oregon. The distribution ranges south to Humboldt County California. There are no known occurrence of this species within the Chetco Bar Salvage area. Sidalcea Coastal. Open woodlands, openings within mixed forests, meadows, or grassy places malviflora ssp. at low elevations. Often serpentine. From Coos Co. OR south to Humboldt Co. CA patula (coast There are 3 occurrences of this species within 100 feet of the Chetco Bar Salvage checker bloom) Project area, but none within the project footprint. Trillium Coniferous forest, woodland, and chaparral at low to mid elevations. Lower Rogue kurabayashii canyon Curry Co., OR; sporadically through CA. There is one known occurrence of this (Siskiyou species within 100 feet of the Chetco Bar Salvage Project Area, but none within the trillium) project footprint.

Chapter 3 Page|3-141 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

NWFP Survey and Manage Plants, Lichens, and Fungi The 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSEA) and 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (also known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)) created the survey and manage standard and guideline for all land allocations on the west side of the Cascades in Oregon, Washington and northern California and east Cascade forests within the range of the northern spotted owl. The standard and guidelines were created to gain information that could help manage a set of lesser known and possibly rare taxa. Species of fungi, lichens, bryophytes and vascular plants were included to determine the status of their population viability. A memorandum was released on May 13, 2014 (Forest Service Correspondence, File Code 1950 – Direction Regarding the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines), providing direction for implementation of the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 2001), based on the district court’s remedy order issued on February 18, 2014 (Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA No. C08-1067-JCC). This remedy order followed after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the 2011 Consent Decree executed in resolution of the district court action (Conservation Northwest, et al v. Harris Sherman, et al and D.R. Johnson Company, 715 F.3d. 1181, C.A. 9 (Wash), April 25, 2013). The January 2001 ROD standards and guidelines and the December 2003 species list are the current management direction. Four categories of projects are exempt from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines as stipulated by Judge Pechman (October 11, 2006, “Pechman exemptions”.) Within the December 2003 list, there are 12 species with changes in all or a portion of their range that may need special consideration at this time. The species changes included in this report are: x Fungi: Clavariadelphus truncatus (outside Jackson Co. Oregon), Craterellus tubaeformis (in Washington and California), Galerina atkinsoniana, Gomphus floccosus, Phaeocollybia olivacea x Lichens: Chaenotheca furfuracea, Cladonia norvegica, Nephroma bellum (in Oregon Western Cascades and Coast Range Physiographic Provinces; in Washington Western Cascades Physiographic Province, Gifford Pinchot NF), Nephroma occultum

The four categories of projects exempt from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines as stipulated by Judge Pechman (October 11, 2006, “Pechman exemptions”) are: 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 of large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and d) The portions of projects involving hazardous fuels where prescribed fire is applied. Any portions of a hazardous fuel project involving commercial logging will remain subject to

Page | 3-142 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

the survey and manage requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph. Information is also available at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/. The 2001 ROD defines Survey and Manage species as species closely associated with late successional or old growth forests whose long term persistence is a concern. Late successional forests are defined as forest stands consisting of trees, structural attributes, supporting biological communities, and processes associated with old-growth or mature forests. Minimum stand ages are typically 80-130 years, more or less, depending on the site quality, species, rate of stand development, and other factors. Old growth forests are defined as forest stands usually 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy cover closure, a multi-layered canopy dominated by large overstory trees, high incidence of large trees, heavy accumulations of wood and decaying wood as well as numerous snags. The Chetco Bar Fire changed the stand conditions in the project area so they are no longer late successional or old growth habitat. This is because most to all large trees are dead, and stand structure has been highly altered by loss of tree canopies, layers of trees and shrubs, down wood and snags. Seeds, spores, and other propagules of these species may survive to recolonize the forest as it regrows, either by natural regeneration or assisted by tree planting. However, it will be many decades (at least 80 years) before these areas will begin to function as habitat for Survey and Manage species. No species which require management of known sites (Category D & E) are found in the project area. Surveys are required for Category A & C species where habitat disturbing activities are likely to have a significant negative impact on species habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements. No suitable habitat for Category A & C species is found in the project area due to wildfire effects. Surveys are required for Category B species (called equivalent effort surveys) where old growth habitat will be disturbed and the disturbance is likely to have a significant negative impact on species habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements. No suitable habitat for Category B species is found in the project area due to wildfire effects. For a full list of Survey and Manage species considered see Appendix A of the Chetco Bar Salvage Project Botanical Resources Report.

Environmental Consequences to Botanical Resources

Effects to Region 6 Sensitive Species

Effects Analysis Methodology

Area of Effect for Botanical Resources The geographic boundary for analyzing effects to botanical resources is the proposed salvage units and an additional 100 feet around the perimeter. This area was chosen to include all sensitive species that are known to occur within proposed salvage units, as well as have habitat and a “source” (e.g. potential for seed dispersal) population within close proximity to proposed activities.

Chapter 3 Page|3-143 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

The geographic boundary for analyzing the risk of invasive plant infestations is the project boundary, an additional 100 feet around the project area and all haul routes.

Analysis Methodology Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) and Invasive plant corporate data is housed within the Forest Service Natural Resource Manager Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive/ Invasive Species database (NRM TESP/IS) and was used for project analysis through ArcMap (GIS). Personal knowledge and local guides supplemented that data. For species designated as regionally sensitive by the Forest Service, information and documents from the interagency special status/sensitive species program (ISSSSP) were used. Access to the website was at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/ and is open to the public. The project area was reviewed using aerial photographs, soils maps and known occurrences to help determine potential habitat for rare species.

Cumulative Effects Boundaries Activities occurring or reasonably certain to occur on Forest Service lands within the project boundary.

Botanical Resource Indicators and Measures The following indicator measures related to salvage units located in or near sensitive plant occurrences were used to assess the impacts of the alternatives for each action. Indicator Measures:

x Potential impacts to sensitive plant population integrity x Acres of invasive plant infestations within 100 feet of proposed units

Short-term timeframe: 1 year, because it is within the first growing season that impacts to plants could first take effect by decreased numbers of individuals or decreased acres of coverage by individuals. Long-term timeframe: 25-30 years, because climate change, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc. make assumptions beyond this timeframe speculative. Spatial Boundary: units within the Chetco Bar Salvage Project Area, because in general, direct effects are most likely to occur within a zone of 30 feet from the edge of proposed project activities and indirect effects are most likely to occur within a zone of 100 feet. Populations of sensitive plant species on the Forest have typically been mapped with an accuracy of 100 feet, or better. Small mapping errors may mean that sites on the ground are actually slightly different than as mapped in GIS. Additionally, sensitive plant populations may expand or contract over time. Methodology: GIS analysis of proposed units, buffered by 100 feet, to determine the distance between proposed units and sensitive plant locations known or found during surveys. The analysis considers the type of proposed activity and its potential and likely effects on sensitive plants.

Effects of Alternatives on Sensitive Plants The following section provides a discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives to sensitive plant species. Those species with the potential to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project (those within 100 feet of the project footprint) are discussed in this section.

Page | 3-144 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sensitive species from Alternative 1 because no actions would take place.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) There is one known occurrence of Arctostaphylos hispidula (Gasquet manzanita) within the proposed Chetco Bar Salvage unit 148, which is proposed for salvage harvest in both action alternatives. It is very likely that this population survived the Chetco Bar Fire due to the fact that Arctostaphylos hispidula is a fire dependent species with refractory seeds (Emerson 2010; Keeley 1991), though the needed intensity level of the fire is not known. PDC’s have been designed to protect this site from logging activities. No slash piling or ground-based equipment would be used within 50 feet, and no new roads or landings would be constructed within 100 feet of this site. Under all action alternatives individual plants would be protected from site level logging activities so there would be no cause that would lead to direct effects. Indirect effects could occur if this population is displaced by invasive plants due to introduction from logging activities. While the action alternatives have potential to increase indirect effects from invasive plant spread, strictly following invasive plant PDC’s to prevent introduction of invasive plants to sensitive habitat would reduce this risk. Bensoniella oregana (Oregon bensonia), Ericameria arborescens (goldenfleece), Iliamna latibracteata (California globe-mallow), Sidalcea malviflora ssp. patula (coast checker bloom) and Trillium kurabayashii (Siskiyou trillium) are known within the project area, but have not been identified within the project footprint. Illiamna latibracteata and Ericameria arborescens are fire-dependent species and seed banks likely exist within the Chetco Bar Fire Area. Bensoniella oregana has the potential to occur in seeps, springs, moist meadows within the project area, although no populations have been identified. Under all action alternatives individual plants would be protected from site level logging activities so there would be no cause that would lead to direct effects. Potential habitat for this this species will be excluded from harvest and new disturbance (A-14, H-1). PDC’s have been designed to protect these species from logging activities (A-37, SP-3). Any new sensitive plant sites or habitat found during implementation would be protected similarly to known populations. Indirect effects could occur if sensitive plant habitat is displaced by invasive plants due to introduction from logging activities. While the action alternatives have potential to increase indirect effects from invasive plant spread, strictly following invasive plant PDC’s to prevent introduction of invasive plants to sensitive habitat would reduce this risk. Based on this assessment, the action alternatives “may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” (MIIH) for Arctostaphylos hispidula, Bensoniella oregana, Ericameria arborescens, Iliamna latibracteata, Sidalcea malviflora ssp. patula, and Trillium kurabayashii.

Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) Past management in the cumulative effects analysis area, including the Chetco Bar Fire and fire suppression activities, Danger Tree Abatement along Roadsides implementation (Categorical Exclusion, 2018) and associated roadwork, and BAER treatments within the Chetco Bar Fire Area have created bare ground and introduced invasive plant propagules that have since colonized parts of the project area including sensitive plant habitat. Continuing influences including this project and danger tree activities as well as ongoing BAER treatments contribute to

Chapter 3 Page|3-145 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment negative effects on potential sensitive plant habitat. Infestations of invasive plants within the fire perimeter occur along roads, meadows and plantations where fire fighting vehicles, heavy equipment, hoses, and foot traffic undoubtedly picked up seeds and spread them to new areas. New infestations are highly likely and may be detected spring or summer of 2018 and into the future. Non-native invasive plants in sensitive plant habitat have a negative impact on rare plant populations. Non-native invasive plants can outcompete sensitive plants by growing faster, larger and taking up limited resources, particularly nitrogen and water, more efficiently than rare native species.

Effects of Alternatives on Sensitive Fungi Of the fourteen fungi with potential habitat on the RRSNF, none have a reasonable likelihood of occurrence within the project area. There is no suitable habitat in the project area due to fire effects to habitats including loss of host tree and shrub species, significantly modified microclimates, consumption of the woody substrate, forest floor litter, or shrub hosts and damage to mycorrhizae caused by high heat intensity or prolonged heat residence time. For a full list of fungi species considered, see the Botanical Resources Report, Appendix A in the project record.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sensitive fungi from Alternative 1 because no actions would take place.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) There are no known occurrences or potential habitat in the project area. There are no effects to sensitive fungi.

Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) There are no effects to sensitive fungi, therefore there are no cumulative effects.

Effects to NWFP Survey and Manage Plants, Lichens and Fungi There are no plant, lichen or fungi species included in the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 2001) with the potential to occur within the Chetco Bar Salvage Project area, and therefore no effects from the action alternatives. For a full list of survey and manage species see the Botanical Resources Report, Appendix A in the project record.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to survey and manage species from Alternative 1 because no actions would take place.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) There are no known populations or potential habitat in the project area. There are no effects to survey and manage species.

Page | 3-146 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) There are no effects to survey and manage species, therefore there are no cumulative effects. Invasive Plants The following is a summary of the Botanical Resources Report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Definition of an Invasive Plant Those plant species designated as Invasive Plants by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official. Invasive Plants generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of a serious insect or disease, or being non-native or newly introduced and not common to the state. Generally, species that can survive and reproduce in a natural setting away from landscape areas are considered invasive.

Regulatory Framework

Invasive Species, EO 13112 of February 3, 1999 as amended, December 05, 2016 Requires federal agencies to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to eradicate or control populations of invasive species in a manner that is cost-effective and minimizes human, animal, plant, and environmental health risks; monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; and provide for the restoration of native species, ecosystems, and other assets that have been impacted by invasive species.

Affected Environment Information used in this report includes data already documented prior to the Chetco Bar Fire from ongoing invasive plant inventories as well as data collected during the BAER assessment (Clarno 2017). There are 13 species of Oregon Department of Agriculture prioritized invasive plant species documented within 100 feet of the Chetco Bar Salvage project footprint. These species are currently documented at 50 locations within 100 feet of the project footprint, totaling approximately 53 acres. There are 17 infestations within proposed salvage units totaling approximately 14 acres and including the following species: Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Armenian blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), English ivy (Hedera helix), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) and yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) (Table 35). Most sites have been treated in the past, but time and personnel restraints have not allowed annual monitoring and of all sites as is needed. Annual monitoring is necessary to continue to control invasive plants within the project area boundary. The Chetco Bar fire has increased vulnerability of the landscape to invasive plants because of: 1) increased availability of light and nutrients, 2) reduction of competition with native plants for subsurface resources such as nutrients and water, and 3) increased opportunity for dispersal of seeds, including the vectors associated with fire suppression such as seeds from firefighters boots, or contaminated dozers or fire support vehicles. Mitigations were used during the fire suppression activities such as vehicle washing and placing fire camp in an area free of invasive plants, however mitigations are not 100% effective. It should also be noted that where invasive plants existed before the fire, they often expand post-fire. Ground disturbance can create new habitat for

Chapter 3 Page|3-147 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

invasive species introduced at the time of the activity or at a later date, by equipment, recreational vehicles, animals, wind or water flows. Invasive plant infestations threaten native plant diversity within the project area. Invasive plant species pose a threat to ecological function due to their ability to displace native species, alter nutrient and fire cycles, and degrade soil structure.

Table 35 Oregon Department of Agriculture listed invasive plant species within the Chetco Bar Salvage Project footprint.

ODA Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Invasive Plant Species Invasiveness Designation Acres Acres

Centaurea solstitialis (Yellow Star- Highly invasive and B 0.65 acres 0.65 acres thistle) limited distribution

Moderately invasive Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle) B 0.20 acres 0.20 acres but widespread

Moderately invasive Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) B 4.50 acres 3.15 acres but widespread

Highly invasive but Hedera helix (English Ivy) B 0.01 acres 0.01 acres widesperad

Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Highly invasive but B 1.68 acres 0.24 acres blackberry) widespread

Highly invasive and Rubus laciniatus (cutleaf blackberry) B 1.45 acres 1.45 acres limited distribution

1.95 acres 1.95 acres Moderately invasive Senecio jacobaea (tansy ragwort) B &T but widespread

Total 10.44 acres 7.65 acres

ODA Definition of Designation: “A” Listed Weed: A weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent Recommended action: Infestations are subject to eradication or intensive control when and where found. “B” Listed Weed: a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties. Recommended action: Limited to intensive control at the state, county or regional level as determined on a site specific, case-by-case basis. Where implementation of a fully integrated statewide management plan is not feasible, biological control (when available) shall be the primary control method. “T” Designated Weed: a priority noxious weed designated by the Oregon State Weed Board as a target for which the ODA will develop and implement a statewide management plan. “T” designated noxious weeds are species selected from either the “A” or “B” list.

Page | 3-148 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Environmental Consequences to Invasive Plants

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Because no actions would occur under this alternative, there would be no effects to invasive species from project activities. However, fire alone often promotes invasion of invasive plant species. Burning removes existing vegetation, exposes mineral soil, redistributes soil nitrogen, and post-fire environments are drier and have more direct sunlight, all conditions which can promote non-native plants in comparison to native plant regeneration. The no action alternative would pose the least risk to invasive plant spread and introduction relative to the proposed action because no additional ground disturbance by machinery and equipment would occur and thus fewer vectors could spread seed. However, non-native invasive plant species are likely to increase overall across the project planning area even without any additional disturbance from proposed actions.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) Studies and observations have shown that non-native plants occur more often, and in greater numbers, in areas of anthropogenic disturbance within burned areas (as opposed to undisturbed portions of burned areas) (Zouhar et al. 2008). Beschta et al. (2004) noted that postfire salvage logging can adversely affect soil integrity and persistence of native plant species and impede ecological recovery after a fire through changes to microclimate and mechanical damage to regenerating plants and soils. Purdon et al. (2004) found reduced abundance of understory vegetation following salvage logging in the forest stands that had experienced high-severity fire in the boreal forests of southern Quebec. Clearing vegetation for landings is a ground-disturbing activity proposed under the salvage logging treatments. This activity involves the removal of sizeable (¼ acre to ~ 2 acres) areas of vegetation, creating relatively large locations of intense ground disturbance which would then be vulnerable to new or expanded weed infestation because of: 1) removal of all native vegetation which decreases competition for resources and 2) changes in sunlight levels, nutrient levels, and hydrological patterns that would benefit colonizing invasive species over slower-growing natives. However, there are PDCs, including revegetation of landings with native species that would help prevent infestation if completed quickly enough after implementation. Reforestation occurring within the project planning area would have minimal effect on the spread or introduction of invasive plants. Because the majority of documented invasive species sites are located adjacent to roads within the project planning area, road work activities proposed in this alternative would potentially have the most risk for introducing or spreading weeds during implementation. This is because: 1) ground disturbance that would occur along already infested roadsides would provide more bare ground that could potentially be quickly colonized by the infestations that are already present along the same roadside and 2) vehicles can act as a vector and efficient dispersal mechanism for noxious weed seeds along roadways. Specifically, creating temporary roads off of open roads with infestations along them would create a high risk of infestation along the temporary road, even if it is rehabilitated. Rehabilitation activities would include some ground disturbing actions like waterbarring and recontouring slopes. However, planting and seeding of native plant species is also included in the proposed action for temporary road rehabilitation, which would reduce risk

Chapter 3 Page|3-149 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment somewhat if implemented the first autumn after implementation. Re-opening closed roads would create a similar immediate risk of invasive plant spread. Specifically, using gravel for road fill could introduce new invasive plants to the roads undergoing road maintenance. Overall, the Chetco Bar Salvage Project poses a high risk of introduction and spread of invasive plants because the proposed activities are expected to disturb soil, impact some native plant species and introduce vectors for invasive seed spread. Alternative 3 poses a slightly lower risk due to fewer acres of soil disturbance and fewer acres of known invasive plant infestations within salvage units (7.65 acres in Alternative 3 and 10.44 acres in Alternative 2, Table 35). These risks would be somewhat reduced by project design criteria such as washing heavy equipment before going off-road, and consulting the invasive species coordinator before brushing and blading, and seeding with native plant species in areas of ground disturbance as well as Early Detection, Rapid Response surveys. These project design criteria would prevent some but not all spread of invasive plant species due to the proposed actions in the action alternatives. The majority of effects would be long-term (decades or more). Although the expansion and contraction of a weed site may depend on the species and its ecology, most, if not all, of the invasive species present (or any new infestations) within the project planning area would persist for more than the immediate two growing seasons after the implementation of the proposed salvage treatments.

Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) The risk of invasive plant spread from the current Danger Tree Abatement Along Roadsides implementation (Categorical Exclusion, 2018) is compounded by the risk of the proposed action because the vehicles and heavy equipment used in the danger tree mitigation may have introduced or spread invasive plants that would then be present during the implementation of Chetco Bar Salvage. Vehicles and equipment would be using the same routes during these two projects, thus increasing the risk of invasive plant spread. BAER Early Detection, Rapid Response (EDRR) invasive plant surveys and treatments are planned for spring and summer 2018. These treatments will reduce the risk of invasive plant spread from this project as well as danger tree abatement along roadsides. Ongoing recreation activities have and will continue to occur, including hunting and dispersed camping. Recreational activities can contribute to the introduction and spread of invasive plants because vehicles, people and animals can act as vectors as they travel through the forest. Direct and indirect effects outlined above coupled with ongoing effects from Danger Tree Abatement Along Roadsides will result in cumulative effects from the implementation of this project. Project design criteria such as washing heavy equipment before going off-road, and consulting the invasive species coordinator before brushing and blading, and seeding with native plant species in areas of ground disturbance as well as Early Detection, Rapid Response surveys would help ameliorate these effects as much as is possible.

Page | 3-150 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Recreation and Visuals The following is a summary of the Recreation and Visuals Resource Report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan The Chetco Bar Salvage Project is subject to the standards and guidelines contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter, referred to as the LRMP) (USDA 1989a) and as amended. The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Record of Decision (USDA 1989b) was issued based on the evaluation presented in the 1989 LRMP. Primary amendments are: the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan) (USDA and USDI 1994a) and the Chetco River Management Plan. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Recreation (see LRMP- IV pg. 21-23) x Management of the Forest shall provide a broad range of recreation opportunities in a dispersed and developed setting, including Primitive, Semi-primitive Non-motorized, Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, and Roaded Modified Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Wilderness Recreation Spectrum (WRS) classes. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Visuals (see LRMP- IV pg. 23-24) x Management activities shall be designed to achieve the allocated Visual Quality Objective (VQO) for the area (Agriculture Handbook 462, Visual Management System, USDA 1974). Allocations may be different than the inventoried VQOs Land allocated to achieve the VQO’s of Retention or Partial Retention, not overlapped by a more restrictive allocation, are in Management Areas 12 and 13 respectively. Modification and Maximum Modification areas, not overlapped by a more restrictive allocation, are in Management Area 14, General Forest. x Few resource inventories are static upon completion and the process for change IS invaluable to successful resource management If field analysis identifies a need to correct the inventory of VQO's, the correction should be recorded In environmental analysis documents and approved by the Forest Supervisor, whereupon the Forest Inventory will be updated. Conditions that could warrant a change in inventoried visual objectives are 1. Discrepancies in Landscape Variety classification 2. Changes in Viewer Sensitivity level. 3 Discrepancies in Seen Area mapping.

x Mitigation treatments for Impacts to the visual resource shall be completed within one year after the completion of the project (Agriculture Handbooks 462 and 559, USDA 1974).

Chapter 3 Page|3-151 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Forest Service Manual 2300 directs Forest Service (FS) personnel to use the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to classify FS managed lands. The ROS provides a framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation opportunity environments. It establishes six ROS classes, each defined by a characteristic setting and experience; Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban. Four of these classes exist within the project area: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, and Roaded Natural.

Primitive (P) The primitive setting is an essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use is not permitted. Users have an extremely high likelihood of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans. The primitive experience offers independence, closeness to nature, tranquility and self-reliance through the application of woodsman and outdoor skills in an environment that offers a high degree of challenge and risk.

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) The SPNM setting is a predominately natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted. There is a high, but not extremely high probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans. This experience offers independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self- reliance through the application of woodsman and outdoor skills in an environment that offers challenge and risk.

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) The SPM setting is a predominately natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Minimum on- site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is permitted. There is a moderate probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans. This experience offers independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance through the application of woodsman skills in an environment that offers challenge and risk. There are opportunities for a high degree of interaction with the natural environment and to use motorized equipment while in the area.

Roaded Natural (RN) RN settings are predominately natural-appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man, which usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in the construction and design of facilities. There is equal likelihood of experiencing affiliation with other user groups as for isolation from sights and sounds of humans. There are opportunities to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment, but challenge and risk opportunities associated with more primitive types of

Page | 3-152 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project recreation are not very important. Practice and testing of outdoor skills might be important, and opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible. A wide range of management activities and uses may take precedence, potentially resulting in substantially altered settings over much of the area. (USDA Forest Service, 1986)

The Visual Management System and Visual Quality Objectives Under the Visual Management System (VMS), forest Management Areas (MAs) are inventoried and assigned Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). Five long-term VQOs; Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification, describe the degree of acceptable landscape alteration as measured in terms of visual contrast with natural surroundings. Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, and Modification are within the project area, but only two intersect the project footprint: Partial Retention, and Modification. The Retention VQO is included for analysis of potential effects to the Chetco Wild and Scenic River Corridor, which is within the project area and through which log haul would pass.

Retention Allows management activities which are not visually evident to the casual forest visitor. Under retention, activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident. Retention should be met during or immediately after operations.

Partial Retention Allows management activities which are evident, but remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic landscape but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Partial retention should be met within 1 year of project completion.

Modification Allows management activities which visually dominate the characteristic landscape, but vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture such that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences in the surrounding area. In other words, they must be visually compatible (Agriculture Handbook 462).

Chetco Wild and Scenic River The lower 19 miles of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River are within the project area. River segments are managed for ROS classes of RN for Scenic and Recreation Sections and Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized for the Wild portion.

Table 36. Chetco WS River Sections within the Project Area

River Segment River Miles ROS Class VQO 11.0 - 15.5 RN Recreation 15.5 – 18.5 N/A, Private Land Retention 18.5 – 22.0 RN Scenic 22.0 – 28.0 RN Retention Wild 28.0 – 30.0 SPNM Preservation

Chapter 3 Page|3-153 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

The Chetco’s character gradually changes as it flows through the project area from the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. The country becomes gradually less dissected, the river gradient lessens, the river bottom widens, and the surrounding hills become more densely forested. The river narrows in several areas, crossing through rock outcrops and leaving enormous boulders in the riverbed. The Chetco River Gorge, found just below Steel Bridge, contains steep sides, unusual rock formations, class IV/V rapids, and is the most well-known of these areas. Below the gorge, the Chetco continues to broaden and the gradient continues to lessen, with sand and gravel bars and river terraces becoming more common. Recreation is one of the Chetco's three Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). The river and its adjacent corridor offer diverse recreational opportunities. In winter, salmon and steelhead fishing and whitewater kayaking are the primary recreational uses. Kayakers prefer the upper, more challenging Wild and Scenic segments, while anglers typically remain in the lower Recreational segment. In summer, fishing, four-wheel driving, swimming, boating, camping, sightseeing, and picnicking are the major attractions. The area is important to local residents who escape the frequent wind, fog, and lower temperatures of the coast by recreating near the more protected river. Recreation opportunities available on and near the Chetco River, particularly the outstanding opportunity to catch large Chinook salmon and steelhead, attract visitors from outside the geographic region. Visitors travel long distances to use the river resources for this outstanding fishing value. The river also provides settings for competitive events such as fishing derbies. The river corridor, extending one-quarter mile on both sides of the river, is managed for VQOs of Preservation in Wild sections, and Retention in Scenic and Recreation sections. There are eight critical viewpoints identified in the Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan which will be used to analyze potential visual effects:

Table 37. Chetco WS River Critical Viewpoints Critical Viewpoints River Segment

Interim Wild Section Wild River Access at Tolman Scenic Upper Portion Scenic 1376 Road Overlook Outside of corridor Middle Portion Scenic Steel Bridge Scenic/Recreation Low Water Bridge Recreation Little Redwood CG Recreation

Environmental Consequences to Recreation and Visuals This analysis of action alternatives assumes proper implementation of PDCs specifically developed to ensure project accordance with management guidance and to protect recreation, wilderness, wild and scenic river, visual, and associated values. Examples include, but are not limited to: minimizing stump heights; geographic limitations on type and extent of logging operations and associated practices; pile and landing size and location limitations; use of best management practices to minimize the visual disturbance of proposed actions; and temporal and spatial limitations to eliminate or minimize conflict between proposed actions and resource values. The full list of PDCs is available in Chapter 2 of this document.

Page | 3-154 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Methodology

Geographic Analysis Areas The project footprint, where ground disturbing activities would take place, is within portions of the Chetco and Pistol River 5th field watersheds and includes 4,090 acres of proposed salvage areas and their haul routes. All lands within the project footprint are National Forest System (NFS) lands. The project area, encompassing the 6th field sub-watersheds intersected by the project footprint, is approximately 143,047 acres as described in Chapter 1, Table 1 of this document. Recreation in the project area is focused by terrain and access into four areas: the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor, Snaketooth/Mt. Emily, Quail Prairie Mountain/Vulcan Peak, and Snow Camp/Mineral Hill. Refer to the Recreation and Visual Resources Report for the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project for a map of the four areas of focused recreation.

Chetco Wild and Scenic River The Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor is by far the most heavily used recreation area in the project area. Primarily accessed by Forest Service Road (FSR) 1376 from the town of Brookings, it receives year-round use: from November through March, the section below South Fork receives high use from drift boat and bank anglers fishing for steelhead. Commercial and private drift- boaters regularly put-in and take-out at South Fork, Redwood, Miller and Nook Bars throughout the winter, while bank fishermen use the gravel bars and available roadside pullouts. Although not heavily used, class IV/V whitewater opportunities are available during the winter and early spring months above South Fork. Whitewater kayakers typically put in at Tolman, float the Chetco Gorge, and take out at South Fork. During the summer months, gravel bar camping is popular along the Chetco River from the Forest boundary to South Fork. Miller Bar, Nook Bar, Redwood Bar, Lower South Fork, and Upper South Fork are rarely unoccupied between May and October, and it is common for these gravel bars to be bumper-to-bumper with trailers, cars, and tents on summer weekends. Swimming is a popular late spring/summer pastime, and a popular kayaking/tubing day trip puts in at South Fork and takes out at Loeb State Park, off-Forest. Redwood Nature Trail, accessed from FSR 1376 at the Forest boundary, receives year-round day use due to its ease of access and proximity to Brookings. The entire corridor receives year-round scenic driving use.

Snaketooth/Mt Emily Bounded to the north by Panda Ridge and Snaketooth Butte, and to the south by Mt Emily, this area encompasses the Emily Creek watershed. It is primarily accessed via FSR 1107 from the Chetco River corridor, FSR 1983 from the south bank of the Chetco, and less frequently from the south via FSR 1107 from the Winchuck River corridor. Large portions remain below snow-line and are accessible from the Chetco and Winchuck corridors year-round. Recreation consists of target shooting at Snaketooth Rifle and Pistol Ranges, dispersed camping, scenic driving, and permitted firewood cutting. Recreationists also traverse this area to access the Kalmiopsis Wilderness at Red Mountain Trailhead, GBRD’s southernmost wilderness entry portal.

Quail Prairie Mountain/Vulcan Peak This area is bounded by Long Ridge to the north and by Devil’s Backbone to the south, and accessed via FSRs 1917 and 1909 from the Chetco River corridor. The two roads describe a loop around the Quail Creek drainage from the Chetco River to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness boundary, accessing recreation opportunities at Packers Cabin Recreation Rental, Quail Prairie Lookout (closed), and Upper Chetco Trailhead. FSR 1909 continues east from the junction with FSR 1917

Chapter 3 Page|3-155 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment to access dispersed camping opportunities at Red Mountain Prairie and wilderness recreation opportunities at Chetco Divide/Vulcan Peak and Vulcan Lake/Johnson Butte trailheads. Recreation activities include scenic driving, dispersed camping, and wilderness access. Vulcan Lake, accessed through this area, is a popular summer day-hiking, camping, and swimming destination due to its proximity/accessibility and its unique, spectacular scenery. Red Mountain Prairie dispersed campsite, Chetco Divide/Vulcan Peak trailhead, and Vulcan Lake/Johnson Butte trailhead are close to each other and together represent the most readily accessible and heavily used west-side entry portal to the southern Kalmiopsis.

Snow Camp/Mineral Hill The Snow Camp/Mineral Hill recreation corridor is accessed from the west via FSR 3680, and from the south via FSRs 1407 or 1376. Recreation opportunities, which generally parallel and are accessed from FSR 1376, include hiking on Snow Camp, Panther Lake, Windy Valley, and Tincup trails, renting Snow Camp Lookout Recreation Rental, and dispersed camping. Tincup Trail receives light day-hiking use to the Chetco River/Boulder Creek confluence, and light backpacking use as a Kalmiopsis Wilderness entry point in conjunction with Trans-Kalmiopsis backpacking routes.

Spatial and Temporal Scale Proposed project activities would potentially cause direct, indirect and cumulative effects to recreation and visual resources in all four recreation areas; to their primary ingress/egress routes, to developed and dispersed recreation sites, and to trails within or serving them. Direct effects would generally occur where project activities occur within visual and/or auditory range of rivers/streams, roads, trails, developed sites, and dispersed sites used by the recreating public. They would also occur any time project activities directly involve the management, improvement, or closure of such sites. The VMS uses distance zones to describe a landscape from the viewer’s perspective; foreground, middleground, and background. Foreground describes the distance at which details such as individual tree limbs can be discerned; it is usually limited to ¼ to ½ mile from the observer. Middleground describes the zone, ¼- ½ to 3-5 miles from the observer, where masses of trees are discerned as texture, but individual tree forms are seldom discernible except in very open/sparse stands. Background extends from 3-5 miles to infinity; texture is weak or non-existent in uniform tree cover, and is seen as groups or patterns of trees in very open/sparse stands. Visual effects would depend on the distance of project activities from recreation sites and use corridors, and would vary based on site-specific terrain characteristics. In the steep and heavily forested wild and scenic river corridor for example, the visible landscape from the river, river- paralleling roads and trails, and river-adjacent recreation sites seldom extends past the foreground before sight is blocked by intervening terrain. In this situation, project activities conducted on the far side of the intervening terrain would not cause direct visual effects to recreation resources. In areas of subtler terrain or sparser vegetation, and where recreation facilities are situated in positions of vantage, the maximum ranges for potential direct visual effects could extend into middleground or background. Short-term direct effects could include limited-duration facility, road, and trail closures, restricted access to areas near project activities, and the existence/increase of project-related traffic on FS roads in the project area. These effects would be limited to the duration of project activities, as would the sights and sounds of project activities within visual and auditory range of occupied roads, trails, rivers and recreation sites.

Page | 3-156 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Short-term indirect effects would extend 3-5 years post project, and could include short-term shifts in recreation use patterns which might increase use-pressure on adjacent public and private recreation facilities/areas or place economic pressure on Chetco River commercial outfitters.

Cumulative Effects Boundary The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to recreation and visual resources are the boundaries of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River, Snaketooth/Mt Emily, Quail Prairie Mountain/Vulcan Peak, and Snow Camp/Mineral Hill recreation areas and their primary access routes; FSRs 1376, 1917, 1909, 1983, 1107, and 1407 because they contain the preponderance of recreation infrastructure and support most recreation activities in the project area. The temporal boundaries for analyzing cumulative effects are from project completion to approximately one generation or 25 years post project, because that is the maximum amount of time necessary for the next generation of recreationists to grow up with the effects of proposed project activities; for departures from existing conditions to be regarded not as project effects, but rather as status quo.

Specific Methodology Proposed actions under three alternatives, including a no-action alternative, are herein analyzed to determine their potential effects on desired ROS settings and experiences for affected MAs as described by the LRMP and applicable supplemental direction. Effects on visual quality are analyzed, particularly as supports desired ROS setting and experience, by determining the effects of proposed actions on VQOs for affected MAs as prescribed by the LRMP and applicable supplemental direction. Data sources include field observations and notes, USFS GIS Data for RRSNF, public scoping comments, and the National Forest Landscape Management Handbook Series, Volume 2, Chapters 2-8.

Resource Indicators and Measures

Salvage Harvest Indicator Measure 1: Landscape attainment of desired ROS experience/setting and recreation management objectives. Indicator Measure 2: Landscape attainment of VQOs. Short-term timeframe: 0-5 years post-project. Long-term timeframe: 5-25 years post project. Spatial Boundary: Location and activity-dependent; those areas of project activity accessible and/or visible as foreground, middleground, or background from roads, trails, wild and scenic river corridors, developed recreation sites, or known dispersed recreation sites. Methodology: GIS spatial-data analysis, field observation, National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) reporting.

Road Actions Indicator Measure 1: Landscape attainment of desired ROS experience/setting and recreation management objectives. Indicator Measure 2: Landscape attainment of VQOs. Short-term timeframe: 0-5 years post project

Chapter 3 Page|3-157 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Long-term timeframe: 5-25 years post-project. Spatial Boundary: Location and activity-dependent; those areas of project activity accessible and/or visible as foreground, middleground, or background from roads, trails, wild and scenic river corridors, developed recreation sites, or known dispersed recreation sites. Methodology: GIS spatial-data analysis, field observation, NVUM.

Reforestation Indicator Measure 1: Landscape attainment of desired ROS experience/setting and recreation management objectives. Indicator Measure 2: Landscape attainment of VQOs. Short-term timeframe: 0-5 years post project. Long-term timeframe: 5-25 years post-project. Spatial Boundary: Location dependent; those affected areas accessible and/or visible as foreground, middleground, or background from roads, trails, wild and scenic river corridors, developed recreation sites, or known dispersed recreation sites. Methodology: GIS spatial-data analysis, field observation, NVUM.

Cumulative Effects Analysis Long-term timeframe: 5-25 years post-project. Spatial Boundary: Those areas of project activity accessible and/or visible as foreground, middleground, or background from roads, trails, wild and scenic river corridors, developed recreation sites, or known dispersed recreation sites, as well as primary ingress and egress routes for the project area. Methodology: GIS spatial-data analysis, field observation, NVUM.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. The existing condition ranges from areas of high fire intensity to areas of low-fire intensity in which groups of mixed vegetation and large Douglas fir survived. A no action alternative would allow the area to continue under natural processes, less-influenced by human activity. Periodic blowdown of trees would result from the influence of weather such as wind, and soil erosion resulting from heavy rainfall. No evidence of stumps and slash would be present. However, large numbers of blowdowns may create undesirable visual conditions, in addition to increased fuel loads which would place surviving trees at greater risk of fire in the future. Retention of non- historic stand structure may retard attainment of the desired condition. No salvage or other connected actions to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations would occur, nor would resultant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. The economic value of the burned timber would not be recovered. The No Action alternative serves as a baseline against which effects of the action alternatives could be measured and compared.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) The Proposed Action would provide an opportunity to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations by harvesting dead, dying and/or damaged trees resulting from the 2017 Chetco Bar

Page | 3-158 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project fire. Doing so, however, would result in a less-desirable short-term scenic experience. Evidence of harvest activity would be obvious in the form of stumps and slash, even while still achieving VQOs. However, multiple prescription factors and design criteria would help to reduce the visibility and contrast of salvage operations. In addition to the retention of all live trees, the retention of all standing dead or dying trees below 7” DBH would help to blend, or feather, the voids created by tree removal. Retaining snags as described in the design criteria would enhance this effect. Removal of the majority of standing dead, mid-diameter, even aged trees (10-20”) would move the area towards the historic condition, when natural wildfires would have thinned these intermediate stages of the stands. In immediate foreground areas, limiting stump height to 8 inches, contouring stump cuts to terrain, facing cuts away from primary viewing directions, marking on sides away from public viewing direction, and lopping/scattering slash to a depth of 12 inches would serve to reduce scenic effects. In all units, and particularly those in middleground and background views; mimicking the size and shape of natural openings, following contours, conforming edges to natural terrain features, avoiding straight lines and angular corners, and feathering the edges of created openings would lessen scenic effects by avoiding the introduction of artificial patterns, uniform appearance, and other contrasting visual elements.

Salvage Logging There are 4,090 salvage acres in the Proposed Action. Of these, 1,656 acres are in areas with a partial retention VQO. The remaining 2,433 acres have a VQO of modification. No salvage activities are proposed in the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor or in any other areas with retention or preservation VQOs.

Logging Systems Visual: Although there would be no visual effects within the Chetco WSR corridor, some units outside the corridor in partial retention and modification areas would be visible as middleground and background from the WSR. Project design criteria would ensure activities achieve VQOs without affecting the character and setting of the landscape as seen from the Chetco River. Salvage units would be visible in the immediate foreground and middleground from portions of primary travel routes (FSRs 1107, 1376, 1407, 1909, 1917), Forest Service Trail (FST) 1103, and Packers Cabin Recreation Rental. Visual effects would include machinery, personnel, piles, and exposed soil during active operations, and stumps and slash afterwards. These effects would gradually become less evident, but would likely be visible for 10-15 years or more depending on local understory regeneration. However, adherence to project design criteria (PDCs) would ensure that effects become subordinate to the natural landscape character within the prescribed timeframe to attain the applicable VQOs of partial retention and modification. Recreation: The RN setting of this area would not be affected. Recreation opportunities would be limited in and immediately surrounding salvage units during project activities, but would remain available/unaffected in areas outside of the project footprint. Fire and project related changes in vegetation type may change how people use the area; in the short term, people may choose to recreate elsewhere, returning after 3-5 years when ground vegetation is reestablished. Hunting pressure may also increase about this time due to increased quantity/quality of deer habitat in the project footprint. People driving along primary routes through the project area would be subject to the sights and sounds of salvage activities, potential delays, and limited duration closures during operations. Project activities would negatively affect the ROS setting of Packers Cabin if it is occupied during active operations. Suspending operations in units adjacent to Packers Cabin for the summer recreation season would avoid this.

Chapter 3 Page|3-159 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Indirect: Most recreation traffic in the project area passes through the Chetco WSR corridor on FSR 1376. Shifts in recreation patterns due to project activities could increase pressure on FSR 1376, the Chetco WSR, and adjacent/nearby public and private facilities such as Loeb State Park, Social Security Bar, or the Chetco River Inn. Over the long term, use would likely revert to pre- fire patterns and levels subject to broader socio-economic trends.

Created Slash Treatments Visual: There would be no effects from created slash treatments in the Chetco WSR corridor. Landings, hand piling, and slash treatments would be visible in the foreground from FSRs 1107, 1376, 1407, 1909, 1917, and FST 1103, but adherence to PDCs would ensure that effects remain or become subordinate to the natural landscape character within the prescribed timeframe to attain the applicable VQOs of partial retention and modification. Recreation: Landings and other created openings could create opportunities for new dispersed campsites or off-road opportunities, particularly if left unused during extended periods of time during project activities. Adherence to PDCs would prevent creation of new, unauthorized dispersed campsites and off-road opportunities post project. Project use of existing landings and openings would limit or prevent their recreational use. However, this effect would not extend past project completion. Indirect: Creation of new dispersed camping and off-road opportunities and project use of existing openings could shift recreation patterns, locally affecting recreation pressure during project activities. PDC adherence would be effective to re-establish pre-project recreation patterns subject to socio-economic trends.

Road Activities

Road Maintenance Visual: Roadside brushing, danger tree mitigation, and road widening would slightly open views into the surrounding landscape, but with adherence to PDCs would not affect attainment of project area VQOs. During maintenance activities, signage, personnel, and equipment would be visible in the immediate foreground of roads, but this effect would be limited to the road corridor and to individual project duration. Recreation: Road maintenance and re-construction activities would not affect the area’s RN setting. Road users would be subject to delays, time-limited closures, or detours, but public access would not be restricted, and inconveniences would be limited to the immediate vicinity and time period of actual work. Road maintenance and re-construction would provide an easier and more pleasant travel experience, and make travel on some roads possible for larger or lower-clearance vehicles. Indirect: Maintenance and construction associated delays or closures could affect use patterns during maintenance activities, diverting recreation use to other roads or adjacent areas. However, such shifts would be ephemeral, limited to the immediate vicinity and duration of project activities. Improvement of roads could increase visitation in areas served by lower quality roads by easing difficulty of access and making it possible for larger and lower-clearance vehicles to access them. This would increase use pressure on those areas, but decrease use pressure in other areas by diffusing overall use over a larger area. By making previously inaccessible areas accessible to trailers, motor homes, and passenger cars, road maintenance could lead to increased dispersed camping/dispersed site use.

Page | 3-160 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Temporary Road Visual: Temporary roads would be visible on the landscape, particularly in areas where grading, resurfacing, or other earthwork is required. However, because they would be closed and rehabilitated prior to project completion, there would be no effect on VQO attainment. Recreation: Temporary roads would potentially receive unauthorized motorized use during the time they are open. Although unauthorized, this would result in increased motorized opportunities during project activities, and a perception of reduced opportunities when they are closed after project completion. Indirect: Because temporary roads may be used by people during the time they are open, they and the areas they access may become known. This could lead to the creation of unauthorized routes to bypass rehabilitation measures and access those areas after the roads are rehabilitated. This would be prevented by adherence to PDCs and post-project monitoring.

Log Haul on Roads Visual: During haul operations, log trucks would be visible driving back on forth on the haul roads and stopped at roadside pullouts. The visual effects would be ephemeral, lasting only during active hauling, and would not affect VQO attainment. Recreation: The primary recreation access routes in the project area, FSRs 1107, 1376, 1407, 1909, and 1917 would also be primary haul routes. This would increase traffic on these roads, and put recreation traffic and haul traffic into direct contact. This would increase evidences of the sights and sounds of man, but not to the extent that it would compromise attainment of the RN setting, which allows for a wide range of management activities and uses to take precedence, potentially resulting in substantially altered settings over much of the area. FSR 1376 would see the greatest increase in traffic: the haul routes feed into FSR 1376 as tributaries feed into the main stem of a river, such that nearly all timber coming off of the project would eventually travel down it. Although FSR 1407 traffic would join FSR 1376 off-Forest, it would still interact with recreation traffic to and from the WSR corridor. The highest traffic times would coincide with steelhead season (November-March) and summer (Memorial Day-Labor Day). Existing road rules prohibit haul on weekends, and additional PDCs would prohibit haul on Memorial Day, the 3, 4, 5th of July, Labor Day, and Columbus Day to further minimize potential conflict between haul and recreation traffic. Indirect Effects: The increased traffic could cause recreationists to avoid the project area, placing greater use pressure on nearby areas such as the Winchuck and Smith Rivers. It could also result in changed use patterns for the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, leading to increased recreation pressure on east-side entry portals, Red Mountain TH, Oak Flat/Illinois River National Recreation Trail (NRT), and Game Lake. This change in use patterns would likely end upon project completion, when traffic levels would return to normal. It is important to note that log haul from private timber holdings currently occurs on FSR 1376 under road-use permit. The times during the project when log haul would be occurring would not change from existing conditions; only the volume of traffic and size of the affected area during those times. Road use rules and PDCs would still ensure that recreationists could continue to safely enjoy recreation opportunities in and around the project area.

Reforestation Activities Visual: Site preparation and planting would be visible in the immediate foreground seen from roads, trails, and recreation sites, but would remain subordinate to the natural character and would not affect achievement of VQOs.

Chapter 3 Page|3-161 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Recreation: Attainment of the RN setting would be unaffected; planting could hasten full visual absorption of project management activities by speeding-up the recovery of areas exhibiting inadequate natural regeneration. Indirect: None expected.

Cumulative Effects from the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Visual: Roadside danger tree abatement operations would be conducted concurrently, or nearly concurrently, with project activities on ML 2 and higher roads in the project area. These activities would fell current danger trees and those that will become danger trees in the next five years, from road-edge to 1.5 times the average co-dominant tree height on both sides of the road. In steep terrain, this distance could extend out to 400 feet slope-distance to address hazardous rollout conditions. In combination with project activities and up to 9,455 acres of salvage on nearby private lands, this would result in a more open landscape being visible from project area roads, trailheads, and recreation sites. However, the difference from existing conditions would be one of frequency rather than of type or scale. Without human intervention, the dead and dying trees that would be removed by cumulative project activities would fall; just less predictably and over a longer time period. The cumulative scenic result would be an acceleration of ongoing natural processes, arriving at an equivalent scenic balance and quality. The resultant landscape would be one of open vistas over jumbled ridges cut by deeply incised river and stream corridors. Areas of sparse vegetation with standing snags and downed woody debris would be interspersed with irregular groupings of green trees. Riparian areas and protected drainages would be irregular swatches of green aligned with the natural contours, their lushness gradually feathering away into the sparser surroundings. The natural, irregular mosaic of the fire would guide project activities and therefore the scenic results; results which would repeat form, line, color, and texture common to the characteristic landscape, with changes in size, amount, intensity, direction, and pattern, remaining visually subordinate (partial retention). The cumulative visual effects would therefore meet or exceed VQOs for the project area. Recreation: Danger tree and area salvage would combine to raise the visibility of salvage activities to the recreating public. Where the two would use the same roads or occur in close proximity to each other, people would experience more inconveniences and more sights and sounds of salvage activity. Additionally, danger tree salvage would require longer and more frequent traffic halts for public safety. Haul for danger tree salvage would use the same haul routes as area salvage, further increasing traffic on major area roads, especially FSR 1376. However, adherence to PDCs would still allow both projects to occur without compromising the RN setting and experience. The images on the following pages are examples of visual simulations of the Proposed Action. A view looking south from Packers Cabin recreation rental was chosen to illustrate the possible effects of project activities. This view was chosen because of its importance as a view from a high use recreation site, and also because it offers the opportunity to simulate project activities as seen at foreground, middleground, and background distances. The images are intended to simulate the expected appearance the area might have after harvest activity. They should not be viewed as actuality, nor should it be assumed that any one image represents the exact activity to occur.

Page | 3-162 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3

Salvage Logging There would be 2,222 fewer total salvage acres, 893 fewer Partial Retention VQO acres, and 1,329 fewer Modification VQO acres in Alternative 3. No salvage activities are proposed in the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor or in any other areas with retention or preservation VQOs.

Logging Systems Visual: Direct effects would be the same in type but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action, except for the following differences: Fewer units would be visible from the Chetco WSR corridor. No units would be visible in the immediate foreground, and fewer units would be visible in the middleground from Packers Cabin Recreation Rental. Fewer units would be visible in the immediate foreground and middleground from portions of primary travel routes (FSRs 1107, 1376, 1407, 1909, 1917), and Forest Service Trail (FST) 1103. Recreation: Direct effects would be the same in type but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action, except for the following differences: project activities would not affect the ROS setting of Packers Cabin. Indirect: Indirect effects would be the same in type, but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action.

Created Slash Treatments Alternative 3 requires eighty-two fewer landings than the Proposed Action. Direct and indirect effects would be the same in type, but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action.

Road Activities

Road Maintenance There would be no change in activities from the Proposed Action. Direct and indirect effects would be the same in type, but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action.

Temporary Road About 9.36 miles of temporary roads would be constructed and rehabilitated after use, 4.16 fewer miles than in the preferred alternative. Direct and indirect effects would be the same in type, but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action.

Log Haul on Roads Approximately 3.5 miles of closed roads, 0.5 miles fewer than in the Proposed Action, would be opened for log haul and re-closed at completion of the project. Approximately 88.6 miles of open roads, 15.1 miles fewer than in the Proposed Action, would be used for log haul. There would be no change in alternate haul route mileage from the Proposed Action. Direct and indirect effects would be the same in type, but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action.

Chapter 3 Page|3-163 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 22. Existing Conditions with Visible Salvage Units Overlay

Figure 23. Simulation of Proposed Action Visual Effects

Page | 3-164 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Reforestation Activities Planting actions would be the same as in the Proposed Action, but on 2,222 fewer acres. Direct and indirect effects would be the same in type, but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects from Alternative 3 Cumulative effects would be the same in type, but smaller in scale than in the Proposed Action.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction Proposed activities Management activities are designed to achieve the allocated Visual Quality Objective (VQO) for the area and are therefore consistent with the RRSNF LRMP. . Vegetation The following is a summary of the Silvicultural Prescription report. The entire report is incorporated by reference and can be found in the project file, located at the RRSNF, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Regulatory Framework Salvage cutting on deforested suitable lands (and other capable and available lands where salvage is permitted by a forest plan) that is driven all or in part by an objective to capture volume should comply with the NFMA five-year regeneration requirement (to stocking levels consistent with management objectives). This is specific direction adhering to the NFMA regulations at 36CFR219.27(c)(3), including its amendments to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378) requiring “when trees are cut to achieve timber production objectives, the cuttings shall be made in such a way as to assure that the technology and knowledge exists to adequately restock the lands within 5 years after final harvest.”. The NFMA at Sec. 3 (d)(1) It is the policy of the Congress that all forested lands in the National Forest System be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with land management plans. NFMA limits clearcutting and other even-aged harvest to situations where it is determined to be the optimum method, and where it is deemed appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(i)). Because the regeneration need within the proposed salvage units was created by wildfire, no clearcuts are proposed.

Affected Environment The current condition of vegetation within the Chetco Bar fire perimeter are wide expanses of dead trees and sprouting vegetation associated with high mortality burned areas interspersed with underburned and unburned stands associated with low to moderate mortality burned areas. Many forest stands of varying age classes were reset to the stand initiation stage (Oliver 1996) by stand replacement fire. Areas within high tree mortality burn are often far from conifer seed sources and within areas where substantial competition from sprouting vegetation is expected. Tree shading in riparian reserves has been mostly consumed in high mortality areas. Potential Vegetation Types (PVT) represent vegetation types that generally exhibit consistent dynamics for forest growth, disturbance types and rates through time (Henderson 2013). PVTs are not a representation of current vegetation, but rather reflect site potential and are more

Chapter 3 Page|3-165 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment generalized than plant association groups. PVT mapping is based on vegetation-environment relationships that relate primarily to soil types, climate gradients and topography. PVT mapping in the Matrix land allocation portion of the Chetco Bar fire (and most of the fire area) is primarily the Tanoak/ Douglas-fir-moist PVT (Silvicultural Prescription, Appendix B). Tanoak/Douglas-fir-moist is a compilation of two tanoak plant associations with Douglas-fir as co-climax species and three tanoak plant associations with western hemlock as a co-climax species. These plant associations are on the warm/moist portion of the temperature/ moisture regime in the environmental graph for the tanoak series in Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of Southwestern Oregon (Atzet et. al, 1996). Coastal tanoak plant associations occur an average 1,000 feet elevation with no aspects favored. Post-fire tanoak regeneration will sprout rapidly in the Tanoak/Douglas-fir moist PVT. Tanoak is a heavy seeder that reproduces well from seed and prolifically from vigorous sprouting when above ground plant parts are consumed by fire. Tanoak often form pure even-aged stands and grows best on humid, moist slopes of coastal regions (Burns, Honkala 1990). Tanoak is climax in the moist middle of southwestern Oregon’s environmental gradient where frost and drought occur less often (Atzet et. al, 1996). Many areas that burned at high severity were stands that previously supported tree components of Port-Orford-cedar (POC), sugar pine and western white pine. These tree species are adversely affected at the landscape-scale by introduced exotic diseases. Natural regeneration of these tree species is expected to be low and predisposed to continued disease infection. There are management opportunities to plant disease-resistant POC and five needle pines to maintain these species within burned watersheds and increase disease resistance across the landscape.

Diseases of Concern

Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease Port-Orford-cedar root disease, caused by the non-native pathogen Phytophthora lateralis (PL), causes high levels of mortality of POC on high risk sites. Trees of all sizes may be affected. High- risk sites are low-lying wet areas (regardless of disease status) that are located downslope from infested areas or are below likely sites for introductions, especially roads. They include streams, drainage ditches, gullies, swamps, seeps, ponds, lakes, and concave low-lying areas where water collects during rainy weather. A GIS inventory displaying POC presence and PL infested areas was completed in 2013 derived from air photo mapping and field verification conducted by an experienced, locally knowledgeable silviculturist on the Siskiyou National Forest. This updated POC inventory was used for the risk key analysis for the CBF Salvage project (refer to the silvicultural prescription, appendix A map). POC is present at the higher elevations in the northern half of the project area. There are un- infested 7th field watersheds, as defined in the 2004 LRMP amendment, within the project area. Units 92, 93, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143 are within or adjacent to these un- infested watersheds. Proposed salvage units do not have PL-infested areas within or adjacent to unit boundaries. There is one PL-infested stream in proximity, East Fork Pistol River, outside of the project area (refer to the silvicultural prescription, appendix A map). ). Silvicultural prescription include mitigation measures to reduce the risk of moving the pathogen into un- infested areas.

Page | 3-166 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

White Pine Blister Rust White pine blister rust, caused by the non-native pathogen Cronartium ribicola, was identified in the Pistol River watershed analysis (USDA 1998) causing mortality and dieback of higher elevation sugar pine and western white pine in the vicinity of Snow Camp Mountain. A recent publication Status of Sugar and Western White Pines on Federal Forest Lands in Southwest Oregon (Goheen, Goheen, 2014) noted tree mortality exhibited by sugar pine and western white pine as high and a matter for concern. Tree mortality of five-needle pines was greater than mortality of all other tree species encountered in surveyed stands. Inventory data displayed in Figure 15 of this paper shows a number of plots within the fire perimeter had sugar pine or western white pine present. Recommendations are to manage for continued presence of five-needle pines to ensure their health and to initiate successful sugar pine and western white pine regeneration by using site- adapted, white pine blister rust-resistant stock.

Sudden Oak Death Sudden oak death (SOD), caused by the non-native pathogen Phytophthora ramorum causes mortality, shoot dieback, or leaf blight in over 130 species of trees, shrubs, herbs, and ferns. Statewide SOD occurs only in the forests of southwest Curry County (and within the Chetco Bar fire area), where it is well adapted to mild, wet coastal conditions. Currently, post-fire vegetation is predominantly tanoak (Nontholithocarpus densiflorus) naturally regenerating through sprouting and seed across the burned area. Tanoak is the primary host in Oregon for SOD. The pathogen readily kills tanoak trees of all sizes. SOD can alter the ecology of southwest Oregon forests and threatens timber trade, the floral green industry, Christmas tree production, and nursery trade throughout Oregon. P. ramorum is an internationally quarantined plant pathogen and there are Federal and State regulations in place that restrict movement of host material to prevent human-assisted spread. Five hundred-fifteen (515) square miles in Curry County are currently under quarantine. The Chetco Bar fire occurs both within (western portion of fire) and outside the current SOD quarantine area. Most of proposed salvage units are within the 2015 quarantine area boundary except units 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 and the northern tip of unit 143 (refer to the silvicultural prescription, appendix A map). Silvicultural prescriptions include mitigation measures to reduce the risk of spreading the pathogen. Host plants cannot be moved outside the quarantine area unless mitigation measures such as heat treatment or debarking have been done. Soil cannot be moved from infested sites. Over 6,200 acres have been treated to slow the spread of the pathogen since the disease was first detected in 2001. Treatments include cutting, piling, and burning affected and exposed hosts. Approximately 75 percent of the treatments have occurred on private and state lands while 25 percent have occurred on Forest Service and BLM lands as of summer 2017 (Goheen, 2017). Aggressive management strategies are currently in place to slow the spread of SOD; however, area pathologists anticipate the disease will continue to cause tanoak mortality in moist tanoak forests now and into the future. Artificial regeneration (planting) of non-bole hosts may help to slow the spread of SOD. Breaking up large continuous areas of tanoak in structure and species composition will change disease spread dynamics by slowing initial local disease spread, reducing inoculum levels overall, and reducing the probability of long-distance spread, while still maintaining tanoak on the landscape. As tanoak is a prolific sprouter and a fast-growing species,

Chapter 3 Page|3-167 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment tree planting may be necessary for species other than tanoak to become established and dominate the canopy in the short term (silvicultural prescription, appendix A, FHP input).

Environmental Consequences to Vegetation

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. Under No Action, salvage and connected actions like artificial reforestation would not occur. Therefore there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects. The growing space for conifers that seed in naturally post-fire will receive meaningful competition for site resources from tanoak and sprouting vegetation. Tanoak sprouts grow rapidly in good light and can average two feet per year the first 15 to 20 years often dominating vegetation cover following fire (Roy 1957). Conifer trees that become established will grow slowly until tree height overtops surrounding vegetation or succumbs to competition.

Direct and Indirect Effects from the Action Alternatives

Vegetation Implementation of salvage logging may reduce the amount of natural regeneration, if present, due to ground disturbing activities. This would most likely occur in the ground based logging system units of the proposed action and alternative three (619 acres and 336 acres). However, proposed artificial regeneration would mitigate this impact by planting site-specific appropriate tree species mix. Negative impacts to natural conifer regeneration from salvage logging is not likely to be a long- term problem due to the prolonged period of natural conifer recruitment post-fire that occurs in the Klamath-Siskiyou region. Key findings from a research paper from an Oregon State University researcher found that conifers continue regenerating 10 to 15 years after a fire (Hibbs 2009). Some have argued that early salvage logging post-fire can damage the chances of successful recovery because the logging itself kills emerging seedlings. Hibbs’ research “suggests that early salvage logging may not make much difference to regeneration in the long run because they found that successful and abundant conifer recruitment continues for years, even after severe fire.” The growing space for conifers that seed in naturally or are artificially planted post-fire will receive meaningful competition for site resources from tanoak and sprouting vegetation. Tanoak sprouts grow rapidly in good light and can average two feet per year the first 15 to 20 years often dominating vegetation cover following fire (Roy 1957). Conifer trees that become established will grow slowly until tree height overtops surrounding vegetation or succumbs to competition. Local research on the Siskiyou National Forest of three naturally regenerated stands following a large fire in 1881 noted most of the Douglas-fir regeneration established between 1890 and 1920 indicating a delayed and prolonged period of conifer establishment following this wildfire (Little et al. 1995). The study sites were located on Gold Beach Ranger District (Fairview, Panther Lake, Pistol River) and within proximity to the Chetco Bar fire. This prolonged natural regeneration concept is supported by (Hibbs, 2009) as one of the key findings noted abundant conifers regenerating 10 to 15 years post-fire. The paper also noted scarce natural regeneration greater than 400 meters from living trees and was most limited on

Page | 3-168 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project drier, lower elevation, south facing slopes. Also another regional study of conifer regeneration 9- 19 years after fires in southern Oregon and northern California noted conifer regeneration to be surprisingly protracted and variable (Shatford et al., 2007). Another recent regional paper Disequilibrium of fire-prone forests sets the stage for a rapid decline in conifer dominance during the 21st century (Diaz et al., 2018) about potential impacts from climate change noted ‘current forest extent may not reflect current climatic patterns’ and using a landscape simulation model estimated about one third of the Klamath forest landscape (northern California and southwest Oregon) could transition from conifer dominated forest to shrub/hardwood chaparral, triggered by increased fire activity coupled with lower post-fire conifer establishment; ‘the area of high severity fire in large patches increased under climate change scenarios hampering a rapid recolonization of new tree recruits (further distances from seed sources)’. Post-fire conifer establishment probability was reduced under climate change due to increased summer drought. Current Forest direction for the Chetco Bar fire is to delay artificial regeneration and survey for natural regeneration post-salvage to determine if stocking levels are sufficient to meet the NFMA five-year regeneration requirement to stocking levels consistent with management objectives. The Forest is planning to develop a post-fire reforestation strategy that will address tree planting density in the context of susceptibility to future high severity fires, climate change and land allocation management objectives. The effects of young-stand plantations on fire behavior has been studied and debated. While it is a commonly held and widely cited view that young conifer plantations experience higher severity fire than naturally regenerated stands, there is not consensus within the scientific community. Fire susceptibility in plantations vary depending on post-harvest methods of fuels treatment and site preparation, the species mix of understory vegetation, plantation size, and fuels management in the surrounding forest. One study in the 2002 Biscuit fire area examined 198 plantations, 5-47 years old, concluded the best predictor of plantation canopy damage is age and the level of canopy damage reached its maximum around age 15 and stayed relatively high until age 25 before declining (Thompson et al. 2011). Tree planting within treatment units under the action alternatives, contingent on natural regeneration success, would have a positive effect on forest vegetation. Reforestation with appropriate species, disease-resistant stock and at stocking levels meeting management area objectives will occur across the project footprint until treatment areas are certified as stocked.

Diseases of Concern

Port-Orford cedar Root Disease Salvage logging and other connected actions increase the risk of spreading PL. In compliance with the Record of Decision for the Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004) a POC risk analysis has been documented using the risk key. The risk key is in the project record and is used to clarify the environmental conditions that require implementation of one or more of the disease controlling management practices listed in the LRMP amendment. Project design criteria described in chapter 2 would minimize or eliminate the risk of spreading PL. Therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to the spread of PL.

Chapter 3 Page|3-169 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

White Pine Blister Rust Recommendations are to manage for continued presence of five-needle pines to ensure their health and to initiate successful sugar pine and western white pine regeneration by using site- adapted, white pine blister rust-resistant stock. Salvage logging and other connected actions would not affect the spread of white pine blister rust, disease-causing propagules can spread long distances and as long as the host species are present, and the environment is conducive to disease development, the disease can become established. Therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to the spread of white-pine blister rust. Planting white pine blister rust-resistant stock would have indirect beneficial effects to plant diversity and landscape resistance to this disease.

Sudden Oak Death Salvage logging and other connected actions may increase the risk of spreading SOD. Project design criteria described in chapter 2 would minimize or eliminate the risk of spreading SOD. Therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to the spread of SOD.

Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives Past management actions and natural disturbances have shaped the vegetation patterns in the project footprint. Present actions including the Roadside Danger Tree Abatement project, and CBF Salvage project, would have no cumulative effects on SOD or POC because there are no direct or indirect effects. Future reforestation projects (Chetco Reforestation Project and probable reforestation activities on private and BLM lands) that plant disease-resistant five-needle pines and POC would have beneficial cumulative effects to plant diversity A future restoration-type project would analyze reforestation needs in burned areas not salvaged in this project. Tree planting within treatment units under the proposed action combined with the anticipated reforestation treatments occurring under the Chetco Reforestation Project, probable private land and BLM land reforestation would have a positive effect on forest vegetation.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction

NFMA The reforestation strategy would comply with the NFMA five-year regeneration requirement (to stocking levels consistent with management objectives). On November 19, 2002, the Regional Forester provided the following direction for salvage: Salvage on deforested suitable lands (and other capable and available lands where salvage is permitted by a forest plan) that is driven all or in part by an objective to capture volume should comply with the NFMA five-year regeneration requirement (to stocking levels consistent with management objectives). This is specific direction adhering to the NFMA regulations at 36CFR219.27(c)(3), including its amendments to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378) requiring “when trees are cut to achieve timber production objectives, the cuttings shall be made in such a way as to assure that the technology and knowledge exists to adequately restock the lands within 5 years after final harvest.”. The NFMA at Sec. 3 (d)(1) It is the policy of the Congress that all forested lands in the National Forest System be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with land management plans.

Page | 3-170 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

The Regional Forester’s Letter also states where no salvage is done, deforested capable lands should be reforested as quickly as practicable. Plans to reforest non-capable lands should be made after careful consideration of land management objectives and the likelihood of success.

Forest Plan Exotic Diseases Project design criteria would meet forest plan direction to limit the spread of exotic diseases which meets forest plan direction for exotic diseases. Climate Change There is no stand-alone report for this section; this section was written directly to the final environmental assessment.

Methodology The Forest Service does not have a national policy or guidance for managing carbon, and the tools for estimating carbon and sequestration are not fully developed. Current direction for addressing climate change issues in project planning and the NEPA process is provided in the document Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2009). This document outlines the basic considerations for assessing climate change in relation to project-level planning. Two types of climate change effects will be considered for this analysis: x Effect of the proposed project on climate change, specifically effects to greenhouse gas emissions and carbon cycling. Examples include: pyrogenic emissions caused by prescribed burning, changes in biogenic emissions through thinning and forest management, avoidance of large pyrogenic emissions associated with wildfire through forest management, and carbon cycle alterations through reforestation and forest management. x Effect of climate change on the proposed project. Examples include: effects of climate change on the seed stock selection for reforestation, potential changes in natural forest regeneration, and effects of decreased snow fall on recreation or stream flows.

Affected Environment Climate change projections for the Pacific Northwest include year-round warming temperatures, increased winter precipitation, and drier summers. In the next century, average annual temperature is expected to increase from between 3.3 to 9.7 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on global emissions scenarios, and is expected to increase the most during summer months (Mote et al. 2013). There is considerable disagreement across various climate models on the magnitude and direction of changes in precipitation regionally, but mean precipitation in the Pacific Northwest is generally projected to increase in the winter, spring, and fall, while summer precipitation is projected to decrease (Karl et al. 2009). Due to increased temperatures and seasonal changes in precipitation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) projects that worldwide, more areas will be affected by drought and precipitation will increasingly fall in the form of heavy rainfall events. In the Pacific Northwest, snowpack is projected to decrease in extent and duration, particularly at lower elevations (OCCRI 2010). Hydrologic response to climate change in watersheds with significant snowpack may be the most drastic; as warming would increase winter flows and advance the timing of spring snowmelt. By 2050, snowmelt is projected to shift 3 to 4 weeks earlier than the 20th century average (Barnett et al. 2005), and summer flows will be lower (Mote et al. 2013).

Chapter 3 Page|3-171 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

With earlier onset of summer conditions (due to warming temperatures, earlier snowmelt, and decreased summer precipitation), increased occurrence and severity of drought and fires, as well as greater vulnerability to insects and diseases can be expected (Mote et al. 2003). Warming is expected to encourage northward expansion of southern insects and longer growing seasons would allow more insect generations per season.

Environmental Consequences to Climate Change

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1)

Effect of the proposed project on climate change Under the no action alternative, all aboveground dead coarse woody debris would remain on site. While the majority of trees in the project planning area are already dead, a large portion of carbon is still stored in their intact boles. Campbell et al. (2016) computed decomposition of forest biomass killed in the 2002 Biscuit Fire. Decomposition was highest for fire killed leaves and fine roots and lowest for large diameter wood. Decomposition rates varied somewhat among tree species and were only 35% lower for trees still standing than for trees fallen at the time of the fire. They estimated that what was killed but not combusted in the Biscuit Fire, 85% remains 10 years after. Therefore over time, the carbon would slowly be released to the atmosphere as dead trees begin to decay and decompose. Brush response cannot be precisely predicted, but Donato et al. (2009) described hardwoods and woody shrubs response in the 2002 Biscuit Fire. Two years post fire, hardwoods and woody shrubs combined attained a mean cover of 25% (range 9%–49%), and forbs and low shrubs combined attained 34% mean cover (4%–85%). By 4 years, hardwood–shrub cover averaged 33% (4%–63%), and forb – low-shrub cover averaged 48% (5%–197%). Grouped by vegetation type, wetter associations had higher forb – low-shrub cover (42%–53%) but less hardwood–shrub cover (21%–37%) than drier types (14%–19% and 46%–51%, respectively). Broadleaf species were taller than conifers in all types, suggesting their likely dominance during early succession; this differential was greatest in west-side low-elevation associations and slightest in high elevation associations. Tepley et al. (2017) describes a highly competitive environment for conifers following severe fire. Therefore it is likely that brush establishment would be high. Brush competition with tree seedlings may slow forest regeneration, and may cause the treatment units in the project planning area to act as a carbon source for several decades before carbon sequestration from tree growth exceeds carbon emissions from decomposition.

Effect of climate change on the proposed project The effect of climate change on the project planning area is uncertain and depends on future emission scenarios. Predicted changes of warmer and drier summers may affect forest regeneration by causing drought stress on seedlings and saplings (Hanson et al. 2000). Under this alternative, reforestation may not occur as quickly as desirable and natural regeneration may incur more natural mortality due to changing climate. Lack of regeneration (artificial or natural) may cause prolonged periods of a brush-dominated successional stage.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives

Effect of the action alternatives on climate change The scope and degree of change from the action alternatives is minor. The total area proposed for salvage (up to 4,090 acres) is a fraction of the forestland in the project planning area and on the

Page | 3-172 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

RRSNF as a whole. A project of this magnitude would contribute minimally to regional greenhouse gases. Furthermore, at the global scale, the action alternatives direct and indirect contribution to climate change would be negligible, and therefore the project’s cumulative effects on greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible. Climate change is a global phenomenon because major greenhouse gasses mix well throughout the planet’s lower atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Considering emissions of greenhouse gasses in 2010 was estimated at 49 ± 4.5 gigatonnes globally (IPCC 2014) and 6.9 gigatonnes nationally (USEPA 2015), a project of this magnitude makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and national scales, the action alternatives direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible. In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the action alternatives contribution to cumulative effects on global greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate change of global human activity sectors in its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). In 2010, anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several sectors: x Industry, transportation, and building – 41 percent x Energy production – 35 percent x Agriculture – 12 percent x Forestry and other land uses – 12 percent There is agreement that the forestry sector contribution has declined over the last decade (IPCC 2014; Smith et al. 2014; FAOSTAT 2013). The main activity in this sector associated with greenhouse gasses emissions is deforestation, which is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and grassland into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC 2000). This salvage project does not fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Forestland would not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition; instead, salvage treatment units would be replanted to encourage and hasten successful regeneration of forest. The utilization of timber for lumber and other durable wood products should also be accounted for in the carbon budget. Life cycle analyses of wood, from forest to final product, show that carbon can be stored in wood products for hundreds of years (Hennigar et al. 2008). Additionally, the use of wood products for construction rather than fossil fuel intensive concrete and steel has positive carbon implications (Perez-Garcia et al. 2005). The action alternatives would positively affect regional carbon pools by sequestering carbon in the form of new forests (reforestation) and the utilization of dead timber for wood products. Some fossil fuel emissions associated with heavy equipment and vehicles would occur, but not to the extent and degree that would contribute to global carbon pools.

Effect of climate change on the proposed project Though the effects of climate change to this project are difficult to predict, general trends and predictions show warmer, drier summers and increasing occurrence and severity of wildfires. The action alternatives may have short-term effects on fuel quantity and arrangement. Salvage logging has been shown to immediately increase fine woody debris above the level of debris in unsalvaged stands, due to logging activity and slash (Donato et al. 2006, Monstano et al. 2008). Therefore fuel loading within the treatment units would increase immediately post-harvest. Refer to the Fire and Fuels section of Chapter 3 for more information on effects to fuel loading. Most

Chapter 3 Page|3-173 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment scientific literature related to salvage logging studies short-term effects, including most literature on re-burn potential in fire-salvaged stands. Monsanto and Agee (2008) used a chronosequence of fire in eastern Washington to demonstrate the longer term effects of salvage logging on fuels. After about 10 years, the level of coarse woody debris in unsalvaged stands exceeded that of debris in salvaged stands (ibid). While the initial increase in fine fuels after salvage may seem risky, perhaps the more important determinant of re-burn potential is the dense early successional vegetation (young trees and dense shrubs) that will dominate the project planning area for several decades. Reforestation after salvage may increase the ability of a forested stand to establish more quickly.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction There are no forest-wide standards and guidelines specific to climate change. The alternatives are consistent with the goals, objectives, and direction contained in the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Siskiyou Forest Plan), and its accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, as amended. The Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change, states, “[t]he Forest Service will need to build consideration of climate change into virtually all aspects of agency operations including consideration of life cycle analysis of activities” (USDA 2008). Forest Service Chief’s January 16, 2008 letter of direction transmitting the January 13, 2009, Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, applies general NEPA direction and regulation to the consideration of the appropriateness and degree of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for a given project. This guidance frames climate change analysis by discussing the answers to two fundamental challenges: how our management may influence climate change mainly through incremental changes to global pools of greenhouse gases and how climate change may affect our forests and grasslands. Environmental Justice There is no stand-alone report for this section; this section was written directly to the EA. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the forest planning process are the primary ways the Forest Service incorporates environmental justice into its activities. Environmental justice includes the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (U.S. EPA 2013).

Regulatory Framework Each Federal agency is required to make environmental justice part of its mission (CEQ 1997, p. 1). Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. The Forest Service defines environmental justice in accordance with USDA departmental regulations (USDA 1997).

Affected Environment An environmental justice population is a group of people that meets the criterion for low-income or minority under Executive Order 12898 (Clinton 1994). An environmental justice population may be both low income and minority. Fair treatment means that environmental justice populations do not bear a greater burden of environmental harms and risks than the general population from Forest Service programs and policies. Meaningful involvement has four parts:

Page | 3-174 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

(1) potentially affected environmental justice populations have opportunities to participate in decision making processes affecting their environment or health; (2) the contributions of environmental justice populations may influence the agency’s decision; (3) the concerns of all participants are considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of environmental justice populations (U.S. EPA 2010).

Minority Populations The USDA departmental regulations define minority as “a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic” (USDA 1997, p. 2). In its direction on environmental justice in NEPA, the CEQ defines a minority population 2 ways, however the Forest Service has recommended this definition: A minority population may be an identifiable group that has a meaningfully greater minority population than the adjacent geographic areas, or may also be a geographically dispersed/transient set of individuals such as migrant workers or Native Americans (CEQ 1997). For NEPA analysis, identifying meaningfully greater means making efforts to measure the study area population in relation to the general area population. A difference of more than 5 percent between the study area and the surrounding geographic area may indicate a minority population. Minorities comprise 8.4% of Curry County, compared to 14.9 percent in Oregon, and 26.7 percent in the United States (USDC Census Bureau 2017). The data suggests that Curry County does not have a meaningfully greater minority population than the adjacent geographic areas.

Low Income Populations According to CEQ, a low-income population is a community or a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect (CEQ 1997). USDA departmental regulations (USDA 1997, p.2) state that low- income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s annual current population reports (Series P-60) on income and poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau 2013) defines low-income populations by the percentage of people living below poverty in a given area, which is consistent with the CEQ’s environmental justice guidance. Curry County had approximately 15.2% people living below the poverty line and 9.6 % of families living below the poverty line. The state of Oregon poverty levels are 15.7% of people and 10.5% of families and poverty levels in the United States are 15.1% of people and 11.0% of families as a whole (USDC Census Bureau 2017). The data suggests that Curry County does not have a low-income population.

Environmental Consequences to Environmental Justice

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action (Alternative 1) By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect and therefore no cumulative effects to environmental justice because no activities would occur.

Chapter 3 Page|3-175 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from the Action Alternatives In this assessment, there are no identified minority or low-income populations. Because of this, there would be no direct or indirect and therefore no cumulative effects to environmental justice with the selection of either of the action alternatives.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction There are no forest-wide standards and guidelines specific to environmental justice. However, implementation of either alternative would be consistent with Forest Management Goal #1 Provide a balance of resource management that will maintain a healthy Forest ecosystem, and help to supply local, regional and National social and economic needs. The action alternatives are consistent with Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice. The analysis has identified and addressed any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

Page | 3-176 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, tribes, Federal, state and local agencies, and non- Forest Service persons during the development of this preliminary environmental assessment, as follows:

Abel Brumo Brett Silver, National Park Service Alan Betcher Brett Weidenmiller, Coos Forest Protective Alan Journet Association Alexis Brickner, Coos Soil & Water Conservation Brianna Kolb District Briannon Fraley, Tolowa Dee-ni Nation Alisa Ocean Bruce Donelson Allen Bollschweiler, Bureau of Land Management Californians Western Wilderness Allen Heide Cameron Follette Alex Brown Candace Bonner Alex Dolle Carl Clemons Alexander Harris Carrie Avritt Amanda Astor, AFRC Carol Alexander Amy Thomas, Federal Highways Administration Carole Hopkins, Backcountry Horsemen Andrew Chione Catherine Cogdill Andrew Spaeth, Sustainable Northwest Chandra LeGue, Oregon Wild Andy Geissler, AFRC Charles Swift Angela Rex Chetco River Inn Ann Vileisis, Kalmiopsis Audubon Society Cheryl Puley Anna Krug, Oregon State Parks Chris Andreae Anthony Darling, WRCMBA Chris Chambers, City of Ashland Anon Jason Chris Lish Anon McMahan Chris Wallace, Director Public Safety Austin Elesky Christie Kuper Arne Stensrud Christie Nelson Ayani Mikasi Christine Gardiner Barbara Barnes Claudette Moore Barbara Maynord Clay Knopf Barbara Ullian Colin Beck, Coquille Indian Tribe Bccorelse Commissioner Court Boice Benjamin Zumeta Commissioner Dan DeYoung Beth Anderson, South Medford High School Commissioner Lily Morgan Beth Whitaker Commissioner Simon Hare Bethmark Commissioner Sue Gold Bill McNair Commissioner Tom Huxley Bill Scherbarth, VFD Chief Courtney Meier Bob Bastian, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Craig Ackerman, National Park Service Bob Jones, Medford Water Commission Crista Stewart, Elk Valley Rancheria Bob Palzer Curt Johnson Bonnie Johnson Cynthia Gross Bosco D Cynthia Rider Brandon Worthington Dale Miller, Elk Valley Rancheria Brenda Meade, Coquille Indian Tribe Dan Delany, Middle Rogue Watershed Brenda Peterson Daniel Epperson Brett Loper, Oregon Hunters Association Council/Stream Restoration Alliance

Chapter 3 Page|3-177 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Dan Courtney, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Eric Moeggenberg, NRCS Indians Eric Spivak Dan Ginther Erin Kurta, Natural Resources Conservation Service Dan Hilburn, Oregon Department of Agriculture Ernie, Niemi Daniel Dalegowski, Mayor Fenner James Daniel Newberry, Siskiyou Field Institute Francis Oyung, Bear Creek Watershed Council Danielle Hummel Frank Burris, Oregon State University, Extension Darin Jarnaghan, Coquille Indian Tribe Gabe Howe, Siskiyou Mountain Club Darren Borgias, The Nature Conservancy Gabriel Scott Dave Daniel, Sheriff Gary (Rocky) Reeser, Motorcycle Riders Association Dave Lacey, South Coast Tours Gary Grotrian, Oak Flat Neighborhood Watch Dave Larson, Oregon Department of Forestry Gary Milliman, City of Brookings Dave Lorenz, Oregon Department of Forestry Gary N Dave Potter Gayle Merz Dave Roemer, National Park Service George McKinley, Jackson County Integrated Fire Dave VanCleave, Harbor Water Superintendent Plan David Chain, Natural Resources Conservation Service George Lopez, Klamath Tribes David Duncan, Fire Chief George Sexton, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center David Harrelson, Con. Tribes of the Grand Ronde George Smith, Coquille Tribe David Hilgendorf, Federal Highways Administration George Wuerthner David Johns Grant Werschkull David Moryc Greeley Wells David Schott Grmcmahan David Scimeca Gwen Davies Dean Finnerty, Trout Unlimited Hal Anthony Debbie Mihal Hank Hobart, Police Chief Dee Perez, Southern Oregon University Harold Bennett, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation Delbert Ash Harvey Young Dennis Hoke, Illinois Valley Fire District (IVRD) Heather Lilienthal, Oregon State University, Deputy Chief Jeff Gavlik IVRD Extension Derwin Boggs, Coos Forest Protective Association Heidi Helms Diane Follansbee Herve Perreault Dick Artley Howard Erbe Dick Butler, Backcountry Horsemen Ian Nelson, Pacific Crest Trail Association Dixon Andrew, Police Chief Jack Churchill Dolores Pigsley, Con. Tribes of the Siletz Indians Jack Duggan Dominick DellaSalla, Jack Shipley, Applegate Partnership & Watershed Don Allen, Sand Mountain Society Council Don Ambers, Klamath Basin Snowdrifters Jake Pieper, Mayor Donna Freeman, Powers Action Team Jake Schwartz Donna Rutledge James Jungwirth Don Gentry, Klamath Tribes Jamie Stevens, Klamath Bird Observatory Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild Jan Johnson, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Doug Shipley Janelle Dunlevy, Applegate Watershed Council Ed Gross, The Trash Dogs Janet Carr Eileen Brodie Janet Flanagan Elaine Condon Jason Robison, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Elen Gchesa Indians Elizabeth Burghard, Bureau of Land Management

Page | 3-178 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Jeff Griffin, Governor's Economic Revitalization Kris Sherman, IVRD Team Kyle Collins Jessica John Kyle Milton Jessie Plueard, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Larry Rains, Medford Water Commission Indians Larry Robinson, Parks Director Jewell Starsinger Laurel Hanley Jim Buck, US Army Corps of Engineers Lee Winslow, Oregon Department of Forestry Jim Hemmingsen Lee Zucker Jim Muck, NOAA Marine Fisheries Service Lewis Hollingworth, RVMB Association Jim Rogers, Friends of the Elk River Liesl Coleman, Curry Soil & Water Conservation Jim Seeley, Wild Rivers Coast Alliance District Jim Steitz Lily Price Jim Watson, Curry VFD Link Smith, Oregon Department of Forestry Joan Robertson-Geisler Linnea Fronce Jodi Fritts-Matthey, City of Gold Beach Lisa Beam, Mt. Ashland Association Joe Gregorio, Cal-Ore Life Flight Lisa Sanderson-Fox Joe Latva, IVRD Lorie Boten, Wilderness Retreat Johanna Harman Lucy Mead John Alexander, Klamath Bird Observatory Luke Martinez, Wilderness Canyon Adventures John and Susan Richmond Luke Ruediger John Brazil, Harbor RFD Lynn Stapes John Karns, City of Ashland Madeleine Vander Heyden, U.S. Fish & Wildlife John Koenig Service John Stromberg, City of Ashland Marie Simonds, Rural Tourism Studio Steering John Ward, Sheriff Committee Jonnel Covault Tyson Rasor, Outdoor Recreation Action Team Joseph Quinn Margaret Murray Joseph Vaile Mark Furler Joyce McPartland Mark Johnston, Coquille Tribe Judith Maron-Friend Mark Sherwood Julie Lockman, Clean Forest Project Marko Bey, Lomakatsi Restoration Project June Mitman Marina Richie Karl Popoff, Mayor Marius Wasbauer Kassandra Rippee, Coquille Indian Tribe Mary Law Kate Kenner Mary O’Brien Katherine Hovis Mary Wahl, Wahl Ranches Kathleen Anderson Matt Shorb, Powers School District Kathleen Gallardo Matt Swanson, South Coast Watershed Council Kathy Hathaway Matthew Dawson, Geological Society of America Kathy Westenskow, Bureau of Land Management Max Bennett, Oregon State University, Extension Kathy Williams Megan VanPelt, Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Kelly Miles, Coquille Watershed Association Menno Kraai, Illinois Valley Community Kelly Timchak, Lower Rogue Watershed Council Development Kendall Martel, WRC Forest Health Collaborative Michael Kew Kevin Adamek, South Coast Lumber Michael McLaughlin Kevin O'Brien, Illinois Valley Watershed Council Michael Murphy, Coos County Kevin Wood, Southern Oregon Nordic Club Michael Schindel, The Nature Conservancy Kim Hurley Mike Burke Kimberly Smith Mike Gray, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Chapter 3 Page|3-179 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Mike Kennedy, Con. Tribes of the Siletz Indians Ryan King, Ruch Elementary School Mike Kloor Ryan Schwartz Mike Miller, Curry Citizens for Public Land Access R. Jacob, Elk Valley Rancheria Mike Robison, Coos Forest Protective Association S. Craft Mike Wilson, Confederated Tribe of Grand Ronde Samuel Sprague Molly McCarthy, Wyden’s Office Sandy Abell M. Kauffman, ODF Sara Rubrecht, Jackson County Nancy Salber, State of Oregon Sarah Navarro, Oregon Department of Forestry Neil Benson, Jackson County Integrated Fire Plan Scott McNair Nic McNair, Jerry's Jet Boats Scott Sullivan, Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Niki Del Pizzo, Lomakatsi Restoration Project Serena Rittenhouse-Barry Norma Kline Oregon State University, Extension Shannon Wilson Pat Faddin, South Coast Lumber Sharon Prow Pat Skrip, Douglas Forest Protective Association Sheelagh Oliveria Patty McCleary, Smith River Alliance Sherri Laier, Oregon State Parks Paul Henson, FWS Sherrie' Ward, Curry Community Health Peg Reagan Shirley Stentz, Oregon State Parks Perry Chocktoot, Klamath Tribes Shirley Wahl Pete Winnick, Natural Resources Conservation Stacy Savonna, Oregon Department of Forestry Service Steve Braun Peter Dalke, Portland State University/Oregon Steve Evans Solutions Steve Mazur, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Peter Mazzini, Upper Rogue Watershed Council Steve Miller Pyuwa Bommelyn, Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Steve Niemala, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Philip Mancus Steven Denney, The Nature Conservancy P. Burke, BLM Stuart Warren Rama Krisa Sunny Bourdon Randy Klein Suzie Savoie Randy Wiese, Oregon Department of Forestry Tim Pogwizd, Mayor, City of Port Orford Ray Wilberg Tim White, National Wild Turkey Federation Rep. David Brock Smith Therese Macgregor Rep. Wayne Krieger Todd Confer, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Reyn Leno, Confederated Tribe of Grand Ronde Tom Dolittle Rich Kehr Tom Hawkins, Curry Citizens for Public Land Access Rich Nawa, KS Wild Tribal Chairperson, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation Richard North Tyler McCarty, Oregon Department of Forestry Rob Cain, Ashland Woodlands & Trails Association Tyson Krieger, Fire Chief Robert Bernstein Tyson Rasor, Port Orford Ocean Resource Team/ Red Robert Kentta, Con. Tribes of the Siletz Indians Fish Rocks Community Team Robert Lee T. Lafazio, Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Robert Workman, US Coast Guard Val Early, Early Fishing Roberta Hill Vicki Snitzler, National Park Service, Oregon Caves Romain Cooper NM Ron Sherva, Oregon Hunters Association Vince Oredson, Oregon Department of Fish & Ron Steiner, Plum Creek Timber Company Wildlife Ronald Brand Veronika T Ronald Thompson Will Hatcher, Klamath Tribes Ruth Greyraven Zachary Collier

Page | 3-180 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

An additional 109 individuals were also consulted during the development of the preliminary environmental assessment, however the only contact information available for them are email addresses, and therefore they were not included here. For a complete list of individuals consulted refer to the project record.

Chapter 3 Page|3-181 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

References Adams, S., and J. O. Sawyer. "Past Fire Incidence in Mixed Evergreen Forests of North Western California." unpublished document, Humboldt State University (1980). Agee, James K. "Fire history along an elevational gradient in the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon." Northwest Science 65.4 (1991). Agee, James K. "Fire history of Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific Northwest." USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-Pacific Northwest Research Station (USA) (1991). Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington D.C. Amaranthus, Michael; Page-Dumroese, Debbie; Harvey, Al; Cazares, Efren; and Bednar, Larry E.; 1996. Soil Compaction and Organic Matter Affect Conifer Seedling Nonmycorrhizal and Ectomycorrhizal Root Tip Abundance and Diversity; USDA, Pacific Northwest Research Station; PNW-RP-494 Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. General Technical Report INT-122. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 28pAmaranthus, M.P., Effect of Grass Seeding and Fertilizing on Surface Erosion in Two Intensely Burned Sites in Southwest Oregon, 1989. Presented at the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management, October 1988, Sacramento CA. GTR-PSW-109, USDA FS PSW. Atzet, T., R.F. Powers, D.H. McNabb, M.P. Amaranthus, and E.R. Gross. 1989. Maintaining long- term forest productivity in Southwest Oregon and northern California. P. 185-201 in Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems, Perry, D.A., et al. (eds.). Timber Press, Portland, OR. Atzet, T., White, D.E., McCrimmon, L.A., Martinez, P.A., Fong, P.R., Randall, V.D. 1996. USDA Forest Service, September 1996. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of Southwestern Oregon. Technical Paper. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96. Atzet, Thomas, and Robert E. Martin. "Natural disturbance regimes in the Klamath Province." Proceedings of the symposium on biodiversity of northwestern California. Vol. 40. 1992. Baldwin, B. and Goldman, D. 2012. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1,568 pp. Barker, J.S. Simard, S.W. Jones, M.D. Durall, D.M. 2013. Ectomycorrhizal fungal community assembly on regenerating Douglas-fir after wildfire and clearcut harvesting. P: 1179-1189 in Oecologia (2013) 172 Barnett, T.P., Adam, J.C., and Lettenmaier, D.P., 2005. Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Vol 438, Doi:10.1038/nature04141 Benjamin Flint and Loren D. Kellogg. 2013. First Entry Commercial Thinning: A comparison of Traditional and Contemporary Harvesting Methods on Steep Slopes in the Coast Range of Oregon. In 2013 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. 7p. Beschta RL, Bilby RE, Brown GW, Holtby LB, Hofstra TD. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, Salo EO, Cundy TW (eds). Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington: Seattle, WA; 191– 232.

Page | 3-182 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Beschta, R.L., J.J. Rhodes, B. Kauffman, R.E. Gresswell, G.W. Minshall, J.R. Karr, D.A. Perry, R.R. Hauer, and C.A. Frissell. 2004. Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conservation Biology, 18: 957–967. Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel, and J.P. Ward, Jr. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1116- 1124. Bormann, B. T., Homann, P.S., Darbyshire, R.L. and B.A. Morrissette. 2003. Intense Forest Wildfire Sharply Reduces Mineral Soil C and N: The First Direct Evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 2771–2783. Broderson, J. Morris. 1973. Sizing Buffer Strips to Maintain Water Quality. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Brown, G. W. 1983. Forest and water quality. Oregon State University Bookstore, Corvallis, Oregon. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Course woody debris: managing benefits and fire hazards in recovering forest. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Bull, E. L., B. C. Wales and K. B. Aubry (2001). "Effects of disturbance on forest carnivores of conservation concern in eastern Oregon and Washington." Northwest Science 75(Special Issue): 180-184. Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H.; [Technical coordinators] 1990. Silvics of : Volume 2. Hardwoods. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 654. Lithocarpus densiflorus written by John C Tappeiner, II, Phillip M. McDonald, Douglass F. Roy. Burton, P.J. 2002. Effects of clearcut edges on trees in the sub-boreal spruce zone of Northwest- Central British Columbia. Silva Fennica 36(1): 329–352. Campbell, S, D.L. Azuma, and D. Weyermann. 2004. Forests of eastern Oregon, an overview. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-578. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 19 pages. Campbell, J.L., J.B.Fontaine, and D. C. Donato (2016), Carbon emissions from decomposition of fire-killed trees following a large wildfire in Oregon, United States, J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 121,718–730, doi:10.1002/2015JG003165. Caton, E. L. (1996). Effects of fire and salvage logging on the cavity-nesting bird community in northwestern Montana. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Montana. Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid and EO Salo. 1980. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Contribution No. 543: 35 pp. Claridge, A. W. Trappe, J.M. Hansen, K. 2009. Do fungi have a role as soil stabilizers and remediators after forest fire? P: 1063 – 1069 in Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009). Clark, D.A. 2007. Demography and habitat selection of northern spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of southwestern Oregon. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.

Chapter 3 Page|3-183 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Clark, D.A., R.G. Anthony, and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 45:38-47. Clark, D.A., R.G. Anthony, and L.S. Andrews. 2013. Relationship between wildfire, salvage logging, and occupancy of nesting territories by northern spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management; 77(4): 672-688 Clarno, Kailey 2017. Burned Area Emergency Response Specialist Report: Botany and Invasive Plants, Chetco Bar Fire. October, 2017. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. Clinton, W.J. 1994. Executive order 12898: Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. Federal Register. 59(32):7629–7635. http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf. (Accessed January 21, 2014). Collins, Brandon M., and Gary B. Roller. 2013. Early forest dynamics in stand-replacing fire patches in the northern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Landscape Ecology 28.9 (2013): 1801-1813. Comfort, E.J., D.A. Clark, R.G Anthony, J. Bailey, and M.G. Betts. 2016. Quantifying eges as gradients at multiple scales improves habitat selection models for northern spotted owl. Landscape Ecology (2016) 31:1227-1240. Coppoletta, Michelle, Kyle E. Merriam, and Brandon M. Collins. 2016. Post-fire vegetation and fuel development influences fire severity patterns in reburns. Ecological applications 26.3 (2016): 686-699. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ- EJGuidance.pdf (Accessed January 21, 2014). Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004. (DOGAMI) Oregon Department of Geologic and Mineral Industries. 2009. Oregon Geologic Data Compilation (OGDC) – Release 5. Donato, D.C., J.B. Fontaine, J.B. Kauffman, W.D. Robinson, and B.E. Law. 2013. Fuel mass and forest structure following stand-replacement fire and post-fire logging in a mixed- evergreen forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22: 652–666. Donato, D.C., J.B. Fontaine, J.L. Campbell, W.D. Robinson, J.B. Kauffman, and B.E. Law. 2006. Post-Wildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk. Science Mag Vol 311. 21 November 2005; accepted 21 December 2005. Published online 5 January 2006; 10.1126/science.1122855 Donato, D.C., J.B. Fontaine, J.L. Campbell, W.D. Robinson, J.B. Kauffman, and B.E. Law. 2009. Conifer regeneration in stand-replacement portions of a large mixed-severity wildlife in the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains. Can. J. For. Res. 39: 823–838 (2009) doi:10.1139/X09- 016

Page | 3-184 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Donato, D.C., J.B. Fontaine, J.B. Kauffman, W.D. Robinson, and B.E. Law. 2013. Fuel mass and forest structure following stand-replacement fire and post-fire logging in a mixed- evergreen forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22: 652–666. Dunn, C.J., and J.D. Bailey. 2012. Temporal dynamics and decay of coarse wood in early seral habitats of dry-mixed conifer forests in Oregon’s eastern Cascades. Forest Ecology Management 276: 71–8. Dunn, C.J., and J.D. Bailey. 2015. Modeling the direct effects of salvage logging on long-term temporal fuel dynamics in dry-mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 341: 93–109. Elliott. B. 1985. Changes in distribution of owl species subsequent to habitat alteration by fire. Western Birds 16:25-28. Emerson, C. 2010. Conservation Assessment for Gasquet manzanita (Arctostaphylos hispidula) within the State of Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/ca-va-arctostaphylos- hispidula-2010-03.pdf) Eyes, S.A., S. L. Roberts, and M.D. Johnson. 2017. California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) habitat use patterns in a burned landscape. The Condor, 119: 375-388. FAOSTAT (2013). FAOSTAT database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/ Floch, R.F. 1988. Shovel logging and soil compaction: A case study. Masters Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. May 1988. Fontaine, J.B. 2008. Influences of high severity fire and postfire logging on avian and small mammal communities of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon, USA. Dissertation. Oregon State University. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/d504rn77n Fontaine, J.B., D.C. Donato, W.D. Robinson, B.E. Law and J.B. Kauffman. 2009. Bird communities following high-severity fire; response to single and repeat fires in a mixed- evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 257 (6) pp. 1496-1504. Forristal, C., V. A. Saab and A. Markus (2007). Examining the influence of post-wildfire timber harvest on sensitive woodpecker reproduction, Birds and Burns Network. Forristal, C. D. (2009). Influence of postfire salvage logging on black-backed woodpecker nest- site selection and nest survival. M.S., Montana State University, College of Letters & Science. Franklin, Jerry F., 1990. Biological Legacies: A Critical Management Concept from Mount St. Helens. Pages 216-219 in the Transactions of the Fifth-fifth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Denver Colorado. Franklin, J.F. and J.K. Agee. 2003. Forging a Science-Based National Forest Fire Policy. Issues in Science and Technology Online. Fall 2003. Froehlich, H.A. and McNabb, D.H. 1983. Minimizing Soil Compaction in the Pacific Northwest Forests. In: Earl L. Stone (Ed.) Forest Soils and Treatment Impacts. Proc. Of Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference. Univ. of tenn. Conferences, 2016 Lake Ave. , Knoxville. June 1983. PP. 159-192

Chapter 3 Page|3-185 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. Pages 297- 323 in influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. W.R. Meehan, editor. American Fisheries Society Spec. Pub. 19. Gaines, W.L., R.A. Strand, S.D. Piper. 1997. Effects of the hatchery complex fires on northern spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Pages 123-129 in Proceedings – Fire effects on rare plants and endangered species and habitat conference. 13-16 November 1995, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA. Ganey, J.L., H.Y. Wan, S.A. Cushman, and C.D. Vojta. 2017. Conflicting perspectives on spotted owls, wildfire, and forest restoration. Fire Ecology 13(3): 146-165. Doi: 10.4996/fireecology.130318020 Goheen, E.M., Goheen, D.J., 2014. Status of Sugar and Western White Pines on Federal Forest Lands in Southwest Oregon, Inventory Query and Natural Stand Survey Results. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. SWOFIDSC-14-01. 71 pp. Goheen, E.M., 2017. One page description of Sudden Oak Death and Port-Orford-cedar root disease on the Chetco Bar fire written to educate fire suppression personnel about potential to spread these exotic diseases during suppression and rehabilitation activities. Unpublished. Goodman, D.M. and J.A. Trofymow. 1998. Comparison of communities of ectomycorrhizal fungi in old-growth and mature stands of Douglas-fir at two sites on southern Vancouver Island. Can. J. For. Res. 28: 574-581. Grant, G., Lewis, S., Swanson, F., Cissel, J. and J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response in Western Oregon: A State-of- Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-760. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Gross, Ed. 1997. Soil Disturbance from Helicopter Yarding in the Upper Pistol Timber Sale. Southwestern Oregon. Siskiyou National Forest. 3 pg. GSA and Geocorps. 2005. Monitoring: Soil Erosion After the Biscuit Fire. 1 pg. Hann, W.J. 2004. Mapping fire regime condition class: a method for watershed and project scale analysis. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Temperate, Boreal, and Montane Ecosystems. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Hann Wendel J. Bunnell David L. (2001) Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10, 389- 403. Harmon, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Swanson, F.J.; [et al.]. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research. 15: 133-302. Harvey, B. C., R. J. Nakamoto, and J. L. White. 2006. Reduced streamflow lowers dry-season growth of in a small stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:998–1005. Hansen, James; Sato, Makiko; Ruedy, Reto; Lacis, Andrew; and Oinas, Valdar. 2000. Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario. Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025

Page | 3-186 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Hanson, C.T, M.L. Bond, D.E. Lee. 2018. Effects of post-fire logging on California spotted owl occupancy. Nature Conservation 24: 93-105. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.24.20538 Hayes, J.P., and J. Cissel. 1995. The influences of post-fire salvage logging on wildlife populations. Final Report, Joint Fire Science Program, AFP 2004-2. Project number 04-2- 1-95. https://www.firescience.gov/projects/04-2-1-95/project/04-2-1-95_final_report.pdf Henderson, E., 2013. Oregon State University, Institute for Natural Resources. Final report for Potential Vegetation Mapping Update for Southwestern Oregon. 14 pp. Hennigar, C. R., MacLean, D. A., & Amos-Binks, L. J. (2008). A novel approach to optimize management strategies for carbon stored in both forests and wood products. Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 786–797. Hessberg, P.F., D.J. Churchill, A.J. Larson, R.D. Haugo, C. Miller, T.A. Spies, M.P. North, N.A. Povak, R. T. Belote, P.H. Singleton, W.L. Gaines, R.E. Keane, G.H. Aplet, S.L. Stephens, P. Morgan, P.A. Bisson, B.E. Rieman, R.B. Salter, G.H. Reeves. 2015. Restoring fire- prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landscape Ecology 30(10): 1805- 1835. Heyerdahl, E.K., and J.K. Agee. 1996. Historical fire regimes of four sites in the Blue Mountains, Oregon and Washington. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. Hobbs, S. D. (1992). Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and northern California. Hutto, R. L. and S. M. Gallo (2006). "The effects of postfire salvage logging on cavity-nesting birds." The Condor 108(4): 817-831. Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species (ISSSSP) Region 6 TES List. 2015. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/ IPCC 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ IPCC 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0 Jenness, J.S., P. Beier, and J.L. Ganey. 2004. Associations between forest fire and Mexican spotted owls. Forest Science 50:765-772. Jenson, S.K. and J.O. Domingue. 1988. Extracting Topographic Structure from Digital Elevation Data for Geographic Information System Analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. Vol. 54, No. 11, November 1988, pp. 1593-1600. Joint Fire Science Program. Fire Science Brief. 2009. The Forest, the Fire and the Fungi: Studying the Effects of Prescribed Burning on Mycorrhizal Fungi in Crater Lake National

Chapter 3 Page|3-187 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Park. https://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/03-3-2-05_FSBrief38.pdf. Accessed 2018. Jones, J and Grant, G 1996. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 32, NO. 4, PAGES 959- 974, April 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. J. A. Jones. Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis. G. E. Grant. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Jones, G.M., J.J. Keane, R..J. Gutierrez, and M.Z. Peery. 2018 Declining old-forest species as a legacy of large trees lost. Diversity and Distributions Vol 24, Issue 3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ddi.12682 Joyce, Linda A.; Running, Steven W.; Breshears, David D.; Dale, Virginia H.; Malmsheimer, Robert W.; Sampson, R. Neil; Sohngen, Brent; Woodall, Christopher W. 2014. Chapter 7: Forests. In: Melillo, Jerry; Richmond, Terese (T.C.); Yohe, Gary, eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program: 176–194. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/forests Jubas, H. 2005. Turbidity Monitoring Following the Biscuit Fire (2002-2003). Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. Kalt, J. 2008. DRAFT Conservation Assessment and Monitoring Strategy for California Globe Mallow (Illiamna latibracteata). USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Karr, J.R., J.J. Rhodes, G. Minshall, H.F. Wayne, B. Richard, L. Robert, C.A. Frissell, and D.A. Perry. 2004. The effects of postfire salvage logging on aquatic ecosystems in the American West. Bioscience 54: 1029–1033. Keeley, J.E., 1991. Seed germination and life history syndromes in the California chaparral. The Botanical Review, 57(2), pp.81-116. Keeley, Jon E. "Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage." International Journal of Wildland Fire 18.1 (2009): 116-126. Keslick, J.A. Jr. 1997. Fact Sheets: “Dozer” blight. One absorptive structure, mycorrhiza. How to kill a tree. Kormeier E. 1995. Summary of Fish Habitat/Water Quality Since the Silver Fire of 1987. Siskiyou National Forest. Kuhn, William and Pat Hochhalter, 2018. Chetco bar Post-Fire Assessment Historic or Natural Range of Variation Analysis. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. "LANDFIRE Program: Home." LANDFIRE Program: Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2018.Keller, E.A., and Swanson, F.J., 1979. Effects of large organic material on channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface Processes 4:361-380. Lee, D.E. and M.L. Bond. 2015a. Occupancy of California spotted owl sites following a large fire in the Sierra Nevada. The Condor 117:228-236. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-14- 155.1 Lee, D.E. and M.L. Bond. 2015b. Previous year’s reproductive state affects spotted owl site occupancy and reproduction responses to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. The Condor 117:307-319. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-14-197.1

Page | 3-188 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Lightfoot, Kent 1978. The Impact of Casual Collecting on Archeological Interpretation Through Regional Surface Surveys. In An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resources Management: The Little Colorado Planning Unit, edited by Fred Plog, pp. 91-113. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 13 Tempe Lindenmayer, D.B., and R.F. Noss. 2006. Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 20: 949–958. Little, R.L., Peterson, D.L., Silsbee, D.G., Shainsky, L.J., Bednar, L.F., 1995. Radial growth patterns and the effects of climate on second-growth Douglas-fir in the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest Resources, University if Washington, Seattle, Washington; USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, Oregon. Luzier, C. W., H. A. Schaller, J. K. Brostrom, C. Cook-Tabor, D. H. Good - man, R. D. Nelle, K. Ostrand, and B. Streif. 2009. Proceedings of the Pacific Lamprey Conservation Initiative Work Session—October 28–29, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Portland, Oregon. Available: www.fws.gov/columbiariver/ publications.html. (December 2014). Luce, C.H., 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Rest. Ecol. 5 (3), 265–270. MacDonald, K. and Ochoa, L. 2017. Chetco Bar Fire BAER Soil Resource Assessment. U.S. Forest Service, Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach, OR. McGinnis, T.W., J.E. Keeley, S.L. Stephens, and G.B. Roller. 2010. Fuel buildup and potential fire behavior after stand-replacing fires, logging fire-killed trees and herbicide shrub removal in Sierra Nevada forests. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 22–35. McHugh. M. 2005. Biscuit Fire Soils Monitoring. Siskiyou National Forest McPherson, G.R., D.D. Wade, and C.B. Phillips. 1990. Glossary of wildland fire management terms. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. Meyer, L.C. and M.P. Amaranthus. 1979. Siskiyou National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. 258 pg. Millar, Constance I; Stephenson, Nathan L.; Stephens, Scott L. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17(8): 2145- 2151. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/31774 Miller, Jay D., and Hugh Safford. "Trends in wildfire severity: 1984 to 2010 in the Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau, and southern Cascades, California, USA." Fire Ecology 8.3 (2012): 41- 57. Miller, Jay D., et al. "Trends and causes of severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern California, USA." Ecological Applications 22.1 (2012): 184-203.Miller, Jay D., and Hugh Safford. "Trends in wildfire severity: 1984 to 2010 in the Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau, and southern Cascades, California, USA." Fire Ecology 8.3 (2012): 41-57. Miller, J.D., and A.E. Thode. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) (PDF, 2.3 MB). Remote Sensing of Environment 109: 66-80.

Chapter 3 Page|3-189 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Monsanto, P.G., and J.K. Agee. 2008. Long-term post-wildfire dynamics of coarse woody debris after salvage logging and implications for soil heating in dry forests of the eastern Cascades, Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3952–3961. Mote, P. W., J. Abatzoglou, and K. E. Kunkel. 2013. Variability and change in the past and the future. Pages 25-40 in M. M. Dalton, P. W. Mote, and A. K. Snover, editors. Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC. Noss, R.F., J.F.Franklin, W. Baker, T.Schoennagel, and P.B.Moyle. 2006. Ecology and Management of Fire-prone Forests of the Western United States. Society for Conservation Biology Scientific Panel on Fire in Western US Forests, Washington, D.C. Noss, R.F., J.F.Franklin, W.L. Baker, T.Schoennagel, and P.B.Moyle. 2006. Managing Fire-prone forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 4(9): 481-487 Oliver, C.D., Larsen, B.C., 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. Updated Version. John Wiley & Sons Inc. IBSN 0-471-13833-9. 520 pp. Oster, Elizabeth n.d.; The Effects of Fire on Subsurface Archeological Materials (DRAFT). In, Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. Kevin C. Ryan and Anne Trinkle Jones, editors. Rainbow Series, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. In press. Page-Dumroese, Deborah S., Ann M. Abbott, and Thomas M. Rice. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol, Volume I and Volume II. GTR-WO-82a, 82b. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Park, C.S. 1993. SHADOW stream temperature management program, USDA, USFS, Pacific Northwest Region. Park, S.J., K. McSweeney, and B. Lowery. 2001. Identification of the spatial distribution of soils using a process based terrain characterization. Geoderma 103:249-272. Parker, Patricia L. and King, Thomas F. (1998). National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register, History and Education, National Register of Historic Places. Pennock, D.J., B.J. Zebarth, and E. De Jong. 1987. Landform classification and soil distribution in hummocky terrain, Saskatchewan, Canada. Geoderma 40:297-315. Perez-Garcia, J., Lippke, B., Comnick, J., & Manriquez, C. (2005). An assessment of carbon pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood and Fiber Science, 37, 140–148. Peterson, D.L., M.C. Johnson, J.K. Agee, T.B. Jain, D. McKenzie, and E.D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the Western United States. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-628. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 pages. Peterson, D., J. Agee, G. Aplet, D. Dykstra, R. Graham, [and others] 2009. Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America. PNW-GTR-776. Peterson, D.W., E.K. Dowdson, and R.J. Harrod. 2014. Post-fire logging reduces surface woody fuels up to four decades following wildfire. For Ecology and Management 338: 84-91.

Page | 3-190 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Powell, D.C. 1998. Historical range of variability for forest structural classes. File Code: 2430, Route to: 2600. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. 7 pages. Purdon, M., Brais, S. and Bergeron, Y., 2004. Initial response of understorey vegetation to fire severity and salvage-logging in the southern boreal forest of Québec. Applied Vegetation Science, 7(1), pp.49-60. Reilly, M.J., Spies, A.S., Hessburg, P.F. 2015. Ecological effects of post-fire salvage logging in the Pacific Northwest. White Paper. Boise, ID. Rene Zamora-Cristales, Paul W. Adams, and John Sessions. 2014. Ground-Based Thinning on Steep Slopes in Western Oregon: Soil Exposure and Strength Effects, in Forest Science, Applied Research, soils & hydrology, October 2014 p 1014 – 1020. Rien Visser and Karl Stampfer. 2015. Expanding Ground-based Harvesting onto Steep Terrain: A Review. Croat. j. for. eng. 36(2015)2. 2015 p 321–331. Rishel, B., Gregg & A. Lynch, James & S. Corbett, Edward. (1982). Seasonal Stream Temperature Changes Following Forest Harvest. Journal of Environmental Quality - J ENVIRON QUAL. 11. 10.2134/jeq1982. Ritchie, M.W., E.E. Knapp, and C.N. Skinner. 2013. Snag longevity and surface fuel accumulation following post-fire logging in a ponderosa pine dominated forest. Forest Ecology and Management 287: 113–122. Roberts, S.L., J.W. van Wagtendonk, A.K. Miles, and D.A. Kelt. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation 144:610-619. Roy, D.F., 1957. Silvical Characteristics of Tanoak California Forest and Range Experiment station, USDA Forest Service. Technical Paper No. 22, Berkeley, California. 21 pp. Ruel, J.C. 1995. Understanding windthrow: Silvicultural implications. The Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 71, No. 4. Saab, V. A., R. E. Russell and J. G. Dudley (2007). "Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire." The Condor 109(1): 97-108. Scott, J. H., and R.E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR- 153. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 80 pages. Sessions, J., P. Bettinger, R.Buckman, M.Newton, and J.Hamann. 2004. Hastening the return of complex forests following fire: the consequences of delay. Journal of Forestry 102(3): 38- 45. Skinner, C.N. 2002. Influence of fire on the dynamics of dead woody material in forests of California and southwestern Oregon. in Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr., B. Valentine, C.P. Weatherspoon, and T.E. Lisle, technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/035_Skinner.pdf Smith P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E. A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranath, C. W. Rice, C. Robledo

Chapter 3 Page|3-191 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 121 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf Smith, S.L. and D.R. Cluck. 2011 Marking guidelines for fire-injured trees in CA. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Heath Protection. Report # RO-11-01. 11 p. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5331724.pdf Straatsma, G. and Krisai-Greilhuber, I., 2003. Assemblage structure, species richness, abundance, and distribution of fungal fruit bodies in a seven year plot-based survey near Vienna. Mycological Research, 107(5), pp.632-640. Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, and J. Fites-Kaufman. 2006. Fire as an ecological process. In: Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pages 58-74. Suttle, K. B., M. E. Power, J. M. Levine, and C. McNeely. 2004. How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications 14:969–974. Swanson, M.E., J.F. Franklin, R.L. Beschta, C.M. Crisafulli, D.A. DellaSala, R.L. Hutto, D.B. Lindenmayer, and F.J. Swanson. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early- successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment doi: 10.1890/090157. Thomas, J.W., E.D., Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. “A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl.” USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDI National Park Service. Portland, OR. 427 pp. Thompson, J. R., Spies, T. A., & Ganio, L. M. (2007). Reburn severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a large wildfire. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(25), 10743-10748. Thorn, S., C. Bässler, R. Brandl, P. J. Burton, R. Cahall, J. L. Campbell, J. Castro, C.-Y. Choi, T. Cobb, D. C. Donato, E. Durska, J. B. Fontaine, S. Gauthier, C. Hebert, T. Hothorn, R. L. Hutto, E.-J. Lee, A. B. Leverkus, D. B. Lindenmayer, M. K. Obrist, J. Rost, S. Seibold, R. Seidl, D. Thom, K. Waldron, B. Wermelinger, M.-B. Winter, M. Zmihorski and J. Müller (2018). "Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: A meta-analysis." Journal of Applied Ecology 55(1): 279-289.Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington D.C. U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. How poverty is calculated in the ACS. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty-cal-in-acs.pdf (Accessed January 21, 2014) USDA Forest Service, 1973. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 1. Washington, DC. United States Department of Agriculture.

Page | 3-192 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

USDA Forest Service, 1974. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2. Washington, DC. United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service, 1980. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 5: Timber. Washington, DC. United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service, 1986. 1986 ROS Book. United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service. 1989. Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan; USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan, Siskiyou National Forest. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. . Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/rogue-siskiyou/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5315100. USDA Forest Service1989a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass. USDA Forest Service 1989b. Record of Decision, Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass. USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. [Northwest Forest Plan] Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl [and] standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. 1 vols. Portland, OR. USDA and USDI 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. USDA and USDI. 1994b. 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. USDA and USDI 1994c. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late- Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1996, Chetco River Watershed Analysis: iteration 1.0. Brookings Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest, Chetco Ranger District USDA Forest Service. 1997. USDA departmental regulation no. 5600-002, environmental justice. http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/DR5600-002.pdf USDA Forest Service. 1998. FSM 2520 – Watershed Protection and Management, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 6 pg. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, 1998, Pistol River Watershed Analysis, iteration 1.0, Brookings Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest, Chetco Ranger District USDA and USDI. 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. 135 pp.

Chapter 3 Page|3-193 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Regional Forester Letter to Forest Supervisors: Reforestation Requirements USDA Forest Service 2003: Equipment Suitable for Steeper Slopes, https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf00512826/pdf00512826pt04.pdf USDA Forest Service, 2004. Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest. USDA and USDI 2004. Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA 2005. Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Region 6, Portland, OR. USDA 2007. Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and Guidelines From Forest Lands and Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, 2008. Forest Service Manual 2300: Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management. Washington, DC. United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service. 2010. FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 – Soil Management, Amendment No. 2500-2010-1. Effective November 23, 2010. National Headquarters (WO), Washington D.C. 20 pg. 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. April 2012. 165 pg. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/index.html USDA Forest Service. 2012. Siskiyou National Forest MIS forest-wide environmental baseline and species account. Medford, OR: USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2016. Final Record of Decision for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Medford, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. ISSSSP Conservation Planning Tools. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/ USDA Forest Service 2018. Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest, Letter To The File, Danger Tree Abatement Along Roadsides, Southwest Oregon. January, 2018. USDA NRCS (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995b. Soil Survey of Curry County, Oregon. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) Accessed 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Action development process: interim guide on considering environmental justice during the development of an action, p. 3.

Page | 3-194 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/considering-ej-in-rulemaking- guide-07-2010.pdf (Accessed January 21, 2014). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Environmental justice. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ (Accessed July 10, 2013). US EPA 2015. US Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2013. Executive Summary. EPA 430-R15-004 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 27 pp. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 57: 1796- 1838. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population of the marbled murrelet. Final rule. Federal Register 57:45328-45337. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Marbled murrelet 5-year review. Lacey, WA: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. Final rule. Federal Register 76:61599-61621. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-05/pdf/2011-25583.pdf USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. “Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina).” US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon xvi + 258 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final Designation of NSO critical habitat; 77 Federal Register 233: 71876-72068. Van Wagtendonk, Jan W. "Fire as a physical process." Fire in California’s ecosystems (2006): 38- 57. Wills, Robin D. Fire history and stand development of Douglas-fir/hardwood forests in northern California. Diss. Humboldt State University, 1991. R.D. Wills, J.D. Stuart Fire history and stand development of a Douglas-fir hardwood forest in northern California Northwest Science, 68 (1994), pp. 205-212 Winthrop, Kate 2004; Bare Bones Guide to Fire Effects on Cultural Resources For Cultural Resource Specialists. BLM Report. U.S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Land Management Wright, Harold A., Henry A. Wright, and Arthur W. Bailey. Fire ecology: United states and southern canada. John Wiley & Sons, 1982. Woodzell S.M, and King J.G. 2003. Post-Fire Erosional Processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 178, Issue 1-2 pages 75-87.

Chapter 3 Page|3-195 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Zald, Harold SJ, and Christopher J. Dunn. "Severe fire weather and intensive forest management increase fire severity in a multi ownership landscape." Ecological applications (2018). Ziemer, R.R. 1981a. Root Strength (Botany), 1981 McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology Zouhar, K., Smith, J.K., Sutherland, S. and Brooks, M.L., 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p., 42. Zwolak, R. and K.R. Foresman. 2007. Effects of a stand-replacing fire on small-mammal communities in montane forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85:815-822.

Page | 3-196 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3 Page|3-197

Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Appendix A – Design Criteria

Wildlife Specific Design Criteria Following are project design criteria to be implemented in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project to reduce impacts to wildlife. Snag retention to reduce the effects of proposed salvage to PFF habitat within NSO core areas or home ranges would be implemented using the following hierarchy:

¹Place aggregates in locations where incidental damage from implementation is minimized. Favorable locations would be lower portions of cable units and/or centered around unique areas such as rock outcrops, riparian areas/seeps/springs. The intention is minimize the overall size of openings and an increase connectivity of remaining suitable habitat in areas of likely use. None of the proposed units are in PFF1/High RHS habitat. Only one unit (#137) is within an NSO core area and it is capable habitat. Where operationally feasible in the following units, focus on retaining legacy snags first, followed by large snags that are not legacy then hardwoods to attain retention of 4 snags per acre. Eleven units are within NSO home ranges with PFF1/Low RHS habitat: 35, 90, 107, 157, 163, 165, 180, 170, 104, 160, 156 Thirteen units are within NSO home ranges with PFF2/High RHS habitat: 48, 53, 55, 56, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 180 Snag retention for proposed salvage in PFF habitat outside of NSO core areas or home ranges, but within NSO designated critical habitat would implement the following hierarchy:

Appendix A Page A-1 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Where operationally feasible in the following units, focus on retaining legacy snags first, followed by large snags that are not legacy then hardwoods to attain retention of 4 snags per acre: One unit is within critical habitat with PFF1/Low RHS: 90 One unit is within critical habitat with PFF2/High RHS: 104. Proposed salvage would not occur in dispersal habitat. The remaining units would apply the following retention PDC for snags based on Forest Plan direction and best available science using the Region 6 DecAID advisory tool: In order to maintain 30 percent tolerance levels for wildlife that use snags in these matrix stands (outside of northern spotted owl post-fire foraging habitat in NSO core areas, home ranges or critical habtat), project units will retain aggregates and individual snags where feasible to meet 4 snags per acre greater than 10 inches with 2 snags per acre larger than 20 inches dbh where available. These should include hardwoods where available. Snag retention should be a priority near unburned edges, rock outcrops, riparian avoidance areas or remaining individual or clumps of green trees. In addition, the following is the retention PDC for down woody debris in all units: Desired down wood retention for wildlife is to protect existing large down wood and add wood (including retained snags) to meet the Siskiyou Supplement Standards for tanoak and dry Douglas fir plant series (10 pieces of down wood 20 inches at large end and 20 feet long, 5 pieces of down wood of same size in Douglas-fir series); and add smaller down wood to meet 1.4 percent cover where possible. Down wood retention should be a priority near unburned edges, rock outcrops, riparian avoidance areas or remaining individual or clumps of green trees.

Page A-2 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Disturbance of listed wildlife species occurs when noise, smoke, vibration, or visual stimuli cause impairment of normal behavior. Mandatory PDC designed to avoid potential adverse disturbance effects to nesting birds and their young would be incorporated into all activities integral to the Proposed Action. PDC involving seasonal restrictions would be implemented unless surveys, following approved protocols, indicate either non-occupancy or non-nesting of target species, or as otherwise described.

Appendix A Page A-3

Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

All Resource Design Criteria

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Nest patches (70 acres) – salvage activities including Minimize adverse impacts to Wildlife WL-1 temporary road or landing construction will not occur federally listed species All activities NSO within any NSO nest patches. (spotted owls).

Existing snags and down wood- Leave aggregates and individuals of snags as described on pages A-1 to A-3. Preserve existing dead wood Wildlife Protect existing large down wood ≥20 inches dbh to the to provide for species reliant See discussion WL-2 NSO greatest extent possible. Use treatment skips to avoid areas on it; such as, owls, fisher, above of existing accumulations of dead wood. Leave 1.4 percent bats, woodpeckers, etc. cover of down wood in harvest units.

Retention of hardwoods – retain large hardwood snags Wildlife Maintain habitat diversity and WL-3 (>10” diameter) to the extent possible. Any hardwoods All units NSO benefit multiple species. felled would be left onsite.

Appendix A Page A-3 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Noise above ambient (chain saws, felling, yarding, road construction, heavy equipment) within disturbance distances - Work activities (tree felling, yarding, road Units 26, 107, 110, construction, etc.) that produce loud noises above ambient 111, 125, 170, 171, levels will not occur within restricted distances of any 172, 25, 93, 94, 97, Wildlife Minimize adverse impacts to WL-4 spotted owl nest site or unsurveyed high RHS NRF habitat 99, 100, 102, 103, NSO federally listed spotted owls. between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the 108, 113, 127, 128, fledging period) – unless protocol surveys have determined 129, 138, 145, 160, the nest site or habitat not occupied, non-nesting, or failed 163, 165, 179 in nesting attempt. Buffer distance for chain saws is 65 yards; for heavy equipment 35 yards).

Wildlife Helicopter or blasting operations - Follow the project Minimize adverse impacts to Units 26, 107, 110, WL-5 NSO & design criteria for disturbance distances for helicopter size federally listed species (NSO, 111, 125, 170, 171, MAMU in the relevant biological assessment. MAMU). 172

Hauling on roads not generally used by the public (usually Minimize adverse impacts to FSR 1376-319, 1407- Wildlife ML 1 & 2) and within 35 yards of an owl nest site or WL-6 federally listed species 906, 1407-130, NSO unsurveyed NRF habitat– is restricted from 1 March (spotted owls). 1917-070 through 30 June (or as determined by a wildlife biologist).

Page A-4 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Burning will not take place within 1/4 mile of a spotted owl site or unsurveyed NRF habitat between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) unless Minimize adverse impacts to Wildlife WL-7 substantial smoke will not drift into the NRF habitat (good federally listed species All activity areas NSO airflow and the smoke is dispersing upward) or protocol (spotted owls). surveys have determined the habitat is not occupied, or a known site is non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt.

Units 25, 29, 49, 53, Protect live legacies - Maintain a 70-foot (1/2 site potential 55, 58, 69, 99, 100, tree) un-treated buffer around any live legacy trees with Minimize adverse impacts to Wildlife 103, 106, 107, 127, WL-8 potential structure that may occur directly adjacent to PFF federally listed species MAMU 132, 140, 141, 147, harvest units. No live legacy trees would be removed for (murrelets). 148, 155, 157, 159, any reason including roads, landings or yarding corridors. 160, 167, 168, 169 Noise above ambient levels (felling, yarding, road All activities, all construction, equipment, etc.) within 120 yards of suitable units unless Minimize adverse impacts to Wildlife murrelet habitat - Murrelet seasonal restrictions apply 1 biologist verifies no WL-9 federally listed species MAMU April through 5 August. Daily timing restrictions apply 6 habitat within (murrelets). August through 15 September (activities can only occur disturbance from 2 hours after sunrise until 2 hours before sunset). distance.

Hauling on roads not generally used by the public (ML 1 & FSR 1170-540, 1407- 2) - Murrelet seasonal restrictions apply 1 April through 5 Minimize adverse impacts to Wildlife 130, 1407-133, WL-10 August. Daily timing restrictions apply 6 August through 15 federally listed species MAMU 1407-136, 1909- September (activities can only occur from 2 hours after (murrelets). 120,1917-125 sunrise until 2 hours before sunset).

Appendix A Page A-5 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Burning operations - Murrelet seasonal restrictions apply 1 April through 5 August. No burning will occur within 0.25 mile of occupied murrelet sites or unsurveyed, suitable Minimize adverse impacts to Wildlife WL-11 habitat unless smoke will not drift into suitable habitat. All federally listed species All activity areas MAMU broadcast and under- burning operations (except for (murrelets). residual “smokes”) will be completed in the period from two hours after sunrise to two hours before sunset.

Clean work sites - Clean up trash and garbage daily at all Minimize predation risk to Wildlife construction and logging sites. Keep food out of sight so as WL-12 federally listed species All activity areas MAMU to not attract crows, ravens, and jays (predators on eggs (murrelets). and young murrelets).

Provide for species dependent Seed landings, decommissioned roads, meadows and other on grasses and flowering/fruit Wildlife openings with appropriate native grasses, forbs and shrubs WL-13 producing plants; such as, All activity areas Early Seral to benefit pollinators, ungulates and other early-seral butterflies, bees, some birds species. and mammals, ungulates etc.

Incidental sightings of sensitive species - Follow the design Wildlife criteria and mitigation measures in relevant wildlife Minimize adverse impacts to WL-14 All activity areas Misc consultation documents, recovery documents, at- risk species. management plans or Forest Service policy.

Page A-6 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Untreated buffers of active bird nests encountered during project activities would be large enough to avoid soliciting a stress response that causes an adult to flush from Wildlife Minimize adverse impacts to WL-15 incubating eggs or nestlings, avoid feeding young or exhibit All activity areas Misc breeding migratory birds. defensive behavior until young have fledged. This distance may vary depending on the site and species and would be determined by an RRSNF wildlife biologist or appointee.

Mandatory Restriction Distances to Avoid Disturbance to Minimize disturbance As described Spotted Owl Sites or suitable MAMU Habitat

Distance from NSO Site or Distance from Activity unsurveyed High RHS NRF suitable MAMU habitat habitat Heavy Equipment (including non-blasting quarry Wildlife 105 feet 120 yds operations) WL-16 NSO & Chain saws 65 yds 120 yds MAMU Impact pile driver, jackhammer, rock drill 65 yds 120 yds Small helicopter or plane 120 yds* 120 yds* Type 1 or Type 2 helicopter 0.25 mile* 0.25 mile Blasting; 2 lbs of explosive or less 120 yds 120 yds Blasting; more than 2 lbs of explosives 1 mile 1 mile * If below 1,500 feet above ground level

Appendix A Page A-7 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Above-ambient noises further than these Table A-1 distances from spotted owls are expected to have either negligible effects or no effect to spotted owls. The types of reactions that spotted owls could have to noise that the Service considers to have a negligible impact, include flapping of wings, the turning of a head towards the noise, hiding, assuming a defensive stance, etc. (USFWS 2003)

Assess sensitive soils to determine if equipment operations can occur without causing excessive soil disturbance. Use the Slope Stability and Soil Risk Erosion model to aid in identifying unstable and potentially unstable terrain. The areas identified as VERY HIGH risk in this analysis are considered unstable or potentially unstable areas, and as To avoid, minimize, or such are included in the Riparian Reserve network. Using mitigate adverse effects to S-1 Soils All this process, areas classified as “VERY HIGH” will be sensitive soils and maintain excluded from treatment activities and will be buffered soil stability. appropriately according to the Riparian Reserve widths identified for the Chetco Fire Salvage project. A Hydrologist or Soil Scientist will assist in field validation and identification of additional unstable areas and streams prior to implementation of stand treatments.

Page A-8 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

All units were evaluated to determine detrimental soil disturbance levels. Appropriate design features would be implemented in order to ensure units are at or below 15% detrimental soil disturbance per Forest Plan and Regional Standards. Project units 29 and 166 must have no new disturbance and reuse existing templates and disturbances associated with harvest. Active soil restoration methods will be used to improve soil condition. Project units: 39, 81, All (Noted before 93, and 144 will be evaluated by FS Soil Scientist working implementation: 29, with FS sale administration to result in no more than 15% To minimize loss of soil S-2 Soils 39, 81, 93, and 144 detrimental soil condition as they are approaching Forest productivity. have specific Plan S & G’s thresholds. Roadside Danger Tree Abatement mititgations). harvest units overlapping with area salvage would be a priority area to evaluate prior to implementation and during layout (See Soil Resource Report (project record), Appendix for overlapping units). Such actions could include scarifying/decompacting soils and placement of slash, woody material and/or duff over exposed soil. Equipment would remain on designated temporary roads and skid trails.

To avoid, minimize, or Ground-based equipment would only operate on slopes All ground based S-3 Soils mitigate adverse effects to less than or equal to 30 percent. harvest units soil.

Appendix A Page A-9 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

To minimize the area Scatter generated slash in treatment areas to meet Forest compacted and prevent Plan Effective Groundcover S&Gs of 85% ground cover by erosion off of disturbed sites. S-4 Soils All end of operations, with an emphasis of leaving fines Improve soil producitivity by (material less than three inches in diameter) on site. increasing the soil organic matter. Improve soil productivity by increasing the soil organic Leave LWD dispersed throughout treatment areas, matter and initiate nutrient S-5 Soils commensurate with LWD guidelines for WL/PAGs & the All cycling. To avoid, minimize, Forest LRMPs. and mitigate potential erosion.

Operation of ground-based harvesting/yarding equipment off road is limited to dry soil moisture conditions, or solidly frozen ground (with or without snowpack). Percent soil To minimize compaction, All ground based S-6 Soils moisture levels are to be determined by a Soil Scientist, rutting, puddling, erosion, and and skyline harvest using standard soils methodology, and will be monitored to sedimentation. units. avoid detrimental soil impacts. Rutting, caking, smearing, puddling are all indicators of high soil moisture levels.

All ground based Pivoting of machinery should be avoided in order to S-7 Soils To minimize soil displacement. and skyline harvest prevent soil displacement. units.

Page A-10 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

The leading end of logs would be suspended during cable To minimize soil displacement Skyline harvest S-8 Soils yarding. and erosion. units.

Space ground-based and cable equipment operations to result in no more than 15% of the treatment area resulting To minimize soil compaction All ground based in detrimental soil conditions. All skid trails would be S-9 Soils and displacement. Avoid the and skyline harvest designated and laid out to take advantage of topography loss of soil productivity. units. and minimize disruption of natural drainage patterns. Reuse existing skid trails where possible.

Appendix A Page A-11 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

If skid trails are to be decompacted or subsoiled following ground based harvest and fuel reduction activities in order to reduce compaction and potential for erosion. An excavator should be utilized in order to reduce impacts. Decompaction activities should be at a minimum depth of 20 inches and should avoid mixing the soil layers or To reduce mixing of surface disrupting their orientation. These activities would be and subsurface soil layers. To All ground based S-10 Soils conducted when the soil is dry. In general, operations avoind erosion and harvest units. during the dry period typically occur June 1st to October compaction. 31st, but may vary by year, depending on local weather conditions. Effective ground cover requirements (85% EGC) should be left on the skid trails following decompaction. The timber sale administrator, in conjunction with a Forest Service soil scientist would determine those areas that need to be decompacted.

All landings utilized, with the exception of rocked landings on roadsides, would be decompacted to restore soil infiltration and soils productivity to the extent possible, utilizing the same methods as described for skid trails and To reduce the impacts of temporary roads. Subsoiling would be completed erosion and subsequent preferably with an excavator and covered with residual sedimentation on log landings. S-11 Soils All landing locations. slash (85% EGC). Pre-existing landing templates within To maintain or improve soil riparian reserves that are authorized for re-use to improve infiltatration capacity and ACS objectives through restoration (see Hydrology PDCs), reduce compaction. would be evaluated by a FS soil scientist following pile burning to prescribe further soil restoration remediation, in consultation with a FS botanist. This remediation could Page A-12 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

include decompaction, organic matter augmentation, seeding, and/or planting of native species.

All temporary roads would be rehabilitated (all new To reduce construction would be recontoured; existing prisms would erosion/sedimentation and be placed in a stable condition through recontouring restore soil productivity of the and/or decompaction to a minimum depth of 20 inches). land at the completion of Cut/fill slopes would be reshaped to natural contours and At approved intended use; to re-establish S-12 Soils crossings removed. Available slash and large wood material temporary road water infiltration and deep (>3 inches) would be applied to the recontour surface. locations. root penetration; re-establish Placement of large logs or boulders would be installed to natural surface flow patterns; prevent the use of vehice use. If temporary roads are kept and promote herbaceous re- open over winter, drainage work to winterize temporary vegetation. roads would be completed (i.e waterbars and outsloping

Appendix A Page A-13 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Assure that water control structures are installed and maintained on skid trials, temporary roads, and landings with spacing requirements appropriate with soil texture To avoid, minimize, or S-13 Soils All and slope percent. Ensure erosion control structures are mitigate erosion. stabilized and working effectively at all times, and at the end of treatments.

Plan pile burning for when soil moistures are high enough To minimize consumption of to minimize consumption of soil organic matter and soil organic matter and minimize soil heating. Minimize the size of individual slash S-14 Soils minimize soil heating. To All hand piles scattered in the units to less than 10 ft. by 10 ft. minimize soil and site Distribute piles to reduce sever burn impacts from productivity. concentrated fuel.

Exclude Riparian Reserves from harvest and new disturbance (i.e. temporary roads, landings, and skid trails) to protect water quality and riparian resources. A Maintain consistency with the H-1 Hydrology Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, and/or Fisheries Biologist will NWFP and Aquatic Resource All treatment units. assist in field validation and identification of currently Strategy objectives. unmapped Riparian Reserves prior to implementation and layout.

Page A-14 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

No new temporary roads, skid trails, or landings are proposed nor allowed within Riparian Reserves (including springs and wetlands). Avoid locating landings, temporary roads, and skid trails near any type of likely flow or sediment transport conduit during storms, such as ephemeral channels and swales, where practicable. Existing legacy templates, reused for skid trails and temporary Maintain consistency with the roads, needed to access treatment units may be reused H-2 Hydrology NWFP and Aquatic Resource All treatment units. within the riparian reserve after review and approval by Strategy objectives. Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, or Fisheries Biologist in Riparian Reserves if rehabilitation occurs post-harvest, which would meet ACS objectives by restoring riparian-dependent conditions (i.e. improve infiltration capacity over pre- treatment conditions, etc.). See Soils PDCs for effective obliteration measures (subsoiling to break up compaction, etc.). To reduce the risk of sediment delivery, soil compaction, and Existing legacy landing templates could be reused up to 100 maintain or improve soil feet from streams after review and approval by Hydrologist, infiltration capacity in the H-3 Hydrology Soil Scientist, and/or Fisheries Biologist if rehabilitation All treatment units. riparian area to the streams. occurs post-harvest, which would meet ACS objectives. Maintain consistency with the Refer to the Soils PDCs for effective obliteration measures. NWFP and Aquatic Resource Strategy objectives.

Reconstruction or maintenance of roads would not be To minimize erosion and All Forest Service H-4 Hydrology conducted when soils are saturated or run-off occurs. sedimentation. roads used for haul.

Appendix A Page A-15 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Yarding activities should achieve full suspension over active channels. To facilitate log suspension with skyline operations, corridors for cable rigging would be allowed to pass through Riparian Reserves. A maximum clearing width To prevent water quality All skyline and of 12 ft. is required and logs may be yarded through this H-5 Hydrology degradation and protect soils helicopter harvest corridor if necessary. Corridors must be spaced at a from excessive disturbance. units. minimum of 200 feet apart if they pass through Riparian Reserves. Corridor “rub trees” within the Riparian Reserve, even if damaged, will either be left standing or felled and left in place.

Log haul will occur on designated haul routes that intersect Coho critical habitat with the following design criteria. Main haul routes LH-1 with NO Coho Critical Habitat concerns include: FSR 1107 (northern end), 1407, and 1917.

1. Coho critical habitat design criteria - Product haul will occur during the dry season (June 1 – October 31), unless otherwise authorized by the fisheries biologist/hydrologist Haul routes that or conditions specified below are met. The restricted Reduce the risk of sediment LH-2 Log Haul intersect Coho operating conditions are intended to prevent direct delivery critical habitat sediment delivery to Coho critical habitat. Haul may be allowed outside the dry season under the following conditions: a) Haul may occur in dry conditions outside the commercial Reduce the risk of sediment LH-3 Log Haul see table below use period (October 31 – May 31). delivery

Page A-16 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

b) During product haul, weather conditions are monitored Reduce the risk of sediment LH-4 Log Haul daily for the chance of precipitation by the Timber Sale see table below delivery Administrator, Hydrologist or Fish Biologist. c) Haul will cease when there is more than 0.50 inches in a Reduce the risk of sediment LH-5 Log Haul see table below 24 hour period. See the Quail Prairie RAWS station. delivery d) Prior to haul, sediment fences, straw bales, and/or other effective sedimentation management structures will be installed in ditches to capture sediment in approach areas Reduce the risk of sediment LH-6 Log Haul see table below or adjacent to Coho Critical habitat. Perform maintenance delivery on sediment trap structures as needed (removing deposited sediment). e) Implement ditch cleaning only when necessary in areas Reduce the risk of sediment LH-7 Log Haul see table below adjacent to Coho critical habitat. delivery

Road Segment in CCH Stream Road Surface

1376 road – FS Boundary to Wilderness Retreat Chetco River Paved Chetco and South Fork Chetco 1376 road – near SF Chetco Paved / Gravel Rivers LH-8 1376 road – near Steel Bridge Chetco River Gravel South Fork Chetco and Quail 1909 road – start to 1909-050 road Gravel Prairie Creek 1205 road – stretch near Wheeler Creek Wheeler Creek Gravel Bear Creek and Winchuck 1107 road (south) – near Winchuck Bridge Gravel River

Appendix A Page A-17 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

2. RRS – Commercial Road Use Rules applies to all roads (#2-7). Product haul will occur during the Commercial Use Period (June 1 – October 31), unless otherwise authorized by the Forest Engineer. The Commercial Use Period is intended to prevent weather-related road damage, but Prevent weather-related road LH-9 Log Haul All roads actual field conditions may necessitate suspending haul to damage prevent road damage at any time. Product haul is also limited to conditions that will not result in Resource Damage, as described in the RRSNF Road Rules Date 2016 Commercial Road Use Rules (CRUR).

3. During product haul, road conditions shall be monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator daily for indications of Road Distress, defined in the CRUR as visible road conditions that occur as a result of road use, or a combination of road use and weather, which indicate that damage to a road or the adjacent resources, may occur Prevent weather-related road LH-10 Log Haul All roads under existing conditions. Examples of indicators include, damage but are not limited to, excessive dust, compromised or improper functioning road drainage, muddy ditch water, mud tracked onto asphalt or aggregate surfaced roads, and significant distortions of the road surface such as tracks, ruts, potholes, washboarding, asphalt cracking or settling.

Page A-18 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

4. Timber haul on gravel and native surface roads will be limited to dry (dry conditions are generally defined as less than 0.50” of precipitation within a 24 hour period) or frozen conditions. Haul will cease at any time when the Prevent weather-related road LH-11 Log Haul travel way of the road is wet and turbid water or fines are All roads damage observed moving off the road surface to ditch lines, regardless of time of year. Ditch lines are the normal sediment delivery mechanism to stream channels and Critical Habitat.

5. When the Timber Sale Administrator observes indications of Road Distress during haul (haul should be halted prior to road distress in riparian areas due to the mechanism for sediment delivery), one or more of the Prevent weather-related road LH-12 Log Haul following actions would be taken: 1) perform maintenance All roads damage work (including installation of additional erosion control materials); 2) change method of operations; 3) strengthen road surface to avoid damage; or 4) suspend operations until conditions change.

Appendix A Page A-19 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

6. During product haul on native-surface roads and the 1909 road, the road surface will be rocked for a distance of 150 feet on either side of approaches to 1) perennial stream crossings and 2) intermittent and ephemeral stream Prevent weather-related road LH-13 Log Haul All roads crossings where they occur within ¼ mile upstream of damage perennial streams and or Critical Habitat. Rocking will maintain as close to an 8-inch lift as the travelway width allows (minimum 6-inch lift).

7. Apply Best Management Practices’ (BMP) for dust abatement during dry conditions, as directed by road engineer. If needed, drafting sites should be identified and Prevent weather-related road LH-14 Log Haul designated by aquatic specialists. Follow NMFS drafting All roads damage guidelines for water withdrawals and juvenile fish screen criteria for pump intakes. Revised May 9, 1996. Portland, OR: NMFS; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Directional fall danger trees away from bridges, guardrail, R-1 Roads Protect infrastructure All roads culverts, signs, gates and other infrastructure. Skidding of logs on system roads would not take place R-2 Roads Protect road surfaces All roads unless otherwise approved by the FSR Ensure ditches and culvert inlets are clear of logs, sticks and R-3 Roads Protect ditches and culverts All roads debris prior to winter rains. Perform post haul maintenance to ensure the road R-4 Roads template is shaped to drain and roadside drainage is Protect infrastructure All roads functioning correctly

Page A-20 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Use rubber tired equipment or mats to protect asphalt All Asphalt surfaced R-5 Roads Protect paved surfaces surfaced roads from damage. roads

Piling and burning slash would not be allowed within the R-6 Roads All roads road traveled way, turnouts, or cutslope. Snow plowing would not take place unless authorized by a R-7 Roads separate snow plowing permit. Ensure the road surfacing Protect road surfaces All roads material is not plowed or removed during operations. Haul would be suspended prior to road damage. Prevent R-8 Roads Protect road surfaces All roads road damage – follow the Commercial road use rules. Remove burned bark from the roadway. Preserve the existing crushed aggregate road surfacing material. Ensure R-9 Roads Protect road surfaces All roads the road surfacing material is not scraped or removed from the roadway. Deposit chips or ground woody material on embankment R-10 Roads slopes or outside the roadway to a loose depth less than 6 All roads inches.

Log haul and heavy vehicle transport on paved roads shall be prohibited when the designated Timber Sale R-11 Roads Administrator determines that freeze-thaw conditions Protect paved surfaces All Paved roads along the haul route exists or that the subgrade on the paved roads is saturated

Appendix A Page A-21 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Within the immediate foreground (300 feet) of property line boundaries Within the immediate foreground (300 feet) of property shared by line boundaries shared by residential private properties and residential private the immediate foreground (150 feet) of primary roads, To minimize visual effects of properties and the trails, trailheads, and developed and dispersed recreation project activities within the immediate sites: a) Cut stumps to 8 inches or less, contour stump cuts immediate foreground as seen foreground (150 to match the surrounding terrain, and face cuts away from from adjacent private feet) of primary the road/trail/site to the maximum extent possible. b) property, primary roads, roads (1376, 1917, VR-1 Visuals Remove timber in a manner that minimizes disturbance to recreation corridors, and 1909), trails, soil and natural forest duff layers, rehab drag marks to recreation sites. To minimize trailheads, and natural existing condition. c) Place tree markings in abrupt transitions where developed and positions least visible to the public. d) Lop and scatter slash treatment units abut adjacent dispersed recreation to a maximum depth of 12 inches. e) Locate temp roads, private property. sites. Particular care landings, and piles beyond the immediate foreground to should be taken in the maximum extent possible. units with partial retention VQO: units 20, 139, and units along FSRs 1376, 1917, and 1909.

Page A-22 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

All units. Particular care should be taken in units with partial retention VQO seen in the Middleground and Created openings or clearings, including openings for Background from landings, should mimic size, shape, and character of natural To promote natural diversity scenic viewpoints, openings found in the surrounding landscape. Openings and to mimic the existing primary roads should be irregular and random in shape to prevent visually natural forms, lines, colors, (1376, 1917, 1909), recognizable artificial patterns in the landscape. Openings opening sizes, and opening trails, trailheads, VR-2 Visuals should follow contours or natural terrain features and shapes in the landscape and and recreation sites: should not have straight edges or angular corners. Edges of to avoid the introduction of Units 1, 4, 31, 32, openings should be horizontally and vertically feathered artificial patterns or uniform 35, 38, 40, 110, 111, with non-merchantable and small woody understory appearance. 125, 140, 176, 177, vegetation. 33, 64, 65, 66, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 76, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 114, 130, 131, 141, 142, 143, 17, 26.

Appendix A Page A-23 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

All units. Particular care should be taken in units with partial retention VQO seen in the Middleground and Background from scenic viewpoints, primary roads Commensurate with ground condition, obstacles, and To minimize intensity and (1376, 1917, 1909), safety, keep stump height as low as possible in areas duration of visual effects of trails, trailheads, VR-3 Visuals beyond the immediate foreground of adjacent residential project activities across the and recreation sites: boundary lines and primary roads and trails within the project footprint. Units 1, 4, 31, 32, project footprint. Target height is 12 inches or less. 35, 38, 40, 110, 111, 125, 140, 176, 177, 33, 64, 65, 66, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 76, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 114, 130, 131, 141, 142, 143, 17, 26.

Page A-24 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

All units. Particular care should be taken in units with partial retention VQO seen in the Middleground and Background from To promote natural diversity scenic viewpoints, Emphasize size and species diversity, large tree character, and to mimic the existing primary roads irregular spacing and patches of sapling, shrub, and natural forms, lines, colors, (1376, 1917, 1909), hardwood species by retaining all non-dead or dying opening sizes, and opening trails, trailheads, VR-4 Visuals vegetation within treatment units, retaining snags and shapes in the landscape and and recreation sites: downed wood as appropriate for other resource, and to avoid the introduction of Units 1, 4, 31, 32, horizontally and vertically feathering the edges of created artificial patterns or uniform 35, 38, 40, 110, 111, openings. appearance. 125, 140, 176, 177, 33, 64, 65, 66, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 76, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 114, 130, 131, 141, 142, 143, 17, 26.

Appendix A Page A-25 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

All units. Particular care should be Locate landings and temporary road construction out of the taken in units with immediate foreground (300’) of road and trail corridors, To minimize visual effects of partial retention trailheads, developed and dispersed recreation sites. Edges project activities within the VQOs, those along of openings should be horizontally and vertically feathered. immediate foreground as seen VR-5 Visuals primary roads For the occasional exception where a landing must be from primary roads, (1376, 1917, 1909), located within view of the roadway, utilize existing or recreation corridors, and and those within planned openings. Graded areas should be regraded to recreation sites. immediate natural contours and revegetated. foreground of rec sites: (units 20, 139) Where possible, locate harvest boundaries at existing To achieve natural appearing VR-6 Visuals all units biological edges. unit edges Units with large Where practicable and appropriate, tie multiple clearcuts VR-7 Visuals To avoid harsh edges areas of unburned together. vegetation Scallop and feather (vertically and horizontally) clearcut To create a natural VR-8 Visuals all units edges. appearance

To provide a visual screen, a constricted feeling along road Where possible, maximize closed-stand characteristics Along primary roads corridor in contrast to more VR-9 Visuals within the immediate foreground (300 feet) of recreation (FSR 1376, 1917, open areas, and a foil against sites, travel corridors, and trails. 1909). which to display a feature or define an open space

Page A-26 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Background from Packers Cabin: 4, 31, 32, 35, 38, 40, 33, 64, 65, 66. Middleground from Chetco River Avoid project activities silhouetted against the skyline as Viewpoints: 104, seen in middleground and background views from 106, 107, 141, 142. scenic/recreation river corridors, wilderness trail corridors, To avoid abrupt edges and Middleground from and developed recreation sites. Locate landings, piles, silhouetted forms that would Kalmiopsis skylines, and other project-created openings below the potentially dominate the Wilderness Trail VR-10 Visuals military crest of silhouetted terrain features. Where characteristic natural Corridors: 13, 14, silhouetted activities are unavoidable, do not cross landscape in middleground 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, ridgelines/terrain features at 90 degree angles, and and background views from 22. Middleground rehabiltate project-created openings by horizontally and recreation sites and corridors. from FSR 1909: 25, vertically feathered with non-merchantable and small 26, 27, 28, 109, 110, woody understory vegetation. 111. Middleground from FSR 1917: 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 129, 132.

Developed for-fee recreation areas such as campgrounds To maintain safe public VR-11 Recreation and use areas may be closed only when there is prior All recreation access. agreement from the District Ranger.

Appendix A Page A-27 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Implement a forest order for temporary closures during all project operations when a developed recreation facility To maintain safe public VR-12 Recreation (campground, staging area, NFS trail) will be closed to All recreation access. facilitate operations over a weekend, holiday, or for 4 days or more.

Non-fee Recreation areas (NFS roads, NFS trails, trailheads, and MVUM designated dispersed camp sites) may be temporarily closed (short-term, no more than 2 days) to provide for public safety during active project activities, but To maintain safe public VR-13 Recreation would otherwise remain open unless specifically agreed to All recreation access. by the recreation program manager, who may specify restoration actions post-use. Such closures will be effective (with signs and barriers) during the weekends to prevent use.

All recreation facilities shall be open for safe use on weekends and holidays. For the Chetco River recreation To maintain safe public FSR 1376 from the corridor, limit haul operations to Monday through 1700, recreation access, minimize Forest boundary to Friday. No haul on weekends or on the following Federal conflict between haul the confluence of VR-14 Recreation holidays: Memorial Day, Labor Day, Independence Day and operations and recreationists, the South Fork Columbus Day. If Independence Day falls on a Tuesday, and facilitate successful Chetco and Chetco Wednesday, or Thursday, there will be no hauling on July project completion. Rivers. 3rd through July 5th.

Page A-28 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Provide for public safety and education by providing timely closure signage and information at NFS roads, trails, and staging areas and at closure points. Signage must be provided for every possible direction of travel during harvest and mechanical treatments in order to inform VR-15 Recreation public of project activities. Use detours with segmental To provide for public safety. All closures when possible (avoid closing the entire loop). Consult with road manager and recreation program manager. Ensure this information is in the prospectus and all contractual documents. All signage shall meet MUTCD standards.

Provide timely public service announcements on signs and local information boards as well as informing the SO so that VR-16 Recreation To provide for public safety. All notices can be posted on RRSNF website prior to treatments. Keep information current.

Notify private property owners within the project area, whose primary property access passes through the project RecreationL footprint, or whose primary property access will be used as VR-17 To provide for public safety. All ands a haul route of initial logging schedule. Consult with District and Forest personnel for contact list and appropriate method of contact.

RecreationL Notify mining claimants within the project footprint of VR-18 To provide for public safety. All ands impending harvest schedule once it is known. RecreationO Effectively close maintenance level 1 roads used for project To prevent unauthorized OHV VR-19 All HV Mgmt activities. use.

Appendix A Page A-29 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

When practicable, and in coordination with the recreation RecreationO To prevent unauthorized OHV VR-20 program manager, close undesignated use areas and All HV Mgmt use. unauthorized routes with fallen trees.

In consultation with recreation program manager, To deter off-road and barricade with local and natural material all temporary RecreationO unapproved use of skid trails VR-21 roads and skid trails that directly intersect a recreation All HV Mgmt for motorized vehicles and facility including MVUM designated dispersed camp areas, new dispersed campsites. designated roads, and trails.

Place temporary roads and primary skid trails 300 feet or more from designated roads, trails, and developed use areas when possible, and treat to prevent post-harvest use by any off-highway vehicle. This may be by slash scatter, RecreationO To deter unauthorized OHV VR-22 water barring, or other methods in coordination with the All HV Mgmt use. recreation program manager. Skid trails shall only have one access point per skid trail (no loop trails) from the access road. The access point shall be closed in a manner that is effective to keep unauthorized OHV use from occurring.

Page A-30 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

When a NFS trail is used as a haul road or skid trail, it will be with prior approval and restoration agreements from the recreation program manager. Such routes will be effectively closed (with signs and barriers) during the weekends to To provide for public safety, prevent use. Upon completion of use of designated trail as maintain/restore public RecreationO VR-23 a haul or skid road, de-compact the trail/haul/skid prism. recreation opportunities, and All HV Mgmt Construct re-adjusted/re-aligned trail to an appropriate prevent/deter unauthorized width and grade as determined by recreation program use. manager. Stage cull logs, boulders, root wads for effective closure/delineation of route on both ends of segment of trails used as haul/skid routes.

To prevent/deter To the maximum extent possible, lay out temporary roads RecreationO unauthorized OHV use by VR-24 and skid trails to cross existing roads and trails All HV Mgmt limiting access points to temp perpendicularly. roads and skid trails.

Keep open all roads that access private property and VR-25 Recreation To maintain public access. All developed recreation sites.

Appendix A Page A-31 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Locate landings, including expansion of existing landings, at least 300 feet away from developed and dispersed recreation areas (campgrounds, staging areas) and NFS RecreationO trails unless otherwise agreed to by recreation program To deter unauthorized OHV VR-26 All HV Mgmt manager. When landings must be located within view of use. roadways, utilize existing or planned openings to maximum extent possible. Graded areas should be regraded to natural contours and revegetated.

When new landings are developed, locate them in To prevent unauthorized off- RecreationO coordination with recreation program manager so as to not VR-27 route use and creation of new All HV Mgmt create unauthorized recreation opportunities. New landings dispersed use sites. must be effectively closed and decommissioned.

Show all developed recreation facilities such as campgrounds, staging areas, designated roads and trails, Recreation To provide for public safety waterlines, water tanks, FS authorized gates, and Motor VR-28 Facility and maintain recreation All Vehicle Use Management (MVUM) designated dispersed Mgmt access. camping sites as improvements in the contract and on all contract maps.

Page A-32 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Protect all improvements including designated NFS trails and their design (e.g. waterbars), directional and informational signs, barriers, etc. If any barriers (including Recreation To protect and maintain public boulders) or improvements are damaged or removed VR-29 Facility recreation improvements/ All during activities, they must be replaced and re-installed in Mgmt opportunities. the same location and manner immediately following project activities. Coordinate repair or replacement with the recreation program manager.

Recreation Fall all trees away from designated roads and trails, To protect and maintain public VR-30 Facility recreation facilities, and improvements that are open to recreation improvements/ All Mgmt travel. opportunities.

When recreation sites, including: designated NFS roads and trails, parking areas, developed recreation areas, MVUM Recreation designated dispersed camping areas, staging areas, or areas To protect and maintain public VR-31 Facility associated with special use permits, are proposed for recreation improvements/ All Mgmt landings or slash disposal sites, specific mitigation measures opportunities. shall be developed by the recreation program manager in advance of use.

Effectively repair/restore designated recreation facilities Recreation and designated trails prior to equipment leaving the unit. To protect and maintain public VR-32 Facility Effectively close skid trails or temporary roads crossing recreation improvements/ All Mgmt within all recreation facilities and designated trails prior to opportunities. equipment leaving the unit.

Appendix A Page A-33 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Recreation facilities may not be used by project-related Recreation To protect and maintain public personnel for camping, parking, staging, trash disposal, or VR-33 Facility recreation improvements, All restrooms unless agreed to in advance by recreation Mgmt opportunities, and access. program manager.

RecreationF To protect and maintain public Protect land survey signs and monuments, even if burned, VR-34 acility recreation improvements, All or laying on the ground. Lands Mgmt opportunities, and access.

Units within 0.5 miles of Packers Recreation Do not conduct active logging operations in the immediate To protect and maintain public Cabin on the south VR-35 Facility vicinity of Packers Cabin from the Thursday before recreation improvements, side of FSR 1917; all Mgmt Memorial Day through the Tuesday after Labor Day. opportunities, and access. helicopter units within 1 mile of Packers Cabin.

Page A-34 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Avoid and protect all known historic properties listed on, eligible for, or unevaluated for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) during project activities. Unevaluated cultural resource sites that lack Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence will be Protect known historic CR-1 Heritage treated as eligible and will be protected during Everywhere properties implementation. Standard protection measures will be selected from Appendix C of the Programmatic Agreement for the 2017 Chetco Bar Fire. Monitoring of historic properties during and after project implementation may be determined necessary by the Forest Archaeologist.

Appendix A Page A-35 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

If any cultural materials are encountered during the course of the project, then all ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease and a 30 m avoidance buffer will be established. All artifacts and materials will be left in place and protected from further damage. The Contractor will promptly notify the Forest Service Representative (FSR). The FSR must then CR-2 Heritage Protect cultural resources Everywhere immediately notify the Forest Archaeologist and District Ranger of the discovery. Work will not resume in that area until the Forest Archaeologist or designated Forest Service professional archaeologist has evaluated the material and provisions regarding inadvertent discoveries in Appendix D of the Programmatic Agreement for the 2017 Chetco Bar are followed to comply with 36 CFR 800.13 (Section 106).

During project activities if human or potentially human remains, funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are identified cease all activity within 300 ft/100 m of the discovery, and secure the area. The Forest will ensure that employees, contractors, permittees, and partners comply Protect all human and cultural CR-3 Heritage Everywhere with the provisions stipulated for the inadvertent discovery remains according to NAGPRA of human remains or objects subject to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (43 CFR 10), in Appendix D of the Programmatic Agreement for the 2017 Chetco Bar Fire.

Page A-36 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

No new roads or landings would be constructed and no Within 100 feet of Sensitive slash piling or ground-based equipment would be used Protect sensitive plants and identified sensitive SP-1 Plants within 100 feet of sensitive plant population boundaries. their habitat plant population Exceptions would be reviewed by the botanist. boundaries

Sensitive Vehicles, including off-highway or all-terrain vehicles, Protect sensitive plants and Sensitive plant SP-2 Plants would not be operated within sensitive plant habitat. their habitat habitats

Any new sensitive plant sites or habitat found during Sensitive Protect sensitive plants and SP-3 implementation would be protected similarly to known Everywhere Plants their habitat populations. Implementation of activities including temporary road Near documented Sensitive Protect sensitive plants and SP-4 construction near other documented populations of sensitive plant Plants their habitat sensitive plants will be coordinated with the botanist. populations

Re-use of landings infested with invasive plants would not occur. Avoid these areas for staging and parking areas. Invasive Exceptions may be made through coordination with the Prevent the establishment and IV-1 Existing landings Plants district invasive plant coordinator. In addition, any new spread of invasive plants invasive plant infestations found during implementation would be managed similarly.

Appendix A Page A-37 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

To reduce the potential for transport or spread of non- native invasive plants by temporary road construction or logging equipment, the timber sale contract would require provision BT6.35: (1) certification that equipment be clean of all plant or soil material that may result in the Invasive Prevent the establishment and IV-2 establishment or spread of non-native invasive plants; and Everywhere Plants spread of invasive plants (2) notification of location where equipment was most recently used. The Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator would certify that equipment is clean of plant and soil material before the equipment enters the project area. Cleaning shall occur off of Federal lands.

Document all new non-native invasive plant infestations Invasive Prevent the establishment and IV-3 identified during implementation by notifying the district Everywhere Plants spread of invasive plants invasive plant coordinator.

To reduce the potential for non-native invasive plant spread through mineral material (i.e. gravel and rock) used on roads and landings, material sources would be inspected Invasive by district invasive plant coordinator to ensure materials Prevent the establishment and IV-4 Material sources Plants are weed free. Additionally, the sale contract would include spread of invasive plants provisions requiring any material from other sources is inspected by the Forest Service and determined to be weed free.

Page A-38 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

All equipment and vehicles used at mineral material sites would be cleaned and certified free of all plant or soil material that could contain invasive plant seed or plant All equipment and Invasive parts prior to entrance onto the National Forest. Cleaning Prevent the establishment and vehicles used at IV-5 Plants means removing all dirt, grease, debris, and materials that spread of invasive plants mineral material may harbor invasive plants and their seeds. This may sites require the use of a pressure hose. Cleaning would occur off of Federal lands.

All seed and straw used to reduce erosion potential and Invasive reduce risk of non-native invasive plants will be obtained in Prevent the establishment and IV-6 All seed and straw Plants coordination with the district botanist. Seed will be spread of invasive plants certified weed free and from local genetic sources. An invasive plant locator map would be included in the sale Invasive Prevent the establishment and IV-7 area map and project file to assist in avoidance and Everywhere Plants spread of invasive plants monitoring. Prioritize monitoring and post-treatment of invasive plant Invasive Prevent the establishment and IV-8 species within the project area for at least 5 years after Everywhere Plants spread of invasive plants completion.

Activity fuels generated by harvesting are distributed Fuel bed depth averages 1-2 feet or less within the F-1 Fuels across the landscape to allow All Units treatment units, not to exceed a height of 3 feet. for safe fire suppression activities.

Appendix A Page A-39 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Maintain POC on sites where the risk for infection is low; Where POC is reduce the spread and measurably severity of root disease in contributing, Dry Season Restrictions: Generally June 1 – September 30 high-risk areas to retain its identified in POC for logging operations. (Logging operations may continue SIL-1 POC ecological function to the Risk Assessment in dry conditions outside of this period, and in wet extent practicable; reduce the Units 92, 93, 133, conditions if washing and project scheduling are utilized.) likelihood of root disease 134, 135, 136, 137, becoming established in 138, 139, 140, 141, disease-free 7th field 143 watersheds.

Maintain POC on sites where Where POC is the risk for infection is low; measurably reduce the spread and contributing, Utilizing Uninfested Water: Use uninfested water sources severity of root disease in identified in POC for planned activities such as equipment washing, road high-risk areas to retain its Risk Assessment SIL-2 POC watering, and other water-distribution needs, or treat ecological function to the Units 92, 93, 133, water with Ultra Clorox®, at a rate of 1 gallon of extent practicable; reduce the 134, 135, 136, 137, bleach/1000 gallons of water likelihood of root disease 138, 139, 140, 141, becoming established in 143 Note: East disease-free 7th field Fork Pistol River is watersheds. an infested stream.

Page A-40 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Where POC is Maintain POC on sites where measurably the risk for infection is low; contributing, reduce the spread and identified in POC severity of root disease in Risk Assessment Washing Project Equipment: Wash project equipment daily high-risk areas to retain its (04M05W) -Unit before entering un-infrested 7th field watersheds. Wash SIL-3 POC ecological function to the 140; (04M01F)- Unit trucks and project equipment with bleach solution at extent practicable; reduce the 139; (04H02F)- strategic locations during wet season operations. likelihood of root disease Units 92, 93, 133, becoming established in 134, 135, 136, 137, disease-free 7th field 143 Note: East watersheds. Fork Pistol River is an infested stream.

Nearest treatment unit > 1 mile away Within 0.5 mile of known diseased sites, no parts (boles, Restrict movement of host from 2016 SOD branches, twigs, leaves, sprouts) of tanoak (Lithocarpus SIL-4 SOD material in proximity to positive tree (see densiflorus), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) or confirmed SOD-positive areas. map in silvicultural California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) can be removed. prescription, appendix B). All units except Outside of known diseased sites and within the quarantine Mitigate movement of host units 138- 142 and SIL-5 SOD area, tanoak, canyon live oak and California black oak may material to reduce risk of the northern tip of be removed if debarked or heat-treated. pathogen spread. unit 143

Appendix A Page A-41 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

PDF No. Resource Project Design Features/Mitigation Measures Objective Where Applicable

Leaves, twigs, and small branches of any other known hosts All units except cannot be removed from the quarantine area unless heat Mitigate movement of host units 138- 142 and SIL-6 SOD or vacuum-treated material to reduce risk of the northern tip of (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info pathogen spread. unit 143 /pram/downloads/pdf_files/usdaprlist.pdf). Purchasers of material from within the quarantine area, All units except who are moving material outside of the quarantine area, Mitigate movement of host units 138- 142 and SIL-7 SOD must work with the Oregon Department of Agriculture to material to reduce risk of the northern tip of obtain necessary permits to transport host and non-host pathogen spread. unit 143 material.

Page A-42 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Appendix B – Alternative Maps

Appendix B Page B-1 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 24. Map Areas Vicinity Map: Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project

Page B-2 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 25. Proposed Action Map: Area 1

Appendix B Page B-3 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 26. Proposed Action Map: Area 2

Page B-4 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 27. Proposed Action Map: Area 3

Appendix B Page B-5 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 28. Proposed Action Map: Area 4

Page B-6 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 29. Proposed Action Map: Area 5

Appendix B Page B-7 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 30. Proposed Action Map: Area 6

Page B-8 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 31. Proposed Action Map: Area 7

Appendix B Page B-9 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 32. Proposed Action Map: Area 8

Page B-10 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 33. Proposed Action Map: Area 9

Appendix B Page B-11 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 34. Proposed Action Map: Area 10

Page B-12 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 35. Alternative 3 Map: Area 1

Appendix B Page B-13 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 36. Alternative 3 Map: Area 2

Page B-14 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 37. Alternative 3 Map: Area 3

Appendix B Page B-15 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 38. Alternative 3 Map: Area 4

Page B-16 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 39. Alternative 3 Map: Area 5

Appendix B Page B-17 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 40. Alternative 3 Map: Area 6

Page B-18 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 41. Alternative 3 Map: Area 7

Appendix B Page B-19 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 42. Alternative 3 Map: Area 8

Page B-20 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project

Figure 43. Alternative 3 Map: Area 9

Appendix B Page B-21 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 44. Alternative 3 Map: Area 10

Page B-22 Appendix B