Wild Goose Timber Harvest Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-ORWA-N020-2017-0006-EA

February 2019

OR/WA Bureau of Land Management Northwest Oregon District, Marys Peak Field Office 1717 Fabry Road SE Salem, OR 97306 (503) 375-5646

WILD GOOSE TIMBER HARVEST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Area Location ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 3 1.4 Decisions to be Made ...... 4 1.5 Conformance with Land Use Plan ...... 4 1.6 Public Input and Issue Development ...... 4 1.6.1 Scoping...... 4 1.6.2 Issues Identified for Analysis ...... 5 2. Alternatives ...... 6 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 6 2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 7 2.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Adaptive Management) ...... 7 2.4 Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning ...... 9 2.5 Connected Actions ...... 10 2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 11 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... 13 3.1 Issue 1: How would harvest contribute towards ASQ within the Salem SYU? ...... 13 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 13 3.1.2 Environmental Effects ...... 15 3.1.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 17 3.2 Issue 2: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions affect habitat conditions of northern spotted owl sites within the project area? ...... 20 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 20 3.2.2 Environmental Effects ...... 23 3.2.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 25 3.3 Issue 3: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions affect conditions of critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in the project area? ...... 26 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 26 3.3.2 Environmental Effects ...... 27 3.3.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 28 3.4 Issue 4: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions prevent degradation or removal of habitat occupied by red tree voles in the project area? ...... 29 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 29 3.4.2 Environmental Effects ...... 32 3.4.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 33 4. Consultation, Contacts, and References ...... 34 4.1 Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation ...... 34 4.2 Tribal Contacts ...... 35 4.3 State Historic Preservation Office Consultation ...... 35 4.4 List of Preparers ...... 35 4.5 References Cited ...... 36 Appendix ...... 1 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ...... A-1 Appendix B: EA Unit Maps ...... B-1 Appendix C: Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... C-1 Appendix D: Project Maps ...... D-1 Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices ...... E-1 Project Design Features Common to Both Action Alternatives ...... E-2 Project Design Features Specific to Regeneration Harvest ...... E-11 Project Design Features Specific to Commercial Thinning ...... E-12 Best Management Practices ...... E-13 Appendix F: Proposed Road Work ...... F-1

List of Tables Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 6 Table 2-2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action overview by unit ...... 8 Table 2-3. Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning overview by unit ...... 10 Table 3-1. Current stand attributes, modeled for all stands (trees > 7” DBH) ...... 14 Table 3-2. Current vegetation and stand history from available records ...... 15 Table 3-3. Alternative 2 Volume Estimates and Post-Harvest Stand Conditions ...... 16 Table 3-4. Alternative 3 Volume Estimates and Post-Harvest Stand Conditions ...... 17 Table 3-5. Habitat Conditions in Northern Spotted Owl Home Ranges Overlapping the Project Area. 1,2 ...... 22 Table 3-6. Dispersal Habitat Removal resulting from the Proposed Action regeneration harvest units within two northern spotted owl home ranges...... 24 Table 3-7. Survey effort and red tree vole findings within the Project Area...... 30 Table 3-8. Proposed management for occupied red tree vole habitat within the project area...... 31 Table 4-1. Effects to Federally listed wildlife species and critical habitat by Action Alternative 34

List of Figures Figure 3-1. Additional volume of the Wild Goose timber sales, combined with the volumes of other timber sales within the Salem SYU for fiscal year 2019...... 18 Figure 3-2. The Marys Peak Field Office does not currently intend to offer timber from the Wild Goose project in fiscal years 2020 or 2021...... 19 Figure 3-3. ASQ contributions broken down by Field Office...... 20

Cover photo. Timber sale unit in T. 7 S., R. 6 W., Section 6. August 2017. 1. Introduction This document includes the analysis of commercial timber harvest and connected actions on approximately 651 acres1 of forestland within the Marys Peak Field Office of the Northwest Oregon District Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This chapter provides a description of the project area, the purpose and need for the action, the decisions to be made, a description of how the project conforms to management direction and applicable laws and regulations, and the scope of the analysis.

1.1 Project Area Location The project area is located approximately six miles south of Willamina, Oregon, in Polk County. The project area lies within the Mill Creek fifth-field watershed in T. 7 S., R. 6 W., sections 4, 5, 6, and 7; and T. 7 S., R. 7 W., section 1, Willamette Meridian (see Map 1 on the following page). The area is part of a contiguous block of BLM-managed land that extends west of the project area. Land ownership is part of a checkerboard pattern of BLM, private industrial, and private residents to the north, east, and south. The project area is entirely within the Mill Creek- Gooseneck Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA).

1.2 Background The Marys Peak Field Office manages 12,219 acres (36 percent) of the Mill Creek fifth-field watershed. Harvest Land Base accounts for 5,276 acres (43 percent) of the BLM-administered lands in the watershed, with the remainder allocated as Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserve, and District-Designated Reserve. The analysis area encompasses two subwatersheds. The majority (approximately 630 acres) is within the Lower Mill Creek subwatershed, which is a Class II watershed2. The remaining 20 acres are within the Upper Mill Creek subwatershed, which is a Class III watershed. The BLM used its Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) to identify stands appropriate for forest management in the Mill Creek fifth-field watershed. Stand examinations and field review provided current data on stocking levels, stand health, and species composition in units proposed for management. Proposed timber harvest is limited to the Harvest Land Base, which includes Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) and Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA). The 16 forest stands proposed for treatment range from 29 to 68 years of age3. This BLM action considers timber harvest on 519 acres allocated to the LITA and 132 acres allocated to the MITA. The analysis area lies within a connected block of five contiguous sections as indicated on the vicinity map on the following page.

1 Acres include both timber harvest areas and retention areas. 2 Management direction for Class II and Class III watersheds is described in the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP) (pp. 72-74). 3 2019 stand ages are presented in this EA. Unit maps can be found in Appendix B.

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 Map 1. Vicinity Map

Chapter 1 – Introduction 2 1.3 Purpose and Need Need for Action The BLM is obligated to manage revested Oregon and California (O&C) lands for sustained yield timber production under the statutory requirements of the O&C Act (43 U.S.C. §1181a et seq.) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C §1701 et seq.). The BLM established specific management direction for sustained-yield timber production through the 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP). The ROD/RMP was developed under the requirements of the FLPMA, while in compliance with other laws and statutes including the O&C Act. The BLM has declared an allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of 65 million board feet (MMBF) for the Salem Sustained Yield Unit (SYU). This ASQ volume represents the sustained-yield volume of timber that the BLM would offer for sale annually from the Harvest Land Base, which has specific management direction for sustained-yield timber production (ROD/RMP p. 6). The Salem SYU includes the Cascades, Marys Peak, and Tillamook Field Offices. The Marys Peak Field Office manages approximately 24 percent (25,488 acres4) of the Harvest Land Base within the Salem SYU. Under the current plan for the Salem SYU, the Marys Peak Field Office is expected to offer for sale between 10-23 MMBF of commercial harvest annually5. The Marys Peak Field Office has identified approximately 651 acres of 29-68 year old forest stands within the Harvest Land Base-MITA and LITA land use allocations as appropriate for harvest at this time to provide ASQ. The Marys Peak Field Office has selected this area because: ● Stand composition and stocking, logging feasibility, and relation to existing roads for log hauling indicate that the area could support a technically and economically feasible timber harvest; ● The contiguous blocks of BLM-administered land provide an opportunity to manage forests at the landscape-level; ● Data collection, including stand composition information (stand exams), special status species surveys, as well as property line surveys were begun in the project area prior to initiation of the project.

Harvest actions analyzed in this EA, including regeneration harvest and commercial thinning, would contribute to the Northwest Oregon District’s ASQ for the Salem sustained yield unit.

Purpose The purpose of the Wild Goose Timber Harvest (Wild Goose) project is timber harvesting to meet management direction outlined in the ROD/RMP to: Conduct commercial harvest to produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared ASQ (ROD/RMP p. 59). This

4 Data queried February 2018. At that time, the Salem Sustained Yield Unit had 104,853 acres allocated to the Harvest Land Base. 5 16 MMBF is approximately the mid-point. The range 10-23 represents the 40 percent annual variation factor for the SYU. Information accurate as of February 2019.

Chapter 1 – Introduction 3 would be achieved through the harvest of merchantable6 timber within the Wild Goose project area. The project would contribute to the Salem sustained yield unit ASQ from fiscal years 2019 to 2023. Deferring harvest now would forego the opportunity to contribute timber volume toward meeting the ASQ declared in the ROD/RMP and fail to generate a successive stand of timber for future harvest in accordance with sustained yield timber management as directed by the ROD/RMP (ROD/RMP p. 59).

1.4 Decisions to be Made The BLM will decide whether to offer timber for sale, and if timber is offered for sale, how to delineate individual timber sale boundaries, the specific design features to apply, and whether or when to implement related actions, including road work, fuels treatments, and planting of the harvested area.

1.5 Conformance with Land Use Plan The BLM signed a Record of Decision approving the ROD/RMP on August 5, 2016. The Marys Peak Field Office initiated and designed the Wild Goose project to be in conformance with the ROD/RMP, which addresses how the BLM will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in western Oregon including, but not limited to the: O&C Act, FLPMA, Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act.

1.6 Public Input and Issue Development

1.6.1 Scoping The BLM mailed the scoping proposal to 44 potentially affected or interested parties in September 2017. Recipients included individuals, groups, tribal authorities, and federal, state, and municipal government agencies. Additionally, the BLM provided the scoping package and notice for public comment on the publicly accessible ePlanning website. The BLM received seven sets of comments during the scoping period. All scoping comment letters and emails are within in the project file, located at the Northwest Oregon District Office. The interdisciplinary team reviewed the scoping comments and used the relevant comments in developing alternatives and project design features7. Comments, questions, and issues were raised by individuals, organizations, and BLM’s interdisciplinary team. Issues are points of discussion, dispute, or debate about the environmental effects of proposed actions. Issues and concerns raised were considered in the formulation of alternatives, project design features, and/or environmental effects. Some comments were not related to the decision to be made, were

6 Merchantable is defined as trees or stands having the size, quality, and condition suitable for marketing under a given economic condition, even if not immediately accessible for logging (RMP p. 298). 7 Project Design Features and Best Management Practices are incorporated by reference in this EA and are listed in Appendix E.

Chapter 1 – Introduction 4 procedural concerns, or involved issues that were already decided by law, regulation, policy, or direction.

1.6.2 Issues Identified for Analysis Issues are analyzed in detail if analysis of the issue is necessary to make a reasoned choice between alternatives or if the issue is associated with potentially significant impacts or analysis is necessary to determine the significance of the impacts. Analysis of these issues provides a basis for comparing the environmental effects of action alternatives and the no action alternative and aids in the decision-making process. The interdisciplinary team considered the following issues as it developed and refined the project alternatives, identified project design features, and analyzed the environmental effects. Issues considered but not analyzed in detail can be found in Appendix C of this EA.

Issue 1: How would harvest contribute towards ASQ within the Salem SYU? Issue 2: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions affect habitat conditions of northern spotted owl sites within the project area?

Issue 3: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions affect conditions of critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in the project area?

Issue 4: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions prevent degradation or removal of habitat occupied by red tree voles in the project area?

Chapter 1 – Introduction 5 2. Alternatives This chapter describes the three alternatives the BLM analyzed in detail in this EA and the alternatives considered but removed from detailed analysis. Alternatives analyzed in detail include the No Action Alternative – Alternative 1, the Proposed Action – Alternative 2 (Adaptive Management), and Commercial Thinning – Alternative 3. Timber harvest type differs between action alternatives. Other aspects of the project, which include but are not limited to unit boundaries, road work, logging systems, fuel reduction treatment options, project design features, or seasonal restrictions, would be the same under both action alternatives, unless otherwise stated. Maps of the project area can be found in Appendix D. Maps show features common to both alternatives as described in this document.

2.1 Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-1 provides a broad overview of the two action alternatives proposed in this EA.

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives

Harvest Type No Action Proposed Action Commercial Thinning Harvest Type (acres) 651 (519 – LITA, Commercial Thin Acres 0 0 132 – MITA) Regeneration Harvest 651 (519 – LITA, 0 0 Acres 132 – MITA) Harvest Harvest volume total 0 29.3 MMBF 11.3 MMBF Harvest volume per acre 0 45.1 MBF1 17.5 MBF Ground-based yarding 0 231 acres Skyline/cable yarding 0 330 acres Road Work (miles) New road construction 0 1.9 Native surface 0 0.2 Rocked surface 0 1.7 Long-term storage 0 1.4 Renovation 0 12.6 Improvement 0 2.0 Reforestation (TPA2) Planting rate 0 250-350 0 Fuel Treatments (acres)8 Machine pile 0 231 18 Hand pile 0 330 0 Landing pile 0 34 16 1 MBF – thousand board feet 2 TPA – trees per acre

8 Number may be less than total harvest acres, because fuel treatments are not proposed on every acre.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 6 2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action alternative describes the environmental baseline against which the effects of the action alternatives can be compared; i.e. the existing conditions in the project area and the continuing trends in those conditions if the BLM does not implement any of the proposed actions. Consideration of this alternative also answers the question: “What would it mean for the objectives to not be achieved?” The No Action alternative means no actions or connected actions described in this EA would occur in the project area at this time, including but not limited to timber harvest, road work, and fuel reduction treatments. Normal administrative activities and other uses (e.g., road use and maintenance, special forest product harvest, dispersed recreation activities) would continue on BLM-managed lands within the project area. Public access would continue at its current level. Selection of the No Action alternative would not constitute a decision to change the land use allocations of these lands, nor would it set a precedent for consideration of future action proposals.

2.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Adaptive Management) This alternative is an adaptive management approach. The BLM proposes regeneration harvest on all 651 acres within the project boundary. There are currently no known northern spotted owl sites within 1.5 miles of the project area. Consistent with BLM policy, the BLM would continue to survey for residency before and during timber sales. Ongoing surveys would determine whether northern spotted owls are found to be resident within 1.5 miles of the project units. If residency is established, according to protocol, the BLM would modify the sale to maintain existing levels of spotted owl habitat within 1.5 miles of the resident northern spotted owl location. To achieve this, the BLM would propose a thinning harvest that retains 40 percent canopy cover in the portion of the post-harvest stands that falls within the home range. The BLM may restrict public access on a temporary basis in active timber sale units. Additional project design features and Best Management Practices that guide the implementation of the project are listed in Appendix E. Components of the proposed action are described below. Timber Harvest in the Harvest Land Base Within the 519 acres of the LITA, the BLM proposes to conduct regeneration harvest, following management direction to retain within 15-30 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live trees (ROD/RMP p. 62). Within 132 acres of the MITA, the BLM proposes to conduct regeneration harvest, following management direction to retain within 5-15 percent of the pre-harvest stand basal area in live trees (ROD/RMP p. 63). The BLM would achieve retention levels described in the management direction through varying types and intensities of aggregated and dispersed (scattered) retention. Retention type and levels would not be the same on every acre within the project area. Retention would vary between individual timber sale units, but overall retention would be achieved at the scale of the timber sale. For analytical purposes, the BLM assumed an overall retention of 17 percent in the LITA and 7 percent in the MITA. These are conservative estimates on the lower end of the ranges provided in the management direction and would be within the effects analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS. Retention strategies are described below; final retention strategy and placement would be determined at the time of each timber sale decision.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 7 Aggregate Retention Groups The BLM would retain aggregates of live trees at current stand density to contribute to basal area retention targets for the regeneration harvest area. Aggregate retention groups are generally larger than one-quarter acre in size and total approximately 90 acres. Aggregate size and placement would vary across the project area as patches within the timber harvest unit and adjacent to project boundaries and streams, often where cable or ground-based yarding would be unfeasible. Aggregates may be representative of the typical stand or may be selected to protect particular features, such as legacy trees or snag clusters. No treatment would be prescribed within aggregate retention groups; felled trees would be limited to those needed to facilitate timber removal. Felled trees may be harvested or left on site.

Dispersed Retention Areas Dispersed retention would occur at varying densities throughout the regeneration harvest units to contribute to basal area retention target and future snag and down log component. Dispersed retention areas are generally less than one-quarter acre in size and would range from 1 to 15 trees per acre. Skid roads and cable corridors needed to facilitate harvest may be within these areas. Live trees selected for retention may include legacy trees, open-grown wolf trees or dominant trees, trees with crown defects, broken or dead tops, or nest structures, trees that retain desired species diversity, and trees that reflect the median or larger size class of the current stand. Table 2-2 provides an overview of the proposed action by EA unit. Additional data is in Chapter 3.

Table 2-2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action overview by unit Harvest RMP Retention Harvest Land Unit Acres Age (MBF/Acre) (BA %) Base 1A 76 54 45.5 5-15% MITA - 1A 76 54 42.6 15-30% LITA 1B 7 53 44.6 5-15% MITA - 1C 26 52 50.8 5-15% MITA - 4B 1 37 33.0 15-30% - LITA 4C 7 44 41.6 15-30% - LITA 5A 58 58 41.1 15-30% - LITA 5B 51 60 50.0 15-30% - LITA 5C 143 58 41.1 15-30% - LITA 5D 8 37 34.4 15-30% - LITA 5E 2 63 69.8 15-30% - LITA 6A 29 68 58.3 15-30% - LITA 6B 137 61 48.3 15-30% - LITA 7A/7B 7 43/29 27.2 15-30% - LITA 7C 15 52 41.1 5-30% MITA LITA 7D 8 49 41.5 5-30% MITA LITA Total 651

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 8 Timber Yarding Methods Timber yarding would be accomplished by ground-based and skyline yarding methods9. Ground- based yarding accounts for approximately 231 acres (41 percent) and skyline yarding accounts for approximately 330 acres (59 percent). Actions within the Riparian Reserve The BLM proposes no timber harvest within the Riparian Reserve10; however, connected actions that facilitate safe and efficient timber sale operations may occur within this land use allocation. Actions may include, but are not limited to, road work, yarding, and slash. Timber felling and removal may occur in portions of the Riparian Reserve where consistent with management direction (ROD/RMP p. 68). Actions are addressed further in Project Design Features and Best Management Practices (Appendix E) and Connected Actions (section 2.5) of this EA.

2.4 Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning This alternative proposes commercial thinning on all 651 acres within the project boundaries. Proposed road work and logging systems are identical under the two action alternatives. Actions that differ from those proposed and analyzed in Alternative 2 are described below. Timber harvest The BLM would conduct commercial thinning on all acres within the project boundaries. Post- harvest relative density would vary between 25-45 percent (ROD/RMP p. 60) and would be determined at the scale of the timber sale. This alternative retains approximately 5-7.5 percent of the project area in unharvested clumps (or skips). Table 2-3 provides an overview of Alternative 3 by EA unit.

9 Proposed yarding methods are described in Appendix E: Project design features and Best Management Practices. Effects analyses provide thresholds and limits regarding site suitability to use either yarding method. 10 Within the Class II Lower Mill Creek watershed, this is 210 feet on either side of the stream, or 420 feet in total including both sides of the stream.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 9 Table 2-3. Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning overview by unit Relative Harvest Harvest Land Unit Acres Age Density (MBF/ Acre) Base (RD)1 1A 152 54 14.3 40 MITA LITA 1B 7 53 14.4 40 MITA - 1C 26 52 18.3 40 MITA - 4B 1 37 14.4 35 - LITA 4C 7 44 12.8 35 - LITA 5A 58 58 14.7 40 - LITA 5B 51 60 28.6 40 - LITA 5C 143 58 14.7 40 - LITA 5D 8 37 17.7 35 - LITA 5E 2 63 36.5 40 - LITA 6A 29 68 32.1 40 - LITA 6B 137 61 18.3 40 - LITA 7A/7B 7 43/29 10.9 35 - LITA 7C 15 52 15.8 40 MITA LITA 7D 8 49 15.7 40 MITA LITA Total 651 1 Relative density would range 25-45 at the scale of the timber sale. Specific targets listed here were used as a basis for analysis.

2.5 Connected Actions Connected actions include those necessary to facilitate logging operations (e.g., landing construction and road work) and post-harvest fuel reduction treatments. Hauling and Haul Routes The BLM has identified haul routes for the Wild Goose project, which include a combination of BLM and private roads over which BLM has legal administrative access. The BLM is currently working to secure legal administrative access on roads without legal access. These roads are included in the EA analysis regardless of access rights at this time. Road work associated with haul routes on BLM and private roads involves construction, renovation, improvement, and maintenance. Road work11 Roads would be constructed, renovated, or improved to provide for safe and efficient logging and hauling.

11 Project maps in Appendix D show proposed road work. Appendix F has detailed information on new road construction, road lengths, surface types, and final status.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 10 New construction: The BLM is proposing to construct 14 road segments in support of the Wild Goose project. Roads vary in length from approximately 150 feet to 2,630 feet. Total road construction is approximately 10,300 feet (1.9 miles). Approximately 765 feet (0.15 miles) of new construction is within the Riparian Reserve. This road is labeled as P3 in the project maps in Appendix D. The remaining construction is within the Harvest Land Base.

Renovation and improvement of existing roads: The BLM proposes to improve approximately 2 miles and renovate approximately 12.6 miles of existing roads. Rock sources The operator would obtain pit run rock, aggregate, soil, and boulders for use on project roads and berms from commercial sources and established BLM quarries. Post-harvest fuel reduction treatments The BLM would implement post-harvest fuel reduction treatments to reduce the risk and intensity of new fire starts and for site preparation for future forestry actions. Methods may include slash piling and burning, slash pullback, and lopping and scattering. The BLM is not proposing broadcast burning in any harvest units. Treatments typically occur within 18 months of harvest unit completion. Fuel reduction treatment options are identical under both alternatives, though the final treatment strategy and intensity would depend on site-specific fuel loads and concerns. Reforestation The BLM would plant a mixture of Douglas-fir, western redcedar, and western hemlock in areas of regeneration harvest. Planting density would average 300 trees per acre (range 250-350 trees per acre) following completion of harvest activities, though the precise timing would be determined on a sale-by-sale basis. The BLM proposes this mix of species and planting rate to provide a fully stocked site with commercially valuable species that could provide for ASQ in future harvests. The BLM is not proposing tree planting in areas of commercial thinning. Snag Creation Consistent with management direction, the BLM would create snags across the harvest unit within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale (ROD/RMP p. 61). Within the Oregon Coast Range, one snag per acre must be created. Snag creation would be met at the scale of harvest unit.

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail The BLM is required to include a discussion of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, alternatives which are technically and economically feasible and which meet the purpose and need, and which have a lesser environmental impact. The BLM may eliminate from detailed analysis alternatives that are not reasonable. The BLM NEPA Handbook (USDI BLM 2008 p. 52), states an alternative need not be analyzed in detail if –

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 11 • It does not meet the purpose and need (EA section 1.2); • It is technically or economically infeasible; • It is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area (see Chapter 1 for the guidance for the formulation of alternatives); • Its implementation is remote or speculative; • It is substantially similar to an alternative being considered in detail; or • It would have substantially similar effects to an alternative being considered in detail. The BLM considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, the following alternatives.

No New Road Construction The BLM received comments regarding proposed road construction associated with the Wild Goose project during public scoping. The BLM proposes the current level of road construction to harvest units efficiently and cost-effectively. Portions of harvest units would not be accessible in the absence of new road construction. This would result in many of the harvest units either not being treated or needing helicopter yarding operations. The BLM eliminated helicopter yarding from consideration due to site-specific conditions including but not limited to topography, the Harvest Land Base land use allocation, existing road network, and future management needs and opportunities. Additionally, many potential purchasers would not be able to operate using helicopter-only harvest methods. Depending on the timber prices at the time of the potential sale, this may jeopardize the viability of the sale which would result in a loss of the benefits from the forest treatments, and, subsequently, not meet the purpose and need of the project. Due to these reasons, the BLM eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis.

Maximize Regeneration Harvest The BLM received a comment during public scoping that called for an alternative that maximizes acres of regeneration harvest. The comment does not define or describe acre maximization; the BLM interprets this comment as an interest in conducting regeneration harvest on all stands proposed for treatment. Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) is an adaptive management strategy that considers regeneration harvest across all stands in the project planning area. This is one alternative that BLM identified as appropriate to meeting the purpose and need of the project. For these reasons, an alternative that maximizes regeneration harvest is substantially similar in design to an alternative being considered in detail and an additional alternative is not necessary.

Riparian Reserve Treatment The BLM considered limited density management in the Riparian Reserve early in the project planning process and provided this information during public scoping in the fall of 2017. The BLM has since refined the Purpose and Need of the project to include a range of management directions that are appropriate to the site and District needs. The purpose of this project is to produce ASQ to meet volume requirements for the Salem SYU. Timber harvest in the Riparian Reserve does not contribute ASQ; therefore, the BLM removed harvest within the Riparian Reserve from consideration for this project.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 12 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects This section summarizes the physical, biological, and social environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the previous chapter. The interdisciplinary reports are incorporated by reference in this EA. Reports in their entirety are available at the Northwest Oregon District Office and upon request.

3.1 Issue 1: How would harvest contribute towards ASQ within the Salem SYU?

3.1.1 Affected Environment Stand History and Current Site Conditions The 651 acre project area consists of 16 conifer forest stands. The stands are fully-stocked and dominated by Douglas-fir. Stands average 52.5 thousand board feet (MBF) per acre, and range from 29-68 years old (2019 ages). The forest stands are in a mid-seral condition, at high density (Photo 1). The stands are entering the “stem exclusion” phase (Oliver and Larson 1996) of development. Inter-tree competition can also be described by the concept of relative density (RD), shown in Table 3-1. Below a relative density of 25 percent, trees are experiencing little inter-tree competition, and at 35-40 percent are considered ‘fully stocked.’ Above a relative density of about 55 percent, competition is strong, tree growth and vigor declines, and mortality of suppressed trees begins (Long 1985). Harvest units average 66 percent RD. Under such competition, crowns recede from below due to shading, and stems become taller and more slender as height growth continues but diameter growth slows in response to the loss of crown. Trees become less mechanically stable and more susceptible to pests. Death of suppressed trees occurs from lack of sunlight, from insects and diseases, or from buckling if tree stems become very tall and thin (Oliver and Larson 1996). Photo 1. Overstocked stand within the Wild Goose project area

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 13 BLM staff collected stand exam data in the project area in 2006, 2008, 2013, and 2017. Data is summarized below in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Current stand attributes, modeled for all stands (trees > 7” DBH) Basal area/ac Canopy Cover Unit QMD >7”1 TPA >7” RD (%) (ft2) (%)2 1A 231 14.3 205 65 79 1B 232 14.0 214 65 72 1C 259 15.0 212 71 77 4B 193 15.3 146 52 70 4C 225 15.4 175 59 68 5A/5C 3 216 15.7 159 56 69 5B 267 14.2 226 77 87 5D 224 15.7 166 62 68 5E 318 17.3 196 81 80 6A 295 16.8 189 76 77 6B 241 15.0 195 67 74 7A/7B4 183 13.5 185 50 66 7C 254 13.7 248 69 72 7D 240 14.2 215 69 72 1Quadratic mean diameter - the diameter at breast height (4.5 feet) of the tree of average basal area for trees 7” DBH and greater. 2 Canopy cover from stand data analyzed in FVS Suppose v. 2.06 growth model. 3 Unit 5A and 5C come from the same FOI layer and were split into two units for operational reasons due to large size (201 acres) 4 Units combined due to small size (0.7 acres), proximity in age-class (within 13 years), and species composition.

Available data indicates that regeneration harvests occurred in the project area from the 1940s- 1987 (Table 3-2). Stand structure varies in diameter, but is generally uniform and simple, and little evidence of wildfire or older legacy trees remain. There is a minor component of western hemlock and western redcedar in nearly all stands. Most stands contain a substantial hardwood component, including red alder in the moist areas and bigleaf maple in the drier uplands.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 14 Table 3-2. Current vegetation and stand history from available records Current Stand History Unit Overstory Regeneration Pre-commercial Hardwood/ Vegetation1 Harvest/Planting Thin Shrub Cut 1A DF 1960s 1971 2004, 2008 1B DF 1960s 2005, 2008 1C DF 1960s 2005, 2008 4B DF 1980s 2012 2004, 2011 4C DF 1970s 2004, 2011 5A/5C DF 1950s 2004, 2008 5B DF, BM, PM, PY 1950s 2011 5D DF 1980s 2012 2004, 2008 5E DF, BM, GF 1950s 2004, 2011 6A DF 1940s 6B DF, GF, BM, PM 1950s 7A DF 1972 1994 7B DF 1987/1988-1991 2008 1995, 2008 7C DF 1960s 7D DF 1960s 1Vegetation codes: DF=Douglas-fir, GF=Grand fir, BM=Bigleaf maple, PM=Pacific madrone, PY=Pacific yew

3.1.2 Environmental Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Selection of the No Action alternative would provide no ASQ toward the Salem Sustained Yield Unit, though stands would continue to be available for future harvest. The BLM completed stand growth projections using the FVS Suppose growth and simulation model, v. 2.06, ORGANON Pacific Northwest (OP) Variant, based on stand plot data collected in 2006, 2008, 2013, and 2017. All stand data was grown forward to a common baseline year of 2019 to bring all areas to current conditions. Without treatment, the current stands would continue to grow to increasing dense and growth rates would slow. Early seral habitat would occur in small areas comprising 0- 5 percent of the area because of disturbances such as disease, insects, and wind. Snag and down wood levels would increase because of density mortality, primarily trees that become “shaded out” in the smaller size classes from seedlings up to trees 16 inches DBH as stands become more dense with time. Laminated root rot would continue to spread where it occurs, creating gaps over time. These gaps would likely become forested over time with hardwood trees and shade-tolerant conifer. The effect would not be detrimental to wildlife habitat, but would not contribute to sustained growth and yield of timber to meet management objectives of the Harvest Land Base. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action This BLM estimates that this alternative would generate 29.3 million board feet of timber, an average of 45.1 thousand board feet per acre across 651 acres. Table 3-3 shows the projected stand characteristics and volume contribution under this alternative.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 15 Table 3-3. Alternative 2 Volume Estimates and Post-Harvest Stand Conditions

Harvest BA/ Acre QMD >7" Canopy Unit Volume TPA>7” RD (%) (ft2) (in.) Cover (%) (MBF/ Acre) 1AMITA 20 45.5 13 17.4 9 13 1ALITA 30 42.6 13 21.2 12 16 1B 20 44.6 7 23.2 9 15 1C 20 50.8 7 26.2 8 7 4B 30 33.0 30 13.7 13 24 4C 40 41.6 14 23.4 10 15 5A 40 41.1 8 26.9 12 15 5B 40 50.0 22 14.9 17 41 5C 40 41.1 8 26.9 12 15 5D 40 34.4 12 24.6 15 19 5E 50 69.8 9 30.4 15 16 6A 50 58.3 8 31.1 16 24 6B 40 48.3 12 23.2 12 16 7A/7B 30 27.2 25 15.0 10 17 7C 40 41.1 18 19.2 10 20 7D 40 41.5 12 21.7 11 20

Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning Approximately 11.3 million board feet of timber would be harvested by commercial thinning in this alternative, an average of 17.5 thousand board feet per acre (including 5 percent leave area acreage in average). The range of retention required for commercial thinning requires a relative density between 25 to 45 percent post-harvest (ROD/RMP p. 60). For commercial thinning in HLB, the retention areas (skips) are based on a percentage of treatment area (at least 5 percent) and are not a basal area target (ROD/RMP p. 60). Approximately 33-49 acres (5-7 percent of total acreage) would be left as unthinned skips. Under Alternative 3, the low range of 5 percent leave skips is preferred because it allows the stands to remain fully stocked and maximize the potential for subsequent volume production to contribute towards ASQ, while maintaining a RD below the self-thinning zone (~55 percent RD). Canopy cover would remain above 40 percent. The skips primarily come from areas adjacent to project area streams. Post-harvest stand characteristics of stands in the Wild Goose project area, as modeled by FVS for this alternative, are specified in Table 3-4.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 16 Table 3-4. Alternative 3 Volume Estimates and Post-Harvest Stand Conditions

Harvest Canopy TPA QMD RD Unit BA/ Acre Volume Cover >7” >7" (%) (MBF/ Acre) (%) 1A 150 14.3 86 17.8 41 55 1B 150 14.4 86 17.7 42 53 1C 160 18.3 77 19.5 40 52 4B 120 14.4 43 21.5 34 46 4C 150 12.8 76 19.1 36 49 5A 140 14.7 60 20.5 39 45 5B 120 28.6 36 22.4 40 54 5C 140 14.7 60 20.5 39 45 5D 120 17.7 51 20.8 35 41 5E 150 36.5 47 24.6 40 42 6A 140 32.1 41 24.4 39 46 6B 150 18.3 72 19.3 40 49 7A/7B 130 10.9 155 14.6 36 47 7C 160 15.8 106 16.5 40 50 7D 150 15.7 87 17.6 40 50

3.1.3 Cumulative Effects This section addresses cumulative effects related to the identified issue: How would the project contribute to ASQ in the Salem SYU? The Salem SYU includes the Cascades, Marys Peak, and Tillamook Field Offices. Timber harvest from the Wild Goose project would yield between 0 to 29 MMBF of ASQ timber, depending on the chosen alternative. The harvested timber would contribute towards Marys Peak annual allocation of 10-23 MMBF ASQ for the Salem SYU between fiscal years 2019-2023. The Marys Peak Field Office currently intends to offer timber for sale from the Wild Goose project in fiscal years 2019, 2022, and 2023, though this is subject to change. While the BLM has produced estimated growth volumes for the Wild Goose project for the indirect effects analysis presented above, the cumulative projects in the longer term (e.g., 20 or 50 years) are unknown and would be highly speculative to consider under a cumulative effects analysis. As such, a discussion of this kind would also not contribute to decision making under this analysis. Therefore, the BLM’s cumulative effects discussion here is limited to the nonspeculative actions associated with the contributions to the fiscal years of 2019-2023 achievement of the ASQ for the Salem SYU. For fiscal year 2019, the BLM would offer approximately 59 MMBF from other timber sales on the Cascades (41.6 MMBF) and Tillamook (17.5 MMBF) Field Offices to meet the ASQ in the

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 17 Salem SYU (65 MMBF)12. Figure 3-1 shows how the FY 2019 Wild Goose timber sale (17.4 MMBF13), when added to the other timber sales in the Salem SYU for fiscal year 2019, cumulatively would contribute to the achievement of the volume targets established.

Fiscal Year 2019

100

90 91 mmbf

80

70 Volume Target 60

50

40 39 mmbf

30

20

10

0 No Action Alternative Thinning Alternative Proposed Action

Wild Goose Other Marys Peak Sales Cascades Tillamook Volume Target Annual Variance

Figure 3-1. Additional volume of the Wild Goose timber sales, combined with the volumes of other timber sales within the Salem SYU for fiscal year 2019. Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would surpass the Salem SYU ASQ volume for fiscal year 2019 by approximately 12 MMBF. (total 78 MMBF), the Thinning Alternative would achieve the ASQ volume for fiscal year 2019 (65 MMBF), and the No Action Alternative would come short of achieving the volume by 4.5 MMBF. However, all alternatives would result in the BLM offering volume from the Harvest Land Base to achieve the ASQ range, including the 40 percent annual variation factor for the Salem SYU. The annual variation factor provides a range for the Salem SYU of 39 MMBF (-40 percent) to 91 MMBF (+40 percent) of ASQ. The additive

12 At the time of publication, the BLM expects to offer approximately 78 MMBF of ASQ volume in the Salem SYU in fiscal year 2019. 13 This represents the expected volume harvested under the proposed regeneration harvest alternative.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 18 volume of all sales in the Salem SYU range between 61 MMBF (No Action Alternative) to 78 MMBF (Proposed Action), which is well within the allowable annual variation. For fiscal years 2020 and 2021, the BLM would offer an equivalent amount of ASQ towards the Salem SYU but divided differently across Field Offices. The Tillamook Field Office would approximately maintain its contribution towards ASQ at 18 MMBF. The Cascades Field Office would reduce their ASQ by 10 MMBF and Marys Peak would reduce their ASQ by ~1 MMBF to compensate and achieve volume targets. Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would meet the ASQ volume for the Salem SYU in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 by harvesting in different planning areas. Workplace safety, road construction, timing, and logistics make a timber sale from Wild Goose unfavorable during this time phase. At the time of publication, the BLM does not plan to offer a timber sale from the Wild Goose project area in fiscal year 2020 or 2021, though this is subject to change. Figure 3-2 shows how the approximate distribution of ASQ volume by Field Office for the two fiscal years.

Fiscal Year 2020-2021 100

90 91 mmbf

80

70 Volume Target 60

50

40 39 mmbf

30

20

10

0 No Action Alternative Thinning Alternative Propsed Action

Wild Goose Other Marys Peak Cascades Tillamook Volume Target Annual Variance

Figure 3-2. The Marys Peak Field Office does not currently intend to offer timber from the Wild Goose project in fiscal years 2020 or 2021.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 19 For fiscal years 2022 and 2023, the BLM would continue to offer 65 MMBF from the same allocations of each Field Office to meet the Salem SYU. Depending on the selected alternative, the Wild Goose timber sales are projected to produce up to 6 MMBF of volume each year during this time frame. Figure 3-3 demonstrates how the allocations between Field offices and the Wild Goose timber sales through year 2023.

Fiscal Years 2022-2023 100 90 91 mmbf 80

70 Target 60 Volume 50 40 39 mmbf 30 20 10 0 No Action Alternative Thinning Alternative Proposed Action

Wild Goose Other Marys Peak Cascades Tillamook Volume Target Annual Variance

Figure 3-3. ASQ contributions broken down by Field Office. Under the proposed action, it is currently estimated the BLM would offer approximately 6 MMBF annually from the Wild Goose project area and an additional 10 MMBF from other timber sales on the Marys Peak Field Office. Other timber sales on the Cascades (31 MMBF) and Tillamook (18 MMBF) Field Offices combined are estimated to meet the ASQ in the Salem SYU (65 MMBF). Selection of the thinning alternative in these years would result in the Salem SYU falling short of the 65 MMBF target.

3.2 Issue 2: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions affect habitat conditions of northern spotted owl sites within the project area?

3.2.1 Affected Environment The northern spotted owl generally inhabits forests older than 80 years of age that provide habitat for nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF). Stands that fulfill all three of these needs are commonly referred to as suitable habitat. Suitable habitat typically consists of: multi-layered, multi-species canopies dominated by large overstory trees greater than 20 inches in diameter breast height; canopy cover of 60 to 80 percent; open spaces within and below the canopy of the dominant overstory; presence of trees with large cavities and deformities such as broken tops and

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 20 dwarf mistletoe infections; numerous large snags; and large amounts of down wood (Thomas et al. 1990, USDI-FWS 1990, Courtney et al. 2004). The mid-seral forest stands (<70 years old) that comprise the Wild Goose project units are lacking the habitat components that provide for nesting. These stands may provide some foraging opportunities or at least provide forested connectivity between suitable patches to facilitate dispersal (Courtney et al. 2004, USDI-FWS 2012). Dispersal habitat is defined as conifer- dominated forest stands with canopy closure exceeding 40 percent, and an average diameter at breast height of 11 inches or greater (Thomas et al. 1990). Dispersal habitat is essential to the movement of juvenile and non-territorial (e.g., single birds) northern spotted owls, enabling territorial vacancies to be filled, and for providing adequate gene flow across the range of the species (USDI-FWS 2012). Within highly fragmented forest landscapes dispersal habitat may also provide corridors of connectivity between isolated patches of suitable habitat, which may enable northern spotted owls to persist within home ranges that have limited suitable habitat. There is no suitable habitat that would be modified by the proposed harvest action. Small patches of suitable habitat are scattered on this landscape, and three of these patches lie adjacent to proposed harvest units 1C, 4C, and 5B. The Mill Creek fifth-field Watershed has an extensive history of northern spotted owl survey efforts, which BLM staff began in 1975. From 1986 onward, all northern spotted owls detected in this watershed were color-marked (legs bands) by BLM to facilitate re-sighting efforts which have provided data for the ongoing demographic studies (Dugger, et al. 2016). In 1992, the BLM conducted a density study of all forest stands on all ownerships in the watershed. Since the mid- 1990s, BLM staff, the Demographic Study team, and private timberland owners have conducted surveys that have blanketed nearly all the suitable habitat within the watershed. Throughout the history of these survey efforts, there have never been more than three northern spotted owl pairs residing within this watershed. These three sites continue to be monitored annually. Within the past 10 years, only two of these sites have had northern spotted owl detections. In 2017, only one northern spotted owl (a single adult female) was detected in this watershed. This color-marked female owl has been repeatedly observed (2014, 2015, 2016) at the West Dorn owl site (0189O) where she was assigned as a resident single in 2016. The West Dorn owl site lies about 2.5 miles away from the proposed harvest area. In 2015 and 2017, this female was detected in the vicinity two alternate owl sites East Dorn 0175B and East Dorn 0175C which are located within 1.5 miles of the proposed harvest areas. This female appears to be a non-resident single floater that moves throughout the watershed, perhaps seeking to find a mate while avoiding the competitive pressure from barred owls that have been found at numerous locations in the watershed. No northern spotted owls were detected at any site within this watershed in 2018. In addition to monitoring at the known sites, the BLM conducted surveys of the Wild Goose project units and surrounding vicinity in 2017 and 2018, and had no northern spotted owl detections. In over thirty years of survey efforts on this landscape, no northern spotted owls have ever been detected in the forest stands that make up the proposed harvest units. For analysis purposes, habitat conditions in the vicinity of each northern spotted owl site is assessed by evaluating suitable and dispersal habitat conditions at three analytical scales:

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 21 Provincial Home Range, Core Area, and Nest Patch (USDI-FWS 2009, USDI-FWS 2017). For this project area, located in the Oregon Coast Range, a provincial home range for northern spotted owls is approximated by a circle with a radius of 1.5 miles surrounding the nest site or activity center. Throughout the year, northern spotted owls may occasionally visit and forage at isolated patches at the periphery of their home range, especially outside of the nesting season, or when non-nesting. The Core Area is represented by a 0.5-mile radius circle, encompassing an area of approximately 500 acres that is the most heavily used area during the nesting season. Core areas are defended by territorial northern spotted owls and generally do not overlap the core areas of other northern spotted owl home ranges. The Nest Patch is located within the core area and is represented by a circle 300-meter in radius encompassing about 70 acres centered on the nest tree or activity center point. Table 3-5 provides a summary of habitat conditions at two northern spotted owl sites that overlap the proposed harvest units. Each of these owl sites includes mix of BLM-managed lands and private lands within their home range. Habitat contributions of private timberlands are considered in this analysis, but are not expected to provide any more than dispersal habitat in the long term. About 60% of the private timberlands have been converted to young plantations over the past three decades which has greatly reduced the available suitable/dispersal habitat and its connectivity. The habitat conditions at both owl sites (Table 3-5) show very low levels of suitable habitat (NRF) at all spatial scales. Nearly all of the suitable habitat occurs on BLM- managed lands. Northern spotted owl sites with greater than 50 percent suitable habitat within their core area appear to have higher annual survival and greater reproduction than sites with less than 50 percent (USDI-FWS 2017). Northern spotted owl sites with low amounts of suitable habitat have also been shown to have lower adult survival (Schilling et al. 2013), and the northern spotted owls that occupy sites with lower amounts of suitable habitat appear to have larger home ranges (Schilling et al. 2013). For both of the owl sites analyzed, it appears that the relatively high percentage of dispersal habitat at the scale of the Core Area and Home Range has helped facilitate occupancy.

Table 3-5. Habitat Conditions in Northern Spotted Owl Home Ranges Overlapping the Project Area. 1,2 Home Range Habitat Core Area Habitat Nest Patch Habitat Owl Site Name Acres (%) Acres (%) Acres (%) and Number NRF Dispersal NRF Dispersal NRF Dispersal

East Dorn (0175B) 527 (12) 2,389 (53) 103 (21) 225 (45) 42 (59) 23 (32)

East Dorn (0175C) 651 (14) 2,480 (55) 111 (22) 175 (35) 48 (69) 8 (12) 1 Vegetation cover conditions were interpreted from BLM stand data, 2016 aerial photos, and 2011 LiDAR imagery. Habitat conditions were estimated on all land ownerships within the home range radius of owl sites where resident northern spotted owls has been detected in the past 10 years. 2 Nesting, Roosting, Foraging (NRF) and Dispersal Habitat conditions on all lands within respective analysis circles are in acres, with percent of total radius area shown in parenthesis. Home Range acres include Core Area and Nest Patch acres; Core Area acres include Nest Patch acres.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 22 3.2.2 Environmental Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative would not remove or modify the current forest stand conditions on BLM-managed lands in the project area. Forest stand development processes would continue unaltered on BLM lands within this project area. There would be no change to the current habitat conditions on BLM lands, and therefore no effect to the two spotted owl sites that partially overlap the project area. Habitat conditions within these northern spotted owl sites would likely decline for another decade as ongoing forest management on private timberlands is expected to remove dispersal habitat that provides some connectivity with suitable habitat on BLM lands. The Wild Goose project area falls within the northern half of the Oregon Coast range and is located within a small habitat block that is likely insufficient to meet the long-term conservation needs of the northern spotted owl (PRMP/FEIS, Figure 3-179, p. 937). Because of the limited federal ownership, lack of sufficient suitable habitat blocks, and ongoing competitive interactions with barred owls, the declining population of northern spotted owls on this landscape is expected to have a 50% chance of being extirpated within the next 20 years even with no harvest on BLM-managed lands (PRMP/FEIS, Figure 3-191, p. 965).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Adaptive Management) Under the proposed action, regeneration harvest of all proposed units is expected, since it is unlikely that the ongoing surveys would find a resident single or territorial pair of northern spotted owls which would require thinning harvest for some or all proposed units. The proposed regeneration harvest units have excluded older forest patches, and therefore no suitable habitat (NRF) would be removed from the two northern spotted owl sites that partially overlap with the project area. The proposed harvest would remove dispersal habitat from these two owl sites as outlined in Table 3-6. About 361 acres would be removed from the outer perimeter of owl site 0175B, which would reduce the available dispersal habitat within this home range from 53 percent (2,389 acres) to 45 percent (2,028 acres). This removal would occur on the outer perimeter of the provincial home range, in an area that has no history of northern spotted owl use. About 119 acres of dispersal habitat would be removed from the outer perimeter of owl site 0175C, which lies slightly farther away from the project area than owl site 0175B. The proposed regeneration harvest would reduce the available dispersal habitat within the home range of owl site 0175C from 55 percent (2,480 acres) to 52 percent (2,363 acres). Similar to site 0175B, the proposed harvest that would affect dispersal habitat along the outer perimeter of the provincial home range for owl site 0175C, in an area that has no history of spotted owl use.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 23 Table 3-6. Dispersal Habitat Removal resulting from the Proposed Action regeneration harvest units within two northern spotted owl home ranges.

Owl Site Total Acres of Dispersal Habitat Removed in Home Proposed 2 Number Acres Range by Proposed Harvest Harvest Unit 1 (IDNO) Removed Nest Patch Core Area Perimeter 5B 35 0 0 1 5C 121 0 0 24 6A 17 0 0 16 6B 116 0 0 127 7A 7 0 0 7 0175B 7B 1 0 0 1 7C 15 0 0 16 7D 8 0 0 9 1A 137 0 0 123 1B 7 0 0 8 1C 27 0 0 29 Total 491 0 0 361 7C 15 0 0 2 7D 8 0 0 7 0175C 1A 137 0 0 72 1B 7 0 0 9 1C 27 0 0 29 Total 194 0 0 119 1 Harvest units (or portions thereof) may fall within more than one Owl Site. 2 Any harvest acres are reported in only one category: Nest Patch (70 acres surrounding nest tree), Core Area (within 0.5 miles of nest tree, excludes nest patch), Perimeter (zone beyond 0.5 miles out to Home Range radius of 1.5 miles). Within the affected northern spotted owl sites, private timberlands which are currently composed of about 40% dispersal habitat, are not likely to retain more than 25 percent dispersal habitat conditions in future decades (assuming a 40 to 50 year rotation age for timber stands on private). The BLM-managed lands in these owl home ranges have the potential to support a 500-acre core for each owl site, but due to the checkerboard arrangement with private timberlands, there is limited ability to support sufficient suitable habitat and connectivity within the provincial home range beyond the core area. Any northern spotted owls that might occupy the owl sites on this landscape would likely need to rely on dispersal habitat as the next best habitat to provide some foraging opportunities, and to facilitate connectivity to more distant patches of suitable habitat. The proposed harvest action would have a minor negative effect on the connectivity provided by dispersal habitat within the affected owl sites, and this alternative is considered not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl territorial pairs or resident single owls because:

• both of the adjacent known sites currently have are very low amounts of suitable habitat (12 and 14 percent in home range as shown in Table 3-5) that are unlikely to support

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 24 continued occupancy; • management on the intervening private timberlands has severed much of the connectivity that facilitated previous spotted owl occupancy and which limits the potential for in- growth of sufficient suitable habitat (>40%) at the provincial home range scale; • the proposed harvest units would only affect dispersal habitat conditions along the outside perimeter of the overlapping home ranges in forest stands which have no history of northern spotted owl use, and; • the recent detections of a floating female spotted owl (2015, 2017), does not appear to be a resident owl (observed as a resident 2.5 miles away in 2016) since there were no spotted owl detections at any site in the watershed in 2018.

Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning This alternative would involve a commercial thinning harvest that would affect the same amount of dispersal habitat within two spotted owl sites as described for the proposed action (Alternative 2). However, the design of this commercial thinning harvest would retain a sufficient quantity and density of residual green trees to maintain at least 40 percent canopy cover in all the treated stands. Maintaining 40 percent canopy closure within all harvest units would allow these stands to continue to function as dispersal habitat that could facilitate connectivity to untreated patches of dispersal and suitable habitat within the watershed. This alternative would provide greater forest canopy connectivity within the spotted owl home ranges that overlap the project area. This alternative is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl territorial pairs or resident singles in the project area

3.2.3 Cumulative Effects Within the Mill Creek 5th Field Watershed, the BLM manages 12,270 acres. In the past 24 years following the inception of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), the BLM has conducted about 310 acres of density management on lands previously designated as Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve in the watershed. There has been no regeneration harvest during this time, and beyond the proposed action, the BLM has no foreseeable regeneration harvests planned within this watershed. The private timberlands within the upland forests of this watershed (about 10,000 acres) appear to be managed on short harvest rotations (estimated to be 40- to 50-year rotations). Both BLM and private landowners have delayed or deferred harvests over the past two decades due to the presence of northern spotted owls within this watershed. Currently about 40% of private timberlands in the watershed are dispersal habitat, in part, due to avoiding harvests near active spotted owl sites. It is reasonably foreseeable that additional harvests on private timberlands over the next decade would reduce dispersal habitat down to between 20 and 25 percent now that northern spotted owl occupancy has declined.

Cumulative effects to northern spotted owl sites The proposed regeneration harvest (Alternative 2) would occur in stands that are currently dispersal habitat and would not contribute to cumulative loss of suitable habitat conditions within the two affected northern spotted owl sites. Given that the current available suitable habitat within the affected owl sites is likely insufficient (well below 40 percent) to support continued spotted owl occupancy (USDI-FWS 2017) and the extensive survey efforts indicate that northern spotted owl occupancy has steadily declined to the point of possible absence from the watershed

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 25 in 2018, the planned harvest of dispersal habitat would have a negligible cumulative effect to northern spotted owl territorial pairs and resident singles. Similar to Alternative 2, the thinning harvest and connected actions in Alternative 3 would not contribute to the cumulative loss of suitable habitat within the affected owl sites, and would not contribute to the cumulative decline of dispersal habitat and connectivity within the two affected northern spotted owl sites because the treated stands would retain sufficient canopy cover to maintain their function after treatment.

3.3 Issue 3: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions affect conditions of critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in the project area?

3.3.1 Affected Environment Portions of the Wild Goose project fall within a Critical Habitat Unit (CHU NCO-5) which has been designated on federal and State lands for northern spotted owls (USDI-FWS 2012). This critical habitat unit is composed for Forest Service (128,348 acres), BLM (59,048 acres), and State of Oregon lands (11,067 acres), totaling 198,463 acres. About 8,650 acres of BLM- managed lands which have been allocated as Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA) as described by the ROD/RMP (p. 33) fall within this critical habitat unit and are potentially available for regeneration harvest. About 452 acres of the proposed harvest units are within this CHU NCO-5. The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of northern spotted owl critical habitat include: (1) various forest types in early-seral, mid-seral, or late-seral stages that support northern spotted owls across their range; and specific habitat that provides for (2) nesting/roosting, (3) foraging, and (4) transience and colonization phases of dispersal (USDI-FWS 2012 p. 71906). The proposed harvest units are all mid-seral forest stands less than 70 years old, which could function as dispersal habitat (PCE #4) for northern spotted owls. The project area lies along the eastern edge of the Oregon Coast Range, adjacent to the Willamette Valley which falls within a zone of limited dispersal habitat capability (<40 percent) as described in the PRMP/FEIS (p. 943, Figure 3-183). Due to continued harvest on private timberlands, and the relatively low percentage of federal lands within this part of the Oregon Coast Range, the project area is expected to remain part of the dispersal limited landscape, even after 50 years with no harvest on BLM lands (allowing for ingrowth of all BLMs to dispersal habitat or better) (PRMP/FEIS, p. 944, Figure 3- 184). However, within the immediate block of BLM lands that make up the proposed action area (about 1,270 acres in Sections 04,05,06,07, and 01), there is currently about 1,875 acres (86 percent) that function as dispersal habitat or better.

All of the BLM lands in this project area are within a Critical Habitat Unit (CHU: OR-02-d) that has been designated for marbled murrelets (USDI-FWS 1996 and USDI-FWS 2011a). There are 27,220 acres of BLM land within CHU OR-02-d. Within areas designated as marbled murrelet Critical Habitat, Physical or Biological Features (PBFs) that the USFWS determined to be essential to murrelet’s conservation include the following: (1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms (PBF-1); and (2) forested lands of at least one half site potential tree height (about 100 feet or taller) regardless of contiguity within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms (PBF-2), and that are used or potentially used by murrelets for nesting or roosting (USDI-FWS 2011a p. 61607). No suitable marbled murrelet nesting

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 26 habitat would be affected by the proposed action, because all proposed units have excluded the older forest stands that have potential nesting structure (PBF-1). About 250 acres of PBF-2 stands fall within proposed harvest units.

3.3.2 Environmental Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative would retain the existing dispersal habitat conditions (PCE #4) for northern spotted owls within the forest stands on BLM lands in the proposed action area. There would be no change to the dispersal habitat conditions within this portion of the northern spotted owl critical habitat unit NCO-5. The No Action Alternative would retain the existing habitat conditions for marbled murrelets within the forest stands on BLM lands in the proposed action area. There would be no change to these mid-seral stands that may currently contribute to providing buffer and recruitment habitat (PBF-2) to adjacent older forest patches within marbled murrelet critical habitat unit OR-02-d.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Adaptive Management) Issue 3: Effects to critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet The proposed regeneration harvest would remove 452 acres of northern spotted owl critical habitat that may currently function at dispersal habitat (PCE #4). The removal of dispersal habitat would create open early-seral patches intermingled with Riparian Reserve corridors, un- harvested aggregate leave-islands, and scattered green trees. The proposed removal of 452 acres of dispersal habitat represents less than one percent of the 59,000 acres of BLM-managed lands within critical habitat unit NCO-5, but it would occur within a portion of the coast range where dispersal habitat is currently limited as described in the PRMP/FEIS (p. 943, Figure 3-183) and is expected to remain limited well into the future (PRMP/FEIS p. 944, Figure 3-184). More locally, the project area falls within a block of BLM land where the dispersal habitat condition would drop from 86 to 65 percent. The final rule for spotted owl critical habitat acknowledged that management of critical habitat "...could be compatible with broader ecological goals, such as the retention of high-quality older forest, the continued treatment of young or homogenous forest plantations to enhance structural diversity, heterogeneity and late-successional forest conditions, and the conservation or restoration of complex early-seral forest habitat, where appropriate.." (Federal Register, volume 77(233), p. 71882). The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, because:

• The planned regeneration harvest would affect less than one percent of the CHU on BLM-managed lands, • It is designed to be compatible with the final rule for management of critical habitat, and, • It would not reduce the quality of existing dispersal habitat at the local landscape level (65% of local BLM land would retain dispersal function or better) to an extent that it would adversely affect the landscape’s ability to provide for dispersal of an individual northern spotted owl (USDI-FWS 2017 p. 132).

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 27 The proposed regeneration harvest would remove about 250 acres of mid-seral forest stands that currently contribute to marbled murrelet critical habitat (PBF-2 stands). The harvest of these stands would create open early-seral patches intermingled with Riparian Reserve corridors, un- harvested aggregate leave-islands, and scattered green trees. The open early seral habitat patches would be expected to take 4 to 5 decades to regain sufficient height and crown structure to provide PBF-2 habitat conditions. The proposed regeneration harvest in PBF-2 stands are designed to occur at least 300 feet away from stands that have suitable habitat conditions (PBF- 1). This proposed action is considered likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet (USDI-FWS 2017 p. 166). The proposed removal of 250 acres of PBF-2 stands represents less than one percent of the 27,220 acres of BLM-managed lands within marbled murrelet critical habitat unit OR-02-d.

Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning Issue 3: Effects to critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet This alternative would involve a commercial thinning harvest that would affect the same amount of dispersal habitat as Alternative 2. However, Alternative 3 would retain sufficient tree density and canopy cover (>40 percent), such that the thinning harvest units would maintain their function as dispersal habitat (PCE #4) after treatment. This alternative would avoid further reduction in local dispersal habitat within a landscape where dispersal habitat is limited as described in the PRMP/FEIS (p. 943, Figure 3-183). This alternative is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl This alternative would involve a commercial thinning harvest that would affect the same amount of mid-seral stands within marbled murrelet critical habitat (PBF-2 stand conditions) as Alternative 2. The only difference from Alternative 2 is that Alternative 3 would retain sufficient tree density and canopy cover (>40 percent), such that the thinning harvest units would suffer only a short-term degradation (< 10 years) of PBF-2 conditions until in-growth of canopy cover exceeded 60 percent. This proposed thinning harvest would occur beyond 300 feet of stands with suitable nesting structure (PBF-1). This alternative is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet.

3.3.3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet The previous federal harvest actions within northern spotted owl critical habitat unit NCO-5 (designated in 2012; USDI-FWS 2012) have occurred within Late-Successional Reserve allocation and have been designed as density management thinning treatments which retain dispersal habitat function. The proposed regeneration harvest (Alternative 2) along with foreseeable future BLM harvest actions (650 acres in two sale areas expected within next 5 years) could result in a cumulative loss of 1,100 acres of dispersal habitat, which represents about 2 percent of the BLM lands within NCO-5. This potential loss of dispersal habitat within NCO-5 would occur in a portion of the Oregon Coast Range where dispersal habitat is currently limited (<40 percent), and is expected to remain limited for decades (PRMP/FEIS p. 944, Figure 3-184). The cumulative effects to northern spotted owl critical habitat resulting from the

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 28 regeneration harvest proposed in Alternative 2 and the future foreseeable BLM harvests in LITA would not exceed those analyzed within the PRMP/FEIS and presented in the ROD/RMP (Table B-1, p. 132).

All of the marbled murrelet designated critical habitat unit OR-02-d (27,220 acres) falls on BLM-managed lands. Although no suitable marbled murrelet habitat would be affected, the proposed regeneration harvest of 250 acres of PBF-2 stands (Alternative 2), along with foreseeable future BLM harvest actions (350 acres in one sale area expected within next 5 years) would contribute to the cumulative loss of PBF-2 stands affecting about 2 percent of murrelet critical habitat unit OR-02-d. This cumulative loss would not affect the functionality of marbled murrelet critical habitat above the stand-scale at any time during the next 50 years (PRMP/FEIS p. 907), because no currently suitable habitat would be removed, the extent of the cumulative harvest is minimal, and most of the BLM lands within critical habitat are in reserve allocations (e.g. LSR, RR). Alternative 3 involves only commercial thinning harvest which would retain dispersal habitat function (PCE-4) within northern spotted owl critical habitat unit NCO-5, and would not contribute to any negative cumulative impacts to northern spotted owl critical habitat. Alternative 3 would not remove any suitable murrelet nesting habitat (PBF-1) within marbled murrelet critical habitat unit OR-02-d, and the expected short-term degradation of PBF-2 stand conditions would be a negligible contribution to cumulative effects to critical habitat.

3.4 Issue 4: How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions prevent degradation or removal of habitat occupied by red tree voles in the project area?

3.4.1 Affected Environment The red tree vole is a small arboreal rodent that feeds primarily on Douglas-fir needles and has been found to be closely associated with late-seral and old-growth forests (LSOG). While red tree voles are known to occupy both young and older conifer-dominated stands, they show higher nest densities and greater persistence in older forest stands (Forsman, et al. 2016). This species appears to have limited dispersal capabilities and there is concern for isolation of populations due to fragmentation of LSOG habitat. In 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a 12-month finding that evaluated the status of a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the red tree vole in the northern Oregon Coast Range (USDI-FWS 2011b). In that document, the decision to list this DPS as threatened or endangered was determined to be warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. This DPS of the red tree vole is now a Candidate Species for listing. BLM policy requires that Candidate Species are to be treated as Bureau Sensitive Species and the ROD/RMP provides specific management direction for protection of known red tree vole sites. The Wild Goose Timber Sales Project area lies within the Mill Creek 5th Field Watershed which is north of Highway 20 within the range of the DPS (USDI-FWS 2011b). Forsman, et al. (2016), analyzed 5 separate datasets (i.e. spotted owl pellet analysis, agency pre-project clearance surveys, strategic regional surveys, random plot studies, and targeted surveys) from across western Oregon and northern California and concluded that red tree voles in the north coast of Oregon (which encompasses the project area) are uncommon and rare compared to other regions within their range.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 29 As part of a long-term monitoring project initiated in 2005, the BLM surveyed for red tree voles at 21 sites within 8 miles of the proposed harvest units (GeoBOB 2018). Seven of these monitoring sites were re-surveyed in 2016. All 21 monitoring sites have shown moderate to high abundance of red tree voles, including all 7 sites that were resurveyed in 2016. Most of these monitoring sites are within LSOG stands that represent the oldest forest patches that remain on this landscape, or within mid-seral stands having a residual component of old-growth legacy trees. In addition, pre-project surveys have been conducted at 17 survey units within 8 miles of this project area, which includes 4 survey areas that lie within or adjacent to the Wild Goose project area. Twelve of these 17 survey areas have had red tree vole presence. The results for the four surveys areas within the Wild Goose project area are shown in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7. Survey effort and red tree vole findings within the Project Area. Stand Surveyed EA Unit Name RTV SurveyID Climb Results Survey Notes Age Acres 2 – Active Climbed 14 trees. Includes 5B WildGoose-05A 60 8.8 9 – Inactive all of adjoining 120yo stand 3 – No RTV 4 – Active Climbed 22 trees. Includes 5E WildGoose-05B 60 36.6 9 – Inactive all of adjoining 70yo stand 9 – No RTV with legacies 0 – Active Climbed 9 trees. Entirely 5A WildGoose-05C 60 45.2 3 – Inactive within planned harvest unit 6 – No RTV 0 – Active Climbed 3 trees. 1C WildGoose-01A 50 5.9 1 – Inactive Adjacent to Occupied RTV 2 – No RTV Monitoring unit.

By applying the management direction in the ROD/RMP (p. 101) the BLM would create two Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas (RTVHA) to protect red tree voles in stands that have been excluded from the proposed harvest units (Table 3-8). Two survey areas where only inactive vole nests were found do not require protection, but the trees with inactive vole nests have been excluded from the harvest units or included within aggregate patches where no harvest would occur. The RTVHA that lies adjacent to harvest unit 5B (ORNO2.RTVHA-0056) is bisected by an existing permanent road, where active red tree voles have been detected on either side of the road. Harvest unit 5B would require a short spur road (P10 on EA Map) that would also bisect this proposed RTVHA to access a landing to be used for yarding about half of the harvest acres (18 acres) in unit 5B.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 30 Table 3-8. Proposed management for occupied red tree vole habitat within the project area. Proposed Affected Habitat Area ID Voles Trees Protected Reserved Area HLB Acres ORN02.RTVHA-0056 27.5 7.5 2 active, 9 inactive This RTVHA encompasses a 120 year-old conifer-dominated patch that is adjacent to proposed harvest units 5B and 5C which are mid-seral stands. Additional active vole nests may be present in some of the older cohort trees that are scattered within the younger conifer stand at the south edge of the reserved patch. The Mill Creek Ridge ACEC overlays a portion of this area. ORN02.RTVHA-0057 34.9 14.5 4 active, 9 inactive This RTVHA encompasses an 70 year-old conifer-dominated stand that lies between harvest units 4C and 5A which are mid-seral stands. This RTVHA has several large legacy trees that are from an older cohort (at least 250 years old). Additional active vole nests may be present in some of the legacy trees that were not climbed.

The photo below is a portion of a red tree vole habitat area created in T. 7 S., R. 6 W., section 5 of the project area

Photo. Red tree vole habitat area

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 31 3.4.2 Environmental Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative would retain the existing habitat conditions within the mid-seral forest stands on BLM lands in the proposed action area, and these stands would continue to provide potential corridors for dispersal of red tree voles that may move between the occupied red tree vole sites that were found in the adjacent older forest patches. There would be no negative impacts to the red tree vole sites that lie adjacent to the project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Adaptive Management) The proposed regeneration harvest would not remove any patches of occupied red tree vole habitat. All of the trees that had evidence of red tree vole presence would be protected from harvest by their inclusion in a RTVHA (6 active nests, 18 inactive nests) or by inclusion within an aggregate retention patch (4 inactive nest trees). The proposed regeneration harvest units would create open early-seral patches intermingled with Riparian Reserve corridors, un- harvested aggregate leave-islands, and scattered green trees. The resulting landscape conditions would have degraded forest connectivity between the two RTVHA patches, which would persist for about 3 decades before in-growth of young conifer plantations could again support red tree vole presence (Forsman et al. 2016). Because red tree voles may be more susceptible to local extirpation in small forest patches <50 acres (Linnell, et al. 2017, USDI-FWS 2011b) there is a risk that voles may become extirpated from both of the RTVHAs over the short-term (next 20 years). However, the likelihood of short-term extirpation is low (<10%) because:

• the post-harvest landscape surrounding both RTVHA would continue to provide untreated corridors of connectivity between both occupied stands and to other untreated mid-seral forests; and, • nearby monitoring at BLM sites have shown that patches less than 15 acres (smaller than both RTVHA) can support persistent vole populations for at least 3 decades following isolation.

The Red Tree Vole Habitat Area adjacent to harvest unit 5B would be bisected by a short spur road (P10 on project maps). The designed spur road would require felling and removal of about a dozen understory and intermediate canopy trees. While this road construction would create a narrow canopy gap through the occupied stand, such small narrow gaps in forest cover do not appear to be a barrier to red tree vole movement (Biswell and Meslow 1996, Swingle and Forsman 2009). In fact this same occupied forest patch has been bisected by a prominent road (6- 6-32.2) for several decades and the recent survey results show active vole nests on both sides of the road.

Alternative 3 – Commercial Thinning This alternative would involve a commercial thinning harvest that would affect the same amount of mid-seral stands as Alternative 2. The only difference from Alternative 2 is that Alternative 3 would retain sufficient tree density and canopy cover (>40 percent), such that the thinning harvest units would suffer only a short-term (<10 years) degradation of connectivity between the two RTVHA patches until in-growth of canopy cover exceeded 60 percent.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 32 3.4.3 Cumulative Effects The proposed action (Alternative 2) would not remove any occupied red tree vole habitat which has been reserved within Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas, and therefore, this action would not contribute to cumulative effects to occupied red tree vole habitat. Alternative 3 would also protect occupied habitat within Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas, and would not contribute to cumulative effects to occupied red tree vole habitat.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 33 4. Consultation, Contacts, and References

4.1 Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The potential for the project to affect northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and their critical habitat (as outlined in Table 4-1), required consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act. The BLM has addressed the need for consultation by inclusion of the proposed action within a Biological Assessment (BA) that analyzed all planned projects that may likely adversely affect listed wildlife species within the Northwest Oregon BLM District during fiscal years 2018 and 2019. This proposed action has been designed to incorporate all appropriate design standards included in the BA. In December 2017, a Biological Opinion (#01EOFW00-2018-F-0121) was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which concluded that the program of actions described in the BA (including this proposed action) were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, or their designated critical habitat (USDI-FWS 2017).

Table 4-1. Effects to Federally listed wildlife species and critical habitat by Action Alternative Listed Effect Determination1 Notes Wildlife Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Northern Spotted Owl Known Site Noise No currently active site within 0.25 miles No Effect No Effect Disturbance of proposed harvest units. Adjacent sites monitored annually and Known Site NLAA NLAA currently vacant; detection of floating Habitat Remove Dispersal Maintain Dispersal female owl is resident at distant site. No Modification detections in 2018. NLAA NLAA About 452 acres of dispersal habitat (PCE Critical Habitat Remove Dispersal Maintain Dispersal #4) affected in each Alternative. Marbled Murrelet Noise No Effect No Effect No known sites within 0.25 miles Disturbance All suitable nesting structure surveyed Habitat with no detections, or excluded from No Effect No Effect Modification project units by at least 300’ to protect buffer habitat. LAA NLAA About 250 acres of PCE-2 stands would Critical Habitat Remove Degrade be affected in each Alternative. 1 Affect Determination: NLAA= not likely adverse affect; No Effect.

Chapter 4 – Consultation, Contacts, and References 34 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Field observations and reference maps of the project area do not indicate the presence of Upper Willamette River (UWR) steelhead adjacent to any project units. However, based on known barriers and stream characteristics, it is feasible under some flow conditions that UWR steelhead may occur 0.4 miles from the nearest wet season gravel haul route or stream crossing replacement on Glenbrook Creek (StreamNet 2009; Snedaker 2018). Due to the proximity of possible habitat to the proposed activities, a May Affect determination is appropriate for UWR steelhead and consultation would be required. Protection of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as described by the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and consultation with NOAA NMFS is required for all projects that adversely affect EFH of Chinook and coho salmon. Chinook are located in the lower mainstem of the South Yamhill River, at least 24 miles downstream from the project area. Coho have been documented to occur in proximity to paved haul routes of the project area. All wet season haul over potential EFH streams occurs on paved roads. The nearest gravel crossing proposed for wet season haul or culvert replacement on a perennial stream is at least 4,400 feet upstream from EFH, assuming coho do not access Glenbrook Creek above the Gooseneck County Road. Based on distance of vegetation treatments, roadwork, and hauling activities from occupied habitat the proposed project would have no adverse effects on EFH. Consultation with NOAA NMFS on EFH is not required for these projects.

4.2 Tribal Contacts The BLM sent project notification packages to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde early in the planning process as an invitation to comment and be included in project development. The BLM did not receive comments during this period.

4.3 State Historic Preservation Office Consultation Survey techniques are based on those described in the Protocol for Managing Cultural Resource on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Oregon. The BLM conducted pre- disturbance surveys and found no cultural resources within the project area (EA Appendix C). Post-project survey would be conducted according to standards based on slope defined in the Protocol Appendix. Ground disturbing work would be suspended if cultural material is discovered during project work until an archaeologist assesses the significance of the discovery.

4.4 List of Preparers Name Resource Jason Bernards GIS Shannon Bradley GIS Heidi Christensen Botany Douglass Fitting Hydrology Kevin Foster Forestry and logging systems Andy Frazier Supervisory Forester Scott Frost Silviculture Yanu Gallimore Air quality, fire risk, and fuels management

Chapter 4 – Consultation, Contacts, and References 35 Fred Greatorex Cultural resources Scott Hopkins Wildlife Calvin Jones GIS David Moore Recreation and visual resource management Mellissa Rutkowski Engineering Scott Snedaker Fisheries and aquatic habitat Tony Spitzack Fisheries and aquatic habitat Marissa Theve Soil science Jay Torland Silviculture Heather Ulrich Cultural resources Stefanie Winfree NEPA

4.5 References Cited Biswell, B.L. and Meslow, E.C. 1996. Intertree movement and spatial distribution of nest trees occupied by individual red tree voles: implications for conservation. [Abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 1996 annual meeting of the Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. http://thesnvb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1996-program-corvallis.pdf. Accessed 3/26/2018. Courtney, S, J. Blakesley, R. Bigley, M. Cody, J. Dumbacher, R. Fleischer, A. Franklin, J. Franklin, R. Gutiérrez, J. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Unpublished Report. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. Dugger, K.; Forsman, E.; Franklin, A.; Davis, R.; White, G.; Schwarz, C.; Burnham, K.; Nichols, J.; Hines, J.; Yackulic, C.; Doherty, P. Jr.; Bailey, L.; Clark, D.; Ackers, S.; Andrews, L.; Augustine, B.; Biswell, B.; Blakesley, J.; Carlson, P.; Clement, M.; Diller, L.; Glenn, E.; Green, A.; Gremel, S.; Herter, D.; Higley, J.; Hobson, J.; Horn, R.; Huyvaert, K.; McCafferty, C.; McDonald, T.; McDonnell, K.; Olson, G.; Reid, J.; Rockweit, J.; Ruiz, V.; Saenz, J.; and Sovern, S. “The effects of habitat, climate, and Barred Owls on long- term demography of Northern Spotted Owls.” USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 1803. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/1803. Accessed 2/5/2019. Forsman, Eric D.; Swingle, James K.; Davis, Raymond J.; Biswell, Brian L.; Andrews, Lawrence S. 2016. Tree voles: an evaluation of their distribution and habitat relationships based on recent and historical studies, habitat models, and vegetation change. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-948. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 119 pp. GeoBOB 2018. BLM OR Geographic Biotic Observations Fauna Observations Point. GIS Publication Dataset. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. Accessed 3/11/2018. Linnell MA, Davis RJ, Lesmeister DB, and Swingle JK. 2017. Conservation and relative habitat suitability for an arboreal mammal associated with old forest. Forest Ecololgy and Management 402:1–11.

Chapter 4 – Consultation, Contacts, and References 36 Long, J. N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. The Forestry Chronicle. 61(1): 23-27. Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. Forest Stand Dynamics. 1996. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0- 471-13833-9, 520 pp. Schilling, J.W., Dugger, K.M., and R.G. Anthony. 2013. Survival and home-range size of northern spotted owls in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research, 47(1):1–14. Swingle, J.K.; Forsman, E.D. 2009. Home range areas and activity patterns of red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in western Oregon. Northwest Science. 83: 273–286. Thomas, J.W., E. Forsman, J. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. Noon, J. Verner. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/NSO%20Interagency%20Conservati on%20Strategy.pdf. Accessed: 2/5/2019. USDI BLM. 2008. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. H-1790-1. Washington, DC. USDI BLM. 2016. Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Coos Bay, Eugene, Salem Districts, and Swiftwater Field Office of the Roseburg District. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/57902/79046/91311/NCO_ROD_RMP_ePlanning.pdf. Accessed 2/5/2019. USDI BLM. 2016. Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management. Volumes 1-4. Portland, OR. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990. Final Listing, Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl. Federal Register, Volume 55: 26114-26194. Washington, DC. June 26, 1990. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Final designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet; Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 61 (102): 26255-26320. Washington, DC. May 24, 1996. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Regulatory and scientific basis for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance for evaluation of take for northern spotted owls on private timberlands in California’s northern interior region. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet; final rule. Federal Register, Volume 76(193): 61599-61621. Washington, DC. October 5, 2011. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12- Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree Vole as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register, Volume 76(198): 63720-63762. Washington, DC. October 13, 2011. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 77(233): 71876-72068. Washington, DC. December 4, 2012.

Chapter 4 – Consultation, Contacts, and References 37 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Biological Opinion Regarding Habitat Alteration Projects in FY 2018-2019 that are Likely to Adversely Affect the Northern Spotted Owl, the Marbled Murrelet, and their Critical Habitats, as proposed by the Northwest Oregon District of the Bureau of Land Management. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR. Tracking Number: 01EOFW00-2018-F-0121.

Chapter 4 – Consultation, Contacts, and References 38 Appendix Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Age class – A system that categorizes forest stands by interval of years. For this analysis, the interval is 10-year increments. For example, a stand of 10-year age class of 60 includes ages 56– 65.

Allowable Sale Quantity – The timber volume that a forest can produce continuously under the intensity of management described in the RMP for those lands allocated for permanent timber production. The terms ‘annual productive capacity,’ ‘annual sustained yield capacity,’ ‘sustained yield capacity,’ and ‘allowable sale quantity’ are synonymous.

Alternative – Proposed project (plan, option, or choice).

Anadromous fish – Fish that are born and reared in freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and mature, and return to freshwater to reproduce.

Aquatic habitat – Habitat that occurs in free water.

Area of Critical and Environmental Concern (ACEC) – Lands where special management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish, and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes or to protect life and provide safety from natural hazards.

Basal area (BA) – The cross-sectional area of a single plant stem, of all stems of a species in a stand, or of all plants in a stand (including the bark) that is measured at breast height (about 4.5 feet up from the ground) for larger plants (like trees) or measured at ground level for smaller plants.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Methods, measures, or practices designed to prevent or reduce water pollution. Usually, BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice.

Biological Opinion (BO) – The document resulting from formal consultation that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service as to whether or not a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or results in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

BLM – Bureau of Land Management. Federal agency within the Department of the Interior responsible for the management of 275 million acres.

Board foot (BF) – Lumber or timber measurement term. The amount of wood contained in an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and12 inches wide.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-1 Breeding, nesting, roosting, foraging habitat – The vegetation with the age class, species composition, structure, sufficient area, and adequate food source to meet some or all of the life needs of specific species.

Broadcast burn(ing) – A prescribed burning activity where fire is applied generally to most or all of an area within well-defined boundaries for reduction of fuel hazard, as a resource management treatment, or both. Canopy is generally either non-existent or not an objective to retain.

Bureau Sensitive Species – Plant or animal species eligible for federal listed, federal candidate, state listed, or state candidate (plant) status, or on list 1 in the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base, or approved for this category by the BLM State Director.

Canopy – The area consisting of branches and foliage formed collectively by adjacent trees and other woody species in a forest stand. Where significant height differences occur between trees within a stand, formation of a multi-layered condition can result.

Canopy closure – The proportion of sky hemisphere obscured by vegetation when viewed by a single point.

Canopy cover – A measure of the percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the tree crowns.

Commercial thinning – Stand thinning in which some or all of the cut trees are removed from the stand for timber. ‘Commercial thinning’ in this context does not include individual tree falling or stand thinning in which all the cut trees are left in the stand or some of the cut trees are moved for restoration purposes, or fuels reduction treatments in which cut trees are burned, chipped, or otherwise disposed of without removal from the stand for timber. ‘Commercial thinning’ may be implemented through a variety of mechanisms, including timber sale contracts and stewardship agreements or contracts.

Connected action—those actions that are “closely related” and “should be discussed” in the same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1)). Actions are connected if they automatically trigger other actions that may require an EIS; cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or if the actions are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1)). Connected actions are limited to actions that are currently proposed (ripe for decision). Actions that are not yet proposed are not connected actions, but may need to be analyzed in cumulative effects analysis if they are reasonably foreseeable.

Consultation – A formal interaction between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and another federal agency when it is determined that the agency’s action may affect a species that has been listed as threatened or endangered or its critical habitat.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-2 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – An advisory council to the President of the U.S. that was established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal programs to analyze and interpret environmental trends and information.

Critical habitat – Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is defined as: (1) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by an ESA-listed species on which are found physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by an ESA-listed species, when it is determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Cross drain culvert – Culverts strategically installed to pass ditch runoff or drain seeps and springs safely under the road prism (often referred to as relief culverts).

Crown (of tree) – Upper part of a tree or other woody plant that carries the main system of branches and the foliage.

Culvert – Enclosed channels of various materials and shapes designed to convey stream or ditch water under and away from the roadway.

Cumulative effects – The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Decommissioning (of roads) – See road closure.

Diameter breast height (DBH) – The diameter of the stem of a tree measured at 4.5 feet above the ground level on the uphill side of the stem.

Dispersal habitat (northern spotted owl) – Forest stands with average tree diameters of greater than11 inches, and conifer overstory trees having closed canopies (greater than 40 percent canopy closure) with open space beneath the canopy to allow owls to fly.

Distinct population segment (DPS) – a discrete population of a species and the smallest portion of a vertebrate species that can be protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Down woody material/coarse woody debris (CWD) – Portion of a tree that has fallen, or been cut and left in the woods. Usually refers to pieces at least 20 inches in diameter.

Environmental assessment (EA) – A systematic analysis of site-specific activities used to determine whether such activities have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) – Anywhere Chinook or coho salmon could naturally occur.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-3 Ephemeral Streams – Streams that contain running water only sporadically, such as during and following storm events or snow melt.

Epicormic branching – Vegetative growth from buds located on the main stem of a tree, usually resulting in fan shaped branching below the live crown of a conifer.

Endangered species – Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range, and published in the Federal Register.

Fifth-field watershed – Individual watershed within a Hydrologic Unit as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey; it typically averages 87,000 acres in size.

Fire frequency – The number of times that fires occur within a defined area and time period.

Fire hazard – A fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, arrangement, and location, that determines the degree of ease of ignition and of resistance to control.

Fire regime – Description of the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and sometimes vegetation and fire effects as well, in a given area or ecosystem. A fire regime is a generalization based on fire histories at individual sites.

Fish-bearing stream – Any stream containing any species of fish for any period of time.

Floodplain – Level lowland bordering a stream or river onto which the flow spreads at flood stage.

Forage – All browse and herbaceous foods available to grazing animals, including wildlife and domestic livestock.

Front Country – A recreation setting characteristic designation defined in a Recreation Management Area Framework. The PRMP/FEIS describes the level of human modification and forest structural stage class proxies (p. 559). The Front County is described as a partially modified landscape with more noticeable modifications, and has young high density without structural legacies.

Fuel Loading – The amount of combustible material present per unit of area, usually expressed in tons per acre (dry weight of burnable fuel).

Green tree – A live tree.

Ground-based yarding – The movement of cut trees or logs from the area where they are cut to the landing through the use of mechanical equipment or animals that move along the ground.

Harvest Land Base – Those lands on which the determination and declaration of the Annual Productive Capacity/Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) is based. The ASQ is based on

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-4 implementing a set of specific timber management activities and assumes those practices will be repeated over time and results in a sustainable harvest level.

Heterogeneous – Consisting of dissimilar elements. Implied here to indicate diversity among a forest stand.

Homogenous – Uniform throughout in structure or make-up.

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) – A group of individuals of various disciplines assembled to solve a problem or perform a task.

Intermittent stream – A non-permanent drainage feature with a dry period, normally for three months or more. Flowing water forms a channel feature with well-defined bed and banks, and bed-forms showing annual scour or deposition, within a continuous channel network.

Invasive species – A non-native species whose introduction does, or is likely to, cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Landing – A cleared area in the forest to which logs are yarded for loading onto trucks for transport.

Land Use Allocation – The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future conditions.

Late-successional forest – A forest that is in its mature stage and contains a diversity of structural characteristics, such as live trees, snags, woody debris, and a patchy, multi-layered canopy.

Large woody debris (LWD) – Woody material found within the bankful width of the stream channel and is specifically of a size 23.6 inches diameter by 33 feet length (per Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – Key Pieces).

Merchantable timber – Trees or stands having the size, quality, and condition suitable for marketing under a given economic condition, even if not immediately accessible for logging.

Monitoring – The review on a sample basis, of management practices to determine how well objectives are being met, as well as the effects of those management practices on the land and environment.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – Federal agency within NOAA which is responsible for the regulation of anadromous fisheries in the United States.

Non-Native Plant – Any plant species that historically does not occur in a particular ecosystem.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-5 Noxious Weed – Plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or diseases, or non-native, new, or not common to the United States.

Occupied stand (marbled murrelet) – Marbled murrelet occupied stand refers to all forest stands, regardless of age or structure, within 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) of the location of marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy and not separated from the location of marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy by more than 328 feet of non-forest.

ODEQ – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

ODFW instream work period – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife designated guidelines that identify periods of time for in-water work that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. Work periods are established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of fish including migration, spawning and rearing. Work periods are established for the named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within a watershed (ODFW 2008, Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources).

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) – Any motorized track or wheeled vehicle designed for cross- country travel over any type of natural terrain.

ORGANON – A computer-based program used to model projected tree growth, stand density, and crown ratio using existing stand tree species and size.

Peak flow – The highest amount of stream or river flow occurring in a year, or from a single storm event.

Perennial Stream – A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis. Their base level is at, or below, the water table.

Pre-commercial thinning – The practice of reducing the density of trees within a stand by manual cutting, girdling, or herbicides to maintain or promote growth increases of desirable tree species. The trees killed are generally not merchantable and not removed from the treated area.

Relative density (RD) – A means of describing the level of competition among trees or site occupancy in a stand, relative to some theoretical maximum based on tree density, size, and species composition. Relative density percent is calculated by expressing Stand Density Index (SDI) (Reineke 1933) as a percentage of the theoretical maximum SDI, which varies by tree species and range. Curtis’s relative density (Curtis 1982) is determined mathematically by dividing the stand basal area by the square root of the quadratic mean diameter. See also stand density index.

Renovation (of roads) – Work done to an existing road, restoring it to its original design standard.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-6 Right-of-way – Authorization to use public lands for certain specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, and so on; also, the lands covered by an easement or permit.

Riparian area – A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that directly affect it.

Road Improvement – Improvement includes work to be done that will improve a road to a higher standard than its original design. Improvement can include adding an aggregate surface to a natural surfaced road. It can include adding a drainage system of ditches, cross-drains, or drain dips to an outsloped road surface. It can also include re-alignments or repairs of road failures that improve a road to a better state than its original design.

Seral stages – The series of relatively transitory plan communities that develop during ecological succession from bare ground to the climax stage.

Silvicultural practices (or treatments or system) – The set of field techniques and general methods used to modify and manage a forest stand over time to meet desired conditions and objectives. Examples include reforestation, pre-commercial thinning, and commercial thinning.

Silvicultural prescription – A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to one that meets management goals.

Site class – A forest management term denoting site productivity and measured in productivity classes (example: Site Class I – highest productivity).

Site-potential tree height – The average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or older) for a given site class. Site-potential tree heights generally range from 140 feet to 240 feet across the decision area, depending on site productivity.

Skid trails – Path through a stand of trees on which ground-based equipment operates.

Skyline cable system (yarding) – Harvesting timber using a machine that reaches out a long distance to lift logs off the ground (wholly or partially) and move them via a cable to a landing where they are hauled away.

Slash – The branches, bark, tops, cull logs, and broken or uprooted trees left on the ground after logging has been completed.

Snag – Any standing dead, partially dead, or defective (cull) tree at least 6 feet tall. A hard snag is composed primarily of sound wood, generally merchantable. A soft snag is composed primarily of wood in advanced stages of decay and deterioration, generally not merchantable.

Soil compaction – An increase in bulk density (weight per unit volume) compared to undisturbed soil, and a decrease in soil porosity (particularly macropores) resulting from applied loads, vibration, or pressure.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-7 Soil productivity – Capacity or suitability of a soil, for establishment and growth of a specified crop or place species.

Special status species – Plan or animal species in any of the following categories: • Threatened or endangered species • Proposed threatened or endangered species • Candidate species • State-listed species • Bureau sensitive species

Stand – An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area managed as a discrete operational or management unit. A stand may be composed of trees and groups of trees of a variety of ages, species, and conditions, or it may be relatively uniform. A stand may also contain multiple land use allocations.

Stand Density Index (SDI) – Reineke’s (1933) stand density index is a function of quadratic mean diameter and number of trees per unit area. SDI can be interpreted as the number of 10 inch trees that would experience approximately the same level of inter-tree competition as the observed number of trees with the observed mean diameter. See also relative density.

Stream protection zone (SPZ) – A buffer along streams and identified wet areas where no material would be removed and heavy machinery would not be allowed. The SPZ is measured to the slope break, change in vegetation, or 55 feet from the channel edge, whatever is greatest.

Succession – Stages a forest stand makes over time as vegetation competes and natural disturbances occur. The different stages in succession are often referred to as seral stages.

Sustained yield – The board foot volume of timber that a forest can produce in perpetuity at a given intensity of management; the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources.

Sustained yield unit (SYU) – An administrative unit for which an allowable sale quantity is calculated; in western Oregon, the six sustained yield units correspond to the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and the western portion of the Klamath Falls Field Office.

Temporary (Spur) Road – A short-term use road authorized for the development of a project that has a finite lifespan (e.g., a timber sale spur road). Temporary roads are not part of the permanent designated transportation network and must be reclaimed when their intended purpose has been fulfilled.

Threatened species – Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-8 Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) – The process of partitioning forestland within the sustained yield unit into major classes based on the biological and physical capability of the site to support and produce forest products on a sustained yield basis using operational management practices.

Timber volume – Amount of timber contained in a log, a stand, or a forest, typically measured in board feet or cubic feet.

Turbidity – The cloudiness exhibited by water carrying sediment; the degree to which suspended sediment interferes with light passage through water.

Understory – That portion of trees or other woody vegetation, which form the lower layer in a forest stand, which consists of more than one distinct layer.

Visual Resource Management (VRM) – The inventory and planning action to identify values and establish objectives for managing those values and the management actions to achieve those objectives.

Visual Resource Management classes – Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective that prescribes the amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape.

Waterbars – A ridge of compacted soil or loose rock or gravel constructed across disturbed rights-of-way and similar sloping areas.

Water quality – The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its suitability for a particular use.

Watershed – An area in which all surface waters flow to a common point.

Weed – A plant considered undesirable and that interferes with management objectives for a given area at a given point in time.

Wet season (for roads) – An annually variable period of time, starting after precipitation amounts saturate soils. This occurs after the onset of fairly continuous fall rains, which result in seasonal runoff in ephemeral and intermittent stream channels and from the road surface and ditches. Generally November through May, but could start or end earlier depending on seasonal precipitation influences.

Windthrow – Trees uprooted or blown over by natural events.

Wolf tree – A live conifer tree which likely developed in an open stand, usually in full sunlight and larger in diameter and older than the stand average. These trees often have multiple tops or upper stems and larger diameter branches often extending downward to over three-quarters the height of the tree or otherwise described as having a complex live-crown structure.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-9 Yarding Corridors – Corridors cut through a stand of trees to facilitate skyline yarding. Cables are strung in these corridors to transport logs from the woods to the landing.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-10 Appendix B: EA Unit Maps Map B-1. EA Units (Map 1 of 4)

Appendix B: EA Unit Maps B-1 Map B-2. EA Units (Map 2 of 4)

Appendix B: EA Unit Maps B-2 Map B-3. EA Units (Map 3 of 4)

Appendix B: EA Unit Maps B-3 Map B-4. EA Units (Map 4 of 4)

Appendix B: EA Unit Maps B-4 Appendix C: Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail Through the project planning and public scoping process, the BLM identified the following additional resource concerns that may be affected by the Wild Goose project. Some of these issues have been raised on previous projects and analysis conducted for those projects has resulted in determinations of negligible impacts, which helped inform the interdisciplinary team on the need for detailed analysis in this document. For other issues, the interdisciplinary team conducted substantial analysis, including inventory and assessment, before concluding that no detailed presentation of the issue was warranted in this EA. Summaries of analysis conducted are provided, and are tiered to the records completed for the issue considered. For reasons described below, the BLM is not carrying forward the following issues for detailed analysis in this EA.

1. What are the effects of forest management actions on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions?

The effects of the proposed timber harvest project on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions is not analyzed in detail, because, regardless of project-specific or site-specific information, there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the proposed project beyond those disclosed in the PRMP/FEIS. Relevant to the Wild Goose project, the PRMP/FEIS analyzed the effects of timber harvest and prescribed burning on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage, and the potential impacts of climate change on major plan objectives. The effects of Wild Goose’s proposed timber harvest on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions tiers to the analysis in the PRMP/FEIS. As described below, the proposed project is consistent with the ROD/RMP, and the proposed project is not expected to have significant effects beyond those already analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS. While analysis of the project-specific and site-specific conditions could give greater specificity to the analysis in the PRMP/FEIS, there is no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the Wild Goose project beyond those disclosed in the PRMP/FEIS. The analysis in the PRMP/FEIS addressed the effects on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions of implementing the entire program of work for timber resources based on high quality and detailed information (PRMP/FEIS, pp. 165-180; 1295-1304). The information available on project-specific and site-specific conditions, while more specific, is not fundamentally different from the information used in the PRMP/FEIS analysis of effects on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions, and thus cannot reveal any fundamentally different effects than that broader analysis. The PRMP/FEIS upon which the ROD/RMP was based examined the most recent science regarding climate change, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis in Volume 1 (pp. 165-211) are relevant to this project and are incorporated by reference. The key points from PRMP/FEIS analyses include (PRMP/FEIS p. 165): ● Net carbon storage would increase. ● Annual greenhouse gas emissions would increase although annual emissions would remain less than 1 percent of the 2010 statewide greenhouse gas emissions. ● Climate change increases the uncertainty that reserves will function as intended and that planned timber harvest levels can be attained, with the uncertainty increasing over time.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-1 ● Active management provides opportunities to implement climate change adaptive strategies and potentially reduce social and ecological disruptions arising from warming and drying conditions.

The PRMP/FEIS concluded that the approved ROD/RMPs support the state of Oregon’s interim strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (PRMP/FEIS p. 173). Both the state of Oregon’s strategy and Federal climate change strategies have goals to increase carbon storage on forest lands to partially mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from other sectors of the economy. Neither the state of Oregon nor the federal government have established specific carbon storage goals; therefore, quantifying BLM’s contribution to that goal is not possible. Assuming no changes in disturbance regimes such as fire and insects (acres affected and severity of impact) from the recent past, timber harvesting is the primary activity affecting carbon storage (PRMP/FEIS p. 169). The PRMP/FEIS estimated the effects of implementing actions consistent with the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon and the Southwestern Oregon RMPs as follows:

Table C-1. PRMP/FEIS carbon storage and greenhouse gas emission estimates

Current 2033 2063

Carbon Storage 336 Tg C 404 Tg C 482 Tg C Greenhouse Gas 123,032 Mg CO2e/yr 256,643 Mg CO2e/yr 230,759 Mg CO2e/yr Emissions

The carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions analysis was based on assumptions concerning the level of management activity: ● The PRMP/FEIS assumed an average annual harvest level of 278 MMBF per year (205 MMBF from the Harvest Land Base and 73 MMBF from non-ASQ related harvest) over the entire decision area (PRMP/FEIS p. 307). The expected annual harvest for the Salem SYU is 77 MMBF (65 MMBF from the Harvest Land Base and 12 MMBF from non- ASQ related harvest (PRMP/FEIS p. 353)). ● Activity fuels treatments are aligned with the harvest program with estimated acres of prescribed fire treatment type provided by the Woodstock model (PRMP/FEIS p. 1300). The decadal average of activity fuels prescribed burning for the first 20 years of the RMP would be an estimated 64,806 acres over the entire decision area (PRMP/FEIS p. 362). For the Salem sustained yield unit, the expected decadal average activity fuels program covers 10,048 acres.

The amount of activity fuels prescribed burning is the primary driver of greenhouse gas emissions (PRMP/FEIS p. 178). Greenhouse gas emissions would increase substantially largely due to the projected increases in activity fuels prescribed burning. The PRMP/FEIS assumed no change in the natural fuels prescribed burning program from the recent past. Greenhouse gas

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-2 emissions analyzed included those from grazing, prescribed burning, and harvest operations (PRMP/FEIS p. 174). There is no grazing within the Wild Goose project. There is no new information or changed circumstances that would substantially change the effects anticipated in the PRMP/FEIS. This is because: 1. The harvest levels remain within the range of that analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS. The Salem SYU expected annual harvest is 65 MMBF from the Harvest Land Base and 12 MMBF from non-ASQ related harvest. 2. The acres of activity fuels prescribed burning and expected tonnage consumed remains within the range analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS. The Salem SYU expected decadal average activity fuels prescribed burning is still within 10,048 acres. The Wild Goose project would contribute approximately 651 acres towards this figure.

2. What effects would timber harvest have on forest health and risk assessments?

Laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii), red ring rot, and bark beetles are general forest health issues that are common throughout forests of western Oregon. The BLM has found these not to be particularly abundant within the Wild Goose project area; therefore, the BLM will not analyze this issue in detail. Laminated root rot, caused by the fungus Phellinus weirii, is a native root pathogen that spreads through root to root contact between live, susceptible trees, including Douglas-fir and grand fir. It kills trees by destroying their roots, which then leads to windthrow. It is a natural part of many forest ecosystems (Thies and Sturrock 1995), and contributes snag and downed wood habitat to affected stands over time. Infected areas can be expected to spread outward at a rate of about a foot per year and create small (0.1 to 0.25 acre) openings in forested stands. Red ring rot is one of the most common and widespread heart rots, caused by the Phellinus pini fungus. It is likely present in a few Douglas-firs in the project area. It decomposes cellulose and lignin in a white pocket rot in the heartwood. Like most heart rots, it enters the tree as airborne spores through wounds. Red ring rot has not been confirmed in the analysis area, and due to its common occurrence, no containment actions are planned. Douglas-fir bark beetles are endemic throughout the Coast Range, including the project area. Bark beetles feed on the cambium under the bark of live and very recently (1-2 years) dead trees, and lay eggs there that hatch and mature under the bark, emerging as adults. Recently downed Douglas-fir trees encourage the build-up of beetle populations, which can subsequently attack and kill standing Douglas-fir trees. Douglas-fir trees weakened by root disease infection are more likely to be attacked by the beetle (Hadfield 1986). In stands under 100 years old, the risk of mortality to healthy green trees is low, even when beetle populations are high. The risk of windthrow from severe winter storms always exists, and the upper lee slopes of major southeast- to northwest-running ridges generally experience the highest degree of windthrow in the Oregon Coast Range. The BLM has experience with windthrow events in the vicinity (Wind Creek Salvage project). In 2011, there was a big wind event on a ridge that is at the head of Gooseneck Creek. It eddied over the north side and left a narrow band of snapped

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-3 tops about one-third of the way down the ridge in a band that ran almost a mile east-west (H. Snook, personal communication, Feb. 18, 2018). Thinning is not likely to result in a high incidence of windthrow or broken tops due to wind; however, some areas adjacent to private ownership may be more susceptible if clear-cut harvest occurs. A two-year study of wind damage following variable density thinning (Roberts et al., 2007) showed a loss of 1.3 percent of stems, concentrated in topographically vulnerable conditions. In a study of windthrow following variable retention (regeneration) harvest, Urgenson et al. (2013), found that windthrow peaks in the first year following treatments. They also found that below retention levels of 15 percent, a threshold of higher risk of mortality exists. Higher incidence of windthrow would occur in the variable retention leave areas (up to approximately 18 percent of stems), especially trees in dispersed leaves areas (those in the Wildlife Tree Cluster and Scattered Retention categories). This same study found that after the first year of peak windthrow, windthrow reverted to average control rates (~0.8 percent of stems per year). Wind throw would not be expected to reduce tree stocking by more than 20 percent for the first decade after treatment within the Wild Goose commercial thinning units (Busby, Adler, Warren and Swanson, 2006).

3. How would the proposed actions impact Bureau Special Status botanical species? Review of existing survey records and intuitive controlled surveys located no sites of any federal Threatened and Endangered or Bureau Special Status vascular plant, lichen, or bryophyte species within the project area. Many Bureau Special Status botanical species have similar growing conditions to those that are provided for Bureau Special Status fish and wildlife within the riparian zone (PRMP/FEIS p. 521), and the Riparian Reserve is not proposed for treatment under this project. Other Bureau Special Status botanical species that might occur at this elevation includes special habitats that provide for greater sunlight, legacy structures, or boulder outcroppings. These special habitats are lacking in this forest stand and none, except for increased sunlight, can be made artificially within the scope of this project. Under all alternatives, existing habitat for Bureau Special Status botanical species would remain low. As such, BLM will not analyze impacts to these species in detail.

4. How would invasive plant populations (including noxious weeds) respond to the implementation of the project? The BLM conducted an invasive weed risk assessment of the proposed project area and for both action alternatives, the area was found to have a risk rating of moderate. The risk assessment takes into account the current presence, regional abundance, and biology of invasive species on or near the project area and considers the likelihood of species spreading and the consequence of long-term establishment. A moderate rating indicates the proposed project should proceed as planned with appropriate project design features to control the spread of existing invasive/non- native species populations and prevent the introductions of new invasive/non-native plant species as directed by the ROD/RMP (p. 80). All but one of the invasive weed species that are known to occur within the Wild Goose project area are regionally abundant in Polk County and widespread throughout much of northwestern Oregon. The Marys Peak Field Office has an integrated non-native plant management plan in

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-4 place for the control of non-native plant species and is active in its control of Oregon listed noxious weeds. The following are additional design features that would be implemented to reduce the risk of spread of invasive species in the project area:

1) Species with limited distribution in the area would receive treatment prior to project implementation, to reduce likelihood of spread within the project area. 2) All heavy equipment used for logging, road construction and de-commissioning would be power washed to reduce the possibility of introducing or spreading new invasive species throughout the project area. Washing would not be required for crew cabs, logging trucks or other vehicles operated solely within the existing or constructed road prism, which are separate from the vegetated areas of the harvest units. 3) BLM would evaluate areas of disturbed soil as a result of the project (new roads, culverts, landings, multi-pass skid trails) to determine the need for seeding with approve grass seed.This would limit the establishment of noxious weeds through competition. If the seed does not meet the seed specifications, the number of non-native species in the project area could increase and lead to a greater infestation of noxious weeds than anticipated. 4) BLM would monitor the project site for three years after project completion, in accordance with the risk assessment, to allow for the detection of new invasive weed infestations and allow rapid response to implement management, if needed. The western half of the project area is open to motorized access, which allows for greater public access to the project area where they could influence the spread of invasive species, this area would receive a great amount of post-harvest monitoring to prevent establishment.

Based on findings from the monitoring of similar timber harvest projects that have occurred over time throughout the Marys Peak Field Office with the use of these project design features, the BLM anticipated limited establishment of invasive/non-native species in areas of project-related ground disturbance. If species establishment does occur, it is anticipated to be short-lived (i.e., less than 10 years) and localized within the project boundaries and associated right-of-ways as native species repopulated disturbed areas outcompeting and shading out the invasive. This issue was not analyzed in detail because project design features would reduce the ability of new invasive species to establish, treatment would occur on species of limited distribution before project implementation and post-harvest monitoring would allow for early detection and rapid response to manage any new infestations identified as directed in the ROD/RMP and discussed in the PRMP/FEIS (pp. 436-437).

5. How would the proposed project affect cultural resources, including archaeological and historic sites? A BLM archaeologist designed the cultural survey for the Wild Goose project following Appendix A of the State Protocol (USDI 2015). The cultural survey sought to identify any historic and archaeological sites within the area impacted by the proposed project activities. BLM archaeologists surveyed the project area between November 2017 and February 2018. The results of the cultural resources inventory and a review of cultural records have resulted in the determination that there are no cultural resources identified within the project area.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-5 Therefore, the BLM determined there would be “No Effect” to Historic Properties. Additionally, the BLM includes design criteria that suspends project activities if such resources are discovered during project implementation (see Project Design Features). Because none of the aforementioned resources are present in the analysis area, the BLM removed this issue from detailed analysis.

6. How would proposed timber harvest, road construction, and fuel reduction treatments affect soil quality in the project area? This issue was not analyzed in detail because the effects are unlikely to differ between alternatives and would not be significant. The BLM removed from harvest fragile areas of Timber Production Capability Class (TPCC) that have moisture and stocking limitations. The TPCC describes soil and site issues that contribute to fragility of lands to management impacts or reforestation failure under even-age (clearcut) harvest. These issues are a general inventory of likely characteristics, identified primarily from photo interpretation and soil maps. Site specific knowledge from project planning is meant to supersede TPCC data when better information is gained. BLM staff conducted site visits and updated TPCC data in 2017 and 2018. Most of the project area has no identified problems. However, in Unit 1A, 1.2 acres of District Designated Reserve (DDR) TPCC ground and another DDR TPCC area (7 acres) in units 6B/5C, located on a ridgeline, were excluded from harvest because of long-term incompatibility to remain fully stocked and produce ASQ. Road work, acres of treatment, and logging systems are similar between the action alternatives. The nature of disturbance associated with the Wild Goose project would not cause significant soil compaction or erosion within the project area. If there were site conditions in which adverse effects would result, the BLM would apply protection measures that minimize the potential for effects; the risk of adverse effects would be further minimized as a result of a Project Design Feature adopted for the action alternatives.

7. How would timber harvest and site preparation affect fire hazard and risk? This issue was not analyzed in detail because there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects to fire hazard and risk, which are diminished at the scale of all BLM- administered lands within the planning area, beyond those disclosed in the PRMP/FEIS. The BLM’s management within the planning area is unable to provide more than slight variation to fire hazards within the planning area due to the checkerboard pattern of the landscape within the planning area and the small Harvest Land Base relative to a larger Late-Successional Reserve. The Harvest Land Base effects on fire hazard patterns are diminished at the scale of all BLM- administered Lands within Wildland Development Areas, particularly in the coastal/north (PRMP/FEIS p. 264). The activities proposed within the Wild Goose project are within the scope of the activities analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS. The BLM’s management within the planning area is unable to provide more than slight variation to fire hazards within the planning area due to the checkerboard pattern of the landscape within the planning area. Regeneration harvests would move stands from timber litter/timber understory to a slash- blowdown fuel model immediately following harvest. Commercially thinned stands would also move from a timber litter/timber understory to a slash-blowdown fuel model following harvest.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-6 Immediately following forest management activities and prior to activity fuels disposal, fire behavior potential would increase from the current condition due to increased surface fuels created by logging. The fuel load and risk of wildfire would increase during the first year following harvest, when needles are dry and remain attached to tree limbs. Following treatments, containment of wildfires at less than 10 acres in size would continue to be attainable, but extreme fire weather conditions still present problems for control. The ability to control wildfires in fuels treatment areas would remain high. Decreasing fuel loading in strategic locations would create fuel breaks that reduce fire behavior, which would allow wildfires to be successfully controlled by initial attack resources. Whole tree harvesting with disposal of the tops at the landings is the most effective method of preventing surface fuel increases within the residual stand (Agee and Skinner 2005). At the landings, activity fuels would be piled, chipped, removed for biomass, sold for firewood, or burned. The BLM does not propose to remove stumps within harvest units, because they do not contribute to an increased fire hazard. Activity fuels remaining within the stands would be lopped and scattered or hand/machine piled and burned. Slash filter windrows where constructed on the downslope side of the road in the Riparian Reserve, would provide no more than a slight variation to fire hazard and risk within the planning area. Only a small amount of the right-of- way slash would be used in the designed windrows. Following activity fuels disposal treatments, a reduction in potential fire behavior would occur due to the reduction in surface fuel loading and change in horizontal and vertical fuel arrangement.

8. How would burning associated with post-harvest fuel reduction treatments affect air quality in the project area? The issue was considered, but not analyzed in detail because, by following the Oregon Smoke Management Plan, there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects on air quality within the planning area and the Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area (SSRA) beyond those disclosed in the PRMP/FEIS. Adverse impacts to air quality that are caused by prescribed burning, including effects to visibility and human health, generally tend to be of short duration (hours) and limited to the local area (less than five miles from the burn) (PRMP/FEIS p. 155). The State of Oregon has designated the Willamette Valley as a Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area. Burning of landing, machine, and hand piles would occur for 1 to 3 days post-harvest for each sale area. Pile consumption of 70 to 90 percent would occur within one to two days following ignition. Burning is completed when the prevailing winds are blowing away from the SSRA and under atmospheric conditions that favor good vertical mixing so that smoke and particulate matter is dispersed by upper level atmospheric winds. Favorable atmospheric conditions allow for a large portion of particulate matter emissions produced during prescribed burning, including PM10 and PM2.5 (particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns or less in size) to be transported in the atmosphere, where it dissipates by dispersion. Adherence to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan requirements and daily instructions issued by the Oregon Department of Forestry are explicitly designed to limit potential impacts to smoke sensitive receptors by limiting the amount of fuel burned on any given burn day and by maintaining adequate separation between burn units. As such, the BLM expects that the potential increases in emissions would have no additional impacts on human health under any alternative or the Proposed RMP (PRMP/FEIS p. 162).

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-7 Adverse impacts to air quality that are caused by prescribed burning, including effects to visibility and human health, generally tend to be of short duration (hours) and limited to the local area (less than five miles from the burn) (PRMP/FEIS p. 155). The activities proposed within the Wild Goose project are within the scope of the activities analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS. The overall effects of smoke on air quality is predicted to be local, within 5 miles, and for 1 to 5 days in duration. Activities associated with Alternative 2 would comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Alternative 2 proposes regeneration harvest acres and no commercial thinning harvest acres as compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would increase machine piling by 213 acres, landing piling by 18 acres, hand piling by 330 acres, and additional activity fuels at the landings, which would contribute to increased smoke emissions when burning occurs, as compared to Alternative 3.

9. What effect would timber harvest and new road construction have on the recreation opportunities identified within the Mill-Creek Gooseneck Extensive Recreation Management Area? The PRMP/FEIS provided a planning area level analysis of existing recreation use as well as identified additional Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas for the purpose of providing new locations for recreation specific management. The PRMP/FEIS analyzed management for recreation setting characteristics within designated Recreation Management Areas (RMA). While the proposed project is located within the Mill Creek-Gooseneck Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) designated under the ROD/RMP, none of the Important Recreation Values (e.g., hiking and biking trails) identified in the RMA Framework have been developed and, as such, are not available to be impacted. At this time, the BLM has not developed a plan for their implementation; any effects analysis to future recreation opportunities would be remote and speculative and would not lead to a reasoned choice between alternatives. The BLM has not conducted a detailed analysis of the effects of the proposed project on recreation use within the area because there would be no potential for significant effects due to the location and timing of the project. The BLM has not managed the area for recreation to-date and it experiences dispersed recreation in the form of target shooting, motorized exploration on old logging roads, fall hunting and non- commercial forest product collection such as seasonal wild mushroom collection. These opportunities would continue to be available within the Mill Creek-Gooseneck ERMA to the west of the project area during temporary closures as well as on other BLM and USFS managed public lands to the north and west. Dispersed recreation information is anecdotal and the BLM has not collected visitor use data for the project area. Given the adjacent opportunities on public lands for continued dispersed recreation, there would not be significant impacts to these activities.

10. What effect would the proposed project have on the Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class identified within the Wild Goose project area by the Resource Management Plan? The area is characterized as rural with small communities separated by agriculture lands and managed forests. The landscape exhibits extensive forest management on the rolling hills of the

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-8 western slopes and hilltops of the Coastal Range. The Willamette Valley is located to the east of the project area. Lands within the project area fall under VRM Class IV, as assigned in the existing Resource Management Plan. As visual contrasts in line, form, color and texture under this class may be strong, no specific visual management constraints would apply to management actions. VRM Class IV objectives provide for management activities which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention (ROD/RMP p. 93). Road construction, commercial thinning and more intensive logging are examples of allowable management activities in VRM Class IV that may dominate the landscape. While approximately 520 acres of the project total of 651 would be visible from the Highway 22 transportation corridor and surrounding private properties, this project is not being analyzed in detail since its VRM classification under the RMP, as described above, provides for this level of landscape modification from a Visual Resource perspective.

11. How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions prevent disruption to marbled murrelet nesting habitat and occupied sites? Both of the action alternatives and their connected actions would not modify any older forest habitat types (conifer stands > 80 years old) that may provide suitable nesting structure for marbled murrelets. The proposed project also has excluded mid-seral stands that might act as buffer habitat within 300 feet of the older forest stands with suitable nesting structure. The mid- seral forest stands that are targeted for harvest are lacking in older cohort legacy trees with suitable nesting structure for marbled murrelets. The nearest marbled murrelet occupied site is 5 miles to the southwest of the project area. Thirty-two murrelet surveys (Evans-Mack et al. 2003) have occurred between 2003 and 2018 at scattered patches of suitable habitat within 4 miles of the project area with no murrelet detections. Ten of those surveys occurred in 2017 and 2018 at one survey site in Section 5 adjacent to planned harvest units. Given the lack of murrelet detections in the project vicinity, it is likely that no murrelets are present in the project area. Because both action alternatives have eliminated any potential for negative impacts to known occupied marbled murrelet sites and unsurveyed suitable habitat, the proposed harvest action would have no negative effects to occupied murrelet sites or suitable marbled murrelet habitat beyond those analyzed and disclosed under the PRMP/FEIS (p. 914; USDI-BLM 2016a).

12. How would harvest change the distribution of early-seral and mid-seral age-classes in the project area watersheds? The Wild Goose project lies in the Lower and Upper Mill Creek sixth-field watersheds. Within those watersheds, there are 12,219 acres of BLM-managed lands. The seral stage distribution is shown in Figure C-1 and Table C-2.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-9 Distribution of Age Classes on BLM Lands in Lower and Upper Mill Creek Watersheds 35%

30%

25% Legend 20% Early Seral 15% Mid Seral Class 10% Late Seral 5%

0% 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 170 200 210 220 Area ofWaterheds Occupied by Age 10-yr Age Class

Figure C-1. Age Class distribution across BLM managed lands in Upper and Lower Mill Creek sixth field (HUC12) watersheds14.

Currently, early seral forest (age 0-39 years) makes up 4 percent of the BLM-managed acres in the Upper and Lower Mill Creek watersheds. The youngest (1-20 years of age) early seral habitat makes up only 1.4 percent. Another underrepresented seral group is late successional stands at approximately 18 percent of BLM-managed lands in the watersheds. Proposed harvest in the Wild Goose project area would primarily come from the most represented 50-60 year age classes (~49 percent); the oldest stand planned for harvest is 68 years old. In Alternative 2, regeneration harvest would increase early seral habitat from 4.2 percent to 7.9 percent, and the youngest early seral habitat (age 0-20) from 1.4 percent to 5.0 percent. The mid-seral age classes would comprise 73.8 percent of Upper and Lower Mill Creek watersheds, a decrease of 3.6 percent from pre-harvest levels. Thinning harvest would have no effect on the age class distribution.

Table C-2. Seral stage distribution of BLM-managed forest in the Lower and Upper Mill Creek sixth-field watersheds Seral/Stand Age Acres Percent Early: 0 – 39 445 4 Mid : 40 – 79 9,697 79 Late : 80+ 2,076 17 Total 12,21915 100%

The BLM removed this project from detailed consideration because it does not relate to the purpose and need of the project, which is to produce ASQ for the Salem SYU.

14 Colors in the graph correspond to the Table C-2 colors and age-classes. 15 Total acres may vary slightly due to rounding.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-10 13. How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions prevent disruption to marbled murrelet nesting habitat and occupied sites? Both of the action alternatives and their connected actions would not modify any older forest habitat types (conifer stands > 80 years old) that may provide suitable nesting structure for marbled murrelets. The proposed project also has excluded mid-seral stands that might act as buffer habitat within 300 feet of the older forest stands with suitable nesting structure. The mid- seral forest stands that are targeted for harvest are lacking in older cohort legacy trees with suitable nesting structure for marbled murrelets. The nearest marbled murrelet occupied site is 5 miles to the southwest of the project area. Thirty-two murrelet surveys (Evans-Mack, et al. 2003) have occurred between 2003 and 2018 at scattered patches of suitable habitat within 4 miles of the project area with no murrelet detections. Ten of those surveys occurred in 2017 and 2018 at one survey site in Section 5 adjacent to planned harvest units. Given the lack of murrelet detections in the project vicinity, it is likely that no marbled murrelets are present in the project area. Because both action alternatives have eliminated any potential for negative impacts to known occupied marbled murrelet sites and unsurveyed suitable habitat, the proposed harvest action would have no negative effects to occupied marbled murrelet sites or suitable marbled murrelet habitat beyond those analyzed and disclosed under the PRMP/FEIS (p. 914; USDI- BLM 2016a).

14. How would proposed timber harvest and connected actions change the availability of complex, early-successional ecosystems in the project area? How would these changes affect species closely associated with this habitat type such as some migratory birds and big game species? The effects of the two action alternatives on the distribution of early seral age-classes within the project area watershed was addressed above. The proposed action (regeneration harvest) would provide more early-successional habitat that would persist for longer on the landscape than the alternative action (commercial thinning harvest). The quality and duration of early-successional habitat created would also be dependent on the intensity and efficacy of post-harvest actions such as burning, weed treatments, and reforestation efforts. The difference between alternatives would be apparent at the stand-scale, but would be less discernable at larger landscape scales because of the more frequent harvest regimes on the surrounding private timberlands that provide an abundance of early-successional habitat. Both alternatives would conduct timber harvest within the Harvest Land Base that results in a slight increase in local early-successional habitat which falls within the range of expected seral stage changes that were analyzed and disclosed within the PRMP/FEIS (p. 840). All of western Oregon, including this analysis area, falls within the Northern Pacific Forests Bird Conservation Region (USDI-FWS 2008). Within this region there are several migratory land birds which are considered Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) because they appear to be exhibiting downward population trends for several years (Altman and Alexander 2012, USDI- FWS 2008). Thirty-three of the 88 landbird species that regularly occur in the Marys Peak Field Office are considered BCC species. Both action alternatives have a similar potential to disrupt breeding bird species that may be present in forest stands during the period of harvest operations. Both alternatives include project design features to protect from impacts to soil quality which would also lessen the potential disruption to breeding birds, because some of the disruption activities (soil disturbance and felling) would occur outside of the breeding season. The change

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-11 in habitat conditions resulting from either alternative would be unfavorable to some bird species and more favorable to others (Hagar and Friesen 2009). The quality of habitat created for some breeding birds also depends on structural features (e.g., snags, scattered green trees) and plant species diversity, which are strongly influenced by the intensity and efficacy of post-harvest actions such as burning, weed treatments, and reforestation efforts. The PRMP/FEIS modeled the effects of habitat changes resulting from plan-level harvests which showed an expected increase in habitat in 50 years for a majority of the 34 landbird focal species for whom habitat was modeled (Table 3-249, p. 845). Within this project area, both action alternatives would involve disturbance and disruption to breeding birds that would be minimal, short-term (one breeding season), and would not be discernable at the regional scale. The potential for impacts to bird species would not exceed those analyzed and disclosed within the PRMP/FEIS (pp. 850-851). The most prominent big game species expected to occur within the project area are black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk. The BLM has not designated any deer or elk management areas in the project area and no critical winter or summer range for either species has been identified in this vicinity. Both action alternatives would create a local increase in early-successional habitat that could provide for better forage conditions to benefit deer and elk populations. The potential increase in available forage habitat falls within the range of the expected increase that was analyzed and disclosed within the PRMP/FEIS (p. 865).

15. What effects would sediment inputs to aquatic habitat from proposed culvert replacement and hauling have on fish and aquatic species (resident and Endangered Species (ESA)) distribution and abundance? The BLM eliminated this issue from detailed analysis because of current fish presence, fish habitat, the limited scope and scale of the project, and design features included to reduce adverse impacts to resources. This considers fish and aquatic species as described below. Resident Aquatic Species - Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are adjacent to (at least 210 feet from) five of the treatment units and within 60 feet of the 7-7-1 road in Section 1 (Snedaker 2016 and 2018). Resident crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) and sculpin (Cottus spp.) would be similar in distribution to cutthroat trout. Other aquatic species would occur downstream. ESA listed Aquatic Species - The Upper Willamette River Winter Steelhead Trout (UWR steelhead), Oncorhynchus mykiss, Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is listed as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (64 FR 14517, 71 FR 834 and 79 FR 20812). Mill Creek is included in NMFS Critical Habitat designation of ESA listed UWR Winter Steelhead DPS (70 FR 52849). The upper extent of Critical Habitat in Mill Creek is a full barrier steep cascade at least 2 miles downstream from the project area (StreamNet 2009). The habitat areas in Gooseneck Creek were determined to have a low conservation value and not listed as Critical Habitat (NMFS 2005). Based on documented use by coho salmon, UWR steelhead distribution would be expected to occur in proximity to a paved portion of the Gooseneck Creek haul route. Historically, the Mill Creek watershed and tributaries have not supported large numbers of UWR steelhead (ODFW 1990). Based on the very low number of UWR steelhead currently accessing the Upper Willamette River system (ODFW 2018), the large area UWR steelhead can distribute

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-12 in the Willamette area, and the low historic numbers in Mill Creek, the presence of UWR steelhead in the project area would be irregular and scarce. Hauling and culvert replacement was predicted to have short-term (hours or days) site-level effects to fish and related aquatic habitat. Sediment delivery to stream channel crossings would occur during the wet season. Field observations and studies of sediment movement (Duncan et al. 1987; Foltz et al. 2008) suggest aquatic species downstream of perennial stream crossing (culvert replacement) sites would experience elevated sediment and turbidity following re- watering of the site. Research indicates that without the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), sediment assimilates into the bedload within 400 feet (Duncan et al. 1987) and turbidity would be undetectable within a half mile under base summer flow conditions (Foltz et al. 2008). Implementation of BMPs at all sites and flow bypass on perennial streams during replacement would keep sediment and turbidity generation to a minimum (Cristan et al. 2016). Fifteen culvert replacements are at least 400 feet upstream from any fish-bearing streams. Impacts of actions occurring more than 400 feet upstream of resident fish with BMPs implemented would be expected to be undetectable to resident fish. Three culvert replacements on the 7-7-1 road are over 1 mile upstream of UWR Steelhead on Rowell Creek. Based on this distance there would be no effects to UWR steelhead. The undetectable site level effects from culvert replacements on 2 perennial stream crossings associated with Glenbrook Creek would not be expected to affect UWR steelhead at least 0.37 miles downstream. All other culvert work is more than a half-mile upstream from UWR Steelhead habitat and no effects would occur. The expected scale and intensity of predicted impacts from haul and culvert work on the 7-7-1 road was limited to site-specific impacts affecting approximately 750 feet of stream. Culvert and hauling impacts would occur to the same reach of fish-bearing stream and would likely to affect the fish present in that reach more than once. However, impacts would occur at different times, with culvert impacts occurring first and hauling impacts occurring in subsequent wet-seasons. Overall, the project would result in a short-term (hours or days) reduction in habitat quality during sediment pulses in the wet season that would negatively impact fish distribution on up to 750 feet of the upper reaches of Rowell Creek and tributaries associated with project activities on the 7-7-1 Road. Over the long-term (years to decades) the road work, culvert upgrades and reorientation of the upper 6-6-32.1 road out the 7-7-1, would be expected to improve habitat conditions on approximately 1,200 feet of Glenbrook Creek thereby increasing distribution and abundance (improved growth and survival).

16. How would fish and aquatic species distribution and abundance be affected by the project’s effects, excluding hauling and culvert replacement, on aquatic habitat elements of temperature, instream flows, sediment delivery, instream large woody debris (LWD), and wood recruitment? Temperature The hydrology analysis showed there would be no effects to stream temperature from proposed activities (Fitting 2018). In addition, roadside tree felling, and related solar exposure would occur regardless of alternative as part of regular road maintenance.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-13 Instream flow Hydrology analysis indicates that project area hydrologic recovery impact from regeneration harvest of the Proposed Action is predicted to be less than 1.26 percent, which is well below the threshold levels where potential changes to stream channel character, bank and bedform would occur (Fitting 2018). The No action and Thinning Alternatives would result in less or no changes in peak flow risk. Thus, no significant impacts to stream flow in the project area would occur under any alternative.

Sediment and Large Woody Debris Virtually all wood recruitment occurs within the site potential tree height width from streams (Van Sickle and Gregory 1990, McDade et al. 1990, Meleason et al. 2002), which is 210 feet for the project area. The Proposed Alternative and Commercial Thinning Alternative include full Riparian Reserve buffers that would encompass the entire large woody debris recruitment zone. The BLM is not proposing to treat any trees within the Riparian Reserve. Riparian buffers have been shown to be vulnerable to windthrow following harvest activities (Steinblums et al. 1984; Jackson et al. 2007) and would be expected to result in an increase of LWD within the stream channel in the short term (first 10 years). However, windthrow in buffers bordering small headwater streams in the Pacific Northwest is highly variable and often dependent on stochastic events and the magnitude of the increase is not predictable (Andrus and Froehlich 1992). Windthrow effects to sediment is not expected to be significant (Grizzel and Wolff 1998). Therefore, no effects to LWD and wood recruitment would occur from any of the alternatives. A detailed analysis of proposed stand treatments would not contribute to a differentiation between alternatives; therefore, this issue is not analyzed in detail in the EA. Road construction, storage, renovation and improvements (brushing, rocking, grading) actions would be identical between the Proposed Action and Thinning Alternatives. These road actions would not be expected to affect sediment and LWD input, and therefore would not be expected to affect resident or sensitive fish and aquatic species. The proposed directional felling of trees within the inner zone to the road prism associated with roadside tree removal, with the 25-foot buffer, would not result in sediment or large wood debris impacts and would not result in impacts to aquatic habitat or resident fish species. The proposed design feature requiring 120 feet between streams and any burn piles, combined with Inner Zone protective buffers (50 to 120 feet) would provide sufficient distance of undisturbed soils and vegetation would capture any surface erosion associated with the fuels activities. Pile burning occurs in the late fall, winter or early spring when surrounding vegetation and debris moisture content is high unlikely to affect existing wood. Based on distance of pile burning to fish and aquatic habitat downstream affects are unlikely to occur under any of the alternative. As none of the alternatives would alter sediment and LWD the potential issue would not contribute to a differentiation between alternatives, therefore this issue is not analyzed in detail in the EA.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-14 17. Would impacts to aquatic habitat affect aquatic species including sculpin, western brook lamprey, suckers, dace, crayfish, freshwater mussels, coho salmon, Pacific Lamprey, Oregon chub, Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook distribution and abundance? Treatment impact to instream sediment and turbidity, large woody debris, stream temperatures, and flows that would result in impacts to aquatic species was considered as a potential issue, as described above. Based on distance from the project area (>24 miles), abundance and distribution of UWR Chinook (ESA listed threatened, 64 FR 14308) and Oregon Chub (ESA delisted in 2015, 80 FR 9126; Bureau Sensitive per BLM Manual 6840) would not be expected to be affected.

Based on field review, resident cutthroat trout occurs throughout the project area and is representative of potential occupied aquatic habitat for crayfish and sculpin. Western brook lamprey, sucker, dace, western ridged mussels (Bureau Sensitive), western pearlshell mussels and their related habitats occur downstream of the project area and would experience impacts less than cutthroat trout.

Based on distribution estimates UWR steelhead, an ESA listed species, co-occurs with anadromous species such as coho and Pacific Lamprey (Bureau Sensitive). Coho salmon, covered under Magnuson Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat management direction, generally occur downstream of the project area. Coho is known to occur at the paved crossing of Rowell Creek on the BLM Gooseneck Road (6-6-31). Based on distance to potential habitat, effects to these species would be similar, or less than, the effects predicted for UWR steelhead.

Effects to the abundance and distribution of coho, crayfish, sculpin and Pacific Lamprey will not be considered in detail. A detailed analysis of the potential issue specifically for all the other aquatic species of the project area would not contribute to a differentiation between alternatives; therefore, these species were not analyzed in detail.

18. How would proposed timber harvest and road work affect water quantity (peak flows), channel stability, and channel morphology? The BLM considered this issue in regards to regeneration harvest alternative, which would have the greatest impact on canopy cover. Regeneration harvest management prescriptions in this project would reduce canopy cover well below 30 percent (2008 WOPR, Appendix I, Table I-1, p. 229) so there would be additional created openings from BLM harvest activities. There are approximately 6 acres in Unit 1A, 6.8 acres in unit 7D, 7.9 acres in unit 7C and 0.75 acres in Unit 7B that are located between 2,000 and 2,200 feet elevation which is considered within the transient rain on snow zone; however the stream channels located in these units at this elevation would have the full 210 feet Riparian Reserve on both sides of the stream channel where no harvest would occur. Due to the small amount of acreage of the project in the transient rain on snow zone and maintaining full Riparian Reserves there would be no change in channel stability of channel morphology from rain on snow events. Regeneration harvest would reduce canopy cover to less than 30 percent in the project area. The analysis includes all forested lands including both BLM-managed lands and private ownership. Using the LiDAR data and USFS photos from 2016, Upper Mill Creek was found to have 21

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-15 percent and Lower Mill Creek was found to have 47 percent its watershed in “open” conditions. The lower portion of the Lower Mill Creek watershed is located in the Gooseneck Creek Valley floor and approximately 6,000 acres of this 6th field watershed have been permanently converted to agriculture lands and private residences. These agriculture practices of land conversion included the removal of native vegetation, draining of wetlands, stream channelization and other modifications that have dramatically altered the hydrologic functions and stream channel morphologies in the lower watershed and does not contribute to peak flow changes in the forested portion of the watershed. If the 6,000 acres of agriculture lands are removed from the analysis area, the forested portion of Lower Mill Creek was found to have 18.75 percent of its watershed in “open” conditions. New road construction would create an additional 1.9 miles of road or 9 acres assuming a 40 foot wide clearing limit creating a total of 570 acres of new created openings in the Lower Mill Creek watershed. Based on these side boards, it is expected that the addition of the proposed new road construction and regeneration harvest acres activity in each of the 6th field watersheds would fall into the unmeasurable level for peak flow increases based on the Grant envelope curve (Grant et al. 2008). Assuming that levels of future timber harvest, road constructing and vegetative recovery on BLM-managed and private ownership lands remain at historic and present levels, both watersheds would remain well below the 45 percent opening threshold for measurable increases in peak flows.

19. How would road work and hauling affect sediment delivery and water quality in project area streams? The BLM considered this issue in regard to the regeneration harvest alternative, because the greater volume removal would result in more hauling than a thinning alternative. Road work is identical between the two action alternatives. The BLM removed this issue from detailed analysis because road locations and project design features that limit the timing and guide implementation of the project would limit impacts associated with road work and hauling. Road work – The risk of impacts to water quality due to road work would be limited by restricting work to periods of low rainfall and runoff. Construction would employ techniques to reduce concentration of runoff and sediment to a minimum, such as out sloping, ditch lines, and water-bars on steeper sections of road. Many new roads would be closed or restricted to traffic after their use (EA Appendix E). Proposed new road construction is located in a stable geologic landform and there is very little risk of road related landslides. Most of the road locations are mostly on or near ridge tops, at least 210 feet from streams where any road generated water or sediment would have no impact on drainages in the project area. Road construction and use of the ridge top roads would result in no expected additions of sediment to stream channels in the project area. Current road conditions are in a deteriorating condition and work on existing roads would improve surfacing, drainage, and water quality over existing conditions. There would be an increase in sediment delivery and turbidity to the intermittent stream at the onset of the first wet weather events after the new road construction and road work. Sediment movement from the site would assimilate into bedload within 300 to 400 feet below the crossing (Duncan et al. 1987). This increase in sediment delivery and turbidity would be minimized by implementing erosion control BMPS and PDFs and would return to background levels as vegetative recovery occurs.

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-16 Hauling – Timber hauling would be permitted year-round on rock-surfaced roads. Timber hauling during periods when water is flowing on roads and into ditches could potential increase stream turbidity if flows from ditches were large enough to enter streams. Hauling would be restricted at any time of the year if necessary to avoid excessive increases in erosion and sedimentation. The BLM estimated the number of log trucks associated with the proposed harvest. The BLM would add about 4,278 additional log trucks (up to 73 percent increase) for a 6 year period on the 6-32.1 to the 7-7-1 and 6-6-31 road haul routes, assuming that private industry hauls at the same rate over this 6 year period. Implementing the wet weather haul project design features (ditchline erosion control, placement of aggregate, additional drainage structures, etc.) would minimize the BLM and private log truck haul sediment delivery and in most cases actually reduce sediment delivery and turbidity below current conditions during BLMs log truck hauling activities (EA Appendix E).

Appendix C: Issues considered but not analyzed in detail C-17 Appendix D: Project Maps Map D-1. T. 7 S., R. 7 W., section 1 (Map 1 of 3)

Appendix D: Project Maps D-1 Map D-2. T. 7 S., R. 6 W., sections 6 and 7 (Map 2 of 3)

Appendix D: Project Maps D-2 Map D-3. T. 7 S., R. 6 W., sections 4 and 5 (Map 3 of 3)

Appendix D: Project Maps D-3 Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices In planning the Wild Goose project, the interdisciplinary team developed criteria using direction in the ROD/RMP for identifying silvicultural treatments and intensities, boundary locations, logging systems, fuel treatments, and road system design and use. The interdisciplinary team also developed a set of project design features to guide implementation of the project. The identification of a project design feature is the beginning of an iterative process that includes implementation and effectiveness monitoring to determine that the effects of the actions are within the range analyzed. The BLM would incorporate these design features into the project layout, contract requirements, and contract administration to ensure that the project is implemented as analyzed in this EA and that the risk of effects to the resources are no greater than those described in this EA.

Project design features would: ● protect special status species (vegetation and wildlife), soil productivity, water quality and quantity, fisheries, listed fish, and aquatic habitat, stand structure, habitat, and species, air quality, public safety and recreation, and cultural resources; ● prevent or reduce the spread of invasive/non-native plant species, and fire hazards and risks; ● achieve desired forest stand composition and fuel reduction; and ● describe how components of the proposed and connected actions would be implemented.

Table E-1 summarizes the seasonal restrictions, the period in which they apply, and the intended objective of each restriction.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-1 Table E-1. Table of Seasonal Restrictions

Season of Operation or Applies to Operation Objective Operating Conditions

During periods of low Road construction, improvement, and Minimize soil erosion precipitation, generally renovation and sediment delivery May 1 to October 31 to streams

During periods of low Ground-based yarding Minimize soil erosion soil moisture[1], and compaction generally May 15 to October 15

Generally year round Timber hauling would be allowed year-round Minimize soil erosion on paved and rock surfaced roads except and sediment delivery where the surface is deeply rutted or covered to streams by a layer of mud and where runoff is highly likely to reach the streams or causing a visible increase in turbidity to adjacent streams and except on roads as noted below.

During periods of dry Timber hauling on any unsurfaced roads. Minimize soil erosion weather and low soil and sediment delivery moisture[1], generally Hauling over aggregate stream crossings to streams May 1 to October 31 within a ½ mile of listed fish (7-6-5 road in section 5) would be restricted when ditch flows are connected to stream channels.

July 15 to September 30 Inwater timing covers new stream culvert Minimize soil erosion installation, stream culvert replacements, and and sediment delivery other proposed activities that occur below the to streams ordinary high water mark along project stream channels.

Project Design Features Common to Both Action Alternatives Silvicultural Prescription

• Priorities for tree marking would be based on Marking Guidelines. Marking guidelines do not apply to road rights-of-way.

• Any plus trees (trees selected for genetic traits) and their reference trees, and bearing trees would be reserved from harvest.

• Understory conifers less than 7 inches DBH would be excluded from harvest.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-2 • A silviculturist would closely monitor tree marking to ensure prescription compliance. A silviculturist and/or Authorized Officer would monitor prescription compliance during treatments to ensure contract compliance and intent of the prescription in the LUAs within the project area. Random inspection plots would furnish specific information about the trees, densities and other attributes needed to remain on target. o Post-harvest monitoring would be necessary to determine subsequent treatment needs. Depending on harvest type, monitoring would provide information for site preparation and fuel treatment needs, the extent of Phellinus weirii infection centers, reforestation needs and implementation, reforestation maintenance and success, and subsequent treatment needs.

• Excessive damage to reserve timber, as determined by the Authorized Officer, would result in suspension of yarding operations until mitigation measures (rub logs, rub trees or protective plates) are in place to prevent further damage, as approved by the Authorized Officer. Snags and Down Woody Material

• BLM would retain existing snags where operationally practicable and where they do not pose a safety hazard. Snags that are felled for operational or safety reasons ≥ 6” DBH would be retained on site as down woody material (ROD/RMP p. 61).

• Retain down woody material over 20 inches DBH at the large end and greater than 20 feet long. Retain non-merchantable down woody material (generally decay classes III, IV and V) between 6-20 inches in the stand.

• Designate one snag > 20” DBH per acre on average, within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale if stand has < 26 snags per acre > 10” DBH and < 8 snags per acre > 20” DBH on average across the harvest unit (ROD/RMP p. 61). Yarding and Felling

• Apply erosion control measures to disturbed areas (e.g., skid trails and skyline corridors) with potential for erosion and sediment delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, or wetlands. Measures may include seeding with native species, mulching, shaping the trails to modify drainage (e.g., water bars, sloping), and placing logging slash and debris on exposed soil.

• Limit the use of specialized ground-based mechanized equipment when the following conditions are met:

o Slopes are less than 50 percent o Slopes are over 50 percent, but are limited to previously constructed skid trails, or to access isolated ground-based harvesting areas requiring short trails over steep pitches (generally no greater than 50 feet slope distance). o Stop use of this equipment when displacement creates trenches, depressions, excessive removal of organic horizons, or when disturbance would channel water and sediment.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-3 • Skid trails would be blocked to prevent motorized vehicle use at the end of seasonal use.

• Trees would be directionally felled to lead for skidding and skyline yarding to minimize ground disturbance and entry into the Riparian Reserve. Where a cut tree does fall outside the unit boundary, into the Riparian Reserve, the tree would be bucked at the unit boundary line, the portion in the Riparian Reserve would remain in place.

• Apply spacing (plus or minus a 100 foot minimum and 200 foot average) if more than 2 corridors cross within 200 feet of each other on a project stream that includes:

o full suspension is less than the inner zone buffer from the stream, and o yarding logs through inner zone stand cause damage to the canopy that provides shade to the stream and/or o more than minor tree felling is needed within the inner zone (>2 trees), and/or o the stream is flowing during operations. • Yarding corridor spacing may be less than 100 feet if:

o topography allows full suspension above the inner zone canopy. o approved by the hydrologist on a case-by-case basis, where potential impacts to sediment, temperatures, and large wood are no greater than impacts previously analyzed in the EA. Hauling

• Year round hauling would be authorized within project area, including the Gooseneck Road (BLM). The Authorized Officer would suspend hauling during periods of heavy rainfall where soil is saturated and where road surface runoff flow is highly likely to reach the stream. The Authorized Officer would suspend haul on road segments at any time that surface flows are visibly reaching stream channel.

• If the proposed haul route becomes unusable, the BLM would assess for potential effects to ESA-listed fish prior to authorizing alternative haul routes. Alternative haul routes may connect to nearby county roads

• Hauling over aggregate stream crossings within 0.5 mile of listed fish (7-6-5 road in section 5) would be restricted when ditch flows are connected to stream channels. o Implementation of BMPs that limit road surface connections to the two stream crossings (cross drain installations) and prevention of sediment from reaching streams (placement of sediment barrier: waddles or bark bags) combined with monitoring sediment barriers that shows no sediment accumulation has occurred proximate to major storm events (>3 inches in 24 hour period) would allow year round haul on the 7-6-5 road.

Road Work and Roadside Work

• ODFW in-water guidance work window for the Yamhill River, which includes Gooseneck Creek tributaries, is July 15 to September 30. In-water timing would cover new stream culvert installation, stream culvert replacements, and any other proposed

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-4 activities that may occur below the ordinary high water mark along project stream channels. Exceptions to in-water restrictions would be reviewed by BLM staff and would be approved by the Authorized Officer in writing prior to implementation.

• Disconnect road runoff to the stream channel by outsloping the road approach. If outsloping is not practicable, use runoff control, erosion control and sediment containment measures. These may include using additional cross drain culverts, ditch lining, catchment basins, gravel lifts, and armoring ditch lines. Prevent or reduce ditch flow conveyance to the stream through cross drain placement, drainage dips, or lead off ditches above the stream crossing

• Avoid water withdrawal from streams within 1,500 feet of listed fish habitat. This includes all of Gooseneck Creek, Rowell Creek at the BLMs Gooseneck Road crossing, Glenbrook Creek from the barrier culvert on the 6-6-32.1 road located in the northeast quarter of Section 5, and Mill Creek from approximately milepost 1 on the Mill Creek county road. Limit withdrawal from all other streams to no more than 50 percent of flows based on visual assessment.

• Locate stockpile and waste sites on stable ground which drain to dispersed vegetated areas and where materials/sediment would not move into waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands.

• Clearing, grubbing, and excavation would be allowed for the development and use of borrow, waste, and stockpile sites during road work activities. Individual sites may be no larger than 1/2 acre in size, and there may be no more than 3 total acres of sites per timber sale. Site locations must be approved by the Authorized Officer prior to development. Additional BMPs may be required during these activities.

• Trees within one site tree potential on each side of BLM-controlled roads on BLM- managed lands may be cut for road maintenance. Cut trees may be harvested or left on site, consistent with management direction for the underlying land use allocation and at the discretion of the Authorized Officer. Tree selection would be based on “designation by description” contractual specifications. Trees removed would be defined as:

1. Trees leaning towards or overtopping the traveled roadway that could reach the traveled roadway when they fall. 2. Trees with exposed roots on the cutslope that could reach the traveled roadway when they fall. 3. Hazard trees or trees with conditions likely to cause imminent failure that could reach the traveled roadway when they do fail/fall. Non-Native Plant Species

• Soil disrupting equipment and other heavy equipment or transportation vehicles (low- boys, trailers) would be required to be clean and free of dirt and vegetation prior to arriving on BLM-managed lands as directed by the Authorized Officer. • Large areas of exposed mineral soil (e.g., roads to be constructed, skid roads, landings), as determined by the Authorized Officer, would be sown with red fescue (Festuca rubra)

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-5 at a rate equal to 10 pounds per acre, approximately 140 seeds per square foot, in order to stabilize the soil and prevent invasive/non-native plant species establishment . Seed would meet or exceed the following factors:

o Percent germination rate: 85% minimum o Percent pure seed: 97% minimum o Crop and weeds: none o Noxious weed seed: none If seed is not available, the project area would be sown with seed approved by the field office botanist. Prior to applying seed, the contractor would supply the BLM with the seed label containing the testing results listed above.

• BLM would conduct monitoring annually for three years after project completion in areas of moderate to high risk for invasive species, to identify new infestations of invasive non/native plant species. Treatments to reduce or eradicate new infestations would be evaluated based on NEPA compliance and best management practices in the BLM Integrated Weed Management Manual 9015.

• BLM would conduct treatment on invasive species with limited distribution within Polk County prior to project implementation.

Within the Riparian Reserve

• Mechanical and hand piling for fuels treatment would be prohibited closer than 120 feet from any stream channel.

• Road and Landing Construction: o Locate newly constructed roads and landings away from wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and water of the state, unless no practicable alternative exists.

• Landing Construction o Avoid locating landings in areas that contribute runoff to channels. o Locate landings on stable locations, e.g., ridge tops, stable benches, or flats, and gentle to moderate side slopes.

• No regeneration harvest or thinning would occur within the Riparian Reserve. The Riparian Reserve would be one site-potential tree height (210 feet) in width (slope distance) each side of the stream, measured from the top of the stream bank.

• Cut trees within the Inner Zone that are not suitable as logs for fish habitat restoration would be specially marked for retention. Trees cut and left on site would be directionally felled to the adjacent hillslopes or cut and moved from the stump location and placed on the hillslope. The following conditions apply to on site placement:

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-6 o Uniformly distribute cut trees in the Riparian Reserve. Uniform distribution would prioritize placement in proximity to the stump and then spread out to the adjacent Riparian Reserve. o To the extent operationally feasible, avoid decking, stacking, or piling of logs in the Inner Zone. Short-term (during active operations) decking of tree boles, located away from stream channels, may occur during felling prior to distributing to the hillslope or hauling to a designated storage area. o Distribute logs outside of road clearing limits or on stable slopes. Logs would not be placed within 25 feet of a culvert. o A slash filter windrow may be constructed at the toe of the fill slopes on the downslope side of the road. Generally these can be constructed from road fills less than 20 feet in height. Windrows may be constructed in any portion of the Riparian Reserve. . Where slash filter windrows cannot be constructed avoid placement of debris within 25 feet of the stream channels to the extent practical. • Unmarked cut trees, slash, and debris within the Inner Zone would be left within the Inner Zone.

o Excess material generated at a site where the above criteria can no longer be met would be transported to a designated storage area. Excess material would not be mingled with other project debris. Marked debris would subsequently be moved from storage areas and spread onto the adjacent stands, as approved by the wildlife biologist and Authorized Officer.

Within the Riparian Reserve - Logs for Fish Habitat Restoration

• The BLM would special mark trees associated with road work and yarding corridors within the Riparian Reserve that are suitable for fish habitat restoration and are not to be sold. • Conifer trees, as designated by the Field Office hydrologist and/or fisheries biologist, would be felled, bucked, and moved to decking and storage areas.

o Bucking would be a minimum of a six inch diameter on the small end. Priority would be given to retain the largest diameters on the small end of the log as feasible o Total minimum log length would be 40 feet. o To the extent operationally feasible at the site, retain root wads with at least 12 inch DBH and bole lengths of at least 30 feet.

Recreation, Public Access, and Public Safety

• The BLM would restrict public access to and within timber sale areas during active logging operations.

• The BLM would consider temporary closures within the Mill Creek-Gooseneck ERMA during timber sale operations for public safety, operator safety, and resource concerns. Such closures may restrict access and/or particular uses (e.g., target shooting).

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-7 • The BLM would install and close gates in the project area as indicated on the project maps in Appendix D. Gates would restrict public motorized access during active timber sale operations. Post-harvest, gates would continue to restrict motorized access to areas that are already restricted and would not change access. Gates would remained closed until such time as they can be evaluated and designated within a Recreation Management Area Travel Management Planning process.

• The Authorized Officer would monitor traffic associated with timber sale operations and identify traffic and speed control measures to ensure public safety16. In the event of windthrow

• If blowdown occurs within or adjacent to the project area following harvest activities, windthrown trees may be salvaged without further NEPA analysis under the following conditions:

o The location of windthrown or other damaged trees is not located in areas of Riparian Reserve land use allocation. o The BLM determines consistency with management direction for the land use allocation; o The project IDT determines the action would be consistent with the project purpose and need and falls within the expected range of effects; o Logging system and equipment would be limited to those conditions analyzed for the initial harvest, limited to existing roads, skyline corridors, and skid trails, and subject to applicable project design features contained herein. o Affected areas would be surveyed for reforestation needs and may be planted with tree seedlings. o The use of any closed roads would be restored to haulable condition prior to salvage operations.

Surveys and Special Status Species

• Required pre-disturbance surveys and known-site management for any listed Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) or bureau special status botanical, animal, or fungal species would be accomplished in accordance with BLM Manual 6840-Special Status Species Management and the ROD/RMP prior to project implementation.

• Clearances for botanical species would be completed by intuitive controlled survey methods, field clearances, field reconnaissance, inventories, database searches, known site maps and records, and/or habitat examinations. Surveys for fungi are not required, because clearances for fungi are considered not practical and the project area does not occur in old-growth forests (FEIS pp. 525-526).

• The field office wildlife biologist and/or botanist would be notified if any special status animal, botanical or fungal species are found within or adjacent to project areas. Site

16 The posted recommended speed limit along the paved surface of Gooseneck Road is 25 mph (February 2018).

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-8 management of any federal T&E or bureau special status species, found as a result of additional inventories or incidental findings would be accomplished in accordance with BLM Manual 6840 (IM-2009-039).

• Prior to harvest, the BLM would follow ROD/ RMP direction (p. 101) regarding red tree vole management to determine if portions of project units would trigger red tree vole surveys (on BLM-managed lands north of Highway 20 in the Oregon Coast Range). If red tree vole surveys are conducted and voles are encountered, the BLM would follow ROD/RMP direction for establishing red tree vole “habitat areas” at least 10 acres in size to be excluded from harvest actions.

• Prior to harvest, the BLM would conduct surveys for northern spotted owls at known owl sites within 1.5 miles of the proposed harvest units, and within the harvest units (including immediately adjacent forest stands) that might provide suitable habitat (generally conifer-dominant stands over 80 years old). If northern spotted owl pairs or resident singles are encountered from survey efforts, the BLM would select actions that maintain existing levels of spotted owl habitat (i.e., dispersal, foraging, roosting, nesting habitat) within the provincial home range radius of the affected owl site (including alternate site centers), and if necessary, allow for re-initiation of consultation to ensure harvest action would avoid “incidental take.” • Prior to harvest, the BLM would complete two years of marbled murrelet surveys in portions of project units that have suitable nesting structure, or where nesting structure occurs within 726 feet of a project unit boundary. A non-survey option can be employed as described below. If surveys confirm murrelet occupancy, the BLM would not conduct harvest activities within the occupied stand including all forest within 300 feet of the occupied stand (ROD/RMP p. 98), and would allow for re-initiation of consultation (if necessary) to ensure compliance with biological opinion or letter of concurrence.

• Where marbled murrelet nesting structure is not surveyed to protocol (section 1), the BLM would maintain a 300-foot buffer around trees with nesting structure, and would not remove trees for any reason associated with timber harvest, including the placement of new roads, landings, or yarding corridors. An average canopy cover of at least 40 percent would be maintained post-project (averaged over each 40-acre area) within the project units beyond 300 feet buffer (out to 726 feet) from trees with nesting structure.

• The BLM would conduct project implementation in conformance with the applicable Biological Opinion or Letter of Concurrence resulting from Endangered Species Act consultation for federally listed wildlife species. The BLM would implement any pertinent Terms and Conditions from Endangered Species Act consultation if not previously included as described above.

• No habitat modifying operations (falling, yarding, road construction, prescribed burning) would be allowed within disturbance range (0.25 miles) of known northern spotted owl sites during the nesting season (March 1 to July 15) unless appropriate surveys indicate that there are no nesting spotted owls within the disturbance range or an applicable Biological Opinion or Letter of Concurrence provides for operations to occur that are not likely to result in “incidental take” to this species.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-9 Air Quality, Fire Risk, and Fuels

• A Prescribed Fire Burn Plan would be completed and signed by appropriate personnel, including but not limited to the agency administrator, prior to any prescribed burning.

• Prescribed burning would occur under atmospheric conditions that allow for the mixing of air to lessen the impact on air quality. Prescribed burning would be managed consistent with the requirements of the Oregon Smoke Management Plan administered by the Oregon Department of Forestry and the regulations established by the Air Quality Division of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

• Prescribed burning may include landing pile or machine pile burning, swamper burning, or handpile construction and burning and may be used individually or in combination in areas where the BLM determines fuel loading is heavy or the fire risk is high.

• The BLM would apply the following requirements when hand, machine, or landing piles are identified by the Authorized Officer as the specified fuels treatment:

o Where possible, piles would be located as far as possible from large snags, green trees, and other reserved trees to minimize damage, and not be constructed on top of stumps or down woody material. o Woody debris greater than 12 inches in diameter would be retained on site and would not be piled. Piles would be covered with 4 mil (.004 inch thick) polyethylene plastic. The plastic would adequately cover the pile to ensure ignition and would be placed and anchored to help facilitate the consumption of fuels during the high moisture fall/winter burning periods.

• Retained green trees would be protected as feasible from prescribed fire. Techniques such as lighting patterns to minimize heat delivered to tree crowns by the convection column, slash pullback from retained trees, pre-wetting around retained trees and snags, and/or fire trails around aggregated retention areas would be used to reduce mortality.

• The majority of landing, machine, and hand piles located on temporary routes, skid trails, or landings would be burned, chipped, or otherwise removed from these sites, typically within 18 months of unit harvest. Approximately 5 percent of hand and machine piles would be retained on site to provide habitat for small mammals.

• Prescribed burning of slash would occur after a sufficient period of drying (generally over one year, but could be sooner) to ensure desired consumption of material.

• Slash piles would be burned during a period of seasonal storms that raise fuel moisture levels which minimize the risk of fire escape and resource damage (generally October through March).

• Machine piling equipment would travel on previously used skid trails during dry soil conditions. In areas inaccessible from designated skid trails where the slope is less than 35 percent, machine piling equipment would be allowed one pass over a slash mat.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

• If project activities expose any cultural or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site, object, or vertebrate fossil), all operations in the immediate area of such discovery would stop. A professional archaeologist would determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of culturally or scientific significant values.

Project Design Features Specific to Regeneration Harvest Green Tree Retention

• Retention areas would be distributed in a spatially heterogeneous manner as individuals, clumps of 1-5 trees in scattered retention, 5-15 trees in clusters, and no-cut leave areas (ROD/RMP p. 62) throughout the proposed harvest units, although harvest systems, specifically cable yarding, could constrain the potential location of the retention trees and areas.

• Preference for green tree selection would be given for those trees that are:

o Located safely away from landings and rights-of-way o Representative patches of the pre-harvest forest stand o Trees with complex structure, crown defects, deeply furrowed bark, or which have visible nest structures. o Concentrations of trees that are older and larger than the prevailing stand conditions o Around large snags (greater than 20 inches DBH and 40 feet in height) o Special habitats such as seeps, rocky outcrops, and areas of high species diversity o Patches dominated by hardwood trees adjacent to riparian buffers or patches with the harvest units

Reforestation

• After regeneration harvest, the BLM would use natural and/or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species appropriate to the site to a stand level average of at least 130 trees per acre within 5 years of harvest in the LITA (ROD/RMP p. 62). Within the MITA, there would be a stand level average of at least 150 trees per acre within 5 years of harvest (ROD/RMP p. 63). o The BLM would use a mixture of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western red- cedar for artificial regeneration. o Natural regeneration composition would depend on tree species adjacent to harvested areas, seedbed conditions, timing and abundance of seed crops, seed predation, and weather conditions. o Planting rates would vary, but would typically be 250-350 trees per acre. • If planting is delayed following harvest or unsuccessful stocking following planting is observed, site preparation (e.g., shrub or hardwood cuts) could be used to increase the likelihood of seedling survival in subsequent plantings.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-11 Project Design Features Specific to Commercial Thinning Green Tree Retention

• Thinning would result in a stand average relative density between 35-40 percent after harvest.

• As feasible, in thinning areas retain trees that have desirable characteristics for wildlife habitat (e.g. asymmetrical crowns with multiple or broken tops, large limbs, dead areas being used by cavity excavators, deep crevices, and cavities).

• Except in roadside tree removal, yarding corridors and skid trails, western red cedar and hardwood tree species would preferentially be retained, but may be cut. Thinning would be implemented to maintain current species composition or to increase the proportion of minor species where they are not abundant.

• Any tree found to have a stick or ball nest, regardless of size (tree or nest) would be protected, unless it is a safety hazard. Snags and Damaged Trees

• Live trees with damage (hollow, cavities, dead or broken tops, etc.) would be reserved.

• As feasible, green trees would be reserved around large snags (greater than 20 inches DBH and 40 feet in height) to protect them from logging operations. Laminated Root Rot (Phellinus weirii)

• In harvest areas infected with Phellinus weirii, symptomatic stands and Douglas-fir trees (the most susceptible species) would be removed within approximately 50 feet of dead or symptomatic trees or sites. The BLM would evaluate the need for planting if any openings greater than approximately 0.5 acre are created. If needed, seedlings of non- susceptible or immune species would be planted.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-12 Best Management Practices The BLM has identified the specific BMPs that apply to the Wild Goose project.

BMP No. Roads Locate temporary and permanent roads and landings on stable locations, e.g., ridge tops, R 01 stable benches, or flats, and gentle-to-moderate side slopes. Minimize road construction on steep slopes (> 60 percent). Locate temporary and permanent road construction or improvement to minimize the R 02 number of stream crossings. Locate roads and landings away from wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and R 03 waters of the State, unless there is no practicable alternative. Avoid locating landings in areas that contribute runoff to channels. Design roads to the minimum width needed for the intended use as referenced in BLM R 05 Manual 9113 – 1 – Roads Design Handbook (USDI BLM 2011). Confine pioneer roads (i.e., clearing and grubbing of trees, stumps and boulders along a route) to the construction limits of the permanent roadway to reduce the amount of area disturbed and avoid deposition in wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of R 06 the State. Install temporary drainage, erosion, and sediment control structures, as needed to prevent sediment delivery to streams. Storm proof or close pioneer roads prior to the onset of the wet season. Design road cut and fill slopes with stable angles, to reduce erosion and prevent slope R 07 failure. End-haul material excavated during construction, renovation, or maintenance where side R 08 slopes generally exceed 60 percent and any slope where side-cast material may enter wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Construct road fills to prevent fill failure using inorganic material, compaction, R 09 buttressing, sub-surface drainage, rock facing, or other effective means. Locate waste disposal areas outside wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and unstable areas to minimize risk of sediment delivery to waters of the State. Apply R 11 surface erosion control prior to the wet season. Prevent overloading areas, which may become unstable. Use controlled blasting techniques to minimize loss of material on steep slopes or into R 12 wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. Use temporary sediment control measures (e.g., check dams, silt fencing, bark bags, filter strips, and mulch) to slow runoff and contain sediment from road construction areas. Remove any accumulated sediment and the control measures when work or haul R 13 is complete. When long-term structural sediment control measures are incorporated into the final erosion control plan, remove any accumulated sediment to retain capacity of the control measure. Avoid use of road fills for water impoundment dams unless specifically designed for that purpose. Impoundments over 9.2-acre-feet or 10 feet in depth will require a dam R 14 safety assessment by a registered engineer. Upgrade existing road fill impoundments to withstand a 100-year flood event.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-13 Minimize fill volumes at permanent and temporary stream crossings by restricting width and height of fill to amounts needed for safe travel and adequate cover for culverts. For R 15 deep fills (generally greater than 15 feet deep), incorporate additional design criteria (e.g., rock blankets, buttressing, bioengineering techniques) to reduce the susceptibility of fill failures. Locate stream-crossing culverts on well- defined, unobstructed, and straight reaches of stream. Locate these crossings as close to perpendicular to the streamflow as stream R 16 allows. When structure cannot be aligned perpendicular, provide inlet and outlet structures that protect fill, and minimize bank erosion. Choose crossings that have well- defined stream channels with erosion-resistant bed and banks. Design stream crossings to minimize diversion potential in the event that the crossing is blocked by debris during storm events. This protection could include hardening R 18 crossings, armoring fills, dipping grades, oversizing culverts, hardening inlets and outlets, and lowering the fill height. Design stream crossings to prevent diversion of water from streams into downgrade R 19 road ditches or down road surfaces. Limit activities and access points of mechanized equipment to streambank areas or R 24 temporary platforms when installing or removing structures. Keep equipment activity in the stream channel to an absolute minimum. Install stream crossing structures before heavy equipment moves beyond the crossing R 25 area. Disconnect road runoff to the stream channel by outsloping the road approach. If outsloping is not practicable, use runoff control, erosion control and sediment R 26 containment measures. These may include using additional cross drain culverts, ditch lining, and catchment basins. Prevent or reduce ditch flow conveyance to the stream through cross drain placement above the stream crossing. Effectively drain the road surface by using crowning, insloping or outsloping, grade reversals (rolling dips), and waterbars or a combination of these methods. Avoid R 30 concentrated discharge onto fill slopes unless the fill slopes are stable and erosion- resistant. Outslope temporary and permanent low volume roads to provide surface drainage on R 31 road gradients up to 6 percent unless there is a traffic hazard from the road shape. Divert road and landing runoff water away from headwalls, slide areas, high landslide R 37 hazard locations, or steep erodible fill slopes. R 38 Design landings to disperse surface water to vegetated stable areas. Locate cross drains to prevent or minimize runoff and sediment conveyance to waters of the State. Implement sediment reduction techniques such as settling basins, brush filters, R 39 sediment fences, and check dams to prevent or minimize sediment conveyance. Locate cross drains to route ditch flow onto vegetated and undisturbed slopes. Space cross drain culverts at intervals sufficient to prevent water volume concentration and accelerated ditch erosion. At a minimum, space cross drains at intervals referred to R 40 in the BLM Road Design Handbook 9113-1 (USDI BLM 2011), Illustration 11 – ‘Spacing for Drainage Lateral.’ Increase cross drain frequency through erodible soils, steep grades, and unstable areas.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-14 Locate surface water drainage measures (e.g., cross drain culverts, rolling dips and water bars) where water flow will be released on convex slopes or other stable and non- erosive areas that will absorb road drainage and prevent sediment flows from reaching R 42 wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Where practicable locate surface water drainage structures above road segments with steeper downhill grade. Locate cross drains at least 50 feet from the nearest stream crossing and allow for a sufficient non- compacted soil and vegetative filter. Direct pass-through flow or overflow from in-channel and any connected off-channel R 55 water developments back into the stream. Avoid water withdrawals from fish- bearing streams whenever practicable. Limit water withdrawals in ESA-listed fish habitat and within 1,500 feet of ESA-listed fish habitat to 10 percent of stream flow or less at the point of withdrawal, and in non- ESA-listed R 60 fish habitat to 50 percent or less at the point of withdrawal, based on a visual assessment by a fish biologist or hydrologist. The channel must not be dewatered to the point of isolating fish. Apply native seed and certified weed-free mulch to cut and fill slopes, ditchlines, and waste disposal sites with the potential for sediment delivery to wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains and waters of the State. If needed to promote a rapid ground cover and prevent aggressive invasive plants, use interim erosion control non- native sterile R 63 annuals before attempting to restore natives. Apply seed upon completion of construction and as early as practicable to increase germination and growth. Reseed if necessary to accomplish erosion control. Select seed species that are fast-growing, provide ample ground cover, and have adequate soil-binding properties. Apply mulch that will stay in place and at site-specific rates to prevent erosion. Place sediment-trapping materials or structures such as straw bales, jute netting, or sediment basins at the base of newly constructed fill or side slopes where sediment R 64 could be transported to waters of the State. Keep materials away from culvert inlets or outlets. Suspend ground-disturbing activity if projected forecasted rain will saturate soils to the extent that there is potential for movement of sediment from the road to wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Cover or temporarily stabilize exposed soils during R 66 work suspension. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities, immediately stabilize fill material over stream crossing structures. Measures could include but are not limited to erosion control blankets and mats, soil binders, soil tackifiers, or placement of slash. Prior to the wet season, provide effective road surface drainage maintenance. Clear ditch lines in sections where there is lowered capacity or is obstructed by dry ravel, sediment wedges, small failures, or fluvial sediment deposition. Remove accumulated sediment and blockages at cross-drain inlets and outlets. Grade natural surface and aggregate R 69 roads where the surface is uneven from surface erosion or vehicle rutting. Restore crowning, outsloping or insloping for the road type for effective runoff. Remove or provide outlets through berms on the road shoulder. After ditch cleaning prior to hauling, allow vegetation to reestablish or use sediment entrapment measures (e.g., sediment trapping blankets and silt fences). Retain ground cover in ditch lines, except where sediment deposition or obstructions R 70 require maintenance.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-15 Maintain water flow conveyance, sediment filtering and ditch line integrity by limiting R 71 ditch line disturbance and groundcover destruction when machine cleaning within 200 feet of road stream crossings. Remove and dispose of slide material when it is obstructing road surface and ditch line R 73 drainage. Place material on stable ground outside of wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. Seed with native seed and weed-free mulch. R 75 Retain low-growing vegetation on cut-and- fill slopes. Seed and mulch cleaned ditch lines and bare soils that drain directly to wetlands, R 76 floodplains, and waters of the State, with native species and weed-free mulch. Prevent use of vehicular traffic utilizing methods such as gates, guard rails, earth/log R 84 barricades, to reduce or eliminate erosion and sedimentation due to traffic on roads. Convert existing drainage structures such as ditches and cross drain culverts to a long- R 85 term maintenance free drainage configuration such as an outsloped road surface and waterbars. On active haul roads, during the wet season, use durable rock surfacing and sufficient R 93 rock depth to resist rutting or development of sediment on road surfaces that drain directly to wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Prior to winter hauling activities, implement structural road treatments such as: increasing the frequency of cross drains, installing sediment barriers or catch basins, R 94 applying gravel lifts or asphalt road surfacing at stream crossing approaches, and armoring ditch lines. BMP No. Timber Harvest Design yarding corridors crossing streams to limit the number of such corridors, using narrow widths, and using the most perpendicular orientation to the stream feasible. Minimize yarding corridor widths and space corridors as far apart as is practicable given physical and operational limitations, through practices such as setting limitations on corridor width, corridor spacing, or the amount of corridors in an area. For example, TH 01 such practices could include, as effective and practicable: • Setting yarding corridors at 12–15 foot maximum widths, and • Setting corridor spacing where they cross the streams to no less than 100 feet apart when physical, topography, or operational constraints demand, with an overall desire to keep an average spacing of 200 feet apart. Directionally fall trees to lead for skidding and skyline yarding to minimize ground TH 02 disturbance when moving logs to skid trails and skyline corridors. Require full suspension over flowing streams, non-flowing streams with highly erodible TH 03 bed and banks, and jurisdictional wetlands. Prevent streambank and hillslope disturbance on steep slopes (generally > 60 percent) TH 05 by requiring full-suspension within 50 feet of definable stream channels. Yard the remaining areas across the Riparian Reserve using at least one-end suspension. Implement erosion control measures such as waterbars, slash placement, and seeding in TH 06 cable yarding corridors where the potential for erosion and delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands exists.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-16 Limit width of skid roads to single width or what is operationally necessary for the TH 09 approved equipment. Where multiple machines are used, provide a minimum- sized pullout for passing. TH 10 Ensure leading-end of logs is suspended when skidding. Restrict non-road, in unit, ground-based equipment used for harvesting operations to periods of low soil moisture; generally from May 15 to Oct 15. Low soil moisture varies TH 11 by texture and is based on site- specific considerations. Low soil moisture limits will be determined by qualified specialists to determine an estimated soil moisture and soil texture.50 Incorporate existing skid trails and landings as a priority over creating new trails and landings where feasible, into a designated trail network for ground-based harvesting TH 12 equipment, consider proper spacing, skid trail direction and location relative to terrain and stream channel features. Limit non-specialized skidders or tracked equipment to slopes less than 35 percent, except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground-based harvest areas requiring short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this TH 13 equipment when surface displacement creates trenches, depressions, excessive removal of organic horizons, or when disturbance would channel water and sediment as overland flow. Limit the use of specialized ground-based mechanized equipment (those machines specifically designed to operate on slopes greater than 35 percent) to slopes less than 50 percent, except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground- TH 14 based harvesting areas requiring short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this equipment when surface displacement creates trenches, depressions, excessive removal of organic horizons, or when disturbance would channel water and sediment as overland flow. Designate skid trails in locations that channel water from the trail surface away from TH 15 waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands, or unstable areas adjacent to them. Apply erosion control measures to skid trails and other disturbed areas with potential for erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, or wetlands. TH 16 These practices may include seeding, mulching, water barring, tillage, and woody debris placement. Use guidelines from the road decommissioning section. Block skid trails to prevent public motorized vehicle and other unauthorized use at the TH 19 end of seasonal use. Construct waterbars on skid trails using guidelines in Table C-6 where potential for soil TH 17 erosion or delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands exists. Maintain at least the minimum percent of effective ground cover needed to control surface erosion, as shown in Table C-3, following forest management operations. TH 22 Ground cover may be provided by vegetation, slash, duff, medium to large gravels, cobbles, or biological crusts. BMP No Fire and Fuels Management Locate fire lines so that open meadows associated with streams do not burn, unless F 01 prescribed for restoration.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-17 Avoid burning of large woody material that is touching the high water mark of a F 02 waterbody or that may be affected by high flows. Limit fire lines inside Riparian Reserve. Construct fire lines by hand on all slopes greater than 35 percent and inside the Riparian Reserve inner zone. Use erosion control techniques such as tilling, waterbarring, or debris placement on fire lines when there is F 04 potential for soil erosion and delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands. Space the waterbars as shown in Table C-6. Avoid placement of fire lines where water would be directed into waterbodies, floodplains, wetlands, headwalls, or areas of instability. F 06 Avoid burning piles within 35 feet of a stream channel. Do not operate ground-based machinery for fuels reduction within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), except where machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream. F 09 Do not operate ground-based machinery for fuels reduction on slopes > 35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks may be used on short pitch slopes of greater than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length determined on a site- specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)). BMP No. Silvicultural Activities Limit the crossing of stream channels with motorized support vehicles (e.g., OHVs) and S 01 mechanized equipment to existing road crossings or temporary ford crossings to the ODFW instream work period, unless a waiver is obtained from permitting agencies. Scatter treatment debris on disturbed soils and water bar any equipment access trails that S 02 could erode and deposit sediment in waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands. BMP No. Salable Mineral Material Disposal Locate stockpile sites on stable ground where the material would not move into M 01 waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands. Locate, design, and construct salable mineral sites to control runoff and prevent or minimize sediment delivery to streams. M 02 Prevent overburden, solid wastes, drainage water or petroleum products from entering wetlands, Riparian Reserve, flood plains, and waters of the State. M 03 Locate, design, and maintain settling ponds to contain sediment discharges. Use erosion-reduction practices, such as seeding, mulching, silt fences, and woody debris placement, to limit erosion and transport of sediment to streams from quarries. Provide drainage from stockpiles and mineral sites, dispersed over stable vegetated M 05 areas rather than directly into stream channels. Grade all material sites, where practicable to conform with the surrounding topography prior to closure. Utilized topsoil as a medium for successful revegetation. Reseed and plant trees, where needed. BMP No. Surface Source Water for Drinking Water Avoid loading, or storing chemical, fuel, or fertilizer in DEQ sensitive zones within SW 08 drinking water source areas for public water systems, known domestic source water watersheds, or Riparian Reserve inner zone.

SW 09 Conduct equipment maintenance outside DEQ sensitive zones within drinking water source areas for public water systems, known domestic source water watersheds, or

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-18 Riparian Reserve inner zone. BMP No. Spill Prevention and Abatement Inspect and clean heavy equipment as necessary prior to moving on to the project site, in order to remove oil and grease, non-native invasive plants, including noxious weeds, and excessive soil. Inspect hydraulic fluid and fuel lines on heavy-mechanized equipment for proper working condition. Where practicable, maintain and refuel heavy equipment a minimum of 150 feet away from streams and other waterbodies. Refuel small equipment (e.g. chainsaws and water pumps) at least 100 feet from waterbodies (or as far as practicable from the waterbody where local site conditions do not allow a 100-foot setback) to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into a waterbody. Refuel small equipment from no more than 5-gallon containers. Use absorbent material or a containment system to prevent spills when re-fueling small SP 03 equipment within the stream margins or near the edge of waterbodies. In the event of a spill or release, take all reasonable and safe actions to contain the material. Specific actions are dependent on the nature of the material spilled. Use spill containment booms or as required by ODEQ. Have access to booms and other absorbent containment materials. Immediately remove waste or spilled hazardous materials (including but not limited to diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid) and contaminated soils near any stream or other waterbody, and dispose of it/them in accordance with the applicable regulatory standard. Notify Oregon Emergency Response System of any spill over the material reportable quantities, and any spill not totally cleaned up after 24 hours. Store equipment containing reportable quantities of toxic fluids outside of Riparian Reserve.

Appendix E: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices E-19 Appendix F: Proposed Road Work

Proposed road work includes new construction and renovation and improvement of existing roads.

New Construction The table below includes information on proposed road work including road lengths, surface type, and final status of the road post-harvest.

Table. F-1. Proposed road construction Road Length Proposed Proposed Final Status Number (ft.) Surface P1 570 Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage P2 1,045 Natural Closed, Long Term Storage P3 2,630 Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round P4 266 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P5 300 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P6 849 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P7 295 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P8 150 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P9 245 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P10 430 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P11 440 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P12 195 Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage P13 2,444 Aggregate Drivable Long Term Storage, Restricted Year-round P14 420 Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage Total 9,935 feet

Road Renovation and Improvement The table on the following page provides information on work to be done on existing roads, including road length, current and proposed surface types, and final disposition.

Appendix F: Proposed Road Work F-1 Table F-2. Proposed road renovation and improvement Road Length Current Proposed Type Final Status Number (miles) Surface Surface 6-6-32.1 G Improve 0.68 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round Drivable Long Term Storage, 7-6-6.0 part Improve 0.22 Natural Aggregate Restricted Year-round 7-6-6.1 Improve 0.31 Natural Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round Drivable Long Term Storage, R2 Improve 0.06 Natural Aggregate Restricted Year-round Drivable Long Term Storage, R4 Improve 0.07 Natural Aggregate Restricted Year-round Drivable Long Term Storage, R5 Improve 0.32 Natural Aggregate Restricted Year-round R8 Improve 0.09 Natural Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage R11 Improve 0.05 Natural Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage R12 Improve 0.18 Natural Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage R13 Improve 0.04 Natural Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage 6-6-31.0 A- Renovate 2.62 Aggregate Aggregate Open C 6-6-32.0 B Renovate 0.36 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round 6-6-32.2 E Drivable Long Term Storage, Renovate 0.32 Aggregate Aggregate part Restricted Year-round 6-6-32.2 E Renovate 0.35 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round part-F Drivable Long Term Storage, 7-6-4.1 Renovate 0.05 Aggregate Aggregate Restricted Year-round 7-6-5.0 A-C Renovate 1.69 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round 7-6-5.1 Renovate 0.16 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round 7-6-5.2 Renovate 0.15 Natural Natural Closed, Long Term Storage 7-6-6.0 part Renovate 0.51 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round 7-6-7.2 Renovate 0.29 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round 7-7-1.0 part Renovate 1.56 Aggregate Aggregate Open 7-7-1.0 part Renovate 0.15 Natural Natural Closed, Long Term Storage 7-7-2.0 A- Renovate 1.94 Aggregate Aggregate Open C2 part 7-7-2.0 C2 Renovate 0.3 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round part R1 Renovate 0.14 Natural Natural Closed, Long Term Storage R6 Renovate 0.05 Aggregate Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage R7 Renovate 0.02 Aggregate Aggregate Closed, Long Term Storage R9 Renovate 0.13 Aggregate Aggregate Open R10 Renovate 0.11 Aggregate Aggregate Open 6-6-32.1 C-F Renovate 1.66 Aggregate Aggregate Open, Restricted Year-round

Appendix F: Proposed Road Work F-2 Definitions Closed, Long-term storage: Not currently operated and maintained based either on resource protection needs or maintenance management needs as determined through an interdisciplinary process. Closed, with an earthen barrier or its equivalent, to motorized vehicles for an extended/indefinite period, but will be operated and maintained again in the future. Prior to closure will be left in an erosion-resistant condition by establishing cross drains, eliminating diversion potential at stream channels, and stabilizing or removing fills on unstable areas. Exposed soils will be treated to reduce sediment delivery to streams.

Driveable long-term storage: This closure status category includes segments that have been or will be closed due to a natural process (abandonment). Not currently operated and maintained based either on resource protection needs or maintenance management needs as determined through an interdisciplinary process. Not closed with an earthen barrier or its equivalent to prevent motorized vehicles for an extended/indefinite period, but will not be maintained and will close itself naturally with vegetation. Will be operating and maintained again in the future. Prior to closure will be left in an erosion-resistant condition by establishing cross drains, eliminating diversion potential at stream channels, and stabilizing or removing fills on unstable areas. Exposed soils will be treated to reduce sediment delivery to streams.

Restricted year round: Operated and maintained with a yearlong public use limitation enforced by a closure device, typically a gate or sign. The yearlong use limitation does not apply to BLM and/or its permittees.

Appendix F: Proposed Road Work F-3