ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

for

WAGNER ANDERSON FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MEDFORD DISTRICT ASHLAND RESOURCE AREA

DOI-BLM-OR-M060-2010-0014-EA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MEDFORD DISTRICT

EA COVER SHEET

RESOURCE AREA: Ashland

ACTION/TITLE: Wagner Anderson Forest Management Project

EA NUMBER: DOI-BLM-OR-M060-2010-014

LOCATION: Bear Creek 5th Field Watershed, Wagner and Anderson Sub-watersheds

List of Preparers Title Responsibility Ted Hass Soils Scientist Soils, Project Lead Brad Tong Botanist Botany & Special Status Plants Armand Rebischke Botanist Botany & Special Status Plants Jason Reilly Wildlife Biologist T&E and Special Status Wildlife Dennis Byrd Recreation Planner Recreation & Visual Resource Management Greg Chandler Fuels Specialist Fire and Fuels Chris Volpe Fisheries Biologist Fisheries, Riparian, T&E Aquatic Mike Derrig Hydrologist Water Resources Frank Hoeper Forester Harvest/Logging Systems Sean Gordon Silviculturist Silviculture John McNeel Civil Engineer Engineering & Roads Marlin Pose Environmental Coordinator NEPA Compliance & ID Team Leader Lisa Brennan Archaeologist Cultural Resources Kristi Mastrofini Environmental Coordinator NEPA Compliance & Writer/Editor

Wagner Anderson Project ii Environmental Assessment Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 ...... 1-1

A.INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 B. THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1-1 C. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1-2 D. DECISION FRAMEWORK ...... 1-4 E. LAND USE CONFORMANCE & LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 1-5 F. RELEVANT ASSESSMENTS & PLANS ...... 1-6 G. SCOPING & ISSUES ...... 1-8

CHAPTER 2 ...... 2-1

A. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL ...... 2-1 1. Alternative 1 – No-action ...... 2-1 2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 2-1

B. ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ...... 2-19

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ... 3-1

A. INTRODUCTION 1. Consideration of Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 3-1 2. Implementation of Proposed Mitigation ...... 3-3

B. SOILS ...... 3-3

C. WATER RESOURCES ...... 3-10

D. FISH & AQUATIC HABITAT ...... 3-20

E. CONSISTENCY WITH AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY ...... 3-35

F. BOTANY ...... 3-39

G. WILDLIFE ...... 3-54

H. FIRE AND FUELS ...... 3-75

I. SILVICULTURE ...... 3-84

J. RECREATIONAL & VISUAL RESOURCES ...... 3-111

K. AIR QUALITY ...... 3-114

L. OTHER EFFECTS ...... 3-117

CHAPTER 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...... 3-118

References

Wagner Anderson Project iii Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Ashland Resource Area, proposes to implement the Wagner Anderson Project, a forest management project, designed to implement the Bureau of Land Management’s Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP) (USDI 1995).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the environmental analysis conducted to estimate the site-specific effects on the human environment that may result from the implementation of the Wagner Anderson Forest Management Project. This EA complies with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and the Department of the Interior’s regulations on Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (43 CFR part 46).

B. THE PROPOSED ACTION

This section provides a summary of BLM’s proposal for forest management. A more detailed description of BLM’s proposed action is included in Chapter 2, Alternatives. The 247-acre Wagner Anderson project involves harvesting trees in conifer forest stands on BLM-administered lands in the Anderson Creek and Wagner Creek drainages. A BLM silviculturist and wildlife biologist worked together to develop forest thinning prescriptions, tailored to the various site conditions (i.e. elevation, aspect, soil conditions, etc.) and northern spotted owl habitat conditions found throughout the project area, to meet the needs described below. A more detailed summary of the various prescriptions is included in Chapter 2.

The proposed thinning would be accomplished through a combination of commercial timber sale and service contracts. Fuels created from commercial thinning (harvest slash) would be cut, hand-piled and burned on site or removed for biomass.

The BLM proposes to maintain about 14 miles of roads (i.e., road grading, rock surfacing, and water drainage improvements). One temporary spur road (about 200 feet) would be constructed to minimum standards and closed immediately following completion of operations. Two sections of permanent road (about 0.2 miles) would be constructed; one section to provide ingress and egress for log hauling. The second section would provide a new approach at the entrance of the 39-1-14.2 road to accommodate access for log trucks and yarding equipment. Approximately 0.8 mile of existing road would be reconstructed which would involve road grading and widening (to accommodate trucks and equipment needed for timber harvesting), adding rock, and cleaning or adding drainage structures. About 350 feet of existing road would be renovated (road reshaping, vegetation removal, and rocking), and about 14 miles of existing road would be maintained.

The project area is defined as the area where action is proposed. The legal description for the proposed Wagner Anderson Project area is: T. 39 S., R. 1 W., in Sections 7, 11, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28; W.M., Jackson County Oregon.

Two alternatives were considered and analyzed in detail, a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). A detailed description of BLM’s Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative is contained in Chapter 2, Alternatives.

Wagner Anderson Project 1-1 Environmental Assessment

C. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED WAGNER ANDERSON PROJECT

The Wagner Anderson project is designed to implement the Bureau of Land Management’s 1995 Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP) (USDI 1995) in the Wagner Anderson planning area.

This project proposal is designed to move the current conditions found in the Wagner Anderson project toward the desired forest stand conditions and to produce timber products in support of the District’s Allowable Sale Quantity declared in the RMP (RMP p. 73). Alternatives must meet the following objectives in order to receive consideration:

 Maintain and promote vigorously growing conifer forests, and provide timber resources in accord with sustained yield principles.

 Maintain nesting, roosting and foraging, and dispersal habitat conditions, in spotted owl habitat.

 Provide a transportation system within the project area that serves the management of resource program areas, while reducing delivery of sediments from the roads into nearby streams.

The following discussion provides more detail concerning the need for forest and road management based on the RMP Management Actions/Direction that apply to matrix land allocation, current forest and road conditions, and their desired future conditions:

1. There is a need to maintain and promote vigorously growing conifer forests, reduce tree mortality, and provide timber resources, in accord with sustained yield principles, on BLM- Administered Matrix lands within the Wagner Anderson project area.

Management Actions/Direction One of the applicable laws governing the major portion of BLM-administered lands in the Wagner Anderson planning area is the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act), for which sustainable timber production is the primary purpose. Matrix lands (also described in the RMP as General Forest Management Area) within the Wagner Anderson planning area are to produce a sustainable supply of timber and other forest commodities on matrix lands to provide jobs and contribute to community stability (RMP, p. 38). Timber products produced from this area would be sold in support of the District’s Allowable Sale Quantity declared in the RMP (RMP p. 73).

The Medford District RMP adopted a set of silvicultural treatments for managing conifer forests on Matrix lands (RMP Appendix E, Silvicultural Systems Utilized in the Design of the Resource Management Plan); the Wagner Anderson project proposes commercial forest thinning and selection harvest prescriptions designed to direct future stand growth, initiate new forest development, reduce the impacts of insect and diseases and increase fire resiliency on forest stands to the extent possible while maintaining northern spotted owl habitat.

Existing Forest Stand Conditions & Silvicultural Treatment Objectives An estimated 247 acres of forest stands in the Wagner Anderson planning area are selected for commercial thinning because they are overstocked or have concentrations of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (a forest pathogen). As trees compete for limited water, nutrients, and growing space they become stressed and more susceptible to mortality from insects, forest pathogens, and drought.

Wagner Anderson Project 1-2 Environmental Assessment An estimated 2.5 acres of these 247 acres are in need of group selection openings ranging in size from 1/7 to 1/4 acre gaps to manage the spread of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe while improving the stands resistance to this forest pathogen by planting Douglas-fir mistletoe-resistant species such as pine.

Approximately 2 acres constitute pine group selection openings. Pine group selection openings would release legacy pine trees (at least one per group selection) from surrounding competitors. Group openings will release ponderosa pine trees from competition, improving tree vigor and growth, and increasing the establishment of ponderosa pine seedlings.

Organon (1992) was used to analyze data from representative stands throughout the project area. Relative density index is one measurement used to quantify the densities of forest stands. Relative density index represents a ratio of the actual stand density to the maximum stand density attainable in a stand with the same mean tree volume. Imminent mortality and suppression is reached when the relative density index is 0.55 or greater (Drew and Flewelling 1979). At this point, forest stands begin to self thin. The average Relative Density Index for the Wagner Anderson project area range from 0.496 to 0.906; the average for the project area is 0.588. Thinning is needed to reduce the relative density index of stands within the project area to levels that would improve tree growth and vigor, and is obtained between 0.25 and 0.55, depending on site conditions and stand type.

Silvicultural prescriptions are designed to maintain habitat conditions for spotted owls, which require the retention of some trees with dwarf mistletoe, large crown ratios, snags, large diameter live and dying trees, and moderate to high canopy cover. Retention of these habitat elements allows for partial achievement of desired relative density index to improve tree growth and vigor. The following table (Table 1-1) displays the prescribed basal area per acre to meet northern spotted owl habitat requirements for nesting roosting, and foraging as well as dispersal habitat. Basal Area (ft2/acre), another measurement used to define forest stand densities, is used to guide selective thinning of forest stands to achieve the desired relative density index.

Table 1-1. Prescribed basal area (ft2) by stand type and Spotted Owl Habitat Type. Stand Type Desired Desired Basal Prescribed Basal Prescribed Basal Relative Area per Acre Area per Acre Area per Acre (ft2) Density Index (ft2) (ft2) Dispersal Habitat NRF Habitat Pine Site 0.25-0.55 60-100 180-200 80-100 Moist Douglas- 0.35-0.55 120-160 180-200 120-160 fir Dry Douglas-fir 0.35-0.55 80-100 180-200 80-100

2. There is a need to maintain existing nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat conditions, in the Wagner Anderson project area to contribute to the conservation and recovery of Federally listed species and their habitats in compliance of BLM’s resource management plan (RMP p. 50-51) and the Endangered Species Act.

Based on the uncertainty surrounding the 2008 Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl, the responsible official has decided to design the Wagner Anderson Forest Management Project in a manner to maintain the current acreage and distribution of northern spotted owl habitat within the home range radius (1.3 miles) of northern spotted owl activity centers.

Nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF) habitat is characterized by forested stands with older forest structure with characters such canopy closure of 60 percent or greater, trees with large crowns, multiple canopy layers, snags and down wood. However, southwest Oregon NRF

Wagner Anderson Project 1-3 Environmental Assessment habitat varies greatly and one or more of these habitat components might be lacking or even absent.

Dispersal-only habitat for spotted owls is defined as stands that typically have a canopy closure of 40 percent or greater, and are open enough for flight and predator avoidance, but do not meet the habitat criteria of NRF habitat. Dispersal-only habitat is used throughout this document to refer to habitat that does not meet the criteria of NRF (nesting, roosting, or foraging) habitat, but has adequate cover to facilitate movement between blocks of suitable NRF habitat.

3. Provide a transportation (road) system within the Wagner Anderson project area that provides access for the management of resource program areas (RMP p. 86) including timber resources and rural interface areas, while reducing their effects on water, soils, fish, and wildlife.

Existing road conditions and road treatment objectives The Medford District RMP provides direction for road management to “Develop and maintain a transportation system that serve the needs of users in an environmentally sound manner” (RMP p. 84). Roads throughout the project area are in need of maintenance to restore or improve road surfaces, cross drains, and roadside drainage ditches in order to reduce road related erosion and sedimentation to stream courses .

Road construction, renovation, decommissioning, and maintenance are designed for the Wagner Anderson Project to improve road access to areas in need of forest management and to maintain roads to reduce road related erosion and sedimentation to stream courses.

D. DECISION FRAMEWORK

This Environmental Assessment will provide the information needed for the authorized officer, the Ashland Resource Area Field Manager, to select a course of action to be implemented for the Wagner Anderson project. The Ashland Resource Area Field Manager must decide whether to implement the Proposed Action as designed, make alterations to the action alternative, or whether to select the no-action alternative. The decision will also include a determination whether or not the impacts of the proposed action are significant to the human environment. If the impacts are determined to be within the range of impacts described in the Medford District Resource Management Plan/EIS (USDI 1994) and the Northwest Forest Plan SEIS (USDA/USDI 1994), or otherwise determined to be insignificant, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be issued and a decision implemented. If this EA determines that the significance of impacts are unknown or greater than those previously analyzed and disclosed in the RMP/EIS and the NWFP SEIS, then a project specific EIS must be prepared.

The forthcoming decision record will document the authorized officer’s rationale for selecting a course of action based on the effects documented in the EA, and the extent to which each alternative:

1. Contributes towards the Districts Allowable Sale Quantity.

The Wagner Anderson Project is located on BLM-administered lands allocated to produce a sustainable supply of timber. Timber products removed to meet Timber Resource Objectives (ROD/RMP p.17, 72-73) would contribute towards the District’s Allowable Sale Quantity.

Wagner Anderson Project 1-4 Environmental Assessment 2. Addresses the costs for managing the lands in the project area (economically practical).

The RMP directs that all silvicultural systems (forest thinning strategies) applied to achieve forest stand objectives would be economically practical (RMP p. 180; RMP/EIS p. 2-62). Helicopter yarding was eliminated as a viable economic method due to the high cost associated with helicopter yarding , low volume associated with light thinning, and current economic conditions affecting the value of the timber removed (see Chapter 2, Alternatives.

3. Meets the BLM’s obligation to protect resources consistent with existing laws, policy, and the direction of the 1995 Medford District Resource Management Plan.

The relevant issues listed below (Scoping and Issues) provide the necessary framework for assessing the merits and the consequences to the physical, biological, human environment of implementing the Wagner Anderson proposed action or alternative (No-Action). The Section titled Land Use Conformance and Legal Requirements (below) provides the context for determining the project’s consistency and conformance with land use plans, agency policy, and existing laws.

E. LAND USE CONFORMANCE & LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Conformance with Land Use Plans The forest management proposal is designed to be in conformance with the 1995 Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP). The 1995 Medford District Resource Management Plan incorporated the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and the Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) (USDA and USDI 1994). The 1995 Medford District Resource Management Plan was later amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.

On July 25, 2007, the Record of Decision To Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl amended the 1995 Medford District Resource Management Plan by removing the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Rey, et al., No. 08-1067 (W.D. Wash.) (Coughenour, J.), granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding a variety of NEPA violations in the BLM and USFS 2007 Record of Decision eliminating the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. Judge Coughenour deferred issuing a remedy in his December 17, 2009 order until further proceedings, and did not enjoin the BLM from proceeding with projects (including timber sales).

This project may proceed even if the District Court sets aside or otherwise enjoins use of the 2007 Survey and Manage Record of Decision. This is because this meets the provisions of the last valid Record of Decision, specifically the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (not including subsequent Annual Species Reviews).

Wagner Anderson Project 1-5 Environmental Assessment

Statutes and Regulations The Proposed Action and alternatives are in conformance with the direction given for the management of public lands in the Medford District by the following:

• Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act). Requires the BLM to manage O&C lands for permanent forest production. Timber shall be sold, cut, and removed in accordance with sustained-yield principles for the purpose of providing for a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Defines BLM’s organization and provides the basic policy guidance for BLM’s management of public lands.

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires the preparation of environmental impact statements for major Federal actions which may have a significant effect on the environment.

• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Directs Federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize species listed as “threatened or endangered” or adversely modify designated critical habitat for these listed species.

• Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA). Provides the principal framework for national, state, and local efforts to protect air quality.

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). Protects archaeological resources and sites on federally-administered lands. Imposes criminal and civil penalties for removing archaeological items from federal lands without a permit.

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (as amended in 1986 and 1996). Protects public health by regulating the Nation’s public drinking water supply.

• Clean Water Act of 1987 (CWA). Establishes objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water.

F. RELEVANT ASSESSMENTS & PLANS

Watershed Analysis (USDI 1995) Watershed Analysis is a procedure used to characterize conditions, processes, and functions related to human, aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial features within a watershed. Watershed analyses are issue driven. Analysis teams of resource specialists identify and describe ecological processes of greatest concern in a particular “fifth field” watershed and recommend restoration activities and conditions under which other management activities should occur. Watershed analysis is not a decision making process. Rather, watershed analysis provides information and non-binding recommendations for agencies to establish the context for subsequent planning, project development, regulatory compliance and agency decisions (See Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis 1995 p. 1).

Wagner Anderson Project 1-6 Environmental Assessment The Wagner Anderson project area falls within the West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis Area. The watershed analysis focused on the use of existing information available at the time the analysis was conducted, and provides baseline information. Additional information, determined to be necessary for completing an analysis of the Wagner Anderson Project, has been collected and is considered along with existing information provided by the 1995 West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis. Management Objectives and Recommendations provided by the watershed analysis were considered and addressed as they applied to the Wagner Anderson proposal.

West Bear Creek Water Quality Restoration Plan (August 2006) The BLM is recognized by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as a Designated Management Agency for implementing the Clean Water Act on BLM-administered lands in Oregon. The BLM has signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DEQ that defines the process by which the BLM will cooperatively meet State and Federal water quality rules and regulations.

To comply with the BLM-DEQ Memorandum of Agreement, the BLM completed the Water Quality Restoration Plan for the West Bear Creek Watershed. This document describes how the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will meet Oregon water quality standards for 303(d) listed streams on BLM- administered lands within the West Bear Creek Watershed. The organization of this Water Quality Restoration Plan is designed to be consistent with the DEQ's Rogue Basin Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) when it is completed, and contains information that will support the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) development of the Rogue Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). A TMDL defines the amount of pollution that can be present in the waterbody without causing water quality standards to be violated. DEQ anticipates the establishment of the Rogue Basin TMDL by late 2007.

A WQMP is developed to describe a strategy for reducing water pollution to the level of the load allocations and waste load allocations prescribed in the TMDL. The approach is designed to restore the water quality and result in compliance with the water quality standards, thus protecting the designated beneficial uses of waters of the state. Through implementation of the RMP, Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and Best Management Practices, the proposed action is designed to attain the recovery goals for listed streams on federal lands in the West Bear Creek Key Watershed. Recovery goals are identified in the Water Quality Restoration Plan for the West Bear Creek Watershed (USDI BLM 2006). The proposed action and alternatives draw upon the passive and active restoration management actions recommended for achieving federal recovery goals. Following the WQRP for the West Bear Creek Watershed assures that BLM’s management in the interim, between listing of the stream as water quality limited and the establishment of TMDL for the stream, will not violate the Clean Water Act.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Districts, Transportation Management Plan (1996, updated 2002).

This transportation management plan, is not a decision document, rather it provides guidance for implementing applicable decisions of the Medford District Resource Management Plan (which incorporated the Northwest Forest Plan).

Southwest Oregon Fire Management Plan The Southwest Oregon Fire Management Plan (FMP) provides Southwest Oregon with an integrated concept in coordinated wildland fire planning and protection among Federal, State, local government entities and citizen initiatives.

Wagner Anderson Project 1-7 Environmental Assessment The FMP introduces fire management concepts addressing fire management activities in relation to resource objectives stated in the current Land and Resource Plans (parent documents) of the federal agencies, the laws and statutes that guide the state agencies and private protective associations, and serve as a vehicle for local agencies and cooperators to more fully coordinate their participation in relation to those activities.

Medford District Integrated Weed Management Plan of 1998 The Medford District Integrated Weed Management Plan provides a proactive ecosystem-based approach to reduce populations of alien plant species to a level which will allow for the restoration of native plant species, and provide for overall ecosystem health.

G. SCOPING & ISSUES

Scoping is the name for the process used to determine the scope of the environmental analysis to be conducted. It is used early in the NEPA process to identify (1) the issues to be addressed, (2) the depth of the analysis, and (3) potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.

Scoping has occurred for the Wagner Anderson Project. The Wagner Anderson project appeared in the Ashland Resource Area’s Schedule of Proposed Actions published in Medford’s Messenger (BLM’s quarterly newsletter) beginning with the summer 2008 edition. On October 23, 2009 public scoping letters were sent to adjacent land owners and other individuals, organizations, community groups, agencies, and tribes expressing interest in Ashland Resource Area projects. The letter described the purpose and need for the proposed action and included a detailed description and map of the forest management activities proposed. Several letters of comment and/or interest were received by the BLM in response to this public outreach.

An interdisciplinary (ID) team of resource specialists reviewed the proposal and all pertinent information, including public input received, and identified relevant issues to be addressed during the environmental analysis. Some issues identified as relevant to this project proposal were analyzed in association with broader level environmental analyses. Where appropriate, this EA will incorporate by reference the analysis from broader level NEPA documents (40 CFR §1508.28), to be considered along with project specific analysis. The issues listed below were identified as relevant to this project proposal.

• Logging (particularly tractor yarding) and road construction could increase soil compaction, and alter hydrologic flow, including peak flow and low flow.

• There is potential for adverse effects to water quality from increased sediment produced from disturbance associated with road construction, road renovation, log hauling activities, and tractor yarding. Sedimentation is identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) as a parameter of concern for Wagner Creek.

• There could be short-term increases in sediment from roadbed and drainage ditch disturbance associated with road maintenance activities.

• Proposed tractor logging and road construction may cause soil compaction, displacement, and reduced site productivity.

• Some people expressed their concerns that new road construction would lead to increased access for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) potentially increasing impacts to soils, water quality, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat.

Wagner Anderson Project 1-8 Environmental Assessment

• The effects of timber harvest and road construction, when combined with other past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on public and private lands, could potentially contribute to adverse cumulative effects to soils, water quality, hydrologic function, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

• Increased sedimentation to streams from the implementation of the project proposal could potentially impact aquatic habitat and fish, including threatened and sensitive fish species.

• Timber harvest and road construction has the potential to affect northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat.

• There is potential for the project to affect forest stands identified by the 2008 Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan as stands that should be protected under Recovery Action #32.

• Timber harvest, including the treatment of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe infected trees, could reduce the complexity of forest structure including vertical and horizontal diversity, snags, and downed wood that provides habitat for variety of wildlife species.

• Some commenters expressed their concerns for maintenance of old-growth forest and all large diameter trees.

• The high costs associated with handling large amounts of small diameter commercial material could affect the overall economic feasibility of project implementation.

• Timber harvest and road construction activities have the potential to affect Bureau Special Status vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi.

• Forest management and logging can increase the risk of introduction and spread of noxious weeds.

• Timber harvesting would increase surface fuels over the short-term (6 months to 2 years) in stands treated. Some people expressed their concern that logging slash be treated in a timely manner to mitigate fire hazard.

• Fuels management activities generate particulate pollutants (smoke) in the process of treating natural and activity related fuels. Smoke from prescribed fire has the potential to effect air quality within the project area and surrounding areas.

• Some nearby landowners were concerned about the potential for increased traffic (including log trucks) on area roads.

• Concerns were expressed by the public that new road construction could increase fire risk by increasing vehicle access (including off-highway vehicle use) to areas previously inaccessible by road.

Wagner Anderson Project 1-9 Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2. THE PROPOSED ACTION & THE ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the Proposed Action alternative developed by the ID Team to achieve the objectives and to respond to the decision factors identified in the Purpose and Need statement in Chapter 1. In addition, a “No-action ” Alternative is presented to form a base line for analysis. Project design features (PDFs), which apply the Best Management Practices as described in Appendix D of the RMP, are an essential part of the Proposed Action. The PDFs are included as features of the action alternatives in the analysis of anticipated environmental impacts.

A. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL

1. Alternative 1 - No-action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative describes a baseline against which the effects of the action alternative can be compared. This alternative describes the existing conditions and the continuing trends, given the effects of other present actions and reasonably foreseeable actions identified, for the time periods relevant to the resource issues of concern. Under the No-Action Alternative, no vegetation management projects would be implemented, there would be no commercial cutting of trees, no temporary routes or new road construction would occur, and no roads would be maintained or renovated in association with this project proposal. The analysis of this No-Action Alternative answers the question: What would happen if BLM did not do this project?

Only normal programmed road maintenance would be performed. Selection of the No-Action Alternative would not constitute a decision to reallocate these lands to non-commodity uses. The decision maker does not need to make a specific decision to select the “No-Action” Alternative. If that is the choice, the proposed action would simply be dropped and the decision process aborted.

2. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, is described below. The first section provides a summary of the proposed action. The following sections describe proposed mitigation, a summary of the silvicultural prescriptions, a description of commercial harvest methods, a description of fuels reduction treatments, a table of proposed road use and improvements, and required project design features.

a. Summary of the Proposed Action

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, was developed to achieve the objectives described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would treat about 247acres of forest stands using the various silvicultural prescriptions and treatment methods as described in Summary of Silvicultural Prescriptions below. Of the approximately 247 acres proposed for commercial timber harvest, an estimated 77 acres are proposed for ground based (tractor) yarding, and 170 acres are proposed for cable yarding. Generally, yarding operations would utilize existing landing areas where available. Cable yarding landings are usually accommodated within the existing road prism. About 5 new landing areas, around ¼ acre in size, would be needed to accommodate yarding operations.

Post harvest fuels reduction treatments would reduce high fuel loadings created by timber harvest (activity fuels). Treatment of activity fuels is usually accomplished by handpiling debris and covering with plastic, and pile burning or by underburning. Biomass utilization may also be used to reduce hazardous fuels. Follow-up maintenance underburning is often used 2 to 5 years following initial fuels reduction treatments. Post-harvest evaluations are used to determine the level of fuels treatment and combinations of fuels methods needed to mitigate fuel loads. Non-commercial surface and ladder fuels

Wagner Anderson Project 2-1 Environmental Assessment

would be treated in addition to activity fuels to reduce hazardous fuels in units 22-3, 23-8, 23-9, 14-1, 14- 2, 14-4, 14-5, 14-6, 14-7, and 14-9.

An estimated 14 miles of existing BLM and private roads would be utilized and maintained for access to timber sale units and for hauling. Maintenance would be completed as needed on these roads to ensure adequate water drainage, to maintain the road surface to ensure the protection of infrastructure investments, and to maintain watershed conditions. Road maintenance work may involve spot rocking, cleaning ditches and culvert basins, and installing water dips. Table 2-2 provides a detailed road-by-road listing of proposed road work.

Two segments of new permanent road, totaling approximately 1,000 feet in length would be constructed under the Wagner Anderson project. The first segment would provide a new approach at the entrance of the 39-1-14.2 road to accommodate access for log trucks and yarding equipment. The existing entrance to the 39-1-14.2 road (about 100 feet), which is too sharp of an angle for logging trucks or trucks hauling equipment to navigate from the 39-1-14.0 road to the 14.2 road, would be decommissioned. The second spur road (39-1-23.4) would be constructed to access Unit 23-8.

One temporary operator spur of about 200 feet (spur 31-9-23.5) would be constructed to minimum standards for access to unit 23-7. This spur would be blocked and water-barred following completion of operations.

Approximately 0.8 miles of road 39-1-14.2 would be reconstructed and about 350 feet of road 39-1-23.2 would be renovated (graded and rocked). Road renovation/reconstruction would include measures such as, minor vegetation removal, road grading, adding rock, cleaning or adding drainage structures, and widening corners and road widths as needed to accommodate trucks and equipment needed for timber harvesting. Roads would be closed (gated or barricaded) following operations.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-2 Environmental Assessment

Table 2-1. Alternative 2 – Commercial Harvest Units by Silvicultural Prescription, Yarding System, and Fuels Treatments1

Unit # Acre Yarding Habitat Vegetation Type Fuels Treatment System Maintenance Prescription 7-5 9 cable NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 14-1 17 cable NRF Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 14-2 4 tractor NRF Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 14-3 14 cable NRF Dry Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 14-4 3 cable Dispersal Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 14-5 3 tractor Dispersal Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 14-6 14 tractor Dispersal Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 14-7 6 cable Dispersal Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 14-9 8 tractor NRF Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 17-1 21 cable NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 18-1 24 cable NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 22-1 23 cable NRF Dry Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 22-3 8 cable Dispersal Dry Douglas-fir HFT , HP/MB/UB 22-5 14 cable NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 23-7 16 tractor NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 23-8 15 tractor NRF Pine Site HFT , HP/MB/UB 23-9 17 tractor NRF Pine Site HFT , HP/MB/UB 27-1A 11 cable NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 27-1B 15 cable Dispersal Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 27-2 2 cable NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB 27-4 3 downhill cable NRF Moist Douglas-fir HP/MB/UB Total 247

NRF - Nesting Roosting Foraging HP – Handpile, cover&burn MB- Maintenance underburn UB-Underburn HFT-non-commercial surface & ladder Hazardous Fuels Treatment

1 Unit acres reported in this table are based on Geographic Information System (GIS) data and rounded to nearest whole acre; unit acres may differ from those reported in individual timber sale contracts/prospectuses due to application differences and accuracy of electronic mapping software. Total acres may vary slightly from other tables displayed throughout the analysis file due to methods used for rounding data outputs. The acreage differences that may be detected are within less than (+-)1% of the total project acreage analyzed and would not contribute to any differences in effects reported. Wagner Anderson Project 2-3 Environmental Assessment

Table 2-2. Alternative 2 Road Use and Improvements

Proposed Action Alternative: Existing roads to be used in the project area. Road Number Approximate Existing Control2 Improvements Seasonal Length Surface: Restriction3 (miles) Depth (inches) Log hauling and Type1 38-2-24.0 H-J 1.4 6 ASC BLM 1 39-1-14.0 A-F 0.9 4 ASC PVT 1 39-1-14.2 0.8 NAT BLM Widen road 3 feet 2 Widen curves Install culvert Gate 39-1-14.4 A 1.2 NAT PVT 1 39-1-17.0 0.6 NAT BLM 1 39-1-18.0 E-F2 2.9 8 ABC BLM 1 39-1-21.1 0.2 NAT BLM 1 39-1-21.2 A1-A2 1.5 4 ASC BLM 1 39-1-21.2 A3 0.1 NAT BLM 1 39-1-21.2 B 0.1 NAT BLM 1 39-1-21.3 A1 0.7 6ASC BLM 1 39-1-21.3 A2-B 1.5 NAT BLM 1 39-1-22.1 A-B 1.3 4 ASC BLM 1 39-1-23.2 0.6 NAT PVT Rock about 350 feet 1 Barricades 39-1-23.3 0.2 NAT PVT 1

Total mileage 14

Proposed Road Construction in the Project Area. 39-1-14.2 580 ft. NAT BLM New permanent 1 construction Decommission 100’ 39-1-23.4 500 ft NAT BLM New permanent 2 construction Entrance blocked 39-1-23.5 200 ft. NAT BLM Temporary 1 construction

Notations: 1 NAT = natural, GRR = Grid Rolled Rock, PRR = Pit Run Rock, ASC = Aggregate Surface Course, ABC = Aggregate Base Course 2 BLM = Bureau of Land Management, PVT = Private 3 1 = hauling restricted between 10/15 and 5/15 2 = hauling restricted between 10/15 and 6/15

Wagner Anderson Project 2-4 Environmental Assessment

Wagner Anderson Project 2-5 Environmental Assessment

Wagner Anderson Project 2-6 Environmental Assessment

Wagner Anderson Project 2-7 Environmental Assessment

b. Summary of Silvicultural Prescriptions

The objectives for forest thinning are to: 1) Reduce stand basal area to increase tree growth, quality, and vigor of the remaining trees while maintaining owl habitat, and 2) create diversified stand structure (height, age, and diameter classes) and old-growth stand characteristics.

Trees are marked for thinning within proposed treatment units by BLM personnel, with oversight from the Ashland Resource Area’s silviculturist and wildlife biologist, to ensure that treatment units are marked according to the silvicultural prescriptions.

The following general guideance applies to all prescription types: Strive to create diverse vertical and horizontal stand structure by leaving trees of all crown classes with crown ratios of ≥ 30 percent. Strive for stand diversity in regard to diameter classes, species compostion, tree heights (crown classes), trees per acre, and the vigor of individual trees. Some diseased, forked-top trees, and dying and dead trees should remain. Favor leaving sugar pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, and Douglas-fir, respectively.

Avoid the harvest of old-growth trees. We define old-growth trees to have the following characteristics:

 Larger and older than the second growth trees in the present day stand; an indication that the tree maybe one of the seed trees of the present day stand. These trees have a bottle-brush shape (non- symmetrical crown).

 Large diameter limbs indicating that the tree was once open grown and had a large crown. Limbs (live or dead) are usually heavy and gnarled, are covered with mosses and lichens, and are close to the ground.

 Douglas-fir will have thick bark with deep fissures and have a chocolate brown color. Second growth trees have more gray color in the bark. Ponderosa pines will have thick bark, plate-like and yellow orange in color.

Mark trees around singly spaced old-growth trees to create a ≤ 25-foot crown spacing. Do not mark trees that are associated with the old-growth trees and create a unique type of stand structure or wildlife habitat.

Reserve trees with bird nests, wildlife cavities, wide forks with flat nesting spots, or loose bark (bat roosts).

In general, mark suppressed, intermediate, and some codominant crown class trees with live crown ratios of less than 30%, trees lacking branches on one or more sides of the bole that are not conical in shape, dying trees with pitch tubes, trees with fungus conks, and trees with broken or forked tops.

Along major ridge-tops where high winds can become prevalent, a closely spaced crown layer (10 to 15- foot crown spacing) for 2 tree lengths downhill or a maximum of 200-feet downhill from the ridge-top will be maintained to minimize blowdown. This shall occur in commercial stands along the major ridgelines within T39S-R1W-Sec.17, 18 and 27 which range in elevation from 4,400 to 5,600 feet.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-8 Environmental Assessment

Northern Spotted Owl Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat Thinning

Silvicultural strategies include the use of selective thinning, limited group selection openings for the maintenance of pine, and limited Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe treatments. To encourage the maintenance and establishment of fire resilient species, favor leaving sugar pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, and Douglas-fir, respectively.

Selective Thinning: Thin forest stands to leave 180 to 200 ft2 basal area per acres (BA/AC) of trees greater or equal to 8 inches diameter breast height (DBH) (average 180 BA/AC including hardwoods). Basal area per acre is one measurement used to describe forest stand densities. Stand basal area is the cross sectional area at breast height of all stems in the stand per unit of measure.

Where Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is encountered, only heavily infected trees will be marked first in order to meet basal area guidelines. To the extent possible leave uninfected or the least infected trees (DMR Ratings 1-2, Appendix A) with infections confined to the lower third of the tree.

Groups of pine trees would be thinned to a 15 to 20 foot crown spacing (outside of group selection areas), clumps of other tree species should be marked to a 3 to 10 foot crown spacing.

Group Selection Openings: Where dominant legacy candidate poderosa, sugar pine, or incense cedar trees (≥ 18 inches DBH) are encountered, remove codominant, intermediate, and suppressed conifers from below the dominant legacy trees. Create 1/5- acre openings (53 ft. radius or 105 ft. diameter) and no more than ¼-acre (59 ft. radius or 118 ft. diameter) in size for old growth pine.

Legacy candidate species should be centered in the 1/5-acre circular openings but can vary in shape on steep slopes (marking trees primarily on the downhill side) or on south facing aspects (marking trees primarily on the south facing side). In these cases the radius can be greater than 53 ft. on those sides of the opening to stimulate the best regeneration opportunity - provided the openings remain roughly circular and less than 105 ft. in diameter.

In cases with more than one nearby healthy pine candidate, release the tree on the south facing side. Group Selection Opening edges would spaced at least 350 feet apart (measured from the outside edge of the next Group Selection or Mistletoe opening).

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe Group Openings: Areas that are heavily infected with Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (DMR 3-6, see Illustration) would be treated with mistletoe group openings. Remove heavily infected groups, not to exceed ¼ acre (59 foot radius) in size with group openings no closer than 350 feet (measured from outer edges of the openings). Because dwarf mistletoe seeds spread downhill, where high concentrations of mistletoe are found, create group openings beginning on the uphill edge of heavily infested areas then work downhill. The distance between Group Selection or Mistletoe openings must remain 350 ft. from edge to edge. Mistletoe Openings supersede Group Selection Openings. Leave any resistant species such as ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and incense cedar in mistletoe opening areas.

In between mistletoe openings, thin trees to a 15-foot crown spacing leaving resistant species where they occur. Leave uninfected trees to no more than 15-foot crown spacing. In areas of 100 percent infection, infected trees with the lowest DMR ratings would be Wagner Anderson Project 2-9 Environmental Assessment

left to meet basal area requirements. Infected old-growth trees and all trees 34 inches DBH and larger with a DMR rating of 1 and 2 may remain.

Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal Habitat Thinning

Select mark by Prescription below. Create Group Openings for ≥ 18 inches DBH Sugar Pine or Ponderosa Pine and Mistletoe Openings for pockets of heavy infection. Do not to exceed 1/4 acre in size for either opening the distance between openings must be equal or greater than 350 feet between the edges of openings.

Mistletoe Openings supersede Group Selection Openings. Target heavily infected (DMR 3-6 – see fig. 2-1) tree groups for removal. Remove the infected group, not to exceed ¼ acre (59 ft. radius) in size. Infected old-growth trees and all trees 34 inches DBH and larger with a DMR rating of 1 and 2 may remain. Leave all non-host species.

Dry Douglas-fir Forest Thinning: Leave 80 to 100 ft2 BA/AC of conifer species. Group selection areas on dry Douglas-fir sites can range in size from 1/5 to 1/4 acre (53 to 59-foot radius). Old-growth pines should be located in the center of 1/4-acre group selection areas. When suitable pine seed trees are found on ridge-tops deemed prone to wind damage, decrease the size of the group selection areas to 1/5 acre in size and leave 100 ft2 BA/AC around the opening if available.

Vary the position of pine seed trees in the group selection areas to provide shade for regeneration. Leave 80 ft2 BA/AC around the group selection areas, the width of this area being the average tree height of the stand. Space group selection areas 350 ft apart.

Clumps of trees should be marked to a 10 to 25-foot crown spacing. On dry ridges and sites in the PSME/RHDI (poison oak) plant association, especially where manzanita is found, leave no more than 80 ft2 BA/AC. Favor leaving sugar pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, and Douglas-fir, respectively.

Moist Douglas-fir Forest Thinning: Leave 120 to 160, average 140 ft2 BA/AC (north slopes when dwarf Oregon grape is present). Group selection areas on moist sites should range in size from 1/7 to 1/6 acre (45 to 48 foot radius).

To release Ponderosa and sugar pine, thin from the crowns of these trees to leave 3 to 15 ft. crown spacing. To release large diameter or old growth Ponderosa or sugar pine legacy trees, create a group selection opening of 1/5 acre (53 ft from bole).

Mixed Conifer Forest Stand Thinning: Species composition of the forest must be considered as well as individual tree physiology. A minimum of 20 percent early seral species should be maintained in the Mixed Conifer Zone as described by Franklin and Dyrness (1973). Therefore, selection of treatment trees will be based on 1) species; 2) dominance of the selected treatment trees; 3) age class or diameter (no set diameter limit since the creation of vertical structure is desired); and 4) individual tree characteristics.

Favor leaving suitable sugar pine, Douglas-fir, incense cedar, and ponderosa pine (disease free, non-chlorotic, sugar pine, Douglas-fir, incense cedar, and ponderosa pine with crown ratios ≥ 30%) over white fir. Leave 140-160 ft2 BA/AC. To release Ponderosa and sugar pine, thin from the crowns of these trees to leave 3 to 15 ft. crown spacing. To release large diameter or old growth ponderosa or sugar pine legacy trees, create a group selection opening of 1/5 acre (53 ft from bole).

Wagner Anderson Project 2-10 Environmental Assessment

Pine Site Thinning: The objectives for harvest are as follows: 1) Reduce the stand basal area to increase tree growth, quality and vigor; 2) Create openings large enough for ponderosa pine to become established (preserve existing genotypes which are physiologically better adapted to droughty sites); 3) Create diversified stand structure (height, age, and diameter classes).

These sites are typically small in size and found on dry ridges and low elevations with large amounts of Douglas-fir and some conifer tree mortality. Due to fire exclusion the stands have become overstocked with all condition classes of vegetation. Leave 80-100 ft² BA/AC of the largest healthiest species. The following vegetation must be present to transition into a Pine Prescription: ponderosa pine, black or white oak, and whiteleaf manzanita (alive or dead in the understory). Poison oak may or may not be present.

Leave exceptional hardwoods (oak trees 10 inches DBH and larger, madrone trees 16 inches DBH and larger with full live crown ratios of 30% or greater). Leave the most vigorous trees with the best live crown ratios (≥ 30%), straight boles, and conical shaped crowns, although at least 1 forked tree/acre and 1 dead tree/acre should remain if available. Leave all codominant and dominant pine that meet the leave descriptions above.

Figure 2-1. Dwarf Mistletoe Rating System. Source: The American Phytopathological Society, 2006.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-11 Environmental Assessment

c. Description of Commercial Harvest Methods

Trees designated for removal as a result of application of the forest stand prescriptions described above would be moved from forest stands to landing areas using tractor or cable yarding methods.

Tractor yarding utilizes tractors or skidders equipped with integral arches to achieve one end log suspension during log skidding, and a minimum of 75 feet of winch line to drag trees to landing locations. Tractor yarding would occur on slopes less than 35 percent; however, tractor operations on short pitches greater than 35 percent would be permissible if necessary. This method requires narrow skid trails (about 9 to 12 feet wide). Skid trail locations are approximately 150 feet apart, but vary depending on the site- specific terrain, and are pre-located and approved by the BLM sale administrator. Existing skid trails would be re-used where possible. Use of existing skid trails reduces the area of new ground a tractor operates on, thus, minimizing soil disturbance. Skid trails would be waterbarred after use, within the same operating season, according to BLM specifications. Main skid trails would be blocked where they intersect haul roads.

Cable yarding utilizes cable yarders to drag trees with one end suspended up the slope to a landing area on or near a road. This requires narrow cable corridors about every 150 to 200 feet through the treatment unit. Corridors are about 9 to 15 feet wide, depending on the size of trees to be removed and the terrain, and are pre-located and approved by the BLM. Trees removed are end-lined (dragged) to the corridor requiring minimum 75 foot lateral capability. d. Description of Fuels Reduction Treatments

Although fuels reduction is not the primary purpose for stand treatments proposed, fuels reduction is an important component and project design feature incorporated into the proposed action. Small diameter slash (generally 3 inches diameter and less) created from forest thinning (activity slash) would be cut, handpiled, and covered with plastic following completion of timber harvest operations. Pile burning is usually completed within 6 months to 2 years of timber harvesting depending on the time of year the harvest occurred; slash needs a period of time to cure before burning can take place. Additionally, small diameter non-commercial surface and ladder fuels would be cut, hand piled, and burned along with activity fuels in units # 22-3, 23-8, 23-9, 14-1, 14-2, 14-4, 14-5, 14-6, 14-7, and 14-9.

Follow-up maintenance underburning may take place within 5 years following initial treatments. Underburning involves the controlled application of fire to understory vegetation and downed woody material when fuel moisture, soil moisture, and weather and atmospheric conditions allow for the fire to be confined to a predetermined area at a prescribed intensity to achieve the planned resource objectives. Prescribed underburning usually occurs during late winter to spring when soil and duff moisture conditions are sufficient to retain the required amounts of duff, large woody material, and to reduce soil heating. Occasionally, these conditions can be met during the fall season.

Each of the foregoing fuels reduction treatments may be used stand alone or in combination. Post harvest evaluations would determine the extent and method of treatments needed (hand pile and burning, and/or underburning).

Wagner Anderson Project 2-12 Environmental Assessment e. Project Design Features

Project Design Features (PDFs) are an integral part of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). PDFs include seasonal restrictions on many activities in order to minimize erosion and reduce disturbance to wildlife. PDFs also outline protective buffers for sensitive species, mandate the retention of snags, and delineate many measures for protecting Riparian Reserves throughout the project. Most PDFs reflect and include Best Management Practices and standard operating procedures.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the maximum extent practicable and are considered the primary mechanisms to achieve Oregon Water Quality standards. Implementation of PDFs in addition to establishment of Riparian Reserves would equal or exceed Oregon State Forest Practice Rules. A review of forest management impacts on water quality concluded that the use of BMPs in forest operations was generally effective in avoiding significant water quality problems, however the report noted that proper implementation of BMPs was essential to minimizing non-point source pollution (Kattelmann 1996). BMPs would be monitored and, where necessary, modified to ensure compliance with Oregon Water Quality Standards. The PDFs listed below apply to the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).

1) Application of Riparian Reserves

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Riparian Reserves, as incorporated by the Medford District RMP, are located on federal lands in the vicinity of the project area. A BLM stream survey crew conducted surveys within the Wagner Anderson project area in order to ensure that all areas needing Riparian Reserve protection were identified. The survey crew assessed stream conditions, documented the location of wetland and unstable areas, and determined whether stream channels were perennial, intermittent, or dry draws (USDA and USDI 1994:C30-C31). Stream maps were updated with the new information. Riparian Reserves are excluded from commercial treatment units by clearly marking unit boundaries on the ground.

Riparian Reserve widths were determined site-specifically using the NWFP Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 1994:C-30-31). Site specific widths for each Riparian Reserve have been mapped in GIS and would be implemented under the Proposed Action Alternative. Riparian Reserve widths in the Wagner Anderson project area are as follows: • Fish-bearing streams: 320 feet slope distance on each side of the stream. • Perennial nonfish-bearing streams: 160 feet slope distance on each side of the stream. • Intermittent nonfish-bearing streams: 160 feet slope distance on each side of the stream. Intermittent streams have a defined channel, annual scour and deposition, and are further described as short duration or long duration: Short Duration Intermittent: A stream that flows only during storm or heavy precipitation events. These streams can also be described as ephemeral streams. Long-duration intermittent stream: A stream that flows seasonally, usually drying up during the summer. • Unstable and potentially unstable ground: the extent of the unstable and potentially unstable areas. • Springs, seeps and other non-stream wetlands less than one acre in size, the wetland and the area from the edges of the wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation. For this project, a buffer of 100 feet is being implemented to meet this requirement.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-13 Environmental Assessment

2) Applicable Harvest and Yarding PDFs

Objective 1: Protect Riparian Reserves • No commercial harvest in Riparian Reserves (BMP). • No use of skid trails in Riparian Reserves (BMP). • Trees would be directionally felled away from Riparian Reserves (BMP).

Objective 2: Prevent Offsite Soil Erosion and Soil Productivity Loss • When operationally feasible, all units would be yarded in such a way that the coarse woody material remaining after logging would be maintained at or greater than current levels in order to protect the soil surface and maintain soil productivity (BMP). • Wherever trees are cut to be removed, directional felling away from dry draws would be practiced. Trees would be felled to the lead in relation to skid trails. • All tractor skid trail locations would be approved by the BLM Contract Administrator prior to the felling of trees tributary to the skid trails. Maximum area in skid trails used would be less than 12% of the harvest unit. Existing skid trails would be utilized when possible. Tractors would be equipped with integral arches to obtain one end log suspension during log skidding. Skid trail locations would avoid ground with slopes over 35 percent and areas with high water tables, although tractor operations would be permitted on short pitches greater than 35 percent. The intent is to minimize areas affected by tractors and other mechanical equipment (disturbance, particle displacement, deflection, and compaction) and thus minimize soil productivity loss (BMP). • All skid trails would be waterbarred according to BLM standards. Main tractor skid trails would be blocked with an approved barricade where they intersect haul roads. The intent is to minimize soil erosion and routing of overland flow to streams by decreasing disturbance (e.g. unauthorized use by OHVs) (BMP). • Tractor yarding on designated skid trails would occur between May 15 to October 15 or on approval by the Contract Administrator. Some variations in these dates would be permitted dependent upon weather and soil moisture conditions. Skid roads would not be permitted up or down draws. • For cable yarding, one-end suspension would be required minimum corridor widths (generally less than 15 feet in width) would be utilized to reduce soil productivity loss and residual canopy loss. • Yarding corridors that have displaced soil or channels which may carry water would be hand waterbarred as directed by a contract administrator. • Cable corridors would not be located up or down draws, and would be kept to a maximum of two per landing and generally perpendicular to the slope, as operationally feasible and as permitted by the contract administrator. • The BLM would immediately shut down all timber harvest and yarding operations if excessive soil damage would occur due to weather or soil moisture conditions.

3) Applicable Non-commercial Fuels Reduction & Prescribed Fire PDFs

Objective 1: Protect Riparian Reserves • With underburns, no ignition would occur within Riparian Reserves. • Fire lines would be avoided or minimized in Riparian Reserves. • No pile burning would occur in the bottom of dry draws. • Foam retardant would not be used in Riparian Reserves (BMP). • No non-commercial fuels reduction would occur within Riparian Reserves.

Objective 2: Reduce Soil Erosion and Soil Productivity Loss

Wagner Anderson Project 2-14 Environmental Assessment

• Underburns would be conducted only when a light to moderate burn can be achieved (spring-like conditions when soil and duff are moist). • Firelines for underburns would be constructed manually on all slopes greater than 35 percent. • Waterbars on tractor and hand firelines would be constructed according to District guidelines (USDI 1995:167). • Piles would be dispersed across treatment areas. • Piles would be burned when soil and duff moisture are high. • No mechanical piling allowed off of roads or landing areas. • Avoid placement of slash piles on existing trails to prevent trail braiding and widening, unless the intent is to decommission/discourage use on entire trail, then lop & scatter to camouflage trail.

4) Applicable Road and Landing Construction PDFs

Objective 1: Protect Riparian Reserves • No construction of new landings or expansion of old landings would be allowed in Riparian Reserves (BMP). • Construction/reconstruction would be allowed between June 15th and October 15 on the 39-1-23.2 road and the 39-1-14.2. Some variations in these dates would be permitted dependent upon dry weather and soil moisture conditions of the roads.

Objective 2: Reduce Soil Erosion and Soil Productivity Loss • Landing construction and road maintenance would not occur during the wet season (October 15th to May 15th) when the potential for soil erosion and water quality degradation exists. This restriction could be waived under dry conditions and a specific erosion control plan (e.g. rocking, waterbarring, seeding, mulching, barricading). All construction activities would be stopped during a rain event of 0.2 inches or more within a 24-hour period or if determined by the administrative officer that resource damage would occur if construction is not halted. If on-site information is inadequate, measurements from the nearest Remote Automated Weather Station would be used. Construction activities would not occur for at least 48 hours after rainfall has stopped and on approval by the Contract Administrator (BMP). • Bare soil due to landing construction would be stabilized prior to fall rains (BMP). • Fill slopes seeded with native or approved seed, fertilized, and mulched, except where rock occurs. • Slash would be windrowed at the base of newly-constructed fill slopes to catch sediment. • Temporary routes, also referred to as short operator spurs (100 to 500 feet), are identified and analyzed for use. If opened/constructed these temporary routes would be blocked and water- barred at the completion of log haul and within the same season as constructed/opened (BMP). Work would be done between May 15th to October 15th (BMP). • All natural surface roads would be closed during the wet season (BMP).

Objective 3: Protect Natural Discharge Patterns

• Where possible, rolling grades and outsloping would be used on road grades that are less than 8%. These design features would be used to reduce concentration of flows and minimize accumulation of water from road drainage. • Cross drain structures (culverts, water dips, waterbars) would be installed at intervals not greater than the spacing distances identified in the RMP (USDI 1995:177) for soil erosion class and road gradient. • Armored splash pads (e.g. rock material) would serve as energy dissipaters at cross drain outlets or drain dips where water is discharged onto loose material, erodible soil.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-15 Environmental Assessment

5) Applicable Hauling PDFs

Objective: Prevent Off-site Soil Erosion • No hauling would occur on natural surfaced roads during the wet season (October 15th to May 15th), except as noted below. This would protect the road from damage and decrease the potential for off-site sediment movement. Some variations in these dates would be permitted dependent upon weather and soil moisture conditions of the roads. • Hauling would be allowed between June 15th and October 15 on the 39-1-23.2 road. Some variations in these dates would be permitted dependent upon dry weather and soil moisture conditions of the roads. • Hauling would be allowed between May 15th and November 15th on roads surfaced with at least 6 inches of pit-run rock or 8 inches of crushed rock. • Dust abatement would be required. • Rock used to stabilize selected roads and landings and minimize erosion would be obtained from existing quarries or purchased.

6) Applicable Oil and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response

Objective 1: Environmental Protection and Provide for Human Health and Safety During operations described in the proposed action, the operator would be required to have a BLM- approved spill plan or other applicable contingency plan. In the event of any release of oil or hazardous substance, as defined in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-142-0005 (9)(d) and (15), into the soil, water, or air, the operator would immediately implement the site’s plan. As part of the plan, the operator would be required to have spill containment kits present on the site during operations. The operator would be required to be in compliance with OAR 629-605-0130 of the Forest Practices Act, Compliance with the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Environmental Quality. Notification, removal, transport, and disposal of oil, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes would be accomplished in accordance with OAR 340-142, Oil and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Requirements, contained in Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations.

7) Applicable Silviculture PDFs

Objective 1: Protect Residual Leave Trees • In pine series forests, where the single tree and group selection methods are used, logging slash should be handpiled outside of the driplines of individual pine trees and burned. This site preparation treatment should also be used in the areas marked for heavy Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe mortality and in areas where hardwoods may have been harvested so that early seral and mistletoe resistant species can be planted. • Prescribed burns should be performed when moisture conditions are high enough and prescription windows are at a level so that no more than 50% of the mound depth/duff layer around pine trees is consumed during burning. • No more than 25% of the pine tree live crown should be scorched for trees 8 inches DBH and larger. • Implement prescribed underburning when soil and duff moisture and weather conditions allow for low intensity burning in order to minimize tree stress and adverse effects on tree roots and foliage. • In pine site and group select treatment units, where the single tree and group selection methods are used, treat logging slash and fuel loading to prepare suitable seedbeds for reproduction. • In moist and dry Douglas-fir units where only commercial thinning is performed, logging slash would be handpiled and burned.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-16 Environmental Assessment

8) Applicable Terrestrial Wildlife PDFs

Objective 1: Avoid Disturbance Impacts to the Northern Spotted Owl • Activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road construction, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, prescribed fire, muffled blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels will not occur within specified distances (Table 2-3) of any documented or projected owl site between March 1 and June 30 (or until two weeks after the fledging period) – unless protocol surveys have determined the activity center to be not occupied, non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt. The distances may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the work location and nest sites. • The BLM has the option to extend the restricted season until September 30 during the year of harvest, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or recycle nesting attempt) if project would cause a nesting northern spotted owl to flush. (See disturbance distance). • Burning will not take place within 0.25 miles of northern spotted owl sites (documented or projected) between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) unless substantial smoke will not drift into the nest stand. • No disturbance from heavy equipment within 105 feet, and from chainsaws with 195 feet, would occur to documented owl sites suitable habitat during the critical breeding period (1 March – 30 June). • No modification to habitat would occur within 70 acre nest patches of known spotted owl sites.

Table 2-3. Harassment distances from various activities for spotted owls Activity Buffer Distance Around Owl Site Heavy Equipment (including non-blasting 105 feet quarry operations) Chain saws 195 feet Impact pile driver, jackhammer, rock drill 195 feet Small helicopter or plane 360 feet Type 1 or Type 2 helicopter 0.25 mile Blasting; 2 lbs of explosive or less 360 feet Blasting; more than 2 lbs of explosives 1 mile

Objective 2: Provide Wildlife Trees and habitat for Cavity Dependent Species • Maintain all snags, except those that need to be felled for safety reasons. Those snags felled for safety reasons would be left on-site as coarse woody material. • Maintain existing large coarse woody material (CWM) to the greatest extent possible from disturbance during treatments.

9) Applicable Botanical Resource PDFs

Objective 1: Minimize or Avoid Impacts to Special Status Plant Species • Bureau Special Status Plant species populations would be protected by seasonal restrictions and/or limitations on the dust abatement material used. Seasonal restrictions apply to all operations, including slash treatments. Logs would not be allowed to remain on the ground within the Bureau SSP sites through the seasonal restriction period. Slash piles may be constructed within seasonal restriction areas (plant sites) outside of the seasonal restriction period and may remain on the ground through the seasonal restriction period for up to one year prior to burning. • Subsequent fuels treatments (e.g. broadcast burning/ underburning) are not allowed in plant buffer areas during the seasonal restriction.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-17 Environmental Assessment

• In commercial units no timber harvest would occur within botanical buffer areas during the seasonal restriction period and trees would be directionally felled away from no treatment buffered areas.

Objective 2: Minimize Spread of Noxious Weeds • Vehicle and equipment use off of existing roads in the project area is limited to the dry or snow- covered season. • Mechanical equipment (e.g. skidders, yarders, etc.) will be power washed and cleaned of all soil and vegetative material before entering the project area. Equipment moving from a weed infested work site to or through a noninfested area will be field washed before moving. The field washing station will include a system to contain all weed waste for subsequent landfill disposal. • Seeding of native grasses and/or an approved seed mix on highly disturbed soil (e.g., landings, new road cut and fill slopes, etc.) will occur. The BLM will provide the seed. The Contractor will apply the seed to BLM specifications. • Weed populations in units and along all haul routes will be treated by BLM prior to timber sale activity. Treatments will occur as funding is available. Some roadside populations on private land may be treated with landowner permission. Monitoring and treatments will occur (by BLM) annually for a minimum of five years from the last disturbance activity and as funding is available. • Weed treatments and monitoring will occur periodically after the five year period until the weed populations are eradicated or controlled (this may include population stabilization). This activity will be performed by BLM as funding is available. • Noxious weed populations in areas proposed for quarry development will be treated prior to ground disturbance. BLM will treat proposed quarry sites on BLM managed lands. If another source is used, the Contractor will certify that the proposed source is weed-free; BLM may inspect and approve these sites prior to use. • Noxious weed populations in existing quarries and stockpiles will be treated prior to use. BLM will treat quarries/stockpiles on BLM managed lands. If another source is used, the Contractor will certify that the source is weed-free; BLM may inspect and approve these sites prior to use. f. Proposed Mitigation Measure No. 1

In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO). The Recovery Plan includes Recovery Actions, which are recommendations to guide activities that would help to further the recovery objectives for the northern spotted owl. Recovery Action 32 (RA 32) recommends maintaining “substantially all of the older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal lands outside of MOCAs” (spell out MOCA). The purpose of Recovery Action 32 is to provide refugia for northern spotted owls as they adapt to competitive pressures form an increasing population of barred owls. Using the Draft RA 32 Habitat Evaluation Methodology (version 1.3) developed jointly by the Medford Bureau of Land Management, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, and the Roseburg Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM wildlife biologists identified areas within the Wagner Anderson Project that met the intent of Recovery Action 32.

Mitigation Measure No. 1 would remove areas identified as older and more structurally complex multi- layered conifer forests, or RA 32. Table 2-4 reflects the changes to Alternative 2 that would result of removing these areas from the proposed action. As a result of no harvest in unit 17-1, road 39-1-17 would not be used for unit access or log hauling, reducing the miles of road used in the Wagner Anderson project by about 0.6 mile.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-18 Environmental Assessment

Table 2-4. Alternative 2 with Acreage Reduction due to Application of Mitigation No. 1.

Unit Total Unit Acreage Net Unit Unit Prescription No. Acres reduction due to Acres RA 32 7-5 9 0 9 NRF

14-1 17 6 11 NRF

14-2 4 0 4 NRF 14-3 14 0 14 NRF 14-4 3 0 3 Dispersal 14-5 3 0 3 Dispersal 14-6 14 0 14 Dispersal

14-7 6 0 6 Dispersal

14-9 8 0 8 NRF 17-1 21 21 0 NRF 18-1 24 3 21 NRF 22-1 23 9 14 NRF 22-3 8 0 8 Dispersal

22-5 14 10 4 NRF 23-7 16 0 16 NRF 23-8 15 0 15 NRF 23-9 17 0 17 NRF 27-1A 11 0 11 NRF 27-1B 15 0 15 Dispersal 27-2 2 0 2 NRF 27-4 3 0 3 NRF Totals 247 49 198

g. Implementation Monitoring

The majority of actions described under the alternatives are implemented through a timber sale, service, or stewardship contract. Implementation monitoring is accomplished through BLMs contract administration process. Project design features included in the project description are carried forward into contracts as required contract specifications. BLM contract administrators and inspectors monitor the daily operations of contractors to ensure that contract specifications are implemented as designed. If work is not being implemented according to contract specifications, contractors are ordered to correct any deficiencies. Timber sale contract work could be shut down if infractions of the contract are severe. The contract violations would need to be corrected before the contractor would be able to continue work or timber harvest. If contract violations are blatant, restitution could be of a monetary value of up to triple the amount of damage.

B. ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

Helicopter Logging: This alternative would have considered helicopter yarding as an option for moving trees from forest stands to landing areas.

Rationale for Elimination: This alternative would have considered thinning in an additional 150 to 200 acres of forest stands that would have been yarded by helicopter. Helicopter yarding was eliminated as a Wagner Anderson Project 2-19 Environmental Assessment

viable economic method at this time due to current economic and market conditions, the high cost of helicopter yarding, and the lower per acre volumes associated with light thinning prescriptions.

No new road construction: This alternative would have eliminated any new road construction needed to improve vehicle access for the purpose of managing forest stands.

Rationale for Elimination: The RMP directs that all silvicultural systems (forest thinning strategies) applied to achieve forest stand objectives would be economically practical (ROD/RMP p. 180; PRMP/EIS p. 2-62). The economic feasibility of forest management actions is affected by the ease of access from the forest road system. An alternative that would eliminate all new road construction would have made it uneconomical to manage some units within the project area. While road construction was not completely eliminated, new road construction was limited to about 1000 feet (<0.2 mile).

Imposed Diameter Limit: Imposing a upper diameter limit for harvesting trees was suggested by the public. This alternative would have imposed an upper diameter limit on timber harvesting trees greater than 20 inches diameter breast height (dbh). Meaning no trees would be cut and removed if they were larger than the specified diameter limit.

Rationale for Elimination: Silvicultural systems prescribed for this project are based on the existing stand structure and species composition compared to the desired stand structure and species composition and the ability, based on site characteristics (soil characteristics, elevation, aspect, etc) to achieve and maintain the desired conditions over time. There is no management basis for the use of a 20-inch diameter limit to meet the identified needs for the Wagner Anderson Project. The use of a diameter limit would arbitrarily limit the use of the silvicultural prescriptions to meet the prescribed objectives. Some examples of when the removal of trees greater than 20+ inches is required:

 When a reduction in stand density is needed to improve the growth and resiliency of the remaining trees and where insufficient smaller trees are available to decrease density to necessary levels. In other words, it may be required to harvest larger diameter classes, from below, to reach the level of density reduction required to induce the desired response.  Where the removal of a particular species is desirable in order to enhance the growth and survival of more desirable species. For example, where Douglas-fir has encroached onto sites where ponderosa pine and sugar pine are more stable in their environment. An unrestricted ability to manipulate species composition is essential to meet silvicultural objectives for desired species composition.  Where the management objective is to recruit regeneration into the stand. Openings, large enough to allow sunlight to reach the forest floor are required to promote a new generation of seedling establishment.  Where forest pathogens and insects are creating undesirable stand conditions arbitrarily imposing a diameter limit could affect BLMs ability to meet treatment objectives designed to control, reduce, or inhibit the adverse impacts of forest insects and disease, such as dwarf mistletoe and bark beetle outbreaks.  Where over-stocking has weakened trees causing imminent mortality among those trees considered large. Frequently, where density is high, drought and insects exacerbate forest decline in older stands, thus the removal of dead and dying trees is desirable. This also contributes to a reduction in surface fuel as dying limbs and tops are recruited onto the forest floor fuel bank.  Where young tree growth or the growth of shade intolerant species is being compromised by adjacent larger trees. A reduction in stand density, that includes the harvesting of larger trees, is often necessary to promote growth of a younger stand cohort.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-20 Environmental Assessment

An alternative imposing a diameter limit on harvesting trees would not be supported by management objectives, is not required by law or regulation, and would cause the project to fail to meet one or more of the stated objectives in the statement of purpose and need for the proposed action. That being said, the Wagner Anderson project, does primarily focus on the removal of small diameter trees to retain the larger healthier trees within a stand. Although some larger trees may be removed as stated above to meet desired stand densities, species composition, and disease management objectives (see Summary of Silvicultural Objectives (above).

Road Construction to Access and Harvest Units: Agency harvest and transportation planners analyzed the feasibility of building roads in T. 39 S, R. 1W, Sections 11 and 23 to access and harvest approximately 180 acres.

Rationale for Elimination: The requirement to maintain 60% canopy cover in nesting roosting and foraging habitat could not be met if roads were constructed. The roads and therefore the units were dropped from detailed analysis under the proposed action alternative.

Increased Level of Forest Thinning: Increased level of forest thinning was a considered with the intent to reduce relative densities across the forest landscape, strengthen tree vigor, and enhance biological diversity and old-growth forest structure over time.

Rationale for Elimination: By lowering stand relative densities to an optimal growth and yield forest production level, this prescription would have also reduced crown closure to a lower percentage than needed to maintain spotted owl habitat. Therefore, this action was eliminated from detailed study as it would not have met the project objectives identified in Chapter 1, the purpose and need statement.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-21 Environmental Assessment

Table 2-5. Special Status Plant Protection Table

SPECIES PROPOSED T_R_S CODE SITE NO. TREATMENT Protection RATIONALE FOR Protection

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize RX: site extends beyond unit; seasonal to avoid yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust direct damage when actively growing; thinning is abatement: BLM road unnumbered dust considered beneficial to the species. RD: no use of T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-7 CIEL 237 NRF (Unit 7-5), rd or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no RX: site extends beyond unit; seasonal to avoid T39S- operations from 7-1 to 9-15; site is on direct damage when actively growing; thinning is R1W-7 CIEL 378 NRF (Unit 7-5) bottom edge of unit. considered beneficial to the species.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize RX: site extends beyond unit; seasonal to avoid yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust direct damage when actively growing; thinning is abatement: Anderson Creek county road considered beneficial to the species. RD: no use of T39S- dust abatement limited to water, lignin, road magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-7 CIEL 8106 NRF (Unit 7-5), rd oil, or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RD: limit dust abatement: Anderson Creek T39S- county road dust abatement limited to water, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-7 CIEL 8108 rd lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RD: limit dust abatement: Anderson Creek T39S- county road dust abatement limited to water, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-7 CIEL 8109 rd lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust abatement: Anderson Creek county road RX: thinning is considered beneficial to the species. T39S- dust abatement limited to water, lignin, road RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-7 CIEL 12625 NRF (Unit 7-5), rd oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RD: limit dust abatement: Anderson Creek T39S- county road dust abatement limited to water, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-7 EUVI8 12637 rd lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-22 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES PROPOSED T_R_S CODE SITE NO. TREATMENT Protection RATIONALE FOR Protection

RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road no. 39- T39S- 1-14 dust abatement limited to water, lignin, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-14 CHFE7 12604 rd road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 25 ft buffer; RD: limit dust abatement: T39S- 14-1 (new from current BLM road no. 39-1-14 dust abatement RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-14 CHFE7 surveys) dispersal limited to water, lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize RX: site extends beyond unit; seasonal to avoid yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust direct damage when actively growing; thinning is abatement: BLM road no. 39-1-17 dust considered beneficial to the species. RD: no use of T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-17 CIEL 2570 NRF (Unit 17-1), rd or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

T39S- R1W-17 CIEL 12492 NRF (Unit 17-1) RX: No buffer. RX: protection by distance to unit.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize RX: site extends beyond unit; seasonal to avoid yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust direct damage when actively growing; thinning is abatement: BLM road no. 39-1-17 dust considered beneficial to the species. RD: no use of T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-17 CIEL 13267 NRF (Unit 17-1), rd or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize RX: site extends beyond unit; seasonal to avoid yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust direct damage when actively growing; thinning is abatement: BLM road no. 39-1-17 dust considered beneficial to the species. RD: no use of T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-17 CIEL 13269 NRF (Unit 17-1), rd or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road no. 38-2-24 dust RX: seasonal to avoid direct damage when actively T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, growing. RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-18 CIEL 12606 NRF (Unit 18-1), rd or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-23 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES PROPOSED T_R_S CODE SITE NO. TREATMENT Protection RATIONALE FOR Protection

RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road nos. 39- T39S- 1-18 and 39-1-21.3 dust abatement limited RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-21 CIEL 238 rd to water, lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: No buffer. RD: limit dust abatement: RX: protection by distance to unit. RD: no use of T39S- BLM road no. 39-1-18 dust abatement magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-21 CIEL 239 NRF Unit 22-1), rd limited to water, lignin, road oil, or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road no. 39- T39S- 1-21.3 dust abatement limited to water, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-21 CIEL 8097 rd lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary) on Unit 22-5; seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize RX: site extends beyond Unit 22-5; thinning is yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust considered beneficial to the species; Units 22-1 and T39S- abatement: BLM road nos. 39-1-18, 39-1- 22-3 are outside the population boundary. RD: no R1W- NRF-Disp (Units 22- 21.2, 39-1-21.3 dust abatement limited to use of magnesium chloride for dust abatement that 21,22 CIEL 8098 1, 22-3, 22-5), rd water, lignin, road oil, or BST. can cause injury/death to plants.

RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road nos. 39- T39S- 1-18 and 39-1-21.3 dust abatement limited RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-21 CIEL 10666 rd to water, lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: No buffer. RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road nos. 39-1-18 and 39-1-21.3 dust RX: protection by distance to unit. RD: no use of T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-21 CIEL 12476 NRF (Unit 22-1), rd or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RX: large site; site extends beyond Unit 22-5; RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population seasonal to avoid direct damage when actively boundary) on Unit 22-5; seasonal restriction, growing; thinning is considered beneficial to the no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize species; this site has a small portion within Unit 22-1, yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust losing a few individuals from this large site will not abatement: BLM road nos. 39-1-18, 39-1- affect the persistence of the site. RD: no use of T39S- NRF (Units 22-1, 21.2, 39-1-21.3 dust abatement limited to magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-21 CIEL 12600 22-5), rd water, lignin, road oil, or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road no. 39- T39S- 1-21.3 dust abatement limited to water, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-21 EUVI8 12602 rd lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-24 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES PROPOSED T_R_S CODE SITE NO. TREATMENT Protection RATIONALE FOR Protection

RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road no. 39- T39S- 1-21.3 dust abatement limited to water, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-21 EUVI8 13251 rd lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: No buffer. RD: limit dust abatement: RX: protection by site is across road from unit. RD: T39S- BLM road no. 39-1-22.1 dust abatement no use of magnesium chloride for dust abatement R1W-27 CIEL 13218 NRF (Unit 27-2), rd limited to water, lignin, road oil, or BST. that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: No buffer. RD: limit dust abatement: RX: protection by distance to unit. RD: no use of T39S- BLM road no. 39-1-22.1 dust abatement magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-27 CIEL 13219 NRF (Unit 27-2), rd limited to water, lignin, road oil, or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize RX: site extends beyond unit; seasonal to avoid yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust direct damage when actively growing; thinning is abatement: BLM road no. 39-1-22.1 dust considered beneficial to the species. RD: no use of T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-27 CIEL 13242 NRF (Unit 27-2), rd or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RX: buffer. RX: site extends beyond unit; thinning is considered RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road no. 39- beneficial to the species. T39S- 1-22.1 dust abatement limited to water, RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-27 CYMO2 13247 NRF (Unit 27-2), rd lignin, road oil, or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

RX: buffer. RD: limit dust abatement: BLM road no. 39- RX: protection by distance to unit. RD: no use of T39S- 1-22.1 dust abatement limited to water, magnesium chloride for dust abatement that can R1W-27 CYMO2 13220 NRF (Unit 27-2), rd lignin, road oil, or BST. cause injury/death to plants.

RX: 0 ft buffer (i.e. 0 ft beyond population boundary); seasonal restriction, no operations from 7-1 to 9-15; minimize yarding corridors through site. RD: limit dust RX: seasonal to avoid direct damage when actively abatement: BLM road no. 39-1-21.2 dust growing; thinning is considered beneficial to the T39S- abatement limited to water, lignin, road oil, species. RD: no use of magnesium chloride for dust R1W-27 CIEL 13246 NRF (Unit 27-4), rd or BST. abatement that can cause injury/death to plants.

Wagner Anderson Project 2-25 Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the present conditions of each affected resource, followed by a comparison of the estimated environmental effects of implementing the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. The Environmental Effects portion of this chapter provides the analytical basis for the comparisons of the alternatives (40 CFR § 1502.16) and the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences to the human environment that each alternative would have on the relevant resources. Impacts can be beneficial, neutral or detrimental. The affected environment is described to the level of detail needed to determine the significance of impacts to the environment of implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative. The analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on all identified affected resources are organized under the identified issue statements. The analysis areas for actions proposed under this EA vary by resource. For all resources it includes the project area, which encompasses the areas where actions are proposed for the Wagner Anderson project.

The Medford District Proposed Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/EIS) describes the affected environment for the Medford District Bureau of Land Management PRMP/EIS planning area which covers approximately 858,127 acres of BLM administered lands in both the Cascade and Siskiyou mountain ranges across five counties in southwestern Oregon (PRMP/EIS p. 1-3). The Wagner Anderson project is located in the Siskiyou Mountain range in Jackson County. This EA incorporates by reference information included in the PRMP/EIS and will provide additional site-specific detail needed for project level planning.

The terms project area and analysis areas are used throughout this chapter. The following defines each term:

The terms project area, or treatment area, are used interchangeably to describe where action is proposed, such as units where forest thinning is proposed and where road construction or road improvements are proposed.

Analysis areas vary by resource and include those areas that could potentially be affected by the proposed action. In some cases the analysis area is confined to the project area and in others the analysis area extends beyond the project area.

1. Consideration of Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions in the Analysis of Effects

The current condition of the lands affected by the proposed action is the result from a multitude of natural processes and human actions that have taken place over many decades. A catalogue and analysis, comparison, or description of all individual past actions and their effects which have contributed to the current environmental conditions would be practically impossible to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Ferreting out and cataloguing the effects of each of these individual past actions would be a time consuming and expensive task which will not add any clearer picture of the existing environmental conditions. Instead of incurring these exorbitant costs in terms of time and money it is possible to implement easier, more accurate, and less costly ways to obtain the information concerning the effects past actions, which is necessary for an analysis of the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.”(See definition of “cumulative impact” in 40 CFR § 1508.7.)

Wagner Anderson Project 3-1 Environmental Assessment Under 43 CFR § 46.115 it states that when considering cumulative effects analysis, it must analyze the effects in accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). As the CEQ, in guidance issued on June 24, 2005, points out, the “environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking,” and review of past actions is required only “to the extent that this review informs agency decision-making regarding the proposed action.” Use of information on the effects on past action may be useful in two ways according to the CEQ guidance. One is for consideration of the proposed action’s cumulative effects, and secondly as a basis for identifying the proposed action’s direct and indirect effects.

The CEQ stated in this guidance that “[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” This is because a description of the current state of the environment inherently includes the effects of past actions. The CEQ guidance specifies that the “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions.” The importance of “past actions” is to set the context for understanding the incremental effects of the proposed action. This context is determined by combining the current conditions with available information on the expected effects of other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Watershed analysis, a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy developed under the Northwest Forest Plan and incorporated into the Medford District RMP, is a useful analysis for gaining an understanding of ecological processes and how those processes are functioning within a given watershed. A watershed analysis characterizes the human, aquatic, riparian and terrestrial features, conditions, processes, and interactions within a watershed including the effects of past and ongoing actions. Knowledge gained through watershed analysis enhances the agency’s ability to estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management activities (Federal Agency Guide to Watershed Analysis p. 1). The 2001West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis is the result of a coarse filter analysis generally using existing data and information; however, it is useful in identifying issues of importance to analyze in greater detail during project specific analysis. Some issues identified during watershed analysis have been analyzed and addressed at broader scales in association with regional and local land use plans; the link from this site specific project to these broader analyses has been noted where applicable in this Environmental Assessment.

Effects analyses completed for resources potentially affected by the Wagner Anderson project, describe indicators of importance along with the spatial and temporal scale of importance (analysis area) for determining the effects of multiple actions (past, current, and reasonably foreseeable) on affected resources1. As discussed above, the current condition assessed for each affected resource inherently includes the effects of past actions.

The analysis of the effects of other present and reasonably foreseeable actions relevant to the effects of the proposed action is necessary. How each resource analysis uses information concerning other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities is, however, dependent on the geographic scale of concern and attributes considered during each resource analysis.

1 The analyses look at all effects of the proposed action and alternative regardless of whether they are direct or indirect. Direct effects are the impacts caused by the action (activities) that occur at the same time and place; indirect impacts are those impacts caused by the action (activities) but occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. The term cumulative effects denotes the fact that the analyses of direct and indirect effects must not be done in isolation, but in the context of other actions whether from the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future, and whether human-caused or natural.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-2 Environmental Assessment 2. Implementation of Proposed Mitigation

In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO). The Recovery Plan includes Recovery Actions, which are recommendations to guide activities that would help to further the recovery objectives for the northern spotted owl. Recovery Action 32 (RA 32) recommends maintaining “substantially all of the older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal lands outside of MOCAs” (spell out MOCA). The purpose of Recovery Action 32 is to provide refugia for northern spotted owls as they adapt to competitive pressures form an increasing population of barred owls. Using the Draft RA 32 Habitat Evaluation Methodology (version 1.3) developed jointly by the Medford Bureau of Land Management, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, and the Roseburg Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM wildlife biologists identified areas within the Wagner Anderson Project that met the intent of Recovery Action 32.

If Mitigation Measure No. 1 is selected for implementation, about 49 acres of stands identified as older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests, or RA 32 would not be treated (see Table 2- 4). As a result of no harvest in unit 17-1, road 39-1-17 would not be used for unit access or log hauling, reducing the miles of road used in the Wagner Anderson project by about 0.6 mile. The reduction in overall acreage thinned would result in a slight reduction in environmental effects reported in throughout this chapter.

If Mitigation Measure No. 1 is selected for implementation, the following summarizes anticipated reduction in effects:

 Cable yarding would be reduced by 49 acres resulting in a slight reduction (3.4 acres or about 7% of reduction in acreage) of soils disturbed/compacted from yarding activities;  A slight (but likely immeasurable) reduction in sediment produced from the road prisms due to a slight decrease in use of natural surfaced roads;  A slight reduction in acres of habitat improvement for Cimicifuga elata.  A 49-acre reduction in treatment of northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in the project area;  A 49-acre reduction in the treatment of habitat potentially used by Pacific fisher;  There would be a loss in benefit of increased forest vigor and improved fire resilency for the untreated forest stands;  No treatment of 49 acres would slightly reduce the landscape scale effectiveness of fuels reduction treatments.

B. SOILS

1. Affected Environment

This section discloses potential impacts on soils and soil productivity resulting from ground disturbance associated with the Wagner Anderson project proposal. The characteristics of the soils identified in this project and their location on the landscape is on file in the Medford District Office. While this section discloses disturbances resulting in the production of sediments, the “Water Resources” section discusses the fate of those sediments as they relate to water quality. The “Water Resources” section also discloses the effects of altered hydrological functions as a result of soil compaction and disturbance.

The appropriate scale for measuring soil productivity criteria (compaction, erosion, etc.) is site specific or on a unit by unit basis. The appropriate scale for measuring erosion or compaction that may affect water quality or quantity would be the 7th level hydrologic unit. Short-term impacts (or affects) are those being ten years or less and long-term more than ten years.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-3 Environmental Assessment The dominant soils series identified in the analysis area are Caris, Offenbacher, Tallowbox, Vannoy, Voorhies, and McMullin. The water erosion potential for these soils series is high on slopes over 60 percent, and the Tallowbox series (which is derived from granitic rock) in particular is highly sensitive to disturbances such as road construction and timber yarding. There are approximately 2,300 acres of highly erodible or potentially unstable soils identified in Wagner Creek, and 1,220 acres in the Anderson Creek drainage. There is an estimated 59 acres of harvest planned on highly erodible soils in the Wagner Creek drainage, and 18 acres of harvest planned on highly erodible soils in the Anderson Creek area. It is estimated that the natural erosion rate for soils in this area (the Applegate geomorphological erosion response unit (GERU)) is approximately 0.7 yd³/ac/yr. Erosion rates increased slightly in harvest areas to 0.8 yd³/ac/yr (Amaranthus, 1985, p.230). Erosion rates are highly dependent on the intensity and amount of rainfall that a particular site receives in a given time period. Other factors that affect erosion rates are steepness of slope, ground cover, soil particle cohesion and amount/degree of disturbance.

2. Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No-action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the current conditions and trends related to soil resources would remain unchanged. Road construction/renovation, timber falling/yarding treatment of the logging slash and prescribed fuels treatments would not occur thus soil disturbance would be minimal. Erosion rates near natural levels would continue across the landscape except for areas affected by unmaintained roads and road drainage facilities which would continue to have higher than normal erosion rates. Road # 39-1W- 18.0 will have 4.42 miles renovated (ditches cleaned, catch basins and culverts cleaned, road shaped, crown/outslope/inslope re-established) and 4 inches of one inch minus crushed rock added to the surface as a maintenance lift. This work is to occur during the summer/fall of 2010 and is not associated with the timber sale.

Soil erosion occurs infrequently in undisturbed forests because the soil surface is protected by both vegetation and organic matter. The abundant layer of organic debris (duff) on the soil surface and the decomposed organic matter incorporated into the soil profile (humus) protect the soil from erosion by allowing the rate at which water moves into and through the soil profile to equal or exceed the rate of precipitation or snow melt. Organic matter reduces the likelihood of overland flow and subsequent higher than normal soil erosion.

Under the No-Action Alternative no road renovation and/or maintenance would occur associated with the timber sale. The road renovation of BLM road 39-1W-18.0 would occur whether there is a timber sale or not. This renovation will substantially reduce current erosion rates coming from over 4 miles of road which is used late into the wet season and is in need of maintenance. Under the no action alternative, no road construction would occur thus road densities in the respective watersheds would remain the same. Road decommissioning would not occur thus road densities would remain at the current level and all roads currently opened would remain open to traffic.

Although no fuel reduction would occur under this alternative, approximately 834 acres of fuels treatments have or will occur near this project area under a separate fuels reduction project. Under the No-Action Alternative approximately 247 acres would not have the fuels reduction treatment accomplished as part of the timber harvest. This slightly increases the potential for severe wildfires to occur in the project area. A severe fire of any appreciable size could detrimentally affect the soil resources over the long term by removing protective vegetation, large wood, duff and organic material resulting in increased erosion potential and decreased soil productivity. Adverse soil impacts from a large, high intensity wildfire would be much greater and effect much more of the watershed than under the proposed action which would reduce fuel loads and the effects of fire on soils.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-4 Environmental Assessment In summary, the No-Action Alternative would have very minimal direct, short-term effects to the soil resource due to the lack of soil disturbance. However, the 247 acres proposed for forest health and fuels reduction treatments would remain untreated and would retain a moderate to high fuel loading that would contribute to a higher potential for severe intensity wildfire than under the action alternatives. Existing roads that are not renovated would continue to have slight to moderately higher than normal erosion potential rates with the potential for degradation due to lack of maintenance. Over the long-term, cumulative effects for soil productivity would be minimal as no changes in vegetation composition and/or structure would occur and soil disturbance would be minimal. Compacted area would remain relatively low in the project area under this alternative, which is a positive cumulative effect.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The analysis of impacts incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions in the Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (1995) regarding soils. Under Alternative 2, approximately 77 acres would be tractor logged, 167 acres would be skyline-cable logged using partial suspension, and approximately 3 acres would be downhill cable yarded. Approximately 0.2 miles of road construction is proposed with about 100 feet of road decommissioning. Approximately 0.8 mile of road reconstruction would occur on BLM road 39-1-14.2. Slash created by the proposed management activities would be removed from the site, burned or shredded to reduce the total fuel loading on-site.

Soils in the areas proposed for treatment are generally stable and the landslide hazard is considered low to moderate. No areas with high landslide potential are being treated in the Wagner Anderson Project. Soil disturbance would be limited to localized areas within each treatment unit except for areas that are underburned. Prescribed underburning could result in over one-third to one-half of the soil surface area becoming bare and exposed to erosive forces such as rain drop splash and overland flow of water. Following the guidelines for the designated soil categories (RMP/ROD p.168) would minimize long-term detrimental effect to the soil as a result of prescribed fire.

Ground-based logging using tractors on designated skid trails would disturb around 15 percent of the area within logging units. Yarding trails (skid trails) would be pre-designated and result in 12 percent or less of the unit being compacted. This would result in soil productivity losses as a result of compaction of about 6 percent or less in the tractor yarding units. The disturbed and compacted skid trails would exhibit a slight increase in erosion during the first few substantial rainfall events following logging. Soil particles moving off site as a result of erosion should be minimal in these units as tractors are only allowed on slopes of less than 35 percent and skid trails would be water-barred. Although erosion rates would increase, most soil particles would remain on-site and only a slight increase in off-site erosion is anticipated primarily as a result of riparian buffers along stream channels and local waterways. See Hydrology section for more information on sedimentation.

Cable yarding would result in minimal soil disturbance. Cable yarding exposes up to seven percent of the unit as deeply disturbed or compacted (Dyrness 1972). As most of the commercial timber harvesting involves thinning of the understory trees, soil surface disturbance would be within the parameters listed above. Cable yarding would be accomplished using a skyline system that lifts the front end of the log off the ground. This prevents the log from gouging the soil surface as it is brought up to the landing. A system of cable yarding trails would be established up and down the slope and could be areas of increased localized erosion the first wet season after use.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-5 Environmental Assessment Road Management The proposed action (See Table 2-2) would:

• Build approximately 0.2 miles of road; • Decommission 100 feet of road; • Reconstruct and maintain approximately 0.8 mile of existing road (39-1-14.2 road); • Renovate and improve about 350 feet of surfacing; and • Maintain approximately 13 miles of existing road.

New Road Construction Of the actions proposed, new road construction and reconstruction has the greatest potential for causing accelerated erosion. Roads increase surface erosion by disturbing the soil surface and concentrating runoff. Road building and reconstruction would result in moderately high erosion rates locally as approximately one acre of land would be disturbed as a result of the proposed new road construction and about two acres would be disturbed as a result of the reconstruction. The increase in erosion would be most noticeable the first few substantial rainfall events after construction and would return to near pre-construction levels within the next three to five years as the cut and fill slopes stabilize and ground cover is re-established on the disturbed area.

There would be a moderate short-term increase in soil movement along temporary spur roads, skid trails, and on cable yarding corridors the first few rain events after construction or use. However, locating temporary roads on or near ridges, water barring skid trails, and filtering by vegetation in Riparian Reserves would reduce or prevent sediments from reaching streams.

Approximately 580 feet of new road construction is proposed near Arasta Creek in the south edge of T. 39 S., R. 1 W., Section 14. The soil in the area of the proposed construction has a gravelly-loamy texture and moderately deep (20-40”) to bedrock. The new construction is a modification of an existing road so the log trucks can make the turn onto Arasta Creek road. Most of the proposed new road is near the riparian area on slopes less than 45 percent. Based on the condition of the existing road after over twenty years and the inherent stability of this landscape, it is anticipated that potential for excessive erosion due slope failures from this proposed road is low. Project design features that mitigate surface erosion on newly constructed roads (i.e., dry season construction, rocking the road surface, seeding and mulching) should minimize the potential for off-site surface erosion. About 100 feet of the existing road would be decommissioned.

Approximately 0.1 mile (600 feet) of new construction is proposed in T. 39 S., R. 1 W., Section 23 to access units 23-8. The proposed road(s) are on soils that are moderately deep, loamy textured and on slopes less than 40 percent. Most of the road location would go through a heavily vegetated area of young timber and would not cross any draws so off-site erosion would not be an issue.

New roads would have an impact on the soil productivity. Approximately four (4) acres of land is disturbed and taken out of vegetation production for every one mile of road proposed. The 0.2 mile of total new construction would take approximately one acre of land out of production.

Erosion control Although short-term erosion rates would moderately increase, the proposed action would decrease erosion from roads long-term by bringing the portions of the road system up to current BLM standards. This would include:

Wagner Anderson Project 3-6 Environmental Assessment Existing Roads:  Ensure proper spacing and sizing of drainage structures on all BLM roads in the project area.  Grade road surfaces to provide for proper runoff of water.  Harden road surfaces by placing surface rock and thereby stabilizing roads.  Restrict hauling and construction to periods when soils and roads have proper moisture content (dry periods).  Gate or barricade unsurfaced roads and new road construction

New roads and renovation:  New construction and renovation would only occur during the dry season.  Fill slopes would be seeded and mulched and slash windrowed along the toe of the fill to filter sediment. Any excess earth material on ‘full-bench’ roads (generally 60%+) would be end-hauled to a suitable waste area.  New road construction on sideslopes would occur on stable ground.

Fuels Reduction Almost a century of fire exclusion has occurred in this area and, consequently, the existing conditions consist of high fuel loading across much of the landscape (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, Chapter 3.7, Fire and Fuels). With present fuel conditions, an uncontrolled burn could be of such intensity so as to severely increase erosion potential, volatilize existing nitrogen reserves and severely set back the community of microorganisms. Under natural conditions, sheet erosion occurs only when the duff, litter or plant cover has been significantly removed, exposing soils to the erosive forces of rainfall. The only natural disturbance process capable of removing extensive soil cover in the Wagner Creek Watershed historically and prehistorically has been wildfire. But wildfire by itself would not result in excessive sheet erosion. Coupled with the loss of cover must be a significant rainfall event occurring within a year or two after the fire. This is because most exposed soils would become re-established with vegetation or covered with litter fall within that time period, thus protecting the soil from rainfall impact. When intense rainstorm events do occur shortly after a wildfire disturbance, there can be a significant amount of topsoil loss.

Under this alternative, site productivity would be protected by reducing the fuel loading and decreasing the potential for severe wildfires. Prescribed burning would cause a short-term increase in available nutrients released which would benefit remaining vegetation, both tree and browse species. There would be a short-term increase in available mineral nutrients such as calcium and magnesium, conversely, there would be a decrease in total site nitrogen, yet available nitrogen would increase temporarily. For this reason, proposed fuel treatments are considered to have a slight short-term positive effect on nutrient availability and a slight negative effect in the 3-5 year period after burning. There would be a net positive influence long-term on nutrient availability as the fuel loading would be reduced along with the potential for a high severity wildfire.

An array of tools could be used to reduce fuel loads, these include: burning hand-piled slash, broadcast underburn and, possibly, removing the slash for biomass purposes. Broadcast underburns associated with the fuel treatments would have a moderate short-term affect on the soil. Burning increases the amount of mineral soil exposed by a varying amount, depending on the depth and consumption of the forest floor. Broadcast burning could expose up to forty percent of the burned area. A low-intensity burn would have minimal direct affect on soil properties. A light surface fire would generally char the litter, leaving most of the mineral soil partially covered. The desired result would be a mosaic of burn intensities, where unburned areas may lie adjacent to more intensively burned strips. The retention of duff is desired, where duff already exists. Underburning is prescribed to meet the goal of consuming

Wagner Anderson Project 3-7 Environmental Assessment the majority of litter (fine flashy fuels) while retaining as much duff as possible. It is acknowledged that there might be pockets where a majority of duff is consumed. This is acceptable as long as a mosaic of intensity is present allowing migration of soil organisms from adjacent areas to re-colonize more the negatively impacted sites.

Most soil movement would occur during the first rainy season after the slash is burned and would quickly diminish as vegetation cover reestablishes. Soil productivity would experience a slight negative decrease short-term but long-term positive effects would be realized from the proposed actions as the risk of severe fire is diminished.

Piled slash burns hotter than broadcast underburning, increasing consumption of organic matter and nutrient losses. High soil temperatures generated under burning piles (typically, about 3-5% of the harvested area) negatively affect soil properties by physically changing soil texture, structure and reducing nutrient content. Additionally, the intense heat resulting from burning of hand piles would negatively impact soil organisms for the short-term. Migration of soil organisms from adjacent areas would re-colonize these sites over time.

The least impacting method of reducing the slash produced by the timber harvest would be to remove the slash and haul it off-site to be used for producing energy or wood by-products such as paper. Save for the yarding impacts, minimal affects to the soil would occur as a result of this method.

Concern about cumulative soils effects stems from potential future adverse affects on soil or site productivity as a result of this proposed action, combined with past or other ongoing activities. The potential for forestry practices to exert cumulative effects on soils depends on the intensity and scheduling of practices and the resiliency of soils combined with the tendency towards natural recovery. More intensive forestry practices involve more direct and far-reaching interventions in natural processes, and should be likelier to lead to cumulative effects on forest soils and vegetation than less intensive practices. The time required for recovery from effects should be roughly proportional to the magnitude of changes or effects.

The proposed silviculture practice is deemed as an extensive regime in which the practices to be carried out are selective cutting and fire protection. Yields would be limited to periodic light cuttings, natural regeneration might be relied upon, and vegetative competition regulated through prescribed burning and maintenance of canopy cover. Comparing this regime to intensive management of the 1980’s where large proportions of the overstory or the entire overstory was harvested in one operation, diseases or pests might be curtailed or eliminated as the seed- or planting-bed was cleared in site preparation, prompt regeneration was typically secured through planting or direct seeding, and competing vegetation might be curbed through chemical, mechanical or manual means. The effects of the proposed silvicuture practice on the soil resource are substantially less than the intensive management practices of the past. As a result, it would take less time for the soil to recover from the proposed action.

Soil Compaction/Productivity From a soils perspective, effects may be localized on-site, potentially substantial to site condition but not necessarily having potential for transport of materials or pollutants off-site. One of these effects is soil compaction, which in terms of productivity, is localized as an on-site effect. However, from a hydrological perspective, compaction may also alter drainage and/or concentrate runoff, potentially accelerating erosion. Under the proposed action there would be a slight increase in the amount of area compacted. The total amount of BLM land compacted in the analyzed HUC 7 drainages would increase by one percent or less as a result of this proposed action. Most of the compacted area would be in the form of designated skid trails that should be used again on the next harvest entry. This

Wagner Anderson Project 3-8 Environmental Assessment compaction is considered non-detrimental and is consistent with best management practices described in the Medford District Resource Management Plan (p.166).

Roads There are approximately 17 miles of road that are cut into hillsides with slopes greater than 60 percent and 13 miles of these roads are associated with highly erodible soils (1.5 miles on BLM land). Most existing roads on BLM managed lands are established roads (10+ years) that are in stable condition with small areas of cutbank sloughing associated with the road system. Although stable, some of these roads are in need of maintenance to up-grade drainage facilities and road surfacing. Many of the roads have been poorly maintained and have been degraded as a result of use during the wet season.

The cumulative effects to the soil resource in the affected landscape area as a result of roads in this proposed alternative would be a moderate short-term increase in erosion rates which would last about three to five years. There would be about a 0.2 mile net increase in the total amount of roads which, long- term, would be a slight negative effect. This project slightly increases the current road density, the watershed(s) would continue to experience slight to moderate potential for erosion rates above natural levels long-term as a result of the existing roads. There are approximately 330 total miles of road in the approximately 23,000 acre analysis area. Approximately 91 percent of the existing roads are on private land and 8 percent (27 miles) are on BLM administered land. Many of the roads accounted for in the analysis area on private land are either associated with agricultural lands or driveways in the lower portions of the watershed. About 50 percent of the BLM roads have been verified as being paved or adequately surfaced with rock. The remaining BLM roads are either natural surface or a jeep road. Many of the designed surfaced roads, both on private land and BLM, appear to have been built over ten years ago and are in stable condition but surfacing is below optimum levels in order to minimize road related erosion particularly those roads used during the wet season (November-April). Soil loss from a lightly graveled roadbed is about equivalent to loss from an ungraveled one. In contrast, soil loss from fully graveled roadbeds (6 to 8 inches thick) was only 3 to 8 percent of that from the bare soil roadbed of otherwise similar construction (Swift, 1988). In the Swift study, erosion rates from the natural surfaced and minimal surfaced roads were about 1.4 tons/acre/inch rain while the adequately rocked roads yielded less than 0.1 ton/acre/inch rain. Although erosion rates vary depending on site hydrology, soil type, topography, climate, and engineering treatments, these figures provide an example of the relative amount of erosion that may occur.

Soil Erosion - Timber Management There have been approximately 500 acres of land harvested in the last ten years in the Wagner Creek drainage all on private land, another 120 acres of harvest on private land is likely. There have been approximately 200 acres of land harvested in the Anderson Creek analysis area all on private land. The most recent timber harvest on BLM within the analysis area was in 1989 when about 188 acres was harvested. Site visits to some of the past harvested units on BLM revealed the units have recovered adequately from previous management activities with erosion rates being near natural levels.

In summary, there would be a moderate direct short-term increase in erosion rate potential in the areas of timber management activities (i.e., falling, yarding, and hauling). Most of the erosion would be localized with a slight potential of substantial off-site erosion. The potential for substantial off-site erosion could occur during an intense rainfall event in the areas of new road construction and, possibly, where tractor units intersect haul roads. However, required Project Design Features would limit road construction and reconstruction to the dry season to reduce the risk for off-site erosion (Chapter 2, Project Design Features). The cable units would have a very low potential for substantial off-site erosion to occur. This is the result of only a small amount of area being disturbed during yarding (7% of the area for cable yarding). The potential for an increase in erosion rates would last between three to five years after which time the soil would have stabilized and re-vegetated. Cumulative effects as a result of the potential for an

Wagner Anderson Project 3-9 Environmental Assessment increase erosion rates would be slight as surface erosion depends primarily on extent and continuity of bare areas so most disturbed soil particles would remain on site. Additionally, the next harvest entry should not occur within ten years which would allow adequate time for the soil to recover from the proposed action.

C. WATER RESOURCES

1. Affected Environment

West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis (USDI 2001) provides general water resources background information for the project area.

Analysis Area Description The Wagner-Anderson project area is located in the western portion of the upper Bear Creek watershed, which is a tributary to the Rogue River. For purposes of analyzing the affected environment and the proposed project, specifically cumulative effects, the analysis area for water resources will consider both Wagner and Anderson Creeks in their entirety.

Wagner Creek represents a 6th field hydrologic unit codes or HUC, while Anderson Creek is approximately half of a larger 6th field HUC. These catchments are 14,945 and 8,249 acres respectively. The total size of the analysis area as a whole is 23,194 acres or 36 square miles. These catchments are further subdivided into 7th field HUC’s called drainages which range in size from 109 to 4,285 acres (Table 3-1). This size of catchment is large enough to assess the cumulative effect of actions that, taken individually (site scale) may not be significant, but when combined with effects from everything else going on in the drainages, may have a potential impact (“cumulative effect”). The drainage areas are small enough to avoid “drowning out” evidence of adverse effects. As the size of the analysis area increases, there is an increasing possibility of the analysis indicating that there is “no problem” when in fact individual drainages may have issues of concern.

Table 3-1. Analysis Areas and Ownership Associated with the Wagner Anderson Project Area. Percent Ownership Catchment HUC 7 (drainage) Acres BLM Private USFS Wagner Creek 0803 864 0 19 81 0806 352 0 90 10 0809 557 52 39 9 0812 608 13 20 67 0815 758 40 49 11 0818 1,323 5 26 69 0821 109 62 38 0 0824 1,298 19 53 29 0827 3,496 33 67 0 0830 1,018 27 73 0 0833 1,574 13 87 0 0836 2,988 14 86 0 Total 14,945 23 54 23 Anderson Creek 0912 3,964 34 66 0 0915 4,285 6 94 0 Total 8,249 20 80 0

Wagner Anderson Project 3-10 Environmental Assessment Map 3-1. Analysis Area Displaying 7th Field HUC’s and Ownership.

The analysis area is within Jackson County and is a mix of public and private land (Table 3-1 and Map 3- 1). Private lands make up the majority of the analysis area. BLM parcels are scattered throughout the foothills and along the crest of the mountains that define the boundary between the eastern edge of the Klamath Mountains and the Western Oregon Interior Valley (physiographic) Province. The affected catchments are Wagner and Anderson Creeks. The headwaters originate west of Bear Creek are flow eastward towards their confluence with Bear Creek. Elevations range between approximately 1,600 feet to over 7,100 feet at the top of Wagner Butte. The western or headwater areas of these catchments are steep and forested. As they flow northeastward, the steep mountains abruptly transition to gentle foothills then lowland valleys where they eventually flow into Bear Creek.

Climate The climate is characterized by mild wet winters and hot dry summers. Average annual precipitation ranges from approximately 21 inches in the lower elevations to 48 inches at Wagner Butte. Winter precipitation in the higher elevations usually occurs as snow, which ordinarily melts during the spring

Wagner Anderson Project 3-11 Environmental Assessment runoff season from April through June. Rain predominates in the lower elevations with a mixture of rain and snow occurring between approximately 3,500 feet and 5,000 feet in what is referred to as the transient snow zone. Rain on snow runoff events originate in this zone and when they occur can trigger landscape altering responses such as floods, debris torrents and landslides. Summer rainstorms occur occasionally and are usually of short duration and high intensity. These types of events are usually limited in coverage but can result in increased erosion and sediment deposition.

Land Ownership Private lands within the analysis area are primarily used for residences, ranching, timber, orchards, and vineyards, with the majority of private lands in the upland areas owned by private timber companies and managed for timber production. Public lands, including BLM and Forest Service, are used for timber harvest as well as recreation, which is a significant use in the analysis area. Regional public issues reflect the dominant uses of the analysis area. Recreational concerns include the loss of historically used trails due to encroaching woodland development and the widespread use of Off-highway vehicles (OHVs). Other issues include the loss of open space due to development, timber harvest on private and public lands, poor water quality, the lack of good fish habitat, and the general degradation of the natural environment. Urban interface issues include concerns about fuel concentrations and the threat of wildfire.

Hydrology As a result of these impacts, the hydrology of the analysis area has been altered through irrigation withdrawals, roads, urbanization, stream alteration, and other actions. The effects are particularly evident in the lower more developed portions of the watershed where the stream channels are characterized as depositional. In the upper portion of the watersheds, the impacts and effects are primarily related to roads and timber harvest. Streams in this area are considered transport channels, whereas sediment is routed through these reaches only to be deposited in lower gradient depositional reaches.

Water Quantity and Quality The major factors currently influencing both water quantity and quality within the analysis area where harvest is to occur include canopy cover and roads. Reduced canopy cover within the upper forested portion of the catchments that are less than historic can alter the amount and timing of streamflows. This can result in increased channel erosion and morphological changes to the stream channels. Roads, trails, and clearcut logging, can accelerate erosional processes and result in increased turbidity and sedimentation. This too can result in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat and organisms, including fish.

Roads/OHV Recent research (Reid and Dunne, 1984: Luce and Black, 1999) supported by local and regional field evaluations have consistently found roads to be the primary source of accelerated erosion in wildland watersheds. Roads impact aquatic systems through both chronic and episodic erosion. Chronic erosion is where material is detached and transported to streams via the road surface and drainage structures such as cross drains and inboard ditches. This occurs in response to precipitation events throughout the year. Episodic erosion usually occurs as a result of intense rainfall and rain-on-snow events within the transitional snow zone. Large failures often occur as a result of culvert plugging, stream diversion and fillslope landslides. In addition, where road densities are high, concentration and routing of stormwater may result in increased peakflows. Both road density and the number of stream crossings are gross indicators of the level of road impacts in watersheds. High road densities, greater than 4.0 miles per square mile, are found in some sections of the analysis area (Table 3-2). Although road density is a useful indicator, it should be noted that not all roads impart similar effects. For instance, the magnitude of impacts from roads on steep slopes is different than those from roads located on flat terrain. Roads located near streams and road stream crossings are responsible for the majority of sediment delivered to channels. Within the analysis area, many roads are unsurfaced and located within riparian reserves. In

Wagner Anderson Project 3-12 Environmental Assessment addition, many native surface roads are open during the rainy season. This type of use can render drainage features ineffective and result in concentrated flow and increased erosion.

Currently, in the upper portions of the analysis area, roads have been the largest source of sediment delivery to streams and subsequent negative impacts to aquatic habitat. Although some work has been accomplished, many crossings are susceptible to failure through culvert plugging and stream diversion. Other road segments are unsurfaced, steep, lack adequate drainage, or are located within close proximity to streams. Lack of road maintenance or improper road maintenance by all jurisdictions within the analysis area has increased sediment production or the potential for sediment production. There is also an expanding network of OHV and mountain bike trails. These features often utilize old road beds or are established through repeated off-road travel, or illegally constructed by users. They exist on the landscape irrespective of sensitive soils, adequate drainage, or proximity to watercourses and are also responsible for increased sediment production.

Table 3-2. 7th Field Road Densities and Crossings for All Roads within the Analysis Area.

Road Density Road/Stream Crossings Catchments HUC 7 (drainage) (miles/square mile) 1 (perennial,intermittent,ephemeral) Wagner Creek 0803 1.6 11 0806 11.3 36 0809 6.8 35 0812 1.5 11 0815 7.9 59 0818 2.6 46 0821 6.9 14 0824 5.2 62 0827 6.4 218 0830 12.3 127 0833 8.4 122 0836 16.5 274

Anderson Creek 0912 5.8 220 0915 12.8 151

1 Road densities were calculated using BLM corporate GIS data and includes all roads representing numerous jurisdictions, including urban or otherwise developed areas within the HUCs.

Sedimentation Evidence of relatively high levels of sediment in both Wagner and Anderson Creeks has been confirmed by recent observations. Substrate measurements of Wagner Creek below Arrastra Creek indicate a high percentage of fine sediment (35 percent). This is likely higher than historic conditions and is a result of the level of disturbance in the watershed above this point.

Transient Snow Zone/Peak Flow Historically, geomorphic processes that shape landscape and channel geometry are triggered by large, infrequent storm events. In recent times, these events can be characterized by warm moist storms that result in high intensity, long duration rainfall. The results can be intensified when rainfall occurs on an established snowpack. The percent of a watershed in the transient snow zone (TSZ), roughly an elevation band between 3,500 and 5,000 feet, can indicate elevated risk of adverse impacts. These impacts can be

Wagner Anderson Project 3-13 Environmental Assessment accelerated by modifications to forest canopy cover and, as discussed, roads and other disturbance features. Drainages where TSZ compromises greater than 25 percent of the drainage area are of hydrologic concern, particularly where large openings such as clearcuts exist. The transient snow zone occupies 39 percent of the Wagner Creek catchment, and 25 percent of the Anderson Creek catchment. Large areas of vegetation removal in the transient snow zone are of particular concern due to alterations of the streamflow regime and resultant increased peak flow magnitudes (Christner and Harr 1982). Since there are large areas of private timberlands within both catchments, including extensive recent clearcuts, both are at an elevated risk for increased stormflows.

Modifications of canopy cover that result in less than historic conditions either through fire or timber harvest, also may affect the timing and volume of streamflow. An assessment of percent canopy cover is also useful in determining potential cumulative effects of the proposed activities. In the analysis area, the Ecoregion Description (WPN 1999: Appendix A) lists historic canopy closure as greater than 30 percent, with the exception of the oak woodland/lowest elevations which historically had less than 30 percent canopy closure. An analysis of percent canopy cover of forested land at the 7th field HUC was conducted. This scale is where detectable changes in peakflows would likely occur. The following table summarizes percent of the drainages that are below 30 percent canopy cover and percent in the TSZ.

Table 3-3. 7th Field HUCs Less Than 30% Canopy Cover and Percent within the TSZ.

Percent Less Than 30% Percent Within The Catchment HUC 7 (drainage) Canopy Cover 1 Transient Snow Zone Wagner Creek 0803 4 55 0806 50 100 0809 22 76 0812 1 61 0815 17 54 0818 1 68 0821 3 1 0824 9 62 0827 5 34 0830 5 0 0833 10 40 0836 6 11 Total 8 39 Anderson Creek 0912 3 53 0915 8 0 Total 6 25 1 Includes existing disturbance features such as roads and landings.

Different levels of harvest in watersheds have demonstrated variable effects on peak flows (Jones and Grant 1996; Harr 1979). When less than 25% of a watershed is harvested, no detectible change in peak flows have been observed (Stednick 1996). It should be noted the majority of literature available regarding the relationship between harvest and flow have focused on clear cut harvesting, many in areas that removed close to 100% of the overstory canopy. For this analysis, any area that is less than the historic 30 percent canopy cover is assumed to be hydrologically altered and responds similar to a clearcut. In contrast, any drainage that is above 25 percent harvested may be at an elevated risk of increased peakflows. This is particularly true if a large percentage of the drainage is located within the TSZ. In Table 3 above, the small drainage (HUC # 806) in the top of Wagner Creek may be at an

Wagner Anderson Project 3-14 Environmental Assessment elevated risk for increased peak flows due to the high (50%) amount of ground that has less than 30% canopy cover. Additionally, drainage (HUC # 809), approaches the threshold at 22% of total area with less than 30% canopy cover. Both of these drainages are either entirely, or have a large percentage of area within the TSZ.

Recent research indicates that effects from peak flows, although of concern, should be confined to a relatively discrete portion of the network where channel gradients are less than approximately 0.02 percent and streambeds are composed of gravel and finer material. Furthermore, data supports the interpretation that if peak flow increases do occur, they can only be detected in flows of moderate frequency and magnitude. Beyond that, they are likely not detectable (Grant, et al 2008). What this suggests is that if increases in peak flows occur, they are unlikely to result in adverse effects to the higher gradient channels located within the project area. Also, that peak flows are only detectable in smaller storm events with return periods of 6 years or less, where channel forming processes are minor in effect.

Surface water Surface water in the Wagner Anderson analysis area includes streams, ditches, springs, wetlands, and reservoirs. Streams in the project area are classified as perennial, intermittent with seasonal flow (long duration intermittent), intermittent with ephemeral flow (short duration intermittent), and dry draws with ephemeral flow. Streams categorized as perennial or intermittent on federal lands are required to have Riparian Reserves as defined in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994). Dry draws do not meet requirements for streams needing Riparian Reserves because they lack the combination of a defined channel and annual scour and deposition (USDI 1995:27). Streams on private forest lands are managed according to the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Stream types on BLM-managed lands were identified through site visits; USFS and non-federal land stream types were estimated using aerial photo interpretation and extrapolation from information on adjacent BLM-managed lands. Table 4 summarizes stream miles within each HUC. Mileages include perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral (or short duration intermittent).

Table 3-4. 7th Field HUC Stream Miles, BLM and Other. Stream Miles Catchment HUC 7 (drainage) Total Miles BLM Other Wagner Creek 0803 0 9.0 9.0 0806 0 3.9 3.9 0809 3.5 3.4 6.9 0812 0.9 6.3 7.2 0815 5.0 6.2 11.2 0818 1.6 17.0 18.6

0821 1.4 0.8 2.2

0824 4.8 13.6 18.4

0827 18.6 35.9 54.5 0830 3.8 12.7 16.5 0833 2.2 20.5 22.7 0836 5.9 35.2 41.1 Total 47.7 164.5 212.2 Anderson Creek 0912 18.3 37.9 56.2 0915 3.5 51.2 54.7 Total 21.8 89.1 110.9

Wagner Anderson Project 3-15 Environmental Assessment Stream channels in the analysis area have been heavily influenced since the arrival of Euro-American settlers. This is particularly true in the lower, more developed portions of the watersheds. Beginning in 1851, mining scoured out the channels and redeposited gravels outside of the streambed. As mining tapered off, logging and land clearing for agricultural use resulted in the removal of large woody material from stream channels in addition to removal of streamside trees. There continues to be an apparent lack of large wood available today. As a result, floods are more destructive without sufficient instream structure to reduce stream energy. As more streambank erosion occurs and streams downcut, the channels become more entrenched. This also reduces channel diversity necessary for sustaining aquatic species.

Within the upper watersheds where harvest is proposed, the primary concerns are lack of riparian shade and large wood recruitment from past harvest activities. Also, as discussed previously, elevated sediment and turbidity levels are occurring as a result of an extensive road network and other disturbances. Summer water temperatures for Wagner Creek exceed the State temperature criteria and it is currently designated as water quality limited and on the 1998 and 2002 Oregon 303(d) list. Sedimentation is also identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) as a parameter of concern for Wagner Creek.

Most of the warming can be attributed to channel alterations, water withdrawals, and irrigation return flows in the lower watershed. Within the upper watershed, impacts affecting temperature are from past logging and may be partially attributable to the 3.8 mile open ditch used to transport irrigation water from McDonald Creek in the Little Applegate River across Wagner Gap to the headwaters of Wagner Creek. This diversion is typically active from April 1st through October 16th adds up to 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of additional flow to Wagner Creek. Stream temperatures on Federal lands are expected to improve as Riparian Reserves promote the maintenance and improvement of streamside vegetation on BLM and USFS administered lands.

Fuel Loading Within the forested portions of the watersheds, fuel loading has increased the potential for high intensity wildfire. Although humidity’s are generally higher, given the right conditions some riparian areas are susceptible as well. High intensity fires can burn off the canopy and duff layers that protect soils from erosive and gravitational forces. A high intensity wildfire along the steep, stream- adjacent sideslopes would increase the potential for debris torrents and severe surface erosion. These impacts are often severe, and may persist for long periods of time.

Ground Water Groundwater supplies in the analysis area are primarily found in valley bottom alluvium of the Bear Creek corridor. Well water quality problems are prevalent throughout the Rogue Basin, arising from natural sources such as arsenic, boron, and fluoride. Surface contaminants such as nitrate and fecal matter may enter ground water through improperly constructed wells. Increasing demand from rural population density increases and years with below-normal precipitation have been identified as factors affecting ground water supplies in Jackson County (USDI 1994:3-13). The Medford District PRMP/EIS identified that an increase in rural population density has been accompanied by an increase in ground water diversion, and this trend is expected to continue (USDI 1994:3-13). None of the proposed Wagner Anderson project area has been identified as a critical groundwater area by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD 1989).

Wagner Anderson Project 3-16 Environmental Assessment 2. Environmental Consequences

Because no new management is proposed under Alternative 1, the effects described reflect current conditions and trends that are shaped by ongoing management and events unrelated to the Wagner Anderson project. Discussion for Alternative 2 reflects the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed actions. Effects discussion also includes cumulative impacts of those direct/indirect actions when added incrementally to actions past, present, and reasonably foreseeable. Short-term effects are defined as those lasting ten years or less and long-term effects last more than ten years (USDI 1994:4-4).

As part of an assessment of cumulative effects, a discussion of reasonably foreseeable future activities combined with those of the action alternative is included. Below is a summary of those actions that may occur as reasonable foreseeable. The affected environment section summarizes present conditions and effects.

Future timber harvest on private lands would likely occur within the analysis area and assumes that it will continue at a similar rate as has occurred in the past. Private lands are governed under state forestry regulations, and as such receive a different level of protection than federal lands. Analysis of effects from private timber harvest generally considers the worst case scenario (i.e. all suitable forested lands would be logged at approximately 60 year tree-growing rotations) with regeneration harvest and road building as the predominate effects. There is currently a proposal to harvest approximately 120 acres on private lands within Wagner Creek. The majority of activities would occur within Arrastra Creek (HUC 0827), with a smaller area in Basin Creek (HUC 0815). From available information, one short (0.10 mile or less) logging spur would be constructed.

Timber harvest and fuels activities on Federal lands, including BLM and Forest Service, are planned within the analysis area. The Forest Service’s proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency EIS (2008) project includes timber harvest, fuel reductions, and maintenance underburning in the extreme upper reaches of southeast Wagner Creek. No new or temporary roads are planned. For BLM lands, both timber harvest and fuel reduction projects are proposed. The Ashland Fuels EA (2009) project proposes 834 acres of fuels reduction and prescribed burning. The Ashland Fuels Reduction project is treating non-commercial (< 8 inch diameter) conifers and shrublands to reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland urban interface area and no new or temporary roads are proposed. All fuels activities should maintain canopy cover between 40 and 60 percent. New ground disturbance will be limited, and hand treatments would be employed over the treated acres.

Alternative 1 - No-action

There are no actions proposed under Alternative 1 (the No-action Alternative); therefore, direct and indirect effects are the current conditions in the analysis area, which are the result of past actions not related to the Wagner Anderson project. All current conditions and trends will continue as specified in affected environment. Namely, roads with poor drainage and lack of maintenance, or improper maintenance, would continue to deliver water and sediment to streams. Likewise, channel processes would maintain poor habitat conditions due to a lack of large instream wood.

On BLM managed lands, over time, vegetation recovery within riparian reserves would moderate stream temperatures and provide for increased wood recruitment to stream channels. There would be no changes in percent of area in nonrecovered (less than 30 percent canopy cover) openings, areas of compacted soil, road densities, percent of area in roads, or number of stream crossings. There would therefore be no changes to the magnitude and frequency of peak flows beyond those which may already be occurring.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-17 Environmental Assessment In the long term, a high intensity wildfire over part or all of the area may occur. Should this happen, it could drastically alter the surface water and groundwater regime. Immediately after a severe fire, the loss of vegetation would make more groundwater available for streamflow and low summer flows would likely increase. However, the absence of vegetation may also result in an increased risk of higher peak flows and increased erosion.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

This alternative proposes various prescriptions of commercial timber harvest, temporary and new road construction, road reconstruction, and construction of up to 5 new landings. In addition, depending on post harvest fuels conditions, activities may be followed up by fuels treatments such as hand-piling and burning, under-burning, or biomass removal.

Three new road segments are proposed, totaling less than 0.2 miles in length. All three segments would be located in the Wagner sub-watershed. One road on private lands totaling approximately 580 feet in length would be located within the riparian reserve of Arrastra Creek, a tributary to Wagner Creek. The other two proposed segments outside of riparian reserves (39-1-23.4 road, 500 feet on the ridgetop between Basin Creek and Arrastra Creek; and the 39-1-23.5 road, 200 feet adjacent to Reel Creek) would be constructed in upslope areas, and would not interface with stream channels. Road reconstruction would occur on two separate existing natural surface road segments. One segment approximately 350 feet long crosses and parallels a small intermittent stream channel, a tributary to Basin Creek. The other road segment, approximately 0.8 miles long and located in the Arrastra Creek drainage, would cross one intermittent stream. This road, a narrow native surface jeep road would be widened by approximately 3 feet with additional curve widening to allow use by logging equipment. A culvert would be installed at the intermittent stream crossing.

All vegetation treatments would maintain an overstory and mosaic of understory vegetation. At least 40- 60 percent canopy cover would be maintained in harvest units. There would be no clear-cuts or regeneration harvest creating large canopy openings. Therefore, there would be no increase of percent canopy cover less than 30 percent within the analysis area, specifically in the TSZ, and no risk for an increase in peak flows. Baseflows would likely remain unaffected as the magnitude of vegetation removal would not significantly reduce transpiration. Since there is no harvest proposed within riparian reserves, stream temperatures would not be affected by the proposal and the project is in full compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS).

Where prescribed fire is necessary, it would be planned as a low intensity burn, thereby protecting soil productivity and cover. It is expected that one year after treatment, grasses and forbs would return. Tree thinning and low intensity under burning would retain a mix of hardwoods and conifers, organic duff layer, leaf litter, and coarse wood debris. Collectively these forest components provide nutrients, bacteria and fungi decomposers, and mycorrhizae to maintain long term site productivity. Additionally, fuel treatments would occur over a period of years, distributing activity over time.

As described in the affected environment section, sediment levels due to roads, past harvest, and other disturbances is the primary focus of concern. In addition to road and landing construction and reconstruction, this proposal includes log hauling and associated road maintenance. Road maintenance includes ditch cleaning, road blading, and maintenance of drainage features. Log truck traffic, especially on unsurfaced roads, loosens the road surface and makes that material available for transport to channels. When road maintenance is performed improperly or best management practices (BMPs) are not implemented, the potential for sediment delivery to streams increases dramatically. Examples include sidecasting material, undercutting cutslopes, improper disposal of material, and unnecessary disturbance within riparian reserves. Luce and Black (1999) found no significant increase in erosion when only the

Wagner Anderson Project 3-18 Environmental Assessment road surface was treated; however statistically significant erosion occurred when road ditches were bladed. Luce and Black (2001) observed an 87% decrease in erosion and sediment transport from roads in years one and two following road maintenance activities. With this proposal, hauling and road maintenance activities are expected to result in a short term increases in sediment and turbidity. With the proper implementation of project design features (BMP’s), these increases are expected to me minor. If transport occurs during high flows, which is likely, the introduced sediment will become an immeasurable fraction of the total sediment load and would not be detectable at downstream locations.

Road construction and reconstruction has the potential to increase sediment production as well. Compared to the existing road system, the amount proposed for both is minor in extent. New road construction would increase road density by 0.01 mi./sq. mi. and increase the compacted area attributed to roads by less than 0.0001 % in the Wagner Creek catchment. Road reconstruction would increase compacted ground by 0.3 acres, or less than 0.0002% of the Wagner Creek catchment, and less than 0.01% in the Arrastra Creek drainage (HUC 0827).

Specific actions included in this proposal that have a higher probability of sediment delivery include widening a curve within the riparian reserve of Arrastra Creek, the installation of one culvert on the reconstructed jeep road (39-1-14.2 road), and the reconstruction of 350 feet on road 39-1-23.2 paralleling a tributary to Basin Creek. With the proper implementation of required Project Design Features (PDFs) and BMPs contained in Chapter 2, there would be little to no additional sediment routed to stream channels. In fact, a net improvement would be realized on the road paralleling Basin Creek. Currently, OHV use has rutted and degraded the entrance portion of this road which is located in a wet area. Sediment from this disturbance is being directly routed to Wagner Creek. Following reconstruction and use, proper closure would eliminate or reduce OHVs and the resultant sediment source. Given the small amount of additional compacted area, and that the roads would have little or no hydrologic connection to channels, there is no probability the proposed road construction would modify the magnitude or timing of peak or base flows.

As described in the affected environment, impacts from roads, recreation, and primarily clear-cut logging has altered watershed processes in the upper catchments. In the lower catchments, agriculture and urbanization are responsible for degraded aquatic processes and conditions. This mix of impacts is typical of many of the catchments draining into Bear Creek.

It is expected that reasonably foreseeable future actions including rotational harvest on commercial timberlands that maintain forest conditions in an early to mid seral condition (USDI 1995) and land disturbance attributed to development of private lands will continue. Activities on BLM and Forest Service lands will likely continue to focus on commercial thinning for forest health and fuels reduction projects. Some recovery is expected to occur as previously harvested areas within riparian reserves improve shade and large wood recruitment.

Because the Wagner Anderson project does not reduce canopy cover below critical thresholds or result in appreciable increases in additional ground disturbance, the primary catalysts that may trigger synergistic responses, there would be little to no change from the existing conditions. Therefore, the Wagner Anderson project is not expected to contribute to adverse cumulative watershed effects and would maintain watershed, sediment, and water run-off processes and riparian function. In many cases riparian vegetation vigor would improve and any short-term sedimentation from road maintenance and haul would become immeasurable in downstream stream reaches. Therefore, there are no anticipated cumulative effects to either the project area drainages, or the larger catchments.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-19 Environmental Assessment D. FISH & AQUATIC HABITAT

1. Introduction

The proposed Wagner Anderson timber sale would be located in the western portion of the Bear Creek fifth field Watershed, in the Middle Rogue River Basin. Included in the analysis area are the Wagner and Anderson Creek catchments, large tributaries to Bear Creek. The Bear Creek Watershed as a whole will be discussed in this analysis, as the Northwest Forest Plan states that Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives will be analyzed at the site, drainage, and fifth field watershed scales. However, this analysis will focus primarily on the Wagner and Anderson Creek catchments, as it is in these particular streams that potential effects to fisheries resources from this project would be discernable.

Key Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Issues in the Watershed Scoping (external and internal) generated the following key issues for fish and fish habitat both existing and anticipated under implementation of the action alternative:

Riparian areas and instream aquatic habitats in the watershed streams are currently degraded from a host of past and ongoing activities, including: • Reduced water quality and physical alterations of aquatic habitat has resulted from extensive urbanization and development; a high percentage of the drainage basin converted into non-porous surfaces has resulted in accentuated run off patterns. • Removed or relocated instream substrates from past mining activities has physically altered aquatic habitat. • Increased sediment inputs to aquatic habitat has resulted from extensive road construction and high road densities. • Obstructed fish passage may occur from high demands on water use and the construction of dams. • Altered stream flow regimes have occurred in some streams in the watershed from being over allocated and from diversions and transfer of water into and out of drainage basins. • Reduced water quality from increased erosion and sediment transport to certain stream reaches has occurred from historic and ongoing grazing. • Reduced riparian canopy cover and reduced potential for large wood inputs from past timber harvest in riparian areas has resulted in reduced shading, increased water temperatures and reduced riparian and aquatic structure and productivity.

Native fish populations appear to be on a long term declining trend in the Rogue Basin. Although little quantitative data is available specifically for the Bear Creek Watershed, this trend very likely holds true for the Bear Creek Watershed, as it is among the most altered watersheds in the Rogue River basin.

Sediment levels in some streams in the watershed, including both Wagner and Anderson Creeks, are currently high enough to be compromising the function and health of both the stream system and populations of aquatic organisms. Furthermore, many streams are listed for other water quality deficiencies, including exceeding summer water temperature and fecal coliform levels.

Sedimentation from road construction/reconstruction and other ground disturbing activities could increase sediment levels in stream channels. Aquatic habitat, including designated Coho Critical and Essential Fish Habitat could be further degraded as a result of implementing the action alternative.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, particularly in the northwestern portion of the watershed, is high, with many miles of trails bisecting the watershed. Some OHV trails have been as identified as directly

Wagner Anderson Project 3-20 Environmental Assessment contributing to instream habitat degradation. Openings and new roads created by timber harvest operations may encourage increased use by OHVs, if not closed, gated, barricaded, or mitigated with PDFs, potentially further increasing sediment delivery levels to aquatic habitats.

Endangered Species Act In 1997 the Southern Oregon/Northern California (SONC) Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon (Onchorynchus kisutch) was listed as “threatened” with the possibility of extinction under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). SONC coho have been observed in the mainstem of Bear Creek and several of its larger tributaries, and they have been described as historically being present in Wagner Creek.

Coho Critical and Essential Fish Habitat On May 5, 1999, NMFS designated Coho Critical Habitat (CCH) for SONC coho salmon. Critical habitat includes “all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers.” It further includes “those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection...”, including all historically accessible waters (Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 86, 24049). CCH is broken into occupied CCH, habitat known to support coho based on observation or historical records, and unoccupied CCH, which is habitat that is assumed to be capable of supporting populations of coho should the species be recovered. The upper distribution of unoccupied CCH is often determined by fish biologists, whom use available information and professional judgment to make an educated estimate of where coho could have historically been present. Determinations are usually based on stream conditions (such as stream size, gradient, presence and nature of natural barriers such as waterfalls, etc.). Lacking information regarding historical distribution of coho salmon, and in the absence of natural fish migration barriers, fisheries managers often consider unoccupied CCH to include stream reaches known to be accessible to other migratory fish, particularly to steelhead. In most cases, this document will consider unoccupied CCH to include all waters known to be accessible to steelhead trout, which includes both Wagner and Anderson Creeks.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been defined by NMFS as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” This definition includes all waters historically used by anadromous salmonids of commercial value (in this instance, coho salmon). EFH within the analysis area is identical to CCH. More information regarding EFH may be found at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/99efh1.pdf

Riparian Reserves Under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), Riparian Reserves (RRs) have been established on all stream channels displaying annual scour located on federal lands. Areas of unstable/potentially unstable ground are also managed as RRs. The Northwest Forest Plan identifies Riparian Reserve widths as 300 feet or twice the length of a site potential tree (whichever is greater) for fish bearing streams, 150 feet or the length of one site potential tree for non fish bearing perennial streams, and 100 feet or the length of one site potential tree for intermittent streams (see Chapter 2, Project Design Features for a description of Riparian Reserves for the Wagner Anderson Forest Management Project). Widths are measured as slope distance from the edge of the stream, and are applied to both sides of the channel. These Riparian Reserve widths are in accordance with the Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP), which incorporated the NWFP (See the 1994 Medford District RMP, p. 26-27). The primary function of Riparian Reserves is to provide shade and a source of large wood inputs to stream channels. Additionally, they are a source of nutrient inputs to the aquatic ecosystem, they provide bank stability, maintain undercut banks that offer prime salmonid habitat, and provide habitat for a diverse range of other aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Meehan 1991).

Wagner Anderson Project 3-21 Environmental Assessment 2. Consideration of Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects is defined as the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” (See definition of “cumulative impact” in 40 CFR § 1508.7.) This section will discuss the effects of actions proposed within the analysis area, in the foreseeable future, that may contribute towards cumulative impacts to fisheries resources when considered in conjunction with anticipated impacts resulting from the Wagner Anderson project. Anticipated direct and indirect affects to fisheries resources will be described from each action. For any foreseeable future action determined to have any anticipated effects to aquatic habitat, the cumulative effect of the action coupled with effects from the Wagner Anderson timber sale will be discussed at the end of this analysis.

Private Timber Harvest Private industry is presently planning an estimated 120 acres of harvest (assumed to be clear cut), in the Wagner Creek subwatershed in the near future. This harvest would be located primarily within the Arrastra Creek drainage. At this time, it is not known when or where other private timber harvest will occur in the analysis area, but is assumed that it will continue to occur at a similar rate as has occurred in the past, with similar effects to aquatic habitats (see Section D, 1, Affected Environment, Aquatic Habitat). Private lands are governed under state forestry regulations, and as such receive a different level of protection than federal lands. Analysis of effects from private timber harvest generally considers the worst case scenario (i.e. all suitable forested lands would be logged on a 60-year rotation). This analysis will assume that in general, all suitable private lands will continue to be subject to intense timber harvest, and that the amount of disturbance to aquatic systems as a result of this harvest will continue similar to present rates, helping to maintain degraded aquatic habitats, as described in the aquatic habitat current conditions. The pending private harvest in the Arrastra Creek drainage would result in an additional 120 acres of hydrologically unrecovered ground, as the area would likely be clear cut. In addition to removing the majority of the overstory canopy, ground compaction would also be increased, due to yarding corridors. This particular unit would have high hydrological connectivity to aquatic habitats via a perennial tributary to Arrastra Creek which bisects the proposed harvest unit. State forestry regulations would require a 10-foot no-cut buffer adjacent to this channel (classified as a small, non-fish, non- domestic use stream), and would allow harvest through several other small intermittent streams in the unit. Given this, it is reasonable to assume that both erosion rates and sedimentation to aquatic habitats downstream of this unit are likely to increase following harvest operations.

Future Fuels Treatments Fuel treatments are tentatively planned in the analysis area, on both BLM and Forest Service managed lands. BLM fuels reduction would only thin non-commercial sized vegetation (conifers less than 8 inches diameter and shrubs) and Forest Service fuels reduction focuses on thinning from below and retaining large tree structure with minimal ground disturbance (USDA, 2008). All fire check lines would be waterbarred and rehabilitated after ignition operations were completed. Because stream side shade producing vegetation would be buffered, treatments would not lead to increases in water temperature or sediment inputs to channels. Canopy levels would not be reduced by treatments, nor would ground compaction increase; hence peak flows would not be affected. Fuels treatments could contribute to a potential increase in ground water storage and subsequent release to streams throughout the dry season. However, any extra water available is likely to be utilized by remaining vegetation before entering stream channels. For these reasons, fuels treatments are not expected to impact fisheries resources, and they will not be considered further in this analysis.

This section will present baseline conditions in the Bear Creek Watershed and within the Wagner and Anderson sub-watersheds specifically, as well as anticipated effects resulting from this project. The effects of past actions manifest themselves in the current conditions. Effects added on top of these past

Wagner Anderson Project 3-22 Environmental Assessment actions as a result of the Wagner Anderson Timber Sale, coupled with foreseeable effects from future projects as described above, are the cumulative effects of this project to fisheries resources in the watershed and specific drainage basins.

3. Affected Environment

a. Fish and Designated Habitat Current Conditions

Bear Creek Watershed SONC coho salmon, fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), summer and winter steelhead (O. mykiss), and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) are native migratory fish species present in the watershed. Their distribution includes the mainstem of Bear Creek from its mouth to barriers just below Emigrant Dam, which are complete upstream passage barriers. These species may at times be present above the dam through hatchery plantings conducted by the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Many of these species are also present in the larger tributary streams to Bear Creek, though Chinook are less likely to stray from the mainstem channel. Cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), sculpin (Cottus spp.), Klamath small-scale sucker (Catostomus rimiculus), and rainbow trout (O. mykiss) are native fish species present in the watershed that do not migrate to the ocean. Distribution of these species extends upstream past Emigrant Lake. In addition, a host of introduced fish species are present in the watershed, including redside shiners (Richardsonius balteus), large and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui and M. salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio) as well as other introduced warm water fish.

Bear Creek is used as a migratory corridor for adult and juvenile coho and steelhead to access their primary spawning and rearing habitats located in the larger tributaries. Fall Chinook salmon are mainstem spawners and utilize suitable spawning locations in Bear Creek. Some winter steelhead and coho also spawn in Bear Creek, especially during periods of low flow when access into spawning tributaries is difficult. The mainstem, particularly above the city of Talent, does provides some juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, though poor water quality limits both the quality and quantity of suitable rearing habitat during the summer months.

Wagner and Anderson Creeks The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducted presence/absence fish surveys in the Bear Creek Watershed in 1999. Surveys documented that steelhead/rainbow trout juveniles were present in both Wagner and Anderson Creeks. Juvenile coho were not documented, but it should be noted that presence/absence surveys typically are conducted in the upper portions of drainages, and hence would not have had a high likelihood of detecting juvenile coho, more likely to be present in lower reaches. One record suggests that at least the lower two miles of Wagner Creek historically supported spawning and rearing by both coho and chinook although the record goes on to say that no coho have been seen in the stream for over two decades (Kencairn et al 2001).

Distribution of steelhead and cutthroat trout extends approximately 7.5 miles up the mainstem channel of Wagner Creek, and about 1.7 miles up Horn Gulch, a large tributary to Wagner Creek. Additionally, cutthroat trout are present in numerous tributary drainages, most of which are on private lands. Steelhead and cutthroat may be found as far as 5.3 miles up the mainstem channel of Anderson Creek. Table 3-5 (below) and map 3-2 display fish and fish habitat distribution within the Wagner/Anderson analysis area.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-23 Environmental Assessment Table 3-5: Known and assumed historic salmonid and habitat distribution in the Wagner/Anderson analysis area. Stream Coho1 CCH/EFH2 Steelhead1 Cutthroat1 River Miles River Miles River Miles River Miles Wagner Creek 2 7.5 7.5 7.5 Wagner tribs 0 1.9 1.9 5.6 Anderson Creek 0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Total Fish/habitat 2 14.7 14.7 18.4 Miles 1 Observed/recorded distributions. 2 Assumed distribution, based on best available information.

Map3-2: Fish distribution in the Wagner/Anderson Analysis Area CCH/EFH = red line (steelhead distribution)

Wagner Anderson Project 3-24 Environmental Assessment b. Aquatic Habitat

Bear Creek Watershed Instream habitats in the Bear Creek Watershed as a whole can be described as degraded as compared to pre-European settlement. A host of past and ongoing activities have contributed to this degradation, beginning with the discovery of gold in the area in the middle 1800’s. Historic gold mining activities included dredging and placer mining; operations that have left a legacy of disturbed aquatic habitats still apparent in many areas today. Many tons of substrate were turned over and removed from streams. In addition, historic mining practices typically removed large wood from stream channels to facilitate mining operations. Large wood is a key component to healthy stream ecosystems that encourages formation of pools (rearing habitat), helps promote accumulation and storage of gravel (spawning habitat), helps slow stream velocities (reducing bank erosion), and helps capture and store mobilized fine sediment (a harmful component to aquatic organisms in excessive amounts). The result of these operations to aquatic organisms is negatively modified habitats such as less pool and off channel habitats (a critical rearing habitat element) and an increase in riffle and other fast water habitats, an increase in fine sedimentation levels beyond historic levels, and stream reaches prone to subsurface flow due to aggradations of worked tailings.

Timber harvest in the watershed began during this same period, as mining operations cleared areas for roads to access mine sites, and to establish structures on. The majority of this early harvest would have been concentrated in the riparian areas, as they were easily accessible, and were the areas of interest to early miners and settlers. As settlement of the area continued, agriculture became the dominant land use of the area, with intense livestock grazing occurring in riparian areas. Forested areas were cleared for livestock, resulting in further reductions of riparian vegetation.

As the population in the Rogue Valley increased, the cities of Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Jacksonville, and Central Point were established. These cities, all within the Bear Creek Watershed, represent the highest concentration of people in the entire Rogue Basin. The majority of the stream corridors and lowland areas in the Bear Creek Watershed have largely been settled, and urban/residential/agricultural use has become the dominant land use for the valley bottom areas in the Watershed. Roads, businesses, and residences parallel the majority of the fish bearing streams, resulting in many instances to confinement of stream channels. The high amount of paved surfaces and buildings has resulted in reduced infiltration and storage of water, and increased run-off rates. Water demands have resulted in the development of numerous water works, including Emigrant, Hosler, and Oak St dams, and many smaller storage and diversion dams on the mainstem and tributaries of Bear Creek. The demand for water in the watershed is so great, that water from other basins and subbasins (Klamath and Applegate) are diverted into Bear Creek. Increased population in the watershed has led to increased pollution as well. Inputs of petrochemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, waste water, etc. impact water quality in the watershed on a chronic basis. These activities have highly modified the hydrology in the watershed, created physical barriers, reduced water quality, and overall have led to significant degradation of instream habitats. Urbanization and development in the watershed is still continuing at present day.

Upland areas, generally much more sparsely settled, vary greatly dependent upon aspect and elevation. Generally, the east half of the watershed is drier, dominated by oak woodlands and grasslands, and grazing is the predominant land use, while the western side is cooler and damper, dominated by conifer stands, and timber production has and continues to be the emphasis in these areas.

Many miles of road have been constructed in the watershed. Roads have contributed to sedimentation of instream habitat (see water resources and soils sections). The effects of fine sediment on aquatic organisms have been well documented; fine sediment (such as decomposed granitic sand or silt) in excessive amounts degrades stream and aquatic organism health. This sediment can fill in pools, cover

Wagner Anderson Project 3-25 Environmental Assessment spawning gravels, and smother eggs (Meehan et al. 1991). Reduced substrate availability and complexity may decrease the diversity and quantity of aquatic organisms, upsetting the ecological balance of the stream system. Increased turbidity from high sediment amounts can disrupt feeding and territorial behavior of juvenile salmonids, which can lead to decreased growth rates and increased mortality. These effects may be far-reaching, and stream reaches many miles downstream of point-sources of sediment input (including downstream areas designated as CCH and EFH) have the potential to be negatively impacted (Meehan et al. 1991).

Off-highway vehicle use has been documented as contributing to fine sediment deposition in the watershed as well, particularly in the western half of the watershed, as many streams in the vicinity of the Timber Mountain Off-highway Vehicle Management Area are being negatively impacted by trail related erosion (USDI 2001, USDI 2005). Trail density and related erosion are particularly high in the Jackson Creek catchment (USDI, 2005), and have been increasing recently in Anderson Creek as well.

While other activities have occurred in the watershed that have directly or indirectly altered aquatic habitats, the above discussed activities have and continue to have the greatest impacts to fish and fish habitat.

Wagner Creek At about 15,000 acres in size and composed of twelve 7th field drainages, the Wagner Creek subwatershed forms one of the larger tributaries to Bear Creek. BLM managed lands account for only 21% of the drainage, and the majority of the fish bearing channels (around 85%) are located on private lands. BLM managed lands do include around 1.5 miles of the mainstem of Wagner Creek, and roughly 0.3 miles of Horn Gulch, both of which support populations of steelhead and cutthroat trout.

The main-stem of Wagner Creek up to at about river mile 5.3 (near the confluence with Arrastra Creek) is bordered by private residential and agricultural lands. Wagner Creek Road parallels the stream and is paved to this point. For the most part, riparian vegetation is relatively sparse, limited to a thin strip adjacent to the channel as the stream flows through rural urban to urban/commercial areas (USDI 2001). Above the Arrastra Creek confluence, the stream flows through forested lands, managed primarily by the BLM and Forest Service. Horn Gulch enters Wagner Creek on BLM lands about a half mile upstream of the Arrastra confluence. Wagner Creek road, rocked from this point on, continues to parallel the stream for 1.3 more miles before heading upslope towards Wagner Gap. The riparian corridor is generally more intact in these upper reaches.

Aquatic habitat has been quantified by the ODFW (ODFW 1997) and the BLM for the mainstem of Wagner Creek, upstream of the Arrastra Creek confluence. Both surveys noted that fast water habitat units were more prevalent than pools, that instream large wood was lacking, and that the percentage of sand and sediment (fines) are high and well above the ODFW benchmark (< 10% desirable, >20% undesirable). This would indicate that quality spawning and rearing habitat are in short supply in upper reaches of Wagner Creek. Conditions are even worse in Horn Gulch, with decomposed granitic sand accounting for up to 100% of substrates in many observed riffle and pool habitats. Surveys conducted on lower reaches of Wagner Creek (through the city of Talent) documented that wood, pools, and gravels were lacking, also indicating poor spawning and rearing habitat (Kencairn et al 2001). Substrate data was not taken, but casual observations suggest that, as in upstream, reaches, high percentages of fines are common in lower reaches of Wagner Creek as well.

Large wood densities were found to be low on surveyed fish bearing reaches of Wagner Creek, as tallies made by the ODFW and BLM during stream surveys recorded less than one (1) key piece per 100 meters (M) of surveyed stream. This is well below the ODFW benchmark of > 3 “key” (24 inch diameter) pieces per 100 M.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-26 Environmental Assessment Augmented stream flows from an interbasin transfer have resulted in increased surface flows in Wagner Creek during the summer months. Increased surface flow in and of itself may not be detrimental to aquatic organisms, but it may potentially attract individuals to areas that would have very low or even no surface water near the end of the dry season, exposing those individuals to stranding when the interbasin transfer is ceased. In addition, Wagner Creek from its mouth up to river mile 7.4 has been placed on the ODEQ’s 303(d) list for exceeding instream summer temperature criteria (see list, available on-line at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp).

Anderson Creek Composed of two 7th field drainages, the 8,242-acre Anderson Creek catchment is adjacent to the northwest of the Wagner subwatershed. BLM managed lands account for 20% of the basin, and are concentrated in upland and headwater areas. As such, all fish bearing channels are contained within private lands.

Anderson Creek from it confluence with Bear Creek is surrounded by agricultural and rural residential lands for over five miles. Like Wagner Creek, riparian vegetation is sparse to non-existent for the majority of this reach. Anderson Creek Road, paved to this point, parallels the stream. The landscape changes in upstream reaches, to forested stands. Hence, riparian corridors surrounding the South and North Forks of Anderson Creek are much more intact than in lower stream reaches. Private and county rocked and natural surfaced roads parallel both forks.

Aquatic habitat inventories have not been conducted on any lower reaches of Anderson Creek and little information is available to characterize habitat throughout the fish bearing reach. BLM has conducted inventories on all stream reaches on BLM lands (USDI 2006), and documented high (30-40%) percentages of fines in both the North and South Forks of Anderson Creek. Fines were found to be abundant in other surveyed perennial tributaries in the Anderson Creek catchment as well, in some cases accounting for up to 80 percent of all substrates. There are several ponds and impoundments on private lands downstream of these surveyed reaches, several of which may potentially act as sediment traps. However, given the high amount of fines that are prevalent in upper stream reaches, it is likely that they are also common in lower reaches, impacting fish habitat.

Riparian Reserves Current Conditions Riparian corridors along fish bearing stream reaches in the Bear Creek Watershed (including the mainstem of Bear Creek) have been reduced from historic levels as agriculture and urban development of valley lands, road construction, and historic timber harvest practices have cleared vegetation adjacent to stream channels. This has increased penetration of solar radiation to stream channels, resulting in elevated summer stream temperatures. Though a greenway corridor does parallel much of the stream, riparian corridors are narrow around most reaches of Bear Creek, and roads, businesses, and homes now exist in the historic flood plain. Generally, riparian corridors are likewise very narrow or absent throughout the majority of the lower, fish bearing reaches of the tributary streams in the watershed, as residences, roads, and agriculture lands now parallel these lower stream reaches. Invasions of introduced species (especially Himalayan blackberry) have also reduced the quality of riparian vegetation in the watershed. The result in many areas are riparian corridors that do not provide desirable levels of shade to stream channels to prevent solar penetration to, and heating of, the water. ODFW considers greater than 70 percent shade desirable, and less than 60 percent shade undesirable to aquatic organisms in small (less than 12 meters wide) forested streams. Bear Creek is listed as water quality limited for exceeding summer stream temperature criteria by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).

Within the analysis area, Wagner Creek has also been identified by the ODEQ as exceeding summer maximum temperature parameters (see water resources), set at 64.4 ○F. This summer maximum temperature standard was generated for fish, specifically salmonids which have a narrow thermal

Wagner Anderson Project 3-27 Environmental Assessment temperature tolerance. Elevated water temperatures can affect feeding, growth, and survival of salmonids (Meehan 1991). Wagner Creek has been found to exceed the state temperature limit from its mouth upstream to river mile 7.4, with a 7-day average maximum high temperature of 67.4 ○F recorded. Anderson Creek has not been identified as water quality limited for summer water temperatures.

While riparian corridors in lower reaches of both Wagner and Anderson Creeks are narrow and impacted by roads and residences, they are generally intact in upper reaches which flow through forested landscapes.

Within the analysis area, there are an estimated 798 acres of Riparian Reserves (calculated from GIS) on BLM managed lands. There are many more acres of riparian areas located on private lands that do not receive the same level of protection as that provided by Riparian Reserves. Overlaying the vegetation condition (GIS) layer with Riparian Reserve boundary layer is a useful way to display current vegetative states of the reserves over the large area encompassed within the project boundary. Note, however, that the vegetative condition layer was generated primarily to reflect upland conditions, and only estimates the conditions in riparian areas, especially those areas adjacent to stream channels (the primary shade and large wood producing zone). A summary of existing vegetative states in Riparian Reserves on BLM managed lands within the Wagner Anderson analysis area is presented by catchment in table 3-6 below.

Table 3-6: Vegetation condition of BLM Riparian Reserves in the Wagner Anderson Analysis Area Catchment Riparian Reserve Acres by Vegetation Type Grass Early Seral Poles Mid Seral Mature Total & Hardwoods (seedlings/saplings) (5-11” (11-21” (>21” Acres of shrubs DBH) DBH) DBH) R.R.’s

Wagner 2 28 31 86 224 249 620 Creek Anderson 0 12 2 50 76 38 178 Creek Total 2 40 33 136 300 287 798

The seral stage of vegetation surrounding the Riparian Reserves can provide insight to how well the reserves are capable of functioning, in terms of providing shade and as a source of large wood inputs. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that trees in a mid seral stage (minimum 11” in diameter at breast height (DBH)) or older will function to provide sufficient shade to stream channels, and that pole size trees (< 11” DBH) and younger may not provide sufficient shade to stream channels to prevent solar penetration to the stream channel. It was also assumed that only stands in a mature stage (>21” DBH) are capable of providing a source of large wood of sufficient size to encourage channel modification and habitat improvements. Hardwoods were not included in this comparison as they do not conform well to DBH measurements, and do not provide large wood of the same quality that conifers do (Beechie et al 1999). Excluding hardwoods (a common component of riparian areas) and pole size trees may tend to underestimate the percent of reserves that are currently providing sufficient levels of shade to stream channels. Table 3-7 below displays the percent of all Riparian Reserves that are in mid seral or greater stage (capable of providing high levels of shade), and in a mature stage (capable of providing large wood to channels).

Wagner Anderson Project 3-28 Environmental Assessment Table 3-7: Percent of Riparian Reserves in mid seral or greater, and mature seral stages in the analysis area. Catchment in % of Reserves % of Reserves in Mature Stage Planning area in Mid Seral Stage or Greater (Trees >21” DBH)1 (Trees >11” DBH)1 Wagner Creek 76% 40% Anderson Creek 74% 21% Total 74% 36% 1 Does not include acres of hardwoods, which likely underestimates actual shade provided to stream channels.

Data obtained through this analysis suggests that within the Wagner Anderson analysis area, Riparian Reserves capable of providing ample shade are relatively intact throughout the analysis area. This analysis also suggests, however, that reserves capable of providing large wood are lacking throughout the entire analysis area, particularly within the Anderson catchment. As the RRs mature over time, it is expected that both the amount of shade and the potential for large wood inputs will increase, barring a catastrophic wildfire or major flood event.

4. Environmental Effects

a. Fish and Designated Habitat

Alternative 1 - No-action Alternative

The No-action Alternative will have “No Effect” to fish populations or distribution, SONC coho salmon, CCH, or EFH, as no ground disturbing activities would occur under this alternative. Affects already occurring to fish habitat as a result of past and ongoing activities are presented in the Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Reserve sections following.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 has been determined to be “May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)” SONC coho salmon, CCH, and EFH. This determination was made based on analysis to fish and aquatic habitat in this EA and the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for the NMFS for this timber sale. The BLM has initiated informal consultation following the guidelines in Federal Register Section 402.16 (50 CFR Part 402). Effects to aquatic habitat were determined to be of insufficient magnitude and of a nature to not meaningfully impact aquatic habitats in fish bearing channels (see aquatic habitat discussion, below), and hence implementation of the action alternative would not affect fish populations in the analysis area streams or in the Bear Creek watershed.

b. Aquatic Habitat

Alternative 1 – No-action

The No-action Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, and hence would not contribute to cumulative effects to aquatic habitats, as no ground disturbing activities would occur. Aquatic habitats within the watershed would continue to exist in their current degraded state. As no new road construction or renovation of old roads would occur, road densities would remain at the current level within the analysis area. Fish habitat would continue to be impacted as a result of past and ongoing activities.

Urban and agricultural lands would likely remain in their current state, impacting fish habitat in the drainages and in the Bear Creek Watershed as described above. It is unknown at this time what additional

Wagner Anderson Project 3-29 Environmental Assessment development may occur on private lands, but increased development of the area would likely place greater stresses on aquatic habitats.

Future fuels reduction projects in the area are not anticipated to have any adverse impacts to aquatic habitats. Fuels treatments projects proposed in the area would remove only small diameter vegetation, would require minimal ground disturbance (no slashbuster units are proposed), and would leave not treatment vegetative buffers of 50 feet along stream channels (dry draws may receive channel adjacent treatments, as needed, to accomplish fuels objectives). All fire check lines would be rehabbed (raking duff and debris back across line and waterbarring as needed, etc) after ignition operations, minimizing the risk of erosion and transport of sediment down the lines towards aquatic habitats.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

This alternative proposes various prescriptions of commercial timber harvest, temporary and permanent new road construction, road reconstruction, log haul, and construction of 5 new landings, as described in Chapter 2 of this document. All commercial harvest and silviculture activities may potentially be followed up by fuels treatments. The commercial harvest units would be located in both the Wagner and Anderson Creek catchments. No new road construction would cross or parallel any stream channels, although roughly 580 feet of new construction would occur within a Riparian Reserve width of a fish bearing stream. A substantial portion of the proposed road reconstruction would occur on roads that cross or parallel defined stream channels and Riparian Reserves.

Ground disturbing activities in or near stream channels and roads have the greatest potential to impact fish habitat; it is these activities that could increase erosion and sediment transport to, and storage in, stream channels. The soils and hydrology sections of this document describe where and by what means erosion will likely occur, and the mechanisms for displaced sediments to enter the stream network. The new road construction, road reconstruction, and log haul proposed under this alternative have been identified as having the greatest potential to contribute sediment to streams.

New Roads Three short new road segments are proposed, totaling less than 0.2 miles in length. All three segments would be located in the Wagner subwatershed. One road portion, on private lands and totaling roughly 580 feet in length (a new entrance constructed for 39-1-14-2 road) would be located within a Riparian Reserve width of Arrastra Creek, a fish bearing (cutthroat) tributary to Wagner Creek. This permanent new construction would be done to reduce the angle of the curve at a spur road junction; the existing angle is currently too sharp to allow log trucks to safely access the spur road. No stream channels would be involved with the new construction. The re-route would occur upslope (away from the creek) from the existing road, would be located on relatively flat ground, and would be out-sloped to allow the road surface to shed water. The other two proposed segments, (39-1-23.4, 500 feet, and 39-1-23.5, 200 feet) would be constructed in upslope areas, and would not interface with stream channels. The 39-1-23.4 segment would be retained as a permanent road with water dip or bars installed after use and blocked from the entrance of the 39-1-23.2 road; the 39-1-23.5 spur would be a temporary road, and would be obliterated after harvest operations had been completed. As none of these roads would cross any stream channels, they would have no direct hydrological connectivity with the aquatic system.

Although the construction of the new roads would increase road densities in a catchment and watershed that already has high road densities, given the small amount of road construction proposed and the lack of hydrological connectivity, there is very little chance that construction of these roads would impact fisheries or aquatic resources. In the event that sediment generated from construction, use, or maintenance of these short new segments was mobilized during a precipitation event, the roads would

Wagner Anderson Project 3-30 Environmental Assessment shed the water and eroded particulates into downslope vegetation, where it would be filtered and stored before reaching any stream channels.

Road Construction Road reconstruction would occur on two separate existing natural surface road segments. One segment, roughly 350 feet long (the “Basin Creek segment”), crosses (via ford on private lands) and parallels a small intermittent tributary to Basin Creek. The approaches to this ford would be improved by the addition of rock, and the surface of the road, where it is grown over by vegetation, would be re-opened. The stream channel would be dry at the time of reconstruction. After harvest operations, the road would be returned to its closed state; two sets of tank traps would be constructed at the bottom of this segment to close the road and the road prism would be covered with logging slash and native seed. The bottom portion would remain rocked to improve drainage through a perennially wet area. The other road segment (the “Arrastra Creek segment”), roughly 0.8 miles long and located in the Arrastra Creek drainage, would cross one intermittent stream. This road, a narrow natural surface jeep road, would be widened by approximately 3 feet with additional curve widening to allow use by logging equipment. A culvert would be installed at the intermittent stream crossing. All reconstruction would be seasonally restricted whenever soil moisture conditions or rainstorms could result in the transport of sediment to nearby stream channels, typically from October 15 to May 15, or when soil moisture exceeds 25%.

It is likely that sediment generated from reconstruction activities would be transported to aquatic habitats, and eventually into CCH in Wagner Creek, because reconstruction activities would have hydrological connectivity with the stream system, and would involve major ground disturbance, particularly the Arrastra Creek segment proposed to be widened by 3 feet. The cut bank side of the road would need to be excavated, and the fill would be incorporated into the design of the road (i.e. to maintain the outsloped prism, and to widen curves). This particular work would have hydrological connectivity to Arrastra Creek via a short duration intermittent stream. Numerous site visits to this road suggest that it is currently stable and able to shed intercepted precipitation/runoff with minimal erosion and transport of sediment observed. The Basin Creek segment would necessitate disturbance of a natural surfaced road which crosses and is immediately adjacent to a short duration intermittent stream. This road, located on private lands, takes off from the mainline Wagner Creek road at the outlet of the intermittent stream, in an area that is perennially wet. Reconstruction of this segment would involve removing some overgrown vegetation, grading, and rocking the surface at the approaches to the channel crossing. The bottom of this road appears to be currently used by OHVs and full sized trucks intent on “mud bogging” at its wet junction with the Wagner Creek Road, and as a result is a chronic contributor of both turbid water and fine sediment to Basin Creek.

Though reconstruction of these roads would have a high likelihood of generating and transporting fine sediment, the amount contributed to aquatic habitats would be small. Direct transport of disturbed particulates would be minimized due to PDFs which would limit the work to the dry season and reduce erosion. Given the design of the roads (outsloped and cross drained), sediment would only be directly input into stream channels in the vicinity of the crossings. Sediment remaining below these crossings after reconstruction activities would be mobilized and transported downstream in the first flow event of the season. As both impacted channels are short duration intermittent channels, they would flow only in response to a high precipitation event. During such an event, the sediment would likely be transported to and through aquatic habitats (including CCH) as a pulse of increased turbidity, which would not be detectable by the time it reached fish bearing channels behind the high background turbidity levels which occur chronically in Wagner Creek during high flow events. This direct effect would be short term, and only expected to occur during the wet season following the work.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-31 Environmental Assessment Indirect chronic inputs are not anticipated to increase beyond what is currently occurring; the Arrastra segment would remain outsloped and well drained, and capable of shedding the majority of captured water and transported sediment off its prism before reaching aquatic habitats. The Basin Creek segment would be subject to much less disturbance then the Arrastra Creek segment, and would be limited to the existing road prism. Rocking the lower portion of the road, which would incorporate both the wet road junction and the stream crossing, would reduce the amount of sediment chronically input into Basin Creek on an annual basis, as the erosion rate of the road would be decreased. This would represent a slight long term beneficial effect. However, this positive effect would not be discernable in downstream fish bearing channels, which are impacted by both high sediment and turbidity levels from many other sources.

Haul Routes Repeated use of the unpaved haul roads potentially may both directly and indirectly contribute fine sediment to streams as rocked surfaces become pulverized rock (i.e. dust, a form of fine sediment) surfaces after repeated heavy truck traffic. Direct contributions of fine sediment could occur if dust mobilized by haul should settle out in stream channels crossing or adjacent to the haul route. Indirectly, the fine sediment that remains on the road prism would be available to be transported off of the road during the first significant rain event following a season of haul. Properly engineered roads are capable of shedding the majority of mobilized sediment off of the road (or road ditch) downslope and into vegetation. However, the road/ditch distance from the last cross drain located on either side of a channel crossing would directly contribute captured water and mobilized sediment into the stream channel. Therefore, use of the roads for haul would increase the risk of road derived sediment transport to stream channels, particularly in the vicinity of road/stream crossings.

Log hauling would occur on an estimated 27 miles of road in the analysis area, of which nine miles would occur on paved roads, nine miles on gravel or rocked roads, and nine miles on natural surfaced roads. All hauling would be in the Wagner and Anderson catchments. The main haul routes (includes both rocked and paved surfaces) would parallel the mainstems of both Wagner and Anderson Creeks. Portions of these routes are located as close as 15 feet from fish bearing stream channels (mainstem of Wagner Creek) in areas. The portion that parallels the fish bearing channel of Anderson Creek is paved. There would be an estimated 79 channel crossings on the haul roads within the analysis area consisting of 35 paved, 20 natural, and 24 rocked surface crossings. Of the 79 channel crossings, 34 cross perennial channels.

Log hauling would likely input some fine sediment into aquatic habitats in Wagner Creek because the amount of haul would be moderate (estimated at 158 truck loads), the main haul route closely parallels the mainstem of Wagner Creek, and there would be 17 non-paved crossings over perennial streams. Potential sediment sources from log hauling are surface erosion from truck traffic and dust. Surface erosion would be minimized because PDFs would restrict log hauling to dry conditions and it would be restricted whenever soil moisture conditions or rainstorms could result in the transport of sediment to ditch lines and nearby stream channels. Two thirds of the haul roads (18 of 27 miles) are rocked or paved. This would reduce the probability of road surface erosion and subsequent sedimentation of aquatic habitats. Dust abatement measures would reduce the probability of dust migrating from the road to the streams, but it is likely that some would settle out into the section of the mainstem of Wagner Creek along the 1.3 mile long section of channel that is only 40’ from the road surface, because the stream is so close to the road. It is also likely some mobilized dust from the rocked and natural surface crossings would subsequently settle out into the channels below the crossings.

It is unlikely that haul would contribute measurable sediment to aquatic habitats in Anderson Creek, as all routes in the vicinity of the main channels are paved, haul would only occur during the dry season, the

Wagner Anderson Project 3-32 Environmental Assessment amount of haul would be relatively light (44 truck loads) and there would only be two non-paved crossings over perennial channels.

Although haul would have a high likelihood of inputting some sediment into aquatic habitats (including CCH in Wagner Creek), the magnitude of the inputs would be small because dry season haul restrictions would reduce impacts to the road surfaces, and haul routes would be spread over a large spatial scale, minimizing the use any one surface would receive, excepting the main haul route up Wagner Creek. Along this main route up Wagner Creek, it is anticipated that some dust generated from haul would settle into CCH, particularly in the vicinity of the stream crossings. It is not anticipated that the amount would be discernable above those contributions chronically occurring to this reach, which is subject to relatively high volume traffic by both the general public and private industry. As such, the amount of dust (sediment) to reach and settle out in any one pool would be insufficient to adversely modify aquatic habitats, including CCH.

Commercial Timber Harvest The soils and water resources analysis of this project documented that timber harvest would not contribute to instream habitat degradation. In the Analysis Area, the Ecoregion Description (WPN 1999:Appendix A) lists historic canopy closure as greater than 30 percent, with the exception of the oak woodland/ lowest elevations which historically had less than 30 percent canopy closure. Commercial harvest would leave average canopy closures of between 40% and 60%; approximately 20% of the proposed action units would have a minimum of 40% canopy retained, and remaining units at approximately 60%. All other forested areas across the landscape are currently estimated to have an average 76% canopy cover (Gordon, 2009). Because even following harvest, canopy closure in units in each of the catchments would still be at or above historic percentages, and the average canopy closure across the landscape would be much greater than those described in the Ecoregion Description, harvest proposed for this timber sale would not affect peak flows.

Summer base flows are unlikely to be enhanced from the proposed timber harvest. Vegetation removal can increase interception of precipitation and storage of ground water and subsequent release to stream systems as summer flows. The increases are due to a reduction in evapotranspiration as vegetation is removed. However, water yield increases are usually only detected when a substantial portion of the watershed has been harvested. Any increased summer water availability would have little chance of affecting summer low flows, because due to seasonal drought conditions in the analysis area, and harvest prescriptions that leave vegetation on-site (no clear cuts), the remaining vegetation would likely utilize any additional water before it could reach the stream network.

All timber yarding would occur outside of Riparian Reserves and ground compaction from the small amount of tractor yarding proposed (77 acres) would be minimized by using designated and existing skid trails. Timber yarding would increase compacted ground by an estimated 16 acres in the analysis area (14 in the Wagner subwatershed), which is less than 2/10ths of one percent of the area. Given the small amount of additional compaction, and that RR would be left between all units and stream channels (reducing the potential hydrological connectivity from a unit to a stream), there is no probability that timber yarding proposed for the Wagner Anderson sale would modify peak or base flows.

Because harvest and yarding operations would not take place in Riparian Reserves, these activities would not contribute sediment to stream channels. The RR buffers would capture and store any mobilized sediment coming from harvest/yarding operations. No connectivity, and hence no causal mechanism, would exist for commercial timber harvest to input sediment through the RR buffers and into stream channels.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-33 Environmental Assessment Because harvest and yarding operations would not increase peak flows, negatively modify summer base flows or input sediment into aquatic habitats, they would not directly or indirectly affect the aquatic environment, and hence would not impact fisheries resources, and would not add a cumulative effect.

Landings Construction of five new small landings would not affect fisheries resources. None would be built in RRs. Any captured precipitation that may become concentrated flow and mobilize sediments from the surface of the landing would be diverted off the landing, downslope and into vegetation where the runoff and sediment would be captured, or diverted down a road. Any flow/sediment diverted down a road would be diverted off of the road prism/ditch at the location of the first downslope drainage structure, and into downslope vegetation. The landings would not increase the amount of compacted ground in the area enough to affect peak or base flows. As such, they would have no direct or indirect effects to aquatic resources, and would not add a cumulative effect.

In Summary: Short term (one to three years) there would likely be small inputs of sediment to channels affected by the road reconstruction, and to channel crossings and reaches adjacent to some of the roads used for haul. Any sediment increases would be minor relative to existing sediment levels. The construction of less than 0.2 miles of new road is not anticipated to contribute sediment to aquatic habitat, as none of the new road construction would be hydrologically connected to the stream system. Upland work, including new landing construction and timber harvest, would have no effect on fine sediment levels, due to the filtering action of Riparian Reserve buffers, extensive PDFs designed to prevent overland sediment movement, and normal BMPs. Stream temperatures would not be affected, as no riparian vegetation adjacent to perennial streams would be removed (see Riparian Reserves discussion, below).

Future private timber harvest is assumed to continue at present levels, and cumulative effects to water resources have been assessed (see Water Resources, this document). Future private harvest, coupled with anticipated increasing OHV use (assuming no change in management) is expected to continue the declining trends in streambank stability, sedimentation potential, and health of riparian areas currently present in the analysis area. The Wagner Anderson timber sale would, in the short term contribute a small amount of sediment to channels in the Wagner Creek drainage, on top of the large amounts contributed annually from all other sources. Direct inputs of fine sediment resulting from haul would be of insufficient magnitude to meaningfully affect fish or fish habitat. Indirect inputs resulting from the road reconstruction and haul would be minimal and would occur at times that would preclude detection in fish bearing channels (i.e. as brief pulses of elevated turbidity during high flow events). In sum, though this project would not benefit aquatic resources (i.e. no road decommissioning or closures), no measurable changes in the declining aquatic habitat conditions are anticipated to result from implementation of the action alternative.

c. Riparian Reserves

Alternative 1 - No-action

The no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects to Riparian Reserves (RR) within the Bear Creek Watershed. The reserves would remain as they are currently, slowly recovering as stands mature. It is anticipated that levels of shade and large wood input will slowly increase over time. Benefits will be limited in RR’s impacted by roads, as barring major road decommissioning, the existing road system will likely remain in use, perpetuating canopy openings adjacent to the fish bearing stream reaches. As this alternative would not contribute any direct or indirect affects to the reserves, no cumulative effects would result from implementation of the no action alternative.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-34 Environmental Assessment Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The only activities proposed in riparian areas under this project are the construction of approximately 580 feet of new road, road reconstruction to roughly 500 feet of riparian roads (inclusive of both the Basin and Arrastra Creek segments), and log haul. All other activities would occur outside of riparian areas. Haul would not affect shade or rates of large wood input as this activity would not require the removal of large trees or shade producing vegetation. Reconstruction activities would require the removal of trees to accommodate the 3 foot widening of the road prism of the Arrastra road segment. Though this could potentially affect shade, it would not impact stream temperatures, as the stream in question is short duration and would be dry during the summer. Future potential large wood inputs to the intermittent stream would be reduced slightly by the additional 3 foot wide strip. This area (estimated to be less than 900 square feet, and paralleling approximately 200 feet of the channel) would no longer be capable of producing tress/potential large wood to input into the stream channel.

Construction of the new length of riparian road would require the removal of riparian vegetation. This would not affect the amount of shade afforded to Arrastra Creek because the construction would occur upslope of the existing road, to the north of the creek. Vegetation to the north of the east-west orientated Arrastra Creek does not shade the creek from sunlight, which would strike the channel from a southerly direction. Future large wood inputs would be reduced throughout the 580 foot right-of-way for the road prism, as this area would be denuded of all vegetation. However, the reduced large wood potential is minimal; as mentioned, the new construction would occur upslope of an existing road, and the proposed new road entrance would only be 580 feet in length. This would reduce potential future inputs on approximately 130 feet of Arrastra Creek.

Cumulatively, though future large wood inputs would be slightly reduced due to the new road construction and road reconstruction proposed in riparian areas, the reduction would be minimal, affecting an estimated 330 feet of stream channels. As the recovery of RRs on federal lands continues, it is anticipated that both shade levels and inputs of large wood will eventually increase over stream channels within the analysis area. Stream temperatures during the summer months may eventually lower as a result of this. However, it will take many years for the RRs to achieve their full potential, and benefits would be limited in areas already impacted by permanent roads. Riparian areas on private lands are anticipated to remain in their current status.

E. CONSISTENCY WITH AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY

1. Introduction

The Northwest Forest Plan’s (NWFP) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) was developed to restore and maintain ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands. It is guided by nine objectives which are meant to guide agency actions to protect ecological processes.

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is also incorporated into the 1995 Medford District RMP, and has four components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. In this case, Wagner Creek is a sixth field subwatershed and is composed of 12 smaller 7th field drainages, such as Arrastra Creek, a large Wagner tributary. The Anderson Creek catchment, composed of only two 7th field drainages, is half of another 6th field subwatershed. Both of the subwatersheds are within the larger Bear Creek 5th field watershed. How the four components of ACS relate to the Wagner Anderson Sale is explained below:

Wagner Anderson Project 3-35 Environmental Assessment 1. Riparian Reserves: Riparian Reserve widths for streams, springs, wetlands, and unstable soils have been determined according to the protocol outlined in the NWFPs Aquatic Conservation Strategy and are listed in the PDFs for the Wagner Anderson Timber Sale.

2. Key Watersheds: Tier 1 Key Watersheds contribute directly to conservation of at-risk anadromous salmonids, bull trout, and resident fish species. They also have a high potential of being restored as part of a watershed restoration program. The Bear Creek Fifth Field Watershed is not a Key Watershed.

3. Watershed Analysis: BLM completed the West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis in 2001. The Watershed Analysis covers the western third of the watershed only, which encompasses the project and analysis areas.

4. Watershed Restoration: Most of the restoration activities in the watershed have focused on restoring fish passage to provide better access to habitat on upstream private and federal lands. Projects by the local watershed council, ODFW and/or BLM include culvert removal and replacement, dam removal, road decommissioning, and irrigation ditch fish screens and siphoning.

2. Consistency Review

The following documents the BLMs review of the consistency of the Wagner Anderson Project with the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. Consistency review/analysis is conducted at the 5th-field hydrologic scale, or watershed, at the 6th and or 7th fields (subwatershed and or drainage), and at the site level.

Objective 1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

Topography, slope, forest fire regime, climate, and the distribution of soil types and plant communities are some of the landscape-scale features affecting aquatic systems in the Bear Creek Watershed. One of the outcomes of the timber sale will be to compensate for an altered fire regime and restore fire resilient plant communities in areas treated. The restoration of fire resilient plant communities will aid in the future use of prescribed fire across the landscape to maintain a diverse distribution of plant communities (including riparian areas) across the landscape. The results of this project would be noticeable at the site level, but would have only a minor benefit at the watershed scale, as less than 1% of the watershed would be treated. However, when combined with other forest resiliency projects such as the Ashland Forest Resiliency project (Upper Wagner Creek drainage) and the Ashland Fuels Reduction Project, this project would contribute to watershed scale objectives for the restoration of fire resilient plant communities over the long-term.

Objective 2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

In the Bear Creek Watershed, BLM-managed land is concentrated in the steeper slopes of the tributary streams of Bear Creek. Here, longitudinal connectivity and road densities are the primary issues for aquatic species. No activities planned under the Wagner Anderson timber sale

Wagner Anderson Project 3-36 Environmental Assessment would affect spatial and/or temporal connectivity, as no culverts are proposed for addition or removal on perennial channels.

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

The only proposed action in the Wagner Anderson timber sale that would affect the physical integrity of the aquatic system are the addition of rock to a natural surface channel crossing, and the placing of a culvert at another crossing, both over intermittent channels. Though this would alter the bank and bottom configuration at the crossing points (site level), these actions would also reduce the likelihood of erosion and subsequent deposition of sediment to downstream habitats from use of the crossings. This would not impact the physical integrity of the aquatic system at larger spatial scales.

Objective 4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

There would be no effect on water temperature, because shade would not be reduced along any perennial stream channels. Short term (one to three years) there would likely be some amount of fine sediment entering stream channels from the road reconstruction, and adjacent to certain roads used as haul. Sediment increases resulting from these activities would be minor relative to existing sediment levels, and detectable behind background levels only at the site level. Upland work would have no effect on fine sediment levels, due to the filtering action of Riparian Reserve buffers, extensive PDFs designed to prevent overland sediment movement, and normal BMPs.

Objective 5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

The only elements of this project which could affect the sediment regime are the reconstruction of the riparian road and log haul, which are expected to contribute some sediment to aquatic habitats. Haul would likely input a very small amount of fine sediment to aquatic habitats adjacent to or crossing haul routes. This sediment would affect site level habitats during an uncharacteristic time of year (i.e. during haul, which would likely occur during the summer). However, most inputs would occur during high flow events, as the proposed road work would involve short duration intermittent streams, which would only flow in response to a large precipitation event. Hence, most of the sediment would be released and passed through the system as turbidity during a more characteristic time, when the aquatic system was able to transport sediment. At such a time, it would be undetectable in downstream habitats with high sediment and turbidity from a myriad of other sources. Also see ACS Objective #4. In general, very high road densities, past and ongoing intense harvest of industrial and federal timber lands, extensive agricultural and urban development, increasing OHV use, and the legacy of past mining in the Bear Creek Watershed will continue to impact the sediment regime.

Objective 6. Maintain and restore instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-37 Environmental Assessment Peak flows and summer low flows are unlikely to be affected by the Wagner Anderson Timber Sale. Please see the Section C, Water Resources (above) for details concerning hydrologic function. Any effects on ground water availability from the project would be too insignificant to be noticeable at the site, much less the drainage or watershed scale. Land uses not associated with the Wagner Anderson project such as storage dams, water transfers and withdrawals for agriculture and residential use, and the high amount of non-porous surfaces (roads, buildings, etc.) would continue to impact instream flows in the watershed.

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

Only harvest would have any mechanism to affect the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation. However, harvest would not occur in Riparian Reserves and would leave at a minimum 40% canopy cover, which is within the range of natural variability within the analysis area. Because of this, any extra water input intercepted by the ground as a result of harvest would likely be utilized by remaining vegetation before it reached the floodplain. Therefore, this objective would not be measurably affected at any spatial scale.

Objective 8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Only the construction of the proposed new riparian road, and the reconstruction of the existing road near Arrastra Creek would have any mechanism to impact this objective. The new road would require the permanent removal of riparian vegetation along the road prism. This would not affect thermal regulation, as the road would be to the north of the stream channel, and hence none of the affected vegetation would be contributing to channel shade. Reconstruction of the existing road would also necessitate the permanent removal of vegetation, but as the stream impacted is a short duration intermittent channel, water temperatures would not be adversely affected. Nutrient filtering, surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration would not be affected at the site levels because the new construction and reconstruction would occur upslope of the existing roads and vegetation would remain undisturbed between them and the stream channels. Future inputs of woody debris would be slightly reduced at the site level (about 300 linear feet of one side of Arrastra Creek, and about 200 feet both sides of the intermittent stream) as the both the new road construction and existing road reconstruction would preclude the growth and potential input of large trees to the stream. This would not compromise woody debris objectives at the larger spatial scales (beyond the site scale).

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

See objectives # 3, 4, 5, and 8. Site level effects to aquatic and riparian habitat would not be of sufficient magnitude to compromise this objective. The amount of habitat affected would be insignificant and immeasurable at the drainage, subwatershed, and watershed scales compared to the past and ongoing degradation that has impacted habitat in these catchments.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-38 Environmental Assessment F. BOTANY

1. Affected Environment

Bureau Special Status Plants, Lichens, and Fungi (SSP) include species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), proposed or candidates for listing, State listed, and Bureau designated Sensitive species. For these species, the BLM implements recovery plans, conservation strategies, and approved project design criteria of biological opinions, and ensures that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM promotes their conservation and reduces the likelihood and need for their future listing under the ESA.

On July 25, 2007, the Oregon State Office Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2007-072 updated the State Director’s Special Status Species List to incorporate the Record of Decision To Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and to include species additions and deletions from the application of the most recent scientific data. This list was finalized with the February 7, 2008 Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2008-038.

This project will meet the provisions of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (not including subsequent Annual Species Reviews).

Surveys for all species on the Medford SSP list (current at the time of survey) were conducted in 2007 and 2009. Surveys for Survey and Manage species not specifically searched for in 2007-2009 are being conducted currently. Surveys were conducted using the intuitive controlled survey method. This method includes a complete survey in habitats with the highest potential for locating Special Status species. The surveyor traverses through the project area enough to see a representative cross section of all the major habitats and topographic features, looking for the target species while en route between different areas. Most of the project area will have been surveyed. When the surveyor arrives at an area of high potential habitat (that was defined in the pre-field review or encountered during the field visit), a complete survey for the target species is made.

The surveys documented 28 occurrences of two Bureau Special Status Plant species within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas.

The Wagner Anderson Project Area is entirely within the range of Fritillaria gentneri, a plant that is listed as endangered under the ESA. The project area is not within the range of any other ESA listed plants on the Medford District (Arabis macdonaldiana, Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora, Lomatium cookie). Range maps were updated with the Biological Assessment/Letter of Concurrence for the Effects of Proposed FY 2009-2013 Forest Management Activities on Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat on September 25, 2008 (USDI BLM 2008) (USDI FWS 2008). Two occurrences of listed, proposed, or candidate plants (Fritillaria gentneri, Calochortus persistens) have been found within the project area but neither are within 100 feet of any unit or haul road. Any sites of listed, proposed, or candidate plants found outside their defined range would have been reported. Table 3-8 lists the SSP found within or bordering the proposed treatment units or haul routes.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-39 Environmental Assessment Table 3-8. Bureau Special Status Plants in or adjacent to Wagner Anderson Units/Roads. Scientific Name Common Name ORNHIC ORNHIC Count Rank List Cimicifuga elata tall bugbane G3/S3 1 22 Eucephalus vialis wayside aster G3/S3 1 3 Cypripedium montanum mountain lady’s slipper G4/S3S4 4 2 Chaenotheca ferruginea Black Pin Lichen NA NA 1 ORNHIC = Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center G = Global Rank S = State Rank

Rank Definitions: 1 = Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity or because it is somehow especially vulnerable to extinction or extirpation, typically with 5 or fewer occurrences. 2 = Imperiled because of rarity or because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction (extirpation), typically with 6-20 occurrences. 3 = Rare, uncommon, or threatened but not immediately imperiled, typically with 21-100 occurrences. 4 = Not rare and apparently secure but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences. 5 = Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. ? = Not yet ranked or assigned rank is uncertain.

List Definitions: 1 = taxa which are endangered or threatened throughout their range or which are presumed extinct 2 = taxa which are threatened, endangered or possibly extirpated form Oregon, but are stable or more common elsewhere. 3 = taxa for which more information is needed before status can be determined, but which may be threatened or endangered in Oregon or throughout their range. n/a = not available

Of the 20 species of fungi that are on the Medford District Sensitive Species list, 19 are Survey and Manage species whose status determined that pre-disturbance surveys were impractical and not required; one species is a hypogeous (underground) fungus, as are other of the previously referenced fungi, where pre-disturbance surveys would be impractical (see Table 3-9). Oregon State Office Information Bulletin No. OR-2004-145 reaffirmed this, stating that Bureau policy (BLM Manual Section 6840) would be met by known site protection and large-scale inventory work (strategic surveys) through fiscal year 2004.

Table 3-9 Sensitive Fungi with Suitable Habitat within the Wagner Anderson Project Area Scientific Name ORNHIC Rank ORNHIC NWFP List Sites Boletus pulcherrimus G2G3/S2 1 23 Dermocybe humboldtensis G1G2/S1 1 4 Gastroboletus vividus G2?/S1 1 5 Gomphus kauffmanii G2G4/S3? 3 74 Gymnomyces fragrans G2G3/S1S3 1 2 Helvella crassitunicata G3/S2 2 29 Leucogaster citrinus G3G4/S3S4 3 48 Otidea smithii G2/S2 3 10

Wagner Anderson Project 3-40 Environmental Assessment Scientific Name ORNHIC Rank ORNHIC NWFP List Sites Phaeocollybia californica G2?/S2? 1 44 Phaeocollybia olivacea n/a n/a 115 Phaeocollybia oregonensis G2?/S2? 1 15 Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva G3/S3? 3 49 Pseudorhizina californica G4/S2 2 42 Ramaria largentii G3/S2? 3 20 Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva GUT2/S1? 1 1 Rhizopogon chamaleontinus G2G3/S1S2 2 1 Rhizopogon clavitisporus G2G3/S1S2 2 3 Rhizopogon ellipsosporus G2G3/S1S2 2 5 Rhizopogon exiguus G2G3/S1S2 2 3 Sowerbyella rhenana G3G4/S3 3 66

Special Status & Survey and Manage Species within or adjacent to treatment units and haul roads Chaenotheca ferruginea is a black stubble or pin lichen. Its typical substrate is the sheltered bark or wood of large old trees. In the project area, it is found in late seral Douglas-fir forests on the trunks and bases of Incense cedar and Douglas-fir. Chaenotheca ferruginea is globally widespread in cool to temperate areas. In 2007 the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center dropped this species from all lists as it was deemed too common. In 2001 CHFE7 was a Survey and Manage category B species.

Cimicifuga elata is a native perennial bugbane that is found in low elevation moist woods and forest openings. It is a candidate for listing by the State of Oregon. In the project area, some populations occur in previously managed conifer stands. Currently, the morphological and DNA traits are being examined to determine the appropriateness of splitting this species into two varieties. The current data shows conflicting results. There are 22 known sites in or adjacent to proposed treatment areas representing 41% of the known populations in the 5th field watershed and 6% of all sites in the GeoBOB database area (BLM in Oregon, Washington, and part of northern California).

Cypripedium montanum is a native orchid that is found in a wide variety of habitats, from full sun on eastern mountain slopes to full shade in moist wooded valleys. Its range is western North America and Alaska. Cypripedium montanum is a C category S&M species. The objective for C category species is to identify and manage high-priority sites to provide for reasonable assurance of the taxon’s persistence. There are 2 known sites in or adjacent to proposed treatment areas; each site consists of just a few individuals. These 2 sites represent 11% of all known Cypripedium montanum sites in the 5th field watershed and 0.2 % of all sites in the GeoBOB database area (BLM in Oregon, Washington, and part of northern California).

Eucephalus vialis is a native perennial aster that is found in dry coniferous forests typically dominated by Douglas-fir. The species preferred habitat is thought to have been historically sustained by frequent fire return intervals that create open forest conditions with widely spaced conifers. Eucephalus vialis is known from southern Oregon/Northern California and the Willamette Valley. Eucephalus vialis is listed as threatened by the State of Oregon; BLM manages State listed plants for their conservation. State laws protecting these species apply to all BLM programs and actions to the extent that they are consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other Federal laws. There are three known sites in or adjacent to proposed treatment areas representing 43% of the known populations

Wagner Anderson Project 3-41 Environmental Assessment in the 5th field watershed and 1% of all sites in the GeoBOB database area (BLM in Oregon, Washington, and part of northern California).

Sensitive & Survey and Manage Fungi with Suitable Habitat within the project area Boletus pulcherrimus is the red-pored bolete mushroom. It is listed as endemic to the Pacific Northwest, including northern California, but has also been reported from New Mexico. In the range of the NFP, there are 23 known sites. Four sites are on the Medford District in the vicinity of Hyatt Lake and two are on the Rogue River National Forest. One site is located in the project area’s watershed (Bear Creek). The nearest site to the project area is approximately 10.4 air miles away in the vicinity of Shale City. NFP habitat data is available for only the Medford BLM and Winema NF sites. This plant community data shows this species occurs on White fir/Douglas-fir early mature forests, Douglas-fir/White fir/Ponderosa pine young forest, White fir/chinquapin communities, and Shasta red fir/chinquapin communities. Elevation ranges from 4620’ to 5640’. Habitat data for other NFP sites is in humus in association with roots of mixed conifers (Grand fir, Douglas-fir) and hardwoods (tanoak) in coastal forests.

Dermocybe humboldtensis is a green-brown cap mushroom with olive-yellow gills. It is endemic to California and Oregon. In the range of the NFP, there are four known sites. There are no sites located in the Bear Creek watershed. The nearest two sites occur on the BLM Roseburg District approximately 62.2 air miles away. Habitat data for the Roseburg sites is incomplete; community type is listed as Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir for one site. Other NFP habitat community types are for coastal dune Redwood/Douglas-fir and Redwood/Sitka spruce.

Gastroboletus vividus is a bright yellow and red bolete mushroom that is formed beneath the soil surface. It is endemic to California and Oregon. In the range of the NFP, there are five known sites; one site occurs on the Rogue River National Forest. Nearest site to the project area is in the Applegate Ranger District near Jackson Gap and is approximately 8.6 air miles away. Habitat data reports an association with various conifers in the Pinaceae family, particularly red fir and mountain hemlock.

Gomphus kauffmanii is a tan-colored false chanterelle. It is endemic to western North America being found in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, and British Columbia. In the range of the NFP, there are 74 known sites with four sites occurring on the Medford District. There is one site located in the project area. It is 0.1 miles from Unit 22-1 and 0.14 miles from Unit 22-5. The site is near Bald Mountain and is located in a young conifer plantation stocked with Douglas-fir and white fir. The species is an ectomycorrhizal fungus dependent on the health of its symbiotic partner, presumed Abies or Tsuga. It is also associated with Pacific silver fir, subalpine fir, Shasta red fir, Noble fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, Pacific yew, western red cedar, western hemlock, mountain hemlock, Pacific dogwood, oak species, vine maple, chinquapin, salal, and huckleberry.

Gymnomyces fragrans is a pale cinnamon brown false truffle. It is known from only six collections in Oregon, California, and Idaho. In the range of the NFP, there are two known sites with one site occurring within the boundary of the Medford District on Forest Service land. The site nearest to the project area is 8.6 air miles away on Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest land in the vicinity of Dutchman Peak. The species is a mycorrhizal fungus dependent on the health of its symbiotic partnership with Douglas-fir and mountain hemlock, especially of middle elevation Douglas-fir forests.

Helvella crassitunicata is a dark gray-brown cup fungus that is often found in moderately high elevations in the true fir and mountain hemlock zones, and in drier or at least well-drained sites. This species seems to tolerate mild disturbance such as well-established hiking paths but not large-scale disturbance such as logging, mining, and construction. There are 29 sites in the range of the NFP with the nearest known site

Wagner Anderson Project 3-42 Environmental Assessment being 19.7 air miles away in Josephine County on BLM land near the East Fork of Williams Creek. It is probably mycorrhizal and therefore dependent on its symbiotic partner.

Leucogaster citrinus is a pale to dark yellow false truffle. It is endemic to the Pacific Northwest. In the range of the NFP, there are 48 known sites with one site occurring on the Medford District. The site nearest to the project area is 12.6 air miles away in the vicinity of the Dead Indian Summit; it is in the project area’s watershed (Bear Creek). This site is in a white fir forest with western white pine. The species is a mycorrhizal fungus dependent on the health of its symbiotic partnership with white fir, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, western white pine, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock and seems to be abundant in lower elevation Douglas-fir forests. Other associated trees and woody species include Pacific silver fir, grand fir, mountain hemlock, tanoak, California laurel, vine maple, pinemat manzanita, Oregon grape, salal, rhododendron, salmonberry, and huckleberry.

Otidea smithii is a deep purple brown cup fungus. It is known from Washington, Oregon, and northern California with some reports from Idaho and British Columbia. In the range of the NFP, there are ten known sites with one site occurring within the Medford District boundary but on Forest Service land. The site nearest the project area is 15.1 air miles away on Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest land in the vicinity of Applegate Lake. This site is in a Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir association with poison oak as the dominant understory shrub at an elevation of 2300 feet. This fungus is a saprobe on forest litter under Douglas-fir, western hemlock, ponderosa pine, bigleaf maple, Oregon white oak, and black cottonwood. It may also form a symbiotic association with the fine root systems of certain plants. Other woody associates include vine maple, Oregon grape, twinflower, honeysuckle, poison oak, and Rubus species.

Phaeocollybia californica is an orange-brown gilled mushroom with a long pseudorhiza. It is endemic to the Pacific Northwest. In the range of the NFP, there are 44 known sites. The site nearest the project area is approximately 33.0 air miles away in the vicinity of Wilderville. NFP habitat data shows this species is associated with Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and tanoak communities. Other habitat data reports additional associations with oaks, Pacific silver fir, Sitka spruce and redwood.

Phaeocollybia olivacea is a dark olive, glutinous, gilled mushroom with a long pseudorhiza. It is endemic to Washington, Oregon, and northern California. There are 115 known sites in the NFP area and an additional four sites outside the NFP area. Nine sites are within the Medford District boundary with the site nearest the project area being approximately 24.4 air miles away in the vicinity of Williams. Medford District habitat data shows an association with Douglas-fir and Port Orford cedar. Other habitat data reports additional associations with western hemlock, redwood, Sitka spruce, tanoak, white fir, and mixed conifer forests with the Fagaceae and Pinaceae families. Elevation ranges from sea level to 3060’.

Phaeocollybia oregonensis is a gray-brown, glutinous, gilled mushroom with a long pseudorhiza. In the range of the NFP, it is known from only 15 sites, all in Oregon. The site nearest the project area is approximately 74.7 air miles away on the BLM Coos Bay District. Habitat data reports an association with Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and pacific silver fir. It has been reported from late successional forests but has also been reported from a 30 year old Douglas-fir plantation. Elevation ranges from 550’ to 4056’.

Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva is a dark to olive green, glutinous, gilled mushroom with a long pseudorhiza. It is endemic to western North America occurring in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and northern California. There are 49 sites in the GeoBOB database. Four sites are within the Medford District boundary with the site nearest the project area being approximately 27.5 air miles away in the vicinity of Grants Pass. Medford District habitat data for one site near Lake Selmac has the site located in a Tanoak- Douglas-fir-Canyon live oak forest. Two other Medford District sites are also valley bottom sites, Blue

Wagner Anderson Project 3-43 Environmental Assessment gulch which is west of Grants Pass and Reeves creek north of Kerby. Other habitat data reports a mycorrhizal association with species of the Pinaceae family, mixed conifers and hardwoods.

Pseudorhizina californica is an olive-brown to grey-brown false morel. It is endemic to western North America occurring in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, western Montana, and western Wyoming. There are 42 sites in the GeoBOB database. There are two known sites occurring within the Medford District boundary but on Forest Service land. The site nearest the project area is 3.7 air miles away on the upper reaches of the East Fork Ashland Creek near Mount Ashland. This site is located in the project area’s watershed (Bear Creek). Pseudorhizina californica is found fruiting on or adjacent to well-rotted stumps or logs of coniferous trees or on soil rich in brown rotted wood.

Ramaria largentii is a pale orange to deep orange coral mushroom. It is endemic to the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California). There are 20 known sites in the GeoBOB database. Two sites are on the Medford District. The site nearest the project area is 16.7 air miles away in the vicinity of Howard Prairie Lake. This is an ectomycorrhizal species that depends on forest components of Douglas- fir, western hemlock, western white pine, or true firs. This species has been found in young to mature Douglas-fir forests.

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva is a brown coral fungus known from only one site in the range of the NFP. It is also known from Europe. The single Oregon site is on the BLM Roseburg District in a late successional Douglas-fir forest at 1200’ elevation. This site is approximately 59.7 air miles from the project area and is southeast of Roseburg. Other habitat data reports an association with the Pinaceae family.

Rhizopogon chamaleontinus is a white globose underground truffle fungus. It is known from one site in the range of the NFP but is also known from Idaho. The single NFP site is within the Medford District boundary but on Forest Service land near the Kalmiopsis Wilderness boundary. The site is approximately 52.4 air miles from the project area. Habitat data for this site is Douglas-fir forest at 3300’ elevation.

Rhizopogon clavitisporus is an underground truffle fungus with little published information. The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center tracks three sites in Oregon. There is also one known site in Idaho. The ecology and biology of this species is unknown and requires further research. One site is within the boundary of the Medford District and is closest to the project area being 10.8 air miles away in the vicinity of McKee Bridge. The habitat at this site is Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine forest. Other habitat data includes forests of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce, and subalpine fir. This species is an ectomycorrhizal fungus dependent on the health of its presumed symbiotic partnership with members of the Pinaceae family.

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus is a brown subglobose underground truffle fungus. It is known from only five sites in the NFP area; four within the Medford District boundary and one in the northern Oregon Cascades. The nearest site is approximately 14.3 air miles from the project area near Cantrall-Buckley Park. Habitat data lists an association with Douglas-fir and Sugar Pine.

Rhizopogon exiguus is a white mottled globose underground truffle fungus. It is endemic to Oregon with only three sites known in the NFP area. The nearest site is within the boundary of the Medford District but located on Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest land. It is approximately 34.1 miles away in the vicinity of Waters Creek near Wonder, Oregon. The elevation of this site is 2800 feet. Habitat data lists an association with Douglas-fir and western hemlock.

Sowerbyella rhenana is an orange stalked cup fungus that is known from the North Temperate Zone in Europe, Asia, and North America. While it is widespread, it appears to be rare throughout its range. It is

Wagner Anderson Project 3-44 Environmental Assessment known from 66 sites in the NFP area. The nearest site is on BLM land, approximately 12.2 air miles away near Lost Lake. The habitat at this site is an open mixed conifer forest in transition from oak chaparral. This species is often found in sites with diverse mature trees, deep moss beds, and decaying wood in the soil. Threats to this fungus include changes that cause a reduction in coarse woody debris, the soil to dry, and the humidity to fall, such as canopy removal treatments.

2. Environmental Effects

Protection and mitigation measures and the resulting effects comply with the 1995 Medford District Resource Management Plan and BLM Manual 6840–Special Status Species Management. The BLM Manual 6840 was revised December 12, 2008. Section 6840.2E establishes procedures for the management of species and their habitat designated as BLM sensitive on O&C lands. The section directs the BLM to provide protection to BLM sensitive species that is consistent with the O&C Act, i.e. must be consistent with timber production as the dominant use. The analysis for the FEIS for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon BLM (2008) determined that protection measures for BLM sensitive species do not conflict with the management of timber resources on O&C lands.

Alternative 1 – No-action

Without vegetation treatment, Special Status Plants, Lichens, and Fungi populations would continue to decline due to the slow degradation of suitable habitat. Through fire suppression, the plant communities will continue to become overly dense, decadent thickets with increased competition for resources. Because of the unnaturally high fuel loading and structure, fire risk and fire hazard would remain high. A resulting intense fire would destroy the habitat and directly kill existing SSP populations.

The potential remains for a stand replacement fire that would produce early seral habitat conditions that are favorable for weed invasion. While a few rare plants can be found in disturbed habitats, such as burned areas, they are also found in natural habitats, such as forest openings or woodlands. In these disturbed habitats, competition for resources from noxious weeds and invasive nonnative plants would normally preclude rare plant survival.

In the watershed, natural plant communities, including rare plant habitat, would continue to degrade due largely to private land use and condition. Suitable habitat would continue to be lost due to conversion of land for human uses, e.g. home sites, farming and ranching, industrial, etc. Converted land is often cleared of trees and shrubs, the soil tilled, compacted, or covered with asphalt or concrete, buildings erected, and nonnative species planted or sown. These human uses are generally exclusive of a healthy properly functioning ecosystem. Privately owned commercial timberland is usually managed as an even- aged forest for a high output of logs; at a broad scale this is an unnatural vegetation condition.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Special Status plant species and 2001 Survey and Manage species currently being surveyed for will be protected by one or more of the following project design features depending on the species and its habitat requirements.

Special Status Plants, Lichens, and Fungi that have treatment effects mitigated by a seasonal restriction would experience limited direct physical effects. Seasonal restrictions on operations generally cover the period of Special Status species above-ground growth. Operations occurring outside this period would take place while these plants are below ground and dormant and would not be subject to most causes of direct physical damage. Limited and localized mortality or reduced vigor due to ground and cable yarding is expected. Potential death and damage to individuals would initially decrease local population

Wagner Anderson Project 3-45 Environmental Assessment (subpopulation) numbers. With time, we expect local population numbers will increase due to the beneficial indirect effects of the improved condition of occupied and potential habitat. Loss of some individuals will not contribute to the need to list the species as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Fuels treatments are allowed in the buffer area only when the SSP is dormant (see PDF).

Special Status Plants, Lichens, and Fungi protection (Table 2-5) by seasonal restriction will allow treatments within known sites that produce beneficial to slightly negative habitat changes. Generally, proposed treatments (thinnings) would produce more open stand conditions that are more favorable to Cimicifuga elata and Eucephalis vialis. However, there are openings up to ¼ acre allowed in mistletoe and pine areas. These openings may, depending on the surrounding forest density and height, create slightly adverse habitat conditions for Cimicifuga elata. In these openings, we expect that some individuals may be lost and/or there will be a decrease in vigor for part of a population but that the populations would persist.

While “no treatment” buffers would provide the maximum protection from site disturbance for Cimicifuga elata and Eucephalis vialis, habitat conditions within the buffer would deteriorate as a result of increased forest density without some form of management. Habitat modification in Special Status Plant sites for these two species would have a beneficial effect. Operations through some Special Status Plant sites may result in some initial loss of individuals from physical disturbance caused by harvest methods or from altered microclimate changes in the larger gap openings created from silvicultural mistletoe treatments. However, these species are secure in the watershed and the resulting habitat condition will be improved from moderate to light thinning; the site is expected to recover and improve.

Chaenotheca ferruginea and Cypripedium montanum will be protected by “no treatment” buffers. These species are less resilient to disturbance and require protection from physical damage. The size of the “no treatment” buffer will be determined by the quality of habitat at the site. Poor habitat quality (high density brush and small trees) favors smaller buffers to allow beneficial treatments nearer to the plants while excluding physical disturbance.

Special Status Plants, Lichens, and Fungi that are near roads will be protected from the adverse effects of using magnesium chloride (or other salt compounds) for dust abatement. On some roads, the use of magnesium chloride is prohibited.

Special Status Plants, Lichens, and Fungi that are present in the project area but not protected by buffers, seasonal restrictions, or magnesium chloride prohibition will not be affected by any proposed treatments due to their topographic relationship to or distance from the proposed treatments.

The one known site of the sensitive fungi, Gomphus kauffmanii, in the project area may be affected by the proposed treatments in units 22-1 and 22-5. While it is 0.1 and 0.14 miles away from the units, the location data refers to the fungus fruiting body only. The extent of the fungus individual or of the population is unknown.

Pre-disturbance surveys for these 20 fungi species (Table 3-2) (or fungi of related type) are impractical and not required, as determined by the Northwest Forest Plan. Pre-disturbance surveys are impractical because these species are difficult to identify and/or their occurrence is sporadic or unpredictable. All 20 species are associated with a forest component found in the project area, i.e. habitat exists in the project area to support these species. Most fungi on this list are mycorrhizal (associated with specific host trees) and depend on wind and/or animals to spread the spores. Known sites nearest the project area for each species range from zero to 75 air miles. Eleven species occur on the Medford District and six species occur within the Medford District boundary but on other lands (US Forest Service, State of Oregon, and private). For these 20 fungi, species specific information on connectivity and habitat requirements, range

Wagner Anderson Project 3-46 Environmental Assessment (including occurrences within the project area), and disturbance effects is incomplete. Therefore, we have no information that would cause us to find that the proposed action would have any effect on any of these 20 species.

Land ownership in the Bear Creek watershed is approximately BLM 11%, USFS 10%, and private 79%. Habitat conditions throughout the watershed are heavily influenced by land use activities on privately owned land. Much of the bottomland has been converted for human uses, such as housing and urban development, farming, ranching, roads, etc. Federal land is limited to the foothills and upper elevations of the watershed.

Recent past and proposed federal timber sales and commercial/non-commercial vegetation projects in the Bear Creek Watershed considered under cumulative effects have mostly been for forest health and fuels reduction. These treatments attempt to remedy the effects of long-term fire suppression and, as such, are generally beneficial to native plant communities (including SSP). If left untreated the chances for a stand replacing, catastrophic fire are increased.

A few units in past federal timber sales (1990s and before), have had silvicultural prescriptions requiring a heavier removal cut than recent sales. Generally, these prescriptions caused habitat changes too great to allow conifer forest-dwelling SSP to persist. Management policy and rotation age have not allowed SSP that inhabit older conifer forests to become re-established in these units.

Past or proposed timber harvest and other vegetation treatments on private land are incompletely known. Approximately 120 acres of private timber may occur in the foreseeable future directly west of Wagner Anderson unit 23-9. It is assumed that most timber harvest projects and other vegetation treatments on private land will have adverse affects on native plant communities (including SSP) due to timber removal prescriptions, logging methods, and less resource protection measures. Federal laws protecting endangered and special status plants do not apply to private land without a federal nexus. Large areas of southerly facing slopes have been used as rangeland. Historic overgrazing has caused plant composition and structure changes, especially noxious weed and nonnative plant invasions. Noxious weed control treatments are expected to be very limited, i.e. restricted to residential areas and federal projects conducted on private lands.

G. NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INTRODUCED PLANTS

1. Affected Environment

Noxious weeds are generally nonnative plants that cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Introduced plants are species that are nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration. Introduced plants may adversely affect the proper functioning condition of the ecosystem.

Noxious weeds are found throughout the project area and adjacent private lands. Noxious weed populations in the project area and on BLM are small and mostly associated with roads. All species of noxious weeds in the project area are on the Oregon Department of Agriculture List B. The “B” designated weeds are weeds of economic importance which are regionally abundant but may have limited distribution in some counties. Two species (Centaurea solstitialis, Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos) are also T list weeds. The “T” list weeds are target species for which the Oregon Department of Agriculture will develop and implement a statewide management plan. Table 3-10 lists the noxious weeds and introduced plants within the project area.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-47 Environmental Assessment Table 3-10 Noxious weeds and Introduced plants within the Wagner Anderson Project Area. Scientific Name Common Name ODA List* Frequency% Agrostis capillaris colonial bentgrass 13.6 Aira caryophylla silver hairgrass 45.5 Anthriscus caucalis burr chervil 22.7 Avena fatua wild oat 4.5 Bromus diandrus ripgut brome 4.5 Bromus hordaceous soft brome 13.6 Bromus tectorum cheatgrass 36.4 Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd’s purse 9.1 Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle B/T 22.7 Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos spotted knapweed B/T <1 Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare big chickweed 9.1 Chrysanthemum vulgare common tansy 4.5 Cichorium intybus chicory 4.5 Cirsium vulgare bull thistle B 40.9 Cynosurus echinatus bristly dogstail grass 77.3 Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom B <1 Dactylis glomerata orchardgrass 22.7 Draba verna spring draba 9.1 Erodium cicutarium redstem stork’s bill 18.2 Galium parisiense wall bedstraw 4.5 Geranium lucidum shining geranium 4.5 Hedera helix English ivy B <1 Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort B 77.3 Hypochaerus radicata hairy catsear 4.5 Iris germanica German iris 9.1 Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce 13.6 Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy 9.1 Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass 4.5 Luzula campestris field woodrush 27.3 Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover 22.7 Myosotis discolor changing forget-me-not 9.1 Nemophila menziesii baby blue eyes 18.2 Phleum pretense timothy 9.1 Plantago lanceolata narrowleaf plantain 22.7 Poa bulbosa bulbous bluegrass 54.5 Poa compressa Canada bluegrass 9.1 Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 18.2 Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry B 18.2

Wagner Anderson Project 3-48 Environmental Assessment Scientific Name Common Name ODA List* Frequency% Rubus laciniatus cutleaf blackberry 4.5 Rumex acetosella garden sorrel 13.6 Rumex crispus curly dock 4.5 Scleranthus annuus German knotgrass 9.1 Stellaria media common chickweed 4.5 Taeniatherum caput-medusa medusahead B 31.8 Taraxacum officianale common dandelion 54.5 Torilis arvensis spreading hedgeparsley 54.5 Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify 31.8 Trifolium dubium suckling clover 9.1 Trifolium repens white clover 27.3 Verbascum thapsis common mullein 13.6 Vicia sativa garden vetch 9.1 Vulpia myuros rat-tail fescue 27.3 Frequency = percentage that species occurs on survey species lists

Oregon Department of Agriculture List B Noxious Weeds Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) is an annual or biennial with a deep taproot. The yellow flower heads are spined producing 35-80+ seeds. Large plants can produce over 100,000 seeds. Seed dispersal is mainly via gravity with longer distances by birds, animals, humans, vehicles, and commercial crops. Seeds can remain viable in the soil seedbank for six to 10 years. Nonnative honeybees are the main pollinator of yellow star-thistle, accounting for 50% of seed set. There are 288 sites reported for the Bear Creek watershed and 20 sites for the project area (population numbers are for surveyed BLM lands). This weed is a native of Eurasia. It lowers forage value, increases farming and ranching costs, depletes soil moisture, displaces native plants, decreases plant diversity, and is toxic to horses. Successful control methods include chemical, biological, cultural practices (e.g. timing of crop plantings), and mechanical (including pulling and mowing).

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos) is a short-lived perennial with a stout taproot. The bracts of the flower heads have a black spot on the tip. This plant is a prolific seed producer; one plant averages about 1000 seeds per plant. Spotted knapweed is an aggressive invader that can occupy large areas very quickly. It is known to invade disturbed, as well as undisturbed, land. This species is native to central Europe and was introduced to North America as a contaminant in crop seed. There are 8 sites reported for the Bear Creek watershed and 4 sites for the project area (population numbers are for surveyed BLM lands). Detrimental effects include displacement of native species, decrease of plant diversity, increases soil erosion, increases fire hazard, limits wildlife usage, and reduced forage. Successful control methods include manual (for small populations), burning, biological, and chemical.

Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) is a taprooted biennial with spiny stems, leaves, and inflorescences. Each flower head can produce up to 250 seeds. Most seed falls within six feet of the parent plant but is capable of long distance transport by wind and animals. Seed survival is very low, as is seedling and rosette survival. It is estimated to take 200 seeds to produce one flowering plant. Bull thistle seedlings are poor competitors and require bare mineral soil to survive. This weed is a native of Eurasia. There are 131 sites reported for the Bear Creek watershed and 44 sites for the project area (population numbers are for surveyed BLM lands). This weed is under-reported on the Medford District as active control methods are not usually employed. Detrimental effects include displacement of native species, decrease of plant

Wagner Anderson Project 3-49 Environmental Assessment diversity, limits wildlife movement, and reduced forage. Bull thistle is eventually outcompeted by other vegetation for light, moisture, and nutrients.

Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is a perennial shrub native to Europe and Africa. It was introduced into the United States as an ornamental and later used to stabilize roadcuts. Scotch broom invades roadsides, pastures, and other disturbed places. It produces a large amount of long-lasting seed (up to 80 years). It can form dense fields that displace native plants and degrade habitat for wildlife. There are two sites reported for the Bear Creek watershed and two sites for the project area (population numbers are for surveyed BLM lands). Successful control methods include manually pulling the entire plant, chemical, controlled burning, and a combination of cutting and herbicide treatment.

English ivy (Hedera helix) is an evergreen vine that was introduced into North America for ornamental purposes. It is a native of Europe, western Asia, and northern Africa. This plant is a cold-hardy, vigorous grower and continues to be widely planted as an ornamental. English ivy grows both as a ground cover and a climbing vine. It can slowly kill trees as it climbs and blocks light to the host tree’s leaves. On the ground, English ivy forms dense and extensive monocultures that exclude native plants. There is one site reported for the Bear Creek watershed and one site for the project area (population numbers are for surveyed BLM lands). Successful control methods include manual, mechanical, and chemical.

Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) is a perennial forb introduced from Eurasia as an ornamental plant. It can form dense stands in meadows, pastures, rangelands, disturbed sites, and along roads. It is toxic to livestock but also has human medicinal value. Casual observation and recent records have verified sites within the project area and along haul routes. This weed is under-reported on the Medford District as active control methods are not usually employed. Detrimental effects include displacement of native species, decrease of plant diversity, and reduced forage. Successful control methods include biological and chemical.

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) is a perennial bramble introduced from southwest Asia that forms large impenetrable thickets of prickly canes. It colonizes disturbed sites including waste areas, pastures, forest plantations, roadsides, and waterways. There are 23 sites reported for the Bear Creek watershed and 13 sites for the project area (population numbers are for surveyed BLM lands). This weed is under-reported on the Medford District as active control methods are not usually employed. Detrimental effects include displacement of native species, decrease of plant diversity, reduced forage, inaccessibility by humans and animals. Successful control methods include mechanical, prescribed burning, and chemical.

Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusa) is an annual grass introduced from Eurasia. It inhabits disturbed sites, grassland, openings in chaparral, oak woodlands, and rangelands, especially on sites with clay soils where deep soil moisture is available late in the growing season. Casual observation and recent records have verified sites within the project area and along haul routes. This weed is under-reported on the Medford District as active control methods are not usually employed. Detrimental effects include displacement of native species, decrease of plant diversity, and reduced forage. Successful control methods include chemical, mechanical, prescribed burning, and re-vegetation.

2. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative

Without vegetation treatment, there would be no increase in disturbed ground and no increase in forest and woodlands with lessened canopy cover. Both are conditions that would enhance the opportunities for weed establishment. Existing weed populations would continue to spread vegetatively and by seed into

Wagner Anderson Project 3-50 Environmental Assessment adjacent areas. New weed establishments, spread by transport of seed or propagules, would be limited to existing disturbed areas and areas of open canopy.

Noxious weed inventory and treatment would continue to occur. Treatments are scheduled by priority and occur based on the potential of the weed population to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health and as funding is available.

The potential remains for a stand replacement fire that would produce early seral habitat conditions that are favorable for weed and invasive nonnative plant establishment.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative Vegetation treatment will increase the amount of disturbed ground and areas of less canopy cover. Both these conditions favor noxious weeds and invasive introduced plant establishment.

Project design features (Chapter 2, Alternatives, Project Design Features) are incorporated into the proposed action to minimize the spread of noxious weeds and invasive introduced plant species. Noxious weeds will not be spread as a direct result of executing the proposed action with the implementation of the project design features. However, weed seed can be transported into the project area by human actions not associated with the project and also by wind, water, and animals.

Weed Risk Assessment Field Review and Field Reconnaissance Results Surveys for all species on the Medford Weed list were conducted in 2007 and 2009. Surveys were not conducted on private land but general occurrences were noted as casual observations. Noxious weeds are found throughout the project area on BLM and adjacent private lands. Noxious weed populations in the project area and on BLM are small and mostly associated with roads.

Class “A” Weeds Those noxious weeds that are exotic (not native) to the State or area, and are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in the State or area and pose a serious threat to agricultural crops and rangelands in the State. Class A weeds receive highest priority. Management emphasis is complete control. These weeds approximate the Oregon Department of Agriculture List A weeds. A records check and surveys of areas that may be affected by the proposed project resulted in zero sites.

Class “B” Weeds Those noxious weeds that are non-native (exotic) plant species that are of limited distribution or unrecorded in a region of the State but are common in other regions of the State and have been identified by the BLM or State as potentially harmful. Class B-Weeds receive second highest priority. Management emphasis is to control the spread, decrease population size, and eventually eliminate the weed population when cost-effective technology is available. These weeds approximate the Oregon Department of Agriculture List B weeds. A records check and surveys of areas that may be affected by the proposed project resulted in at least 62 sites of six species (Table 3-11) below. Bull thistle, Himalayan blackberry, and common St. Johnswort are under reported.

Class “C” Weeds Consists of any other noxious weeds (exotic or native) or undesirable plants. This classification receives the lowest priority. Management emphasis is to contain spread to present population size or decrease population to a manageable size. The following species are exotic, have a high frequency from recent survey lists, and have the potential to cause ecological damage.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-51 Environmental Assessment

Table 3-11. Weeds Occurrence in Wagner Anderson Project Species Weed # Sites Frequency Class Counted % spotted knapweed B 4 yellow star-thistle B 13 bull thistle B 40 Scotch broom B 1 Himalayan blackberry B 3 common St. Johnswort B 1 bristly dogstail grass C 77 bulbous bluegrass C 55 spreading hedgeparsley C 55 Frequency = percentage this species occurs on survey species survey lists

Risk Assessment Factors The likelihood of noxious weed species spreading into and within the project (Table 3-12) area is low- moderate; the project includes elements of both low and moderate risk factors. There are small but numerous Class B and C weed populations immediately adjacent to and within project roads and units. Project Design Features (PDF) are included that will prevent the spread of noxious weeds due to direct effects of the proposed project. Weed populations within the affected area would be reduced for five years, per PDF and BLM Manual 9015. Weed spread and new establishments after five years are expected from unrelated seed transport mechanisms and relict populations. The budget to treat and monitor noxious weeds is not fixed for this project. There is no budget to treat Class C weeds; also, it is not permitted to use herbicides on Class C weeds. If the weeds are not treated due to insufficient budget or workforce, the likelihood of noxious weed species spreading into and within the project area would be high.

Table 3-12. Factor 1: Likelihood of Noxious Weed Species Spreading to Project Area Level Value Description Noxious weed species not located within or adjacent to the project area. None 0 Project activity is not likely to result in the establishment of noxious weed species in the project area. Noxious weed species present in areas adjacent to but not within the Low 1 project area. Project activities can be implemented and prevent the spread of noxious Weeds into the project area. Noxious weed species located immediately adjacent to or within the project area. Project activities are likely to result in some areas becoming Moderate 5 infested with noxious weed species even when preventative management actions are followed. Control measures are essential to prevent the spread of Noxious weeds within the project area. Heavy infestations of Noxious weeds are located within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Project activities, even with preventative High 10 management actions are likely to results in the establishment and spread of noxious weeds on disturbed sites throughout much of the project area.

The consequence of noxious weed establishment in the project area (Table 3-13) is moderate. The noxious weed populations in the affected areas are small and mostly associated with roads. With additional ground disturbing activities (road construction/re-construction, road renovation, logging, burning) and operations that transport weed seed (log hauling, other road use), there is the potential to

Wagner Anderson Project 3-52 Environmental Assessment spread weeds into, within, and out of the project area. Also, unrelated activities can transport weed seed (e.g. wind, water, wildlife, hiking, OHV, etc.) into the newly disturbed areas. Weed infestations adversely affect a healthy functioning ecosystem.

Table 3-13. Factor 2: Consequence of Noxious Weed Establishment in Project Area Level of Consequence Value Description of Possible Effects Low to Nonexistent 1 None. No cumulative effects expected. Possible adverse effects on site and possible expansion of Moderate 5 infestation within project area. Cumulative effects on native plant community are likely but limited. Obvious adverse effects within the project area and probable expansion of noxious weed infestations to areas outside the High 10 project area. Adverse cumulative effects on native plant community are probable.

Risk Rating

Step 1 - Identify level of likelihood and consequence of adverse effects and assign values according to the following: None – 0 Low – 1 Moderate – 5 High – 10

Step 2 - Multiply the level of Likelihood value (Table 3-12) by the Consequence value (Table 3-13) to determine Value.

Step 3 - Use the value resulting from Step 2 to determine Risk Rating and Action in Table 3-14 below.

Table 3-14. Risk Rating and Action Value Risk Action Rating 0 None Proceed as planned. Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatment on noxious weed populations 1-10 Low that get established in the area. Develop preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of noxious weeds into the area. Preventative management measures should include modifying the project to 25 Moderate include seeding the area to occupy disturbed sites with desirable species. Monitor area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of newly established populations of noxious weeds and follow-up treatment for previously treated infestations. Project must be modified to reduce risk level through preventative management measures including seeding with desirable species to occupy disturbed sites and controlling existing infestations of noxious Weeds prior to 50-100 High project activity. Projects must also provide for control of newly established populations of Noxious weeds and follow-up treatment for previously treated infestations.

If weed work is funded, weed risk would be Low to Moderate.

With suitable weed habitat increasing initially as a consequence of the proposed action, total exclusion of new weed establishments is unattainable due to indirect effects. Particularly vulnerable areas will be new

Wagner Anderson Project 3-53 Environmental Assessment road construction (0.1 miles), road renovation/maintenance sites (approximately 0.8 miles) listed in Table 2-2, and openings created for mistletoe and pine areas (less than ¼ acre each). With adequate funding for vegetation inventory and weed treatment, existing noxious weed population sizes are expected to decrease and new establishments are expected to be minimized.

G. WILDLIFE

1. Introduction

This section discusses terrestrial wildlife habitats and the potential impacts to wildlife species from the proposed action as described in Chapter 2 of this document. Two key wildlife related issues associated with the Wagner Anderson Project have been identified and will be addressed along with other relevant issues identified for this project. These key issues are:

1) Listed (T &E and Candidate) and Sensitive wildlife species and their habitat are located within the project area and may be affected and 2) Survey and Manage (S&M) species and their habitat are located within the project area and may be affected.

Only federal listed (Threatened & Endangered or Candidate), Bureau Sensitive and Survey and Manage species (USDA/USDI 2001) known or suspected to be present within the Ashland Resource Area and affected by the proposed actions are addressed in this EA.

The Wagner Anderson project is located within the Bear Creek 5th field watershed. The West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis (USDI 2001) provides a general overview and background information for the habitats and wildlife species present within the West Bear Creek Watershed, which can be generalized to the smaller Wagner, Anderson, and Coleman Creek subwatersheds).

The predominant vegetation type within the Wagner Anderson project area and the West Bear Creek watershed is Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest (Chappell and Kagan 2001). This vegetation type is composed of mixed conifers (primarily Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrans)) and evergreen hardwoods (primarily madrone (Arbutus menzeseii) as well as deciduous hardwoods. Other habitat types in the West Bear Creek Watershed are Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands, Ceanothus-Manzanita Shrublands and Westside Riparian-Wetlands (Chappell and Kagan 2001).

Within the West Bear Creek watershed, wildlife habitat was typed into habitat categories pertinent to the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO). These habitat types are used throughout this document to describe and quantify habitat conditions across the landscape. These habitat categories are:

• Nesting, Roosting and Foraging habitat (NRF), • Dispersal-only habitat, and • Unsuitable habitat.

Nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF) habitat is characterized by forested stands with older forest structure with characters such canopy closure of 60 percent or greater, trees with large crowns, multiple canopy layers, snags and down wood. The best quality NRF habitat has forest stands with large old trees with cavities, broken tops, mistletoe platforms, large branches, dead standing and fallen decayed trees, and multiple canopies of shade tolerant hardwoods and conifers that support prey base. NRF habitat also

Wagner Anderson Project 3-54 Environmental Assessment functions as dispersal habitat. Dispersal-only habitat for spotted owls is defined as stands that typically have a canopy closure of 40 percent or greater, and are open enough for flight and predator avoidance, but do not meet the habitat criteria of NRF habitat. Dispersal-only habitat is used throughout this document to refer to habitat that does not meet the criteria of NRF (nesting, roosting, or foraging) habitat, but has adequate cover to facilitate movement between blocks of suitable NRF habitat. Unsuitable habitat does not currently meet the NRF or dispersal-only habitat criteria. A field review by BLM wildlife biologist and technicians makes the final evaluation to determine habitat suitability. This habitat typing system was designed specifically for spotted owls, but can be used to assess habitat availability for other species because the habitat typing accounts for habitat condition and structure important to other species, especially those that utilize late-successional forest habitat, including the Pacific fisher (see KS Wild v. US BLM, Case No. 06-3076-PA, Order and Judgment 9/10/2007).

Table 3-15 depicts the acres and the equivalent percentages of each habitat type for the BLM administered lands located within the West Bear Creek watershed (USDI 2001). Approximately 3,215 acres of the BLM lands within the West Bear Creek watershed are classified as NRF (late-successional) habitat, or approximately 37% of the BLM administered lands in the watershed. There are approximately 2,250 acres (26% of BLM lands) of dispersal-only habitat within the West Bear Creek watershed on BLM lands. As NRF habitat also supports owl dispersal, the total acres of BLM lands that support owl dispersal in this watershed is 5,465 acres (62% of federal lands). The remaining 3,334 acres of BLM lands (38%) are considered currently unsuitable habitat for owls, although it would provide habitat for some of the prey species utilized by owls. Not all lands in the watershed are capable of becoming NRF habitat due to the natural limitations of some soil types, and agricultural and rural development.

Table 3-15. Acres of Northern Spotted Owl habitat on BLM Lands within the West Bear Creek Watershed.

HABITAT TYPE ACRES PERCENT Suitable NRF Habitat 3,215 36.5% Dispersal-Only Habitat 2,250 25.5% Unsuitable Habitat 3,334 38% Total 8,799 100% * = Total dispersal habitat is the combination of NRF habitat and Dispersal-only habitat.

2. Affected Environment – Northern Spotted Owl

Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) are a federally listed threatened species and are closely associated with old forests for nesting, foraging, and roosting throughout most of their range (Forsman et al. 1984; Carey et al. 1990; and Solis and Gutierrez 1990). The ideal NSO habitat consists of large trees in the overstory, smaller trees of varying sizes and species in the lower and middle story, large standing and fallen dead trees, and patchy shrub and herb communities (Spies and Franklin 1991).

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service (FS), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have conducted a coordinated review of four recently completed reports containing information on the northern spotted owl (NSO). The reviewed reports include the following:

• Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Courtney et al. 2004); • Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls, 1985-2003 (Anthony et al. 2004); • Northern Spotted Owl Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2004); and

Wagner Anderson Project 3-55 Environmental Assessment • Northwest Forest Plan – The First Ten Years (1994-2003): Status and trend of northern spotted owl populations and habitat, PNW Station Edit Draft (Lint 2005).

Anthony et al. (2004, 2006) is the most recent meta-analysis of owl demographic data collected in 14 demographic study areas across the range of the northern spotted owl. Four of the study areas are in western Washington, six are in western Oregon, and four are in northwestern California. Although the agencies anticipated a decline of NSO populations under land and resource management plans during the past decade, the reports identified greater than expected NSO population declines in Washington and northern portions of Oregon, and more stationary populations in southern Oregon and northern California.

Summarizing Anthony et. al., between 1985-2003: • The northern spotted owl population declined over its entire range, and varied from the most pronounced in Washington (7.3% year per) to the least pronounced in California (2.2%). • Within Oregon, the northern demographic study areas averaged 4.9% population decline, and the southern study areas decline averaged less than 1% per year and were statistically stable, with a western Oregon average of 2.8% decline per year. • Range-wide, adult survival rates declined in 5 of 14 study areas (western Washington and northwestern California) and western Oregon was stable in all six study areas.

The reports did not find a direct correlation between habitat conditions and changes in NSO populations, and they were inconclusive as to the cause of the declines. Even though some risk factors had declined (such as habitat loss due to harvesting) other factors had continued such as habitat loss due to wildfire, potential competition with the barred owl, West Nile virus, and sudden oak death (USFWS 2004, Lint 2005). The barred owl is present throughout the range of the spotted owl, so the likelihood of competitive interactions between the species raises concerns as to the future of the spotted owl (Lint 2005). Lint (2005) also found that between 1994-2003, federal lands in the Klamath Province lost 6.6% of spotted owl nesting habitat to stand-replacement fire, mainly to the Biscuit Fire (almost 500,000 acres).

Specific to the Wagner Anderson Project Area, there are eight NSO sites with at least a portion of their home range (1.3 mile radius from the center of activity) within the project area. A limited number of surveys have been conducted at these sites over the past 10 years. For purposes of this analysis all sites are conservatively assumed to be occupied. While there is no requirement to survey for spotted owls prior to implementing forest management actions, all of these sites were most recently surveyed in 2004.

The habitat found within the homerange distance (1.3 mile radius) of the eight NSO sites in the project area was quantified using the habitat categories described above. The eight NSO homeranges form a contiguous polygon (the owl analysis area) that encompasses all the Wagner Anderson project units. The acres of each habitat type and how these habitat types are distributed across the land ownership pattern within the owl analysis area is displayed in Table 3-16. The total acres does not equal eight 1.3 mile radius circles because several of the homeranges partially overlap. The habitat values for the owl analysis area were derived from two sources: 1) in areas that do not have proposed commercial treatments, habitat values were obtained from a BLM GIS (Geographical Information System) dataset developed and used for a more extensive owl analysis representing NSO habitat values across BLM lands (USDI BLM 2008), and 2) in areas that are proposed for commercial treatments, field visits were conducted in 2009 by BLM wildlife technicians and biologists to further identify and delineate the habitat values within those areas.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-56 Environmental Assessment Table 3-16. Acres of NSO Habitat Types within the Homerange Distance of Eight NSO Sites within Analysis Area. HABITAT TYPE BLM FS PRIVATE TOTAL PERCENT Suitable NRF Habitat 4,081 1,662 3,115 8,859 50% Dispersal-Only Habitat 1,034 NA NA 1,034 6% Unsuitable Habitat 2,772 NA NA 2,772 16% Unclassified Habitat (not NRF) 0 382 4,631 5,013 28% Total 7,887 2,045 7,746 17,678 100% NA = Habitat on non-BLM lands was not classified beyond NRF; all habitat identified as unclassified would represent Dispersal-only or Unsuitable habitat.

Approximately 50% of the lands within the Owl Analysis Area are classified as NRF habitat. BLM administered lands contain approximately 46% of the NRF habitat that occurs within the Owl Analysis Area. Private lands also contribute a significant amount (35%) of the current NRF habitat within the Project area, and Forest Service (FS) lands contain 19%.

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

The proposed project is not located in any designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.

3. Affected Environment – Pacific Fisher

The Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) was petitioned for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act on December 12, 2000. In 2003 the USFWS released their notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review (68 Federal Register, No. 132, 41169-41174) and in 2004 published their Notice of 12-month petition finding, concluding that listing fishers as threatened was warranted, but was precluded by higher priority listing actions (Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 68, April 8, 2004, 18769-18792). The species remains a USFWS candidate species (USDI, USFWS 2004, 71 Fed. Reg. 53777, Sept. 12, 2006). In their 2006 update on the status of the Pacific fisher, the USFWS define the reasons for listing as: “Major threats that fragment or remove key elements of fisher habitat include various forest vegetation management practices such as timber harvest and fuels reduction treatments. Other potential major threats include: Stand-replacing fire, Sudden Oak Death, (Phytophthora), urban and rural development, recreation development, and highways.” (71 Fed. Reg. 53777 (Sept. 12, 2006)). The USFWS also states that the three remaining fisher populations “appear to be stable or not rapidly declining based on recent survey and monitoring efforts.” (Id.)

Fishers are closely associated with low to mid elevation (generally <4,000 feet) forests with a coniferous component, large snags, or decadent live trees and logs for denning and resting, and complex physical structure near the forest floor to support adequate prey populations (Aubry and Lewis 2003). Powell and Zielinski (1994) and Zielinski et al. (2004) suggest that habitat suitable for denning and resting sites may be more limiting for fishers than foraging habitat. The NRF habitat type described above for the NSO also adequately describes suitable fisher denning and resting habitat because there is a direct correlation of key habitat features used to assess NSO habitat and fisher habitat (high canopy cover, multi-storied stands, large snags, and large down trees on the forest floor). Using Northern Spotted Owl habitat as a surrogate for fisher habitat has been accepted by the courts as a reasonable practice (KS Wild v. US BLM, Case No. 06-3076-PA, Order and Judgment 9/10/2007).

Based on the NSO habitat analysis, approximately 3,215 acres of suitable fisher denning and resting habitat exists within the West Bear Creek watershed. However, all of these acres may not provide optimal fisher habitat because past harvest practices and land ownership patterns have fragmented this

Wagner Anderson Project 3-57 Environmental Assessment habitat. BLM checkerboard ownership may be one of the primary factors limiting the ability of BLM lands to provide optimal habitat for fishers (USDA and USDI 1994b). This checkerboard ownership pattern was created by the Congressional acts that provided land grants, and is outside of BLM’s control.

The habitat requirements of fishers in the Pacific Northwest are poorly understood. Fishers do not appear to occur as frequently in early successional forests as they do in late-successional forests in the Pacific Northwest (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Buskirk and Powell (1994) hypothesized that the physical structure of the forest and prey associated with forest structures are the critical features that explain fisher habitat use, not specific forest types.

Forest carnivore surveys using bait stations with motion and infrared detection cameras have been conducted throughout the Ashland Resource Area and have detected fishers within approximately 10 miles to the southeast of the project area, in the vicinity of Mount Ashland. No surveys have been conducted within the project area. Due to the close proximity of the project area to known fisher detections, it is reasonable to assume the project area is used by fisher. The extent (dispersal, foraging, or breeding) to which the Wagner Anderson project area is used by fisher is not fully known, but the project occurs within the estimated home ranges of known fisher, as analyzed in the Biological Evaluation for the Ashland Fire Resiliency EIS (USDA 2009 Appendix F p. F-79).

4. Affected Environment - Survey and Manage Species

When the Wagner Anderson project was initiated, the BLM was to conduct management actions consistent with the Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP), as amended by the Record of Decision To Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from the Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 2007). However the BLM elected to conduct surveys; surveys were completed for great gray owls in July 2008 and terrestrial mollusks in May 2008.

Red Tree Vole The red tree vole (RTV) is an arboreal rodent species with very low dispersal capabilities. Red tree voles depend on conifer tree canopies for nesting, foraging, travel routes, escape cover, and moisture (Carey 1991). Douglas-fir needles provide the primary food and building materials for nests (USDA, USDI 2000a). The broad management objective for this species under the Survey and Manage program is to retain sufficient habitat to maintain its potential for reproduction, dispersal, and genetic exchange.

Individual stand walkthroughs by BLM wildlife Biologists did not detect any evidence of RTV presence (nests or resin duct evidence) within the proposed harvest area, although these were not to protocol standards. The Wagner Anderson project is located at the edge of the current range of this species, and the general habitat conditions within the project area are marginal for this species. Full protocol surveys will be completed prior to the issuance of a Decision Record for this project.

Great Gray Owl Great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) nest in open forests adjacent to meadows. Broken top trees, abandoned raptor nests, mistletoe clumps, and other platforms provide suitable nest trees (USDA USDI 2004b); suitable nesting habitat is defined in the protocol as large diameter trees with roosting cover within 200 meters of suitable foraging habitat. Foraging habitat is described as relatively open, grassy habitats, such as bogs, natural meadows, open forests and recent selective/regeneration harvest areas (USDA USDI 2004b). The foraging habitat within the Project Area is somewhat limited, and the open meadow habitats that are present are very steep and the forested stands are highly dense and do not provide an open, grassy understory condition, which suggests the likelihood of great gray owls to utilize the project area is low.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-58 Environmental Assessment Two-year protocol surveys were conducted in suitable nesting habitat found within the project area and completed in July of 2008. After multiple survey efforts over a 2 year period (2007-2008) only 1 survey effort resulted in a positive detection. A pair of great grey owls (GGO) was located during a night survey, but subsequent follow-up survey failed to detect either adults or a nest.

Mollusks Potential habitat exists throughout the project area for two former Survey and Manage mollusks, Helminthoglypta hertleini and Monadenia chaceana (USDI USDA 2001 Survey and Manage ROD). Helminthoglypta hertleini (currently a Bureau Sensitive species) utilizes down woody debris, rocky areas, including talus deposits and outcrops, which contain stable interstitial spaces large enough for snails to enter. Previous Medford District detections were found in rocky areas associated with damp grassy areas, oak woodlands, and shrub lands, or in conifer forests closely associated with these habitat types. Monadenia chaceana (currently a Bureau Sensitive species) is associated with rocky areas, talus deposits, associated riparian areas, and coarse woody material (Mollusk protocol version 3.0, 2003).

Protocol Surveys for terrestrial mollusks were conducted throughout the Wagner Anderson project area and were completed in the spring of 2008. These surveys did not detect any target mollusk species (Helminthoglypta hertleini, Monadenia chaceana) and potential habitat that occurs within the treated units remains suitable after treatments.

5. Affected Environment – Land Birds (Neotropical Migrants)

All neotropical migrants go to Central or South America each year. They are addressed here due to widespread concern regarding downward population trends and habitat declines. BLM recently issued interim guidance for meeting BLM’s responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. Both the Act and the EO promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. The interim guidance was transmitted through Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-050. The I.M. relies on two lists prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in determining which species are to receive special attention in land management activities; the lists are Bird Species of Conservation Concern (BCC) found in various Bird Conservation Regions and Game Birds Below Desired Condition (GBBDC). Table 3-17 displays those species that are known or likely to present within the project area.

Table 3-17: Bird Species of Conservation Concern Species Species Status Black-throated Gray Warbler (Dendroica BCC nigrescens) Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) BCC Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) BCC Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) BCC Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) BCC Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) BCC Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) BCC White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) BCC Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) BCC Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) BCC Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) BCC Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) GBBDC Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) GBBDC Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) GBBDC Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata) GBBDC BCC - Bird of Conservation Concern GBBDC - Game Birds Below Desired Condition

Wagner Anderson Project 3-59 Environmental Assessment Land birds use a wide variety of habitats, including late-successional forests, riparian areas, brush in recovering clearcuts, and small trees in developing stands. Some birds, such as the Olive-sided Flycatcher, use residual canopy trees for perching, and forage over adjacent clearcuts. Many land birds are associated with deciduous shrubs and trees in early successional habitats (e.g., Orange Crowned Warblers and Rufous Hummingbirds). Some of the recovering clearcuts and Jeffery pine savannahs in the project area with lower tree and shrub heights would provide these optimal foraging conditions.

Resident birds remain in the same general area or migrate to lower elevations in the winter. Total numbers of late-successional dependent migratory or resident birds within the Wagner Anderson Project Area are unknown. However, knowledge of specific numbers is not necessary to assess effects of land management activities on migratory or resident birds. Current research indicates the most appropriate scale to study impacts to migratory birds is at the eco-regional scale (California Partners in Flight 2002). Breeding bird surveys in the Southern Pacific Rainforest Physiographic Region (which includes western Oregon) indicate that songbirds are declining. The exact cause of these declines is still unclear, but issues associated with their winter grounds (Central and South America) are suspected to be an important factor (Sauer et al. 2004).

6. Environmental Effects - Northern Spotted Owl

Alternative 1 - No-action

The current habitat conditions within the Wagner Anderson Planning area are a result of the complex interactions of the historic vegetative patterns and the changes to that historic vegetation from human activities and disturbance events. Prior projects and disturbance events form the existing habitat pattern (current condition) that occurs across the watershed today.

Under Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, none of the proposed BLM activities under this EA would occur. Forest stand conditions would continue to develop along the general current trends toward higher density stand conditions, especially in the understory, than what was historically present in the area. It is likely that many of the stands within the project area would eventually contain tree densities two to three times that of historic levels (Hardy and Arno 1996). The majority of the lower elevation stand conditions reflect past fire exclusion efforts. As discussed in further detail in Sections I (Silviculture) and J (Fire and Fuels), high stocking levels, competition mortality, fuel loading and ladder fuel conditions work to increase the susceptibility of the existing late-successional and NRF habitat to high severity fire.

The No-action Alternative would not alter the current habitat conditions across the project area, and the NSOs that inhabit and utilize the Project Area would not be impacted from any loss of habitat or project related disturbance within the Project Area. NSOs would be expected to behave and utilize the habitat within the project area in the same fashion as they have in the past.

Under the No-action Alternative, no loss of NRF or dispersal habitat would be expected across the analysis area from active forest management. Estimating the potential loss of NRF or dispersal habitat due to wildfire or other disturbance events is a much more difficult and enigmatic question. The recent trends in Southwest Oregon illustrate that fire has been converting mature forest structure at a higher rate than harvest, making the retention of these types of forests problematic in dry forested ecosystems (Courtney et al. 2004; Spies et al. 2006).

In general terms, wildfire would remain the most immediate hazard to late-successional forest habitat (NRF) and its associated species (Courtney et al. 2004), including the NSO. High severity fires could be expected to remove or downgrade habitat randomly across the landscape, setting back forest succession and development, and likely resulting in the loss of large tree structure critical to late-successional forest

Wagner Anderson Project 3-60 Environmental Assessment habitat dependent species. High severity fires resulting from these dense stand conditions would cause more severe impacts to soils, which may prolong the recovery and colonization of mycorizzal processes, and macroinvertebrate and small mammalian prey food webs important to suitable foraging areas for spotted owls.

Under the No-action Alternative, the development of future late-successional forest habitat within the project area would be delayed or potentially at risk, although they may be reviewed for harvesting under RMP guidelines. As discussed in further detail in the Silviculture section of this EA (Section I) future stand development into late-successional forest habitat would be retarded under the No-action Alternative. This is because current stand conditions are too dense and trees are not developing the diameter to height ratio required to develop this structure (Davis et al. 2007). This ratio was historically created through frequent fire events that reduced stem densities and competition that created open grown conditions. Under the No-action Alternative, the current stand conditions would likely develop into less complex stand structures and species compositions than that of old-growth stands (Sensenig 2002), or at the very least, would require a much longer time scale to develop (Tappeiner et. al., 1997).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Forest management treatments result in one of the following categories: habitat removal, habitat downgrade, or a maintenance treatment (treat and maintain). A more detailed description of these treatments is given in the definition section of the 09 NLAA Biological Assessment document (USDI BLM 2009). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI USFWS 2009) has determined this project would result in a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” effects determination for the NSO (USDI 2009).

Harvest Treatments The proposed harvest treatments for the Wagner Anderson Project would treat and maintain NRF and dispersal habitat. Alternative 2 would not change the amount of NRF or dispersal habitat within the owl analysis area. The proposed harvest treatments are light to moderate thinning (described in more detail in Chapter 2, Summary of Silvicultural Prescriptions and Chapter 3, Section I, Silviculture) designed to reduce competition and increase overall stand vigor. The forest treatments would remove some standing vegetative components of habitat. Habitat elements such as canopy cover, large diameter and dominant trees, snags, coarse woody material, and vegetative layering would not be reduced below levels that constitute a change to habitat function within the current habitat categories. Canopy closure is used as one of the critical habitat thresholds because it is highly important to NSO nest site selection and general habitat use, because increased levels of canopy afford protection from predators, and regulate temperature extremes (Courtney et. al 2004).

Alternative 2 proposes to silviculturally treat approximately 198 acres of NRF habitat and 49 acres of dispersal-only habitat. This equates to approximately 2.2% and 4.7% of the available NRF and Dispersal- only habitat available within the owl analysis area, respectively.

As described in the Affected Environment, there are eight NSO sites with at least a portion of their home range (1.3 mile radius from the center of activity) within the project area. Of the eight NSO sites found within the project area, the highest level of impact in terms of acres treated within an individual owl homerange is 108 acres, or approximately 3.2% of the total acres within the homerange. In other words, the most heavily impacted NSO site within the project area would have no impacts from the proposed action across 96.8% of its homerange. Accordingly, the percent of each individual home range potentially impacted from the proposed action is <3.2% for each of the remaining seven NSO sites within the project area.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-61 Environmental Assessment When examining the impacts to NSOs from timber harvest, the amount and intensity of harvest are not the only factors to consider. One critical factor to consider is the spatial arrangement of the habitat found across the landscape and where the proposed treatments would occur in relation to known NSO nest sites. Researchers have found that the habitat quality within 300 meters of a nest site (known as the nest patch) is critically important to determining nest positioning across the landscape (Perkins et. al 2000), and is further recognized as an important area under the Incidental Take Statement Methodology used to estimate the number of NSOs affected by federal actions (USDI 2008). Therefore, two similar treatments in very similar habitat types could have differing impacts to NSOs depending on if the treatment would occur within close proximity to NSO nest locations (i.e. the nest patch).

None of the proposed treatments in Alternative 2 would occur within known nest patch areas associated with any of the NSO sites in the project area. Of the 247 acres of proposed harvest under Alternative 2, 80 acres (32%) would occur within the zone beyond the nest patch, but within the core area of 0.5 miles from the known NSO nest sites, and 167 acres (68%) of the treatments would occur beyond 0.5 miles from the known NSO nest site and within the 1.3 mile home range.

The removal selected of dwarf mistletoe infected trees outside of NSO nest patches would remove some trees with potential nest structure formed by the mistletoe. Large diameter trees (>34”) with low mistletoe infection ratings would be retained. Treatment of mistletoe is prioritized to treat heaviest infection, and spaced out though treated units. Suitable nesting structure is retained throughout the units with retention of large dominant fir trees and some trees infected with mistletoe.

The treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would primarily affect NSO prey, including woodrats and flying squirrels. It is anticipated that the majority of the proposed treatments as described under alternative 2 would have short term (1-5 years) negative to neutral effects to NSO prey across the treatment areas. Individual prey animals may be killed or displaced from logging operations or have nests or nest trees removed or destroyed. This would occur across a relatively small amount of the available NRF habitat within the Owl Analysis Area (2.2%). The treatment areas (units) do not form a contiguous block, but rather are well dispersed throughout the project area, and thus any impacts to prey animals will be spread across the project area and not concentrated in any one area.

Spotted owl prey animals may be more exposed in treatment areas, or may move away from the area over the short term. As prey move around in response to the proposed treatments they may become more vulnerable and exposed to predation by spotted owls. The disturbance might attract other predators such as other owls, hawks and mammalian predators, which may increase competition for spotted owls in the treatment area. Some changes to habitat features caused by the proposed action may improve forage conditions for spotted owls, provided understory structure and cover are retained. Removal of some tree canopy, provided it is not too extreme, will bring more light and resources into the stand, stimulating forbs, shrubs and other prey food. Once the initial impact of disturbance recovers (6 months to two years), the understory habitat conditions that provide food for NSO prey would increase over the next few years, until shrubs and residual trees again form a tight and closed overstory.

Overall, the spacing, timing and the retention of key habitat features as called for under the proposed action and PDFs for this project (Chapter 2, Project Design Features) are likely to avoid adverse impacts to spotted owls with respect to prey availability, although localized, short-term changes in prey species distribution and abundance are likely to occur within a treated stand. The dispersion of treatment sites over a large area is especially important in maintaining spotted owl prey populations within the project area. Large dominant trees, moderate to high canopy cover residual trees, snags, and down wood retained in the treated stands would continue to provide cover and nest structure for prey species and would help reduce harvest impacts to some prey species, such as dusky-footed woodrats. Treatment implementation

Wagner Anderson Project 3-62 Environmental Assessment would be spread out temporally and spatially within the project area, and a large percentage of the landscape would remain untreated, providing large, undisturbed areas for spotted owl foraging.

Additionally, research has indicated that thinning treatments are not necessarily detrimental to small mammal communities as a whole. In an experimental study, researchers found of 12 mammal species studied, the number of captures increased for four species and decreased for only one species two years after moderate to heavy thinning occurred in the Oregon coast range (Suzuki and Hayes 2003). This study also found the total number of small mammal captures was higher in previously thinned vs. unthinned stands. Gomez et al. (2005) noted that commercial thinning in young stands of coastal Oregon Douglas-fir (35-45 yr) did not have a measurable short-term effect on density, survival or body mass of northern flying squirrels, an important prey species for spotted owls.

The long term (>10 year) effects of the proposed action are anticipated to increase the health and vigor of the residual stands post treatment. It is likely that the treated stands will develop into more complex, structurally diverse forests in the long term in comparison to the No-action Alternative. In fact, thinning dense stands may be necessary in order to achieve old-growth forest characteristics in the absence of natural disturbance events (Tappeiner et. al., 1997). Thinning younger forest stands may provide growing conditions that more closely approximate those historically found in developing old growth stands (Hayes et. al., 1997). Thus, the treatments as proposed under Alternative 2 would have long-term beneficial effects to NSOs by increasing growth rates of the residual stand and accelerating the development of late- successional old growth characteristics within the treated areas than would occur if left untreated.

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Under Alternative 2, about 247 acres would receive post-harvest hazardous fuels reduction to treat activity fuels; of these acres about 95 acres would receive thinning of the non-commercial sized (less than 8 inch diameter) ladder fuels in addition to activity fuels. Approximately 198 acres of NRF habitat and 49 acres of dispersal-only habitat would be treated. This equates to approximately 2.2% and 4.7% of the available NRF and Dispersal-only habitat available within the owl analysis area, respectively.

The hazardous fuels reduction treatments as proposed in chapter 2 would not alter the overstory forest structure or remove key habitat components related to spotted owl habitat. In very dense stands, these treatments reduce understory density and improve flight paths within stands, in turn, increasing the accessibility of owls to the forest floor and prey abundance or availability (Sakai and Noon 1993, 1997). In some instances, mechanical fuels treatments can reduce the habitat quality for owls because these treatments simplify the forest structure, which can in turn have negative effects to prey species. Conversely, results from other studies on small mammals and fuel reduction treatments have demonstrated that the total amount of small mammal biomass increases as a result of mechanical fuel reduction treatments (Converse et al. 2006). Large down woody debris, patches of unburned vegetation in draws and cooler aspects, and an occasional unburned slash piles would continue to provide ground cover habitat during and after treatments. These untreated areas and residual habitat features, along with the spatial and temporal staggering of treatments across the landscape should ameliorate the potential negative effects of these fuels treatments on prey species at the landscape level.

Underburning treatments have the greatest potential to impact spotted owl prey because these treatments can fully or partially consume the snags or coarse woody material (CWM) that many prey species are associated with during underburn operations (Stephens and Moghaddas, 2005). However, these effects to prey species are expected to be highly limited and localized because very few acres would be underburned during a given year and not all the existing snags or CWM within an underburn is lost during underburn treatments (Pers. Comm. Mitchell, 2009). In addition, while some prey species may be adversely affected from mechanical and underburn treatments, a good proportion of the prey are primarily arboreal in habit, and will remain largely unaffected by these treatments.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-63 Environmental Assessment Road Construction and Renovation Under Alternative 2, the BLM proposes to maintain about 14 miles of roads (i.e., road grading, rock surfacing, and water drainage improvements). About ¼ mile of roads would be reopened or constructed to minimum standards, and closed following completion of operations. The proposed new roads traverse primarily dispersal-only habitat, and would remove approximately 0.6 acres of habitat. In relation to the size of the proposed project area, the loss of this amount of habitat would be inconsequential.

In summary, the proposed action would have minimal impacts to the NSOs found within the analysis area given that:

1) 2.2% of the total NRF habitat located within the Owl Analysis Area will receive treatments 2) The treatments would not downgrade or remove any existing habitat within units 3) The most heavily impacted owl site would be impacted across 3.2% of its homerange, 4) None of the proposed treatments would occur within a NSO nest patch 5) Negative impacts to NSO prey are anticipated to only occur in the short term (<5 years) and would spatially separated and well distributed across the owl analysis area.

7. Environmental Effects– Pacific Fisher

Alternative 1 - No-action

Under Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, none of the proposed BLM activities under this EA would occur. Forest stand conditions would continue to develop along the general current trends toward higher density stand conditions, especially in the understory, than what was historically present in the area.

The No-action Alternative would not alter the current habitat conditions across the analysis area. Fishers would be expected to behave and utilize the habitat within the analysis area in the same fashion as they have in the past. Particularly to fishers, the greatest risk of No-action is the potential wildfire related loss of large live remnant conifers as well as snags and down wood important to fisher natal and denning habitat.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Harvest Treatments As described more fully under the NSO analysis, the commercial thinning proposed under Alternative 2 would not substantially alter the forest environment within the analysis area. The total treatment acres are relatively small, and the treatments themselves will not reduce the residual canopy closure of treated stands below 60%. These treatments expected to minimally impact fisher habitat within the analysis area.

No known denning sites would be impacted and proposed activities would not be expected to cause direct mortality of any fishers. Disturbance from project activities would likely be the principal effect on any fisher within the analysis area. However, fishers are highly mobile and have large home ranges and would likely move to another part of their home range while the activity is ongoing.

Thinning treatments would have short term negative effects to habitat for some fisher prey species due to the reduced vegetation. These effects are relatively short term, as understory vegetation typically returns within 5 years. However, these short term effects to fisher prey species would be minimal, because the large amount of untreated areas within the analysis area would continue to provide forage habitat while canopy cover in the treated stands increases. Additionally, these treatments would retain key habitat characteristics such as large snags and coarse woody debris (CWD) to provide existing and future habitat for fishers.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-64 Environmental Assessment Project activity disturbance effects to fishers are not well known. Fishers may avoid roaded areas (Harris and Ogan 1997) and humans (Douglas and Strickland 1987; Powell 1993). Disturbance from project activities would be temporally and geographically limited and would occupy a geographic area smaller than the average fisher home range. Seasonal restrictions listed as Project Design Features for other resources would also benefit fishers by restricting project activities until young are approximately six weeks old, approximately the age when fisher move young from natal dens and become more mobile. Fishers have large home ranges and would be able to move away from the action area while the disturbance is occurring, without impacting their ability to forage and disperse within their home range.

Hazardous Fuels Treatments Alternative 2 proposes to treat 247 acres for hazardous fuels reduction. Approximately 198 acres of NRF habitat and 49 acres of dispersal-only habitat would be treated. These proposed treatments would have minimal impacts to the habitat located across the analysis area, as the vast majority of the existing habitat within the analysis area will not be treated.

The hazardous fuels reduction treatments as proposed in chapter 2 do not typically alter the overstory forest structure or remove key habitat components related to fisher habitat. In some instances, mechanical fuels treatments can reduce the habitat quality by simplifying the forest structure. The Project Design Features in chapter 2 include the retention of snags and CWM, which are important habitat features for fisher. This provision, along with the spatial and temporal staggering of treatments across the landscape would ameliorate the potential negative effects of these fuels treatments on prey species at the landscape level.

Underburning treatments have the greatest potential to impact fisher habitat because these underburning treatments can partially or fully consume the snags or coarse woody material (CWM) that fishers often utilize for denning or rest sites (Stephens and Moghaddas, 2005). However the potential loss of these snags or CWM is expected to be highly limited and localized because very few acres would be underburned during a given year, and not all the existing snags or CWM within an underburn is lost during underburn treatments (Pers. Comm. Mitchell, 2009).

Road Construction and Renovation Under Alternative 2, the BLM proposes to maintain about 14 miles of roads (i.e., road grading, rock surfacing, and water drainage improvements). About ¼ mile of temporary routes would be reopened or constructed to minimum standards, and closed immediately following completion of operations. The proposed new roads traverse primarily dispersal-only habitat, and would remove approximately 0.6 acres of habitat. In relation to the size of the proposed project area, the loss of this amount of habitat would be inconsequential.

Alternative 2 would not contribute to the need to federally list the fisher as threatened or endangered because habitat features, such as large snags and coarse wood, would be retained throughout the project area, which would provide habitat for denning and resting. The majority (94%) of suitable habitat located within the West Bear Creek watershed will not receive any treatments.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-65 Environmental Assessment 8. Environmental Effects - Red Tree Vole

Alternative 1 - No-action

Under the No-action Alternative, none of the proposed harvest activities would occur, and the forested stands in the Project Area would continue to develop along their current pathways. Therefore, none of the potential RTV habitat found within the project area would be altered. Stand replacement fire would remain the greatest risk to the existing RTV habitat found within the project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 proposes moderate to light commercial thinning across approximately 247 acres of potential RTV habitat. This thinning would be expected to remove some individual trees from the overstory and midstory, particularly those with mistletoe infection or less fire-resistant species that could provide RTV nesting structure. In units that were identified as NRF habitat, the residual canopy cover would remain at or above 60% on average across the treatment units. The residual forest structure would still provide adequate habitat to maintain RTV populations throughout the analysis area, and provide adequate arboreal pathways for RTVs to travel and disperse. A large amount (>95%) of the existing late-successional habitat that exists throughout the analysis area and the larger West Bear Creek watershed would not receive any treatments and would provide a large amount of undisturbed habitat for RTVs to make use of. The proposed actions under Alternative 2 would not remove significant amounts of habitat, and the remaining snags, large dominant trees, and canopy in NRF habitat found throughout the Planning area would provide adequate habitat for RTV populations to persist throughout the analysis area.

No direct effects are anticipated for these species as a result of the proposed timber harvest, as protocol surveys will be completed before the Decision Record is issued for this project, and any active RTV nests and associated inactive nests found during these protocol surveys will be protected in accordance with the most current management recommendations (USDA USDI 2000a) for this species at the time of the signing of the Record of Decision for this project.

The hazardous fuels reduction treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would remove primarily vegetation from the understory or the smaller components of the midstory. This would have minimal effects on RTV habitat, as the trees removed by this type of treatment are rarely used by RTVs and do not provide high quality nesting habitat. These treatments would potentially reduce the connectivity of the canopy, but adequate arboreal pathways would remain throughout the treated areas for RTVs to travel and disperse.

The small amount of road construction associated with Alternative 2 would not occur in suitable RTV habitat, and thus would not directly affect any RTVs that may inhabit the project area.

The proposed treatments under alternative 2 would result in the beneficial effects of reducing the fuel loading and the susceptibility of the treated stands to stand-replacement fires. These treatments are consistent with the management recommendations for this species (USDA USDI 2000a).

Environmental Effects – Great Gray Owl

Alternative 1 - No-action

Under the No-action Alternative, none of the proposed harvest activities would occur, and the forested stands in the Planning area would continue to develop along their current pathways. Therefore, none of

Wagner Anderson Project 3-66 Environmental Assessment the potential nesting habitat found within the analysis area would be altered. GGOs would continue to utilize the analysis area in more or less the same fashion as they have in past years.

Specific to GGOs, the No-action Alternative would not affect GGO’s use of the analysis area for nesting or foraging in the short term. At longer time scales, the open meadow habitats that provide foraging areas would continue to be encroached upon by fire intolerant plant species, thereby reducing the amount of potential foraging opportunities found within the Planning area. Stand replacement fire would remain the greatest risk to the nesting habitat found within the analysis area.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Alternative 2 would lightly thin 247 acres of forest habitat. While commercial thinning treatments may remove individual potential nest trees, the thinning treatments are not expected to affect the majority of the stands or potential nest trees found throughout the analysis area. A small portion of the forested stands located in the analysis area would receive treatment (<5%), and the remaining 95% of the mature or late-successional habitat found within the West Bear Creek Watershed would remain unaffected by the Wagner Anderson Project. There is a low likelihood that GGOs would be directly affected because no nests have been found in or adjacent to units proposed for treatment.

Short term effects would include reduced canopy closure and structural complexity, and the loss of future potential nest trees. However, these habitat changes would also open stands for unobstructed flight and increased foraging success. Long term beneficial effects include accelerated development of late- successional forest habitat suitable for potential GGO nesting and improved potential GGO foraging as understories respond from increased light penetrating to the forest floor.

The hazardous fuels reduction treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would remove primarily vegetation from the understory or the smaller components of the midstory. This would have minimal effects on GGO habitat, as the trees removed by this type of treatment do not provide nesting habitat for GGOs. These treatments have the potential to improve foraging conditions in treated stands by opening the understory and increasing access to prey species.

The small amount of road construction associated with Alternative 2 would not occur in suitable GGO habitat, and thus would not directly affect any GGO nesting habitat.

9. Environmental Effects – Mollusks

Alternative 1 - No-action

Under Alternative 1, forested stands would continue to develop along their current pathways. Successional stand development would continue to be influenced by fire suppression and high stem densities. For mollusks as a group, this trend of higher stem densities and an increase towards closed canopy forests is favorable, because these trends work to provide additional moisture and shade for these species. However, the increased risk of stand replacing fire would remain the greatest threat to this species group as high severity fire would make these areas uninhabitable for mollusks as well as precluding dispersal across heavily burned areas.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

There are no anticipated impacts to these two former survey and manage mollusk species from Alternative 2, because no detections of either species (Helminthoglypta hertleini, Monadenia chaceana) occurred during protocol surveys in commercial harvest units. Analysis of the survey data also showed

Wagner Anderson Project 3-67 Environmental Assessment the majority of the Helminthoglypta hertleini sites were not found in late-successional forest habitat and do not depend on late-successional forest components for persistence. Additionally, none of the proposed treatments in the Wagner Anderson project would occur in Helminthoglypta hertleini habitat typical of known sites within the Medford District, so this species should remain unaffected by Alternative 2.

10. Environmental Effects - Bureau Sensitive Species

The Bureau Special Status Species list, updated February 7, 2008, is divided into Sensitive and Strategic species (IM No. OR-2008-038). As mentioned above, only federally listed or Bureau Sensitive species known or suspected to be present within the project area and impacted by the proposed actions are addressed in this EA. Table 3-18 below documents the basic conclusions of this assessment by species. A description of the table’s headings and letter codes are located at the bottom of the table 3-18.

Table 3-18. Special Status Wildlife Species

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE ASHLAND RA SPECIES 2/07/08 RANGE PRESENCE PROJECT SPECIFIC COMMENTS/ STATUS (Y/N) BASIC CONCLUSIONS Birds Bureau Sensitive & Bureau Strategic No nesting habitat within the analysis area, but they could forage within the American peregrine BSEN Y A analysis area. Project activities would falcon not affect this species at the landscape scale. No known nest sites within the analysis area, no foraging habitat present in the Bald eagle BSEN Y A Planning area. Project activities would not adversely affect individuals. Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Project activities would not adversely affect this Lewis’ woodpecker BSEN Y P species at the landscape scale as adequate levels of snags would be retained (PDF Ch. 2) post treatment.

Marbled murrelet FT N N/A N/A

Seasonal Restrictions would protect known sites from project activity disturbance. Adequate potential habitat Northern spotted owl FT Y P exists within and adjacent to the project area. Proposed activities impacts have been addressed in detail in the Section G, 6 (above)

Purple martin BSEN Y A No habitat within the project area.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-68 Environmental Assessment

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE ASHLAND RA SPECIES 2/07/08 RANGE PRESENCE PROJECT SPECIFIC COMMENTS/ STATUS (Y/N) BASIC CONCLUSIONS

Streaked Horned Lark BSEN N N/A N/A

Tri-colored Blackbird BSEN Y A No habitat within the project area.

Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Project White-headed activities would not adversely affect this BSEN Y U woodpecker species at the landscape scale as adequate levels of snags would be retained (PDF Ch. 2) post treatment.

White-tailed kite BSEN Y A No habitat within the project area.

Amphibians Bureau Sensitive & Bureau Strategic Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. No Black salamander BSEN Y U known sites located within project units. Primary habitat (rocky talus in open oak meadows) would remain untreated. Road renovation may have negative short term impacts on foothill yellow- legged frog habitat. However, sediment delivery to streams due to project activities at all three sites would be Foothill yellow- BSEN Y P highly localized, immeasurable, and of legged Frog short duration and soil and hydrology PDFs would minimize potential impacts from sedimentation to water quality and no loss of frogs would be expected to occur.

Project is outside of range. No known Oregon Spotted frog BSEN N N/A sites.

Siskiyou Mt. Project is outside of range. No known salamander BSEN N N/A sites.

Reptiles Bureau Sensitive & Bureau Strategic

Wagner Anderson Project 3-69 Environmental Assessment

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE ASHLAND RA SPECIES 2/07/08 RANGE PRESENCE PROJECT SPECIFIC COMMENTS/ STATUS (Y/N) BASIC CONCLUSIONS Suspected within the watershed at large Northwestern pond BSEN Y S water sources, but not expected to occur turtle in or adjacent to project units. Mammals Bureau Sensitive & Bureau Strategic

Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Temporary human disturbance, both temporally and spatially would be Fisher FC Y S inconsequential. No known sites located within project units. Proposed activities impacts have been addressed in detail in the Section G, 7 (above).

Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Project activities would not adversely affect this Fringed myotis BSEN Y S species at the landscape scale as adequate levels of snags would be retained (PDF Ch. 2) post treatment.

Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Project activities would not adversely affect this Pacific pallid bat BSEN Y U species at the landscape scale as adequate levels of snags would be retained (PDF Ch. 2) post treatment. Townsend’s big-eared Project activities should not affect BSEN Y S bat maternity or hibernacula areas. Invertebrates Bureau Sensitive & Bureau Strategic

Chase sideband snail BSEN Y N No known sites in project area.

No known sites in project area. No Coronis Fritillary BSEN Y U habitat present in the project area.

Cooley’s Lace Bug BSTR Y U No known sites in project area.

Evening fieldslug BSEN Y U No known sites in project area.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-70 Environmental Assessment

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE ASHLAND RA SPECIES 2/07/08 RANGE PRESENCE PROJECT SPECIFIC COMMENTS/ STATUS (Y/N) BASIC CONCLUSIONS

No known sites in project area. No Franklin’s Bumblebee BSEN Y U habitat present in the project area.

Johnson’s Hairstreak BSEN Y U No known sites in project area.

Mardon skipper Project is outside of range. No known FC Y A butterfly sites in project area.

Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Oregon shoulderband Protocol surveys did not detect any BSEN Y S snail individuals within the project area. Impacts from proposed activities would not affect the species and/or habitat.

Scale lanx snail BSEN Y A No known sites in project area.

Siskiyou hesperian BSEN Y A No known sites in project area. snail

Siskiyou short-horned BSEN Y A No habitat present in the project area. grasshopper

Adequate potential habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Impacts Travelling sideband BSEN Y U from proposed activates are snail inconsequential to the species and/or habitat at the watershed scale. Vernal pool fairy Project is outside of range. No known shrimp FT N N/A sites in project area.

Table Headings and Letter Code Definitions

Species: Grouped alphabetically by taxon. Status: lists the Oregon BLM Program codes as follows:. Oregon BLM Codes: FT - USFW Threatened - likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future FC - USFW Candidate - proposed and being reviewed for listing as threatened or endangered BSEN - Bureau Sensitive (BLM) - eligible for addition to Federal Notice of Review, and known in advance of

Wagner Anderson Project 3-71 Environmental Assessment official publication. Generally these species are restricted in range and have natural or human caused threats to their survival. BSTR - Bureau Strategic Species (BLM) - not presently eligible for official federal or state status, but of concern which may at a minimum need protection or mitigation in BLM activities.

Range: indicates yes or no, if the breeding range overlaps with the Ashland Resource Area. If not within the range, both presence and basic conclusion are not applicable (N/A). For invertebrates in which there is inadequate data to determine ranges, ‘U’ is used for unknown.

Presence: indicates ‘P’ if a species is known to occur in the project area, ‘S’ suspected to occur based on known sites adjacent to the project area, or suitable breeding habitat exists, ‘U’ uncertain that the species occurs within the project area based on insufficient data, ‘A’ absent from the project area based on no known sites and/or no suitable breeding habitat within the project area, and ‘T’ possibly transitory species utilizing habitats within the project area during migration.

Basic Conclusion: describes the facts, context and intensity to provide the rationale for the conclusion of the proposed action(s) on the species and its habitat.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-72 Environmental Assessment 11. Environmental Effects – Land Birds (Neotropical Migrants)

Alternative 1 - No-action

Neotropical birds that favor dense conditions may benefit for a time from the No-action Alternative because the dense understories would continue to build within the project area. However, the increased chance of stand replacing fires that would eventually be a result of No-action Alternative would also lead to the loss and decline of a variety of habitat conditions, including the present dense conditions that benefit some species.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Any action that changes or removes vegetation used by one species may benefit another. Species requiring dense cover that have benefited from the dense understories created by the lack of fire could be negatively affected by thinning treatments designed to reduce vegetation density. Due to habitat removal, songbird composition and abundance in treated stands could be reduced in the short term (Janes 2003; Hagar et al. 2001; and Siegel and DeSante 2003). Thinning treatments would remove hiding cover and nesting habitat for neotropical birds that use older forests. However, untreated riparian buffers, untreated late-successional forest habitat, and 100-acre spotted owl activity centers would continue to provide adequate hiding cover, foraging, and nesting habitat within the project area for birds that use older forests. Additionally, existing large diameter snags and down wood found in older seral stands would be retained in the project area, and would continue to provide nesting, roosting, or foraging opportunities for species dependent on these key habitat structures.

Some individual birds may be displaced and nests could be destroyed during project activities. However, untreated areas adjacent to the treatment areas would provide refuge and nesting habitat, minimizing short term loss of habitat. Some nests may be lost from timber harvest and thinning occurring during active nesting periods. However, the failure or loss of a nest during one nesting season would not be expected to reduce the persistence of any bird species in the watershed. That is because sufficient habitat of all types remains to support the wide diversity of bird species in the area. As >95% of the lands found within the West Bear Creek watershed will remain untreated, impacts to these species are anticipated to be negligible at the landscape scale. The loss would not be measurable at the regional scale; therefore, populations in the region would be unaffected; Partners in Flight support the eco-regional scale, as appropriate, for analyzing bird populations (California Partners in Flight 2002).

Cumulative Effects for Wildlife Cumulative effects for wildlife species and habitat are discussed at the watershed level to capture the varying habitats, species home ranges, and varying degrees of species mobility. Fire suppression, road building, and timber harvest throughout the project area have resulted in habitat loss and fragmentation, and have changed the distribution and abundance of many wildlife species in the West Bear Creek watershed. Approximately 6,000 acres have been harvested from BLM lands in the West Bear Creek Watershed since 1950 (USDI, 2001). The current habitat conditions described for the various species above reflect the effects of past timber harvest in the analysis area. Habitat loss from past harvest has negatively affected late-successional forest habitat dependent species by reducing the amount of late- successional and old-growth forest and seral stage and changing habitat structure. However, species associated with younger forested conditions have benefited from these changes due to the increased acres of young stands within the watershed.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-73 Environmental Assessment Projects recently implemented that are likely to have continued effects within the West Bear Creek watershed include:

• Up to 834 acres of hazardous fuels reduction treatments on BLM lands as planned under the Ashland Fuels EA (M060-2009-0032-EA), • 2,000 acres of hazardous fuels reduction and commercial thinning treatments on Forest Service lands as planned under the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project FEIS (2009),

A forseeable future action that may occur and have effects within the West Bear Creek watershed includes: • Approximately 120 acres of timber harvest on privately owned lands in the NE ¼ section of T39S R1W Section 22.

Northern Spotted Owl The Wagner Anderson project proposes commercial harvest of 198 acres of NRF and 49 acres of dispersal-only NSO habitat. These treatments, coupled with the other recent and future foreseeable projects described above would increase fragmentation within the watershed. However, the only activity that is likely to remove suitable habitat would be the private harvest. This level of harvest of timber on private lands is well within the scope anticipated and analyzed for in the 1995 Medford BLM RMP and the Northwest Forest Plan. This amount of removal at the watershed level would not preclude spotted owls or other late-successional forest species from dispersing within or through the West Bear Creek Watershed.

Additionally, even with the Wagner Anderson project area combined with current and future foreseeable actions, it is unlikely the actions proposed in the Wagner Anderson project would appreciably reduce or diminish the survival or recovery of the spotted owl, due to the small percentage of habitat this would affect at the provincial and the range-wide levels. The anticipated Forest Service Ashland Forest Resiliency Project and the Wagner Anderson project propose only light thinning treatments that would treat and maintain the existing NSO habitat where harvest does occur. These projects would not result in the loss of any of the existing late-successional habitat found across the watershed and therefore there would not be any significant negative cumulative effects on NSO habitat as a result of implementing the Wagner Anderson project. Additionally, with the small level of harvest, this project would not preclude owls occupying viable territories and continuing to reproduce in the watershed.

Other Wildlife Species Even though the proposed actions may potentially adversely disrupt local individuals of sensitive wildlife species and may cause the loss of habitat in some cases, this project is not expected to affect long-term population viability of any Bureau Sensitive, or Survey and Manage wildlife species known to be in the area. Additionally, this project combined with other actions in the watershed would not contribute to the need to federally list any Bureau Sensitive or Survey and Manage wildlife species, because of the small scope of the proposed action compared to the available habitat within the West Bear Creek watershed. If the maximum acres are treated (under Alternative 2), the proposed action would treat only 0.4 percent of the West Bear Creek watershed. Because of the relatively small foot-print of the project, and because of the dispersed distribution of proposed treatments across the watershed, no substantial negative effects are anticipated to any Bureau Sensitive or former Survey and Manage wildlife species.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-74 Environmental Assessment

H. FIRE AND FUELS

This section discloses impacts to fire regimes from fuels and forest health activities such as prescribed fire, thinning, logging, and fuels reduction treatments, and from activities associated with the construction and use of roads. Smoke impacts, as a result of prescribed fire, are discussed in Section K, Air Quality.

1. Affected Environment a. Background

The landscapes that comprise the project area evolved with frequent fires affecting the vegetation and other key components of the ecosystem. Since the establishment of Euro-settlement in this area human relations and interactions with these landscapes have affected many of the processes that had previously played a large part in the evolution of the site. Of these interactions one management decision that has affected one of the evolutionary processes has been that of fire exclusion.

Fire is recognized as a key natural disturbance process throughout Southwest Oregon (Atzet and Wheeler 1982). Human-caused and lightning fires have been a source of disturbance to the landscape for thousands of years. Native Americans influenced vegetation patterns for over a thousand years by igniting fires to enhance values that were important to their culture (Pullen 1996). Early settlers to this area used fire to improve grazing and farming and to expose rock and soil for mining. Fire has played an important role in influencing successional processes (USDI 2001:27).

Historically, frequent, low intensity fires maintained low to mid elevation dry Douglas-fir and pine forest types in more open conditions than exist today (Agee 1993; Pullen 1996). Frequent, low intensity fires served as a thinning mechanism, thereby, naturally regulating the density of the forests. A more open crown structure would have allowed fire to travel more rapidly across the site with intensities that were short-lived. The light flashy surface fuels (grasses, shrubs, and conifer/hardwood litter), the repeated reduction of conifer reproduction underneath the overstory, and the repeated consumption of large fuels and duff build-up, would have reduced the post-fire effects (also described as fire severity) found on these sites historically. The qualities of the open crown structure would also provide better avenues for the heat intensity to vent out of the site without scorching the crowns to the lethal limit. However, there is evidence that stand replacement fires did occur historically, but they likely affected a smaller proportion of the landscape in comparison to wildfire incidents experienced across the Pacific Northwest over the last two decades. b. Fire Regimes

Climate and topography combine to create the fire regime found throughout the project area. Fire regime refers to the frequency, severity and extent of fires occurring in an area. Agee (1993) suggests that variable fire history, complex geology, land use history and steep environmental gradients of Douglas fir hardwood forests of southwest Oregon and Northern California Siskiyous prevents generalizations about fire and its ecological effects (Agee 1993 p. 283-284). This is also true for the Wagner Anderson analysis area, located in the Siskiyou Mountains, and characterized by steep terrain, Douglas-fir and pine forest types, and a history of natural and anthropogenic fire use. However, plant association groups are a credible link to historic ecological processes, including fire regimes that occurred on sites in the past (Franklin and Agee 2003). Historic fire regimes and the departure from them, correlate’s to the change from historical to current vegetative structure. The change in vegetation also helps to describe the difference in fuel loading (dead fuels and live in the form of increased vegetation) from historical to current conditions.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-75 Environmental Assessment These changes in vegetation and fuel conditions help to determine the expected change in fire behavior and its effects. This difference in many respects is attributed to fire exclusion, but also includes all human practices that would affect the extent, severity, or frequency of fire events compared to historical accounts. These practices include road building, livestock grazing, and some logging practices as well as fire suppression.

Three historic fire regimes are found within the analysis area (Schmidt et al. In press):

Fire Regime 1: 0-35 years fire return interval, Low Severity Typical climax plant communities include ponderosa pine, pine-oak woodlands, and oak woodlands. Large stand-replacing fire can occur under certain weather conditions, but are rare events (i.e. every 200 years).

Fire Regime 2: 0-35 years fire return interval, High Severity This regime includes true grasslands and savannahs with typical return intervals of less than 10 years and ceanothus and Oregon chaparral with typical return intervals of 10-25 years. Fire severity is generally high to moderate.

Fire Regime 3: < 50 years fire return interval, Mixed Severity

Typical plant communities include mixed conifer and very dry westside Douglas-fir. Lower severity fire tends to predominate in many events. This regime usually results in heterogeneous landscapes. Large, stand-replacing fires may occur but are usually rare events. Approximately 247 acres are proposed for treatments are classified as Fire Regime 3. c. Condition Class

The process for making an assessment on how much fire exclusion, along with other management activities, has affected an ecosystem is through classifying the current condition of the site based on a reference usually pre-dating when fire exclusion became an influence. Condition class descriptions are used to describe these affected ecosystems. Condition classes are a function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes resulting in alterations of components such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, and canopy closure. There are three condition classes:

Condition Class 1 - Fire regimes are within or near an historic range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation species composition and structure are intact and functioning within an historical range.

Condition Class 2 - Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range (more than one return interval). This change results in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns.

Condition Class 3 - Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. This change results in dramatic changes to fire size, frequency, severity, or landscape patterns.

The dry westside Douglas-fir stands (fire regime 3) proposed for treatment are in condition class 2 and 3. There are small portions of these stands that are in condition class 1. Stand densities are extremely dense due to the absence of fire.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-76 Environmental Assessment d. Fire Risk

Fire risk is the probability of when a fire will occur within a given area. Historical records show that lightning and human caused fires are common in the analysis area. Activities within this area such as increased development of homes in the wildland urban interface, dispersed camp sites, recreational use, and major travel corridors add to the risk component for the possibility of a fire occurring from human causes. The time frame most conducive for fires to occur in the analysis area is from July through September.

Information from the Oregon Department of Forestry database from 1967 to 2006 show a total of 90 fires occurred throughout the analysis area. Lightning accounted for 60 percent of the total fires and human caused fires accounted for 40 percent. The following table (Table 3-19) is a breakdown of the fires within the project area:

Table 3-19: Fire Number by Size Total Number of Fires Size Class Size 69 A <.25ac 18 B .26-10ac 1 C 10.1-100ac 2 D 100.1-300ac 0 F > 300 ac

Only 27% or 24 fires started on BLM managed lands. Of the fires that started on BLM land, lightning started 75% of them and the remaining fires were human caused.

e. Fire Hazard

Fire hazard assesses vegetation by type, arrangement, volume, condition and location. These characteristics combine to determine the threat of fire ignition, the spread of a fire and the difficulty of fire control. Fire hazard is a useful tool in the planning process because it helps in the identification of broad areas within a watershed that could benefit from fuels management treatment. Hazard ratings were developed for the analysis area. In general, the existing fuel profile within the project area represents a moderate to high resistance to control under average climatic conditions. The following table (Table 3- 20) summarizes the percent acres of BLM land by fire hazard rating category for the analysis area. This data is from the Jackson County Fire Risk Analysis.

Table 3-20. Fire Hazard Ratings for BLM Land in the Analysis Area. Fire Hazard Rating Percentage of Acres by Category Low hazard 1% Moderate hazard 61% High hazard 38%

Private land in the analysis area, which comprises 68% of the total analysis area acres, is 23% in high hazard and 76% moderate hazard.

Predicted climate change Several studies that model climatic change into the next century also caution land managers in the Pacific Northwest to plan for increased temperatures and possibly some increase in winter moisture in the form of rain over the coming years in the Pacific Northwest (The JISAO Climate Impact Group- Mote et al 2003;

Wagner Anderson Project 3-77 Environmental Assessment Drought and Pacific Decadal Oscillation Linked to Fire Occurrence in the Pacific Northwest Hessl 2004; Preparing for Climatic Change: The Water, Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest- Mote et al 2003). These forecasts would indicate and suggest that climatic factors may, in the future, have a more dramatic impact on wildland fire extent and severity. With increases in warmer winter moisture to inspire vegetation growth along with warmer and dryer conditions in the summer months what is considered to be extreme drought conditions now, could easily be experienced with Pacific Dacadal Oscillations (PDO) or El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the first half of this century. Change in ecosystem structure and spatial distribution is expected to be a product from this climatic variation and wildland fire will be one of the agents that causes the changes in the ecosystems.

2. Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 - No-action

Because no new management is proposed under this alternative, the effects described reflect current conditions and trends that are shaped by ongoing management and events unrelated to the Wagner Anderson project described under the Affected Environment above.

The current trend of increasing stand density, which results in increased mortality in forest stands, would continue. The transition from ponderosa pine stands to dense fir stands would also continue in the project area. Trees growing under these conditions often become weakened and are highly susceptible to insect epidemics and tree pathogens (see Section I, Silviculture). High numbers of younger trees (mostly conifers) contribute to stress and mortality of mature conifers and hardwoods.

The 247 acres of mixed conifer stands, which are in condition classes 2 and 3, would not be treated and fuels reduction objectives for these areas would not be accomplished. Without treatment, the condition class of these stands would continue to deteriorate; condition class 2 stands would deteriorate to a condition class 3.

Ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and dry Douglas-fir forests, which are typical in the Wagner Anderson analysis area, are experiencing fires today that are uncharacteristic of historic fires (Agee and Skinner 2005). Under the No-action Alternative, the project area would remain in moderate to high fire hazard resulting in a continued risk that if a wildfire occurs affecting the Wagner Anderson project units, they would exhibit high severity fire effects. While there would be no temporary increase in surface fuels from harvest created slash, the existing surface, ladder, and canopy fuels would remain untreated.

If predicted climate change does occur, as described above, it could contribute to hazardous fuels conditions and increased fire behavior. These hazardous fuels conditions would continue to contribute towards a higher potential for large-scale stand replacing wildfires in comparison to the proposed action. Under these conditions fire managers are more likely to use indirect versus direct attack suppression strategies. The result of indirect fire suppression tactics can result in more area burned, more emissions released, and increased burn severity (i.e., tree mortality, soil damage, etc.), during a wildfire event.

With no forest management, changes in canopy closure would occur only as a result of natural events such as insect infestation, windstorms, mortality from competition/drought, and wildfire. Where natural disturbances create more open stand conditions there would be more wind and solar radiation resulting in a drier microclimate compared to closed canopy stands. A drier microclimate generally contributes to increased fire behavior. Under the No-action Alternative, there would be no treatment of existing surface, ladder or crown fuels to help mitigate the effects of microclimate changes resulting from tree mortality.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-78 Environmental Assessment The entire project area is within the wildland urban interface. Approximately 840 acres of non- commercial fuels reduction work, analyzed under the Ashland Fuels EA, is planned to be completed in the next several years. These acres are adjacent to privately owned land. Under the No-action Alternative, increased effectiveness of the landscape scale treatments that could be gained from the implementation of fuels reduction under the Wagner Anderson project would not be realized. Although other ongoing BLM and Forest Service fuels reduction projects would still provide improved protection, from wildland fire, around private lands and homes and Forest Service managed land. The effect of reducing home ignitions by reducing forest fuels around structures has been demonstrated by Cohen (2000). He found that even severe fires will not directly ignite structures at distances beyond 200 feet. However, fire brands from beyond 200 feet may land on combustible surfaces and ignite structures; with a higher risk under the No-action Alternative in comparison to Alternative 2.

Fire suppression would continue because there are no policies in place or being proposed that will allow fires to burn naturally within the project area. Another 120 acres of timber harvest is planned on private lands in the analysis area. Although Oregon Forest Practices act requires slash to be treated to reduce fire hazard, there could be short-term increase in surface fuels on 120 acres of private land from the time of harvest until fuels reduction treatments are completed. Defensible space and driveway treatments will continue by private land owners, but the amount is unknown. As a result of ongoing programs to implement defensible space around structures, as well as driveways and roads for potential escape/evacuation routes, the risk of structure and human loss during wildfire events continually decreases.

Based on trends in the last 35 years, humans will continue to be responsible for the majority of wildfires (78%), but be responsible for only a small portion of the total acres burned. Most of the human-caused fires will continue to be associated within about 300 feet of roads.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Discussions for the proposed action reflect the direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives, as well as the cumulative effects that may result from the cumulative effects that may result from adding incremental effects (direct and indirect) of the proposed action to the combined effects of other past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

One of the outcomes of vegetation treatments under the proposed action is to reduce vegetative horizontal and vertical structure which would decrease the probability of uncharacteristic wildfire and increase fire resiliency.

Fire Severity The current science in determining extent and severity of wildland fire is based on three environmental variables, weather, topography and fuels (Rothermel 1972, Albini 1976). Management activities on landscapes and within ecosystems seeking to affect wildland fire extent and severity have focused on treating of fuels for obvious reasons. Forest fuels (including live and dead material), can be changed in terms of fire behavior and fire effects characteristics by silvicultural and fuels treatments (Agee 1996; Weatherspoon 1996), fire exclusion practices, and natural events.

Weather and topographic effects on fire behavior and severity are interrelated with the amount and distribution of fuels on a site with respect to the aspect, steepness of slope, and position on slope, along with atmospheric elements of temperature, relative humidity, in relation to fuel moisture, and windspeed and direction. When the environmental and atmospheric conditions are conducive to drying fuels and/or heating them to the ignition point during a fire we refer to them available fuels. The interrelationship between slope and wind in relation to the amount and arrangement of available fuel is critical in terms of

Wagner Anderson Project 3-79 Environmental Assessment allowing a fire to spread and increase in intensity. If there is no fuel loading available to burn in a fire, there is no adverse effects to the vegetation or other site qualities. For example in some desert areas where vegetation is sparse and extreme fire weather is the norm (high temps, low relative humidity, windy unstable atmospheric conditions), fires often don’t spread except under unusual wind conditions, due to the lack of continuous fuels. Thinning treatments proposed under this alternative would reduce the continuity of vertical and horizontal fuels, reducing fire hazard, reducing the risk of large-scale stand replacing fire, and increasing fire resiliency while meeting the objectives of Matrix land allocation (see Chapter 1 Purpose and Need statement).

Activity Fuels/Surface Fuels Timber harvest can increase fire severity, if not accompanied by adequate reduction of fuels, by increasing dead surface fuels (SNEP, pp 61-72). Treatments designed to reduce canopy fuels through density management, increase and decrease fire hazard simultaneously. Slash generated from the commercial thinning of timber stands, if not treated, would create surface fuels that would be greater than current levels. The existing surface fire behavior fuel model in the majority of stands proposed for commercial thinning are represented by a Timber Group fire behavior fuel model. Fuel amounts are measured in tons per acre for different size material. Material up to 3 inches in diameter has the greatest influence on the rate of spread and flame length of a fire, which has direct impacts on fire suppression efforts.

It is anticipated that fuel loadings (material 3 inches and less) after logging would be temporarily increased by approximately 3-11 tons to the acre prior to the scheduled fuel disposal activities to be completed. This would change the existing fuel model of most of the timbered stands to a Logging Slash Group which in turn would create higher rates of spread and greater flame lengths in the event of a wildfire. However, despite the temporary increase in ground fuels, research indicates that a reduction in crown fuels outweighs any increase in surface fire hazard (Omi and Martinson 2002). This temporary increase in surface fuels is usually less than one year (can be up to 2 years), the time period that it takes to implement the fuel treatments to dispose of activity fuels following timber harvest, and non-commercial sized ladder fuels in selected stands.

Slash created from commercial thinning would be treated following forest thinning operations. Additionally, small diameter non-commercial surface and ladder fuels would be cut, hand piled, and burned along with activity fuels in units # 22-3, 23-8, 23-9, 14-1, 14-2, 14-4, 14-5, 14-6, 14-7, and 14-9. These treatments would reduce fire behavior such as flame length, rate of spread and fire duration. With the reduction of flame length and fire duration, the chance of a crown fire initiating in thinned stands would be greatly reduced. Also, mortality of the smaller diameter conifers would be reduced compared to the No-action Alternative, where stands would result in self thinning due to high stand densities (see Section I , Silviculture). The reduction of flame length would also increase the chance that direct attack of a wildfire could occur which would reduce acres burned in the event of a wildfire.

Fuels treatments for stands that are commercially harvested would be completed within two years after a unit is harvested. Treatments would take place where slash three inches in size and less exceeds 5 to 6 tons per acre. Treatments should ensure that under most climate and weather conditions, flame lengths would be less than three feet allowing for direct attack of a wildfire.

In a study on the effects of thinning on fire behavior, Graham and others (1999) concluded that “depending on intensity, thinning from below and possibly free thinning can most effectively alter fire behavior by reducing crown bulk density, increasing crown base height, and changing species composition to lighter crowned and fire-adapted species.” Thinning accompanied by removal of thinning residues and slash and followed by periodic prescribed burning are effective (Omi and Martinson 2002; Pollet and Omi 2002; Agee 1993; Graham 1999; VanWagtendonk 1996). Treatments that result in forests

Wagner Anderson Project 3-80 Environmental Assessment with a lower density and larger trees show lower potential for crown fire initiation and propagation and for less severe fire effects (Pollet and Omi 2002).

Anecdotal observations should not be applied the same as rigorously tested scientific study, but they can be use to report and interpret trends. Anecdotal evidence on the Squires fire in Southern Oregon show that treatments to reduce fire behavior may have merit. Fire weather conditions during the Squires Peak Fire, as measured by the Energy Release Component Indices, was in the 89th to 90th percentile during the Squires fire event as measured by the Star and Provolt RAWS stations. This percentile is recognized as high but not extreme fire weather conditions. Even though winds were reported the evening the fire reached the treated area in the Kin’s Wood project area, fire behavior decreased when it reached the treated area.

Fire resiliency A forest that is fire-resilient has characteristics that allow it to readily recover from a fire event. A forest’s resiliency to fire can be increased by applying fire safe principles. This means managing surface fuels to limit the flame length, removing ladder fuels to keep flames from transcending to tree crowns where trees have no defense against fire; decreasing crown density making less probable for a crown fire to move from tree-tree; and keeping large diameter trees that are more fire resistant (Agee and Skinner 2005 In Press)(Agee 1996)(Agee 1993).

The implementation of this alternative would promote fire resilient forest stands by thinning from below, removing suppressed and/or over crowded intermediate and co-dominant trees while retaining the larger co-dominant and dominant trees within treated stands. This alternative would thin approximately 247 acres of timbered stands that are in condition class 2 and 3. Forest thinning prescriptions would result in a reduction in ladder fuels, an increase in the height to the base of tree crowns, and the reduction of crown bulk density (canopy fuels). All of these are important factors in reducing the potential for initiating and sustaining a crown fire in these stands (Omi and Martinson 2002) (Agee 1996) (Agee and Skinner 2005) (Agee et al.2000).

Thinning from below, removing the smaller diameter trees within a stand, would increase the average tree diameters as soon as treatments are completed. Over time, tree diameters would continue to increase with the growth of the residual stand. Larger diameter trees are more tolerant to surface fires so there would be less tree mortality in the event of a surface fire. Commercial thinning would also favor more fire tolerant species such as pine. Lowering basal area through thinning and prescribed fire can increase the long term vigor in the residual trees within a stand (Huff and Agee 2000).

The silvicultural prescriptions are all designed to retain healthy large trees (see Chapter 2). The maintenance of pine species on dry Douglas fir and pine sites contributes to the fire resiliency of forest stands. The larger the ponderosa pine, the greater its resilience to fire due to increasing bark thickness (Agee 1993; Agee 1996). Its bark is one of the key defense mechanisms against mortality from low intensity fire. Thus, removal of larger non-pine species, in this context, actually improves the ecological role of fire and subsequent fire resiliency of the stand. Although, some large trees would be removed due to bark beetle attacks, to improve the survival of large fire resistant pine species (by reducing competition for moisture and growing spaces), to encourage the regeneration of fire resilient pine species, and due to logging operations (road work, landings, and cable corridors), the fire resiliency for the project area would be improved due to the overall reduction in fire hazard. The reduction in stand density would make it possible to use prescribed fire as a tool to further reduce surface fuels and fire hazard in these stands approximately 1 to 5 years after the initial treatment.

Under the proposed action, the landscape scale effectiveness of all fuels reduction work in the analysis area would be improved by altering fire behavior through fuels reduction work on a proportion of BLM

Wagner Anderson Project 3-81 Environmental Assessment managed lands within the analysis area. The entire project area is within the wildland urban interface. Approximately 840 acres of non-commercial fuels reduction work, analyzed under the Ashland Fuels EA (2009), is planned for completion over the next several years. These acres are adjacent to privately owned land. While Cohen (2000) found that even severe fires will not directly ignite structures at distances beyond 200 feet, fire brands from beyond 200 feet may land on combustible surfaces and ignite structures. Although, the other ongoing fuels reduction work around privately owned lands and homes would still provide improved protection from wildland fire, fuels reduction work planned under this EA would increase the effectiveness of other ongoing fuels reduction work in the analysis area. The thinning proposed with this project along with the ongoing fuels reduction work in woodlands and shrublands within the urban interface reduces the chances that embers originating beyond the immediate defensible zone would ignite structures. In combination with homeowner treatments, fuels reduction beyond the home defense zone is reducing the chance of structural loss or damage in a wildfire situation.

Changes in micro-climate and effectiveness of fuels treatments Management of forest stands can result in altered micro climates (Agee 1996). Increasing spacing between the canopies of trees can contribute to increased wind speeds, increased temperatures, drying of topsoil and vegetation (Countryman 1955) (Countryman 1972), and increased shrub and forb growth (Agee 1996).

A more open stand allows more wind and solar radiation resulting in a drier microclimate compared to a closed stand. A drier microclimate generally contributes to increased fire behavior. The degree of effects of microclimate change on fire behavior is highly dependent on stand conditions after treatment, weather conditions at the time of the fire, mitigation to offset the effects of microclimate change, and the degree of openness. Moisture content of live vegetation is also an important consideration. The moisture content of live fuels compared to fine dead and down fuels is generally much greater. Where overstory canopy reduction results in the growth of live understory vegetation, undergrowth could contribute to reduced or increased surface fire behavior. Live fuels with higher moisture content can have a dampening effect on fire behavior compared to dead fine fuels (Agee et al. 2002; Agee 1996). Cured grasses and forbs can increase fire line intensity (Agee 1996); however, due to project design where ladder fuels have been removed and crown base heights increased, the risk of crown fire initiation and fire severity is reduced (Agee 1996; Omi and Martinson 2002; VanWagtendonk 1996; Agee et al. 2000).

The proposed action for this project proposes to treat slash generated by the treatments. Because prescriptions are designed to maintain about 40 to 60 percent canopy closure or greater for the maintenance of northern spotted owl habitat, these stands would not likely result in any substantial increase in drying. Considering the maintenance of canopy closure combined with the treatment of activity fuels, and non-commercial ladder fuels in some stands (see Chapter 2, Summary of Proposed Action), timber harvest in these stands would not contribute to an increase in severe fire behavior.

Forest thinning followed by fuels reduction and maintenance underburning would promote low intensity fire spread. The vegetation components maintained are more fire resilient, and will in most cases, aid the prevention of large-scale high severity wildfire. These conditions also contribute to the abilities of fire managers to exercise a better measure of control of wildfires (the lower the flame length and fire intensity allow for direct attack fire suppression strategies) and future prescribed fire treatments.

Spring versus Fall Burning The season in which underburning is implemented is based on achieving hazard reduction objectives while minimizing impacts to the site. Fall underburning is utilized when fuel loadings are low enough to allow for a low intensity burn similar to that which was historically common in these fire regimes. Due to the long absence of fire, fuel loadings in most cases are too high to initially burn a unit in the fall.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-82 Environmental Assessment The surface fuel loading in a unit dictates fire intensity. A common method to reduce fuel loadings before underburning is implemented is to use manual treatment (slashing, hand piling and burning). Even after manual treatments surface fuel levels in the 1, 10 and 100 hour fuels (1/4 inch to 3 inch diameter) are often too high to accomplish a low intensity fall burn. When this is the case underburning is done in the spring.

Burning in the fall with high surface fuel loadings would have adverse impacts to numerous resources due to fires being of higher intensity. Large down woody debris consumption is higher in the fall. Duff consumption is higher and soil heating tends to be higher. Mortality to the residual stand as well as other vegetation is higher due to higher intensity fires low live fuel moisture. Snag retention is difficult due to the low dead fuel moistures and higher fire intensity. With higher fire intensities and lower live and dead fuel moistures the risk of escape is greatly increased.

Prescriptions are developed for spring burning to consume the smaller fuels (1/4 inch to 3 inch diameter) and retain the majority of large down woody debris due to the higher dead fuel moistures. Soil moisture is also higher in the spring so duff consumption is also minimal. Burning under these conditions keep fire intensity low, reduces the impacts to residual vegetation, and the chance of an escaped fire is also minimized. Visual observations of areas that have been underburned in the spring in the Ashland Resource Area have shown that resource protection objectives described above have been met.

Project design features included to reduce and avoid effects of underburning include minimizing fire line construction, firelines are 1 to 2 feet in width, are waterbarred to minimize soil erosion, and re-growth of vegetation on the firelines normally occurs within one growing season. Mop-up operations are generally limited to a 100 foot perimeter around a burned unit.

Future maintenance of all areas treated in the project area would be needed in order to maintain low fuel loadings and species dependent on fire. Underburning is the preferred method for maintaining these areas. Units would be evaluated post harvest to determine if the planned fuels treatment is still applicable. At the discretion of resource specialists, planned treatments may be changed to better meet the objectives outlined in this EA. Any changes would be evaluated to ensure that both treatments and their effects are adequately covered under this EA.

Cumulative Effects The commercial thinning of approximately 247 acres and fuels reduction work on 840 acres, combined with homeowner treatments within the wildland urban interface, and the Ashland Fire Resiliency project, would reduce the threat of wildland fire to homes and resources on public and private lands, and would improve the fire resiliency of forest lands.

Fire suppression would continue because there are no policies in place or being proposed that will allow fires to burn naturally within the analysis area. Another 120 acres of timber harvest is planned on private lands in the analysis area. Although Oregon Forest Practices act requires slash to be treated to reduce fire hazard, there could be short-term increase in surface fuels on 120 acres of private land from the time of harvest until fuels reduction treatments are completed. Defensible space and driveway treatments will continue by private land owners, but the amount is unknown. As a result of ongoing programs to implement defensible space around structures, as well as driveways and roads for potential escape/evacuation routes, the risk of structure and human loss during wildfire events continually decreases.

Based on trends in the last 35 years, humans will continue to be responsible for the majority of wildfires (78%), but be responsible for only a small portion of the total acres burned. Most of the human-caused fires will continue to be associated within about 300 feet of roads.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-83 Environmental Assessment

Thinning of brush and small trees on private lands for fuels reduction is expected to continue. Road construction is limited to potential development of private lands, but is considered to be minor because roads are for private, limited use, and generally very short. New road construction and renovation in the proposed action would not encourage increased access or use by public due to private access, gates, or barricading. Therefore, the increased road development is not expected measurably increase fire risk in the analysis area. On-going fuels reduction on private and federally-managed public lands would result in beneficial effect of increasing the landscape scale effectiveness of fuels reduction treatments.

I. SILVICULTURE

1. Affected Environment

Dense Stands & Tree Vigor & Wildland Fire Hazard The current landscape pattern of the vegetation in the analysis area (Wagner Creek, Anderson Creek and Coleman Creek subwatersheds) is a result of topography, fires, wind events, timber harvesting, and agricultural/residential land development. There is a natural diversity of vegetation condition classes within stands and between stands whose boundaries are generally dictated by slope, aspect and past disturbance. Aspect is an important determinant in vegetation changes. Ridges with westerly to southerly aspects and areas with shallow soils generally exhibit severe growing conditions with shrubs and grasses dominating these sites. These influences create a coarse-grained pattern across the landscape with a mosaic pattern of different vegetation types and seral stages.

Table 3-21. BLM Vegetation Condition Classes for the Analysis Area Vegetation Condition Class Acres Grass, Forbs, Herbaceous 29 Shrubs, Non-forest Land 12 Hardwood/Woodland 469 Early (0-5 years) and Seedlings/Saplings (0-4.9 inches DBH) 276 Poles (5-11 inches DBH) 927 Mid (11-21 inches DBH) 1,264 Mature (21+ inches DBH) 1,001 TOTAL ACRES 3,978 TOTAL FOREST LAND ACRES 3,468

Approximately 1,021 acres of forestland are available for commercial thinning (29% of the commercial forestland base in the analysis area). Approximately 20% of the analysis area is below 3,000 feet elevation (1,036 acres) consisting of dry Douglas-fir and Pine Series forest (14% of the forestland base). Grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands comprise 13 percent of the total analysis area (Table 3-21). Only 15% of the forestland base is considered moist Douglas-fir site where large trees could persist for centuries. The forests were created by fires in the nineteenth and early 20th centuries and only relatively small forest stands (approximately from 2 to 9 acres in size) or clumps of trees with old-growth characteristics can be found. Riparian areas serve as corridors of large diameter trees across the landscape such as along Wagner Creek and the larger gulches that flow into it. The diverse topography and aspect changes tend to keep the forest stand size small across the landscape. In most of the dry Douglas-fir and pine forest there is less than one old-growth tree per acre. One old-growth tree per acre does not necessarily make an old-growth forest. The sites are relatively dry (Table 3-22) and not conducive to high stocking levels of old trees especially on south facing slopes. Even the most productive of the sites – PSME/BENE - is considered still within the “dry end” of the Douglas-fir Series (Atzet and Wheeler 1984).

Wagner Anderson Project 3-84 Environmental Assessment Whiteleaf manzanita and ceanothus species are migrating into oak woodlands and grasslands replacing oak species, pine, and native grasses. In shrublands and grasslands mountain mahogany and serviceberry are mature because of the lack of fire disturbance. In the mid-size vegetation condition class, suppressed shrubs and hardwood trees beneath the dominant tree canopy layer are dying. Pacific madrone and oak species have dropped out of conifer stands where light and water have become limited due to competition. Dead whiteleaf and greenleaf manzanita may be found in the understory of some conifer stands and indicates a reduction in biological diversity. This may also indicate that manzanita is the species that will pioneer the site following future disturbance. Other shrub species dying out of the conifer stands include deerbrush ceanothus, creambrush oceanspray, and serviceberry.

Natural mortality has also created openings in the canopy layer. Natural mortality is a result of Douglas- fir dwarf mistletoe, bark beetles, and windthrow. The understory of these stands consists of dense pockets of conifer regeneration, hardwoods, and shrubs. The regeneration ranges from seedling to small pole size trees, with many of these suppressed. These stands would benefit from precommercial thinning. There are approximately 1,152 acres of natural stands in need of precommercial treatment.

Many (26-44%) of the commercial forest stands originated from fires between 1875 and 1945. Most (55- 89%) of the forest stands became established within 10 years after a fire, although the harsher sites may have taken 30 to 40 years to become forested. Individual timber stands now generally tend to emerge as even-aged due to the stand replacement nature of previous conflagration events. This means that there are many trees of the same age class and almost equal in height, with few older trees scattered throughout. The majority of the trees in the analysis area are between 20 and 130 years old. However, there are 153 to 294 year old trees in fewer numbers. The oldest trees found were 251 and 294 years old. The age classes greater than 149 are the least frequent. These older stands or patches of older trees are in the understory reinitiation stage of forest development and vertical stand structure is diverse. The oldest forest stands are found in riparian areas with north to east aspects.

Young, thrifty forest stands (24 to 79 years of age) in the Early and Poles Condition Classes are scattered among the older, overstocked stands. Merchantable trees measured in this age group average 17.7 inches in DBH. Some pole stands are still in the stem exclusion stage. They are characterized by a closed canopy and high stocking levels. Breast height age of merchantable poles measured in the analysis area (8-11 inches DBH) averages 46 years. The average crown closure for sampled stands in the Wagner Anderson analysis area is 83 percent and ranges from 65 to 100 percent. Some conifer stands have been selectively logged, underburned by fire, commercially thinned, or have suffered mortality from natural processes. These stands tend to be more diverse in species composition and vertical structure as a result of disturbance. The average canopy cover for sampled stands is 76 percent ranging from 44 to 98 percent. The silvicultural activities proposed resemble particular natural disturbances that are inherent to forests and therefore do not create entirely unnatural stands (Oliver & Larson 1996).

The Wagner Anderson analysis area exhibits three tree series: Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and white oak (Table 3-22). Plant association descriptions within these series can be found in Preliminary Plant Associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province (Atzet and Wheeler 1984) and Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of Southwestern Oregon (Atzet et.al.1996).

Wagner Anderson Project 3-85 Environmental Assessment Table 3-22. Tree Series / Plant Association Groups Common to the Wagner Anderson Analysis Area Douglas-fir Series/Plant Ponderosa Pine Series/Plant White Oak Series/Plant Association Groups Association Groups Association Groups PSME (Douglas-fir)/BENE PIPO–QUKE (California QUGA (Oregon white (dwarf Oregongrape) black oak) oak)/CYEC (Hedgehog dogtail) PSME/RHDI (Poison oak)– PIPO–PSME QUGA–PSME/RHDI BEPI (Piper’s Oregongrape) PSME/RHDI QUGA–CEMO (Birchleaf Mountain Mahogany) PSME–PIPO (Ponderosa pine) PSME-ABCO (White fir) PSME-ABCO/HODI (Oceanspray)

When rainfall is abundant, or the aspect is more conducive to cooler temperatures, plant associations most often found include PSME-PIPO and PSME/BENE. On the drier sites the PSME/RHDI and PSME/RHDI-BEPI plant associations are most prevalent. Pine and white oak series forests are usually found on south and west aspects and the lowest elevations (PIPO-QUKE and QUGA-PSME/RHDI). At higher elevations PIPO-PSME sites are found.

Subtle changes in species composition and stand structure are occurring over the landscape. Many second growth trees and trees with old-growth characteristics are dying as a result of high tree stocking levels. Douglas-fir represents the climax species and is replacing seral ponderosa pine, sugar pine and incense cedar due to its greater shade-tolerance. Douglas-fir, also a seral species, is encroaching upon the edges of pine sites and hardwood/woodlands. Mortality of Douglas-fir along these edges has been noticeable in the last several years.

Currently, the stocking levels of stands throughout the analysis area are high. Trees per acre range from 94 to 478, average 223 TPA at a quadratic mean diameter (QMD) of 11.7 inches DBH. Average diameter growth in the last decade was 1.44 inches. The average relative density for the area is 0.643 and indicates that physiologically the trees have exceeded the threshold (0.550) of competition induced suppression and mortality. This is primarily due to the lack of disturbance and fire suppression. Waring and Schlesinger (1985) state that a reduction in canopy leaf area following a disturbance such as a silvicultural system, fire, insect, or disease induced mortality increases the penetration of radiation and precipitation to the forest floor thereby increasing soil temperature and available water supply. They add that additional light penetration “generally increases photosynthetic rates in the lower canopy . . . the rate of wood production per unit of leaf area should increase.” As long as there is available growing space in a forest stand, individual trees will continue to grow and expand their crowns. When a forest reaches maximum leaf area, further growth requires a corresponding reduction in the number of surviving individuals (Waring and Schlesinger 1985; Mohler et al. 1978).

The overall rate of decomposition in a forest ecosystem is largely determined by temperature and moisture with temperature of primary importance; increasing the soil temperature and moisture stimulates microbial activity and mineralization (Waring and Schlesinger 1985; Edwards 1975). As forests recover, nutrient and water uptake per unit of leaf area increases as well as the rate of wood production per unit of leaf area.

Most conifers have an associated bark beetle that is capable of killing the tree under the right conditions (SWOFIDSC). Western pine beetles (Dendroctonus brevicomis) and pine engraver beetles (Ips spp.) are

Wagner Anderson Project 3-86 Environmental Assessment attacking the pines while flatheaded wood borers (Melanophila drummondi) and Douglas-fir beetles (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) are killing Douglas-fir (Aerial Insect and Disease Survey 2007, 2008). Drought conditions and high tree stocking levels are severely stressing the trees physiologically, enabling beetles to invade and kill the trees.

Bark beetles successfully colonize live trees when their host is under some form of physiological stress. Dolph (1985) found that bark beetle attack occurred in unmanaged stands when trees grew a slow 20 or more annual rings per inch (less than or equal to one inch diameter growth per decade). Entomologists and Silviculturists have found that at least 1.5 inches of tree diameter growth per decade decreases the risk of bark beetle attack in ponderosa pine (Cochran 1992, Chadwick and Eglitis 2007, USDA 1998).

Pine bark beetles are initially attracted to pines that are under stress. Once a stressed tree has been successfully invaded, pheromones emitted by invading beetles attract additional beetles to the same tree, overpowering its defenses. A vigorous tree is able to eject invading beetles with its pitch; a tree under stress has a reduced capability of responding to the invasion. As a general rule, stands where growth rates are greater than or equal to 1.5 inches of diameter growth per decade, or with less than 150 square feet of basal area per acre, are less prone to pine bark beetle attack; stands on south and east aspects below 3,500 foot elevations are particularly vulnerable when their densities are high (USDA 1998). Stands such as these can be found in T39S-R4W Sections 11, 14, and 23 of the proposed action.

On pine sites, ridges, droughty areas, and in stands in the understory reinitiation stage where variable relative density indices are required, stand densities should be lower in order to maintain maximum health and stand resiliency. On these sites the relative density index should be reduced below 0.35 because there is evidence that heavy thinning to a relative density index of 0.25 is necessary for the development of the understory and vertical diversity (Hayes et.al., 1997). The Applegate Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Health Assessment (1994) recommends most stand types in the Applegate AMA maintain 60 to 120 ft2 BA/AC as a desired density level. The Applegate AMA borders the western boundary of the Analysis Area.

Larsson and others (1983) found in their study that a basal area of 112 ft²/acre provided the retention level at which most trees could survive moderate beetle attack. They add that retaining still lower stocking levels provides a greater margin of safety. According to DeMars and Roettgering (1982), western pine beetles “breed in and kill scattered, overmature, slow-growing, decadent, or diseased trees and trees weakened by stand stagnation, lightning, fire, or mechanical injury.” Beetles can aggressively attack and kill ponderosa pine of all ages and vigor classes including apparently vigorous host trees from 6 inches in diameter and larger. D. brevicomis were identified in BLM land within T39S-R1W-Sections 9 and 12 during aerial surveys by the national Forest Health Monitoring program (2007). Group mortality can occur in dense overstocked stands or in dense pockets within a stand. Extensive mortality adversely affects distribution of trees and stocking levels, depletes timber supplies, and increases fuel loading which can lead to catastrophic fires.

DeMars and Roettgering (1982) describe tree resistance to insects and diseases as one of the biotic conditions affecting outbreaks and beetle caused mortality. Vigorous trees produce sufficient oleoresins to expel beetles from their boring chambers inhibiting larval and fungal development. Prevention is the best method of control against insects and disease by maintaining thrifty, vigorous trees (DeMars and Roettgering 1982, Flowers and Kanaskie 2007). DeMars and Roettgering suggest that “by maintaining thrifty, vigorous trees or stands that do not afford a suitable food supply for the beetle” land managers can prevent susceptibility of hosts to insect damage. Vigorous trees successfully repel invading beetles, but nonvigorous trees can easily succumb to attack.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-87 Environmental Assessment The susceptibility of trees to damage by bark beetles can be mitigated by stocking control which is tied closely together with tree vigor (Larsson, et al. 1983). DeMars and Roettgering (1982) recommend that “reducing stand stocking to 55 to 70 percent of the basal area needed for full site utilization will relieve the competitive stress among the remaining trees, improve their vigor, and make them less prone to successful bark beetle attack.” Altogether, site disturbance such as fire and thinning improves tree vigor. Larsson, et al. (1983), Waring and Pitman (1980), and Berryman (1981) suggest that comparatively few beetles are needed to kill low vigor trees. Localized beetle infestations are occurring in the analysis area and causing mortality in small pockets. Thinning treatments therefore, are designed to decrease densities, thereby improving the tree vigor of remaining trees and subsequent protection against insect outbreaks. Treatments will improve the vigor of ponderosa pine where they can withstand attacks of any intensity in order to ensure the survival and perpetuity of this declining seral species.

Waring and others (1980) developed a vigor rating using a physiological index of growth efficiency. The Waring Tree Vigor Index is a measure of health defined as the ratio of annual growth of stemwood to the area of leaves present to capture sunlight (Waring, et al. 1980). The vigor ratings can be accurately applied to individual trees and are comparable among conifers (Larsson, et al. 1983, Waring 2007). Vigorous trees have higher levels of productivity and increased incremental growth. Trees with high ratios of live crown will have more photosynthetic surface area and thus more photosynthetic capacity, subsequently increasing carbohydrate production for storage, seed production, and stemwood growth. Waring and Pitman (1980) concluded that trees attacked and killed by bark beetles had such low carbohydrate reserves that they lacked the ability to produce sufficient oleoresins which protect the tree against beetles. Christiansen, et al. (1987) stated that less carbon is available for a tree’s defense following droughty periods and that any environmental factor, including competition, “that restricts the size of the canopy or its photosynthetic efficiency can weaken a tree’s resistance”. DeMars and Roettgering (1982) also state, “trees with a high risk of damage by beetles characteristically have poor vigor and can be recognized by crown symptoms such as dead tops, branches, and twigs and short, sparse, poorly colored foliage.”

Vigor rating index numbers are calculations of stem growth per unit of leaf area expressed as grams of stem growth per meter squared per year (g/m²/yr). Trees with vigor ratings below 30 g/m²/yr will succumb to attack from bark beetles of relatively low intensity. Trees with vigor from 30-70 can withstand progressively higher attacks but are still in danger of mortality. Trees with a vigor rating of 70- 100 can generally survive one or more years of relatively heavy attacks and trees with ratings above 100 cannot be killed by bark beetles (Christiansen, et al. 1987, Waring and Pitman 1985). Trees with vigor ratings above 100 can emit sufficient oleoresins to repel invading beetles and survive even relatively heavy insect attacks.

Core measurements were taken from 19 ponderosa pine sample trees representing all vegetation condition classes across the analysis area and within the proposed action. Similar trends are expected within the treatment area. Ponderosa pine exhibits a vigor rating of 18 grams of annual wood production per square meter of foliage, which is very low. In addition, the 10-year incremental growth data for ponderosa pine reveals a current growth rate of 1.14 inches dbh per decade (Figure 3-1). Based on both Waring’s vigor rating indices and last decade’s growth rate, ponderosa pine survival in the analysis area is threatened. The field data also corroborates the West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis (2001) statement that “species such as ponderosa pine and sugar pine have declined. This conversion from pine to true fir has created stands that are subject to stress, making them susceptible to accelerated insect and disease problems.” Ponderosa pines are growing at a rate that leaves them prone to and at increased risk of bark beetle attack. The remedy for this kind of growth stagnation and decline is disturbance. An increase in light penetration and precipitation, which results from disturbances such as thinning, will increase the rate of wood production per unit of leaf area (Waring and Schlesinger 1985).

Wagner Anderson Project 3-88 Environmental Assessment WAGNER ANDERSON Ponderosa Pine 10-Year Incremental Growth 4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50 INCHES

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

1765 1775 1785 1795 1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 ENDING DECADE

GROWTH RATE

Figure 3-1. Ponderosa Pine 10-Year Incremental Diameter Growth

Pine species in the analysis area are becoming increasingly scarce (USDI 2001). In pine and mixed conifer stands, where pine naturally occurs, shade tolerant Douglas-fir and white fir are outcompeting and excluding pine. White fir and Douglas-fir continually advance into and occupy the growing space in the understory of the shaded forest floor. The diminished sunlight inhibits shade intolerant pine from establishing in significant numbers and ultimately excludes pine from the stand altogether. A conversion from pine to true fir has created stands that lack species diversity, are subject to stress, and become susceptible to insect and disease problems (USDI 2001). Surviving ponderosa pine, having endured overstocked and shaded conditions, are currently exhibiting poor vigor and their individual tree growth rates are declining (Figure 3-1). An inventory across the analysis area reveal that the number of pine snags per acre exceeds the number of merchantable live pine per acre. The data is indicative of conditions in the proposed action.

Forest pathogens are also changing the forest stand structure and forest development pattern. Phellinus pini (red ring rot) is affecting Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. It appears to be more common on dry sites when trees are stressed. Some of the infected trees are beginning to die or are subject to stem breakage thus allowing light to reach the forest floor and the understory reinitiation stage to begin. Phaeolus schweinitzii (brown cubical butt rot) is also present. This fungus causes severe butt and root decay in older trees, especially in trees over 150-years old.

Douglas-fir core samples were taken from 279 trees representing all vegetation condition classes in the Douglas-fir Series and all forested plant association groups across the analysis area. The average tree vigor index, as measured by leaf area index (g of annual wood production per square meter of foliage) is 47 g/m²/yr for Douglas-fir compared to 18 for ponderosa pine and is representative of vigor indices in the treatment areas. The average growth of Douglas-fir last decade was 1.45 inches, the lowest since the year 1810 (Figure 3-2). Based on Waring’s vigor rating index, Douglas-fir in the analysis area can withstand progressively higher attacks but are still in danger of mortality from infestation.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-89 Environmental Assessment WAGNER ANDERSON Douglas-fir 10-Year Incremental Growth 2.50

2.00

1.50 INCHES

1.00

0.50

0.00

1725 1735 1745 1755 1765 1775 1785 1795 1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 ENDING DECADE GROWTH RATE Figure 3-2. Douglas-fir 10-Year Incremental Diameter Growth

Sample cores from 309 Douglas-fir, white fir, and ponderosa pine trees were recorded. These represented diameters ranging from 8 to 51 inches DBH, all vegetation condition classes, and conifer plant association groups. No sugar pine species appeared in the inventory. Each core was measured to determine individual tree vigor, age, and growth rates. Vigor ratings and growth rates were calculated spanning to the decade ending in the year 1725 (Figure 3-3).

Since stands are dynamic, conditions will change over time as individual trees continue to compete for growing space. As a general rule, stands with growth rates equal to or greater than 1.5 inches of diameter growth per decade are less prone to bark beetle attack (USDA 1998, Cochran 1992; Chadwick and Eglitis 2007 ). In the last decade the average diameter growth of Douglas-fir in the analysis area was 1.48, below the minimum growth rate to withstand beetle attacks. The average diameter growth of 1.14 for ponderosa pine in the last decade falls far short of the 1.5 inch threshold. In addition, the growth trend over the last 20 years for all sampled species across the analysis area (Figure 3-3) exhibits a declining curve. This trend is indicative of vegetation growth in the proposed action. Since 1985, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and white fir individually exhibited a declining growth trend after a short increase from previous decades.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-90 Environmental Assessment WAGNER ANDERSON Species Relationship 10-Year Incremental Growth 4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50 INCHES

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

1725 1735 1745 1755 1765 1775 1785 1795 1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 ENDING DECADE

Douglas-fir Ponderosa Pine White Fir

Figure 3-3. Species Relationship of 10-Year Incremental Diameter Growth

A vigor rating index has not been developed for white fir species; however core samples suggest that white fir is the most productive conifer species in the analysis area. The average 10-year incremental growth rate of white fir exhibits a diameter growth of 1.66 inches in the last decade (Figure 3-3). This suggests that overstory densities have created favorable growing conditions for white fir which is the most shade tolerant of the three principle conifer species in the analysis area.

Western dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) and Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii) infections are the most widespread disease occurring on several stands and partial stands in the analysis area. A total of 823 acres of stands infected with dwarf mistletoe have been identified with 550 acres of infected stands in need of treatment. Infections are usually systemic and form bunched globose growths of branches called “witches’ brooms” (Figure 3-4). These brooms, occurring mostly in the lower third of the tree canopy, are produced by local physiological changes induced by the parasite to divert food to the mistletoe. Heavy infections (occurring in more than half of the tree crown) result in severe growth loss, wood quality reduction, top-killing, and mortality (Mathiasen et al 1990, Filip et al 1991). The presence of brooms represents a significant drain on the host tree (Hull and Leonard 1964). Although the spread of the infection is slow, infected trees lose vigor and become increasingly susceptible to other infectious diseases and insect attack. The severe growth loss and decreased survival resulting from dwarf mistletoe radically alters the forest structure, density, and productivity level of the stand. Stressed trees eventually succumb to mortality.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-91 Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-4. Douglas-fir mistletoe infection in the Wagner Anderson Analysis Area. Witches' brooms can reach massive sizes, are highly flammable, and significantly drain the host tree. Densities associated with the parasite can lead to destructive fires that without the disease would normally be nondestructive.

On 15,200 feet of transect line measurements recording the prevalence of coarse woody material (CWM) across the analysis area, CWM ranged from 0 to 22, averaging 9.8 tons per acre. Individual stems were concentrated mostly in the 8-11 and 12-15 inch large end diameter classes, although some sites contained pieces between 36 and 39 inches large end diameter. The average total length equaled 1,433 feet per acre. These were distributed across all decay classes, although decomposition classes 2 (bark intact but twigs are gone, few limbs remain, bole is round and in large pieces) and 3 (twigs and branches gone but bole is still round, hard and in large pieces) were most common. Mid-sized class stands (11 to 21 inches DBH) have an average of 32.7 snags per acre with an average DBH of 14.6 inches; 33.9 damaged TPA with an average DBH of 16.2. Mature stands (21 inches DBH and larger) have 26.7 snags/acre with an average of 21.7 inches DBH; and 31.1 damaged TPA with an average DBH of 22.2 inches. Snags over 40 inches DBH were found in some stands. Overall, dead standing trees per acre ranged from 0 to 74.8, average 20.5 TPA with a QMD of 16.1. Damaged live trees ranged from 6 to 93.3 TPA, average 28.3 with an average diameter of 17.8 inches DBH. Some of the damaged trees will be retained for green tree retention.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-92 Environmental Assessment 2. Environmental Effects - Dense Stands/Tree Vigor/Landscape Fire Hazard

Alternative 1 - No-action

No action would allow forest stands to remain at the overall average of 0.643 relative density. A relative density index rating between 0.55 and 1.00 bounds the zone of imminent mortality and suppression; crown closure occurs at a RDI of 0.15 (Drew and Flewelling 1979).

Physiologically, sampled trees across the analysis area have exceeded the threshold of suppression and mortality. Stand densities would continue on its current trajectory and remain overpopulated. Many stands are infected with Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe, are multi-layered, and are pure or nearly pure Douglas-fir – all predisposing agents to the widespread proliferation of the parasite. No action would allow forest stands to remain overstocked and individual tree vigor and growth would remain poor. Tree mortality and the effects of dwarf mistletoe represent an increase in receptive fuels elevating the fire hazard, a reduction in stand volume production, a loss of revenue, and low tree vigor. To test growth and response over time to treatment or no treatment, growth and yield modeling tools are useful predictors to land managers. They serve as useful estimators of stand characteristics at certain points in time.

Several representative stands were randomly sampled and analyzed using projections from the ORGANON (Oregon Growth Analysis and Projection System) modeling tool. The samples represented all vegetation condition classes and plant associations encountered in the analysis area. Similar trends of vegetative growth and response are expected to occur in the proposed action. Inventories are taken at one point in time to provide current conditions and to forecast stand dynamics.

Table 3-23 depicts 20-year diameter growth of untreated and treated stands at two different harvest levels (A and B). Harvest level A was a considered but eliminated thinning from below prescription that was intended to reduce relative densities across the forest landscape, strengthen tree vigor, and enhance biological diversity and old-growth forest structure over time in a multidisciplinary approach. By lowering stand relative densities to an optimal growth and yield forest production level, however, this prescription would have also reduced crown closure to a lower percentage than needed to maintain spotted owl habitat. Stand densities would have been reduced to appropriate relative density levels for the vegetation series of the stand. The silvicultural objective of Harvest Level A was aimed to improve individual tree vigor and growth, reduce impacts of dwarf mistletoe to an insignificant level, protect unique stand structure, and enhance tree species diversity. Harvest level B is the proposed alternative designed to maintain existing spotted owl habitat. This approach reduces the benefit of density management on tree vigor and growth to favor wildlife habitat. Table 3-23 compares the ORGANON- modeled results of the proposed treatment (B) to the existing stand condition.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-93 Environmental Assessment Table 3-23. 20-Year Projected Diameter Growth in 2 Thinning Alternatives vs. No-action O.I.# STAND PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED AGE DBH RDI CROWN DBH IN CURRENT CONDITION INITIAL INITIAL CLOSURE 20 YEARS HARVEST HARVEST INITIAL THINNED HARVEST PROJECTED 10-YEAR DBH IN BA/AC INCREMENT AVERAGE A B A B A B 20 YEARS A B (ft2) TPA (INCHES) DBH UNTHINNED POLES 153860† 66 161 478 .77 7.9 - - 10.1 - - .349 - - 50 10.0 - - 12.3 MID 151781* 129 130 254 .51 9.7 7.8 - - .248 - - 36 - - 11.9 10.2 - - 156782 46 170 223 1.84 11.8 13.8 - - .349 - - 58 - - 15.6 18.1 - - 153418 140 178 226 .40 12.0 12.1 - - .326 - - 46 - - 13.6 13.9 - - 156867 100 220 269 .66 12.2 10.0 12.2 .344 .664 43 85 14.7 12.1 14.6 156849 65 206 275 1.14 11.7 - - 9.4 - - .351 - - 44 15.8 - - 12.6 156859 107 278 341 .53 12.2 18.2 12.2 .349 .620 44 72 14.6 20.0 14.8 156794† 109 251 157 .98 17.1 17.2 17.7 .353 .418 48 58 19.2 19.7 20.2 153933 116 270 380 .65 11.9 - - 12.7 - - .384 - - 40 11.9 - - 15.9 MATURE 156842† 116 315 127 .69 21.3 27.7 23.3 .349 .446 48 60 23.1 30.0 25.4 157168† 132 217 94 .45 20.6 22.7 21.2 .363 .476 49 64 23.4 26.2 24.3 156879† 104 340 154 .62 20.1 24.4 22.5 .340 .452 44 55 21.9 26.5 24.5 156874 83 192 99 1.52 19.1 - - 19.0 - - .351 - - 48 23.3 - - 23.5 129345** 118 159 105 .89 16.7 17.8 - - .240 - - 34 - - 18.8 20.3 - - * Pine Site Prescription A: Considered but Eliminated 1995 RMP Alternative ** Regeneration Harvest (16-25 TPA ≥20” DBH B: Proposed Alternative 2 † Does Not Include Hardwoods

Wagner Anderson Project 3-94 Environmental Assessment Without action, forest structure and species composition could not be controlled. On pine stands, Douglas-fir would prevail and persist in the stem exclusion stage of development. Conversely, on Douglas-fir sites, white fir would encroach upon the earlier seral Douglas-fir. Out of all 309 conifers sampled in the analysis area, the average growth in the last decade from the time of inventory averaged 1.44 inches. Again as a general rule, stands where growth rates are greater than or equal to 1.5 inches of diameter growth per decade are less prone to beetle attack (USDA 1998). This threshold also serves as a general measure of a tree’s vigor.

(a) (b) Figure 3-5. Wagner Anderson Unit 23-7: (a) This weakened incense cedar in the center is competing against a dense shade tolerant Douglas-fir component. (b) The ponderosa pine in the center is dominant but will not last long against its competing shade tolerant neighbors. Both trees are producing seeds, but little to no regeneration is occurring. What seedlings emerge from these seral species quickly die amidst unfavorable growing conditions. Douglas-fir in both images show poor crown ratios because the available crown space is fully occupied.

Without management intervention, individual old-growth ponderosa pine, incense cedar, sugar pine, and Douglas-fir trees, with seedlings through poles within their dripline, would continue to die from resource competition. Pine and oak species would continue to decline in number from competition with Douglas- fir because of their shade intolerance. Leaf area index would reach a maximum as a result of intense tree competition and mortality (Waring and Schlesinger 1985).

Large tree mortality would result in forest stand structure gradually shifting to the understory reinitiation stage - a transition phase when trees in the main canopy layer start to die, either singly or in small groups, from lightning, wind-throw, or insects and disease. This is ecologically significant in that resources previously used by the dead tree are reallocated to the surviving vegetation. Small diameter trees, instead of dying out, would continue developing into a dense forest structure prone to disease, catastrophic fire, and eventual dieback from intense competition. The hundreds of trees per acre also present a high fuel hazard across the landscape.

Without density reduction, slow tree growth and poor vigor will result in individual tree and perhaps stand mortality. A decrease in stand vigor is expected with continued overstocking and increasing stand age. A relative density index rating of 0.55 and above for any given stand marks the zone of imminent mortality and suppression; crown closure occurs at a RDI of 0.15 (Drew and Flewelling 1979). The current average relative density for the analysis area is 0.643 which indicates that physiologically the trees are within the zone of suppression and mortality. This data represents similar sites of similar stand conditions of the proposed action. As measured by stand density, diameter growth, and vigor the forest is unhealthy. All environments with finite resources can only support a finite amount of living biomass

Wagner Anderson Project 3-95 Environmental Assessment (Oliver and Uzoh 1997). When left undisturbed, stands continue to grow and produce new seedlings. However, the stand provides only a finite amount of growing capacity until its densities become so high that competition induced mortality begins and the stand relies solely on a disturbance for relief. Dense stands heighten tree to tree competition. Growing conditions become so stagnant (at or above stand density index of 0.55) that intense competition follows and the stand begins excluding the weakest trees. During competition, trees commit their energy sources for survival above their competing neighbors. This exhaustive effort predisposes a tree to damage or mortality by incoming insects and diseases. In severe cases entire stands are completely decimated by insects and/or fire. Droughty areas and/or periods of drought exacerbate the problem. Future silvicultural options diminish when severe stand mortality results. Bark beetles may disperse to adjacent non-thinned forests and kill more conifer trees that provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. As more conifers die, however, hardwoods, shrubs, and forbs species would become more abundant and provide habitat such as forage and hiding cover for big game animals.

Dwarf mistletoe can also provide benefits to wildlife. Mistletoe brooms provide habitat for various species of wildlife. However, the benefit is available long term only if the stands are not severely infected with the disease. Dwarf mistletoe spreads at the rate of one (1) foot per year and can shoot spores for a distance of 35 feet. This parasite can significantly widen its rate of spread on susceptible host trees especially in mono-species, multiple layered stands. Once half or more of a tree’s crown becomes infected, tree growth declines and mortality increases significantly (Pierce 1960, Mathiasen et al 1990, Filip at al 1991). Trees with heavily infected crowns are usually killed within 10-15 years (Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center [SWOFIDSC], Mallams 2007).

Mallams (2007) studied the results of 10 year measurements of eleven plots in the southern Oregon Cascade Mountain Range on the Rogue River-Siskiyou and Umpqua National Forests that measured the spread and impact of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe. The plots were measured again in 1997 and 2002. Mallams found that after ten years Douglas-fir that were heavily infected had less growth and higher mortality than uninfected or lightly infected trees. She also found that the number of infected Douglas-fir increased substantially in one decade with the majority of newly infected trees within 25 feet of previously infected hosts. The study also revealed that unmanaged mistletoe would negatively impact future forest stand development. In her study, Mallams concluded that “widespread and severe Douglas- fir dwarf mistletoe infection is likely to adversely affect plans to grow young Douglas-firs in southwest Oregon into large old trees and have them survive for many decades unless there is some form of management intervention to reduce its impacts.”

Heavy infection in dwarf mistletoe decreases the stands ability to withstand fire. Dwarf mistletoe- infected stands are generally more flammable than uninfected stands and can result in crown fires due to the large amounts of fuels (Figures 3-6 and 3-7) arising from the accumulation of dead witches’ brooms, fallen trees, and live brooms in the lower crowns (DecAID, SWOFIDSC). Roth (1966) also concluded that with these fuel buildups in stands with dwarf mistletoe, normally nondestructive fires can become stand replacing fires. In the analysis area anticipate potential for fuel-driven large fire growth in untreated mistletoe infected stands.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-96 Environmental Assessment

(a) (b) (c) Figure 3-6. Wagner Anderson Unit 22-1. This unit exhibits the effects of severe Douglas-fir mistletoe infection; (a) Dead witches’ brooms and fallen trees are seen in the background while in the foreground live brooms are evident. (b) Dead witches’ broom accumulation. (c) Live brooms in the infected crowns of Douglas-fir host trees. The infected trees in all three of these examples are limited in their diameter and height growth caused by the parasite draining resources from its host tree; these trees will not contribute to long term live or dead large woody structure.

In heavily infected stands treatment is required to avoid a decline in habitat quality over the long term. This decline would result from the negative effect of heavy mistletoe on the production of large live and dead woody structure required by many wildlife species (SWOFIDSC). With no action we can expect a long term decline of large trees from diseased tree mortality. A stand cannot exhibit large woody structure unless its trees are first vigorous enough to become large live trees. A tree cannot become large unless it is vigorous enough to withstand the impacts of competition, disease, and achieve and maintain dominancy. Leaving stands unmanaged with trees that are heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe would subsequently result in the long term decline in wildlife habitat quality.

(a) (b) Figure 3-7. Accumulation of fuels derived from the effects of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe in the Wagner Anderson Analysis Area. Mistletoe infected stands significantly decreases the stand’s ability to withstand fire. A normally nondestructive fire can become a destructive stand replacing crown fire in units like these two: (a) frequent downed trees like these that also add witches’ broom fuel to the loading. (b) Mistletoe infected Unit 23-7 exhibits a radically different structure, density, and productivity level than uninfected stands on similar sites.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-97 Environmental Assessment Where dense forest stands persist over time, canopy closure would remain at 80 to 100 percent. When tree mortality is singular or in small patches, canopy closure may approach 50 to 80 percent. In pockets of mortality, canopy closure would range from 0 to 40 percent. Without controlling the number of trees per acre, some forest stands will naturally fall below 60 percent canopy closure as a result of mistletoe mortality, beetle kill, drought, and wildfire.

Data from representative stands inventoried throughout the analysis area exhibit an average relative density index (RDI) of 0.643. This result indicates that individual trees are spending their energy to compete against adjacent trees. This causes stress in the tree leaving them susceptible to insect and disease agents, such as bark beetles and dwarf mistletoe. Disease agents in a stressed stand can kill the host tree. Decadent stands, especially those infected with dwarf mistletoe, intensifies the fire behavior which can result in a stand replacement fire (DecAID, SWOFIDSC). Mortality of untreated stands could cause epidemic levels of insects and diseases that could affect adjacent forest stands including private land. Leaving these acres untreated would also decrease the effectiveness of fuels hazard reduction in adjacent treated stands.

Fire hazard would continue to increase with the abundance of dead vegetation and ladder fuels, and, left untreated, would remain at or reach maximum levels. This in turn would contribute to the fuel hazard and complicate or exceed fire control efforts. In the nineteen year period from 1984 to 2003, the BLM’s Medford District produced the most lightning caused fires among the five primary administrative jurisdictions within Southwest Oregon’s Fire Planning Unit (Table 3-24).

Thunderstorms in southwest Oregon commonly occur between June and September. A seven year data sample from June-September (2000-2006) reveals that lightning ignited 62% of the large fires in southwest Oregon even though less than half of all fire starts recorded in this sample were lightning caused. This suggests that in southern Oregon the majority of large fires resulted from lightning strikes on BLM forestland and that among other factors such as weather and topography, fuel buildups in fire- excluded and unmanaged BLM lands contributed to lightning strikes growing into large fires. To help in preventing unpredictable fire starts from lightning that can subsequently result in becoming large fires, fuels should be reduced across the landscape.

Table 3-24. Southwest Oregon Fire Planning Unit Wildland Fire Occurrence (1984-2003). FPU wildland fire occurrence 1984-2003 Jurisdiction Fires Lightning Human ODF SW 4837 692 4145 Medford BLM 1360 824 536 CFPA 1095 59 1036 Coos BLM 129 36 93 Rogue/Siskiyou 599 359 240 Oregon Caves 1 1 0 Total 8021 1971 6050 Source: Southwest Oregon Fire Management Plan, 2004.

Pine species would continue to decrease in number if significant growing space is not created for these shade intolerant species. The more shade tolerant Douglas-fir would continue to shade out ponderosa pine and continue to dominate the forest. Species diversity would further decline.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-98 Environmental Assessment Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Under alternative two, silvicultural prescriptions provide for the maintenance of existing northern spotted owl habitat nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF) and dispersal habitat. NRF habitat for spotted owls must maintain approximately 60 percent crown closure, while dispersal habitat requires maintenance of approximately 40 percent crown closure.

Prescriptions for maintaining NRF and Dispersal habitat were developed by BLM’s Wildlife Biologist and Silviculture Prescription Writer based on a field review of areas found to provide examples of suitable NRF and Dispersal spotted owl habitat. Upon harvest implementation NRF prescriptions would result in basal area retention of 180-200 ft²/acre. Very small gaps (up to 1/4 acre at most) spaced no closer than 350 feet apart from edge to edge will remove heavily infected pockets of mistletoe infected trees and/or provide for the release of ≥ 18 inches DBH ponderosa pine and incense cedar legacy trees (Figure 3-5). NRF prescriptions in this project fittingly do not deviate outside the parameters of published data recommended for providing spotted owl habitat. NRF prescriptions in this project fall within the parameters published by Gutierrez et al. (1992) who recommend leaving 180-220 ft²/acre and Irwin et al. (2005) who recommend leaving 160-240 ft²/acre of live trees for spotted owl structure.

Dispersal habitat prescriptions would result in a variable retention level according to prescription subcategories (Dry Douglas-fir, Moist Douglas-fir, Mixed Conifer, and Pine Site Prescriptions). A variety of prescriptions are needed to create future old-growth forest stand structure. As the aspect and microclimate change within a forest stand, the tree plant association usually changes. There may be pine trees within a dry Douglas-fir forest that may need releasing according to the pine prescriptions. Within the pine series forest, patches of Douglas-fir may be encountered that will be treated according to the dry, Douglas-fir prescription. The Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (1995) specifies that forests be managed toward a variety of structures, stands containing trees of varying age and size, and stands with an assortment of canopy configurations. Over time, manage for a balance of seral stages which would include Regeneration Harvest treatments. Upon harvest implementation, Dry Douglas-fir Prescription areas will result in basal area retention of 80-100 BA/AC; Moist Douglas-fir: 120-160, average 140 BA/AC; Mixed Conifer: 140-160 BA/AC; and Pine Site: 80-100 BA/AC. Group Selection guidelines in Dispersal units mirror those used in NRF units: very small gaps, up to 1/4 acre at most, and spaced no closer than 350 feet apart from edge to edge.

In mistletoe infected stands, the heaviest infected individual trees and occasional small heavily infected groups would be removed. The heaviest widespread infections occur in T. 39 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 22, 23, and 27, although heavy infection pockets occur elsewhere in individual stands. Forest stands receiving low commercial thinning treatments would be less subject to crown fires. A reduction of mistletoe would improve fire resiliency of stands infected with the disease (Roth 1966, DecAID, SWOFIDSC). Stands infected heavily with Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe, known for its massive flammable witches’ brooms, will exhibit improved fire resiliency, although limitedly due to crown closure guidelines. Gap openings that remove heavily infected groups are limited in size and frequency under this alternative leaving portions of heavily infected pockets behind. Closer proximity to crowns leaves host trees vulnerable to continued spread of the mistletoe from tree to tree and outside the infection group. Nevertheless, this technique should slow mistletoe spread, although limitedly, and provide for long term quality wildlife habitat even where only small mistletoe infected groups are infrequently removed.

Tables 3-25 and 3-26 describe the 50-year growth of a mid size (11 to 21 inches DBH) and a mature size (> 21 inches DBH) conifer stand in the analysis area. These examples closely represent units in the proposed action in vegetative growth and response to both treatment and no treatment. Tables 3-25 and 3-26 compare two different harvest levels to a no-action alternative. In both stands the number of trees per acre decline each decade through natural mortality. However, a no-action alternative exhibits a

Wagner Anderson Project 3-99 Environmental Assessment greater rate of decline than in the treated stands managed for sustainable yield. This is the result of over- competition in the untreated stand versus a sustainable level of competition among residual trees in the managed stand.

Table 3-25. Description of O.I. Unit No. 156859 without and with two Silvicultural Harvest Levels (1995 RMP and Alternative 2) Existing Stand: 156859 (Mid Stand) Stand Trees Per Basal Relative Density Crown Quadratic Mean Scribner Volume* Age Acre Area Index Closure Diameter 107 341 278 0.888 100 12.2 34,673 Future Growth of Stand if Not Treated (note the decline in trees/acre from natural mortality 117 280 278 0.853 100 13.5 37,486 127 242 280 0.834 100 14.6 40,295 137 216 283 0.824 100 15.5 43,424 147 198 288 0.820 100 16.3 46,409 157 183 292 0.818 100 17.1 53,698

95 RMP: Future Growth of Stand if Thinned to a 0.349 RDI (128 ft² BA/AC and 44% Crown Closure) 117 68 136 .363 57 19.1 20,508 127 67 146 .383 74 20.0 22,979 137 65 156 .403 92 20.9 25,529 147 64 167 .423 102 21.8 28,074 157 63 177 .442 106 22.7 30,594

Alternative 2: Future Growth of Stand if Thinned to 180 ft² BA/AC (0.620 RDI and 72% Crown Closure) 117 126 186 .607 90 13.6 26,764 127 130 200 .615 100 14.8 29,849 137 134 213 .625 101 15.8 32,979 147 128 223 .635 101 16.8 35,751 157 122 232 .645 101 17.8 38,553

* Scribner Volume of Commercial Size Conifer Species ≥8 inches DBH

The Stand Visualization System (SVS) illustrates how existing forest stands may appear today and after application of the proposed prescriptions as a tool to communicate silvicultural treatments (USDA and University of Washington 1995). ORGANON random sampling and modeling data was input into the SVS program for the simulations to represent stand conditions before and after treatment. Many similar stands of each vegetation type were studied to develop the prescriptions. Even though stand stocking potentials differ, individual stands will be marked approaching the simulation figures because of similar stand structure, vegetative plant community, and existing density. The modeled figures simulate what is generally sought for and not absolute prescription requirements.

Figure 3-8 and Table 3-25 depict the pre and post-harvest stand conditions of a mid-sized mixed conifer stand (156859 in T39S-R1W-Sec.23) in the Douglas-fir plant series. Sampling and modeling data shows current tree diameters ranging from 4.0 to 47.9 inches DBH with a species composition of 1% white fir, 3% California black oak, 4% ponderosa pine, 11% Pacific Madrone, and 81% Douglas-fir. There are 103 TPA in the understory (trees < 8 inches DBH) consisting of 67% Douglas-fir, 17% white fir, and 17% California black oak.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-100 Environmental Assessment

(a) Current condition (b) 50-years following no treatment

(c) Alternative 2, Post-harvest condition (d) Alternative 2, 50-year post harvest condition

Figure 3-8. SVS Illustration and Graphs: Treatment of Stand 156859. Original Stand: (a) current condition and (b) 50-year untreated condition. Alternative 2 2: (c) post-harvest condition and (d) 50-year post harvest condition.

The Alternative 2 does not treat commercial stands with understory thinning. In stand 156859, this modeled alternative lowers the RDI from 0.888 to 0.620, TPA from 341 to 240, and basal area from 278 to 194 ft² per acre (Figure 3-8d). The QMD would remain at 12.2 inches DBH. Projected species composition would consist of 75% Douglas-fir, 16% madrone, 5% white fir, 4% California black oak, and less than 1% ponderosa pine. Fifty years following the Alternative 2 treatment results in nearly the same projected species composition.

Table 3-26 compares the 50-year difference between the untreated and treated. Both alternatives project a gradual reduction in trees per acre each decade by natural mortality. In comparison, the greater loss in trees per acre occurs in the untreated stand due to compounding competition each decade resulting from uncontrolled increases in stand density. After 50-years, the untreated stand exhibits a RDI of 0.818 (to recap, a RDI from 0.55 to 1.00 bounds the zone of competition mortality and suppression). The Alternative 2 exhibits 122 TPA and a RDI of .645 and increases the crown ratio of trees by 13%. In

Wagner Anderson Project 3-101 Environmental Assessment contrast, the mean crown ratio of trees in the untreated stand increased by merely 6%. Carey (1996) stated that a thinned stand promotes larger crowns in trees and therefore enhances habitat for the red tree vole. The long term outcome for this stand would have further benefited the ecosystem by providing greater crown space canopy dwelling species.

Figure 3-9 and Table 3-26 illustrates the pre and post-harvest stand conditions of a mature sized mixed conifer stand in the Douglas-fir plant series (156842 in T39S-R1W-Sec.21/22). Currently the stand has 127 TPA, a relative density index of 0.808, approximate crown closure of 100%, 315 ft² of BA/AC, and a QMD of 21.3 inches DBH. Because the stand is in stem exclusion stage of forest development, there were no recorded understory trees (< 8 inches DBH). Sampling data shows an overall species composition of 87% Douglas-fir and 13% white fir.

Table 3-26. Description of O.I. Unit No. 156842 with and without two Silvicultural Harvest Levels (95 RMP and Alternative 2) Existing Stand: 156842 (Mature Stand) Stand Trees Per Basal Relative Density Crown Quadratic Scribner Volume* Age Acre Area Index Closure Mean Diameter 116 127 315 .808 100 21.3 76,006 Future Growth of Stand if Not Treated (note the decline in trees/acre from natural mortality 126 121 326 .821 100 22.3 83,066 136 115 335 .832 100 23.1 89,675 146 110 344 .842 99 23.9 95,747 156 106 351 .850 98 24.6 101,141 166 102 358 .857 98 25.3 106,165

95 RMP: Future Growth of Stand if Thinned to a 0.349 RDI (151 ft² BA/AC and 48% Crown Closure) 126 36 163 .371 67 28.8 44,010 136 36 176 .395 90 30.3 49,517 146 36 190 .419 102 31.2 54,950 156 36 203 .442 106 32.2 60,221 166 36 215 .464 110 33.2 65,259

Alternative 2: Future Growth of Stand if Thinned to 180 ft² BA/AC (0.446 RDI and 60% Crown Closure) 60 194 .473 82 24.3 50,294 60 60 211 .505 100 25.4 56,678 60 60 228 .536 104 26.5 62,817 60 59 244 .565 107 27.5 68,849 59 59 259 .593 110 28.4 74,622 59

* Scribner Volume of Commercial Size Conifer Species ≥ 8 inches DBH

The 50-year old untreated stand however yielded 102 TPA, a RDI of 0.857, and a QMD of 25.3 inches DBH. In contrast, the relative density of the untreated stand after 50-years was 0.857, nearly double the treated stand and far above the 0.55 threshold.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-102 Environmental Assessment

(a) Current condition (b) 50-years following no treatment

(c) Alternative 2 Post-harvest condition (d) Alternative 2 50-year post harvest condition

Figure 3-9. SVS Illustration and Graphs: Treatment of Stand 156859. Original Stand: (a) current condition and (b) 50-year untreated condition. Alternative 2: (c) post-harvest condition and (d) 50-year post harvest condition.

The Alternative 2 on the other hand decreases the RDI from 0.808 to 0.446, basal area from 315 to 180 ft² per acre, and crown closure from 100 to 60%. In 40 years this Alternative yields a RDI of 0.565 which falls back into the zone of imminent competition induced mortality and suppression. In 50 years the QMD increases by 7.1 inches DBH (from 21.3 to 28.4). A 7.1 inch increase in 50 years however is an improvement over the No-action Alternative 50-year projection which predicts a mere increase of 4 inches QMD (from 21.3 to 25.3). Also, 0.593 RDI in 50 years under the Alternative 2 is an improvement over 0.857 RDI predicted if not treated at all. See Figure 3-10 of this report for additional illustrations of modeled stands inventoried in the analysis area.

Table 3-27 compares retention levels in basal area per acre and stand relative density between current conditions and the proposed alternative. The correlative density index rating between 0.55 and 1.00 for any given stand marks the zone of imminent mortality and suppression; crown closure occurs at a RDI of 0.15 (Drew and Flewelling 1979, Hayes et al. 1997). Briegleb (1952) stated that the optimum densities for most combinations of factors will be found to be between 0.34 and 0.55 relative densities.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-103 Environmental Assessment Table 3-27. Current and Projected ORGANON BA/AC (ft²), stand relative densities (RD), and approximate crown closure that lowers RD to retention targets in the Alternative 2. O.I.# CURRENT CONDITION PROJECTED POST HARVEST CONDITION

BA/AC RELATIVE % CROWN BA/AC (ft2) RD % CROWN (ft2) DENSITY CLOSURE ALT. 2 ALT. 2 CLOSURE POLES 153860‡ 108 .611 81 84 .349 50 MID 156782 163 .550 75 ------151781* 117 .455 66 ------153418 167 .573 77 ------156867 192 .701 90 180 .664 85 156849‡ 190 .668 87 83 .351 44 156859 264 .888 100 180 .620 156794† 245 .559 76 180 .418 58 153933‡ 270 .951 100 101 .384 40 MATURE 156874†‡ 192 .530 73 125 .351 48 156842† 315 .808 100 180 .446 60 157168† 212 .564 76 181 .476 64 156879† 340 .892 100 180 .452 55 129345** 152 .448 65 ------* Pine Site Prescription (No Treatment in Alternative 2) ‡ Dispersal Habitat ** Regeneration Harvest (No Treatment in Alternative 2) Basal Area = Merchantable † Does Not Include Hardwoods Size Trees (≥ 8 inches DBH)

Group Selection Openings Group Selection Areas are designed to create gaps in the forest structure to meet a threefold objective: 1) to create a structural forest composition found in natural disturbances that provide horizontal structural variability, vertical variability, edge trees, and regeneration of seedlings; 2) to release legacy pine candidates or old growth incense cedar or Douglas-fir trees to ensure their longevity; and 3) reduce long term detrimental effects of heavy mistletoe infection on infected stands (see Figure 3-5).

These openings are needed to provide suitable growing conditions for the regeneration of ponderosa pine and incense cedar (ponderosa pine need 25% full sunlight to grow). A dominant ponderosa pine responds significantly when enough growing space becomes newly available from the removal of adjacent subordinate trees (Barrett 1963, Cochran 1992). A study in a mixed conifer site in the Sierra Nevadas revealed that ponderosa pine saplings grew only about half as rapidly as their associates (Douglas-fir, sugar pine, white fir, and incense-cedar) and about half of that expected for fully sunlit pines (Burns and Honkala 1990). Burns and Honkala also point out that ponderosa pine loses vigor in dense stands. With the group selection prescription, pine as well as cedar species will be favored to enhance species diversity by sustaining their prevalence, longevity, and stimulating regeneration.

A total of 3,537 acres of riparian reserves, northern spotted owl cores, and other reserves for plants and animals in the analysis area would not be treated commercially. Furthermore, other untreated forested stands include those that lack sufficient conifer stocking which constitutes 84% of the forestland base (3,788 acres of forestland in the analysis area) are not being treated commercially. Commercial stands in

Wagner Anderson Project 3-104 Environmental Assessment reserve areas would remain in poor vigor and tree mortality can be expected in the future. Conifer canopy closure would decrease with time thus degrading some types of habitat. This also decreases the effectiveness of fuels hazard reduction. Tree species composition of the forest stands would remain uncontrolled except for the unpredictable forces of wildfire which have become increasingly more intense and destructive, more costly to control, and more unreliable as a tool for natural thinning..

The Medford District PRMP/EIS addressed the effects of management by acknowledging blowdown could occur in the upland (PRMP/EIS p. 4-39 and 4-40) and in the discussion of edge effect from harvesting adjacent to riparian areas (PRMP/EIS p. 4-49 and 4-50). Along major ridge-tops where high winds can become prevalent, a closely spaced crown layer (10 to 15-foot crown spacing) for 2 tree lengths downhill or a maximum of 200-feet downhill from the ridge-top would be maintained to minimize blowdown. This shall occur in commercial stands along the major ridgelines within T. 39 S., R. 1 W., Sec.17, 18, and 27 which range in elevation from 4,400 to 5,600 feet.

Mature forest stands defined as Late Successional Emphasis and found primarily in Riparian Reserves would have more trees per acre remaining than recommended to maintain 60 percent canopy closure. These forest stands may experience increased tree mortality and a species composition shift with time, especially among stands in the pine series. Pine would likely decrease in number over time. Species diversity would subsequently diminish favoring a disproportionate number of shade tolerant species. The effects would be as described above in the No-action Alternative. Table 3-23 also shows that 10-year diameter growth will increase substantially in Alternative 2 versus No-action. Trees would then be vigorous enough to withstand bark beetle attacks. Leaf area index values should begin to increase after the stands are thinned (Waring and Schlesinger 1985). A group selection prescription will favor pine and cedar species increasing their prevalence in the forest stands to enhance species diversity.

Many wildlife species take advantage of the unique structures that mistletoe infection provides. Witches’ brooms created from dwarf mistletoe infection provides wildlife habitat for bird species including the northern spotted owl. While mistletoe may provide structure for wildlife species, over time, this habitat will dwindle as infected trees die off from either a guaranteed decline in vigor (as the parasite draws nutrients from the tree) or from fatal infestations by bark beetles that can easily kill weakened trees. Furthermore, this habitat will remain under the constant threat of a stand replacing wildfire whose intensity accelerates in dwarf mistletoe infected stands (Roth 1966) and as experienced in Ashland RA’s East Antelope Fire of 2002 which consumed 1,900 acres of mistletoe infected white fir.

Forest stands managed by canopy closure designations would maintain higher stocking levels. Stands may not release resulting in slower growth and increased mortality over time. Managing forest stands by canopy closure levels provides false assurances in their longevity as canopy closure levels can never be held constant. Forest stand dynamics over time will continue to play a role in the structure and composition of the forest. As trees fully occupy available growing space their growth and production will slow, gap openings will be created as competition continues, and healthy dominant trees overwhelm their weaker neighboring competitors. As crowns remain dense and grow at a slower rate than fully released crowns, their slower growth will continue to predispose them to damaging agents such as dwarf mistletoe, bark beetles, and windthrow. Dynamic changes in a stand will continue regardless of any intent to restrain a forest within a finite measurement. Natural succession will continue as time progresses.

Since dwarf mistletoes are obligate parasites, they require a living host to survive. If the host is vigorous the mistletoe likewise becomes vigorous. Sanitation cutting is the preferred treatment method of infected pockets. This method best reduces heavy infection levels to one of insignificance to the overall health of the stand. A treatment strictly guided by a crown closure guideline would be a light thinning that would not adequately treat mistletoe infected stands, but instead, may release the infected host tree and its obligate parasite, stimulating the parasite’s aggressive spread. An increase in mistletoe spread following

Wagner Anderson Project 3-105 Environmental Assessment release of the host tree can set mistletoe infected stands on a long term trajectory of widespread infection throughout the stand and/or into uninfected adjacent stands. Long term mistletoe spread would further reduce forest health and increase fire hazard.

However, thinning may also work well if certain conditions preexist. Stands that are single storied and that are on good sites may be thinned so that the trees grow faster than the mistletoe can spread upward. Trees that are spaced to promote height growth that is greater than the upward spread of the mistletoe can avoid heavy infection of its crown; this technique may work well on good sites of single storied stands (SWOFIDSC). However, modeled stands thinned to 180 BA/AC show that the relative density was only reduced to an average of 0.513 as opposed to the healthier 0.35. On the stand level, thinning to 180-200 BA/AC may be too light a treatment in heavily infected mistletoe sites in the Wagner Anderson Analysis Area for this approach to function as designed. For this reason the prescription will include both treatment types: small gap openings no greater than 1/4 acre in size to remove small heavily infected pockets and spaced no closer than 350 feet apart from edge to edge, together with thinning to 180-200 BA/AC. This level of treatment should provide the structure and cover to meet NRF requirements (Arnold 2009). Basal area was chosen because according to Smith (1986), the basal area of a tree is correlated with the cross-sectional area of the crown. Managing for mixed species should help curtail the Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe. For this reason, even limited group selection openings around dominant or codominant ponderosa pine will create at least some growing space for this shade intolerant species.

An approximate total of 4.46 acres of group selection openings are planned, individually ranging in size from 1/7 to 1/4 acre gaps. Approximately 2.56 acres are mistletoe openings, while approximately 1.9 acres constitute pine group selection openings. Pine group selection openings should not be considered true gaps since located in their center is at least one legacy pine tree ≥ 18 inches DBH that was released from surrounding competitors. The ability of ponderosa pine to remain resistant to Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe will ensure their longevity as a component in the stand further contributing to its biological diversity. In addition, group openings will stimulate ponderosa pine to fully release, increase seed production, and thereby proliferate a new progeny of seedlings.

Group Selection openings that release ponderosa pine have been reduced in size and frequency to satisfy spotted owl habitat requirements. Stands will not exhibit as many fully released ponderosa pine. As a result the species composition and density of stands will not be controlled to the fullest extent. A significant enough disturbance would need to occur as an alternative to thinning to adequately enhance the early seral species of ponderosa pine and incense cedar. A significant disturbance would include wildfires, wind or other natural events. These unreliable methods are unpredictable, difficult to contain, often cause damage to other valuable resources such as soils, streams, and residual trees, and often under or radically over achieve forest management objectives. These types of disturbances in the existing conditions of our forests today do not surgically release, as an appropriate selective thinning regime would, the biological legacy species needed for ecosystem stability and diversity.

Native inhabitants used fire as a major tool for resource management (USDI 2001). Prior to the onset of fire suppression, frequent (1-25 years) low and moderate severity fires controlled stocking by underburning the forest floor. However, over a century of fire suppression has effectively eliminated five fire cycles (USDI 2001) that would have otherwise thinned forest stands and reduced their densities in a manner that would not threaten the entire stand. Fire exclusion has shifted the fire regime from low to high severity (see Section H, Fire and Fuels). The resulting outcome today is unnaturally large, infrequent, high intensity, stand replacing wildfires that pose a threat to the biological diversity of our forests, public safety, property, and valuable resources. “Areas on south slopes, with greater than 70 percent canopy closure, with a fuel model 10 designation, were assumed to have an 80 percent chance of crown fire” (USDI 1994). Wildfire is no longer a dependable tool for thinning forested stands. Fire is

Wagner Anderson Project 3-106 Environmental Assessment now an agent of ecosystem instability as it creates major shifts in forest structure and function on a large scale (USDI 2001).

Regeneration harvest will not occur in habitat areas even where insects, diseases, or deteriorating stand condition requires such a level of treatment. The full range of tools to adequately treat mistletoe infected stands to an insignificant level of infection would not be fully utilized under a crown closure guideline. Managing the forest stands by lowering its relative density to appropriate levels and by species composition is needed for long term ecosystem health. Treating stands solely by canopy closure would not fully meet short or long term silviculture goals. The trees targeted for removal are overtopped, the most heavily infected mistletoe trees, shade tolerant species, and those in direct competition with other preferred leave trees. If surrounding private lands are clearcut, forest stands on federally managed forests in the analysis area would provide the primary areas of late-successional habitat. The quality of such habitat depends on the BLM’s ability to thin these stands to ensure their longevity. The prescriptions provide for the maintenance of drought resistant conifer species such as ponderosa pine and incense cedar ensuring they will be present in future stands where appropriate in regard to site conditions. This is important to the maintenance of biological diversity. Tree species will be favored on sites where they are best adapted.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-107 Environmental Assessment Figure 3-10. SVS Illustrations of ORGANON Modeled Stands

(a) Current Condition (b) Dispersal Post Treatment Condition

(a) Current Condition (b) NRF Post Treatment Condition

Wagner Anderson Project 3-108 Environmental Assessment

(a) Current Condition (b) Dispersal Post Treatment Condition

(a) Current Condition (b) NRF Post Treatment Condition

(a) Current Condition (b) Dispersal Post Treatment Condition

Wagner Anderson Project 3-109 Environmental Assessment

(a) Current Condition (b) NRF Post Treatment Condition

(a) Current Condition (b) NRF Post Treatment Condition

Wagner Anderson Project 3-110 Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-11.Tree Age vs. Tree Diameter by 4” Diameter Class (Sample Size: 317 Trees Including DF, PP, WF). Note that trees do not reach 150 years average age until they have entered the 40 inch diameter class.

J. RECREATION & VISUAL RESOURCES

1. Affected Environment

The Wagner Anderson Project Area is not located near any established, permitted or developed recreation areas or within a Visual Resource Management Rehabilitation Area. The Wagner Anderson project does not involve any ecologically significant areas such as significant caves, National Monuments, Wilderness Study Areas, Research Natural Areas, or areas listed on the National Register of Natural Landmarks.

Recreation Recreational activities occurring within the project area are of a limited and dispersed nature such as mountain biking, equestrian use, off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding, hiking, hunting, bird watching, and exploring the area for wild flowers or mushrooms. OHV recreational use within the Project Area has occurred for several decades and was identified in the 1979 BLM Jackson-Klamath Ten-Year Timber Management Plan FES. The highest amount of OHV use is found northwest of the Project Area where approximately 45 miles of user created off-road trails have been inventoried by BLM. The frequency of OHV recreational use in the area has increased significantly over the past 10 years and the number of user constructed OHV trails has also increased during that time period. The predominate OHV use in the area is in the form of 4x4 jeeps (Class 2) and 2 wheel motorcycles (Class 3) while all-terrain vehicle (Class 1) use has seen the biggest increase in recent years.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-111 Environmental Assessment

Visual Resource Management The Wagner Anderson Project area was identified in the 1995 BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) (USDI 1995, Map 10) as visual resource management (VRM) Classes III and IV. Approximately 83% of the project area classified as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III, and 17% of the project area, as VRM Class IV.

The characteristic landscape in the watershed can be described as variable. On the valley floor and lower slopes, the area is modified by human alterations including roads, clearings, homes and out-buildings, fences and power lines. The intermingled private lands with their associated developments and past timber treatments provide a variety of visual contrasts. In the proposed forest management projects, vegetation would be modified and/or removed, with the most visible contrasts in color and texture evident during the first 2-3 years. The characteristic landscape of the sale area is comprised of numerous ridgelines and mountain slopes covered in steep upland meadows and commercial timber of mixed species and hardwoods. These slopes are dissected by numerous drainages. Foreground views from Interstate I-5 are comprised of farmland and urban residential areas with industrial and commercial businesses interspersed. The timbered slopes are a mix of BLM managed and industrial timber company ownership. Views of the slope vegetation are that of thick canopy with varying canopy depths. Rural residential properties are located in the lower reaches of the drainages with interspersed BLM and private timberlands sparsely located in these lower reaches. In the upper reaches of these drainages, the lands are almost entirely timberlands.

The VRM class III objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. While the objective of VRM class III is to partially retain the existing character intact, the objective of VRM class IV is to provide for management activities which may result in major modifications 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. However, attempts to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements of the landscape color and texture are encouraged.

The level of contrast is compared to the objectives for the approved VRM Class. For comparative purposes, the four levels of contrast (i.e., none, weak, moderate, and strong) roughly correspond with VRM Classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively. This means that a “moderate” contrast rating may be acceptable in a Class III area would not meet the VRM objectives for a Class I area.

2. Environmental Effects

Recreation Modifications to the landscape to support logging operations such as skids roads, cable corridors, and yarder landings create access routes for the public to areas which would otherwise be inaccessible by motorized vehicles. Leaving these new routes open would contribute to the potential for increased OHV use in new areas. Blocking spur roads and main skid trails where they intersect the main roads would reduce this potential substantially. One temporary spur road (approximately 200 feet) would be constructed to minimum standards and closed immediately following completion of operations.

A trail receiving OHV use in Unit 18-1 would potentially be obliterated by the construction of landings, although the only OHV designation for the project area is “open” to OHV use with no specific trail designations. Existing OHV trails and roads may be closed during harvesting periods to provide for

Wagner Anderson Project 3-112 Environmental Assessment public safety. This may displace some users to other trails within the Anderson Butte Area. However, other OHV use opportunities exist in close proximity in the Timber Mountain OHV Management Area.

Throughout the project area, open landings receive heavy recreational use for the purpose of target shooting, camping, and to access unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape. Dumping of household trash and yard debris also occurs in these areas. The proposed construction of up to 5 additional landings could increase undesirable as well as desirable recreation uses in the project area. Road closures following operations, such as barricades or gates, would help to reduce undesirable uses such as trash dumping, however, should have no overall adverse affect on recreational opportunities across the project area.

Fuels reduction and harvesting activities on BLM managed lands within the project area would reduce understory vegetation and creating the potential for increased cross-country OHV use. High fuel loads created from logging slash would be treated by handpiling the logging slash, covering piles with plastic, and then burning the piles once the debris is dry. These piles have the potential to negatively affect trail use by limiting access or diverting use off the trail and around the slash piles. Efforts would be made to avoid placing piles directly on existing OHV trails that could lead to trail braiding and widening unless the intent is to decommission the entire trail. Fuels and harvest work could conflict with recreational use during project activities; at times roads and units may be closed to the public while the units are undergoing forest management activities in order to provide for public safety. Noise from heavy equipment and chainsaws would be apparent for visitors and possibly some local residents, particularly those residents located along haul roads or near the units. These impacts would be short term and intermittent during the implementation of project activities over about a 3 to 5 year period.

Visual Resource Management The proposed Wagner Anderson project involves approximately 247 acres, within 21 units ranging in size from 2 to 21acres in the Wagner Creek and Anderson Creek subwatersheds. The project area was evaluated for visual contrasts from major travel routes. For all treatments (commercial thin, selection harvest, group selection, density management, and fuels management), vegetation would be modified and/or removed, but in general the modification of trees, shrubs, and other woody debris would not be evident to the casual observer in the long-term. Short-term visual contrasts would occur, consisting of color and texture changes which would remain for up to 5 years. In most cases, within two years there would be sufficient green-up of the remaining vegetation to reduce the visual contrast. Small openings would repeat the characteristic lines and forms found on the existing landscape. Overstory patches would remain dark green with slightly more rough edges as spacing between trees increases, especially along ridgelines where there may be more light visible through the trees. In addition, many of these areas are either screened by typography or other vegetation, or are not near residences or along major roads. This project involves only light thinning, which would result in slight change from existing canopy closure levels. Due to only slight changes in canopy closure combined with the existing variability of the characteristic landscape, these treatments would not be evident from a distance in the short or long-term to the casual observer. All of these treatments would meet VRM class III and class IV objectives.

From the Rogue Valley, logging unit 7-5 (8.8 ac.), the west half of unit 17-1(13.5 ac.) and unit 22-1 (21. ac.) are partially visible as background to vehicles traveling along Interstate 5 from Medford to Talent and several locations within the valley. Based on the logging prescriptions for these 3 logging units, the level of harvest will be low enough that the results of the project would not likely attract attention and would not dominate the view of the casual observer. The project area is visible along the Interstate 5 corridor is managed as VRM class III and maintains an approximate distance of 5-8 miles before it becomes an obscured feature. The units are visible for long durations of time at highway speeds when traveling south along the freeway corridor. While visible for more than 5-9 minutes, these 3 units are the background to

Wagner Anderson Project 3-113 Environmental Assessment the lower reaching ridges and valley floor where residential housing and farmlands dominate the middle and foreground.

As the observer approaches the base of the range, the project area becomes obscured due to the natural topography of the landscape. The visibility in the direction of the project site becomes reduced and the dominant visual features will be in the foreground. The overall logging activities would result in maintaining 40 to 60 percent canopy cover with slight reductions from current canopy closure levels (existing canopy closures range from 44 to 98 percent with an average of 7 percent, see Section I, Silviculture). The overall color and texture of the hillsides will be kept intact and the general characteristic of the landscape would remain unaltered. The level of change to these 3 units would be weak and should not attract the attention of the casual observer. For these units the primary mitigating action is the harvest prescription. The logging prescriptions designed for the Wagner Anderson Project meet Visual Resource Management objectives for Class III and IV.

K. AIR QUALITY

1. Affected Environment

Prior to Euro-American settlement, Native Americans created long periods of smoke by frequently burning the forests to create the necessary conditions to satisfy food, ceremonial, and cultural needs. With the advent of mining in the 1850’s, miners burned off large tracts of forest generating smoke. In the 1930’s to present day, organized wildland fire suppression resulted in much less smoke than prior to organized firefighting, except during wildfire events, especially in 1987 and 2002. As community development occurred in the Medford/Ashland Air Quality Management Area, increasing amounts of smoke (wood stoves, agriculture, and dust, from users on forest roads) increased particulates reducing air quality. Industrial particulates increased as lumber mills and the agricultural industry grew. An increase in the use of prescribed fire for fire and fuels management in the 1980’s added smoke to the Medford/Ashland area.

In the recent past, the population centers of Grants Pass, Medford/Ashland (including Central Point and Eagle Point), and Klamath Falls have been in violation of the national ambient air quality standards for PM-10 and were classified as nonattainment for this pollutant. The nonattainment status of these communities was not attributable to prescribed burning. Major sources of particulate matter within the Medford/Ashland nonattainment area is smoke from woodstoves, dust, and industrial sources. The contribution to the nonattainment status of particulate matter from prescribed burning is less than 4% of the annual total for the Medford/Ashland air quality management area. Over the past nine years the population centers of Grants Pass and Medford/Ashland have been in compliance for the national ambient air quality standards for PM-10. These areas are now (since January 2008) classified as Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA).

Air pollutants--called particulates--include dust, dirt, soot, and smoke. Particulates are emitted directly into the air by sources such as motorized vehicles, construction activity and fires, natural or prescribed. Prescribed burns are conducted within the limits of a Burn Plan which describes prescription parameters so that acceptable and desired effects are obtained. Smoke produced from prescribed burning is the major air pollutant of concern.

Fuels management activities generate particulate pollutants in the process of treating natural and activity related fuels. Smoke from prescribed fire has the potential to effect air quality within the project area as well as the surrounding area. The use of prescribed fire for ecosystem restoration can produce enough fine particulate matter to be a public health and/or welfare concern. Fine particulates in smoke can travel many miles downwind impacting air quality in local communities, causing a safety hazard on public

Wagner Anderson Project 3-114 Environmental Assessment roads, impairing visibility in class I areas, and/or causing a general nuisance to the public. If properly managed, most negative effects of prescribed fire smoke can be minimized or eliminated.

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), set by the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), cover six “criteria” airborne pollutants: lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and particulate matter. The lead and sulfur content of forest fuels is negligible, so these two forms of air pollution are not a consideration in prescribed burning.

Prescribed burning does emit some carbon monoxide (CO), from 20 to 500 lb. per ton of fuel consumed. This would be a concern if there were other persistent large CO sources in the immediate vicinity. CO is such a reactive pollutant, however, that its impact is quickly dissipated by oxidation to carbon dioxide where emissions are moderate and irregular and there is no atmospheric confinement.

Burning also emits moderate amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and minor amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx). These are precursors to formation of ground level ozone. Here, fire-related emissions may be seen as important only when other persistent and much larger pollution sources already cause substantial nonattainment of NAAQS .

Particulate matter (PM) smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5) is a term used to describe airborne solid and liquid particles. Because of its small size, PM 2.5 readily lodges in the lungs, thus increasing levels of respiratory infections, cardiac disease, bronchitis, asthma, pneumonia, and emphysema.

The fate of PM emissions from prescribed burning is twofold. Most (usually more than 60%) of the emissions are ‘lifted” by convection into the atmosphere where they are dissipated by horizontal and downward dispersion. The “unlifted” balance of the emissions (less than 40%) remain in intermittent contact with the ground. This impact is dissipated by dispersion, surface wind turbulence and particle deposition on vegetation and the ground. The risk of impact on the human environment differs between the two portions of smoke plume.

Smoke Aloft Until recent decades, the impact of the lifted portion of smoke was ignored because it seemed to “just go away.” These impacts are generally not realized until the mechanisms of dispersal bring the dispersed smoke back to ground level. Because the smoke has already dispersed over a broad area, the intensity of ground-level exposure is minimal. The duration of exposure may include the better part of a day, however, and the area of exposure may be large.

Ground Level Smoke Unlike smoke aloft, the potential for ground level smoke to create a nuisance is immediate. This part of the smoke plume does not have enough heat to rise into the atmosphere. It stays in intermittent contact with the human environment and turbulent surface winds move it erratically. Also in comparison to smoke aloft, human exposure is more intense, relatively brief (a few hours) and limited to a smaller area. Smoke aloft is already dispersed before it returns to the human environment while ground level smoke must dissipate within that environment. Dissipation of ground level smoke is accomplished through dispersion and deposition of smoke particles on vegetation, soil and other objects.

The pollutant most associated with the Medford District’s resource management activities is PM 2.5 found in smoke produced by prescribed fire. Monitoring in southwest Oregon consists of nephelometers (instrument designed to measure changes in visibility) in Grants Pass, Provolt, Illinois Valley, Ruch and eventually in Shady Cove. One medium volume sampler is collocated with the nephelometer at the Provolt site. The medium volume sampler measures the amount of PM 2.5 and smaller at ground level.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-115 Environmental Assessment Administration of Smoke Producing Projects The operational guidance for the Oregon Smoke Management Program is managed by the Oregon State Forester. The policy of the State Forester is to:

1. Regulate prescribed burning operations on forest land. 2. Achieve strict compliance with the smoke management plan. 3. Minimize emissions from prescribed burning.

For the purpose of maintaining air quality, the State Forester and the Department of Environmental Quality shall approve a plan for the purpose of managing smoke in areas they designate. The authority for the State administration is ORS 477.513(3)(a).

ORS468A.005 through 468A.085 provides the authority to DEQ to establish air quality standards including emission standards for the entire State or an area of the State. Under this authority the State Forester coordinates the administration and operation of the plan. The Forester also issues additional restrictions on prescribed burning in situations where air quality of the entire State or part thereof is, or would likely become adversely affected by smoke.

In compliance with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan, prescribed burning activities on the Medford District require pre-burn registration of all prescribed burn locations with the Oregon State Forester. Registration includes specific location, size of burn, topographic and fuel characteristics. Advisories or restrictions are received from the Forester on a daily basis concerning smoke management and air quality conditions.

2. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No-action Alternative

Although sources of air particulates vary, air quality standards measure particulates regardless of their source. Prescribed burning activities unrelated to Wagner Anderson Project would comply with the guidelines established by the ODF Oregon Smoke Management Plan and the DEQ Visibility Protection Plan. Therefore, air quality standards for the communities of Grants Pass and Medford/Ashland will continue to be met, as current pollution standards and air quality measures continue to control the amount of PM 2.5 emissions.

Air quality would be impacted in the event of a large wildfire. Emissions from wildfires are significantly higher than from prescribed burning. The wildfires which occurred in southern Oregon in 1987 emitted as much particulate matter as all the burning that occurred within the state that year.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Prescribed burning would comply with the guidelines established by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OSMP) and the Visibility Protection Plan. Prescribed burning under this alternatives is not expected to affect visibility within the Crater Lake National and neighboring wilderness smoke sensitive Class I areas (Kalmiopsis and Mountain Lakes) during the visibility protection period (July 1 to September 15). Prescribed burning is not routinely conducted during this period primarily due to the risk of an escaped wildfire.

Prescribed burning emissions, under this alternative is not expected to adversely effect annual PM 2.5 attainment within the Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, and Medford/Ashland SSRA. Any smoke intrusions into these areas from prescribed burning are anticipated to be light and of short duration.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-116 Environmental Assessment Prescribed burning would be scheduled primarily during the period starting in November and ending in June. This treatment period minimizes the amount of smoke emissions by burning when duff and dead woody fuel have the highest moisture content, which reduces the amount of material actually burned. Smoke dispersal is easier to achieve due to the general weather conditions that occur at this time of year.

Smoke effects are further reduced because burn sites would include mop-up to be completed as soon as practical after the fire, and hand piles would be covered to keep the material dry to permit burning during the rainy season when there is a stronger possibility of atmospheric mixing and/or scrubbing, thus dispersing the smoke.

The greatest potential for impacts from smoke intrusions is from underburning to localized drainages within and adjacent to the project area. Because underburning requires a low intensity burn, there is not the energy to lift the smoke away from the project site. Smoke retained on site could be transported into portions of non-attainment areas if it is not dispersed and diluted by anticipated weather conditions. Localized concentration of smoke in rural areas away from non-attainment areas may continue to occur during prescribed burning operations.

Project Design Features to minimize smoke effects associated with this alternative combined with DEQ smoke regulations would not reduce the air quality to the point of creating a general public health hazard in the Medford/Ashland Area. However, despite these measures, a few individuals would still be affected by a few hours (short duration) of smoke perhaps causing discomfort. Relief for these individuals is simply leaving the area for a short time. While smoke effects to these individuals are real, the effect of smoke from this alternative is very minor because it may affect only a few out of around 150,000 people (approximate population in the Medford/Ashland area).

Oregon Department of Forestry monitors PM 2.5 standards daily during prescribed burning, and prescribed burning would comply with the guidelines established by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OSMP) and the Visibility Protection Plan. The short duration of smoke impacts from prescribed burning when combined with existing conditions, are expected to be within the monitored air quality standards.

L. OTHER EFFECTS

1. Public Health and Safety

No aspects of the Wagner Anderson project have been identified as having the potential to significantly and adversely impact public health or safety.

2. Cultural Resources

This project would not result in restricting access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners or adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites. No sites have been identified in the project area. Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites).

This project would have no effect on Indian Trust Resources as none exist in the project area. This project was determined to have no adverse effects on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This includes Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, or historic properties. The proposed project would have no adverse effects on known cultural resources.

Wagner Anderson Project 3-117 Environmental Assessment 3. Environmental Justice

This project was reviewed for the potential for disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority or low income populations; no adverse impacts to minority or low income populations would occur. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice).

CHAPTER 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Letters were sent October 23, 2009 adjacent land owners, organizations, community groups, other agencies, tribes, and individuals expressing interest in Ashland Resource Area projects. The letter described the purpose and need for the proposed action and included a detailed description and map of the forest management activities proposed. Four comment letters were received by the BLM in response to this public outreach and another 13 adjacent landowners requested to remain on the mailing list and to be kept informed about project activities. A copy of this Environmental Assessment was sent to individuals and the following organizations:

Organizations and Agencies Bear Creek Watershed Council Cascadia Wildlands Project Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center Meriwether Southern Oregon Oregon Wild Siskiyou Project Southern Oregon University Library Southern Oregon Timber Industries Talent Irrigation District Threatened & Endangered Little Applegate Valley

Wagner Anderson Project 3-118 Environmental Assessment REFERENCES

Aerial Insect and Disease Survey Map Data. 2007, 2008. Oregon Department of Forestry and USDA Forestry Service. Available 1/22/2010 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/as/quad08/quad3nfinal2008.pdf

The American Phytopathological Society, 2006. Jim Worrall (USDA Forest Service, Gunnison, CO) and Brian Geils (USDA Forest Service, Flagstaff, AZ). 2006. Dwarf mistletoes. The Plant Health Instructor. DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2006-1117-01. Figure 21.

Agee, J.K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management. Conservation Biology in Practice 3(1)18-25. In Brown,et.al.2004. Forest Restoration and fire. Conservation Biology, 18(4)903-912.

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western fire regimes. Northwest Science 72:24-34. In D. McKenzie, Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(4):890-902.

Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. P. 52-68, in Procedings of the 17th Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Jan. 16-18, 1996 Redding, CA.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press. Washington. D.C. 493 pages.

Agee, J.K., C.N. Skinner, Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 2005. © 2005 Elsevier B.V

Agee, J.K., C.S. Wright, N. Williamson, and M.H. Huff. 2002. Foliar moisture content of Pacific Northwest vegetation and its relation to wildland fire behavior. Forest Ecology Management 167: 57-66.

Agee, J.K., Berni Bahro, Mark Finney, Phillip Omni, David B. Sapsis, Carl Skinner, Jan van Wagtendonk, C. Phillip Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuel breaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management 127: 55-66.

Agee, J.K, and M.H. Huff. 1986. Structure and process goals for vegetation in wildnerness areas. GTR-INT- 212. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. In Brown, R.T., J.K.

Albini, F.A., Estimating Wildfire Behavior and Effects. USDA Forest Service GTR, INT-30. 1976

Alexander, Martin E.; Yancik, Richard F. 1977. The effect of precommercial thinning on fire potential in a lodgepole stand. Fire Management Notes. 38(3): 7-9.

Anthony R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, S.S. Sovern. 2004. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Final Report to Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, Portland, Oregon. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Corvallis, USA.

Arnold, George. 2009. Personal communication. Ashland Resource Area Wildlife Biologist. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Office, Medford, OR.

Atzet, T. and D.L. Wheeler. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou mountain province. USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, OR.

Atzet, T., Wheeler, David. “Historical and Ecological Perspectives on Fire Activity in the Klamath Geological Province of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests” USDA- Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Portland, Oregon July 1982.

Atzet, Thomas. 2008. Personal communication. Area 5 Ecologist - Preliminary Plant Associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province; Technical Coordinator - Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of Southwestern Oregon. March 10, 2008.

Atzet, Thomas, D.E. White, LA. McCrimmon, P.A. Martinzez, P.R. Fong, V.D. Randall. 1996. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of Southwestern Oregon. USDA- Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Portland, Oregon. Tech Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96. September 1996.

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (1):79-90.

Baker, W.L. and D. Ehle. 2001. Uncertainty in surface-fire history: the case of ponderosa pine forests in the western United States. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:1205-1226. In D. McKenzie, Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(4):890-902.

Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, and W.D. Pitts. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, pp. 65.

Beechie, T. J., G. Pess, P. Kennard, R. Bilby, and S. Boltan. 1999. Modeling Recovery Rates and Pathways for Woody Debris Recruitment in Northwestern Washington Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 436-452.

Berryman, A.A. 1981. Population systems. PlenumPress, New York and London. 222 p.

Biswell, H.H, H.R. Kallander, R. Komarek, R.J. Vogl, and H. Weaver. 1973. Ponderosa fire management, Miscellaneous publication 2. Tall timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. In Brown, et. al. 2004. Forest restoration and fire. Conservation biology, 18(4): 903-912.

Briegleb, P.A. 1952. An approach to density measurement in Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry Vol. 50:529- 536.

Brown, R.T., J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology, 18(4): 903-912

Buskirk. S., and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283-296. In S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad. M.G. Raphael. and R.A. Powell (editors). Martens, Sables and Fisher: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca New York.

California Partners in Flight. 2002. Version 2.0. The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California (S. Zack, lead author). Point Rayes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

Carey, A.B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Report GTR-276. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46p. (Huff, Mark H.; Holthausen, Richard. S.; and Aubry, Keith B., tech. coords. Biology and management of old-growth forests).

Carey, A.B., J.A. Reid, and S.P. Horton. 1990. Spotted owl home range and habitat use in southern Oregon coast ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:11-17.

Chadwick, Kristen L. and Eglitis, Andris. 2007. Health Assessment of the Lost forest Research Natural Area. USDA Forest Service. Forest Health Protection. Central Oregon Service Center for Insects and Diseases. Bend, OR. February 2007

Chappell, C. B. and Kagan J. 2001. Southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood forest, in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Johnson, D. H. and O’Neil, Thomas A., eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Christiansen, E., R.H. Waring, and A.A. Berryman. 1987. Resistance of Conifers to Bark Beetle Attack: Searching for General Relationships. Forest Ecology and Management, 22, 89-106.

Christner, J. and R.D. Harr. 1982. Peak streamflows for the transient snow zone. Paper presented at the Western Snow Conference, April 20, 1982. Reno, NV

Cochran, P. H. 1992. Stocking levels and underlying assumptions for even-aged ponderosa pine stands. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Note PNW-RN-509. 10 p.

Cohen, Jack D. 2000. What is the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes? Presented as the Thompson Memorial Lecture. April 10, 2000, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Converse, Sarah J., Gary C. White, Kerry L. Farris, and Steve Zack. 2006. Small Mammals and Forest Fuel Reduction: National-Scale Responses to Fire and Fire Surrogates. Ecological Applications, 16(5) 1717-1729.

Countryman, Clive M. 1972. The Fire Environment Concept. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Berkeley California.

Countryman, C.M. 1955. Old-Growth Conversion Also Converts Fire Climate. Fire Control Notes: 15-19.

Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR.

Davis, Liane R., Klaus J. Puettmann, and Gabriel F. Tucker. 2007. Overstory response to alternative thinning treatments in young Douglas-fir forests of Western Oregon. Northwest Science. 81(1): 1-14.

DecAID – Decayed Wood Adviser. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Available 1/26/2010 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/IandDSpecies/Douglas- fir%20dwarf%20mistletoe.html

DeMars, C.J. Jr. and B.H. Roettgering, 1982. Western Pine Beetle. USDA Forest Service. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 1.

Dolph, Robert E. 1985. Growth and vigor information in thinned second-growth ponderosa pine stands on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. 10pp.

Drew, T.J. and J.W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 518-532.

Douglas, C.W. and M.A. Strickland. 1987. Fisher. In Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, Eds. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Pp. 511-529.

Federal Register, 1999. Designated Critical Habitat; Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon. Vol. 64, No. 86. 24049.

Filip, Gregory M., J.J. Colbert, C.G. Shaw III, P.F. Hessburg, K.P. Hosman and C.A. Parks. 1991. Some relations among dwarf mistletoe, western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir: modeling and management implications. Pp. 161-164 In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Interior Douglas-fir: the species and its management, Spokane, WA. February 27-March 1, 1990. Cooperative Extension, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science 47:219-228

Flowers, Rob and Kanaskie, Alan. 2007. Mountain Pine Beetle. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Health Note. July 2007. Pp. 1-3.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow, and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and Foraging Behavior of Northern Spotted Owls in Oregon. J. of Raptor Res. 38(3):214-230.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Biology and Management of the northern spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs No. 87: 1-64.

Franklin, J.F., and Agee, J.K. “Forging a Science-Based National Forest Fire Policy” from: Issues in Science and Technology fall 2003

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in Northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70(4): 539- 590.

Gomez, D. M., R. G. Anthony, and J. P. Hayes. 2005. Influence of thinning of Douglas-fir forests on population parameters and diet of northern flying squirrels. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1670–1682.

Gordon, Sean. 2009. Wagner Anderson Crown Cover Estimate, prepared for the Biological Assessment for the Wagner Anderson Timber Sale.

Graham, Russel T., A.E. Harvey, B. Theresa, and R. Jonaliea. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 27 pp.

Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L., Swanson, F.J., Cissel, J.H., and McDonnell, J.J. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Serv., Pac. Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760

Gutiérrez, R. J., J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, G. N. Steger, D. R. Call, W. S. LaHaye, B. B. Gingham, and J. S. Senser. 1992. Habitat relations of the California spotted owl. Pages 79–99 in J. Vener, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck, editors. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. USDA Forest Service GTR PSW- 133, Albany, CA, USA.

Hadfield, J.S., Goheen, D.J., Filip, G.M., Schmitt, C.L., and Harvey, R.D. 1986. Root diseases in Oregon and Washington conifers. R6-FPM-250-86. USDA Forest Service, PNW Region, 27 p.

Hadfield, J.S. and D.W. Johnson. 1977. Laminated root rot, a guide for reducing and preventing losses in Oregon and Washington forests. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW Region, 16 p.

Hagar, Joan and Shay Howlin. 2001. Songbird Community Response to Thinning of Young Douglas-fir Stands in the Oregon Cascades - Third Year Post-treatment Results for the Willamette National Forest, Young Stand Thinning and Diversity Study. Department of Forest Science, OSU.

Hann, David W. 1992. ORGANON user’s manual. Edition 4.0 southwest Oregon version. Dept. of Forest Resources, Oregon State University. 113 pages.

Hann, W.J., J.L. Jones, M.G. Karl, P.F. Hessberg, R.E. Keane, D.G. Long, J.P. Menakis, C.H. McNicoll, S.G. Leonard, R.A. Gravenmier, and B.G. Smith. 1977. Landscape dynamics of the basin. Pages 337- 1055. In T.M. Quigley and S. Arbelbide. In Forest restoration and fire. 2004. Brown, et. al. Conservation Biology, 18(4): 903-912.

Hardy, Colin C.; Arno, Stephen F., eds. 1996. The use of fire in forest restoration. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- GTR-341. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 86 p.

Harr, R.D., R. Fredriksen, and J. Rothacher. 1979. Changes in streamflow following timber harvest in southwestern Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-249. USDA For. Serv., Pac. Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Station, Portland, OR. 22 pp.

Harris, J. E., and C. V. Ogan. Eds. Mesocarnivores of Northern California: Biology, Management and Survey Techniques, Workshop Manual. August 12-15, 1997. Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA. The Wildlife Society, California North Coast Chapter. Arcata, Ca. 127 p.

Hawksworth, F.G. 1977. The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system. General Technical Report RM-48. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.

Hayes, J.P., Samuel S. Chan, William H. Emmingham, John C. Tappeiner, Loren D. Kellog, and John D. Bailey. 1997. Wildlife Responses to Thinning Young Forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry, August 1997, Vol. 95, No. 8. pp 28-33.

Hessel, Amy E., Don McKenzie, and Richard Schellhaas. 2004. Drought and Pacific Decadal Oscillation Linked to Fire Occurrence in the Inland Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications 14(2): 425-442.

Huff, M.H., Agee, J.K., The Role of Prescribed Fire in Restoring Ecosystem Health and Diversity in Southwest Oregon: Part 1. Ecosystem Conditions. Report to Pacific Northwest Research Station Directors Office- Northwest Forest Plan Issue. September 2000.

Hull, R.O. and O. Leonard. 1964. Physiological aspects of parasitism in mistletoes (Arceuthobium and Phoradendron). The carbohydrate nutrition of mistletoe. Plant Physiology 39, 996-1007.

Janes, Stewart W. 2003. Bird Populations on the Panther Gap Timber Sale, 1994-2003: Short and Long term Response to Commercial Thinning. Technical Report submitted to Medford BLM.

Kauffman, J. B. 2004. Death rides the forest: perceptions of fire, land use, and ecological restoration of Western forests. Conservation Biology, 18(4):878-882.

Kencairn Environmental Design, Northwest Biological Consulting, K & C Environmental Services, New World Mapping, and Cascade Research, 2001. Talent Greenway Natural Resources Inventory Bear and Wagner Creeks. Prepared for the city of Talent.

King, David L., and Richard M. DeGraaf. 2002. The effect of forest roads on the reproductive success of forest-dwelling passerine birds. Forest Science 48(2):391-396.

Larsson, S., R. Oren, R.H. Waring, and J.W. Barrett. 1983. Attacks of Mountain Pine Beetle as Related to Tree Vigor of Ponderosa Pine. Forest Science, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 395-402.

Lint, J., 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): status and trends of Northern Spotted Owl populations and habitat. General technical report PNW-GTR-648. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Luce, C. H. and T. A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 2561-2570, August 1999.

Luce, C. H. and T. A. Black. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns in erosion from forest roads. In Influence of urban and forest land uses on the hydrologic-geomorphic responses of watersheds. Edited by M.S. Wigmosta and S. J. Burges. Water Resources Monographs, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. pp. 165-178.

Maguire, D.A., J.A. Kershaw, and D.W. Hann. 1991. Predicting the effects of silvicultural regime on branch size and crown wood core in Douglas-fir. Forest Science 37:1, 409-428.

Mallams, Katy M. 2007. Permanent plots for measuring spread and impact of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe in the Southern Oregon Cascades, Pacific Northwest Region: Results of the ten year remeasurement. USDA Forest Service, PNW Region, Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center Central Point, OR SWOFIDSC-07-04 March 2007

Marsh, D.M and N.G. Beckman. 2004. Effects of forest roads on the abundance and activity of terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications: Vo. 14, No. 6, pp. 1882-1891.

Mathiasen, Robert L., F.G. Hawksworth and C.B. Edminster. 1990. Effects of dwarf mistletoe on growth and mortality of Douglas-fir in the Southwest. Great Basin Naturalist. 50(2): 173-179.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(4):890-902.

McKenzie, D, D.L. Peterson, and J.K. Agee. 2000. Fire frequency in the Columbia River Basin: building regional models from fire history data. Ecological Applications 10:1497-1516. In D. McKenzie, Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(4):890-902.

Meehan, W. R., Editor. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Mitchell, Allen. 2009. Personal Communication. Fire and Fuels Program Lead, Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford BLM

Mohler, C.L., Marks, P.L., and Sprugel, D.G. 1978. Stand structure and allometry of trees during self- thinning of pure stands. Journal of Ecology, 66, 599-614.

Morgan, P., S.C. Bunting, A.E. Black, T. Merrill, and S. Barrett. 1996. Fire regimes in the interior Columbia River Basin; past and present. Final report for RJVA-INT-94913. USDA Forest Service. In Forest restoration and fire. 2004. Brown, et. al. Conservation biology, 18(4): 903-912.

Mote, Philip., and Contributors, Impacts of Climate Variability and Change in the Pacific Northwest. The JISAO Climate Impacts Group. Contribution #715

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 28, 2009 ).

Noss, Reed. F. 1995. The ecological effects of roads or the road to destruction. The road ripper’s handbook. Road removal implementation project. Missoula, MT.

Oliver, Chadwick D. and Larson, Bruce C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. Update Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. p. 141.

Oliver, William W. and Ryker, Russell A. 1990. Pinus ponderosa in Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers; 877 p.. Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. Agriculture Handbook 654. Available_1/26/2010http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/ponderosa.htm

Omi, P.N. and E.J. Martinson. 2002. Effects of fuels treatments on wildfire severity. Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Unpublished Data. Aquatic Inventory Project and Physical Habitat Surveys; Bear Creek Basin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Unpublished Data. Presence Absence Surveys. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Central Point, OR.

Oregon Water Resources Department. 1989. Rogue River basin programs. State of Oregon Water Resources Department. Salem, OR.

Perkins, J.P. 2000. Land cover at northern spotted owl nest and non-nest sites, east-central coast ranges, Oregon. M.S. thesis. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Pierce, William R. 1960. Dwarf mistletoe and its effect upon the larch and Douglas-fir of western Montana. Bulletin #10. Montana State University, Missoula, Montana. 37 pp.

Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2002. Effects of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. Internat. J. Wildland Fire, Vol 11:1-10.

Pollet and Omi. 1999. Effect Of Thinning And Prescribed Burning On Wildfire Severity In Ponderosa Pine Forests. Proceedings from the 1999 Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop "Crossing the Millennium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological Principles for a New Age in Fire Management". Technical Editors:Leon F. Neuenschwander, Professor, Department of Forest Resources, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow Idaho http://jfsp.nifc.gov/conferenceproc/index.htm

Powell, R.A. 1993. The Fisher: Life History, Ecology and Behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN. University of Minnesota Press. 237 p.

Powell, R. A. and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher, in the scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: 38-73. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station.

Pullen, Reg. 1995. Overview of the Environment of Native Inhabitants of Southwest Oregon, Late Prehistoric Era. Medford BLM

Reid, L.M., and T. Dunne, 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20: 1753-1761

Roth, L.F. 1966. Foliar habit of ponderosa pine as a heritable basis for resistance to dwarf mistletoe. In: Gerhold, H.D. and others, eds. Breeding pest-resistant trees. Oxford: Pergamon Press: 221-228.

Sakai, H.F., and B.R. Noon. 1997. Between-habitat movement of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability to predation.(128K) Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2):343-350.

Sakai, H.F., and B.R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):373-382.

Sartwell, C. and R. Stevens. 1975. Mountain Pine Beetle in Ponderosa Pine. Journal of Forestry. March, 1975.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Laurel, Maryland.

Schmidt, K.M., Manakis, J.P. Hardy, CC., Hann, WJ., Brunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of course-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuels management. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Schmitt, Craig L., John R. Parmeter, and John T. Kliejunas. Revised February 2000. Annosus Root Disease of Western Conifers. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 172 USDA Forest Service.

Sensenig, T.S., Development, Fire History and Current and Past Growth, of Old-Growth and Young-Growth Forest Stands in the Cascades, Siskiyou and Mid-Coast Mountains of Southwestern Oregon. A DISSERTATION to Oregon State University. June 12, 2002. Copyright 2002 by ProQuest, UMI Microform 3061918.

Siegel, R. B., and D. F. DeSante. 2003. Bird communities in thinned versus unthinned Sierran mixed conifer stands. Wilson Bulletin 115:155–165.

Skinner, Carl N, Martin W. Ritchie, Todd Hamilton. 2004. Effects of Prescribed Fire and Thinning on Wildfire Severity: The Cone Fire, Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest..USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding, CA 96002. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fireuse/success/R5/ConeFire-Skinneretal.pdf 01/26/10

SNEP. 1996. Summary of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Solis, D.M. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in Northwest California. Condor 92:739-748.

The Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center (SWOFIDSC) Available 01/26/10 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue/swofidsc/index.html

Southwest Oregon Fire Plan. 2004. Rogue River National Forest, Medford/Coos Bay BLM, Oregon Department of Forestry Southwest Oregon District, Coos Forest Protective Association, National Park Service’s Oregon Caves National Monument. Fire Management Plan for the Southwest Oregon Fire Planning Unit. September 2004, p.102. Available 01/26/10 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/fire/pdf/sw-or-fire-mgt-plan-04.pdf

Spies, Thomas A., Miles A. Herstrom, Andrew Youngblood and Susan Hummel. 2006. Conserving Old- Growth Forest Diversity in Disturbance-Prone Landscapes. Conservation Biology 20 (2): 351–362.

Spies, Thomas A., and Jerry F. Franklin. 1991. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Stephens, Scott L., and Jason J. Moghaddas. 2005. Fuel Treatment Effects on Snags and Coarse Woody Debris in a Sierra Nevada Mixed Conifer Forest. Forest Ecology and Management 214, 53-64.

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest on Annual Water Yields. Journal of Hydrology. Vol. 176/1-4. pp. 79-95.

Stokowski , P.A.and C. B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs and ORVs: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment. School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont. 31 p. Available 01/26/10 http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/ohvbibliogVT00.pdf USDA USFS publication: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/unmanaged-recreation- position-paper.pdf

Suzuki, N. and J. P. Hayes. 2003. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon Coastal Forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(2):352-371.

Tappeiner, John C., David Huffman, David Marshall, Thomas A. Spies, John D. Bailey. 1997. Denisty, Ages, and Growth Rates in Old-Growth and Young-Growth Forests in Costal Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 638-648.

Thomas, T., and J. K. Agee. 1986. Prescribed fire effects on mixed-conifer forest structure at Crater Lake, Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 16:1082-1087.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 18-30.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (a). Pacific Northwest Region. Forest Disease Management Notes (503) 221-2727.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest Region. September 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ashland Forest Resiliency. Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, Ashland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007. Pacific Northwest Region. Forest Health Protection. Available 01/26/10 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/as/quad07/quad3nfinal2007.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Pacific Northwest Region, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Klamath Ranger District and Others. South Cascades Late-Successional Reserve Assessments (LSRA) RO227. Appendix F.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Field guide to the forested plant associations of Southwestern Oregon. PNW Region, Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Final State Director's Special Status Species List. IM-OR-2008-038. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSP) website OR/WA BLM. Available 01/26/10 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/ag-policy/6840-im-or-2008- 038.pdf , http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Final Supplement to the Supplement Environmental Impact Statement: To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. Government Printing Office. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004b. Survey protocol for the great grey owl within the range of the northwest forest plan. Version 3.0. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2004-050.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Survey protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the northwest forest plan. Version 3.0. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2003-44.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management OR/WA/CA. 2002. Survey protocol for the red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus, Version 2.1. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2003-003.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Government Printing Office. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000a. Management recommendations for the red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus, Version 2.0. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR- 2000-086.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Survey protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the northwest forest plan. Version 2.0. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-98-097.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994(a). Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Appendix J2 Results of Additional Species Analysis. Portland, Oregon.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2008.Medford BLM District Analysis and 2008 Biological Assessment of Forest Habitat. Medford Oregon.

U.S. Department Of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Fall 09 FY 10-11 NLAA BA. Medford BLM FY 10-11 Biological Assessment of Projects that May Affect, but are Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets. Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management Aug 28, 2008. Medford, Oregon.

USDI BLM 2008. Manual 6840–Special Status Species Management. Revised December 12, 2008. Available 01/26/10 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/ag-policy/6840-im-or-2008- 038.pdf

USDI BLM. 1995. Medford District Resource Management Plan. On file Medford BLM.

U.S. Department Of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management. 2008. FY 2009-2013 Programmatic Assessment For Activities that May Affect the listed endangered plant species Gentner’s Fritillary, Cook’s Lomatium, McDonald’s rockcress, and large-flowered wooly meadowfoam Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management Aug 28, 2008. Medford, Oregon.

U.S. Department Of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Ashland Resource Area. 2006. Unpublished data, Stream Surveys.

U.S. Department Of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Ashland Resource Area 2005. Field observations.

U.S. Department Of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management, Medford District. 2001. West Bear Creek Watershed Analysis. Version 1.1. Medford, OR.

U.S. Department Of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management, Medford District. 2001. South Rogue- Gold Hill watershed analysis. Medford (OR): Medford District. Bureau of Land Management.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management, Medford District. 1995. Final EIS and record of decision Medford District resource management plan. Medford, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District. 1994. Medford District Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Medford, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Applegate Adaptive Management Area, Ecosystem Health Assessment. Medford, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. MBLM FY 10-11 Informal Consulation Letter of Concurrence. December 23, 2009. Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Effects of the Proposed FY 2009-2013 Forest Management Activities on Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat. September 25, 2008. Roseburg Field Office. Roseburg, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Northern Spotted Owl, Five-year review: summary and evaluation. Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. http://migratory birds.fw.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf

VanWagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress Vol. II, Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Wildland Resources Center, Univ. of Calif., Davis.

Waring, R.H. 2007. Personal Communication. Distinguished Professor, Emeritus Physiological Ecology, Landscape Level Ecosystems Analysis. Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Waring, R.H., and G.B. Pitman. 1985. Modifying Lodgepole Pine Stands to Change Susceptibility to Mountain Pine Beetle Attack. Ecology, 66(3), pp. 889-897.

Waring, R.H., and Schlesinger W.H. 1985. Forest Ecosystems: Concepts and Management, Academic, 340 pp.

Waring, R. H., W.G. Thies, and D. Muscato. 1980. Stem growth per unit of leaf area: a measure of tree vigor. Forest Science Vol. 26, No.1, March 1980, pp.112-117.

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN). 1999. Oregon watershed assessment manual. June 1999. Prepared for the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon.

Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-Silviculture Relationships in Sierra Forests. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfires in northern California. Forest Science 41:430-451.

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Home Range Characteristics of Fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 85(4): 649-657.