U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA

West Fork Smith River Environmental Assessment

February 15, 2019

OR/WA Bureau of Land Management Coos Bay District, Umpqua Field Office 1300 Airport Lane North Bend, OR 97459 (541) 756-0100 [email protected]

i | West Fork Smith River Environmental Assessment | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 PROJECT AREA LOCATION ...... 1 ACRES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 1 NEED ...... 4 PURPOSE (OBJECTIVES) ...... 5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ...... 5 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLAN ...... 5 PUBLIC INPUT AND ISSUE DEVELOPMENT ...... 5 Issues Identified for Analysis ...... 6 Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 6 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES ...... 6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 6 COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 7 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 22 Alternative 1 (Thinning and Group Selection in LSR, Thinning in Outer Zone RR, Yarding over Streams) ...... 22 Alternative 2 (Thinning in LSR and Outer Zone RR, No Yarding over Fish-bearing Streams) ...... 29 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS...... 31 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 35 ANALYSIS BACKGROUND ...... 35 ISSUES ...... 35 Fish Issue: How would RR thinning and ‘tree tipping’ affect current and future wood recruitment and fish habitat? ...... 35 Forest Structure Issue: How would proposed treatments affect forest stand development? ...... 43 Wildlife Issue 1: How would the proposed management activities affect the development of spotted owl nesting habitat within the action area? ...... 56 Wildlife Issue 2: How would the proposed management activities affect the development of murrelet nesting habitat within the action area? ...... 62 Wildlife Issue 3: How would the proposed management activities affect the ability of the spotted owl action area and known sites to support reproduction? ...... 64 CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, APPENDICES ...... 67 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION ...... 67 Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 67 Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service ...... 67 TRIBAL CONSULTATION ...... 67 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONSULTATION ...... 68 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 68 APPENDIX A—ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL ...... 69 APPENDIX B—MAPS (TREATMENTS AND ROADWORK, YARDING SYSTEMS)...... 87 APPENDIX C—BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 110 APPENDIX D—ROADS AND ACCESS ...... 118 APPENDIX E—SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—WILDLIFE ...... 128 APPENDIX F—SPOTTED OWL AND MURRELET SEASONAL TIMING RESTRICTIONS ...... 147 APPENDIX G—SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—BOTANY ...... 152 APPENDIX H—FOREST INFORMATION AND STAND MODELING PROJECTIONS ...... 154 APPENDIX I—SAMPLE TREE FALLING ...... 164 APPENDIX J—PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR RISK KEY ...... 166 APPENDIX K—NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 167 APPENDIX L—SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—FISH; FISH HABITAT, TREE TIPPING ...... 168 APPENDIX M—SOIL DISTURBANCE REVIEW ...... 171 APPENDIX N—COOS BAY DISTRICT NEPA MAILING LIST ...... 173 APPENDIX O—REFERENCES ...... 174

ii | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need This chapter presents the proposed West Fork Smith River project, its location, purpose and need, decisions to make, conformance with applicable management direction, laws, and regulations, and issues submitted during internal and public scoping.

Introduction The Coos Bay District Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Umpqua Field Office is proposing northern spotted owl (NSO, spotted owl) and marbled murrelet (murrelet) habitat restoration through vegetation management, including timber harvest within the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) in the West Fork Smith River and South Sister Creek 6th field watersheds starting in fiscal year 2019. The BLM is also proposing Outer Zone Riparian Reserve (RR) management in Class I subwatersheds adjacent to the LSR treatments to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in the stream.

Project Area Location The BLM looked at potential areas for treatment during project planning in 2014–2015 based on areas that would respond to treatment. The BLM determined treatment types and locations primarily by: 1) Land use allocation 2) Stand age and condition (overstocked 40–60-year-old stands, single-layer canopies)

The West Fork Smith River project area is approximately 20–25 aerial miles northeast of the City of Reedsport, in Douglas County, Oregon (Willamette Meridian), and consists of BLM-managed lands arranged in the typical checkerboard pattern seen in western Oregon (Table 1-1; Figure 1-1). Project areas are within the West Fork Smith River and South Sister Creek 6th field watersheds. These watersheds are Class I subwatersheds (ROD/RMP p. 51). For the proposed stand locations, refer to Table 1-1, Figure 1-1, and Appendix B maps.

Table 1-1. Project locations for the West Fork Smith River project (Willamette Meridian, Oregon) Township Range Sections 19 S. 08 W. 30, 31 20 S. 08 W. 5, 7, 9 19 S. 09 W. 25, 35, 36 20 S. 09 W. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12

Due to the checkerboard ownership pattern within the analysis area, portions of the project area are not open to legal public recreational access (Appendix D, Table D–5).

Acres Considered and Eliminated from Proposed Project During initial project development and scoping, the IDT began reviewing 40 treatment units and proposed 2,793 acres for potential thinning and group selection harvest. During project development, the BLM eliminated 347–800 acres from thinning or group selection treatment on based on field verification of stream inception points to determine RR extents, RMP stand retention requirements, feasibility, proximity to murrelet habitat trees, and road cost or lack of access Table 1-2.

1 | West Fork Smith River Environmental Assessment | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 1-2. Forest stands considered from treatment, but eliminated from detailed analysis Area Area Dropped Area Area of Deferred Original Remaining Dropped Based on EA Dropped Riparian for Treatment Treatment Based on Location Unit Based on Reserve Stand Area Area Road Cost/Lack of No. Feasibility Dropped Retention (Acres) (Acres) of Access Murrelet (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Trees (Percent) 8 100 62.0 10 80 20 — -10 12 51 17.8 50 20 20 20 -10 30 37 14.7 30 50 5 — -10 40 18 — — 60 20 20 —

2 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Figure 1-1. Potential treatment areas in the West Fork Smith River and South Sister Creek 6th field watersheds (see Appendix B for specific alternatives). 3 | West Fork Smith River Environmental Assessment | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Need The West Fork Smith River and South Sister Creek analysis area contains approximately 3,900 acres of 40–60 year old stands that are primarily the result of even-aged management including single-species silvicultural practices aimed at maximizing commercial timber production and downhill logging into stream drainages and streamside road systems. The Oxbow Fire of 1966 affected a small portion of the eastern analysis area, where the resulting salvage activities and natural and artificial reforestation also resulted in single-layer canopy stands devoid of complex structures like snags and down wood. These stands exhibit high relative densities (RD 49–89; 145–354 trees per acre), a single stratum (single-canopy layer and age class), high canopy cover (70–91 percent), smaller tree diameters (12–16-inches), and lack or are deficient in shade-tolerant species. Current stocking levels and canopy structure growth trends are not on a trajectory to optimize stand vigor, or improve vertical and horizontal canopy structure that will lead to the restoration of spotted owl and murrelet habitat.

LSR BLM foresters and wildlife biologists are proposing varying silvicultural practices on 2,110 acres of LSR to speed up development and improve the future quality of the stands to support spotted owl and murrelet nesting habitat. Stands currently are densely stocked, single-story, Douglas-fir dominated, with no large snags or down wood. These stand conditions do not support nesting habitat for either species and limit future development, without disturbance, of the necessary, limb size, and multi-layer, multi-species, canopy for spotted owl and murrelet nesting structures. (Appendix H Table H–1).

NSO nesting habitat (77 FR 71876) generally requires: 1. Moderate to high canopy cover (60 to over 80 percent); 2. Multilayered, multispecies canopies with large (20–30 inch or greater DBH) overstory trees; 3. High basal area (greater than 240 sq. ft. per acre); 4. High diversity of different diameters of trees; 5. High incidence of large live trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); 6. Large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and 7. Open space below the canopy sufficient for NSO to fly.

Suitable murrelet nesting platforms (USDI-BLM 2016b) require: 1. A tree DBH of at least 19 inches and a height greater than 107 feet; 2. A relatively flat nest platform at least 32.5 feet above the ground that is at least 4 inches wide with nesting substrate (moss, epiphytes, duff), and an access route through the canopy that a murrelet could use to approach and land on that platform; and 3. A tree branch or foliage, either on the tree with potential structure or on an adjacent tree, which provides cover over the platform.

RR Of the 1,793 acres of RR within stands the BLM identified, approximately 563 acres of densely overstocked stands within the Outer Zone of the RR are experiencing suppressed growth and vigor due to competition and competition-based mortality under the current growing conditions. The existing condition of the Outer Zone RR is inconsistent with maintaining the proper functioning condition of riparian areas, which includes wood recruitment that functions as stable wood in streams. In the Outer Zone RR of Class I streams, the BLM has the opportunity to conduct vegetation management to accelerate the development of larger diameter trees for future stable wood delivery to adjacent streams. EA Units that have not received extensive instream restoration in the recent past are candidates for tree tipping to provide immediate wood delivery to streams.

4 | West Fork Smith River Environmental Assessment | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Purpose (Objectives) The BLM’s purpose in this analysis area is to apply vegetation management in both LSR and Outer Zone RR to address RMP objectives for these land use allocations.

LSR Apply vegetation management prescriptions to address the lack of structural characteristics needed for spotted owl and murrelet nesting habitat.

RR Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in the stream (ROD/RMP p. 71).

Decisions to be Made The BLM will decide whether to implement forest management in order to facilitate restoration activities as described, and if so, with what specific PDFs, and whether to implement related actions including sample tree falling, roadwork, tree tipping, activity fuels treatments, and planting of treated areas.

Conformance with Land Use Plan The BLM signed the Northwestern and Coastal Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP) on August 5, 2016. The West Fork Smith River project tiers to and is in conformance with the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) for for the Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon (USDI-BLM 2016a), with the ROD/RMP (USDI-BLM 2016b), and the Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg Districts (USDI-BLM 2004). The ROD/RMP addresses how the BLM will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in western Oregon including, but not limited to the: O&C Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act.

LSR and RR objectives are listed on pages 64 and 68 of the ROD/RMP, respectively.

Wildlife and forest management objectives are listed on pages 79 and 95 of the ROD/RMP, respectively.

Public Input and Issue Development The BLM initiated public scoping for this EA on November 15, 2016, through publication of the Coos Bay District Planning Update, a scoping notification on the BLM’s ePlanning NEPA Register, and direct notifications to the following public agencies and interested parties based on the Coos Bay District NEPA Mailing List (Appendix N).

The BLM sent scoping notices by email or U.S. Mail to adjacent landowners, agencies that have requested these documents, and other interested parties on the Coos Bay District NEPA mailing list. The formal scoping period was open from November 15, 2016 to December 15, 2016. During the scoping period, the BLM received two letters that contained comments or issues concerning the proposed West Fork Smith River project. All scoping comment letters and emails received can be found in the project file.

The BLM’s interdisciplinary team (IDT) reviewed the scoping responses and used the relevant comments in developing alternatives and project design features. The IDT reviewed comments, questions, and issues raised by individuals, organizations, and the BLM’s IDT. Some comments were not related to the

5 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

decision to be made, were procedural concerns, or were already decided by law, regulation, policy, or direction.

Issues Identified for Analysis

Fish Issue: How would RR thinning and ‘tree tipping’ affect current and future wood recruitment and fish habitat?

Forest Structure Issue: How would proposed treatments affect forest stand development?

Wildlife Issue 1: How would the proposed management activities affect the development of spotted owl nesting habitat within the action area?

Issue 2: How would the proposed management activities affect the development of murrelet nesting habitat within the action area?

Issue 3: How would the proposed management activities affect the ability of the spotted owl action area and known sites to support reproduction?

Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail The issues considered but not analyzed in detail are located in Appendix A. These include externally identified issues and issues identified by the IDT.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

This chapter includes a description and summary of the no action and action alternatives.

Aside from those activities that are common to both action alternatives, Alternative 1 includes thinning and group selection treatments, while Alternative 2 includes thinning without group selection treatments.

The IDT based all quantifications (e.g., acreages, mileages) on estimates obtained from geographical information systems (GIS). Harvest treatment volumes are estimates derived from LiDAR1 imagery and model projections. In implementing these plans in the field, final numbers and treatment volumes could vary slightly. The BLM would disclose the final treatment acreage and roadwork mileage in timber sale decisions.

No Action Alternative The no action alternative provides a baseline for the comparison of the action alternatives. Analysis of this alternative describes the environmental consequences of not implementing the proposed action. Selection of the no action alternative would not preclude future treatments in this area, at which time the BLM would conduct further NEPA analysis and documentation.

1 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is an optical remote sensing technique using laser pulses from a plane to calculate the position of an object (e.g., the ground, the top of a tree) by measuring the time delay between transmission of the pulse and detection of the reflected signal.

6 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

The BLM would not conduct the forest vegetation treatments described in this document within the project areas in the near future without additional NEPA review. The BLM would not treat the identified stands to promote the development of habitat for murrelet nesting, treat forest stands to speed or promote the development of NSO nesting-roosting habitat, or treat forest stands to improve the quality of NSO nesting-roosting habitat in the stand or the adjacent stand in the long term. Furthermore, the BLM would not treat the identified units to promote the development of NSO foraging habitat. LSR stands with less than 64 snags per acre >10 inches DBH and less than 19 snags per acre >20 inches DHB would not have five snags >10 inches DBH and five snags >20 inches DBH created per acre on average. The BLM would not create snags or cut or tip trees in any portion of the RR without additional NEPA analysis.

The BLM would not conduct vegetation management to accelerate the development of larger diameter trees for future stable wood delivery to adjacent streams. The BLM would not provide immediate wood delivery to streams through tree tipping.

The BLM would not construct, improve, renovate, or decommission roads in the area to facilitate habitat improvements.

The BLM would not offer conifer and hardwood trees for sale under commercial timber sales, and sample tree falling would not occur in these areas.

The BLM would not conduct activity fuels reduction treatments because the BLM would not create activity fuels.

The BLM expects that ongoing activities would continue to occur. These include silvicultural activities in other young stands, compliance with Oregon fire control regulations, and construction of roads across BLM-managed land under existing right-of-way agreements, routine road maintenance, control of invasive plants including noxious weeds and other projects covered by earlier decision records.

Common to All Action Alternatives The following actions would occur under both action alternatives: 1. Fuels reduction treatments (i.e., roadside pile burning, and slash, lop, and scatter) 2. Variable density and proportional thinning within LSR to promote vertical and horizontal canopy diversity 3. Variable density thinning within the RR 4. Retention of existing snags ≥ six inches DBH and down woody material ≥ six inches diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length (except for safety reasons) 5. Snag creation (five snags/acre >10 inches DBH and five snags/acre >20 inches DBH) 6. Sample tree falling 7. Roadwork 8. Reforestation

Silvicultural Treatments The BLM developed the proposed treatments to meet the purpose and need of the West Fork Smith River project. The BLM would conduct treatments in 40–60-year-old mid-seral stands including variable density thinning and proportional thinning within LSR, and variable density thinning within the Outer Zone of RR (Table 2-10).

Treatments would occur through timber sales and non-commercial treatments starting in fiscal year 2019. The BLM would divide treatments among 39 units and would implement treatments through multiple timber contracts over approximately four years (Table 2-11). The BLM would require that purchasers harvest timber within three years of the date that the authorized officer signs the contract.

7 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

LSR Prescription Within the LSR, the BLM would implement proportional thinning and variable density thinning. The BLM would use the ‘proportional thinning’ method to thin a range of height and diameter classes, where shade-tolerant trees or sufficient crown ratios are available, to increase crown class differentiation and accelerate the growth of small understory trees through increases in the availability of light, nutrients, and growing space (Appendix H Table H–1, Figure H–2). The BLM would use the ‘variable density thinning’ method to increase horizontal differentiation of the tree canopy in areas that only represent characteristics of a single canopy layer. Within thinned areas, the BLM would retain shade-tolerant conifer species and a range of tree size classes from the existing stand to encourage multi-storied stand structure. The BLM’s post-harvest density prescription, based on inventories and growth modeling, would target stocking levels below competition-induced mortality (self-thinning).

In LSR stands ≥10 acres, the BLM would conduct thinning to result in stand average relative densities (RD) between 20 and 45 percent after harvest, and would leave untreated skips on at least 10 percent of the stand area (ROD/RMP p. 66) through unit design and prescription. RD is a diameter-based measure used to express the average degree of crowding (competition) existing within a forest stand, commonly used as guides to thinning and stand density control (Curtis 2010). RD “expresses the actual density of trees in a stand relative to the theoretical maximum density (RD100) possible for trees that size” (Hayes et al. 1997). For Douglas-fir stands, relative densities above 55 represent conditions where competition induced mortality occurs, while growth per unit area increases at relative densities between 15 and 40 (Drew and Flewelling 1979). Existing stand conditions within proposed stands in the West Fork Smith River project generally range from 49 to 89 RD (Appendix H Table H–1). The prescription for thinning LSR in the project area would generally emphasize an RD target of 33 to arrive at the aforementioned stand average RD (20–45) after harvest (i.e., including features such as skips and gap openings).

Snags and Down Woody Material During silvicultural treatment of LSR stands, the BLM would retain existing snags ≥ six inches DBH and down woody material ≥ six inches in diameter at the large end and >20 feet in length (except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons). The BLM would retain snags ≥ six inches DBH cut for safety or operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down woody material (ROD/RMP pp. 65, 69).

In LSR stands with less than 64 snags per acre >10 inches DBH and less than 19 snags per acre >20 inches DBH on average across the harvest unit, the BLM would create five new snags >20 inches DBH and five new snags >10 inches DBH within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. The BLM would use trees from the largest size class available if an insufficient number of trees are available in the size class specified. The BLM would meet snag creation levels as an average at the scale of the harvest unit, and not necessarily attain snag creation levels on every acre (ROD/RMP pp. 66–67).

The BLM would: • Locate the required number of new snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual trees. • Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years (ROD/RMP p. 67). • Consider logging damage to intermediate support trees, tail hold trees, guyline trees, and rub trees a source for post-harvest mortality or created structural legacies such as snags2 and down woody material. • Count broken tops, slash pile scorch and wind damage towards snag recruitment.

2 The BLM defines snags as any standing dead, partially dead, or defective tree at least six feet tall (ROD/RMP p. 303)

8 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

The BLM would not create new snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that would remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that would remain open after harvesting activities are complete, the BLM would cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit (ROD/RMP p. 67).

RR Prescription Within the Outer Zone RR, the BLM would utilize variable density thinning (Appendix H Table H–2). The BLM would retain the dominant and larger co-dominant trees with the largest crowns and stem diameters, and increase horizontal canopy differentiation. Similar to the LSR, the BLM’s post-harvest RR density prescription, based on inventories and growth modeling, would target stocking levels below competition-induced mortality (self-thinning).

Snags When conducting commercial thinning in the RR, the BLM would create new five new snags >20 inches DBH and five new snags >10 inches DBH within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale (ROD/RMP pp. 67, 71). If trees are not available in the size class specified, the BLM would use trees from the largest size class available. The BLM would meet snag creation amounts as an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest within the RR, and not on every acre.

During implementation, the BLM would:  Locate the required number of new snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups and individual trees.  Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not presently anticipate skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years (ROD/RMP p. 71).

The BLM would not create new snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open after harvesting activities are complete, the BLM would cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit (ROD/RMP p. 71).

RR Tree Tipping Based on the proposal to thin stands within the Outer Zone of the RR, the BLM would tip trees within the RR (ROD/RMP p. 70). The BLM proposes to cut or tip trees from three to 13 square feet basal area (BA) per acre of live trees thinned in the Outer Zone RR, where feasible, adjacent to fish streams in select units where recent instream habitat improvement projects have not been implemented. The BLM proposal is to directionally fall trees into adjacent streams; however, the BLM could yard or deck trees and make them available for other instream restoration projects. Management direction for the RR also specifies that the cut or tipped trees (preferably conifers) would be of any size and come from any zone (ROD/RMP p. 70).

Yarding The BLM would conduct timber yarding using either a cable (skyline) system, ground-based equipment, or a combination of yarding systems (ROD/RMP pp. 291, 295). The BLM incorporated PDFs and BMPs for cable and ground-based logging into project design, and these are included in the General Harvest Operations PDFs (EA p. 15) and Appendix C (ROD/RMP pp. 158–161). The BLM determined the approximate locations for ground-based vs. cable yarding systems through LiDAR; see Appendix B (Map Set B–12 through Map Set B–22). The BLM may adjust final yarding system design (system, acres, locations) during timber sale finalization and would provide final yarding system information in the Exhibit A portion of a timber sale decision rationale. Ground-based yarding equipment is generally limited to slopes less than 35 percent; however, the BLM may make exceptions based on BMPs TH 13

9 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

and TH 14 (ROD/RMP p. 160). Contractors may also choose to cable yard areas identified as ground- based areas, as approved by the authorized officer, providing it does not conflict with objectives and design features.

Road Management As part of the proposed project, the BLM would construct new roads and would renovate or improve existing roads to access units proposed for treatment; these road activities would occur within the LSR and RR (Appendix B, Appendix D) and within adjacent private lands. Road management for the project consists of developing and maintaining a transportation system that serves resource management needs in an environmentally sound manner, as directed by the 2016 RMP/ROD (p. 81) and the Western Oregon Districts Transportation Management Plan (USDI-BLM 2010 Update). The old road network, often designed for downhill-yarding harvest systems, paralleled and crossed various stream networks to access harvest areas. The BLM intends to redesign the road network to lessen environmental effects by reducing proximity to streams, reducing sedimentation potential, and reducing overall ground disturbance. The BLM’s redesign of the road network would involve construction of new roads, road renovation and improvement of existing roads, and road maintenance necessary to facilitate harvest operations, as well as the decommissioning of identified roads following completion of individual sale operations. Roadwork would include replacement or installation of culverts and cross drains, and the felling of additional roadside trees to establish proper road clearance widths. Use of BLM-managed water sources may occur to facilitate road construction, improvement, renovation, maintenance, or decommissioning. Construction of additional short spur roads (0.01–0.25 mile) not identified in this EA may be necessary to facilitate harvest operations; however, modifications would not exceed the total number of road miles analyzed. These spur roads would generally be ridge top locations or relatively gentle side slopes and of the same standards to those being analyzed.

The BLM designed the new roads and the use of existing roads to allow harvest operations to occur at times of the year appropriate to minimize effects to marbled murrelet, and fish habitat while taking consideration existing road conditions, unit size, unit volume, and logging costs. In order to facilitate harvest operations to occur year-round in portions of units identified with seasonal restrictions, many roads would have a rocked or paved surface adequate to withstand winter operation. In other instances, the BLM would emphasize winter operation in areas that already have adequate all-weather haul routes.

Landing construction would mainly consist of creating wide spots to facilitate safe yarding and loading of logs. Cable and cut-to-length system ground-based landings are typically about 0.25-acre in size including the existing roadbed.

The BLM staff estimated proposed roadwork distances and locations in the EA and these values and locations are subject to change (±) during project layout, final field verification checks, and individual timber sale preparation. The BLM would disclose final field verified roadwork mileage and roadwork locations in timber sale decision documents and exhibit maps.

Approximately 35.5 miles of roadwork (new construction, improvement, and renovation) would be located behind privately controlled gates due to the checkerboard ownership in the project area (Appendix D). These gates would remain after the BLM concludes project activities and the Transportation Management Plan classifies this as ‘temporary closure’ (USDI-BLM 2010 Update).

The BLM would incorporate applicable BMPs from the 2016 ROD/RMP for road and landing construction (ROD/RMP Appendix C; EA Appendix C) to eliminate or minimize erosion and sediment transport into the channel network.

10 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

New Road Construction The BLM would apply appropriate PDFs, and NSO and murrelet timing restrictions to road construction activities, and the ROD/RMP BMPs would guide the type of road construction and road locations.

The BLM has summarized roadwork activities in Table 2-1. Alternatives 1 and 2 vary slightly because of the addition of short new spurs in EA Units 4, and 16 (Appendix D, Table D–1). The BLM proposes EA Road 4-1.0 (0.02 miles) under Alternative 2 to access thinning treatment areas on the north side of the road that are proposed as stand retention areas under Alternative 1 (Appendix B, Map Set B–1). The BLM added EA Road 16-4.0 (0.06 miles) under Alternative 2 to access a proposed thinning treatment area that under Alternative 1 is proposed as a stand retention area (Appendix B, Map Set B–4).

Table 2-1. Estimated roadwork summary under Alternatives 1 (Alt. 1) and 2 (Alt. 2) Alt. 1 Alt. 1 and Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 and Alt. 2 Adjacent Estimated Estimated Road Activity LSR LSR RR Private* Total Total (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) Ownership (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) New road construction (gravel) 6.56 6.64 0.01 0.52 7.09 7.17 New road construction (natural) 4.21 4.21 0.49 0.46 5.16 5.16 New swing† road (natural) 0.55 0.55 0.14 — 0.69 0.69 Road improvement (gravel) 3.59 3.66 0.06 0.37 4.02 4.09 Road renovation (gravel) 16.47 16.47 4.02 13.35 33.84 33.84 Road renovation (natural) 4.81 4.81 1.33 3.62 9.76 9.76 Total 36.20 36.36 6.04 18.32 60.56 60.71 * Roadwork would occur between the BLM and reciprocal right-of-way holders † A swing road is a temporary natural surface road intended to provide yarder and forwarding access (unsuitable for trucking).

Under the action alternatives, the BLM would construct approximately 13 miles of new natural or gravel surface roads to access treatment locations. As shown in Table 2-2, the length of new road construction proposed to conduct the various treatments does not substantively differ between action alternatives. This is because of the need to place landings, yarding equipment and cables, logging trucks, and operational and administrative personnel within reasonable operational proximity to the proposed treatment areas (e.g., mid-slopes and ridgetops), and the treatment boundaries and access routes do not substantively differ between action alternatives (see Appendix B alternative comparisons). Roads and landings would be designed and constructed to BLM standards, as follows. For this project, rocked roads would typically have a running surface of 16 feet, while natural-surfaced roads may have a running surface of 12 feet. Right-of-way clearing limits, including the roadbed, would usually be approximately 30 feet in width. Some instances would require wider clearing limits based upon side slope. Operators would have the option of rocking roads currently proposed as natural surface at their own expense, as approved by the authorized officer, providing it does not conflict with objectives and design features. Road surface shape (crowning, insloping, and outsloping) would be determined by planned use and resource protection needs. Under Alternative 1, the BLM would construct approximately 87.5 percent (11.3 miles) of new roads within the LSR, 7.6 percent (1 mile) on private, and 5 percent (0.6 miles) within the RR (Table 2-1 and Table 2-2). Under Alternative 2, the BLM would construct 87.6 percent (11.4 miles) of new roads within the LSR, 7.5 percent (1 mile) on private, and 4.9 percent (0.6 miles) within the RR (Table 2-2).

11 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 2-2. New road construction by land use allocation or other ownership Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 1 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 2 Alt. 2 New Road Private Private LSR RR Total LSR RR Total Type Ownership Ownership (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) Natural 4.21 0.49 0.46 5.16 4.21 0.49 0.46 5.16 Gravel 6.56 0.01 0.53 7.09 6.64 0.01 0.52 7.17 Swing 0.55 0.14 — 0.69 0.55 0.14 — 0.69 Total 11.32 0.64 0.98 12.94 11.40 0.64 0.98 13.02 Percentage 87.48 4.95 7.58 — 87.56 5.07 7.37 — Note: Numbers are approximations and some rounding errors may be present. Numbers are subject to change during project finalization.

The BLM proposes to construct approximately three new natural-surface road segments with stream crossings, and fully decommission these roads upon project completion. The BLM proposes two perennial stream crossings in EA Unit 37 (37-1.0) and one intermittent stream crossing in EA Unit 2 (2- 2.0) (Appendix B Map Set B–1 and B–11). The BLM may change (±) the number of stream crossings during timber sale layout based on the finalization of timber sale road layout; however, the BLM would disclose these changes within timber sale decision rationales.

Road Renovation The BLM would renovate approximately 43.6 miles of road, 33.84 miles of gravel road and 9.76 miles of natural surface road regardless of action alternative (Table 2-1; Appendix D Table D–1). Road renovation would involve restoring or bringing an existing road back up to the original design standard (ROD/RMP p. 301), and would occur over approximately 5–10 separate timber sale contracts. During road renovation, the BLM would fell trees within the right-of-way to reestablish safe road widths and clearing distances. For a natural-surface road, work includes clearing brush, cleaning or replacing ditch relief/stream crossing culverts, restoring proper road surface drainage, grading or other maintenance. For a gravel road, it typically includes adding gravel so the road is adequate for winter operations. The BLM would apply drainage and erosion control practices to renovated roads in the same manner as newly constructed roads and install drainage features upslope of each stream crossing to route most of the ditch flow away from streams. The BLM may install other stream culverts or cross drains in areas with deficient drainage during road renovation or maintenance. When replacing stream culverts, the BLM would follow the ODFW instream work timing guidelines, and divert stream flow around the work area, contain sediment with appropriate filters or barriers, and pump turbid water from the excavation site on a vegetated terrace or hillslope, where necessary. Depending on gradient and other site conditions, the BLM would generally install cross drains 50–100 feet upslope from the drainage feature outlet to the channel (Appendix D Table D–3).

Road Improvement The BLM would improve approximately 4.02 or 4.09 miles of road under Alternatives 1 or 2, respectively (Table 2-1; Appendix D Table D–1). EA Road 6-4.0 is an existing natural-surface road near a proposed stand retention area under Alternative 1 that under Alternative 2 is proposed for improvement (0.07 miles) to an aggregate surface for a thinning treatment (Appendix B, Map Set B–2). The difference in road improvement activities between the two action alternatives is negligible (0.5 percent). Road improvement for this project consists of increasing the existing road standard to a higher design standard by surfacing existing natural roads. Similar to renovation, road improvement would include clearing brush, removing trees within the road clearing limits, cleaning or replacing ditch relief/stream crossing culverts, restoring proper road surface drainage, grading or other maintenance. Gravel-surfaced roads would allow cable harvesting and hauling during the winter season and allow work outside of spotted owl and murrelet seasonally restricted periods.

12 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Road Maintenance The BLM would conduct road maintenance, which may include, but would not be limited to, installing water bars, sediment control mats or devices, removing ruts, mulching, and barricades. Drainage and erosion control measures may include, but are not limited to, dry season grading to remove ruts, removal of bank slough, adding gravel lifts where needed, ditch-relief culvert replacements, appropriate end-haul and disposal areas and proper dispersal of water from ditch-relief culverts. Road maintenance activities may include installation of water bars or dips to route surface runoff to vegetated areas, depending on site-specific conditions (Appendix D Table D–4). Activities would not disturb existing drainage ditches that are functioning and have a protective layer of non-woody vegetation. The BLM would conduct road maintenance during drier periods in all seasons to keep gravel roads up to transportation plan use standards (USDI-BLM 2010 Update) during haul.

Haul Route The BLM’s road network, portions of which are asphalt, would provide timber haul access to county and State road systems. Timber contractors would have options to access the project area from all four cardinal directions; however, the BLM expects that haul would likely occur to the north to State Route 126 and to the east to Upper Siuslaw Road. The BLM estimates that haul routes would include approximately 54.07 miles of all season/BLM-managed paved roads under both action alternatives.

Haul Route Maintenance Maintenance of haul roads would occur under both alternatives and consists of, but not be limited to, brushing (to control vegetation), cleaning of drainage ditches, maintaining road surfaces (e.g., grading), and removal of road debris creating safety hazards (e.g., slough material, fallen trees).

Road Decommissioning The BLM would decommission approximately 10.69 miles of roads, and fully decommission approximately 0.66 miles of roads under both action alternatives (Table 2-3).

Table 2-3. Estimated road decommissioning under Alternatives 1 (Alt. 1) and 2 (Alt. 2) Alt. 1 and 2 Alt. 1 and 2 Alt. 1 and 2 Alt. 1 and 2 Adjacent Private* Estimated Road Activity LSR RR Ownership Total (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) Decommissioning—All surfaces 8.35 1.03 1.31 10.69 New decommissioning (gravel) 0.48 — — 0.48 New decommissioning (natural) 3.67 0.20 0.46 4.33 New decommissioning (swing) 0.55 0.14 — 0.69 Improvement decommissioning 0.33 — — 0.33 Renovation decommissioning 3.32 0.69 0.86 4.87 Full decommissioning—All surfaces 0.37 0.29 — 0.66 New full decommissioning (natural) 0.37 0.29 — 0.66 Total 8.72 1.32 1.31 11.35 * Roadwork would occur between the BLM and reciprocal right-of-way holders

Decommissioning would mean closing the roads to vehicles on a long-term basis (generally >5 years), but may be used again in the future. Prior to closure, the BLM would leave the road in an erosion-resistant condition by establishing cross drains, installing water bars or dips to route surface runoff to vegetated areas, eliminating diversion potential at stream channels, and stabilizing or removing fills on unstable areas, depending on site-specific conditions. The BLM would treat exposed soils with soil-stabilization

13 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

techniques such as seeding, mulching, and fertilizing to reduce sediment delivery to streams. The BLM would close these roads with an earthen barrier or its equivalent. Decommissioning can include roads that have been or would be closed due to a natural process (abandonment) and may be opened and maintained for future use. However, for future administrative use, the BLM may open and maintain these roads. The IDT has determined that there are future administrative uses for these roads (ROD/RMP pp. 301–302).

Fully decommissioning would mean permanent closure for roads determined to have no future need. The BLM may conduct subsoiling (tilling), seeding, mulching, and planting to reestablish vegetation. Cross drains, fills in stream channels, and unstable areas would be removed, if necessary, to restore natural hydrologic flow. The BLM would close these roads with an earthen barrier or its equivalent. These roads would not require future maintenance. Fully decommissioned roads can include roads closed due to a natural process (abandonment) and where hydrologic flow has been naturally restored (ROD/RMP pp. 301–302).

Fuels Reduction Treatments The BLM proposes to use a combination of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in order to reduce hazardous fuel loadings at landings and roadsides. Hazard reduction treatments would include slash, lop and scatter, hand or machine pile, cover and burn, or swamper burning. Prescribed fire treatments would include pile burning during the late fall/early winter months after wetting rains have occurred. BLM fuels specialists could choose to use more than one type of fuels treatment in one unit. Prescribed fire treatments within units would be either hand-piled or machine-piled, and burned as necessary. Mechanical treatments could include lop and scatter and cutting and piling, with or without subsequent burning. The BLM would comply with the Oregon Smoke Management Rules (2014 OAR 629-048- 0001–629-040-0500) for all prescribed burning of piled fuels. A BLM fuels management specialist would prepare a prescribed fuels management plan. The BLM authorized officer/field manager would approve the plan prior to any prescribed fuels management activities.

Sample Tree Falling The BLM would derive harvest volumes for treatments from cruising methods that would employ sample tree falling techniques.

The BLM would conduct sample tree falling in preparation of timber sale contracts to improve the accuracy of the final cruise volume. Sample tree selection would come from trees marked for removal. Appendix I contains more information about sample tree falling. PDFs for sample tree falling are located on EA page 17. Sample trees would remain on-site if a timber sale does not occur. The BLM would provide contract administration throughout the sample tree falling process.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) The ROD/RMP contains measures in both Management Direction and BMPs designed to prevent and reduce the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (ROD/RMP p. 139). The IDT incorporated an abbreviated list of BMPs (from Appendix C in the 2016 ROD/RMP) into the West Fork Smith River project for roads and landings (pp. 143–158), timber harvest activities (pp. 158–161), silvicultural activities (p. 162), and fire and fuels management (pp. 162– 167) to comply with the Clean Water Act. For timber sales associated with the West Fork Smith River project, the decision maker would select and apply BMPs based on site-specific conditions, technical feasibility, resource availability, water quality of those waterbodies potentially affected, and input from BLM staff (ROD/RMP p. 141).

The IDT also developed and incorporated PDFs to avoid, minimize or rectify effects on resources, and these are included as part of the proposed action. BMPs (Appendix C Table C–1) and PDFs are site-

14 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

specific measures, restrictions, requirements, or mitigations included in the design of a project in order to reduce adverse environmental consequences.

PDFs

Cultural Resources 1. If any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) is discovered during project activities, all operations in the immediate area of such discovery would be suspended, the area of concern flagged for avoidance with a buffer, followed by notification of the authorized officer and archaeologist. The BLM may redesign the project to protect the cultural and/or paleontological resource values present. Operations in the immediate area would remain suspended until evaluation of the area is completed and written authorization to proceed issued by the authorized officer.

Fuels Treatments 2. Pull slash within reach of equipment back to landings to aid in post-harvest activity fuels treatments prior to removal of equipment from the site. Material would be re-piled and placed on top of the existing landing, if not otherwise utilized (for biomass or firewood). 3. Locate all machine and hand piles a sufficient distance (minimum of 15 feet) from any leave trees, snags, or suitable coarse woody debris to limit scorch potential, except for trees identified for snag creation. 4. Pile heavy concentrations of roadside slash adjacent to roads and on landings for post-harvest activity fuels treatments. Scatter slash beyond 20 feet of the road edges in roadside locations where opportunities to pile slash are limited, and avoid large, continuous concentrations of slash. 5. Segregate logging residue that is suitable for fuelwood use from burn piles on roadsides, to the extent feasible, and make available to the public through established procedures to reduce smoke emissions. 6. Avoid placement of soil, rock, and rootwads in slash piles to promote cleaner combustion. 7. Cover slash piles with four mil black polyethylene plastic sheeting for cleaner combustion. 8. Slash existing undesired vegetation (brush, non-commercial hardwoods, prostrate and damaged conifers) during or after harvest in hand-piled areas to reduce ladder fuels. 9. Hand-pile logging debris and other slashed vegetation between ½–4 inches in diameter to reduce surface fuel loads. 10. Protect coarse woody debris and live trees by using lighting techniques and patterns that would reduce extreme heat near these key features. In some areas, pull logging debris away from these features and construct a fire trail around the feature(s). 11. Burn covered piles in the late fall/early winter months after wetting rains have occurred to reduce wildland fire risk.

General Harvest Operations 12. Areas with road access, but otherwise unsuitable for ground-based systems, would be harvested with a skyline cable logging system to minimize soil disturbance. In cable yarding areas, a skyline cable system with 75-foot lateral yarding capability and ability to obtain one-end log suspension would be required to minimize soil disturbance and the number of corridors. 13. Trees in skyline cable yarding corridors would be cut to facilitate yarding operations and minimize stand damage. Skyline corridors would be kept to the minimum width necessary to facilitate the removal of cut trees. Generally, corridor width would be no wider than 12 feet. The location, number, and width of cable yarding corridors would be specified prior to yarding, with natural openings used as much as possible. 14. Where feasible, the distance between skyline corridors would be required to be at least 150 feet apart at the far unit edge opposite from the landing.

15 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

15. Where skyline corridors cross a stream, the corridors would be kept as perpendicular to the stream as possible to minimize potential ground disturbance. 16. Within safety standards, trees would be directionally felled to the lead of cable yarding corridors (BMP TH 02). 17. Within yarding corridors in the Riparian Reserve Inner or Middle Zones, directionally fall trees toward the stream channel to the extent feasible. 18. Trees in the thinning units would be cut into log lengths not exceeding 40 feet prior to yarding to minimize stand damage. 19. Lift trees and/or intermediate supports may be required to attain desired log suspension. Lift trees and intermediate supports would be left on site to provide snag recruits for potential habitat. 20. Full log suspension would be required over perennial streams and would typically be achieved over intermittent streams because of the steep terrain. Cover bare mineral soil exposed by skidding logs with slash within 50 feet of any channel to trap sediment and prevent erosion. 21. Ground-based operations would occur only when soil moistures are below 25 percent, outlined in Table 2-4 with consideration of compaction resistance and equipment operability. A maximum operational allowable moisture content would be 25 percent as measured by the authorized officer using a ‘Speedy’ moisture meter or an equivalent method. Soil moisture above 25 percent would require the discontinuation of ground-based operations in order to prevent excessive compaction to the soils and/or disruption of the soil column.

Table 2-4. Seasonal restriction months and dates for road construction, timber harvest, and associated activities Reason for Activity Restricted Dates Restriction Construction of new roads In-water work period, Sep 16–Jun 30 with stream crossings erosion, sedimentation Construction of new roads Generally rainy season October 16–May 31 (without stream crossings); unless dry conditions exist that may extend Erosion, sedimentation renovation and improvement those dates as approved by the authorized of existing roads officer Conventional tree falling Tree bark damage Apr 1–Jun 30 Tree bark damage Apr 1–Jun 30 Potential soil Ground-based yarding compaction When soil moisture exceeds 25 percent in rainy season Cable yarding Tree bark damage Apr 1–Jun 30 Generally rainy season October 16–May 31, Hauling on natural-surface Potential road surface unless dry conditions extend the hauling roads damage in rainy season season Note: The BLM may alter the operating season for individual actions if authorized during extended dry periods.

22. Ground-based operations would require placement of slash under the operating equipment so as not to expose mineral soil, when feasible. Repeated passes over lateral trails would be kept at a minimum. Existing compacted skid roads would be used to the extent practical. 23. Ground-based harvest would generally be restricted to slopes less than 35 percent. Ground-based harvest equipment would not be permitted to travel through or within stream channels. 24. A crawler tractor/skidder may be used in conjunction with road construction operations in areas greater than 35 percent slope to skid logs within the road construction right-of-way. 25. Falling and yarding of trees may be restricted by the authorized officer from April 1 through June 30 to minimize bark damage during periods of high sap flow.

16 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

26. Within safety standards and to the extent possible, harvest trees would be directionally felled away from all posted boundaries, property lines, mainline roads or roads not planned for closure or decommissioning, orange painted reserve trees, no-thin riparian buffers, existing snags, and botany buffers. 27. Seasonal timing restrictions would be implemented to minimize erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction, and damage to residual trees (Table 2-4).

Haul 28. The BLM contract administrator would monitor road conditions during winter use to prevent rutting of the rock surface and delivery of fine sediment to stream networks. 29. Hauling on natural-surfaced roads would be permitted between June 1 and October 15 unless dry conditions extend the hauling season.

Invasive Plants, Including Noxious Weeds 30. Inspect and clean all vehicles and equipment of mud, soil, plant materials, excess oil or grease that may contain weed seed before entering BLM lands. Vehicles that stay entirely on existing road surfaces may be exempted from this cleaning requirement. 31. Minimize all motorized travel through vegetation, especially where invasive plants are known, and avoid driving through or parking in vegetation, where feasible. 32. Minimize soil disturbance and retain native vegetation in and around project activity areas to the extent practicable. 33. Seed bare soil with BLM-approved weed-free seed and mulch following soil disturbance. At its discretion, the BLM may supply approved seed. 34. Use weed-free materials, such as gravel, borrow, and fill material within project areas and access roads to prevent the introduction and spread of weeds. Use materials from sources with the highest weed-free material accreditation available.

Reforestation 35. Apply mesh tubing to tree seedlings, if needed, for animal protection. 36. Conduct appropriate post-harvest manual vegetation maintenance to control competing vegetation and conduct surveys to identify additional maintenance needs. 37. If abundant natural regeneration augments planting, conduct vegetation treatments to maintain 200 trees per acre (or a relative density less than 0.15) for 15–20 years following treatment.

Road Construction, Renovation, and Improvement 38. Limit road construction, improvement, or renovation of structures and roads, including landings to the dry season (June 1 through October 15) unless dry conditions exist that extend those dates as approved by the authorized officer. 39. Design and construct roads and landings to BLM standards. Rocked roads would typically have a 16- foot-wide running surface, while natural-surfaced roads may have a 12-foot-wide running surface. 40. Design or reestablish right-of-way clearing limits (including the roadbed) to approximately 30 feet in width. 41. As much as possible, locate roads in stable locations, such as ridge tops, stable benches or flats, and gentle-to-moderate side slopes. 42. Contractors or operators would have the option of rocking roads currently proposed as natural-surface roads at their own expense providing it does not conflict with other objectives and design features. 43. Design road drainage to minimize soil erosion and stream sedimentation and use energy dissipaters, culvert down pipes, or drainage dips where water discharges onto loose material and onto erodible or steep slopes. 44. Determine road surface shape (crowning, insloping, outsloping) based on planned use and resource protection needs.

17 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

45. Seed and mulch bare soil areas created from landing and road construction with appropriate weed- free straw (or equivalent) and a native or BLM-approved seed mix. 46. Apply drainage and erosion control practices to renovated roads in the same manner as newly constructed roads (ROD/RMP BMPs R 62, R 69–R 79). These may include, but are not limited to dry season grading and ditch-relief culvert replacements, appropriate end haul and disposal areas and proper dispersal of water from ditch-relief culverts. 47. Plan road renovation and improvement activities to minimize soil erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation (ROD/RMP BMPs R 30–R 32), including, but not limited to, grading to remove ruts, removal of bank slough, and adding gravel lifts where needed in the road surface. Do not disturb existing drainage ditches that are functioning and have a protective layer of non-woody vegetation. 48. Conduct seasonal preventative maintenance including, but not limited to, installing water bars, sediment control mats or devices, removing ruts, mulching, and barricades. Activities may include installation of water bars/dips to route surface runoff to vegetated areas, depending on site-specific conditions. Use Table 2-5 as a guide for road drainage spacing.

Table 2-5. Guide for drainage* spacing† for road grade and surface type (based on ROD/RMP Table C-6) Gravel or Paved Gradients Natural Road Surface Road Surface (Percent) (Feet) (Feet) 2–5 200 400 6–10 150 300 11–15 100 200 16–20 75 150 * Drainage features may include waterbars, ditch-outs, or water dips. † Spacing generally by slope distance and the maximum allowed for the grade.

49. In areas with deficient drainage during road renovation or maintenance, install other stream culverts or cross drains. Use Table 2-6 as a general guide for road drainage spacing (ROD/RMP BMP R 40). Install a road drainage feature upslope of each stream crossing in order to route most of the ditch flow away from the stream and onto forest soils where it can re-infiltrate (depending on slope and other site conditions this distance would generally be 50–100 feet from the drainage feature outlet to the channel (ROD/RMP BMP R 42).

Table 2-6. Recommended guide for cross-drain culvert spacing by road grade and surface erosion class (index) Road High (30–40) Moderate (50–60) Low (70) Gradients Erosion Class Index Erosion Class Index Erosion Class Index (Percent) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 2–5 640–725 810–865 1000 6–10 320–605 405–720 500–835 11–15 215–330 270–395 335–455 16+ 200–225 255–280 310 Note 1: Erosion index based upon rainfall intensities of 1–2 inches per hour. Note 2: Reference BLM H-9113-1 (USDI-BLM 2011) for higher intensities and higher soil type specific range.

50. When replacing stream culverts, follow ODFW instream timing guidelines (July 1–September 15), divert stream flow around the work area, contain sediment using appropriate filters or barriers, and pump turbid water from the excavation site onto a vegetated terrace or hillslope.

18 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

51. Locate stable end-haul (waste) sites prior to end hauling. These sites would be kept properly shaped, drained, and vegetated. 52. Locate waste disposal areas outside of wetlands, floodplains, and unstable areas to minimize risk of sediment delivery to waters of the State. If located within the Riparian Reserve, ensure sediment would not be delivered to waters of the State. Apply surface erosion control prior to the wet season. Prevent overloading areas, which may become unstable. 53. Move excess or excavated overburden from road activities or culvert replacements to a stockpiling area. Install suitable erosion control measures (e.g., tarps, silt fences, or weed-free hay bales) to ensure stockpiled material would not erode into streams or wetlands in the event of precipitation. 54. Install sediment filters in selected ditch lines, as identified by BLM staff, to prevent sediment from entering stream channels via road ditches. Ensure sediment filters receive frequent maintenance. Remove sediment filters at the completion of haul and dispose of sediment retained by filters in areas where it would not be delivered to stream channels.

Road Decommissioning 55. Use soil stabilization techniques, such as seeding, mulching, and fertilizing exposed soils, when decommissioning roads. If needed, install water bars or dips to route surface runoff to vegetated areas based on site-specific conditions. 56. Close decommissioned roads by installing barriers, including but not limited to, tank traps and boulders to prevent vehicular traffic.

Sample Tree Falling 57. Timber cruising would employ methods that would include the felling of sample trees to formulate local volume tables. Felled sample trees would be a subset of those already designated for removal. 58. Selected sample trees would be limited to no more than one tree per 2.5 acres. 59. In RR, sample tree selection would not include those larger than 24 inches diameter at breast height. 60. Sample tree felling would not occur within ½-site-potential tree height of stream channels. 61. Sample tree felling would avoid existing snags. 62. All seasonal and daily timing restrictions for threatened and endangered species would apply to sample tree falling, where necessary. 63. Sampled trees would remain on site to provide down woody material if no timber sale occurs.

Special Status Species—T&E3 and Bureau Sensitive 64. Avoid harvest operations within nest patches of known spotted owl sites. 65. Complete spot checks (USDI-FWS 2012a) within 0.25 mile of all proposed actions in 2019 and 2020. Seasonal restrictions would not be required for harvest or road construction activities above ambient. a. Should spotted owl detection occur during spot checks, all efforts would be made to identify the nesting status of the owl. Activities within the disruption distance of the owl would be reviewed and should the detections indicate occupancy, Seasonal Restrictions would be implemented per Table 2-7. b. If no spotted owls are detected during spot checks, Seasonal Restriction s would continue to be waived within the project area (USDI-FWS 2012 revision).

3 T&E – Federal threatened and endangered species

19 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 2-7. Disruption distances and Seasonal Restrictions for northern spotted owl (NSO) during the critical and late breeding seasons based on activity type Disruption Distance Disruption Distance Activity That Creates Noise Above During the NSO During the NSO Ambient Levels or Source of Critical Breeding Period Late Breeding Period Disturbance/Disruption* (Restsrictions: Mar 1–Jul 7) (Restrictions: Jul 8–Sep 30) Timber haul and renovation of open — — roads† (No Restrictions) (No Restrictions) Renovation and new construction on 65 yards — closed roads‡ (Seasonal Restrictions§) (No Restrictions) Chainsaw and heavy equipment operation for large culvert 65 yards — replacements, yarding, mechanical (Seasonal Restrictions§) (No Restrictions) harvest, etc. 0.25 miles 100 yards Blasting (Seasonal Restrictions§) (Seasonal Restrictions§) 0.25 miles — Pile burning (Seasonal Restrictions§) (No Restrictions) * The BLM biologist may evaluate individual disturbance effects and waive Seasonal Restrictions for activities if they are determined to be short duration or the activity is separated from the habitat by topographic features. † Open roads, for the purposes of determining disturbance effects, are roads not officially closed with the use of a tank trap, rock pile, or other permanent barrier and are passable with the use of a 4×4 vehicle. ‡ Closed roads, for the purposes of determining disturbance effects, are roads officially closed with the use of a tank trap, rock pile, or other permanent barrier, or due to the overgrowth of vegetation to the point where the road is no longer passable. § Seasonal Restrictions mean that project activities that create noise above ambient levels are prohibited within the disruption distance during the specified period of the breeding season.

66. Avoid directly modifying marbled murrelet nesting habitat or removing nesting structure by retaining trees with murrelet nesting structure and all surrounding trees with interlocking branches. Should the project require the removal of a potential nest platform or adjacent trees with interlocking branches, the murrelet habitat would be surveyed per an established survey protocol (Evans Mack et al. 2003). 67. Avoid disrupting nesting marbled murrelets by: a. Applying Seasonal Restrictions: All harvest and road management activities described in Table 2-8 would be seasonally restricted within 110 yards of potential murrelet nesting structure from April 1 to August 5. b. Applying Daily Timing Restrictions: All harvest and road management activities described in i. Table 2-8 would be subject to Daily Timing Restrictions (DTRs) within 110 yards of potential murrelet nesting structure from August 6 to September 15. During DTRs activities described in ii. Table 2-8 may occur during the daytime, two hours after sunrise until two hours before sunset iii. Exceptions: Seasonal restriction are not required for actions above ambient within 110 yards of the WFS-11A survey site, as full protocol surveys indicate the stand is likely unoccupied.

20 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 2-8. Disruption distances and Seasonal and Daily Timing Restrictions for marbled murrelet during the critical and late breeding seasons based on activity type Disruption Distance† Disruption Distance† Activities that Create Noise Above During the During the Ambient Levels or Sources of Marbled Murrelet Marbled Murrelet Disturbance/Disruption* Critical Breeding Period Late Breeding Period (Restrictions: Apr 1–Aug 5) (Restrictions: Aug 6–Sep 15) Timber haul and renovation of open — — roads‡ (No Restrictions) (No Restrictions) Renovation and new construction 110 yards 110 yards on closed roads§ (Seasonal Restrictions‖) (Daily Timing Restrictions¶) Chainsaw and heavy equipment operation for large culvert 110 yards 110 yards replacements, yarding, mechanical (Seasonal Restrictions‖) (Daily Timing Restrictions¶) harvest, etc. 0.25 miles 0.25 miles Blasting (Seasonal Restrictions‖) (Seasonal Restrictions‖) 0.25 miles 0.25 miles Pile burning (Seasonal Restrictions‖) (Daily Timing Restrictions¶) * The BLM biologist may evaluate individual disturbance effects and waive Seasonal Restrictions for activities if they are determined to be short duration or the activity is separated from the habitat by topographic features. † Distances are measured from the closest suitable murrelet-nesting platform. ‡ Open roads, for the purposes of determining disturbance effects, are roads not officially closed with the use of a tank trap, rock pile, or other permanent barrier and are passable with the use of a 4×4 vehicle. § Closed roads, for the purposes of determining disturbance effects, are roads officially closed with the use of a tank trap, rock pile, or other permanent barrier, or due to the overgrowth of vegetation to the point where the road is no longer passable. ‖ Seasonal Restrictions mean that project activities that create noise above ambient levels are prohibited within the disruption distance during the specified period of the breeding season. ¶ Daily Timing Restrictions limit activities that create noise above ambient levels to two hours after sunrise until two hours before sunset.

68. Secure or remove food, food trash, and garbage generated by workers in project areas to minimize attraction of predators, specifically corvids. 69. Tailhold use in murrelet occupied sites: a. Any use of tailhold, Guyline or lift trees within a murrelet occupied site would not occur during the critical breeding period of April 1 to August 5, and would be limited to two hours after sunrise through two hours before sunset during the late breeding period of August 6 to September 15. b. Selection of tailhold trees would be subject to the following specifications: i. Select the smallest acceptable trees, ii. As operationally feasible, avoid trees that: 1. Have a DBH > 34 inches, 2. Have visible nests, or nesting structure (e.g., platforms), and 3. Are the only large conifer present in a visible area. c. If tailhold tree would remain standing, prevent damage by using appropriate protection (i.e., tree plates, tires, nylon straps) where possible to avoid girdling of the tree. Girdling or notching should not exceed 60 percent of the trees circumference. 70. If a Special Status Species is found after the contract has been awarded, the contractor would be required to follow management guidelines to protect the species. These species include threatened and endangered species, active raptor nests, federally proposed and candidate species, and Bureau Sensitive or state-listed species protected under BLM Manual 6840.

21 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

71. Special Status botany species found during pre-disturbance surveys in thinning and group selection units would be buffered, if necessary, using no-treatment zones to protect the microsites so the species persist at the site.

Proposed Action Alternatives The BLM provides a comparison of the forest management treatments, roadwork, and yarding systems between the two action alternatives in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9. Comparison of proposed treatments between Alternatives 1 and 2 Approximate Difference Proposed Actions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Between Alternatives Commercial thinning in LSR 1,583.9 acres 1,822.1 acres 238.2 acres Group selection in LSR 299.6 acres 0 acres 299.6 acres (openings ≤ 2.5–4 Acres) Commercial thinning in Outer 562.8 acres 170.9 acres 391.9 acres Zone RR (Class I subwatersheds) Tree tipping in RR 35.7 acres 8.3 acres 27.4 acres New gravel roads in LSR 6.56 miles 6.64 miles 0.08 miles New natural-surface roads in LSR 4.76 miles* 4.76 miles* — New gravel roads in RR 0.01 miles 0.01 miles — New natural-surface roads in RR 0.63 miles 0.63 miles — New gravel roads on private 0.53 miles 0.53 miles — New natural-surface roads on 0.46 miles 0.46 miles — private Road renovation 43.59 miles 43.59 miles — Road improvement 4.02 miles 4.09 miles 0.07 miles Road decommissioning or full 11.36 miles 11.36 miles — decommissioning Ground-based yarding 269.1 acres 238.4 acres 30.7 acres 1,754.7 acres 2,177.2 acres (Tailholds—but no Cable yarding (Tailholds and yarding 422.5 acres tree yarding—over fish- activities over streams) bearing streams) * Includes swing roads

Alternative 1 (Thinning and Group Selection in LSR, Thinning in Outer Zone RR, Yarding over Streams) The IDT developed Alternative 1 to meet restoration objectives for spotted owl and murrelet habitat development within the LSR, and meet management objectives within the Outer Zone RR to promote development of trees that would function as stable wood in both fish- and non-fish-bearing streams. Alternative 1 would cable-yard cut trees over treatment unit streams, both fish-bearing and non-fish- bearing.

Silvicultural Treatments Under Alternative 1, the BLM would treat approximately 2,446 acres, including 1,584 acres of thinning and 300 acres of group selection harvest within LSR, and 563 acres of thinning within RR (Table 2-10, Table 2-11, Table 2-12). The total proposed treatment acreages and basic silvicultural prescription (as a

22 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

basal area) for thinning, group selection harvest, and stand retention are shown in Table 2-11. Linked to this portion of the action, the BLM would fell trees within designated areas (see RR Tree Tipping below) to provide trees that would function as stable wood in the stream (ROD/RMP pp. 70–71). Unit acreages may change (±) as the BLM finalizes projects on the ground; however, the variability of these estimates in included in the effects analysis in this EA.

Table 2-10. Estimated total acreage comparison between Alternatives 1 and 2 based on treatment type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Land Use Allocation Treatment Type (Acres) (Acres) LSR Commercial thinning 1,583.9 1,822.1 LSR Group selection harvest 299.6 0 Outer Zone RR* Commercial thinning 562.8 170.9 Total 2,446.3 1,993.0 * The total Outer Zone RR area within proposed EA units is 716.3 acres.

The IDT has not developed specific timber sales for the EA; however, the BLM has described treatment areas in logical groupings. Approximate treatment acreages for thinning, group selection, and tree tipping are available in Table 2-11. Under Alternative 1, the BLM proposes group selection harvest treatments in 35 of the 39 EA units (Table 2-11 and Table 2-12).

23 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 2-11. Approximate treatments and prescriptions under Alternatives 1 and 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 1 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 and Alt. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Outer RR Tree RR Tree Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 2 Outer Outer Outer Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Unit Unit Stand Stand EA Total Total LSR LSR Zone Tipping Tipping Unit Unit LSR LSR LSR Zone Zone Zone Stand† Stand† Average* Average* Average Average Unit Stand Stand Group Group RR BA Acres Acres Average* Average* Thinning Thinning BA RR RR RR BA Retention Retention Canopy Canopy Canopy Canopy No. Area Area Selection Selection Target (Ft2 BA (Ft2 BA Relative Relative (Acres) (Acres) Target Thinning Thinning (Ft2 per (Percent) (Percent) Cover Cover Cover Cover (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Ft2 per per per Density Density (Ft2 per (Acres) (Acres) Acre) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Acre) Acre) Acre) Acre) 1 43.1 43.1 29.5 30.7 — — 134 3.1 — 150 — — — 38 40 24 29 61 62 63 64 2 115.3 115.3 56.5 64.8 8.0 — 124 14.2 — 134 — — — 33 42 32 44 55 64 62 68 3 46.8 46.8 24.2 28.2 4.0 — 120 3.3 — 140 — — — 37 43 33 40 62 70 66 72 4 148.1 134.0 50.5 54.3 9.5 — 124 25.0 — 134 — 7.6 (15) — 34 47 43 59 55 66 65 72 5 170.3 168.0 70.7 82.6 11.9 — 120 21.5 12.8 142 142 3.3 (15) 3.2 (15) 34 40 39 43 54 62 63 68 6 207.4 203.4 97.6 110.6 11.9 — 130 30.3 21.1 140 140 5.6 (15) 2.8 (15) 35 40 33 35 54 58 60 63 7 75.0 52.9 15.1 15.5 11.0 — 124 12.2 — 134 — 6.9 (15) — 32 48 49 71 48 66 61 75 8 99.5 95.6 39.6 43.6 8.0 — 120 14.5 6.1 142 142 — — 37 47 38 48 65 76 72 80 9 151.8 146.4 55.4 63.1 7.9 — 125 26.7 13.2 150 150 — — 36 42 41 48 60 66 66 70 10 88.6 87.7 28.8 32.3 4.0 — 124 8.0 — 142 — — — 39 48 54 63 63 71 71 75 11 86.9 86.9 44.1 52.1 8.0 — 130 9.4 — 150 — — — 35 43 29 40 53 62 57 64 12 51.5 21.2 6.9 3.2 6.5 — 134 4.4 — 150 — — — 52 56 65 85 56 65 62 73 13 80.3 80.3 29.7 33.7 4.0 — 120 10.6 — 130 — — — 38 50 45 58 59 68 66 73 14 151.2 151.2 61.4 64.1 7.5 — 124 25.3 6.5 134 134 5.8 (15) 0.2 (15) 36 49 38 53 59 69 66 73 15 95.9 95.9 50.2 58.2 8.0 — 124 11.2 — 140 — — — 35 46 28 39 57 68 63 71 16 57.0 57.0 26.2 27.7 — — 130 8.7 4.9 124 124 2.0 (15) 0.8 (15) 37 40 39 43 56 57 62 63 17 155.8 155.8 66.4 79.8 15.8 — 124 21.4 5.2 134 134 2.1 (15) 0.3 (15) 33 45 33 45 55 67 62 71 18 68.2 64.9 35.0 33.1 — — 124 8.7 1.5 140 140 2.4 (15) 1.0 (15) 37 42 36 47 65 68 70 72 19 258.7 258.7 99.0 111.0 12.0 — 134 44.1 1.6 140 140 — — 36 46 40 56 57 66 63 69 20 89.7 89.7 47.8 46.6 — — 120 13.8 3.6 140 140 — — 36 41 31 44 61 63 63 65 21 60.7 60.7 21.6 23.7 2.1 — 124 10.1 6.4 140 140 — — 32 36 44 50 59 63 64 67 22 66.7 66.7 46.7 52.3 5.8 — 134 4.1 — 150 — — — 35 41 15 21 52 58 53 59 23 133.1 133.1 92.0 100.0 8.0 — 124 6.2 — 134 — — — 36 40 20 25 57 61 59 63 24 68.8 68.8 30.8 42.8 12.0 — 120 10.1 3.5 134 134 — — 31 42 23 33 53 69 58 72 25 55.0 55.0 28.3 37.4 9.1 — 120 5.4 5.4 134 134 — — 33 40 22 22 57 69 61 72 26 44.2 44.2 18.4 26.4 8.0 — 120 6.3 — 134 — — — 31 46 26 40 50 67 55 69 27 124.4 124.4 66.9 75.8 8.9 — 124 12.2 — 134 — — — 38 47 29 39 67 76 70 78 28 189.4 184.2 61.0 77.1 19.1 — 120 35.4 21.2 124 124 — — 34 44 39 47 59 72 69 78 29 21.7 21.7 7.8 8.4 0.6 — 124 4.5 4.5 134 134 — — 34 36 41 41 56 59 61 63 30 38.7 38.7 11.6 14.7 3.1 — 124 — — — — — — 45 49 62 62 63 70 68 73 31 115.9 115.9 34.5 39.6 5.8 — 120 19.3 — 134 — — — 41 54 49 66 66 78 73 81 32 66.5 66.5 19.5 22.2 4.0 — 120 12.6 0.3 134 134 — — 37 54 46 66 64 78 72 81 33 41.1 41.1 13.4 19.4 6.1 — 120 7.4 — 140 — — — 31 46 34 53 53 71 60 73 34 144.1 144.1 53.8 68.8 17.0 — 120 24.8 20.0 134 134 — — 34 42 34 38 59 72 67 77 35 65.1 65.1 21.2 26.5 5.3 — 120 13.1 — 140 — — — 32 44 39 59 53 65 59 67 36 177.4 177.4 47.7 65.4 24.2 — 120 34.7 24.9 125 125 — — 31 45 40 49 55 73 66 78 37 119.5 113.6 26.4 33.9 13.1 — 120 21.7 5.7 134 134 — — 34 51 49 65 57 75 69 80 38 56.1 56.1 21.6 25.5 3.9 — 120 5.8 — 134 — — — 38 49 44 55 62 73 70 77 39 73.1 59.2 26.1 27.2 5.6 — 124 12.5 2.6 150 150 — — 31 36 40 50 54 62 59 65 Totals 3,902.8‡ 3,791.3‡ 1,583.9 1,822.1 299.6 — — 562.8 170.9 — — 35.7 8.3 — — 37 47 — — — — * Averages include group selection and retention areas † Represents original stand area (includes RR) ‡ Includes Inner and Outer Zone RR

24 | West Fork Smith River Environmental Assessment | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 2-12. Proposed group selection openings under Alternative 1 Group Group Group Group EA Selection EA Selection Selection Selection Unit Opening Unit Opening Opening Opening No. Size No. Size Identifier Identifier (Acres) (Acres) 2 2-A 4.0 24 24-C 3.9 2 2-B 4.0 24 24-D 3.8 3 3-A 4.0 25 25-A 2.1 4 4-A 1.5 25 25-B 4.0 4 4-B 3.9 25 25-C 3.1 4 4-C 4.0 26 26-A 4.0 5 5-A 4.0 26 26-B 4.0 5 5-B 4.0 27 27-A 4.0 5 5-C 4.0 27 27-B 3.0 6 6-A 4.0 27 27-C 2.0 6 6-B 3.9 28 28-A 4.0 6 6-C 4.0 28 28-B 4.0 7 7-A 2.4 28 28-C 4.0 7 7-B 1.0 28 28-D 4.0 7 7-C 3.9 28 28-E 3.2† 7 7-D 2.6 29 29-A 0.6† 7 7-E 1.0 30 30-A 3.1 8 8-A 4.0 31 31-A 1.8 8 8-B 4.0 31 31-B 4.0 9 9-A 4.0 32 32-A 4.0 9 9-B 4.0 33 33-A 2.2 10 10-A 4.0 33 33-B 4.0 11 11-A 4.0 34 34-A 4.0 11 11-B 4.0 34 34-B 2.6 12 12-A 3.9 34 34-C 3.1 12 12-B 2.6 34 34-D 4.0 13 13-A 4.0 34 34-E 3.3‡ 14 14-A 3.6 35 35-A 4.0 14 14-B 4.0 35 35-B 1.3§ 15 15-A 4.0 36 36-A 0.6‡ 15 15-B 4.0 36 36-B 4.0 17 17-A 4.0 36 36-C 4.0 17 17-B 4.0 36 36-D 2.7§ 17 17-C 4.0 36 36-E 4.0 17 17-D 3.9 36 36-F 3.8 19 19-A 4.0 36 36-G 1.8 19 19-B 4.0 36 36-H 3.3 19 19-C 4.0 37 37-A 4.0 21 21-A 2.1* 37 37-B 3.4 22 22-A 1.9* 37 37-C 4.0 22 22-B 4.0 37 37-D 1.7 23 23-A 4.0 38 38-A 3.9 23 23-B 4.0 39 39-A 4.0 24 24-A 2.2 39 39-B 1.6 24 24-B 2.1 Total — 299.6

* Group selection # 21-A and 22-A are joined spatially. ‡ Group selection # 34-E and 36-A are joined spatially. † Group selection # 28-E and 29-A are joined spatially. § Group selection # 35-B and 36-D are joined spatially.

25 | West Fork Smith River Environmental Assessment | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Group Selection Harvest The BLM would create group selection openings4 within the LSR land use allocation to promote canopy differentiation and species diversity. For stands ≥10 acres, the BLM would not create group selection openings larger than 4 acres in size, or on more than 25 percent of the stand area. For stands <10 acres, the BLM would not create group selection openings larger than 2.5 acres in size (ROD/RMP p. 66).

Within the group selection openings, the BLM would create at least five snags5 per acre (generally > 20 inches DBH) at the time of treatment to contribute to attributes of structural complexity and RMP management direction. The BLM anticipates that the project would meet the other half of snag creation requirements from post-treatment mortality or create clumps of snags after treatment in treatment areas.

Site Preparation and Reforestation The BLM would conduct post-treatment manual vegetation maintenance and fuels reduction within group selection openings and roadside locations to create suitable planting sites, control competing vegetation, and conduct surveys to identify additional maintenance needs. The BLM would conduct site preparation for reforestation activities because District experience has shown that regenerating Coast Range forests in this area experience animal damage6 and heavy vegetative competition, both of which impede successful regeneration (Rose and Haase 2006). The BLM proposes to use a combination of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in order to reduce hazardous fuel loadings. Site preparation and hazard reduction treatments would include slash, lop and scatter, hand or machine pile, cover and burn, or swamper burning, as necessary. Mechanical treatments could include lop and scatter, and cutting and piling, with or without subsequent burning.

The BLM would reforest group selection openings through a combination of tree planting and natural regeneration strategies. The BLM would plant tree seedlings within 1–2 years of treatment to assure minimum average density requirements across the group selection openings (i.e., ≥ 75 trees per acre) within five years of treatment (ROD/RMP p. 66). The timing of tree planting would depend on the harvest schedule, the completion of fuels reduction treatments, and the availability of tree seedlings appropriate to the site. The BLM would plant tree seedlings at an average of 300–360 trees per harvested acre with non- uniform spacing. This is in contrast to customary commercial planting practices for the region, which is up to 450 trees per acre (Rose and Haase 2006). A planting density of 300–360 trees per acre would provide a hedge against mortality in group selection openings that are generally expected to be challenging growing environments. The BLM would then manipulate young stands through thinning to produce structure consistent with the goals of the LSR, including multi-cohort stands, large open-grown trees, and diverse understory plant communities. The BLM would vary planting density based upon expected site-specific vegetative competition and projected growth and mortality. The variable planting prescription would include maintaining some areas of relatively open grown trees in order to promote the development of large limb structure specific to murrelet nesting trees.

The BLM would reforest openings with a suitable mix of conifer species appropriate to the site, including shade-tolerant species such as western redcedar and western hemlock to promote diverse structural development of the cohort.

The BLM would protect tree seedlings from animal damage with plastic tubing, as needed.

4 The BLM defines group selection openings as areas with ≤2 live trees ≥7 inches diameter at breast height per acre (ROD/RMP p. 66). 5 The BLM would meet snag creation levels as an average at the scale of the treatment unit, and not necessarily attain snag creation levels on every acre (ROD/RMP pp. 66–67). 6 Animal damage is browse from deer, elk, bears, hares, mountain beaver (boomers), mice, and porcupines.

26 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Between one year and seven years after planting, the BLM would conduct periodic manual maintenance to control competing vegetation, as needed. If abundant natural regeneration augments planting or mortality is low, the BLM would conduct pre-commercial thinning treatments when trees reach 12–15 years of age to maintain an average density of 200 trees per acre, or a relative density index7 of less than 0.15 (Curtis 1982, Drew and Flewelling 1979, Ernst and Knapp 1985). The BLM would plan and implement additional pre-commercial treatments at 25–30 years post-planting to maintain spacing and promote species and height variability within the openings.

Consistent with the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Port- Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon (USDA and USDI 2005) and its Record of Decision (USDI 2004), the IDT applied the POC Risk Key and determined no specific POC management would be required. The POC Risk Key is contained in Appendix J.

RR Tree Tipping Under Alternative 1, the BLM proposes to directionally fall approximately 119 trees (3–13 square feet basal area (BA) per acre of live trees thinned in the Outer Zone RR) into adjacent fish streams in EA Units 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, and 16–18, where recent instream habitat improvement projects have not been implemented. The approximate locations for tree tipping under Alternative 1 are shown (on the next page) in Figure 2-1.

Yarding Under Alternative 1, the BLM would yard approximately 2,446.3 total acres. Cable yarding would account for approximately 1,651.1 acres in the LSR, and 526.1 acres in the RR. Ground-based yarding would account for approximately 232.4 acres in the LSR and 36.7 acres in the RR (Table 2-13; Appendix B Map Set B-12–B-22).

Table 2-13. Approximate timber yarding acreage summary based on yarding system and alternative. Alt. 1 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Land Use Ground-based Total Ground-based Total Cable Yarding Cable Yarding Allocation Yarding Yarding Yarding Yarding (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) LSR 1,651.1 232.4 1,883.5 1,586.7 235.4 1,822.1 RR 526.1 36.7 562.8 167.9 3.0 170.9 Total 2,177.2 269.1 2,446.3 1,754.7 238.4 1,993.0 Note: Rounding errors present

Reforestation The BLM would also plant trees within non-road openings greater than one acre in size. The BLM would determine, based on site-specific conditions, if reforesting openings is appropriate to meet habitat development objectives. The BLM would prepare and replant these areas similar to the group selection openings, with a suitable mix of conifer species, including Douglas-fir and shade-tolerant species such as western redcedar and western hemlock, to promote species diversity and cohort development near the edges of the canopy gaps.

7 Relative density index is the ratio or proportion of existing density relating to a biological maximum density.

27 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Figure 2-1. Approximate locations for proposed tree tipping in the RR under Alternative 1

28 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Alternative 2 (Thinning in LSR and Outer Zone RR, No Yarding over Fish-bearing Streams) The IDT developed Alternative 2 to meet restoration objectives for NSO and murrelet habitat development within the LSR without group selection openings, and meet management direction to thin stands within the Outer Zone RR to provide trees that would function as stable wood in streams.

Silvicultural Treatments Under Alternative 2, the BLM would treat approximately 1,993.0 acres, including 1,822.1 acres of thinning within LSR and 170.9 acres of thinning within RR (Table 2-9, Table 2-10).

The BLM proposes to conduct approximately 392 fewer acres of thinning in the Outer Zone RR in Alternative 2 than in Alternative 1 (Table 2-9, Table 2-10).

RR Thinning The BLM based the proposed Outer Zone RR thinning in Alternative 2 on stream sections that were considered the most ‘ecologically sensitive’, with a higher likelihood to benefit fish habitat according to the NetMap8 model (Reeves et al. 2016). While many RR areas within the project could benefit from thinning, some sites exhibited features that would result in a higher likelihood of improved aquatic ecosystem function with thinning. The model considered the following factors: (1) the potential of streams and stream reaches to provide habitat for different fish species (Burnett et al. 2007); (2) the potential for erosion of stream-adjacent areas; (3) the potential of a stream to warm if streamside vegetation is modified; and (4) the potential of headwater streams to deliver wood to fish-bearing streams (Reeves et al. 2016).

RR Tree Tipping Under Alternative 2, BLM proposes to directionally fall approximately 24 trees (3–7 square feet basal area (BA) per acre of live trees thinned in the Outer Zone RR) into adjacent fish streams in EA Units 5, 6, 14, and 16–18, where recent instream habitat improvement projects have not been implemented. The approximate locations for tree tipping for Alternative 2 are shown (on the next page) in Figure 2-2.

Yarding Under Alternative 2, the BLM would yard approximately 1,993.0 total acres. Cable yarding would account for approximately 1,586.7 acres in the LSR and 167.9 acres in the RR. Ground-based yarding would account for approximately 235.4 acres in the LSR and 3.0 acres in the RR (Table 2-13; Appendix B Map Set B-12–B-22).

8 “NetMap uses models that are available in published scientific literature to identify select watershed features, such as channel gradient, valley configuration, channel orientation, and landslide susceptibility to establish the context of a location of interest (Reeves et al. 2016).

29 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Figure 2-2. Approximate locations for proposed tree tipping in the RR under Alternative 2

30 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

Alternative: Non-commercial treatments (cut and leave trees) in the LSR and Outer Zone RR land use allocations

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this alternative from further consideration because an action of this type would be technically or economically infeasible, its implementation would be remote or speculative, and inconsistent with basic policy objectives (USDI-BLM 2008b)(p. 52) based upon the following reasons.

First, proactive habitat restoration (for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet) without commercial utilization to offset costs is dependent on uncertain funding sources. The BLM would likely complete habitat restoration only if funding sources (such as government program funds or private grants) became available to support the activity. The BLM estimated the cost to apply ‘cut and leave’ treatments within the proposed stands (2,446 acres) through contracting (merchantable timber falling and slash treatment) would be approximately $950,000. Not included in this estimate is contract administration and road maintenance costs, which would also be incurred by the government. There are substantially different contracting costs given technical and safety considerations associated with treatment of merchantable- sized saw timber versus typical pre-commercial (PCT) or manual maintenance treatment of very young plantations (given very large tree height and diameter differences). The current Coos Bay BLM operating budget would not finance this project expenditure, and the PRMP/FEIS estimated a 47 percent decrease, rather than an increase in average operating budget, after the first decade (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 738, Table 3-206). Therefore, this option would be economically infeasible and full implementation would be speculative.

Second, the quantity of large woody debris (felled trees) remaining on the ground after treatment (sufficient to change stand trajectory) would create uncharacteristic hazardous fuels loads, hinder big game movement through stands, increase the risk of catastrophic wildland fire, and create obstacles and hazards to firefighters if a wildland fire were to occur. Implementation would be inconsistent with basic fuels management objectives to manage fuels to reduce wildfire hazard and risk of high-severity wildfires, or public safety considerations (ROD/RMP p. 77). Repeated light treatments of the same stand would be required to reduce environmental effects (e.g., repeat treatment four times over a 20-year period to spread biomass contributions and the decomposition process over a number of years). As a result, the one-time cost estimate cited above would drastically increase over time because workers would be revisiting the same areas repeatedly creating higher long-term costs per acre. Full implementation of repeated treatment is unlikely or speculative given past and current practices and the economical infeasibility of continued administrative costs given shrinking budgets. Additionally, it would not provide for the orderly and efficient management of resources (ROD/RMP p. 75).

Finally, the ROD/RMP does not prohibit the commercial sale of timber resources in non-ASQ land use allocations. In fact, it allows the sale of “timber produced as a by-product of habitat restoration” in non- ASQ land use allocations (ROD/RMP p. 22). The ROD specifies that non-ASQ volume, in addition to ASQ volume, are “important outcomes” and include the effects on jobs and payments to counties under the O&C Act” and higher payments to counties under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act (Pub. L. 114-10) (PRMP/FEIS pp. 585–744, ROD/RMP p. 22). Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, this non-commercial alternative would be inconsistent with basic policy objectives for administrative actions, and forest or fuels management objectives (RMP pp. 75–79).

Alternative: Use of helicopter yarding

31 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Rationale for elimination: The BLM considered the use of helicopter yarding as a substitute for road building within a portion of the proposed project. However, based upon the following reasons the BLM eliminated helicopter yarding because the action would be economically infeasible, implementation would be remote or speculative, it would have substantially similar effects to an alternative analyzed in detail, or inconsistent with basic policy objectives for management of the area (USDI-BLM 2008b) (p. 52).

First, the seasonal restrictions associated with Special Status Species within one-half mile of habitat, limit helicopter operation to the winter months (October 1–February 28) for over 99 percent of treatment unit areas. Secondly, economical efficiencies of helicopter logging, staging, and landing development would require reopening and renovation of approximately eight miles of decommissioned stream-adjacent roads near Coho Critical Habitat to access approximately 675 acres. Opening stream-adjacent roads and then working near these streams in the rainy winter months would be inconsistent with basic policy objectives, such as water quality, within the Riparian Reserve (ROD/RMP p. 68). Compared to the action alternatives, helicopter yarding would reduce the amount of upslope new road construction by approximately five miles.

Thirdly, the environmental effects of reduced road construction would not have been appreciably different from the proposed action alternatives due to the ridgetop or upper slope location of roads and the implementation of road construction PDFs to minimize or avoid potential effects to water quality and fish habitat. On this point, the alternative would have substantially similar effects to an alternative analyzed in detail (USDI-BLM 2008b) (p. 52). Lastly, helicopter yarding is more expensive than ground-based or cable yarding and would potentially result in deficit timber sales, or timber sales that fail to sell in consideration of the economic risk associated with purchase.

Alternative: Conduct thinning treatments only in areas accessible from existing (open) roads (OW 2016 p. 2).

Rationale for elimination: The BLM is eliminating this alternative because it would ineffectively meet the purpose and need, it is inconsistent with basic policy objectives, or would have substantially similar effects to an alternative analyzed (USDI-BLM 2008b) (p. 52).

Considering only stand areas with existing open roads would not be appreciably different from a helicopter-yarding alternative due to the relatively small amount of stand area that is currently accessible from open roads (not decommissioned or closed). Implementation to meet the purpose and need would require opening and construction or stands would remain inaccessible. The PRMP/FEIS analysis estimated that thinning would have only slightly less (~six percent less) new road construction than regeneration treatments (p. 789), even though thinning sometimes requires more roads to facilitate placement of yarding equipment to minimize stand damage. To conduct treatments only from the existing open roads would reduce the area accessible for treatment by approximately 84 percent (16 percent of acres proposed by the action alternatives. The BLM has proposed only those roads needed to implement the project. The IDT assessed each new road for implementing the purpose and need of this project. Treating less than 20 percent of the proposed action alternatives would ineffectively respond to the purpose and need.

The IDT also used the updated Western Oregon Districts’ Transportation Management Plan (TMP) (USDI-BLM 2010 Update) to manage the transportation system in a manner consistent with the ROD/RMP. Therefore, this alternative proposal would be inconsistent with basic policy objectives for travel management to maintain a comprehensive travel network for resources management (ROD/RMP p. 93).

32 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Finally, the environmental effects of reduced road construction would not be appreciably different from the proposed action alternatives due to upper slope location of roads and the implementation of road construction PDFs to minimize or avoid potential effects to water quality and fish habitat. Therefore, the proposal would have substantially similar effects to the alternatives analyzed.

Alternative: Avoid new road construction in Reserves (OW 2016 p. 8).

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this alternative because it is technically or economically infeasible. The topography of the Coast Range and extent of the Riparian Reserve land use allocation creates conditions where avoidance would not be possible without substantially higher road construction costs or large areas would become inaccessible without helicopter access. Not allowing road placement within any portion of the Riparian Reserve would not be appreciably different from a helicopter-yarding alternative, as addressed previously.

Alternative: Reduce Riparian Reserve no-cut buffers (AFRC 2016 p. 5).

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this alternative because it is outside the scope of this project. Actions that are outside the scope of this project include those that would violate the ROD/RMP and those that would require an RMP amendment. Reducing the width of the Inner Zone RR areas (0– 120-feet no-thin adjacent to fish-bearing and perennial streams, 0–50-feet no-thin adjacent to intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams) would not be in conformance with the ROD/RMP (pp. 70–71). Reducing RR no-thin buffers would require RMP amendment because the BLM established the Inner, Middle, and Outer Zones in the ROD/RMP to address the management objectives for RR. Furthermore, the removal of cut trees from Middle Zone RR areas (50–120-feet no-thin adjacent to intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams) for other than safety or operational reasons, to meet tree tipping requirements, would not be in conformance with the ROD/RMP (p. 71) and would require an RMP amendment.

Alternative: Allow use of ground-based equipment (e.g., processors, feller-bunchers) throughout units to make cable-yarding more efficient (AFRC 2016 p. 7).

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis because the ROD/RMP contains both management direction and BMPs to limit detrimental soil disturbance (ROD/RMP p. 89) and prevent or reduce the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (ROD/RMP p. 139). The use of ground-based equipment within treatment units regardless of gradient would increase economical efficiencies for timber sale purchasers and contractors. However, the slope and topography of the analysis area is the limiting factor for the surface area that ground-based equipment could be used safely or efficiently. Ground-based equipment and cable-logging systems would be permitted equally in all units within RMP limits under both action alternatives. The type of machinery is not limited by the BLM as long as RMP requirements are satisfied. For example, tethered logging (the use of machinery tethered with a cable-assist to move up or down- slope) would be optional on a site-specific basis (within Oregon Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) and RMP limitations); however, utilization of this equipment by local contractors is nonexistent or unknown.

ROD/RMP management direction directly addresses the use of ground-based machinery within the RR (p. 69):  Do not operate ground-based machinery for timber harvest within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), except where machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream.

33 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

 Do not operate ground-based machinery for timber harvest on slopes >35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks (e.g., excavators, loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may be used on short pitch slopes of greater than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length determined on a site-specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)).

The West Fork Smith River project has incorporated BMPs, using input from BLM staff, based on site- specific conditions, technical feasibility, resource availability, and the water quality of those waterbodies potentially impacted (p. 141). Ground-based harvesting BMPs include:  Exclude ground-based equipment on hydric soils, defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (TH 07 p. 159).  Restrict non-road, in unit, ground-based equipment used for harvesting operations to periods of low soil moisture; generally from May 15 to October 15 (TH 11 p. 159).  Limit non-specialized skidders or tracked equipment to slopes less than 35 percent, except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground-based harvest areas requiring short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this equipment when surface displacement creates trenches, depressions, excessive removal of organic horizons, or when disturbance would channel water and sediment as overland flow (TH 13 p. 160).  Limit the use of specialized ground-based mechanized equipment (those machines specifically designed to operate on slopes greater than 35 percent) to slopes less than 50 percent, except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground-based harvesting areas requiring short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this equipment when surface displacement creates trenches, depressions, excessive removal of organic horizons, or when disturbance would channel water and sediment as overland flow (TH 14 p. 160).

The BLM is responsible for implementing BMPs on lands the BLM administers, as they provide compliance with the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, State of Oregon water quality legislation (Chapter 340), and the O&C Act (ROD/RMP p. 139).

The suggested alternative to use ground-based equipment throughout units regardless of slope gradient to make cable-yarding more efficient would not be in conformance with the RMP, Clean Water Act, State of Oregon water quality legislation, OSHA, and the O&C Act.

Alternative: Utilize gap cuts to promote early seral habitat and diversify all areas of the reserves (AFRC 2016 p. 4).

Response and rationale for elimination: The BLM incorporated group selection harvest, synonymous with ‘gap creation’ (RMP p. 295), within the LSR under Alternative 1. However, use of gap cuts to promote early seral habitat is not part of the management direction for the RR (ROD/RMP pp. 68–72) and would not be in conformance with the ROD/RMP. The proposal to incorporate group selection harvest within the RR would require RMP amendment; and is therefore outside the scope of this project.

Alternative: When conducting commercial thinning projects take the opportunity to implement other critical aspects of watershed restoration especially pre[-]commercial thinning, restoring fish passage, reducing the impacts of the road system, and treating invasive weeds (OW/CW p. 10).

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this suggested alternative because it would not meet the purpose and need and because the BLM analyzes, approves, and conducts site-specific watershed restoration activities or treatments such as fish passage restoration, road system maintenance and repair, and the treatment of invasive species including noxious weeds under separate NEPA authorities and

34 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

decisions. The Coos Bay BLM conducted analysis and has issued similar decisions for stream and fish passage restoration under the Programmatic Aquatic Restoration EA (DOI-BLM-ORWA-C000-2017- 0001-EA). The Coos Bay BLM conducted analysis for invasive species treatment (including noxious weed management) as part of the Coos Bay District Invasive Plant Management EA (DOI-BLM-ORWA- C000-2017-0003-EA), which is not specific to this project. Activities to maintain roads not directly associated with timber sale activities would be under either the Coos Bay District Road Maintenance CX and decision (DOI-BLM-ORWA-C000-2018-0001-CX), or assessed on a site-specific basis through Documentation of NEPA Adequacy (DNAs) associated with the Aquatic Restoration EA. Typically, the BLM conducts pre-commercial thinning treatments and other silvicultural maintenance not specific to the WFSR proposed treatment units under the Vegetation Management Program (under a Categorical Exclusion authority). The goal for the West Fork Smith River EA is to promote spotted owl and murrelet habitat development within the LSR and increase the potential for stable wood delivery to streams within the RR; therefore, the specific watershed restoration activities mentioned are not within the scope of this project per se and the Coos Bay District BLM addresses these activities under other authorities, analyses, and decisions.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Analysis Background This chapter combines the affected environment and environmental effects analysis and includes those resources that may be affected by implementation of each alternative. Chapter 3 identifies the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that may result from implementation of either of the two action alternatives described in Chapter 2. It also addresses the interaction between the effects of the proposed thinning, group selection, and RR thinning with the current environmental baseline, describing the effects that might be expected, how they would occur and the incremental effect that could result. The description of the current conditions inherently includes and represents the cumulative effects of past and current land management activities undertaken by the BLM, and other land management and regulatory entities.

Issues

Fish Issue: How would RR thinning and ‘tree tipping’9 affect current and future wood recruitment and fish habitat?

Affected Environment and Analytical Assumptions

Analysis Area The spatial scale of the analysis is based on the location of the proposed units within the West Fork Smith River (171003030701) and South Sister Creek (171003030604) 6th field sub-watersheds. The temporal scale of the analysis ranges from approximately 100 years before and after the proposed actions. The effects of land management to the landscape can take up to 100 years to show any discernable change in the amount or quality of fish habitat created by large or small functional wood (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI- BLM 2016a) (p. 282).

The term ‘fish habitat’ includes areas occupied by Coho Salmon, Coho Critical Habitat, habitat for Bureau Sensitive fish and aquatic species on the Special Status Species list, and Essential Fish Habitat.

9 ‘Tree tipping’ is defined in the ROD/RMP as mechanically tipping or pulling over trees with root wads attached, generally into or near a stream, to simulate natural wood recruitment (pp. 70, 305), and can include tipping, pulling, or cutting.

35 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Analytical Assumptions Wood is an important channel-forming component in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 283). Wood traps and stores gravel, generates scour that creates pool habitat, provides overhead cover, and protects banks by reducing stream energy (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 283). In headwater streams, small wood can retain fine sediments and prevent downstream transport to fish-bearing reaches (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 283). The size of wood that can provide stable structure and contribute to habitat change varies by channel width (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 283). A 20-inch DBH tree can provide functional wood in most streams in the project area (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 284), which range from eight to 30 feet wide. Based on BLM experience with stream restoration projects in the analysis area (Appendix L Table L-2), there is only moderate confidence that trees falling into the mainstem West Fork Smith River from the Outer Zone RR would function as stable wood due to the width (40–65 feet) and power of the river.

The BLM based the treatment units chosen for Alternative 1 on maintaining and restoring natural channel dynamics, processes, and the proper functioning condition of riparian areas and stream channels by providing stable wood recruitment to fish and non-fish bearing streams. Units chosen for Alternative 2 were based on maintaining the same processes and functions as stated above, but is focused on providing trees that would function as stable wood in streams that are the most ‘ecologically sensitive’ and have the highest potential to provide habitat for different fish species using the NetMap model (Reeves et al. 2016).

Up to 95 percent of instream wood comes from distances ranging from 82 to 148 feet from the edge of the stream bank (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 284). The BLM conducted a tree growth analysis using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to look at the long-term effect of Outer Zone RR thinning. Using the FVS model, co-dominant tree10 sizes were compared for the no action alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 because conifer species persist the longest in stream channels and tend to be the species within the co-dominant tree canopy layer.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducted aquatic habitat surveys within the analysis area in 1994 and 2009 (Table 3-1). The BLM compared habitat qualities from the ODFW surveys to reference sites that represent habitat conditions that have been least disturbed by human presence within the range of Coho Salmon (Miller et al. 2016). The Coos Bay District received data from the authors of the Miller et al. (2016) study, which had habitat benchmarks broken out into quartiles (0– 25, 26–50, 51–75, 76–100, and >100 percent) as compared to reference reaches. Miller et al. (2016) consider sites that fall within the 0–25 percent quartile as those that need improvement. ODFW defines a piece of large wood (LW) as wood greater than 0.15 meters diameter × 3.0 m length (6 inches × 9.8 feet), and ‘key’ pieces of LW as > 60 cm diameter and > 12 m long (24 inches × 39 feet). The number of pieces, number of key pieces, and the volume of LW added to streams during recent habitat restoration projects were added to the number of pieces, number of key pieces, and volume of instream LW from ODFW habitat surveys conducted before aquatic habitat improvement projects were implemented to see which units were still deficient in the wood parameters mentioned above.

10 Co-dominant trees are trees with crowns forming the top line of the highest canopy level within a forest.

36 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 3-1. ODFW aquatic habitat survey qualities in proposed treatment units compared to reference sites (Miller et al. 2016) within the range of Coho Salmon EA Unit 33 within Stream Reach → 35 19 10 39 36 32 20 9 12 13 5 3 Habitat Qualities ↓ 40 37 37 34 21 20 10 9 38 30 19 10 15 14 6 4 3 Pools (Percent) Slackwater Pools (Percent) Secondary Channel (Percent) # of Pieces LW/100 m Volume LW/100 m # of Key Pieces LW/100 m Fines in Stream (Percent) Fines in Riffles (Percent) nd Gravel in Riffles (Percent) nd Bedrock in Stream (Percent) # of Conifers > 50 cm DBH # of Conifers > 90 cm DBH Shade (Percent) Legend: nd no data < 25 percent, ‘needs improvement’ 26–50 percent 51–75 percent 76–100 percent >100 percent

37 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Environmental Effects

No Action The BLM used FVS modeling to project the size of trees within EA Units to 100 years. Up to 95 percent of instream wood comes from distances ranging from 82 to 148 feet from the edge of the stream bank (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 284) and a 20-inch DBH tree can provide functional wood in most streams in the project area (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 284). FVS modeling determined that a tree with a typical taper 120 feet away from the stream would need to be 34-inches DBH to provide functional wood to the stream. A 34-inch DBH tree 120 feet from the stream would be approximately 20 inches in diameter at 120-foot tree height and a 42-inch DBH tree 150 feet from the stream would be approximately 20 inches in diameter at 150-foot tree height. If these trees fell directly into the stream, the piece that would enter the stream would be 20 inches in diameter. Table 3-2 shows the number of TPA greater than 34- and 42-inches DBH in 100 years, respectively. The current average co-dominant tree DBH is approximately 19 inches and the current co-dominant tree height is approximately 130 feet across all units. EA Units 9, 14, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 36 are representative of these averages.

Table 3-2. The number of trees per acre (TPA) ≥34-inches DBH and also the number of TPA ≥42-inches DBH in 100 years for the no action alternative in representative units TPA ≥34-inches TPA ≥42-inches Unit DBH DBH 9 10 1 14 10 1 22 17 1 23 25 5 26 25 5 27 15 4 34 38 17 36 37 19

Proposed Actions

Common to Action Alternatives 1 and 2

RR Thinning Outer Zone RR thinning would occur within 0 to 0.8 miles of fish habitat under Alternatives 1 and 2. Suppression mortality, as well as other agents of mortality such as wind, fire, insects or disease (Harmon et al. 1986), would still occur within the RR NTZs, resulting in trees available for instream wood recruitment. There is only moderate confidence that trees falling into the mainstem West Fork Smith River from the Outer Zone RR would function as stable wood due to the width (40–65 feet) and power of the river. Both action alternatives propose Outer Zone RR thinning adjacent to the mainstem West Fork Smith River only where slopes are >65 percent because there is a higher likelihood of a tree breaking or falling down and sliding down the steep slope from the Outer Zone into the river instead of a smaller diameter top reaching the stream. There is also a higher likelihood of trees in the thinned Outer Zone RR entering the river from slides on steep slopes.

RR Tree Tipping RR tree tipping would provide immediate wood delivery to streams by directionally falling trees into streams.

38 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Sample Tree Falling Sample tree falling in the Outer Zone RR would not substantively affect current or future large wood recruitment to fish habitat under either action alternative. The average co-dominant tree height in the Outer Zone RR is 130 feet and only a small diameter top with a maximum 10-foot length would land in the stream if the tree fell directly into the stream.

Landing, Road, Yarding Corridor, and Waste Site Construction The BLM reviewed the proposed roads, landings, yarding corridors, and waste sites, and their effect on fish habitat and wood recruitment. The BLM proposes 13 new roads within the RR, eight within the average co-dominant tree height for Alternative 1 (130 feet) and Alternative 2 (129 feet). Four landings would be located within 60–120 feet from fish habitat. The construction of new roads, landings, and yarding corridors within the RR would not reduce current or future wood recruitment to fish habitat because the BLM would leave trees cut in the Inner and Middle Zones of the RR as down wood (ROD/RMP p. 68).

The BLM would locate the majority of waste sites outside of the RR; however, waste sites 23a, 28b, 37a, and 37b would be located within the RR, but at least 130 feet away from streams. Considering the average co-dominant tree height is 130 feet and 129 feet for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, if trees were cut for waste sites, they would not reach fish habitat even if they were felled in the direction of the stream. Therefore, based on the distance between waste sites and streams and the height of any trees felled at waste sites, the BLM does not expect waste site construction or use to affect fish habitat or future wood recruitment.

Alternative 1

RR Thinning According to analysis based on aquatic surveys (Miller et al. 2016), the stream channels in the project area are deficient in the number of key pieces of LW and volume of LW per 100 m of stream and the values for fines in stream and riffles and the amount of bedrock are higher than desirable. Because of this, the current conditions in the stream are not maintaining and restoring natural channel dynamics and processes and the stream channels are not functioning properly which are Management Objectives for the RR (ROD/RMP p. 68). The densely overstocked Outer Zone RR is inconsistent with the Management Objective of maintaining the proper functioning condition for riparian wood recruitment (ROD/RMP p. 71). The restoration of proper functioning conditions for riparian wood recruitment would be accomplished by following Management Direction to thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in streams (ROD/RMP p. 71).

LW serves an important role in reducing stream energy and retaining stream substrate materials (Hicks et al. 1991) and trapping and sorting gravel (Beechie and Sibley 1997, Moore et al. 2005). Sediment storage by LW in upstream reaches reduces fine sediment that degrades and buries salmon redds (USDC-NMFS 2016) (p. 124). Within spawning areas, LW helps to reduce bed mobility, which helps to keep redds intact and minimize their loss through the movement of the spawning substrate during high flows (USDC- NMFS 2016) (p. 124). The production of larger diameter trees that would provide stable wood for future recruitment to streams in a shorter time would aid in increasing the number of key pieces and volume of LW per 100 m of stream. Water velocities slow behind large wood structure and stream substrate materials are trapped and sorted, which would decrease the amount of bedrock over time by building substrate. Large wood structures in the streams would also trap fines, which would reduce the amount of fines in riffles. These improvements would help to maintain and restore natural channel dynamics, processes and the proper functioning condition of stream channels.

When the FVS model grows the representative stands and the no action alternative to 100 years, Alternative 1 has 6–25 more 34-inch DBH trees per acre in six stands (EA Units 9, 14, 22, 23, 26, 27) and

39 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

the no action alternative has between 4–9 more trees per acre in two stands (Table 3-3). Alternative 1 has 7–23 more 42-inch DBH trees per acre in seven stands and the no action alternative has one more 42-inch DBH tree per acre in one unit.

Table 3-3. Comparison of the number of TPA ≥34-inches DBH in 100 years between the no action and Alternative 1, and the same comparison for TPA ≥ 42-inches DBH in 100 years in representative units Difference Difference Alternative No Between Alternative No Between EA 1 Action Alternative 1 1 Action Alternative 1 Unit (TPA ≥34” (TPA ≥34” and No (TPA ≥42” (TPA ≥42” and No DBH) DBH) Action DBH) DBH) Action (TPA) (TPA) 9 34 10 24 10 1 9 14 28 10 18 10 1 9 22 42 17 25 16 1 15 23 32 25 7 9 5 4 26 32 25 7 9 5 4 27 21 15 6 7 4 3 34 34 38 -4 16 17 -1 36 28 37 -9 23 19 4

The indirect long-term effect of Outer Zone RR thinning includes the production of larger diameter trees that would provide stable wood for future recruitment to streams in a shorter time on those 562.8 acres as compared to the no action alternative.

RR Tree Tipping The fish-bearing streams that are deficient in LW pieces, key pieces, or volume (0–25 percent quartile, data provided by (Miller et al. 2016)) and that ‘need improvement’ occur in EA Units 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, and 18. Directionally falling trees directly into streams results in larger diameter pieces in the stream than those tipped from zones further upslope. The additional square feet of basal area per acre of live trees thinned in the Outer Zone RR needed to meet LW targets was calculated for the Outer Zone RR adjacent to fish streams. (Error! Reference source not found.).

Table 3-4. The number of trees of average co-dominant diameter needed to directionally fall into fish streams to meet LW loading targets according to Miller et al. (2016) for Alternative 1 Additional Number of Trees Number of Average Outer Zone RR ft2/BA Needed of Average Trees of Co-dominant Thinning EA to Meet Co-dominant DBH Average Tree Adjacent to Unit Instream Needed to Tip Co-dominant DBH Fish Streams LW to Meet LW DBH to Add to (Inches) (Acres) Targets Targets Fish Habitat 4 6 19 3 7.6 23 trees/0.9 miles 5 4 21 2 3.3 7 trees/0.6 miles 6 5 19 3 5.6 17 trees/1.0 mile 7 13 21 5 6.9 35 trees/0.4 miles 14 6 20 3 5.8 18 trees/0.3 miles 16 6 21 2 2.0 4 trees/1.0 miles 17 3 19 2 2.1 5 trees/0.3 miles 18 7 19 4 2.4 10 trees/0.4 miles

40 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Stable wood is considered 20-inch DBH (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a)(p. 284) for the streams where tipping is proposed and Alternative 1 would directionally fall approximately 119 trees between approximately 19–21 inches DBH in 4.9 miles of fish streams adjacent to eight units.

The direct effect of RR tree tipping under Alternative 1 is that this action would provide immediate wood delivery to streams, which would help to meet management objectives to maintain and restore natural channel dynamics, processes and the proper functioning condition of stream channels.

Alternative 2

RR Thinning The representative units that Alternative 1 and 2 have in common are units 14, 34, and 36 and the modeling is the same for Alternatives 1 and 2. When the FVS model grows the representative stands and the no action alternative to 100 years, Alternative 2 has 18 more 34-inch DBH trees per acre in EA Unit 18 than the no action alternative and the no action alternative has four more 34-inch DBH trees per acre in EA Unit 34 and nine more 34-inch DBH trees per acre in EA Unit 36 compared to Alternative 2 (Table 3-5). Alternative 2 has nine more 42-inch DBH trees per acre in unit 14 and four more 42-inch DBH trees per acre in EA Unit 36 compared to the no action alternative. The no action alternative has one more 42- inch DBH tree per acre in EA Unit 34 compared to Alternative 2.

Table 3-5. Comparison of the number of TPA ≥34-inches DBH in 100 years between the no action and Alternative 1, and the same comparison for TPA ≥ 42-inches DBH in 100 years in representative units Difference Difference Alternative No Between Alternative No Between EA 2 Action Alternative 2 2 Action Alternative 2 Unit (TPA ≥34” (TPA ≥34” and No (TPA ≥42” (TPA ≥42” and No DBH) DBH) Action DBH) DBH) Action (TPA) (TPA) 14 28 10 18 10 1 9 34 34 38 -4 16 17 -1 36 28 37 -9 23 19 4

The indirect long-term effect of Outer Zone RR thinning includes the production of larger diameter trees that would provide stable wood for future recruitment to streams in a shorter time on those 170.9 acres as compared to the no action alternative. This long-term effect is approximately 392 acres less under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 1, the production of larger diameter trees that would provide stable wood for future recruitment to streams in a shorter time would aid in increasing the number of key pieces and volume of LW per 100 m of stream. The LW would also decrease the amount of bedrock and fines in the streams. These conditions would help to meet management objectives to maintain and restore natural channel dynamics, processes and the proper functioning condition of stream channels.

RR Tree Tipping Under the proposed action in Alternative 2, similar to Alternative 1, the number of trees of average co- dominant diameter needed to directionally fall into fish streams was calculated to meet LW loading targets according to Miller et al. (2016) (Table 3-6).

41 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table 3-6. The number of trees of average co-dominant diameter needed to directionally fall into fish streams to meet LW loading targets according to Miller et al. (2016) for Alternative 2 Additional Number of Trees Number of Average Outer Zone RR ft2/BA Needed of Average Trees of Co-dominant Thinning EA to Meet Co-dominant DBH Average Tree Adjacent to Unit Instream Needed to Tip Co-dominant DBH Fish Streams LW to Meet LW DBH to Add to (Inches) (Acres) Targets Targets Fish Habitat 5 4 21 2 3.2 7 trees/0.6 miles 6 5 19 3 2.8 9 trees/1.0 mile 14 6 20 3 0.2 1 tree/0.3 miles 16 6 21 2 0.8 2 trees/1.0 miles 17 3 19 2 0.3 1 tree/0.3 miles 18 7 19 4 1.0 4 trees/0.4 miles

Again, stable wood is considered a 20-inch DBH tree (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 284) for the streams where tipping is proposed and Alternative 2 would directionally fall approximately 24 trees between approximately 19–21-inches DBH in 3.6 miles of fish streams adjacent to six units. This is less than Alternative 1, which would directionally fall approximately 119 trees between approximately 19–21- inches DBH in 4.9 miles of fish streams adjacent to eight units and more than the no action alternative, which would not fall trees into streams. The direct effect of RR tree tipping under Alternative 1 is that this action would provide immediate wood delivery to streams, which would help to meet management objectives to maintain and restore natural channel dynamics, processes and the proper functioning condition of stream channels.

Cumulative Effects and Conclusion The no action alternative would grow a greater number of larger diameter trees over the 100 years analyzed at the current growth trajectory. Overall, the Outer Zone RR thinning areas proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2 would produce more and larger diameter trees faster than the no action alternative. Under Alternative 1, the Outer Zone RR thinning would produce larger diameter trees that would provide stable wood for future recruitment to streams on those 562.8 acres as compared to the no action alternative. This is approximately 392 acres greater than Alternative 2. Outer Zone RR thinning would accelerate the timeframe in which the management objectives of maintaining and restoring natural channel dynamics, processes, and the proper functioning condition of riparian areas and stream channels (ROD/RMP p. 68) could be met. This would contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish species and their habitats and provide for the conservation of Bureau Sensitive aquatic species.

The proposed directional falling in the RR (tree tipping) in both action alternatives would provide immediate stable wood which is considered 20-inches DBH (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 284) to streams that are deficient in LW key pieces and volume for the streams according to aquatic habitat inventories of the units selected. Alternative 1 would provide approximately 119 trees between approximately 19–21-inches DBH in 4.9 miles of fish streams adjacent to eight units. This is more than Alternative 2, which would directionally fall approximately 24 trees between approximately 19–21-inches DBH in 3.6 miles of fish streams adjacent to six units and more than the no action alternative which would not fall trees into streams. The contribution of immediate LW to streams would meet the management objectives of maintaining and restoring natural channel dynamics and processes and the proper functioning condition of stream channels (ROD/RMP p. 68). This would contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish species and their habitats and provide for the conservation of Bureau Sensitive aquatic species.

42 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Forest Structure Issue: How would proposed treatments affect forest stand development?

Analysis Area and Affected Environment The West Fork Smith River forest resource analysis area contains the West Fork Smith River 6th field portion of the Upper Smith River 5th field watershed, and the South Sister Creek 6th field portion of the Lower Smith River 5th field watershed (Figure 1-1). The BLM manages 19,330 acres (59 percent), private ownership manages 12,938 acres (39 percent), and the Forest Service manages 648 acres (2 percent) of the 32,917 acres in this analysis area (Appendix H Table H–3). The ownership pattern is typical of BLM-managed lands in western Oregon with many alternating sections held in private ownership.

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant overstory species in the analysis area. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) are minor components in the overstory of proposed stands, and represent less than 5 percent of species composition (based on trees per acre). Hemlock and redcedar are mostly found in isolated areas of the stands or within untreated areas adjacent to the proposed units. Hardwood tree species composition generally ranges between 8 and 20 percent and often includes red alder (often associated with soil disturbance), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Golden chinquapin (Castanopsis chrysophylla) also occurs occasionally on southern aspects.

Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) is a regional endemic species, occurring only in southwest Oregon and northern California. On the Coos Bay District, the northern limit of the species is the coastal dunes north of North Bend, and south of Reedsport (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 2004). There is no known occurrence of Port-Orford-cedar within the analysis area.

The western hemlock plant association series (Aztet et al. 1996, McCain and Diaz 2002), most commonly the vine maple and the evergreen huckleberry plant associations, describe the vegetation ecologies for the project area. This method of classification is based on the concept of potential natural vegetation. Each series is based on the dominant, most shade tolerant regenerating tree species on the site (Aztet et al. 1996).

Understory shrub and herbaceous plant communities are underdeveloped in proposed stands due to the dense canopy layer. Rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum) and Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa) typically dominate the drier ridge tops, upper slopes, and south and west aspects. Vine maple (Acer circinatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon) and huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) typically dominate the more moist lower slopes, drainage bottoms, and north and east aspects which usually contain a low herbaceous cover typified by sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Other common shrubs and herbs found in the majority of the area are California hazel (Corylus californica) ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), creeping blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and salmonberry (Rubus spectalibis).

Fire was the principle disturbance process affecting landscape patterns in the analysis area before the 1800s. By the early 1900s, logging activity was moving up from valley areas with road and stream transport mechanisms. Principle disturbance agents in the analysis area are industrial timber management primarily in the form of clearcutting, with some history of high-severity stand replacement fires; namely the Oxbow Fire (1966) and the Yellow Point Fire (2015).

Areas of recent harvest and densely stocked stands less than 50 years old dominate private ownerships in the analysis area. Most existing young stands across multiple ownerships in the watershed are the result of intensive reforestation following large block clearcut harvesting. Very few federal timber management

43 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

actions have occurred in the analysis area since the early 1990s. Structural diversity has decreased as densely stocked even-aged stands have developed on federal lands. Only dispersed areas of structurally diverse older forest exist in the analysis area. As illustrated in Appendix H Table H–4, stands less than 20 years of age currently represent less than one percent of BLM-managed lands in the analysis area. Approximately 49 percent (9,535 acres) of BLM-managed lands in the analysis area are 40–59 years old (Appendix H Table H–4).

Cover by young densely-stocked stands is far higher than conditions depicted in 1930s historic cover type maps overlapping the analysis area (Harrington 2003) or for the historic Coast Range as a whole (Tappeiner 2002). At that time (i.e., 1930s), stands were typically harvested following traditional clearcut harvest practices with intensive reforestation and silvicultural treatments intended to maximize forest production, rather than for the enhancement of structural complexity. Thus, densely stocked stands do not exhibit the characteristics of stands in later stages of stand development (Oliver 1980); such as understory reinitiation, nor the maturation, or the vertical diversification stage of structural development as described by Franklin et al. (2002). For the later stages of stand development to occur, closed canopy conditions and competition-induced mortality progresses to allow understory tree re-establishment as a consequence of reduction in overstory canopy. Maturation is typified by a shift from density-dependent to density- independent overstory tree mortality (Franklin et al. 2002). Douglas-fir trees complete most of its growth in height and crown spread during the maturation stage, and at 100 years have typically achieved only 60– 65 percent of their eventual height (Franklin et al. 2002). The characteristics of vertical diversification would include increased tree height diversity, presence of large shade-tolerant trees, deciduous shrub layer, large snags, and large down woody material. Appendix H Figure H–1 offers a general characterization of structural development stages in relation to stand age.

Approximately 30 percent (5,780 acres) of the analysis area (Appendix H Table H–4) contains stands greater than 80 years old indicative of a range of stand conditions including single-layered canopy, mature forest, multi-storied, or structurally complex stand character.

A retrospective analysis of landscape patterns on the central Coast Range (Ripple et al. 2000) indicate the pre-logged mature/old-growth-dominated landscapes had early/mid-seral components. However, modern disturbance regimes have changed the historical range of forested landscape conditions to where forest patch shape and configuration has shifted from large and complex to small and simple (Nonaka and Spies 2005), and early seral forest structure has shifted from complex to simple (Thompson et al. 2006).

Legacy Structures Stands or portions of stands with legacy structures are spatially located in the analysis area as disconnected stands, patches, or isolated remnant trees. However, these legacy patches or remnant trees are located outside of the proposed stands or the BLM excluded them from the proposed thinning areas through stand retention as part of the prescribed treatment. Approximately 12–18 percent of the analysis area contains older stand areas larger than five acres. ‘Older stands’ are typically dominated by Douglas- fir, but also contain western hemlock and western redcedar. Dominant trees are typically 150 years and older Douglas-fir, over 40 inches in diameter and have heights approaching 200 feet tall. These trees often exhibit dead or broken tops and advanced stages of decay.

Proposed Stands (EA Units) The BLM conducted forest stand inventories in 2009, 2011, and 2017. Data analysis using BLM Ecosurvey and the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) program indicate that proposed stands within the analysis area are less than 60 years old. The average stand diameters are generally less than 16 inches. The proposed unit current relative density averages 77 (based upon (Curtis 1982)), but individual stands range from 49 to 89. Proposed stand canopy cover averages 82 percent but individual stands range from 70 to 91 percent. These stand densities indicate that there is high competition among trees and slowing

44 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

basal area growth. Stand structure is predominantly homogeneous (even-aged) conifer on the stand scale. Hardwood trees are mostly dispersed within the stands, and provide less than 10 percent understory cover. Coniferous tree foliage is largely concentrated high in the canopy with little or no coniferous secondary canopy cover layers. Hardwood species are suppressed within the lower canopy through inter-tree competition, except near roads, streams, or other localized areas that have experienced repeated disturbance.

EA Units 1 through 3 (149 acres) include stands regenerated either through planting or aerial seeding following the 1966 Oxbow Fire and contain some small areas of mixed conifer and hardwood stand conditions. All EA units were likely planted only with Douglas-fir as indicated by current stocking. As shown in Appendix H Table H–5, the BLM pre-commercially thinned 1,324 acres within the proposed stands between 1975 and 1997. The BLM has not previously commercially thinned any of the proposed stands within the analysis area.

All proposed stands are generally Douglas-fir-dominated with an age ranging between 40 and 60 years old. Most snags and down trees in the units are products of suppression-related mortality from the stand understory. Snags within the proposed units are generally small (8–16 inches DBH) and average fewer than five trees per acre. An occasional large snag, log, or stump (generally >30 inches diameter) are exclusively legacy structures from previous stands, evidenced by advanced stages of decomposition.

Proposed EA units for the West Fork Smith River project are all classified as being in the stem exclusion structural stage (according to (Oliver and Larson 1996)). The stem exclusion stage is synonymous (Appendix H Figure H–1) with the Biomass Accumulation/Competitive Exclusion structural stage (according to (Franklin et al. 2002)) due to the lack of stand density reduction or disturbance, and single- cohort stand development. The BLM verified stand observations through growth modeling of field- collected data (age, height, diameter, etc.). The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), a growth modeling software (Crookston and Stage 1999), classified all of the proposed units as currently within the stem exclusion stage as interpreted by O’Hara et al. (1996). This vegetation structural class replicates Oliver and Larson’s (Oliver and Larson 1996) stem exclusion stage of structural development (O'Hara et al. 1996).

The proposed EA units for the West Fork Smith River project characteristically have low variance for coniferous tree species diversity, diameter, and height; and have few sound (decay class <3) large snags or downed woody debris due to intensive management practices that followed stand replacement. Previous management actions following stand replacement typically included broadcast burning, single species planting and pre-commercial thinning. Individual tree crown development in the unit areas are indicative of original branches without evidence of epicormic branching. The initiation of epicormic branches is associated with older crowns (Ishii and Ford 2001), or very open conditions around the stems such as found after disturbance with intensive (>40 percent) live crown removal (Collier and Turnblom 2001).

Field observations and surveys have identified small isolated patches of remnant trees nearby the outer edges of proposed treatment areas. The BLM confirmed that within the proposed units (which includes retention areas), individual remnant trees (i.e., those trees exhibiting characteristics of potential murrelet habitat) would not be within the proposed treatment area boundaries, and if present nearby would generally be at least 120 feet away from proposed treatment areas.

The historical aerial photo record and the presence of residual conifer stumps in many proposed EA units suggest that Douglas-fir and western redcedar dominated treatment units prior to disturbance (fire/harvest). Red alder and bigleaf maple were generally restricted to fluvial-disturbed areas. Alder is an early seral tree species associated with disturbed, moist conditions (Harrington 2006). The topography

45 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

where bigleaf maple grows is highly variable because it is not nutrient demanding (Minore and Zasada 1990). Bigleaf maple most often occurs in scattered patches within or on the streamside edge of conifer- dominated riparian communities where it typically supports epiphytic biomass (Nadkarni 1984). Past management influences including roads, waste sites, skid trails, scarified soils, and lack of plantation maintenance have resulted in increased hardwood densities in the analysis area.

Environmental Effects

No Action Under the no action alternative, and barring substantial disturbance, stand structure within the proposed treatment units would continue on its current developmental trajectory and plateau as a single-stratum forest type requiring a century or more to develop multiple-canopy layers.

Specifically within the proposed units, the no action alternative would result in continued slow growth and suppression-related mortality. Research indicates that stands that develop at very high densities have a limited variation in tree size, and high height to diameter ratios, which makes them susceptible to diameter growth stagnation and wind/moisture related instability (Wilson and Oliver 2000). With finite site resources divided among many trees, individual trees would have slower growth rates, and therefore would be smaller than trees growing in the more open areas of a stand (Oliver and Larson 1996). The amount of light reaching the forest floor would not allow any but the most shade-tolerant plants to persist, as tree foliage would remain largely concentrated high in the canopy. Relative density (Curtis 1982) would remain near the level representing high inter-tree competition for water, light, and nutrients; and slowing basal area growth as canopy cover remains near closure levels. Distinctive of the stem exclusion stage, the crowns of less competitive trees would recede, resulting in decreasing diameter growth (Davis et al. 2007) and increased suppression mortality over the next 20–30 years. In the short-term, shrub density and cover would remain generally stable due to competitive relationships and presence of early seral herbs and shrubs (Ares et al. 2009, Chan et al. 2006).

Random events, such as windthrow and biotic disturbance, such as root rot, are ongoing fine-scale processes that create small gaps, and recruit low numbers of larger snags and down wood across the project area. However, conifers in the proposed project area are young enough to exhibit rapid lateral branch elongation in response to the added growing space provided by a gap-creating event. The growth patterns of the existing hardwood species also exhibit the ability to form tall and very broad canopies, often to the exclusion of other species during the competitive exclusion phase (Lutz 2005). Consequently, canopy gaps created by the death of one or a few trees would disappear within a few years following gap- creating disturbance for as long as the stands remain in the stem exclusion stage of stand development.

Due to the dominance of Douglas-fir and lack of shade-tolerant conifer species in the overstory of these stands, very little development of a second canopy layer, composed of shade-tolerant conifers, would be expected even if disturbances create openings. Shade-tolerant conifer seed sources are generally lacking in most areas and the topographic position of older stands would not readily facilitate seed dispersal into proposed stands. Since seedlings and saplings are important for potential canopy replacements and a future source of snags and down wood (Franklin and Waring 1980), the BLM would expect delayed development of a layered canopy and multi-aged stand conditions under the no action alternative.

Appendix H Table H–1 shows current stand metrics and the projected stand response for the no action alternative in 50 years. Barring any major disturbance, the stand would likely progress to the maturation stage, typically beginning in another 30–40 years (at 80–100 years, (Franklin et al. 2002)). Significant establishment of shade-tolerant tree species in the understory typically begins during the maturation stage but the process is highly variable in speed and uniformity (Franklin et al. 2002). The existing shortage of a shade-tolerant conifer species mix, and lack of significant gap disturbance, would inhibit the

46 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

development of structural and compositional heterogeneity within the next 50-year period. Many mature Douglas-fir stands on sites suited to western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) lack significant shade-tolerant regeneration after a century or more of development (Acker et al. 1998). In this circumstance, small gap-producing disturbance would typically increase the proportion of broadleaf trees (Ilisson and Chen 2009). Over the long term, shrubs and shade-tolerant tree species (e.g., western hemlock) would gradually increase in numbers, where adjacent stand seed sources are available, as receding overstory tree crowns and tree mortality allow increased light in the understory (Oliver and Larson 1996). This process would be slow, however, and unlikely to provide for understory tree development sufficient to cause a shift from a single-storied to a two-storied or multi-layered structure within 100 years (Munger 1940, Oliver and Larson 1996). Seedlings of shade-tolerant tree species may persist in a suppressed state with virtually no height growth for several decades (Larson and Churchill 2008). Studies suggest slow vegetation development in small (approximately ≤1/4 acre) gaps of mature conifer stands is primarily caused by low levels of solar radiation within them (Gray et al. 2002). Opening of the canopy is typically required for an individual to grow into the canopy layer (Oliver and Larson 1996), and disturbance or patch dynamics may therefore be critical to shaping the structure of late- successional forest (Zenner 2004).

Development of structural complexity in Douglas-fir forests requires mortality in the pioneering cohort and recruitment of shade-tolerant conifer species into the lower and middle canopy (Franklin et al. 2002, Zenner 2005). Windthrow gaps of relatively small size may contribute to the persistence of shade-tolerant tree species (Spies et al. 1990) as the stand moves into the late-successional stage.

The predominant stand trajectory for the no action alternative would emulate mature Douglas-fir stands that have very little shade-tolerant representation after even 150–175 years of development (Keeton and Franklin 2005). Reestablishment of shade-tolerant conifers is a key process in late-successional forest development because it leads to vertical differentiation of the canopy and eventual codominance of shade- tolerant species (Keeton and Franklin 2005). Availability of seed sources, such as shade-tolerant mature and remnant old-growth trees, presence of suitable seed beds, competition with herbaceous shrubs, stand density, and environmental conditions all affect this process (Keeton 2000, Schrader 1998). Young and old-growth forests offer extreme contrasts in foliage distribution (Franklin et al. 2002). For example, in many old-growth forests, foliage and live branches are distributed continuously from near the ground to the top of the canopy (Lefsky et al. 1999, Parker 1995, Parker 1997, Parker and Brown 2000), whereas foliage in younger closed canopy stands is concentrated high in the canopy with decreasing branch and foliage retention near ground level. The shift in foliage distribution with stand development is a complex, long-term process (Carey et al. 1999, Carey and Wilson 2001, Franklin et al. 2002, Lindenmayer et al. 2000), as referenced below.

Stands proposed for treatment would require stand-modifying disturbance to facilitate development of multiple tree canopies, shade-tolerant understories, and large overstory dominants associated with old- growth forest (Franklin and VanPelt 2004, Larson and Franklin 2005, Spies and Franklin 1991). Wind as a disturbance agent tends to superimpose a fine-scale mosaic pattern (Lertzman et al. 1996), frequently on a coarser mosaic created by large fire-created patches (Spies and Franklin 1989). Fire, of high and mixed severity, is the dominant stand-replacing disturbance agent across the Pacific Northwest (Agee 1993, Agee 1998, Franklin and Hemstrom 1981). These disturbances create snags and down woody debris (Harmon et al. 1986), volatilize nutrients and biomass (Campbell et al. 2007), and open growing space for the establishment of new cohorts of shrubs, trees, and forbs (Oliver and Larson 1996).

In the absence of stand-replacing disturbances, the project area as a whole would likely enter the horizontal diversification (old-growth) stage within 300 years. During this stage, the stand evolves into multiple structural units primarily as a result of gap creation and expansion (Franklin et al. 2002). Douglas-fir can regenerate in the large, fire-created gaps, but fewer species regenerate in smaller gaps

47 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

formed by other processes (Spies and Franklin 1989). Active fire exclusion has eliminated a major disturbance process, which formerly affected stand structures and densities leading to the development of the kinds of old-growth stands characteristic of the southern Oregon Coast Range (Weisberg 2004). The FVS modeling supports the observation that it would take over 150 years for the proposed units to reach the old forest, multi-stratum stage associated with old-growth forests.

Mixed hardwood stands with a dominant conifer component would have a somewhat different trajectory. After reaching 130 years old, this stand type would transition into low-density conifer with large individual trees as the hardwood component declines and shrub cover increases (Newton and Cole 1994, Stubblefield and Oliver 1978). Studies of succession have indicated that shrub dominance (especially by salmonberry) increases with time, and that tree regeneration is generally lacking (Carlton 1988, Emmingham et al. 2000).

Analysis of the age class distribution within the analysis area indicates that the early seral component is becoming more infrequent on federal lands as displayed within Appendix H Table H–4. As most of the remaining acres of young stands (represented in Appendix H Table H–4) transition into the 20-year age class in the next decade, the youngest age-classes (<20 years) would be virtually unrepresented on BLM lands in the project watershed. Within the next five years, most of the 20-year age class will transition into the 30-year age-class, which have already or will soon enter the stage of canopy closure and stem exclusion. Complex early successional habitat would remain missing from the landscape in this area, continuing the current decline in this type of habitat across the Oregon Coast Range (Spies et al. 2007, Swanson et al. 2011, Wimberly 2002). The contrast between stand edges on BLM-managed lands would decline similarly as tree height growth results in less height contrast between younger and older stands. Lessening of structural diversity between stands would likely result in diminishing landscape heterogeneity.

Under the no action alternative, the BLM would expect dense stands of shade-intolerant Douglas-fir to provide a steady, but limited, supply of snags, but would not provide the high densities of unevenly- distributed snags and downed wood associated with allogenic disturbance (Franklin et al. 2002, Franklin and VanPelt 2004, Garman et al. 2003, Rapp 2003). Competitive stress-induced tree mortality would likely produce snags and down wood; however, because individual tree mortality is concentrated on the smaller stems, and few of the largest trees die as a result of stand competition (Peet and Christensen 1987), most of the dead stems would be relatively small (<10 inches DBH). As a result, snag longevity would remain relatively short (10–15 years) in the 50-year time horizon.

The BLM estimated that forest-capable ownerships in western Oregon would retain approximately 48 percent in LSOG (i.e., late-successional/old-growth, mature, and structurally-complex) forest cover by 2106 following a similar no action scenario, or 52 percent LSOG cover by 2106 managed under a ‘no harvest’ scenario (USDI-BLM 2008a).

Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 would influence stand development patterns by promoting the change from predominantly single-storied stands to multi-cohort stands, thereby shortening the timeframe for development of stands with structurally complex stand features. This would be accomplished by increasing variability in height and individual tree spacing through thinning, increasing species diversity through artificial (planting) and natural regeneration, and increasing vertical and horizontal canopy differentiation by spatially aggregating stands to retain untreated mature stand conditions while also creating early seral openings within the preexisting stand.

Within the LSR, this alternative would utilize forms of uneven-aged management that recognize the forest and each stand as a mosaic of conditions and tree groupings, and applies the desired forest treatment

48 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

objectives appropriately to each encountered condition and grouping. Stand development objectives would be achieved through a combination of unit design and treatment. These objectives would strive to mimic fine-, moderate-scale disturbances (Chambers et al. 1999), and to create stand structure more in line with that of historic mixed-aged forests (Franklin et al. 2002, Poage and Tappeiner 2002). For example, stand conditions with homogeneous canopy or species composition would utilize creation of openings in a small portion (0–18 percent, Table 2-11) of the stand, combined with thinning in other areas of the stand to promote canopy diversity and initiate understory conifer regeneration (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998). In this circumstance, trees would be removed within a group selection patch to promote breaks in the canopy large enough to regenerate a shade-intolerant cohort (Douglas-fir) within the center of the gap (diminishing shade/microclimate influence) while planting shade-tolerant seedlings (western redcedar and western hemlock) near the edge. These small (1–4 acre) openings are not functionally equivalent to clear-cutting because they would be designed to preserve the forest influence (microclimate and soil influence) over most of the harvested area (Keenan and Kimmins 1993). According to Keenan and Kimmins (1993), the minimum size of opening that constitutes a clearcut varies with the height of the surrounding forest, and is roughly equal to an area greater than about four tree heights in diameter. Appendix H Figure H–2 illustrates FVS modeling visual representation of a typical stand following application of group selection with proportional thinning, and reforestation (using shade-tolerant and intolerant species).

The edge effects upon seedlings within planted group selection openings would be highly variable based upon aspect, topography, competitive interactions, and the height of adjacent trees (Fernández et al. 2002). Factors affecting growth and survival would include animal damage and vegetative competition associated with shrub growth and hardwood sprouting. During the initiation phase (≤30 years), the canopy within the opening would develop some height and diameter differentiation based upon moisture, light availability, and shade tolerance. Coates (2000) showed that the largest trees of several planted coniferous species are generally found in the middle of patch openings. Depending on the height and orientation of the forest edge, shading would influence survival and growth (Minore and Laacke 1992, Strothmann 1972). For example, the growth rates of shade-intolerant tree species such as Douglas-fir may be reduced in a wide band along the south side of an opening due to shading from the adjacent forest. A representative study (Hansen et al. 1993) found that when density is controlled, both the height and diameter of Douglas-fir trees are significantly reduced within 20 meters from the stand edge. More recent studies have similarly confirmed greater growth responses in gaps larger than 1.1 hectares (2.7 acres), and that gap sizes below 0.6 hectare (1.5 acres) would not create conditions to ensure adequate growth of Douglas-fir regeneration in group selection systems (de Montigny and Smith 2017, York and Battles 2008). Promoting and maintaining wider spacing within the regenerative layer would provide greater potential for long-term (100-year) recruitment of large-limbed tree structures than the no action alternative, under which dense tree spacing would limit light penetration through the canopy and lead to suppression and/or mortality of lower limbs.

Positive growth effects are expected for residual trees bordering openings because the edge environment has more favorable radiation, moisture, and temperature conditions. The extent to which gaps would contribute to greater growth depends on gap size, site quality, age, soil, and species (Newton and Cole 2015). Shade-intolerant Douglas-fir is well documented to exhibit greater growth response per tree around gaps (Davis et al. 2007, Dodson et al. 2013, Roberts and Harrington 2008). York and Battles (2008) found that as gap size is increased, the proportion of the stand with edge influence decreased; translating to a decreasing proportion of the stand with edge related growth response. The magnitude and distance of edge influence are a direct function of the contrast in structure and composition between adjacent communities on either side of the edge (Harper et al. 2005).

Proportional thinning would promote diffuse edge (reduced edge contrast) where applied adjacent to group selection openings. Diffuse edges are formed where disturbance is less severe than the adjacent

49 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

opening or as hard edges age (Comfort et al. 2016). Diffuse or feathered edge typically would be created by retaining more windfirm trees (considering species, taper, height) along high hazard edges.

While increases in height and diameter growth would be expected as a result of reduced competition in thinned areas, trees also respond to disturbance by growth of replacement structures. Epicormic branching can re-establish lower crowns, but growth of structures is greatly influenced by the amount of light reaching lower crowns (Ishii and McDowell 2002, Ishii and Wilson 2001), and form depends on disturbance intensity and age (Van Pelt and Sillett 2008). A higher numbers of trees with epicormic branching and longer crown lengths would provide greater potential for increased structural diversity (Berg et al. 1996, Ishii and McDowell 2002, Miller and Emmingham 2001, Van Pelt and North 1996). However, the growth of large limb structures often takes 200 years (Van Pelt and Sillett 2008).

Wind events of sufficient magnitude to substantially modify the stands are inherently random in nature, but prescriptions under the proposed action would promote diffuse edge and moderate basal area retention to lessen windthrow probability. Topographic location would exert some influence on the amount of wind damage with areas higher in the landscape being more vulnerable than areas lower in the landscape. The distance windthrow penetrates into a forest stand can have significant implications on stand development. Studies suggest that windthrow risk can be reduced through use of large patches (>1.0 hectare) rather than a larger number of smaller patches (<0.5 hectare) (Rollerson et al. 2009). Differences in susceptibility vary among different tree species close to the edge of gaps, with Coates et al. (2018) observing a “reduced susceptibility of windthrow to smaller trees after partial harvesting.” Although Douglas-fir appears to be the most windfirm coastal conifer (Rollerson et al. 2009), residual trees with large crowns and shallow root systems typically experience increased potential for windthrow relative to those in an intact forest following disturbance (Franklin et al. 2002).

The BLM would generally expect lower light penetration through the canopy in untreated areas of the Riparian Reserve due to topographical slope position and light duration. Additionally, there would be untreated areas (15–65 percent, Table 2-11) where maturing forest would develop on its current trajectory (see No Action).

Proportional Thinning Proportional thinning would primarily promote vertical differentiation. The proportional thinning method would promote structural diversity and redistribute growth while taking full advantage of the variability of the existing structure (height, diameter, and species where it is available) by thinning throughout the range of height and diameter classes (Busing and Garman 2002, Garman et al. 2003).

Making light available to understory trees would support survival, growth release, and promote tree height diversity; thus enhancing canopy diversity. In comparison to the no action alternative, retention of lower crowns after thinning would increase light levels farther down the canopy (Ishii and McDowell 2002, Miller and Emmingham 2001, Van Pelt and North 1996). Even though the overall number of large trees available within the 50-year time horizon would be modified or reduced; proportional thinning would promote variability in spacing and height, encourage shade-tolerant conifer regeneration, and multistoried stand development (Miller and Emmingham 2001). However, without current presence or adding shade-tolerant species, growth and development of sub-canopy Douglas-fir would revert the stand to single-storied condition within 50 years. Management that promotes heterogeneity of tree sizes, species, and enhances the growth of vigorous dominant trees could hasten development of old-growth structure (Acker et al. 1998, Getzin et al. 2008).

Variable-density Thinning Variable-density thinning would primarily promote horizontal differentiation of the tree canopy. Variable- density thinning would result in a slightly different developmental trajectory (in comparison to

50 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

proportional thinning) by primarily redistributing growth to overstory trees and initiating small gaps (<1/4 acre) within the canopy through variable spacing of leave trees. Offering variability in spacing of co- dominant and dominant trees would result in substantially higher diameter and volume growth (Roberts and Harrington 2008), but there is a tradeoff with higher average canopy height and less vertical diversity because understory tree development would be suppressed in dense canopy or low light penetration areas.

Stands that lack shade-tolerant tree species would result in delayed multi-storied conifer development. Reducing crowding around large individual tree crowns would reduce lower branch mortality, and gap and edge microclimate influence would assist understory development of shrubs and shade-tolerant trees where available. However, canopy gaps have not been found to consistently increase density or height of natural regeneration (Nabel et al. 2013).

The BLM predicts treatments would promote the development of individual larger green trees faster over time compared with the no action alternative (Davis et al. 2007, Newton and Cole 2015) and accelerate development of late-successional conditions (Garman et al. 2003). Using Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling to determine effects, advancement between structural classes in stands occurred faster following action that included thinning than in the no action alternative. This result is consistent with the concept that treatments would shorten the time for developing individual large trees, increase species diversity and increase spatial heterogeneity (Garman et al. 2003, Harrington et al. 2005). However, objectives to increase vertical differentiation throughout the stand would be achieved somewhat slower due to gap size and lack of light penetrating the understory in comparison to proportional thinning, although the group selection openings would assist achieving species and canopy layer diversity through edge influence, on the stand and landscape scales. Stands or stand areas lacking shade-tolerant species, treated only with variable density thinning, would likely result in up to 100-year delays in multi-storied conifer development.

Both proportional and variable-density thinning regimens offer increased variability in tree densities within treatment patches as well as increased horizontal variability on the stand scale from the mosaic of treatment and no treatment areas compared to the no action alternative. Vertical and horizontal heterogeneity strongly influence biodiversity at the stand scale and would result in greater variation of understory foliage, and shrubs (Hayes et al. 2005). An increase in overstory variability would predict a response in understory and shrub diversity (Harrington et al. 2005), development of larger limbs and crowns, epicormic branch response, and randomly distributed suppression mortality. Achieving a wide range of structures and composition requires the full suite of silvicultural treatments, from leave islands to variable-density thinnings and creation of large gaps (Puettmann et al. 2016). The irregular design of treatment units and stands with gaps or openings would increase vertical and horizontal structural complexity of the stand, and increase vegetative diversity over the project area landscape within the 50- year time horizon.

Landscape-level structural diversity is the result of differences among the stands on the landscape. Stand diversity is the product of site conditions, disturbance history, and mechanics of recolonization. Some stands will be very complex while other stands are simple. Complex stands contain niches that do not exist in the simple stands across the landscape. Applying the group selection and thinning prescriptions would promote contrast between stands and promote structural variation within the stand that is in context with historically plausible fire and other natural disturbance patterns of this area.

Group Selection Harvest Group selection and gap/patch based silvicultural systems have increasingly been suggested as a means of promoting species diversity and increasing heterogeneity across forest landscapes (Coates and Burton 1997, Murphy et al. 1993). For up to 20 years following treatment, the group selection patches would be in an establishment or initiation phase of stand development.

51 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Opening size (varying from 1.0 to 4.0 acres as represented in Table 2-12) would result in: • Small to moderate ecological disturbance patterns • Greater growth rates in approximately 50 percent of the opening because of full sun exposure • Adjacent trees with increased branch elongation and growth rate (by the thinned/untreated edge) • Seed dispersal from adjacent edge encouraging natural regeneration • Diffuse edge adjacent to proportional thinning areas • Structural differentiation resulting from initiation of shade-tolerant species

Differential responses to disturbances would emerge in stands with heterogeneity in tree spacing, height, age class, reproductive strategies, and varied understory vegetation (Filotas et al. 2014, Gustafsson et al. 2012, Pickett and Rogers 1997). Numerous studies have focused on the responses of Douglas-fir regeneration to a range of light conditions. Opening size is important because growth in height is the most critical factor for Douglas-fir overtopping competing vegetation (Smith et al. 1997). Cumulative height growth of Douglas-fir increases asymptotically with opening size (Brandeis et al. 2001, Lam and Maguire 2011). Douglas-fir regeneration requires at least 40 percent full sun to ensure survival and the development of morphological adjustments that increase its photosynthetic capacity (Mailly and Kimmins 1997).

Greater growth responses are likely in gaps larger than 1.1 hectares, and gap sizes below 0.6 hectare would not provide light conditions that would ensure adequate growth of Douglas-fir regeneration in competitive environments (de Montigny and Smith 2017). Conversely, another study seems to indicate Douglas-fir seedlings do not entirely benefit from openings greater than 1.48 acres (0.6 hectare) (York et al. 2004). However, recognized knowledge shows that development of Douglas-fir benefits from 60 percent of full sun light environments with no clear plateau of growth at high light environments (Drever and Lertzman 2001, Drever and Lertzman 2003). Therefore, the BLM expects that seedling size would increase with gap size with the greatest growth response near gap centers (Gray and Spies 1996).

Shade-tolerant species such as western redcedar would only require 10–30 percent full sun to persist. Edge environments created by the group selection gaps would provide these lower light levels and provide the opportunity to reinitiate or increase the presence of shade-tolerant species in the stands. Species persistence in edge environments would assist diffuse edge creation and understory development over time. The growth rates of individual trees near edge environments would vary based upon species shade tolerance and depth from edge (Chen et al. 1992). Microsite influences define edge, and the design of gaps on upper slope areas would increase the potential for seed dispersal of shade-tolerant species downslope into adjacent areas.

Shade-intolerant seedling numbers would generally increase in areas where overstory densities are thinned or reduced by other means (Kuehne and Puettman 2008). As secondary forest stands develop, the effects of edge between harvested and mature forest would gradually disappear (Oliver and Larson 1996). However, heterogeneous stand structure can perpetuate aggregated spatial patterns of vegetation by providing a variety of microsites for seedling establishment and multi-cohort competitive interaction (Getzin et al. 2008, Gray and Spies 1997).

Reforestation The desired future condition of gaps would be the uneven vertical development of a multi-species cohort to promote species and structural diversity. After re-planting group selection openings, the BLM expects an average of approximately 60 percent seedling survival (±20 percent variability) within the first five- year period for the selected seedling species mix. Individual species mortality would vary based upon animal damage, and other site/microsite conditions (Brandeis et al. 2001). Western redcedar and Douglas- fir would be particularly vulnerable to animal damage, even with mesh tubing or other methods to protect them from browse damage (Cole and Newton 2009). Douglas-fir would also be particularly vulnerable to

52 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

shade and vegetative competition. Western hemlock and western redcedar would be better able to survive rapid occupation of the site with competing vegetation due to their shade tolerance.

Manual maintenance within group selection openings would control re-sprouting species. Manual release (cutting) would control vigorous competitors such as red alder, bigleaf maple, vine maple, scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry, and salmonberry. The BLM would base the need for replanting and multiple manual treatments on post-harvest monitoring results. The BLM would base planting success on three- year survival of 75 percent of the planted seedlings.

Natural regeneration may occur within the thinned areas and particularly near (≤100 feet) stand edges where light availability increases initiation success. Naturally regenerating species that may occur include red alder and western hemlock because they are species that have more consistent seed crops. However, localized availability and variability of the seed source, dispersal pattern, seedbed microsite, and vegetative competition create difficulties for determining the density and overall mix of naturally regenerating species that would consistently occur.

The creation of seedbeds through hand piling of post-harvest slash would depend on the size and extent of the piles. Typically, hand piling as a method of site preparation would not create an ideal mineral soil seedbed for natural regeneration (Hobbs 1992). Woody and herbaceous vegetation would rapidly reoccupy the site, especially with the increase in growing space and sunlight, further making conditions unsuitable for natural regeneration. Large seed crops of the commercial species found within the project occur at infrequent intervals as shown in Appendix H Table H–6 (Bonner and Karrfalt 2008). If a large conifer seed crop follows treatment, there could be considerable natural regeneration. If there are small or no conifer seed crops, or heavy predation of the seed crop for several years following harvest, there could be little natural regeneration due primarily to the rapid propagation of competing vegetation (Hobbs 1992, Stein 1995).

Scheduled pre-commercial thinning treatments within planted areas would reduce inter-tree competition and allow increased development of canopy and limb structures in the cohort. Inter-tree competition would not occur at a relative density index of less than 0.15. Therefore, no crown closure would occur in these areas, and individual tree growth would be maximized since the trees would not be competing with each other. Using customary industry-based reforestation standards, the reforested area would be considered understocked, since growing space is not being fully utilized by trees, thus prolonging early seral conditions.

Snag and Down Wood Recruitment For the first several decades following treatment, the pool of trees available for natural snag recruitment would be reduced in treated areas under Alternative 1 compared to the no action alternative. After thinning, the reduction in the population of trees would increase diameter growth and allow development of some large diameter trees by the age of 65 (Newton and Cole 2015). Treatment utilizing proportional thinning and group selection prescriptions would result in microsite conditions favoring recruitment and support of additional shade tolerant species, canopy layers, and shade-intolerant cohorts within the stands. As a younger generation of trees establishes around and within the treated areas, they would fill in available canopy and sub-canopy gaps (Gray and Spies 1996, Stan and Daniels 2014). This younger generation of trees would provide canopy replacements, and through the increased growth of the retained trees, increase the pool of trees available for a future source of snags and down wood (Franklin and Waring 1980).

Creation of 10 snags per acre, based upon a stand average, within one year of yarding completion would aid in providing attributes associated with late-successional forests within the first 15-years, although the functional longevity of created snags would be shortened in comparison to retention and allowing

53 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

additional diameter growth and natural mortality processes. Following treatment, the BLM expects some retained live trees would experience increased environmental stress that may eventually lead to death (Franklin et al. 1997, Franklin et al. 1987). Proportional thinning to reduce density would reduce the probability of mortality of small diameter trees (with ≥30 percent crown), but would have little effect on the mortality of larger trees (Dodson et al. 2013). Suppression-related mortality would still occur within untreated areas within stands, including designated stand retention and areas adjacent to streams. These areas also would provide trees available for recruitment of snag structures. Some research has shown 13 percent of retained live trees die from natural causes other than wind 10 years after partial harvest (Busby et al. 2006). Despite green tree mortality losses, snags become down logs, contribute to stand structural diversity, and are beneficial for stand biodiversity.

Under all of the West Fork Smith River proposed alternatives, suppression would continue within the no- harvest areas (including the combined width of the Inner and Middle Zones of the RR) resulting in roughly 1,457 acres remaining in the ‘high competition’ categories. Small tree mortality is most consistent with ongoing suppression (Dodson et al. 2013). These overstocked areas would provide suppression-induced snags and downed wood as described within the no action alternative.

Retention Retention patches and no-harvest areas of Riparian Reserve would ameliorate potential loss of structural recruits within large portions of the project area because the BLM designed and located retention areas to protect existing high-quality structures. The retained areas would also provide components of biological diversity within the project area. The aggregates would retain interior forest coinciding with the 40–60 year-old cohort, and scattered 100-year-old or older remnants near stand edges. Adjacent to thinned areas, retention and Riparian Reserve edges would add structural diversity around the regenerating gaps created within the stand. While stand structure would remain simplified in the interior of the retained stand area, retention schemes would mimic the landscape level patterns created by natural disturbances, while promoting accelerated and complex recolonization and successional pathways (North and Keeton 2008). Variation and aggregation of cutting patterns would create more diverse and natural landscapes (Swanson and Franklin 1992).

Alternative 2 Implementation of Alternative 2 would influence stand development patterns by increasing variability in individual tree spacing through thinning, while also spatially aggregating stands to retain untreated mature stand conditions. Stand development objectives would mimic fine scale disturbance and strive to develop structural diversity, but the potential for maintaining vertical canopy differentiation and multi-cohort stand development over the next 50 years would be limited by the existing species composition and its ability to regenerate within the understory.

Alternative 2 would utilize variable density thinning and proportional thinning but would not utilize group selection openings and artificial regeneration to introduce additional species and cohorts. While thinning would redistribute growth by offering increased variability in tree densities, and make additional light available to understory trees to support survival, stands that lack shade-tolerant tree species would primarily maintain the existing canopy layer strata and result in delayed multi-story conifer development. Even though variable density thinning would provide the opportunity to produce small gaps (<1/4 acre), canopy gaps have not been found to consistently increase density or height of natural regeneration (Nabel et al. 2013). Proportional thinning would redistribute growth and provide additional variance in canopy height, but long-term (>30 years) height differentiation would not be maintained over time in stands composed with Douglas-fir as the single conifer species. Canopy height variance would lessen within 30– 50 years as dominant tree height slows and the sub-canopy trees develop to a similar height potential for the site.

54 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Alternative 2 would maintain a much more continuous canopy or even-aged structure in most areas, in comparison to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would thin 238 additional acres within LSR, 392 fewer acres would be thinned within the Outer Zone of the RR, and the average proportion of untreated stand areas (stand retention) would be 10 percent higher (Table 2-11). The prescriptions for thinning would correspond to Alternative 1, but treatment boundaries would vary spatially. Areas prescribed for group selection under Alternative 1 would be thinned under Alternative 2 so disturbance or edge-related growth responses would be reduced. These growth responses include epicormic branching, limb development, and cohort development of multiple species.

Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would utilize variable density thinning to increase horizontal canopy diversity and diameter growth, and proportional thinning to redistribute growth in stands where there is an opportunity to take advantage of existing variability in height, diameter, and species where it is available. Forest structural development under Alternative 2 would differ from Alternative 1 because less structural and species differentiation related to small to moderate disturbance would occur under Alternative 2.

Similar to the no action alternative, untreated areas would continue to experience suppression related mortality, slower canopy development, and the potential for large stem development would be reduced during the next 50 years due to inter-tree competition. Additionally, due to more area being within the competitive exclusion stage, there would be a larger proportion (≥10 percent by area) of small stem mortality, and less development of understory herbaceous cover in comparison to Alternative 1.

The developmental trajectory of these areas would plateau as a single-stratum forest type requiring a century or more to develop multiple strata layers. A full explanation of the effects of no action on forest structure is assessed under the no action alternative.

The effects of the thinning treatments on average stand structure would be evident at the local stand scale, and neighborhood (subwatershed) scale. Within the analysis area, forest structure would remain primarily single-storied. Untreated areas would contribute to stand scale variation in density of trees and understory vegetation but would not contribute to stand tree height variability.

Comparison of Alternatives and Cumulative Effects

Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions Private ownership controls approximately 39 percent (12,938 of 32,917 acres) of the analysis area. The structural conditions of privately owned timberlands are the result of intensive reforestation and most lack habitat complexity or legacy components typical of stand establishment forests following natural disturbance. Privately owned timberlands are typically managed on a 40-year rotation, and do not develop past the stem exclusion stage. Under current Oregon State Forest Practices Act, the BLM assumes other ownerships would not include significant structural retention that would enhance development of multi- storied stands or diverse early successional communities.

The BLM expects private industrial timber harvest, road building, and timber haul throughout the Coos Bay District boundaries to continue at approximately current levels.

The BLM expects that other Federal, State, and county agencies with forestlands within the vicinity would also continue forest management activities at approximately current levels.

The BLM received a request from an adjacent private landowner to create several protective fire lines along property boundaries within the analysis area; however, these hand-made fire lines would only be 8 feet wide and would not modify stand structure of BLM-managed lands because the cutting of green trees

55 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

or snags would be avoided (Fiscal Year 2019 Fire Line Construction project (DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030- 2019-0001-CX.

The BLM, therefore, has no other reasonably foreseeable actions that would affect stand structure in the analysis area.

Comparison Within 50 years, Alternative 1 would result in conifer-dominated multi-storied stands, and snag contributions that would assist development into structurally complex forest. Alternative 1 treatments would produce multi-storied stand structure in a 50-year period within approximately 44 percent of the proposed stand area (1,719 of 3,903 acres). Approximately 15 percent (589 of 3,903 acres) of the proposed stand area would require an additional 10–30 years to develop multi-storied structure, and approximately 4 percent (138 acres) would require an additional 50 years to develop multi-storied structure. Approximately 37 percent (1,437 acres) of the proposed stand area remaining untreated would take up to 150 years to develop multi-storied structure.

Alternative 2 treatments would produce multi-storied stand structure in a 50-year period within approximately seven percent of the proposed stand area (250 of 3,791 acres). Approximately 46 percent (1,743 of 3,791 acres) of the proposed stand area would require an additional 50 years to develop multi- storied structure, and approximately 47 percent (1,798 acres) of the proposed stand area remaining untreated would take up to 150 years to develop multi-storied structure.

All stands within the no action alternative would take up to 150 years to develop multi-storied forest structure.

Within 50 years on the landscape scale (analysis area), the average stand structure under action alternatives would increase the proportion of BLM-managed stands in the multi-layered to structurally complex stage (2,499 acres) by approximately 9.0 percent under Alternative 1 (from 12.9 percent to 21.9 percent), or approximately 1.3 percent under Alternative 2 (from 12.9 percent to 14.2 percent).

Therefore, the treatment under the action alternatives would increase the amount of area with multi- storied stand structure by approximately 5.2 percent under Alternative 1 (from 7.6 percent to 12.8 percent), or approximately 0.8 percent under Alternative 2 (from 7.6 percent to 8.4 percent).

The proposed actions would accelerate an increase in multi-storied forest structure within the 50-year period post-treatment; however, the differences in structural class on a landscape basis would gradually diminish overtime (>50 years).

Wildlife Issue 1: How would the proposed management activities affect the development of spotted owl nesting habitat within the action area?

Analytical Assumptions and Methods One of the objectives under this EA is to accelerate or improve future spotted owl nesting habitat conditions. The Final Critical Habitat Rule for the northern spotted owl summarized specific metrics for nesting habitat physical and biological features (PBFs).

“Stands for nesting and roosting that are generally characterized by: i. Moderate to high canopy cover (60 to over 80 percent); ii. Multilayered, multispecies canopies with large (20–30 in (51–76 cm) or greater DBH) overstory trees;

56 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

iii. High basal area (greater than 240 ft2 /ac (55 m2 /ha)); iv. High diversity of different diameters of trees; v. High incidence of large live trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); vi. Large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and vii. Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly” (77 FR 71876).

The BLM assumes stands within the Oregon Coast Range develop spotted owl nesting characteristics as early as 80 years old (Franklin and Spies 1991). While other factors, such as coarse-woody debris, snags, and stand complexity contribute to the age at which a stand is suitable for habitat, the 80-year age class provides a temporal scale to evaluate the proposed actions. As stands are currently 40–60 years old, the BLM is evaluating the habitat conditions 30 years after an alternative or action is applied.

The BLM assessed current habitat conditions through available GIS datasets. Within Coos Bay BLM managed lands, spotted owl habitat is mapped as one of four categories nesting, roosting-foraging, dispersal-only, or non-habitat. Mapped habitat is verified with field visits, LiDAR data, and aerial photos. Habitat on other federal and private lands is derived through a GNN habitat model described in Status and Trends of Northern Spotted Owl Habitat: The First 20 years (Davis et al. 2016). The GNN model describes habitat as Highly Suitable, Suitable, Marginally Suitable, and Unsuitable. Based on comparing the Coos Bay District mapped nesting habitat and the GNN model, the BLM assumes the highly suitable and suitable fields describe available nesting habitat and marginally suitable fields describe dispersal-only habitat. This model does not break out habitat that is suitable for only roosting-foraging and not nesting. Both the Coos Bay BLM and GNN models are geo-referenced, and all acreage totals are calculated in ESRI’s ArcMap 10.4.

To evaluate if the proposed actions accelerate the development of nesting habitat, the BLM completed forest stand modeling through the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) program. The program models stand growth trends based on current stand conditions and user applied treatment parameters. For the purposes of the spotted owl analysis, the habitat stand metrics are from EA unit 15, a 53-year-old stand, with an average DBH of 14 inches and 294 trees per acre. This stand reflects the average metrics of the entire action area. The BLM compared the changes in basal area (BA), diameter size class distribution, DBH, TPA, species, and mortality metrics across the proposed treatments to evaluate stand progression toward spotted owl nesting habitat. As models are constrained by inputs and are limited in describing stand complexity and decadence, the BLM also relied on research on proposed silvicultural treatments.

This report relies heavily on acres and subsequently generated values (e.g., sum, mean, and percent). The BLM exercised care to ensure values are consistent, accurate, and appropriate for all analyses. This included minimizing rounding of values until the end of multi-step calculations. However, some values may be slightly different among portions of the analysis, and some calculations may appear to contain incorrect mathematics (e.g., an array of values adding to 99 percent instead of 100 percent). These types of inconsistencies are acknowledged, trivial and simply a byproduct of a necessary reliance on Excel, ArcGIS, modeling and other software. Any such inconsistencies or variance in precision would have insignificant impact on analyses and discussion.

The following analysis focuses solely on spotted owl nesting habitat development. A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the spotted owl can be found in the Final Recovery Plan (USDI-FWS 2011b); various status reviews (Anthony et al. 2006, Courtney et al. 2004, Davis et al. 2016); the Interagency Scientific Committee Report (Thomas et al. 1990); final rule designating the spotted owl as a threatened species (50 CFR Part 17); population and habitat monitoring reports (Davis et al. 2011, Davis et al. 2015, Forsman et al. 2011); and several key monographs (Anthony et al. 2006, Forsman et al. 2002, Forsman et al. 1984, Meyer et al. 1998, Wiens et al. 2014).

57 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Affected Environment As described in the Forestry Staff Report, proposed treatment stands are less than 60 years old, with average DHBs less than 16 inches, and less than 10 percent understory cover. Snags within the stand are small (less than 16 inches DBH), and average less than five snags per acre. Due to previous management actions, stands have low variance for conifer species diversity, structural diversity, and few larger snags or downed woody debris. Based on the current conditions stands are not currently spotted owl nesting habitat and are classified as spotted owl dispersal-only habitat.

Environmental Effects

No Action Under the No Action alternative, stands would continue to develop under overstocked conditions. At 30 years post treatment, FVS modeling indicates stands have an average DBH of 19.8 and a BA of 405 (Table H–7). The stand supports an estimated 84.2 trees TPA over 20-inch DBH, of which 17 are over 30 inches (Table H–10). The modeled stand metrics support some of the conditions associated with spotted owl nesting habitat (overstory trees over 20 inches, a high BA, and a high diversity of diameters of trees (Figure H–7). However, as described in the Forest Structure issue, the increased competition associated with high relative density stands, such as this one, limits development of the multi-story canopy and complexity required by spotted owls. Western hemlock and western redcedar would continue to be under- represented in the stand and would not contribute to a multi-layered stand condition (Table H–8).

As described in the forest structure section, overstocked stands would require a century or more to develop multi-story and decadent structure. Shade tolerant conifers, such as western hemlock and western redcedar are a minor component on the landscape. Without a seed source, these species would likely be delayed in developing a mid-story within the Douglas-fir dominated stands, and continue to be under- represented after 150–175 years. Without the shade-tolerant conifer species, a windthrow or other stand disrupting event is required to allow enough light for the Douglas-fir to develop a multi-story stand.

Action Alternatives

Stand Response to Harvest Prescription and Stand Retention The Forest Structure issue provides a summary detailing current research and stand response based on the proposed thinning prescriptions. Thinning under both prescriptions would accelerate the development of large trees, with proportional thinning and group selection promoting stand heterogeneity over the no action alternative. The multiple harvest prescriptions reduce competition, increase light diffusion, and release suppressed trees. The BLM’s proposed reforestation within the group selections would re- introduce under-represented species such as western hemlock and western redcedar. The combined treatments accelerate the development of a complex, multi-storied stand, suitable to support spotted owl and murrelet nesting characteristics (Appendix H).

LSR (Proportional Thinning) and RR (Variable Density Thinning) Thinning Response The LSR, proportional thinning, prescription would experience slower tree growth but increased heterogeneity than the RR, variable density thinning treatments (Table H–7, Table H–10, Figure H–5, and Figure H–6). FVS modeling completed for the project mirrors what is expected based in current literature (Harrington et al. 2005, Poage and Tappeiner 2002, Spies et al. 2018): 1) Stands thinned in the LSR (proportional thinning to a RD of 33) would have fewer but slightly larger trees than untreated stands (Table H–7 and Table H–10) 2) Within 30 years, the stands thinned in the RR have the greatest DBH and heights similar to un- treated stands (Table H–7).

58 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

3) The RR variable density thinning prescriptions eliminates the mid-story, an effect still prevalent 50 years post-harvest (Figure H–10).

As described in the Forest Structure issue, both prescriptions reduce canopy cover and competition, promoting growth and development of the canopy level conifer trees and the lower and mid-story shrubs, increasing the stand heterogeneity and reducing the time required to achieve complexity characteristics (Puettmann et al. 2016). Additionally, treatment prescriptions reserve shade-tolerant species such as western hemlock and western redcedar, releasing suppressed individuals within the stand, increasing the mid-story response post-treatment where these species are present.

Group Selection The group selection treatment, proposed in Alternative 1, would remove all trees within approximately 90, 1–4 acre gaps, for a total of 300 acres. Site preparation would remove most slash post-harvest, but residual slash would contribute to the down wood within the gap. The BLM would reforest group selections up to approximately 360 trees per acre, with Douglas-fir and currently under-represented western hemlock and western redcedar. The BLM would thin the regenerating stand to 200 trees per acre in 15 years.

As described in the Forestry Structure issue, Douglas-fir seedlings in the center of the gap with the most sunlight would see accelerated growth compared with seedlings planted near the edges. The BLM would plant shade-tolerant species along gap edges. The increased sunlight and wind speeds would contribute to increased limb development for trees adjacent to the openings, contributing to greater structural diversity as the stand matures. The varying growth rates and species diversity would contribute to a multi-story, multi-species canopy as the stand develops when compared to Alternate 2 (Table H–8, Figure H–4, and Figure H–5). Modeling indicates that the western hemlock and red cedar will be 25–55 feet tall within 30 years and 50–90 feet tall within 50 years, contributing to the mid-story, but still not within the overstory Douglas-fir canopy (Table H–11).

Snag Creation The removal of felled trees through logging would reduce the natural snag and down wood recruitment within the stand. After 30 years, treated stands (both in the LSR and RR) produce approximately 14 fewer snags per acre than the no action. Alternative 1 would produce a similar number of snags as the no action, but most of these would be under 8-inches DBH and within the re-planted group select openings (Table H–9). These small snags may provide some down wood cover for small mammals, but will not persist on the landscape.

The RMP requires the creation of five snags per acre greater than 10-inches DBH and five snags per acre greater than 20-inches DBH for all acres of LSR and RR treated with harvest prescriptions. Snags created within one year of project completion, as required by the RMP, would eventually provide habitat for the northern flying squirrel, and other small rodents requiring snags and down logs. The current DBH distribution, with few trees over 20-inches DBH, within the stands would not meet the ideal goals described in the RMP; however, as the stands develop, these snags would provide some habitat, and then contribute to down wood complexity as they decay.

Additionally, trees damaged in logging operations or by windthrow or storm damage within the first year after project completion, would be included in the snag total. Spotted owls within the Oregon Coast Range study selected deformed and broken top live trees for nesting in 70 percent of known nest sites (Lesmeister and McCafferty 2018). Some of these damaged trees would continue to grow and would provide cavities and other decadent features, increasing stand complexity and potential future nest sites.

59 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Other Actions The effects of other actions, such as road management, site preparation, and tree tipping, proposed under the action alternatives do not vary significantly between the alternatives and do not appreciably alter the future progression of nesting habitat, due to the small number of acres and dispersed orientation across the project area.

Effects to Spotted Owl Nesting Habitat in the Analysis Area Immediate post-treatment stand effects would be similar between both alternatives, and are described in the issues not analyzed in detail.

Under Alternative 1, the combination of proportional thinning (LSR) and variable-density thinning (RR), group selection openings, snag creation, and stand retention would accelerate the development of a diverse stand by breaking up the homogenous canopy, reducing competition in the canopy and understory, and by increasing the occurrence of shade-tolerant western hemlock and western redcedar through gap re-forestation. Within 30 years, thinned stands would have fewer, but larger trees (Table H– 10), a multi-layered stand structure (Figure H–4), and overall greater stand complexity than under the No Action Alternative. The replanting of redcedar and western hemlock in the group selections patches is essential in accelerating the presence of a multi-species canopy. Without intervention, these species will have little canopy representation, even after 175 years (Keeton and Franklin 2005). Proposed snag creation would provide structure for spotted owl prey species and trees damaged in harvest operations would potentially provide deformities for nesting habitat in the future.

Under Alternative 2, the BLM would not implement group selection openings, but thin these acres to the same prescription of the surrounding LSR stands. The combination of proportional thinning (LSR) and variable-density thinning (RR), snag creation, and stand retention would slightly accelerate tree growth (Table H–7), release the limited number of suppressed shade-tolerant conifers, such as western hemlock and western redcedar, and maintain and promote structural development. Within 30 years, thinned stands would have fewer, but larger trees, a limited multi-layered stand structure, overall greater stand complexity than under the no action alternative, but would lack the additional species and canopy diversity provided by the group selection openings and re-forestation (Figure H–5 and Table H–8). As with Alternative 1, the snag creation would provide structure for spotted owl prey species and trees damaged in harvest operations would potentially provide deformities for nesting habitat in the future.

Stand retention, under both alternatives, would develop as described under the no action. While modeling indicates, that after 30 years, these stands would have similar DBH and tree heights as thinned stands, these trees would experiences reduced canopy development from increased competition. However, the high competition-exclusion mortality, described in the Forest Structure Issue, would provide a steady supply of snags and down wood (Table H–9).

New roads constructed would create small areas that would not support spotted owl nesting habitat within 30 years, but due to the small acreage and linear arrangement of the roads, these features would not impeded spotted owl nesting function within the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects and Conclusion As shown in Appendix H and discussed in the Forest Structure issue, the combination of all four treatments (stand retention, group selection, proportional thinning, and variable density thinning) under Alternative 1, provides for both large tree growth and increased size class diversity within the treated stands, reducing the time required for the stands to achieve the structural complexity required for spotted owl nesting (Table 3-7). The variable density thinning prescription develops the largest trees within 30 years, but sacrifices mid-story complexity. The proportional (LSR) thinning reduces competition while maintaining a proportional size class distribution, although models similar sized trees as the no action.

60 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

The addition of the group selection further reduces competition, promotes limb and canopy growth of the overstory adjacent to the gap and with re-forestation introduces the under-represented shade-tolerant conifer species. Stand retention provides pockets of refugia and produces a steady supply of down wood.

Table 3-7. Comparison of the achievement of modeled spotted owl nesting habitat metrics by alternatives, 30 years post treatment Habitat No Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Refer To: Characteristic Action Basal area >240 (Ft2/Acre) Yes Yes No (40 years) Table H–7 Diameter Diversity Yes Yes Yes Figures H–3 to H–6 Multi-layer Stand No* Yes Yes Figures H–3 to H–6 Multi-species Canopy No Yes No Table H–8 Yes—Less Than Yes—Less Than Trees over 20–30 inch DBH Yes Table H–10 No Action No Action * While Modeling shows diverse diameter classes, the Forest Structure issue analysis describes how the dense crown cover limits under- and mid-story growth. Note: Some nesting habitat descriptions, such as the presence of deformities and open space, are not derived through models but silvicultural research.

Stands under Alterative 2 achieve most nesting habitat characteristics within 40 years. Without the re- forestation of the western hemlock and western redcedar, the stands will still lack species diversity in the developing canopy. Stands may still support nesting with the presence of the modeled large trees, particularly if trees damaged in the harvest process produce cavities or broken tops suitable for nest sites.

Stands under the no action are modeled to support the large trees necessary for nesting habitat with 30 years, but would continue to lack the multi-species, multi-canopy stand, with deformities. It is unlikely these stands will support spotted owl nesting without these features.

There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would contribute to the accelerated development of spotted owl or murrelet nesting habitat within the analysis area. Due to the overstocked condition of non-habitat stands within the action area, the BLM does not expect the additional natural development of spotted owl within BLM-managed lands in the analysis area. Additionally, based on current management practices, spotted owl nesting habitat is not anticipated to develop on private timber lands within the analysis area. The project would not reduce spotted owl habitat currently on the landscape, and would accelerate the development of future nesting habitat for both species.

Under Alternative 1 the BLM would thin an additional 154 acres in the RR, and would include 300 acres of group selection more than Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the BLM would thin an additional 240 acres of LSR compared with Alterative 1. Within 30 years, the BLM would accelerate the development of 2,147 acres spotted owl nesting habitat under Alternative 1. The 1,993 acres proposed under Alternative 2 would continue to lack a multi-species stand, but may still function as nesting habitat with development of large trees and trees with deformities and cavities.

61 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Wildlife Issue 2: How would the proposed management activities affect the development of murrelet nesting habitat within the action area?

Analytical Assumptions and Methods Murrelets are small sea birds occurring from the Aleutian Islands to central California. While they spend most of their life foraging at sea, murrelets fly inland to nest in late-successional and old-growth forests (USDI-FWS 1997). The USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as threatened in 1992 (57 FR 1796). As murrelet stand use is limited to nesting only, the analysis area for future nesting habitat conditions is limited to stands proposed for treatment and the road prism for new construction. The BLM discusses direct and indirect effects in the issues not analyzed in detail section.

The ROD/RMP defines suitable murrelet structure as having all the following characteristics:  A DBH of at least 19.1 inches and a height greater than 107 feet  A nest platform at least 32.5 feet above the ground (a nest platform is a relatively flat surface at least 4 inches wide, with nesting substrate (e.g., moss, epiphytes, duff), and an access route through the canopy that a murrelet could use to approach and land on that platform)  A tree branch or foliage, either on the tree with potential structure or on an adjacent tree, which provides protective cover over the platform (USDI-BLM 2016b)

A detailed description of the biology and population history is available in the Biological Opinion for the RMP (USDI-FWS 2016).

The analysis the BLM completed for evaluating stand response in the northern spotted nesting habitat issue applies to evaluating the stands for murrelet nesting structure. Modeled metrics provide estimates of future tree height and DBH, but do not describe crown conditions. The BLM evaluated the effects of the alternatives on crown and limb development using current silvicultural research.

The BLM currently assumes stands 110 years and older meet the requirements for murrelet nesting habitat, although this varies on legacy features and canopy development (Franklin and Spies 1991). As these stands are currently 40–60 years old, the BLM evaluated how the stands would respond to the various alternatives in 50 years, when the stand may first support murrelet nesting.

Within Coos Bay BLM managed lands, marbled murrelet habitat is mapped as either suitable or occupied. Mapped habitat is verified with field visits, LiDAR data, and aerial photos. Habitat on other federal and private lands is derived through a GNN habitat model described in Falxa and Raphael (2016). The GNN model identifies the nesting habitat suitability of the landscape as Highest, Moderately High, Marginal, and Lowest. Based on comparison with habitat mapped by the Coos Bay BLM, the GNN model’s Highest and Moderately High fields describe available nesting habitat. Both the Coos Bay BLM and GNN models are geo-referenced, and all acreage totals are calculated in ESRI’s ArcMap 10.4. Based on the GIS and field surveys, the harvest units and proposed new road construction do not currently support murrelet nesting or overlap occupied murrelet sites.

Affected Environment As described in the Forestry Staff Report, proposed treatment stands are less than 60 years old, with average DBHs less than 16 inches, and less than 10 percent understory cover. Snags within the stand are small (less than 16-inches DBH), and average less than five snags per acre. Due to previous management actions, stands have low variance for conifer species diversity, structural diversity, and few larger snags or downed woody debris. Based on the current conditions stands are not currently murrelet nesting habitat.

62 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Environmental Effects

No Action Under the no action, stands would continue to develop under overstocked conditions. As described in the forest structure section, the dense crown conditions would limit crown and limb development, reducing the murrelet nesting suitability of the stand, except along natural openings and roads.

Action Alternatives Reducing competition within the stand and opening the canopy allows for greater limb development, particularly along small openings such as the group selections (Davis et al. 2007, Garman et al. 2003). FVS modeling of the proportional and variable density thinning harvest prescriptions demonstrate the treatments would produce trees with slightly larger DBHs over the un-thinned stand within 50 years (Table H–7). Treated stands would have fewer TPA (93 in the LSR and 63 in the RR) in comparison to the no action stands (157). The reduced competition would increase crown and limb development; however, the exact development is unknown.

Additionally, under Alternative 1, the group selections would remove small patches (1–4 acres) of young, dense stands and would not support nesting habitat within the next 50 years. However, the Douglas-fir around the edges of the opening will have portions of the crown developing in open growing conditions. As described in the Forest Structure issues, the exposed Douglas-fir would experience greater development, including crown development, than the interior trees (Davis et al. 2007, Dodson et al. 2012, Roberts and Harrington 2008).

The effects of other actions, such as road management, site preparation, and tree tipping, proposed under the action alternatives do not vary significantly between the alternatives and do not appreciably alter the future progression of nesting habitat, due to the small number of acres and dispersed orientation across the project area.

Cumulative Effects and Conclusion Due to reduced crown competition, allowing canopy and limb development, within 50 years Alternative 1 would support 2,147 acres of murrelet nesting habitat within 50 years, while Alternative 2 would support 1,993 acres (a difference of 154 acres). The group selection treatments in Alternative 1 would promote additional branch development over Alternative 2. Where the overstory canopy would remain relatively continuous, limiting the open growing conditions required for optimal limb development. The BLM does not anticipate significant limb development within 50 years under the no action, due to the dense crown conditions within the stands. Without limb development, it is unlikely these stands would support murrelet nesting habitat Table 3-8.

Table 3-8. Comparison of the achievement of modeled murrelet nesting habitat metrics by alternatives, 30 years post-treatment Habitat Characteristic No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Refer To: Trees over 19 inches DBH Yes Yes—Smallest Yes—Largest Table H–7 Trees over 100 feet tall Yes Yes Yes Figures H–3 to H–6 Branch Development Limited Yes Moderate Figures H–3 to H–6 Note: Some nesting habitat descriptions, such as the presence of deformities and open space, are not derived through models but silvicultural research.

There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would contribute to the accelerated development of spotted owl or murrelet nesting habitat within the analysis area. Due to the overstocked condition of

63 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

non-habitat stands within the action area, the BLM does not expect the additional natural development murrelet nesting habitat within BLM-managed lands in the analysis area. Additionally, based on current management practices, murrelet habitat is not anticipated to develop on private timber lands within the analysis area. The project would not reduce murrelet nesting habitat currently on the landscape, and would accelerate the development of future nesting habitat for both species. Within 50 years, the BLM would accelerate the development of 2,147 acres murrelet nesting habitat under Alternative 1 and 1,993 acres under Alternative 2 over the no action alternative. The application of group selections in Alternative 1 would increase canopy exposure and consequently limb development over Alternative 2.

Wildlife Issue 3: How would the proposed management activities affect the ability of the spotted owl action area and known sites to support reproduction?

Analytical Assumptions and Methods

Potential Owl Core Areas One management direction under the RMP directs the BLM to “manage for large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat that support clusters of reproducing spotted owls, are distributed across the variety of ecological conditions, and are spaced to facilitate the movement and survival of spotted owls dispersing between and through the blocks” (USDI-BLM 2016b) (p. 64). Spotted owl home range size relate to the primary prey in the area, with a 1.5-mile radius home range in the Oregon Coast physiographic province, where spotted owls predominately prey on flying squirrels (Forsman et al. 2004, USDI-FWS 2011b, Zabel et al. 1995). Spotted owl reproduction is more successful with increasing amounts of older forest near the nest or primary roost location (Bart and Forsman 1992, Dugger et al. 2005). The USFWS concluded that spotted owl reproduction was more successful with greater than 50 percent nesting habitat within the 500-acre core area (summarized in USDI-FWS 2009, USDI-FWS 2011b).

To evaluate how the proposed action effects the nesting support of the action area as whole, the BLM developed a Potential Owl Core Area (POCA) analysis. The BLM is defining core areas with greater than 50 percent nesting habitat as POCAs. As the spotted owl home ranges in the action are generally extend 1.5 miles out from the nest site, the POCA analysis area extents 1.5 miles out from the proposed treatment units. To establish the center point of POCAs, the BLM completed a neighborhood analysis of the 20- year GNN spotted owl habitat raster (Davis et al. 2016), calculating the percent of suitable and highly suitable habitat within a 500-acre (0.5-mile radius) area around each 30-meter raster cell. Cells with more than 50 percent of the neighboring cells supporting suitable and highly suitable habitat were identified as POCA site centers (centroids). The BLM then altered the GNN raster data to reflect spotted owl habitat changes in 30 years, as described above in Issue 1, and re-ran the neighborhood analysis (Figure H–10).

Known Spotted Owl Sites Spotted owl home range size relate to the primary prey in the area, with a 1.5-mile diameter home range in the Oregon Coast physiographic province, where spotted owls predominately prey on flying squirrels (Forsman et al. 2004, USDI-FWS 2011b, Zabel et al. 1995). As described in the POCA analysis, habitat conditions within spotted owl sites can play a role in spotted owl reproductive success. The BLM evaluated the total spotted owl nesting habitat available with the four known spotted owl sites overlapping the proposed action (Appendix E Map E–1), and tracked expected habitat changes under the three alternatives.

Affected Environment

64 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Potential Owl Core Areas The POCA analysis area is approximately 30,239 acres (Appendix E Map E–10). Two federal agencies, the BLM (Coos Bay and Northwest Districts) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS, Siuslaw National Forest), manage 61.8 percent (18,696 acres) of the action area. Private owners, predominantly industrial timber companies, manage the remaining lands for timber production.

The BLM and GNN models mapped approximately 20.4 percent (6,164 acres) of the action area as nesting or roosting-foraging habitat (Appendix E Table E–3). Nesting habitat on all federal lands comprises 19.2 percent of the analysis area. The GNN model maps approximately 383 acres of nesting habitat on private timber lands; however, these are generally individual raster cells adjacent to federal lands or within riparian corridors. The private timber industry manages forests on a 40–45 year harvest rotation and the BLM does not expect these acres would contribute to spotted owl nesting habitat.

Currently, the analysis area contains 1,852 acres able to support POCA site centers (i.e., the center of a 500-acre area with more than 50 percent nesting habitat), arranged as large patches the north and northwest edges of the analysis area (Appendix E Map E–10).

Known Spotted Owl Sites Four known owl sites intersect the WFSR treatment units. The Roman Nose site (0532B) has multiple alternate nest locations. Historic data for the Roman Nose site indicates the most recent occupancy in the alternative B location. The BLM will use the Roman Nose alternative B nest site location as the center point to evaluate potential effects. The three other sites, Esmond Creek (2118O), Moore Creek (3164O), and Baldy Trib (3369O) have one known site center.

Within the Esmond Creek and Baldy Trib known sites, the proposed action would occur only within dispersal-only habitat on the outer portion of the home range. Within the Roman Nose and Moore Creek spotted owl sites, the proposed actions would occur within dispersal-only habitat in the core area and home range. The BLM is proposing no activities within the nest patches of known spotted owl sites. The Baldy Trib and Roman Nose sites are at or above the minimum thresholds for best supported nesting. The Moore Creek core area is above the 50 percent nesting habitat threshold, but the home range supports only 25.2 percent nesting habitat, below the 40 percent ideal minimum threshold (summarized in USDI- FWS 2009, USDI-FWS 2011b). The Esmond Creek site is below the proportion of nesting habitat associated with (greater) likelihoods of nesting and successful reproduction at both the core and home range scales (Appendix E Map E–2).

Current and Past Survey History In 2017, the BLM initiated surveys for spotted owls within nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within and adjacent to the proposed treatment areas. As no nesting or roosting-foraging habitat was included in the proposed treatment units or new road construction areas, the BLM proposed a survey effort modified from the 2012 Revised Northern Spotted Owl Survey Protocol (USDI-FWS 2012 revision). The FWS concurred with the proposed modified surveys during a Level 1 meeting on January 7, 2017. A full description of the habitat analysis and survey area is included in Appendix E. This distance was determined sufficient for locating possible unknown NSO activity centers or nest sites potentially impacted by the proposed action.

The BLM detected no spotted owls during the two year (2017 and 2018) survey effort. In 2018, a murrelet surveyor detected one unknown Strix spp. in-route to a murrelet survey station. No owl was located during a follow-up survey.

65 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Barred Owls in the Survey Area Within the action area, surveyors detected barred owls 58 times in 2017, and 29 times in 2018. Barred owl detections occurred throughout the survey area and within the nest patches of the Moore Creek and Roman Nose spotted owl sites. Full survey results are included in Appendix E.

Environmental Effects

Potential Owl Core Areas The BLM altered the GNN raster data to reflect spotted owl habitat changes in 30 years, due to the proposed actions and re-ran the POCA neighborhood analysis (Appendix E Map E–10). The BLM expects, based on models and current silvicultural studies on growth trajectories of densely stocked Douglas-fir stands, spotted owl nesting habitat would not develop within 30 years under the no action (described in Issue 1), and the total acres of POCA centroids within the action area would remain at 1,852 acres. Within 30 years, treatment proposed under Alternative 1 would add an additional 514 acres of POCA centroids, for a total of 2,366 acres within the analysis area. Within 30 years, treatment proposed under Alternative 2 would add an additional 383 acres of POCA centroids (Appendix E Map E–10), for a total of 2,235 acres within the analysis area.

The total acreage of POCA centroids would increase under both action alternatives, slightly more under Alternate 1 (131 acres), increasing not only the total available nesting habitat but also the availability of suitable nesting core areas.

Known Spotted Owl Sites As described in the above section, the BLM’s proposed treatments would accelerate the development of nesting habitat compared with untreated stands. The BLM would treat 179 more acres within known spotted owl sites under Alternative 1 than under Alternative 2 (Appendix E Table E–4). Additionally, under Alternative 1 the BLM would implement 108.2 acres of group selection within known spotted owl sites.

Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would increase nesting habitat within the known sites within 30 years, while the BLM expects no change in nesting habitat within 30 years under the no action. Alternative 1 would accelerate the development of 225.1 acres within the Roman Nose home range of which, 57.3 acres are within the core area, an increase of 4.4 percent nesting habitat at the home range and 9.6 percent nesting habitat at the core (Appendix E Table E–5). Alternative 1 would accelerate the development of 487.6 acres within the Moore Creek home range of which, 53.8 acres are within the core area, and increase of 9.1 percent nesting habitat at the home range and 8.1 percent nesting habitat at the core (Appendix E Table E–5). The Baldy Trib and Esmond Creek sites have only slight differences (less than 1 percent change in nesting habitat) between the no action and action alternatives. Either of the proposed actions would increase the future nesting habitat within the known spotted owl sites; however, significant increases (greater than one percent) only occur in the Roman Nose and Moore Creek sites. The differences between the proposed actions would not meaningfully change future habitat percentages within the known sites, with the greatest difference, of 1.1 percent, occurring in the Moore Creek site.

Cumulative Effects and Conclusion There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would contribute to the accelerated development or improved condition, of spotted owl nesting habitat within the analysis area within 30 years. Due to the overstocked condition of non-habitat stands within the action area, the BLM does not expect the additional natural development of spotted owl or murrelet nesting habitat within the analysis area. The project would not reduce spotted owl or murrelet nesting habitat currently on the landscape, and would accelerate the development of future nesting habitat for both species. Within 30 years, the BLM would accelerate the development of 514 acres supporting the center of a spotted owl core area under Alternative 1 and 383 acres under Alternative 2 over the no action alternative.

66 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Chapter 4 Consultation, Coordination, Appendices

Endangered Species Act Consultation The BLM conducted wildlife, fisheries, and botanical reviews for the proposed treatment units. The BLM would manage Special Status Species sites discovered during pre-disturbance surveys consistent with the Special Status Species policy and ROD/RMP requirements.

Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The BLM began informal consultation with the South Coast Interagency Level 1 Team (terrestrial subgroup), which included a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on July 12, 2017. Project discussions continued during subsequent Level 1 Team meetings with a more formal initiation discussion and field visit on October 11–12, 2017. The BLM submitted a draft biological assessment (BA) for review to the Level 1 Team on August 9, 2018. The BLM completed the final BA and submitted it to the Service on September 5, 2018. The Service responded on September 19, 2018 to the BLM’s informal consultation request with a Letter of Concurrence, as provided in Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536 (a)(2) and (a)(4), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service’s Letter of Concurrence, stated the proposed action “does not include any direct modification to spotted owl or murrelet habitats (i.e., spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging habitat [NRF] or suitable murrelet habitat) and is not expected to result in disturbance/disruption effects to these species” (USDI-FWS 2018b) (p. 2). The Service agreed with the BLM’s determination that “the proposed action is insignificant and discountable for the spotted owl, marbled murrelet and their designated critical habitats” (USDI-FWS 2018 p. 2).

Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service The BLM completed consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536 (a)(2) and (a)(4)), as amended. The Regional Administrator for NMFS signed the Programmatic Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the BLM’s Forest Management Program for Western Oregon (WCR-2017-7574) on March 9, 2018 (USDC-NMFS 2018b). The BLM would follow the review and verification process for timber sale activities, per the Biological Opinion, including submitting project notifications to NMFS.

Tribal Consultation The BLM’s initial project scoping, which ran between November 14, 2016 and December 15, 2016, included informal notifications to the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Indians, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI), and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians because these Tribes had requested copies of project scoping notices for the area. The BLM received no comments from the Tribes during this period.

The BLM sent the above listed Tribes, as well as the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians formal consultation request letters on October 15, 2018. The Tribes received the consultation letters on October 17 and 18, 2018. The Coquille Indian Tribe’s Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist responded, “We will defer to the Tribes more appropriate to the project area. Please keep us informed of significant archaeological findings” and “follow State Guidelines” and “in the event that proposed mitigation measures may be developed for other cultural resources in the [p]roject area, we would like to have the opportunity to comment” (Todd Martin, email dated October 23, 2018). The BLM received a second notification from the Coquille Indian Tribe, this time from the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), reiterating “We will defer this to CTCLUSI, as it’s a [little] further north than we typically comment” (Kassandra Rippee, email dated November 19, 2018). The archaeologist with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Indians requested a copy of the cultural resource survey on

67 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

November 27, 2018, but had no other comments on the project. No other Tribes responded to the BLM’s formal consultation requests.

On February 15, 2019, the BLM provided the above listed Tribes with an additional opportunity to review and comment on the EA and unsigned FONSI.

State Historic Preservation Office Consultation The BLM contracted with Logan Simpson to survey for cultural and archaeological resources within the West Fork Smith River project area including the proposed roads. Logan Simpson surveyed 443 acres from April 4–11, 2017 under CRS #UQ1705, and “no archaeological sites or isolates were identified in any of the surveyed areas” and “no previously documental cultural resources were present in any of the inventory areas” (Logan Simpson 2017) (p. 19). Logan Simpson surveyed high and medium probability areas, as determined by the BLM GIS probability model, when accessible. Logan Simpson recommended that the BLM find that the project “will result in no historic properties affected” and that timber harvest activities can proceed with no further cultural resource investigation” (Logan Simpson 2017) (p. 23). The BLM forwarded these results to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and SHPO assigned the report as SHPO Report # 29118.

Project development identified proposed waste sites (material disposal locations) after the Logan Simpson report. The BLM’s archaeologist subsequently conducted additional Class I (records) review and fieldwork on March 20, April 6, and May 18, 2018, followed by an addendum to cultural resource report UQ1705. The BLM archaeologist conducted pedestrian survey at 16 of the 39 proposed waste sites and select road renovation and new road construction locations for a total of an additional 8.5 acres of survey, including 28 1×1 meter surface scrapes. This updated cultural resources inventory and addendum indicated no cultural resources and no known previously identified archaeological sites in the vicinity. The BLM anticipates no known effects on significant cultural resources.

Based on these investigations and findings, the BLM is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act under the guidance of the 2012 National Programmatic Agreement and the 2015 Oregon Protocol.

List of Preparers Planning Forester John Goering (Project Lead) Wildlife Biologist Colleen Holland Fish Biologist Jennifer Feola Botanist Jennifer Sperling Hydrologist John Colby Geologist Greta Krost Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Jeanne Standley Silviculture Tristan Huff Port-Orford-cedar Coordinator Jim Kirkpatrick/Tristan Huff Fire/Fuels Jamie Lilienthal Archaeologist William Kerwin, Carley Smith Engineering/Roads Joy Menguita, Tony Aguilar Reciprocal Rights-of-Way Brett Jones Realty Joanne Miller GIS Eric Bredemann, Tristan Holland, Danielle Harvey, John Guetterman ACEC Coordinator Kip Wright Recreation Planner Tom Sill Planning and Environmental Coordinator Heather Partipilo (Team Lead)

68 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix A—Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) Issue 1: How would the proposed actions affect ACECs?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue because the Coos Bay District ACEC coordinator determined there were no ACECs within the proposed action areas (proposed units), as indicated in the ROD/RMP (pp. 224–229). The nearest ACECs are the 52-acre Roman Nose ACEC (Coos Bay District) approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the proposed treatment units, and the 351-acre Esmond Lake ACEC approximately 2.4 miles east of the proposed treatment units (Siuslaw Resource Area of the Northwestern Oregon District). Approximately 2.5 acres of the Esmond Lake ACEC is in the South Sister Creek 6th field subwatershed and approximately 31 acres of the Roman Nose ACEC in the West Fork Smith River 6th field subwatershed; however, these ACECs are not included within the proposed treatment areas. The 1,959-acre Wassen Creek ACEC (Coos Bay District) is approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the proposed treatment units and does not overlap the analysis area.

Air Quality Issue 1: How would the proposed action affect air quality?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM dismissed this issue from further analysis because the project tiers to, and is in conformance with, the PRMP/FEIS and with the ROD/RMP; and as the 2016 PRMP/FEIS analyzed the effects of the PRMP alternatives on air quality (pp. 145–163). The BLM dismissed this issue from further analysis because based on guidance from the Oregon Smoke Management Plan the BLM would only permit burning of slash when atmospheric conditions would allow for quick dissipation of smoke away from smoke sensitive receptor areas (local communities). The BLM would conduct activities in compliance with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-43-043). The BLM does not expect burning activities to result in adverse effects over a widespread area. Smoke from prescribed burning would contribute minor short-term increases in particulate matter in the air shed near the project area; however, the effects to air quality would not exceed what the BLM analyzed in the 2016 PRMP/FEIS (pp. 145–163).

Botany Issue 1: How would the proposed thinning, group selection harvest, tree tipping, and associated activities affect threatened and endangered (T&E), proposed T&E, or candidate plant species?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because there are no T&E, proposed T&E, or candidate plant species known or suspected to occur within the West Fork Smith River botany analysis area.

Issue 2: How would the proposed thinning, group selection harvest, tree tipping, and associated activities affect Bureau Sensitive plant species?

Rationale for elimination: Thinning, group selection, tree tipping, and the associated activities within the proposed treatment units would not affect the 34 suspected Bureau Sensitive plant species (Appendix G Table G–1) because, if any Bureau Sensitive plant species is located during surveys in the proposed units the BLM would implement management measures for the conservation of those species (Brian et al. 2002, Castellano and O'Dell 1997). The BLM would protect the microhabitat to ensure and maintain persistence of the species. Application of buffers, incorporated in a project design feature, where needed, would maintain microsite conditions, is in accordance with 2016 ROD/RMP (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 529)

69 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

and the BLM Manual 6840 – for Special Status Species Management (USDI-BLM 2008c). In the BLM botanist’s professional opinion, the BLM’s proposed action would not increase the likelihood or need for listing of any SSS species, because no SSS species were located during surveys (see survey maps), and if SSS species were found at a later date, they would be managed according to species management requirements within the 2016 ROD/RMP. Additionally, the project also incorporates an additional PDFs for Special Status Species found after the BLM awards the contract. If this occurs, the BLM would require the contractor to follow management guidelines to protect the species.

Issue 3: How would the proposed thinning, group selection harvest, tree tipping, and associated activities affect Bureau Sensitive fungi species?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM dismissed this issue from analysis because the West Fork Smith River project areas are young stands (30–60 years old) and in the professional opinion of the BLM botanist these stands are not considered adequate habitat for Bureau Sensitive fungi. The best habitat for the nine suspected Bureau Sensitive fungi species (Appendix G Table G–1) is within Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) habitat; therefore, it is unlikely that these species would be located within these mid seral stands, and no Bureau Sensitive fungi have been located to date. Under the 2016 ROD/RMP, management direction requires species management of known sites for Sensitive fungi species, and the West Fork Smith River project incorporates a PDF (#71) that would apply ROD/RMP management direction to manage the species, if found. There is insufficient information to determine how the proposed thinning would affect the distribution and stability of Bureau Sensitive fungi species, if present, with the loss of some individual sporocarps through variable tree removal.

The BLM also does not conduct formal surveys for fungi because fungi surveys are not considered practical (Cushman and Huff 2007). Detection of fungi occurs typically due to observation of sporocarps (fruiting bodies) which is sporadic because many fungi do not produce sporocarps every year. Most of the structure (mycelium) of fungi species is not visible, because it is within whatever substrate the fungus lives (e.g., logs, tree stumps, duff, and soil). Even if sporocarps were visible, it only indicates the species is present but it does not indicate the extent of the population. All nine suspected Bureau Sensitive fungi species are ectomycorrhizal and have an underground network of mycelia that forms a symbiotic relationship with nearby tree and shrub species. An indication of the fungi composition within the soil is reflected by the structure of the plant community so disturbance to a plant community brings unknown changes to the fungal individual or mycelial mats (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 525).

The BLM proposes thinning treatments with or without group selection harvest on 1,822–1,884 acres (or one percent) of the 182,174 acres of LSR on the Coos Bay District. Thinning stands would contribute to both plant community and soil disturbance and could potentially reduce existing mycelial networks (Lippert 2014). While thinning can be disruptive to a portion of plant communities within the proposed treatment areas, retention of various ranges of tree size classes would facilitate the recovery of mycelial networks, bio-diversity, and production (Lippert 2014).

Also, after treatments, riparian areas and aggregate tree clumps would maintain the presence of ectomycorrhizal fungi (Luoma et al. 2004). Based on the above reasons, the BLM will not analyze this issue in detail.

Carbon Storage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issue 1: How would the proposed action affect carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions?

Rationale for elimination: The effects of the proposed timber harvest on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions is not analyzed in detail, because, regardless of project-specific or site-specific information,

70 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the proposed action beyond those disclosed in the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement.

On August 5, 2016, the BLM issued the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (2016 ROD/RMP) revising the 1995 RMP for Coos Bay District. The BLM based the ROD on the analysis conducted in the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement: Western Oregon (USDI-BLM 2016). The 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzed the effects of timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and livestock grazing on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage, and the potential impacts of climate change on major plan objectives.

The effects of the proposed action (i.e., timber harvest activities) on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions tiers to the analysis in the FEIS. As described below, the proposed action is consistent with the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD, and the proposed action is not expected to have significant effects beyond those already analyzed in the FEIS. While analysis of the project-specific and site-specific conditions could give greater specificity to the analysis in the FEIS, there is no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the proposed action beyond those disclosed in the FEIS. The analysis in the FEIS addressed the effects on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions of implementing the entire program of work in the fisheries program based on high quality and detailed information (pp. 165– 180; 1295–1304). The information available on project-specific and site-specific conditions, while more specific, is not fundamentally different from the information used in the FEIS analysis of effects on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions, and thus cannot reveal any fundamentally different effects than that broader analysis.

The FEIS upon which the 2016 ROD/RMP was based examined the most recent science regarding climate change, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis in Volume 1 on pages 165– 211 are relevant to this project and are incorporated by reference.

The key points from 2016 FEIS analyses include (p. 165):  Net carbon storage would increase.  Annual greenhouse gas emissions would increase although annual emissions would remain less than 1 percent of the 2010 statewide greenhouse gas emissions.  Climate change increases the uncertainty that reserves will function as intended and that planned timber harvest levels can be attained, with the uncertainty increasing over time.  Active management provides opportunities to implement climate change adaptive strategies and potentially reduce social and ecological disruptions arising from warming and drying conditions.

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

The FEIS estimated the effects of implementing actions consistent with the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon and the Southwestern Oregon RMPs as follows in Table A–1:

71 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table A–1. Estimated current and future carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions from the 2016 FEIS Current 2033 2063 Carbon Storage 336 Tg C 404 Tg C 482 Tg C

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 123,032 Mg CO2e/year 256 Mg CO2e/year 230,759 Mg CO2e/year

The carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions analysis was based on assumptions concerning the level of management activity:  The FEIS assumed an average annual harvest level of 278 MMbf per year (205 MMbf from the Harvest Land Base and 73 MM bf from non-ASQ related harvest) over the entire decision area (FEIS pp. 307, 353). The expected annual harvest for the Coos Bay District is 30 MMbf (12 MMbf from the Harvest Land Base and 18 MMbf from non-ASQ related harvest).  Activity fuels treatments are aligned with the harvest program with estimated acres of prescribed fire treatment type provided by the Woodstock model (FEIS p. 1300). The decadal average of activity fuels prescribed burning for the first 20 years of the RMP would be an estimated 64,806 acres over the entire decision area (FEIS p. 362). For the Coos Bay District, the expected decadal average activity fuels program covers 5,589 acres.  The FEIS assumed that the non-commercial hazardous fuels (natural fuels) treatment levels would not differ from the 2003–2012 period although there is substantial year-to-year variability in the size of the program over the planning area and within any one District (FEIS p. 270). Approximately 173,300 acres of natural fuels treatment is expected to occur on average each decade across the planning area (FEIS p. 167). The expected natural fuels treatment program for the Coos Bay District is 4,713 acres per decade, on average (FEIS p. 270).

Under the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP, no allotments would be available for livestock grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease (p. 84). As a result, no greenhouse gas emissions from a regular grazing program would occur.

The amount of activity fuels prescribed burning is the primary driver of greenhouse gas emissions (FEIS, p. 178). Greenhouse gas emissions would increase substantially largely due to the projected increases in activity fuels prescribed burning. The FEIS assumed no change in the natural fuels prescribed burning program from the recent past. Greenhouse gas emissions analyzed included those from grazing, prescribed burning, and harvest operations (FEIS, p. 174).

There is no new information, or changed circumstances, that would substantially change the effects anticipated in the 2016 FEIS. This is because:  The harvest levels remain within the range of that analyzed in the FEIS. For the Coos Bay District, the harvest level was 33.4 MMbf in 2017 and 42.511 MMbf in 2018 (35.2 MMbf in non- ASQ and 7.3 MMbf in ASQ), which is in conformance with the ROD/RMP.  The acres of activity fuels prescribed burning and expected tonnage consumed remains within the range analyzed in the FEIS. For the Coos Bay District, the activity fuels prescribed burning was 1,173 acres (1,311 tons) in FY 2018, which is in conformance with the ROD/RMP.  The acres of natural fuels prescribed burning and expected tonnage consumed does not exceed the levels analyzed in the FEIS. For the Coos Bay District, the natural fuels prescribed burning was 207 acres (2,440 tons) in FY 2018, which is in conformance with the ROD/RMP.

11 This value includes volume from a no-bid timber sale that was re-offered.

72 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Cultural Resources Issue 1: How would the proposed timber harvest, road building, and waste sites affect cultural resources?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because the agency completed cultural resource inventories for the project area on April 4–11, 2017, and March 20, April 6, and May 18, 2018. A Class I (documentation and records check) inventory indicated that there were no known cultural resources; and no previous cultural resource inventories had been conducted in the project area. The BLM also conducted an intensive Class III cultural resource inventory and did not identify any cultural resources. The project is in compliance with the Antiquities Act, Historic Sites Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The BLM has met the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992), which governs the treatment of cultural resources during project planning and implementation. NHPA section 106 compliance was completed under the guidance of the 2012 National Programmatic Agreement (amended 2014) and the 2015 protocol between the Oregon- Washington BLM and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (USDI-BLM and Oregon SHPO 2015). The BLM’s cultural resource specialist does not anticipate effects to cultural resources because the project area inventories did not identify cultural resources or properties eligible for, or potentially eligible for, the National Register for Historic Preservation (NRHP). Furthermore, the proposed project includes a project design feature (PDF) that addresses potential cultural resource discoveries, including the requirement to suspend all activities until an evaluation is conducted, to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. Based on the results of the inventories and the incorporation of the PDF into the proposed action, the BLM, therefore, eliminates this issue from further analysis.

Environmental Justice Issue 1: How would the proposed forest management actions affect minority, low-income, or Tribal populations?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM dismissed this issue from detailed analysis because the project tiers to, and is in conformance with, the PRMP/FEIS and with the ROD/RMP; and as the 2016 PRMP/FEIS analyzed the effects of the PRMP alternatives on environmental justice (pp. 723–735). Douglas County, where this project is located, did not meet the environmental justice criteria based on minority populations (pp. 724, 733), and comes within one percent of the low-income threshold (p. 734).

Fire Management Issue 1: How would the proposed thinning and group selection treatments affect residual activity fuels loading?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because the project tiers to, and is in conformance with, the analysis in the PRMP/FEIS and with the ROD/RMP; and as the 2016 PRMP/FEIS analyzed the effects of the PRMP alternatives on post-harvest fuel loading (pp. 264–270). Historically, the BLM has treated a portion of residual activity fuels following timber management activities for both site preparation and hazardous fuels reduction purposes. The BLM incorporated these assumptions into the modeling as a reasonable expectation of future levels of treatments (2016 PRMP/FEIS, pp. 267). The PRMP/FEIS evaluated Wildland Fire Potential in proximity to developed areas; and the Proposed Action “would increase the acres of Low hazard, relative to the current conditions, on all BLM-administered lands within close proximity to Wildland Development Areas” (pp. 253–265). The BLM fuels specialist determined, based on the FEIS analysis and the location of the West Fork Smith River project, that 93 percent of the proposed treatment units are in the Low fire potential risk category, four percent are Very Low category, one percent the Moderate category, and two percent Non-

73 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

burnable (LANDFIRE National Map data 2014 LF_140). The PRMP/FEIS further analyzed how different timber management types (i.e., thinning vs. clearcut) would affect the residual surface fuel loading (pp. 264–270). Thinning, along with moderate to light selection harvest had the lowest residual fuel loading weighted value—2—with heavy selection harvest scoring a 3 (PRMP/FEIS Table 3-37, p. 266). Based on review, and the incorporation of Best Management Practices (Appendix C) from the 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP, pp. 163–164) and project design features, and the conclusion that fuel loading following treatment would be within the effects analysis in the PRMP/FEIS, the BLM is not analyzing this issue in further detail.

Floodplains

Issue 1: How would the proposed actions affect floodplains?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue because there are no flood plains within the project area. The BLM hydrologist reviewed Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps dated January 6, 2010: 41019C0050F, 41019C0075F, 41019C0200F, and 41019C0225F for special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) (https://msc.fema.gov/), and none were found.

Invasive Species, Including Noxious Weeds Issue 1: How would the proposed thinning, group selection, tree tipping, and associated activities affect the introduction and spread of invasive species, including noxious weeds?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because this project is tiered to the invasive species analysis in the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDI-BLM 2016a) (pp. 419–437), which determined that timber harvest, road construction and road use along with other ground-disturbing activities increased the risk of invasive plant introduction and spread. The BLM “would implement measures to prevent, detect, and rapidly control new invasive species infestations based on management direction. Because of this management direction, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would be expected to apply mitigation against introduction and spread of invasive plant species” ((USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 437); (USDI-BLM 2016b) (p. 80)). Although all proposed activities have the potential to introduce or spread invasive plants, all project activities would implement project design features (PDFs) intended to minimize the risk of introducing invasive plant propagules (seeds and reproductive vegetative material) and spread of existing infestations into the harvest areas, access roads, and waste and stockpiling areas. Additionally, BLM developed a site-specific Risk Assessment (Appendix K). Because the risk assessment determined that most proposed activities have a moderate or high risk of introducing or spreading weeds, this project has been modified with project design features to reduce the risk level through preventative measures. These PDFs are consistent with Standard Operating Procedures in the Integrated Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment for the Coos Bay District Appendix A (USDI-BLM 2018c). For example, the BLM would require project contractors to wash all equipment and vehicles to remove soil, mud, vegetative materials, and excess oil, grease or other materials that could contain seed before moving onto BLM-managed lands, including all project areas. Additionally, the BLM would require the use of weed-free materials (including soil, gravel, rock, seed, plants and mulch) to prevent the introduction of weed propagules.

The BLM currently treats noxious weed infestations on BLM-managed lands under the Integrated Invasive Plant Management for the Coos Bay District EA ((DOI-BLM-ORWA-C000-2017-0003-EA), (USDI-BLM 2018c)). The BLM treats known weed sites as early as possible prior to ground disturbance to reduce available propagules that could be moved into the project area. Monitoring and noxious weed

74 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

treatments, combined with PDFs, would minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive plants.

Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease Issue 1: How would the proposed thinning, group selection harvest, tree tipping, and associated activities affect the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease?

Rationale for elimination: Port-Orford-cedar (POC) root disease is spread when the causal agent Phytophthora lateralis is moved from infested areas to uninfested areas. In the Pacific Northwest, POC is the only host of import and no stands of POC (infested or uninfested) exist within the West Fork Smith River analysis area (POC Risk Key, Appendix J); consequently, the BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis.

Public Access and Safety Issue 1: How would the proposed forest management treatments and road construction activities affect public access and safety?

Rationale for elimination: Due to the checkerboard nature of public and private land ownerships, some, but not all, proposed treatment areas have legal road access for the public (Appendix D, Table D–5). Access to public lands across roads where public access is not guaranteed may be restricted due to ‘no trespassing’ signs and/or locked gates. Access may also be temporarily restricted for public safety due to active logging and hauling of timber. During active logging and hauling operations, operators are required to follow State and Federal OSHA regulations that require signs and flaggers during timber harvesting operations. Assuming contractors follow all OSHA safety regulations for public notification of activities operating in the area, there would be no additional risk of injury to the public beyond that which currently exists, and in the professional opinion of the BLM’s Outdoor Recreation Planner there is no potential for significant effects; therefore, the BLM is eliminating this issue from further analysis.

Recreation Issue 1: How would the proposed forest management treatments and road construction activities affect designated recreation management areas?

Rationale for elimination: The Coos Bay District BLM manages the nearby Smith River Corridor, which is a 9,505-acre Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) approximately one mile south of EA units 1, 2, 15, and 16 and two miles from EA units 37–39. Portions of the Smith River Corridor ERMA overlap approximately 47 and 205 acres within the West Fork Smith River and South Sister Creek watersheds, respectively; however, the ERMA and the treatment units do not overlap (ROD/RMP pp. 252–253). Recreation objectives within the Smith River Corridor ERMA include providing for the following primary visitor activities: hunting, fishing, driving for pleasure, camping, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, and various other types of day use activities. The proposed actions would not interfere with the recreation objectives within the analysis area. The BLM does not anticipate a change in the amount or quality of the available dispersed recreation opportunities within the Smith River Corridor ERMA because the BLM does not propose forest management treatments and road construction activities within the Smith River Corridor ERMA.

There are no Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) within the recreation analysis area. The nearest developed recreation site is the Vincent Creek Campground, which is approximately two miles from the southwest boundary of the recreation analysis area along Smith River Road.

75 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

The BLM anticipates there would be an increase in logging traffic on project area roads under both action alternatives as timber purchasers or contractors harvest and haul timber. The BLM also anticipates that temporary road closures would occur due to active logging; however, this is a common occurrence on western Oregon forested lands and visitors would continue to have other recreational opportunities on public lands available in the area.

Based on a review of activities and locations, the BLM determined that the proposed actions would be in conformance with the recreation objectives within the analysis area. Activities would occur outside of the Smith River Corridor ERMA, and no SRMAs are present, therefore, no mitigating measures are required or recommended, and the BLM is eliminating this issue from further analysis.

Issue 2: How would the proposed forest management treatments and road construction activities affect Congressionally Reserved Land (i.e., Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers) or District- Designated Reserves (i.e., Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics)?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM determined that the proposed treatment units do not include any Wild and Scenic Rivers, designated Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or lands with wilderness characteristics (ROD/RMP p. 252; PRMP/FEIS pp. 465–467). The Coos Bay District BLM does not manage any Wild and Scenic Rivers (PRMP/FEIS p. 1026), or designated Wilderness Areas. The Coos Bay District BLM manages one 579-acre Wilderness Study Area (called the Cherry Creek RNA/ACEC, ROD/RMP p. 225; previously known as the Douglas-fir Instant Study Area, RMP Interactive Map12); however, it is 42 miles away, and not within the recreation analysis area. The only identified lands with wilderness characteristics that the Coos Bay District BLM manages are within the 2,473-acre Wassen Creek ERMA, which is approximately 6.5 miles to the southwest of the nearest proposed action area and not within the West Fork Smith River or South Sister Creek watersheds (PRMP/FEIS p. 467). As these recreational resources are not present within the recreation analysis area, the BLM dismissed this issue from further analysis.

Soil Productivity and Stability Issue 1: How would proposed timber harvest, yarding, fuels treatments, and road and landing construction and decommissioning affect soil productivity in the treatment areas?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM dismissed this issue from further analysis because the PRMP/FEIS analyzed for the effects of logging methods on soil resources (pp. 746–752). The PRMP/FEIS found that soil disturbance could result in some reduction of future tree growth; however, management direction would limit the increase of detrimental soil disturbance to 20 percent. The BLM geologist determined that the effects to soil productivity would be negligible and the incorporation and implementation of applicable BMPs (and project design features) would minimize effects to soil productivity, and effects would not exceed what the BLM anticipated and analyzed in PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2016a) (pp. 745– 768). Two important BMPs/PDFs for soil health, as determined by the BLM geologist based on soil textures are: 1) a soil moisture limit of 25 percent or less for ground-based operations, and 2) use of slash under equipment, when feasible, to help minimize compaction and reduce erosion and soil displacement. Although soil moistures above 25 percent are preferred for road building, they are not preferred for operations within treatment units.

12 https://webmaps.blm.gov/Geocortex/Html5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=rmpwo_interactive_map_rod

76 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

In addition, the PRMP/FEIS analyzed for effects of new road construction on soil resources (pp. 752– 767) and found that the increased acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from new road construction in the first decade would range from 1.7–4.8 percent of the current total (Table 3-208). The increase of detrimental soil disturbance due to roads is included in the 10 percent growth loss over the length of the next rotation, as it comprises part of the 20 percent detrimental soil disturbance levels. This represents a negligible increase in the acreage of detrimental soil disturbance from road construction. The BLM geologist determined the proposed 12.9 miles of new roads (22 acres of detrimental soil disturbance) would not exceed the 20 percent detrimental soil disturbance threshold in proposed treatment areas (Appendix M Table M–1). Implementing BMPs (R 01, R 06–R 10, R 12, R13, R 30–R 32, R 35, R 37–R 39, R 42–R 47, R 77–R 94, R 96, R 97, R 99) and PDFs (35, 36, 37) would further minimize soil erosion from construction and decommissioning of these new routes and landings. The BLM would decommission and fully decommission 5.0 miles and 0.7 miles, respectively at project conclusion.

The BLM determined that units would not incur over 20 percent detrimental soil disturbance because the BLM geologist reviewed aerial imagery, LiDAR, and conducted site-specific analysis and surveys and evaluated the potential effects to soil productivity in areas in the most susceptible areas (e.g., ground- based yarding units, new road construction, landings, and activity fuels treatments) (Appendix M Table M–1). Based on field data and calculations of existing and proposed disturbance, the BLM concluded that, based on past soil disturbance, and the proposed use of existing skid trails, the combined soil disturbance would not exceed 20 percent.

For timber harvest where the BLM implements ground-based yarding, logging prescriptions and BMPs (TH 01–TH 03, TH 05–TH 19, TH 21, TH 22) would limit and/or ameliorate soil displacement and compaction to within the threshold (below 20 percent of the area). This means that soil displacement, compaction, and erosion would remain within threshold levels. The BLM would implement an important BMP/PDF to restrict non-road, in unit, ground-based equipment used for harvesting operations to periods of low soil moisture less than 25 percent; generally from May 15 to Oct 15. This threshold is important, because if these soils contain greater than 25 percent moisture, than optimum compaction could occur, which is preferred for road building but not in-unit harvest operations.

The proposed prescribed fire and mechanical treatments include pile burning (either hand-piled or machine-piled). Mechanical treatments could include lop and scatter and cutting and piling, with or without subsequent burning. Machine piling could occur along the roadsides, where the equipment would not leave the road or landings. The landing and roadside piles do not contribute to detrimental soil disturbance since the area already has detrimental soil disturbance from road construction. Pile burning would occur during the late fall/early winter months after wetting rains have occurred. Hand piling material is smaller in diameter and in smaller piles typically does not generate lethal soil temperatures. In addition, burning hand piles during the wetter months would not cause detrimental disturbance to soil, because heat penetration is substantially lower in moist soil than in dry soil due to the additional energy required to heat water (Busse et al. 2010). The BLM would implement BMPs (F 04–F 09, F11) that would reduce fuels reduction activity effects to soil; therefore, no additional detrimental soil effects would occur from the proposed activity.

Issue 2: How would proposed timber harvest, yarding, and temporary route construction affect the shallow and deep landslide regime in the treatment areas?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM considered this issue, but did not analyze it in detail because the BLM’s proposed actions would not increase the natural landslide regime due to the design and layout of the project. The BLM geologist did not find any active deep-seated slides. The BLM geologist chose field reconnaissance locations based on features identified from LiDAR or aerial imagery and the type of

77 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

proposed actions (e.g., road building, waste sites, or harvest prescription). Within the analysis area, approximately 29 percent of lands outside of the Riparian Reserve, and 49 percent of lands within the Outer Zone of the Riparian Reserve have high slide susceptibility for shallow slides based on the steepness of slopes. However, the BLM is not proposing to build roads or harvest timber on unstable slopes where there is a downslope risk to private roads, State or County roads, or residences. Furthermore, the BLM would lower the risk of causing or re-activing a slide by following BMPs and PDFs for roadwork, by locating roads and waste areas on stable locations, and by managing surface water by diverting it to vegetated areas (BMPs R 01, R 07–R 10, R 14, R 15, R 18, R 21, R 22, R 26, R 28–R 30, R 33, R 37–R 39, R 41, R 42, R 44–R 47, R 61, R 63–R 67, R 77–R 83, R 85–R 94, R 97; PDFs 35, 36, 37).

The geologist field reviewed proposed group selection harvest areas that were located on old slide features, or in areas that looked unstable based on office review. There are proposed group selection harvest areas that overlay or intersect very large deep-seated slides (100+ acres); however, the BLM is dismissing this issue because the group selection areas would not affect soil stability because the areas are small (less than four acres), located in stable areas, would be replanted, and the BLM found no evidence of instability.

Approximately 29 percent (607 acres) of the proposed thinning units are on shallow landslide-prone soils with greater than 65 percent slopes. The majority of the proposed thinning is located outside of the Riparian Reserve, which is important because slides that occur near streams can channelize and cause more damage. The proposed actions should not increase the natural landslide regime (deep or shallow slides) because thinning activities retain live roots across the hillslope, and retained live roots contribute to slope stability.

With the exception of ‘tree tipping’ for the purpose of recruiting large wood for streams, the BLM would not thin within the Inner and Middle Zones of the Riparian Reserve, as these areas are part of the 50-foot to 120-foot no-thin buffers (depending on if it is a perennial/fish-bearing or intermittent/non-fish-bearing stream). The BLM thinning proposed in portions of the Outer Zone of the Riparian Reserve, on slopes greater than 65 percent, in an effort to grow larger trees, so if or when the ground slides, the wood delivered to the stream would be larger in diameter (see Fisheries report). Approximately 352 acres (49 percent) of the proposed Outer Zone Riparian Reserve action areas have slopes greater than 65 percent. However, as stated above, thinning retains live roots across the hillslope, which contribute to slope stability, and therefore the proposed actions should not increase the natural landslide regime.

The geologist reviewed the location of existing and proposed roads that go through landslide features. The geologist also reviewed each of the 20 existing and 19 proposed waste sites by either field visit or LiDAR and aerial photography. All 39 waste sites are, or would be, located on gentle stable gradients, away from streams, and would be appropriate for waste placement. During road construction activities, waste material would be end-hauled to one or more of these stable locations, and the BLM would identify locations for operators prior to hauling. Based on these reviews, the BLM is dismissing this issue because road building, renovation of older roads, and waste site locations would occur on stable ridgetops, stable areas, or on previously constructed locations, and the BLM would employ BMPs for construction, stream crossings, drainage, erosion control, stormproofing, and wet season use; therefore, slides from road- related or waste-site related activities would be eliminated and have no potential for significant effects.

Visual Resources Issue 1: How would the proposed forest management treatments and road construction activities affect visual resources?

Rationale for elimination: Geographic Information System (GIS) review of the West Fork Smith River project showed the visual resource analysis area to be in Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Class IV. The

78 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

analysis assumption in the PRMP/FEIS regarding forest management practices on scenic quality values for VRI Class IV is described as follows:

All harvest types could take place within VRI Class IV areas without degrading their visual resource values.

BLM Manual H-8410-1 (Visual Resource Management) defines the objectives of Class IV as follows:

The objective of this class is to provide for management activities which require 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, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements (USDI-BLM 1986)(p. 7).

It is the judgement of the BLM Outdoor Recreation Planner that implementation of the proposed forest management treatments and road construction activities are in conformance with the VRI Class IV description and the VRM Class IV management objectives, as described in the PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2016a) (pp. 821–823), to which this project is tiered and incorporated by reference. The PRMP/FEIS analyzed the effects to visual resources from forest management and determined that “regeneration timber harvest would not diminish the existing visual values of areas that are VRI Class IV.” It should be noted that regeneration harvest is a more intensive and visually impacting forest management treatment than the proposed action of thinning. The PRMP/FEIS further states that “under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the largest designated VRI class of the Harvest Land Base would be VRI Class IV; timber harvest would not degrade the overall visual values of these areas.” Therefore, the BLM is eliminating this issue from further analysis as there is no potential for significant effects.

Water Issue 1: How would the proposed thinning and group selection openings affect summer water availability for aquatic habitat?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from detailed analysis in part because the intensity and arrangement of vegetation management would result in relatively small and short-lived summer streamflow changes. Following timber harvest reduced interception and reduced evapotranspiration lead to increased water yield including increased low flows (Harr 1983). Perry and Jones (2016) found that, relative to clearcutting entire catchments, initial summer streamflow surpluses were lowest and disappeared most quickly in a 50 percent thinned catchment, and summer streamflow deficits did not emerge over time in a 50 percent thinned catchment and a catchment with small (1.5–3.2- acre) patch cuts, where some patches were overlapping streams. Thinning and small patch cuts produce a muted summer streamflow response because streamflow changes are generally proportional to the amount of vegetation removed (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Harr 1976, Harr et al. 1979), and vegetation remaining after thinning and small patch cuts utilizes some of the soil moisture that becomes available following timber harvest (Reiter and Beschta 1995, Satterlund and Adams 1992). Trees remaining after harvest would exhibit declining transpiration with increasing age (Moore et al. 2004, Perry 2007, Perry and Jones 2016) potentially freeing some soil moisture for streamflow; however, development of younger understory vegetation could have a countervailing effect. It is reasonable to expect that BLM thinning (269 trees per acre stand average current condition to 118 trees per acre stand average projected post- treatment condition) (Appendix H Table H–1 columns 7 and 8) and group selection treatments (0.2–4.0- acre openings, 2.9-acre mean opening size, openings more widely distributed and farther from streams than the small patch cuts studied by Perry and Jones (2016)) would also produce relatively small and

79 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

short-lived (less than 10 years) summer streamflow surpluses without trending to summer streamflow deficits.

The BLM also eliminated this issue because any summer streamflow changes would be indiscernible downstream given the range of natural variability in summer streamflow. Rainfall and streamflow drop to seasonally low levels in western Oregon in the summer, and intermittent streams, that are non-permanent drainage features with a dry period (USDI-BLM 2016a) (Volume 2 p. 1072), account for roughly half of the 50 stream miles that cross the proposed treatment units. Intermittent streams transition to perennial streams at variable locations within a stream reach from year-to-year and not at the same geographic point each year. Several factors other than harvest, including climate, changes in stream morphology, and changes in forest species composition and cover (because of forest succession and disturbance) can affect annual shifts in the spatial and temporal drawdown of water in intermittent streams. Perry (2007) (Appendix C) found less than 0.1 millimeter per day of absolute change in summer (July–September) streamflow when comparing 50 percent thinning and patch cutting (1.5–3.2-acre openings) to a control catchment that was not harvested. The degree to which such a small change in post-harvest summer streamflow would influence the volume and persistence of an isolated pool in a drying intermittent stream reach is difficult to measure given other non-harvest-related factors. Post-treatment streamflow changes of similar magnitude would be indistinguishable at the subwatershed scale considering that the station measuring water depth near the mouth of the West Fork Smith River subwatershed (a basin without active vegetation management) has a maximum difference in year-to-year water surface elevation of 0.52 feet or 158 millimeters (monitoring period July 1–September 22, 2013–2017, data available at Coos Bay District BLM Office).

The BLM also eliminated this issue because treatment-related summer streamflow changes would be too small to have a measurable effect on in-stream water rights supporting aquatic life. The Oregon Water Resources Department has rights to instream flow at the mouth of the West Fork Smith River subwatershed and the mouth of the South Sister Creek subwatershed, locations thousands of feet distant from the proposed treatment units. Anticipated minor treatment-related summer streamflow changes, difficult to perceive near treatment units, would not affect stream volume in any meaningful way so far downstream.

The BLM dismissed this issue because proposed treatments would produce small and short-lived summer streamflow surpluses that are not measurable downstream and are inconsequential to streamflow volume where water rights support aquatic life.

Issue 2: How would the proposed Outer Zone RR thinning and tree tipping affect summer water temperature?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from detailed analysis in part because the BLM already analyzed the effect of thinning in the Outer Zone of the Riparian Reserve on summer water temperature in the 2016 Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) to which this EA is tiered. There would be no reasonably foreseeable effect beyond that disclosed in the PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2016a) (pp. 369–384). The PRMP/FEIS concluded that a limited number of perennial and fish-bearing stream miles would be susceptible to shade reductions and potential summer water temperature increases if the BLM thinned in the Outer Zone of the Riparian Reserve in areas with less than 40 percent canopy cover in the Inner Zone. There are no perennial and fish-bearing stream reaches in the proposed Outer Zone thinning units with less than 40 percent canopy cover in the Inner Zone (Table H–2 column 15); therefore, the BLM does not expect thinning-related summer water temperature increases.

80 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

The BLM also eliminated this issue because tree cutting within the Riparian Reserve for fish habitat restoration would not affect shade enough to produce a measurable increase in summer water temperatures. According to Everest and Reeves (2007), little research has been done on gap dynamics in riparian buffers, but it’s reasonable to assume that stem snap of weakened trees and uprooting of healthy trees during small-scale wind events are normal disturbance processes that probably have minimal effects on summer and winter water temperatures. Likewise, the BLM expects the felling of trees towards streams for fish habitat, which is analogous to the toppling of trees due to stochastic events, to have minimal effect on summer water temperatures (i.e., not result in measurable summer water temperature increases downstream of the proposed treatment units). In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service does “not expect a measurable change in temperature from tree tipping without a significant reduction in stand density (overall less than 40% canopy cover)” (USDC-NMFS 2016) (p. 206). Tree cutting for habitat restoration would not reduce Riparian Reserve canopy cover below 40 percent (Table H–2 column 15); therefore, the BLM does not expect summer water temperature increases.

The BLM also eliminated this issue because the intensity and arrangement of vegetation management would result in relatively small and short-lived summer streamflow changes with negligible influence on summer water temperatures. The BLM is proposing variable-intensity treatments, and Perry (2007) concluded “variable-intensity logging prescriptions over small areas to approximate natural forest structure may have the least effect on summer streamflows.” Other things being equal (e.g., stream width, shade, etc.), streams with greater water volume warm more slowly than streams with less water volume. Anticipated relatively small summer streamflow surpluses would increase stream volume only slightly and therefore have little effect on summer water temperatures.

The BLM dismissed this issue because the post-treatment Riparian Reserve would contain the shade necessary to prevent solar loading, and any treatment-related summer streamflow surpluses would change stream volume so little as to be inconsequential to downstream summer water temperatures.

Issue 3: How would the proposed thinning and group selection openings affect summer water availability for consumptive and irrigation water uses?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from detailed analysis in part because the proposed treatments would not affect drinking water source areas for public water systems. Project area subwatersheds are not within Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Health Authority designated drinking water source areas for public water systems that have at least 15 hookups or serve more than 25 people year-round (ODEQ 2017). Furthermore, there are no designated drinking water source areas downstream between the project area subwatersheds and the Pacific Ocean; therefore, the proposed treatments would have no effect on drinking water source areas for public water systems.

The BLM also eliminated this issue because treatment-related summer streamflow changes would be too small to have a measurable effect on the nearest private point of diversion for irrigation on the Smith River just over six miles downstream from the confluence of the Smith and West Fork Smith. Anticipated minor treatment-related summer streamflow changes, difficult to perceive near treatment units, would not affect stream volume in any meaningful way so far downstream.

Issue 4: How would the proposed thinning, group selection openings, and new roads affect peak flow and stream channel morphology?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from detailed analysis in part because there is little risk that the proposed treatments and road building would increase peak flows to the detriment of channel form and aquatic habitat. Grant et al. (2008) reviewed the effects of forest practices on peak

81 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

flows and the subsequent channel response in western Oregon and found that there is a low likelihood of peak flow increase with thinning and small patch cuts, wide riparian buffers, and reduced road connectivity with channels (Figure 12 p. 40). The BLM is proposing thinning or thinning with interspersed group selection openings, wide buffers (no commercial harvest within 120 feet of perennial and intermittent streams), and new roads generally on or near ridges away from streams; therefore, the BLM expects a low likelihood of peak flow increase with vegetation treatments and road construction. Grant and coauthors (Grant et al. 2008) also found that peak flow effects on channel morphology are likely to be minor (i.e., little potential to affect channel structure but may affect transport and deposition of fine sediment) in most step-pool channels. Step-pool channels typical within the proposed treatment units contain large wood and rock resistant to movement, even with increasing flow. Given the low likelihood of peak flow increase and the high probability of maintaining channel form and function, the BLM does not anticipate detrimental aquatic habitat changes.

The BLM also eliminated this issue because the project area subwatersheds are in the rain hydroregion and therefore less susceptible to harvest-related peak flow increase. The BLM’s 2016 PRMP/FEIS, to which this EA is tiered, only analyzed peak flow effects in the rain-on-snow hydroregion because this hydroregion is more susceptible than the lower elevation rain hydroregion to detectable peak flow increase with increasing harvest (USDI-BLM 2016a) (pp. 384–394). Project area subwatersheds, located in the rain hydroregion and not specifically identified in the PRMP/FEIS as subwatersheds currently susceptible to peak flow increase (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 391), do not warrant additional analysis.

Issue 5: How would the proposed new roads in the Riparian Reserve affect sediment delivery to stream channels?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from detailed analysis because new road construction, use, and decommissioning would result in negligible sediment delivery to streams. The BLM would install and eventually remove new stream crossings during the dry season, and isolate worksites with surface flow with filter materials and bypass pumping if necessary to minimize or prevent off-site sediment movement. Haul would occur during the dry season on all new natural surface road segments within the Riparian Reserve eliminating waterborne sediment delivery to streams. The one new gravel road with all season haul has approximately 19 feet within the Riparian Reserve and this short segment is greater than or equal to 120 feet from a stream (Appendix A Table A–3). Brake et al. (1997) noted a 31-foot mean sediment travel distance below ditch relief culverts on new roads in the Oregon Coast Range, and 120 feet is almost four times greater than this mean sediment travel distance. Runoff through a ditch relief culvert, should one be installed where the gravel road and the Riparian Reserve overlap, has little chance of delivering sediment to the adjacent stream. More likely than not this section of road would be outsloped to disperse surface flow to the forest floor eliminating the need for a ditch relief culvert (BMP R 30). The BLM would either decommission or fully decommission natural surface roads within the Riparian Reserve eliminating the potential for sediment delivery to stream channels from traffic unrelated to the proposed treatments.

Table A–3. Portions of new roads within the Riparian Reserve Length of Proposed Length of Road within Proposed Proposed Estimated Estimated Proposed Closure Road within 120’–Site- EA New Road Road No. of Haul Status 0–120’ Potential Unit Construction Surface Length Stream Season (D, FD, from Stream Tree Height Road Name Type (Feet) Crossings or O)* (Feet) from Stream (Feet) 1 1-1.0 Natural Summer D 739 78 74 — 2 2-2.0 Natural Summer FD 739 165 85 1 3 3-1.1 Natural Summer D 317 — 9 —

82 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Length of Proposed Length of Road within Proposed Proposed Estimated Estimated Proposed Closure Road within 120’–Site- EA New Road Road No. of Haul Status 0–120’ Potential Unit Construction Surface Length Stream Season (D, FD, from Stream Tree Height Road Name Type (Feet) Crossings or O)* (Feet) from Stream (Feet) 10 10-1.0 Natural Summer D 792 202 245 — 10 10-1.1 Natural Summer D 475 20 313 — 15 15-3.0 Natural Summer D 634 — 219 — 28 29-5.1 Natural Summer D 370 — 139 — 30 30-1.0 Natural Summer D 898 — 232 — 33 33-1.0 Natural Summer D 634 — 26 — 36 36-1.2 Natural Summer D 898 — 229 — 37 37-1.0 Natural Summer FD 2,746 517 640 2 38 38-2.1 Natural Summer D 370 — 370 — 39 39–1.0 Gravel All O 475 — 19 — Totals — — — — 10,087 982 2,600 3 * D=decommission, FD=full decommission, O=open

Wildlife Issue 1: Would the proposed management activities cause disturbance or disruption13 for the spotted owl or murrelet?

SPOTTED OWL Rationale for elimination: Approximately 1,918 acres of spotted owl nesting habitat are within the 0.25- mile disturbance distance of the all action alternatives; however, the BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because— 1. The BLM detected no spotted owls during surveys (Appendix E), and 2. If subsequent spot checks indicate occupancy, the BLM would require seasonal restrictions on activities that create noise above ambient levels, per the project design features (PDFs) within the disruption distance (65 yards) of the nest patch or nest tree, and would prohibit harvest activities within the occupied nest patch (USDI-BLM 2018b, USDI-FWS 2012 revision).

Based on these findings and conditions, the BLM concludes that the proposed activities would not disturb or disrupt nesting owls. Should the BLM detect an owl or pair during spot checks, PDFs would prevent disruption; however, the proposed actions may disturb the spotted owls.

MURRELET Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because PDF seasonal and daily timing restrict proposed activities that would create above ambient noise or activity levels, on occupied or unsurveyed nesting habitat within the 110-yard disruption distance (Appendix F). The proposed action would not disrupt murrelets. Proposed activities may cause disturbance on the

13 Disturbance is a human action that may affect an ESA-listed animal species by the addition, above ambient condition, of noise or human intrusion. Disturbance is temporary (minutes to days) and does not modify habitat structure. Disturbance requires the presence of an ESA-listed animal (USDI-BLM 2016b). Disruption is a subset of disturbance that creates the likelihood of injury to ESA-listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include but are not limited to breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Disruption alters the normal behavior of an ESA-listed species to the point of likely causing harm or harassment. A full analysis is included in the Biological Assessment for the West Fork Smith River project (WFSR BA) (USDI- BLM 2018b, p. 74, 81).

83 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

approximately 1,700 acres of potential murrelet nesting habitat within 0.25 mile of the proposed project, of which murrelets are known to occupy approximately 395 acres. The BLM does not expect the proposed actions would alter the success of nesting murrelets due to the PDF seasonal restrictions. The total number of acres of potential disturbance is similar between both action alternatives.

Issue 2: How would the proposed management activities affect the functionality of spotted owl nesting habitat and roosting-foraging habitat adjacent to proposed treatment stands, and dispersal habitat within the action area?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because the action alternatives— 1. Would not occur within existing spotted owl nesting or roosting-foraging habitat; and 2. Would continue to support spotted owl dispersal post-treatment.

EXISTING NESTING AND ROOSTING-FORAGING HABITAT The BLM is eliminating this issue because the proposed actions would not occur within available nesting or roosting-foraging habitat. The BLM’s proposed activities would occur within relatively young stands, ranging in age from 40 to 60 years (average 50 years), with relatively small tree diameters that range from 12.6 to 15.1 inches (DBH) (average 13.7-inches DBH), and little to no vertical diversity or adequate room for spotted owls to fly due to the dense canopy cover. The above characteristics, therefore, exclude these stands from nesting or roosting-foraging habitat. Additionally, the BLM utilized stand retention and topographic and stand continuity breaks to minimize potential indirect effects to nesting and roosting- foraging habitat adjacent to the proposed actions. Thus, as described in the WFSR biological assessment (BA), the proposed treatment areas would not remove nesting or roosting-forage habitat or reduce forage availability for the spotted owl. This analysis is incorporated by reference (USDI-BLM 2018b) (pp. 10, 38–39, 46–47, 72–73).

EXISTING DISPERSAL HABITAT Thomas et al. (1990) described minimal dispersal habitat as stands with at least 40 percent canopy cover and with greater than an average 11-inch DBH. Based on this description, the BLM classified stands proposed for treatment as dispersal-only habitat. Immediate post-treatment modeling for treatment stands indicates that at the stand level, the treated units would retain greater than 50 percent canopy cover and quadratic mean diameters (QMD) over 12 inches, which is above the minimum dispersal thresholds of 40 percent canopy cover and 11-inch DBH. As described in the WFSR biological assessment, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the BLM is eliminating this issue because, post-harvest, the proposed harvest and road construction would not limit spotted owl dispersal through the action area (USDI-BLM 2018b) (pp. 49–50, 73–74).

Issue 3: How would the proposed management activities affect murrelet nesting habitat within the action area?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because— 1. The proposed treatments would not directly remove murrelet nesting habitat; and 2. Stand retention buffers incorporated through project layout and PDFs would minimize indirect effects such as increased predation, altered microclimate, and windthrow risks to nesting habitat.

In most cases, and in most of the project area, the application of buffers and topographic and stand continuity breaks during unit layout avoid the direct modification of murrelet habitat, and as such, the BLM did not need to apply Options 1–4 (ROD/RMP pp. 97–101). The project would retain trees with

84 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

murrelet nesting structure, and trees with interlocking branches adjacent to suitable murrelet nesting structure. Additionally, the proposed treatment unit layout includes stand retention, creating buffers between harvest units and adjacent nesting habitat, generally 150 feet from thinning and 300 feet from group selection openings. In treatment areas where the canopy of nesting habitat no longer interacts with the canopy of the harvest unit, due to topography or stand height differentiation, the BLM would thin stands only to the point where the canopies interact.

For two proposed road construction areas, the BLM did apply Option 1 (pre-project surveys for murrelet), based on the proposed removal of trees adjacent to trees supporting suitable nesting platforms. The BLM detected no murrelets in the WFS-11A survey site, near the 37-2.0 road. Surveys at the WFS-11B site, near the 37-3.0 road, indicate occupancy; however, the proposed new construction is not within the delineated occupied site.

The WFSR BA contains a detailed analysis on the indirect effects of these roads, and is incorporated here by reference (USDI-BLM 2018). As discussed in the BA and summarized below, the effects would not be meaningful. The two roads are on ridgetops and follow existing stand edges. The habitat trees adjacent to the roads are currently exposed on the edge of the stand, at the top of the ridge within a previously harvested stand. The ridgetop location of the roads would further reduce these effects as a majority of the habitat stand is below, and generally unaffected, by vegetation alterations caused by the road construction. While the proposed roads have the potential for small, measurable alterations to the microclimate, windthrow, and predation risk of the adjacent nesting habitat, the effects would not be meaningful for murrelet nesting success. The BLM does not anticipate the roads would reduce the nesting success of the stand as a whole due to the ridge top placement and current edge conditions of the stand. (USDI-BLM 2018b) (p. 77–81).

Issue 4: How would the proposed management activities affect the ability of spotted owls to forage in the action area?

The BLM is eliminated this issue from analysis as the proposed action would not remove spotted owl foraging habitat or preclude spotted owl foraging habitat from developing within the next 20 years.

Roosting-foraging habitat has many of the same characteristics as nesting habitat, but lacks the large structures required for nesting (USDI-FWS 2011b). In the Oregon Coast Range, northern flying squirrels are the dominate component of the spotted owl diet, comprising more than 49.5 percent of the diet and 58.3 percent of the biomass consumed (Forsman et al. 2004, Lesmeister and McCafferty 2018). Northern flying squirrels preferentially select large (>20-inch DBH) live and dead trees for nest cavities (Carey et al. 1997) and feed primarily on various lichens and fungi (Maser et al. 1985). After northern flying squirrels, red-tree voles, and deer mice are the next primary food sources, at 12.7 percent and 10.5 percent frequency, respectively.

The characteristics of forage habitat in the Oregon Coast Range, as described in the Revised Critical Habitat Rule (USDI-FWS 2012a) (77 FR 71907), correlates with northern flying squirrel and red-tree vole preferential habitat. Forage habitat is described as positively associated with tree height diversity, canopy cover greater than 60 percent, density of snags over 20-inch DBH, density of trees 20–31-inches DBH, and an increasing volume of woody debris (USDI-FWS 2011b). While both the flying squirrel and red-tree vole prefer mature, complex stands, both species can be found in lesser numbers in younger, less structurally complex stands, particularly in young stands adjacent to older stands, or with legacy features. In addition to mature stands, spotted owls slightly preferentially select broadleaf or hardwood edges, primarily riparian (Glenn et al. 2004, Wiens et al. 2014), likely for additional forage opportunities.

85 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

The WFSR BA contains a detailed analysis on the immediate and future effects of the proposed action on spotted owl foraging, and is incorporated by reference (USDI-BLM 2018b) (pp. 46, 70–73). Stands proposed for treatment are not considered foraging habitat as they have minimal structural diversity, little to no large snags or down wood, and average DBHs less than 16 inches. Thus, the proposed action would not limit spotted owl foraging within the action area. The proposed action would increase structural diversity, while protecting most ecotones between foraging habitat and treated stands with retention patches.

Issue 5: How would the proposed management activities affect spotted owl and murrelet critical habitat within the action area?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue from further analysis because the proposed actions would retain all physical and biological features (PBFs) described as spotted owl and murrelet critical habitat.

SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT Portions of the proposed project occur within spotted owl Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) ORC-3, which includes around 203,681 acres of BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and State of Oregon lands. The subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support to the overall population and for both north-south and east-west connectivity between subunits (77 FR 71876). Stands treated under the treatment prescriptions are dispersal-only habitat and would retain dispersal-only characteristics post-harvest (USDI-BLM 2018) (p. 75).

MURRELET CRITICAL HABITAT Marbled murrelet critical habitat was designated to support nesting behaviors of the marbled murrelet (76 FR 61599). PBFs within murrelet critical habitat include “individual trees with potential nest platforms and forest lands of at least one half site-potential tree height, regardless of contiguity within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms and that are used or potentially used by the marbled murrelet for nesting or roosting” (76 FR 61607).

At the local scale, the West Fork Smith River project area overlaps two critical habitat units, OR-04-c (approximately 82,252 acres) and OR-04-I (approximately 83,996 acres). While stand alterations have the potential to indirectly alter adjacent suitable nesting habitat, the BLM’s application of PDFs and stand retention buffers adjacent to the proposed project would minimize potential adverse effects and prevent the removal of PBFs (USDI-BLM 2018b) (p. 80–81).

The BLM is tiering to the murrelet critical habitat discussion within the PRMP/FEIS, as design features and LSR management direction protect existing nesting habitat and promote the development of future nesting habitat, including habitat within the critical habitat units. The WFSR project falls within the effects analyzed for the PRMP/FEIS, and thus the above conclusion is relevant for these proposed actions. The FEIS murrelet critical habitat analysis is incorporated by reference (USDI-BLM 2016a) (p. 907).

Issue 6: How would the proposed management activities affect competition between northern spotted and barred owls?

Rationale for elimination: This issue is not analyzed in detail because there is no potential for substantive effects on competition between northern spotted owls and barred owls. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the RMPs for Western Oregon described the effect of competition from barred owls on northern spotted owls and concluded that current research provides no evidence that the BLM can manage individual forest stands to provide northern spotted owls with a competitive

86 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

advantage over barred owls (USDI-BLM 2016a) (pp. 947–948). That discussion is incorporated here by reference.

Issue 7: How would the proposed management activities affect Special Status wildlife species and migratory birds and their habitat?

Rationale for elimination: The BLM eliminated this issue because the BLM completed an analysis of the issue in the PRMP/FEIS. The BLM is tiering to the PRMP/FEIS analysis of Special Status wildlife and landbird focal species. This analysis concluded that habitat availability for Special Status wildlife and landbird focal species, dependent on forest stands like those in the WFSR analysis area, would increase within 50 years due to the effects of the proposed action. As the proposed WFSR project falls within the effects analyzed in the FEIS, the BLM expects the proposed actions to contribute to the development of habitat for Special Status wildlife species within the project area (Appendix E). The special status species and focal landbird analysis is incorporated by reference (USDI-BLM 2016a) (pp. 845, 850–851).

In October 2018, the USFWS proposed listing the distinct population segment of the Pacific Marten, historically found in the Oregon Coast Range and Northwestern California (83 FR 50574), and identified from here on as the coastal marten. The coastal marten is currently a special status species, generally occupying mature conifer stands with dense shrub cover and snags and down wood for denning and resting, serpentine habitat, and coastal scrub (USDI-FWS 2018). In managed forests, coastal martens select large-diameter conifer structures (70 percent greater than 27 inches in diameter) for resting (Slauson et al. 2018). Stands proposed for harvest and road construction are young with minimal down wood and no large trees or snags. It is unlikely coastal martens occupy these stands, and proposed stand retention protects much of the ecotone between the mature and young stands the martens may use for foraging. For these reasons, the proposed action would not would not appreciably reduce marten habitat and would not reduce the availability of nesting and denning sites, and would likely increase future marten habitat within the treated stands.

The BLM is also eliminating this issue because the proposed treatment units are young, densely stocked, single-story stands that do not support nesting for identified birds of conservation concern (USDI-FWS 2008), and few other migratory birds. With limited suitable nesting habitat, it the proposed action is not expected to affect migratory bird population levels within the action area. In many areas likely to support nesting, such as riparian areas and ecotones between mature and young stands, the BLM proposes to reserve harvest (no thinning within the Inner Zone RR). While the data is not available to predict future populations for these species, protecting and increasing available habitat would contribute to the conservation of Special Status and migratory bird species.

Appendix B—Maps (Treatments and Roadwork, Yarding Systems)

87 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–1. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 1–4

88 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–2. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 5–7

89 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–3. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 8–12

90 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–4. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 13–17

91 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–5. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 19–22, 28–31

92 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–6. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 22–25 and 34

93 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–7. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 20, 26 and 27

94 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

—————————— Map Set B–8. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 12, 19–22, 28–31

95 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–9. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 20–23, 30–34, and 37

96 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

—————————— Map Set B–10. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 34–36

97 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–11. Forest management treatment and roadwork comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 37–39

98 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–12. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 1–4

99 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–13. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 5–7

100 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–14. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 8–12

101 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–15. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 13–17

102 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–16. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 19–22, 28–31

103 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–17. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 22–25 and 34

104 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–18. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 20, 26 and 27

105 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–19. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 12, 19–22, 28–31

106 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–20. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 20–23, 30–34, and 37

107 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–21. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 34–36

108 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

——————————— Map Set B–22. Yarding system comparisons between Alternatives 1 and 2 for EA Units 37–39

109 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix C—Best Management Practices

Table C–1. Best Management Practices incorporated into the West Fork Smith River project BMP Number Best Management Practice General Construction Locate temporary and permanent roads and landings on stable locations, e.g., ridge tops, stable R 01 benches, or flats, and gentle- to- moderate side slopes. Minimize road construction on steep slopes (> 60 percent). Locate temporary and permanent road construction or improvement to minimize the number of R 02 stream crossings. Locate roads and landings to reduce total transportation system mileage. Renovate or improve existing roads or landings when it would cause less adverse environmental impact than new R 04 construction. Where roads traverse land in another ownership, investigate options for using those roads before constructing new roads. Design roads to the minimum width needed for the intended use as referenced in BLM Manual R 05 9113 – 1 – Roads Design Handbook (USDI BLM 2011). Confine pioneer roads (i.e., clearing and grubbing of trees, stumps and boulders along a route) to the construction limits of the permanent roadway to reduce the amount of area disturbed and R 06 avoid deposition in wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. Install temporary drainage, erosion, and sediment control structures, as needed to prevent sediment delivery to streams. Storm proof or close pioneer roads prior to the onset of the wet season. R 07 Design road cut and fill slopes with stable angles, to reduce erosion and prevent slope failure. End-haul material excavated during construction, renovation, or maintenance where side slopes R 08 generally exceed 60 percent and any slope where side-cast material may enter wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Construct road fills to prevent fill failure using inorganic material, compaction, buttressing, sub- R 09 surface drainage, rock facing, or other effective means. Design and construct sub-surface drainage (e.g., trench drains using geo-textile fabrics and R 10 drain pipes) in landslide-prone areas and saturated soils. Minimize or avoid new road construction in these areas. Use controlled blasting techniques to minimize loss of material on steep slopes or into wetlands, R 12 Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. Use temporary sediment control measures (e.g., check dams, silt fencing, bark bags, filter strips, and mulch) to slow runoff and contain sediment from road construction areas. Remove any R 13 accumulated sediment and the control measures when work or haul is complete. When long- term structural sediment control measures are incorporated into the final erosion control plan, remove any accumulated sediment to retain capacity of the control measure. Avoid use of road fills for water impoundment dams unless specifically designed for that purpose. Impoundments over 9.2-acre-feet or 10 feet in depth will require a dam safety R 14 assessment by a registered engineer. Upgrade existing road fill impoundments to withstand a 100-year flood event. Permanent Stream

Crossings Minimize fill volumes at permanent and temporary stream crossings by restricting width and height of fill to amounts needed for safe travel and adequate cover for culverts. For deep fills R 15 (generally greater than 15 feet deep), incorporate additional design criteria (e.g., rock blankets, buttressing, bioengineering techniques) to reduce the susceptibility of fill failures. Locate stream-crossing culverts on well- defined, unobstructed, and straight reaches of stream. Locate these crossings as close to perpendicular to the streamflow as stream allows. When R 16 structure cannot be aligned perpendicular, provide inlet and outlet structures that protect fill, and minimize bank erosion. Choose crossings that have well-defined stream channels with erosion-resistant bed and banks. On construction of a new culvert, major replacement, or fundamental change in permit status of a culvert in streams containing native migratory fish, install culverts consistent with ODFW fish passage criteria (OAR 635-412-0035 (3)), and at the natural stream grade, unless a lessor gradient is required for fish passage. On abandonment of a culvert (i.e., removal of a culvert R 17 without replacement) in streams containing native migratory fish, restore the natural stream grade, unless a lessor gradient is required for fish passage. On construction of new culverts in streams with ESA listed fish, stream crossings must also meet ARBO II (USDC NMFS 2013 and USDI FWS 2013) fish passage criteria and state fish passage criteria.

110 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

BMP Number Best Management Practice Design stream crossings to minimize diversion potential in the event that the crossing is blocked R 18 by debris during storm events. This protection could include hardening crossings, armoring fills, dipping grades, oversizing culverts, hardening inlets and outlets, and lowering the fill height. Design stream crossings to prevent diversion of water from streams into downgrade road R 19 ditches or down road surfaces. Place instream grade control structures above or below the crossing structure, if necessary, to R 20 prevent stream head cutting, culvert undermining and downstream sedimentation. Employ bioengineering measures to protect the stability of the streambed and banks. Prevent culvert plugging and failure in areas of active debris movement with measures such as R 21 beveled culvert inlets, flared inlets, wingwalls, over-sized culverts, trash racks, or slotted risers. To reduce the risk of loss of the road crossing structure and fill causing excessive R 22 sedimentation, use bridges or low-water fords when crossing debris-flow susceptible streams. Avoid using culverts when crossing debris-flow susceptible streams, when practicable. Utilize stream diversion and isolation techniques when installing stream crossings. Evaluate the R 23 physical characteristics of the site, volume of water flowing through the project area, and the risk of erosion and sedimentation when selecting the proper techniques. Limit activities and access points of mechanized equipment to streambank areas or temporary R 24 platforms when installing or removing structures. Keep equipment activity in the stream channel to an absolute minimum. R 25 Install stream crossing structures before heavy equipment moves beyond the crossing area. Disconnect road runoff to the stream channel by outsloping the road approach. If outsloping is not practicable, use runoff control, erosion control and sediment containment measures. These R 26 may include using additional cross drain culverts, ditch lining, and catchment basins. Prevent or reduce ditch flow conveyance to the stream through cross drain placement above the stream crossing. Temporary Stream Crossings for Roads and Skid Trails Use no-fill structures (e.g., portable mats, temporary bridges, and improved hardened crossings) R 28 for temporary stream crossings. When not practicable, design temporary stream crossings with the least amount of fill and construct with coarse material to facilitate removal upon completion. Remove temporary crossing structures promptly after use. Follow practices under the R 29 Closure/Decommissioning section for removing stream crossing drainage structures and reestablishing the natural drainage. Surface Drainage Effectively drain the road surface by using crowning, insloping or outsloping, grade reversals R 30 (rolling dips), and waterbars or a combination of these methods. Avoid concentrated discharge onto fill slopes unless the fill slopes are stable and erosion-resistant. Outslope temporary and permanent low volume roads to provide surface drainage on road R 31 gradients up to 6 percent unless there is a traffic hazard from the road shape. Consider using broad-based drainage dips or lead-off ditches in lieu of cross drains for low R 32 volume roads. Locate these surface water drainage measures where they will not drain into wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Avoid use of outside road berms unless designed to protect road fills from runoff. If road berms R 33 are used, breach to accommodate drainage where fill slopes are stable. Construct variable road grades and alignments (e.g., roll the grade and grade breaks) which R 34 limit water concentration, velocity, flow distance, and associated stream power. Install underdrain structures when roads cross or expose springs, seeps, or wet areas rather than R 35 allowing intercepted water to flow down gradient in ditchlines. Design roads crossing low-lying areas so that water does not pond on the upslope side of the R 36 road. Provide cross drains at short intervals to ensure free drainage. Divert road and landing runoff water away from headwalls, slide areas, high landslide hazard R 37 locations, or steep erodible fill slopes. R 38 Design landings to disperse surface water to vegetated stable areas. Cross Drains Locate cross drains to prevent or minimize runoff and sediment conveyance to waters of the State. Implement sediment reduction techniques such as settling basins, brush filters, sediment R 39 fences, and check dams to prevent or minimize sediment conveyance. Locate cross drains to route ditch flow onto vegetated and undisturbed slopes.

111 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

BMP Number Best Management Practice Space cross drain culverts at intervals sufficient to prevent water volume concentration and accelerated ditch erosion. At a minimum, space cross drains at intervals referred to in the BLM R 40 Road Design Handbook 9113-1 (USDI-BLM 2011), Illustration 10–‘Spacing for Drainage Laterals.’ Increase cross drain frequency through erodible soils, steep grades, and unstable areas. Choose cross drain culvert diameter and type according to predicted ditch flow, debris and R 41 bedload passage expected from the ditch. Minimum diameter is 18”. Locate surface water drainage measures (e.g., cross drain culverts, rolling dips and water bars) where water flow will be released on convex slopes or other stable and non-erosive areas that will absorb road drainage and prevent sediment flows from reaching wetlands, floodplains, and R 42 waters of the State. Where practicable locate surface water drainage structures above road segments with steeper downhill grade. Locate cross drains at least 50 feet from the nearest stream crossing and allow for a sufficient non-compacted soil and vegetative filter. Armor surface drainage structures (e.g., broad based dips and lead-off ditches) to maintain R 43 functionality in areas of erosive and low-strength soils. Discharge cross drain culverts at ground level on non-erodible material. Install downspout R 44 structures or energy dissipaters at cross drain outlets or drivable dips where alternatives to discharging water onto loose material, erodible soils, fills, or steep slopes are not available. Cut protruding ‘shotgun’ culverts at the fill surface or existing ground. Install downspout or R 45 energy dissipaters to prevent erosion. Skew cross drain culverts 45–60 degrees from the ditchline and provide pipe gradient slightly R 46 greater than ditch gradient to reduce erosion at cross drain inlet. Provide for unobstructed flow at culvert inlets and within ditch lines during and upon R 47 completion of road construction prior to the wet season. Timing of In-water Work Conduct all nonemergency in-water work during the ODFW instream work window, unless a R 48 waiver is obtained from permitting agencies. Avoid winter sediment and turbidity entering streams during in-water work to the extent practicable. Remove stream crossing culverts and entire in-channel fill material during ODFW instream R 49 work period. Low-water Ford Stream

Crossings Harden low-water ford approaches with durable materials. Provide cross drainage on R 50 approaches. Limit ford crossings to the ODFW instream work period. Maintaining Water Quality—Non-native

Invasive Plants, including Noxious Weeds Locate equipment-washing sites in areas with no potential for runoff into wetlands, Riparian R 53 Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. Do not use solvents or detergents to clean equipment on site. Water Source

Development and Use Limit disturbance to vegetation and modification of streambanks when locating road approaches R 54 to in-stream water source developments. Surface these approaches with durable material. Employ erosion and runoff control measures. Limit the construction of temporary in- channel water drafting sites. Develop permanent water R 57 sources outside of stream channels and wetlands. Do not place pump intakes on the substrate or edges of the stream channel. When placing intakes instream, place on hard surfaces (e.g., shovel and rocks) to minimize turbidity. Use a R 58 temporary liner to create intake site. After completion of use, remove liner and restore channel to natural condition. Do not locate placement of road fill in the proximity of a public water supply intake (404(f) R 59 exemption criteria xi) in waters of the State. Erosion Control

Measures R 61 During roadside brushing, remove vegetation by cutting rather than uprooting. Apply [BLM-approved weed-free] seed and certified weed-free mulch to cut and fill slopes, R 63 ditchlines, and waste disposal sites with the potential for sediment delivery to wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains and waters of the State. If needed to promote a rapid ground

112 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

BMP Number Best Management Practice cover and prevent aggressive invasive plants, use interim erosion control non- native sterile annuals before attempting to restore natives. Apply seed upon completion of construction and as early as practicable to increase germination and growth. Reseed if necessary to accomplish erosion control. Select seed species that are fast-growing, provide ample ground cover, and have adequate soil-binding properties. Apply mulch that will stay in place and at site-specific rates to prevent erosion. Place sediment-trapping materials or structures such as straw bales, jute netting, or sediment R 64 basins at the base of newly constructed fill or side slopes where sediment could be transported to waters of the State. Keep materials away from culvert inlets or outlets. Use biotechnical stabilization and soil bioengineering techniques to control bank erosion (e.g., R 65 commercially produced matting and blankets, live plants or cuttings, dead plant material, rock, and other inert structures). Suspend ground-disturbing activity if projected forecasted rain will saturate soils to the extent that there is potential for movement of sediment from the road to wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Cover or temporarily stabilize exposed soils during work suspension. R 66 Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities, immediately stabilize fill material over stream crossing structures. Measures could include but are not limited to erosion control blankets and mats, soil binders, soil tackifiers, or placement of slash. Apply fertilizer in a manner to prevent direct fertilizer entry to wetlands, Riparian Reserve, R 67 floodplains, and waters of the State. Road Use and Dust

Abatement Apply water or approved road surface stabilizers/dust control additives to reduce surfacing material loss and buildup of fine sediment that can enter into wetlands, floodplains and waters of the State. R 68 Prevent entry of road surface stabilizers/dust control additives into waters of the State during application. For dust abatement, limit applications of lignin sulfonate to a maximum rate of 0.5 gal/yd2 of road surface, assuming a 50:50 (lignin sulfonate to water) solution. Road Maintenance Prior to the wet season, provide effective road surface drainage maintenance. Clear ditch lines in sections where there is lowered capacity or is obstructed by dry ravel, sediment wedges, small failures, or fluvial sediment deposition. Remove accumulated sediment and blockages at cross-drain inlets and outlets. Grade natural surface and aggregate roads where the surface is R 69 uneven from surface erosion or vehicle rutting. Restore crowning, outsloping or insloping for the road type for effective runoff. Remove or provide outlets through berms on the road shoulder. After ditch cleaning prior to hauling, allow vegetation to reestablish or use sediment entrapment measures (e.g., sediment trapping blankets and silt fences). Retain ground cover in ditch lines, except where sediment deposition or obstructions require R 70 maintenance. Maintain water flow conveyance, sediment filtering and ditch line integrity by limiting ditch R 71 line disturbance and groundcover destruction when machine cleaning within 200 feet of road stream crossings. R 72 Avoid undercutting of cut-slopes when cleaning ditch lines. Remove and dispose of slide material when it is obstructing road surface and ditch line drainage. Place material on stable ground outside of wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, R 73 and waters of the State. Seed with [BLM-approved weed-free] seed and [certified] weed-free mulch. Do not sidecast loose ditch or surface material where it can enter wetlands, Riparian Reserve, R 74 floodplains, and waters of the State. Seed and mulch cleaned ditch lines and bare soils that drain directly to wetlands, floodplains, R 76 and waters of the State, with [BLM-approved weed-free] native species and [certified] weed- free mulch. Road Stormproofing Inspect and maintain culvert inlets and outlets, drainage structures and ditches before and during R 77 the wet season to diminish the likelihood of plugged culverts and the possibility of washouts. R 78 Repair damaged culvert inlets and downspouts to maintain drainage design capacity. Blade and shape roads to conserve existing aggregate surface material, retain or restore the R 79 original cross section, remove berms and other irregularities that impede effective runoff or cause erosion, and ensure that surface runoff is directed into vegetated, stable areas.

113 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

BMP Number Best Management Practice Stormproof open resource roads receiving infrequent maintenance to reduce road erosion and R 80 reduce the risk of washouts by concentrated water flows. Stormproof temporary roads if retained over winter. Suspend stormproofing/decommissioning operations and cover or otherwise temporarily stabilize all exposed soil if conditions develop that cause a potential for sediment-laden runoff R 81 to enter a wetland, floodplain, or waters of the State. Resume operations when conditions allow turbidity standards to be met. Inspect closed roads to ensure that vegetation stabilization measures are operating as planned, R 82 drainage structures are operational, and non-native invasive plants, including noxious weeds, are not [present]. Conduct vegetation treatments and drainage structure maintenance as needed. R 83 Decommission temporary roads upon completion of use. Prevent use of vehicular traffic utilizing methods such as gates, guard rails, earth/log barricades, R 84 to reduce or eliminate erosion and sedimentation due to traffic on roads. Convert existing drainage structures such as ditches and cross drain culverts to a long-term R 85 maintenance free drainage configuration such as an outsloped road surface and waterbars. Place and remove temporary stream crossings during the dry season, without overwintering, R 86 unless designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event. See also R 49. Place excavated material from removed stream crossings on stable ground outside of wetlands, R 87 Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. In some cases, the material could be used for recontouring old road cuts or be spread across roadbed and treated to prevent erosion. Reestablish stream crossings to the natural stream gradient. Excavate sideslopes back to the R 88 natural bank profile. Reestablish natural channel width and floodplain. Install cross ditches or waterbars upslope from stream crossing to direct runoff and potential R 89 sediment to the hillslope rather than deliver it to the stream. Following culvert removal and prior to the wet season, apply erosion control and sediment trapping measures (e.g., seeding, mulching, straw bales, jute netting, and native vegetative R 90 cuttings) where sediment can be delivered into wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. Implement tillage measures, including ripping or subsoiling to an effective depth. Treat R 91 compacted areas including the roadbed, landings, construction areas, and spoils sites. After tilling the road surface, pull back unstable road fill and end-haul or contour to the natural R 92 slopes. Wet-season Road Use On active haul roads, during the wet season, use durable rock surfacing and sufficient rock R 93 depth to resist rutting or development of sediment on road surfaces that drain directly to wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the State. Prior to winter hauling activities, implement structural road treatments such as: increasing the R 94 frequency of cross drains, installing sediment barriers or catch basins, applying gravel lifts or asphalt road surfacing at stream crossing approaches, and armoring ditch lines. R 96 Avoid removing snow from unsurfaced roads where runoff drains to waters of the State. Maintain road surface by applying appropriate gradation of aggregate and suitable particle R 97 hardness to protect road surfaces from rutting and erosion under active haul where runoff drains to wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the State. Install temporary culverts and washed rock on top of low-water ford to reduce vehicle contact R 99 with water during active haul. Remove culverts promptly after use. Cable Yarding Design yarding corridors crossing streams to limit the number of such corridors, using narrow widths, and using the most perpendicular orientation to the stream feasible. Minimize yarding corridor widths and space corridors as far apart as is practicable given physical and operational limitations, through practices such as setting limitations on corridor width, corridor spacing, or the amount of corridors in an area. For example, such practices could include, as effective and TH 01 practicable: —Setting yarding corridors at 12–15 foot maximum widths, and —Setting corridor spacing where they cross the streams to no less than 100 feet apart when physical, topography, or operational constraints demand, with an overall desire to keep an average spacing of 200 feet apart. Directionally fall trees to lead for skidding and skyline yarding to minimize ground disturbance TH 02 when moving logs to skid trails and skyline corridors.

114 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

BMP Number Best Management Practice Require full suspension over flowing streams, non-flowing streams with highly erodible bed and TH 03 banks, and jurisdictional wetlands. Prevent streambank and hillslope disturbance on steep slopes (generally > 60 percent) by TH 05 requiring full-suspension within 50 feet of definable stream channels. Yard the remaining areas across the Riparian Reserve using at least one-end suspension. Implement erosion control measures such as waterbars, slash placement, and seeding in cable TH 06 yarding corridors where the potential for erosion and delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands exists. Ground-based

Harvesting Exclude ground-based equipment on hydric soils, defined by the Natural Resources TH 07 Conservation Service. Limit designated skid trails for thinning or regeneration harvesting to ≤ 15 percent of the TH 08 harvest unit area to reduce displacement or compaction to acceptable limits. Limit width of skid roads to single width or what is operationally necessary for the approved TH 09 equipment. Where multiple machines are used, provide a minimum- sized pullout for passing. TH 10 Ensure leading-end of logs is suspended when skidding. Restrict non-road, in unit, ground-based equipment used for harvesting operations to periods of low soil moisture; generally from May 15 to Oct 15. Low soil moisture varies by texture and is TH 11 based on site- specific considerations. Low soil moisture limits will be determined by qualified specialists to determine an estimated soil moisture and soil texture. Incorporate existing skid trails and landings as a priority over creating new trails and landings TH 12 where feasible, into a designated trail network for ground-based harvesting equipment, consider proper spacing, skid trail direction and location relative to terrain and stream channel features. Limit non-specialized skidders or tracked equipment to slopes less than 35 percent, except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground-based harvest areas requiring TH 13 short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this equipment when surface displacement creates trenches, depressions, excessive removal of organic horizons, or when disturbance would channel water and sediment as overland flow. Limit the use of specialized ground-based mechanized equipment (those machines specifically designed to operate on slopes greater than 35 percent) to slopes less than 50 percent, except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground-based harvesting areas TH 14 requiring short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this equipment when surface displacement creates trenches, depressions, excessive removal of organic horizons, or when disturbance would channel water and sediment as overland flow. Designate skid trails in locations that channel water from the trail surface away from TH 15 waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands, or unstable areas adjacent to them. Apply erosion control measures to skid trails and other disturbed areas with potential for erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, or wetlands. These practices may TH 16 include seeding, mulching, water barring, tillage, and woody debris placement. Use guidelines from the road decommissioning section. Construct waterbars on skid trails using guidelines in Table C-6 (ROD/RMP) where potential TH 17 for soil erosion or delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands exists. Subsoil skid trails, landings, or temporary roads where needed to achieve no more than 20 TH 18 percent detrimental soil conditions, and minimize surface runoff, improve soil structure, and water movement through the roadbed. See also R 91–92. Block skid trails to prevent public motorized vehicle and other unauthorized use at the end of TH 19 seasonal use. Minimize the area where more than half of the depth of the organically-enriched upper horizon TH 21 (topsoil) is removed when conducting forest management operations. Maintain at least the minimum percent of effective ground cover needed to control surface erosion, as shown in Table C-3 (ROD/RMP), following forest management operations. Ground TH 22 cover may be provided by vegetation, slash, duff, medium to large gravels, cobbles, or biological crusts. Pile and Burn Limit fire lines inside Riparian Reserve. Construct fire lines by hand on all slopes greater than 35 percent and inside the Riparian Reserve inner zone. Use erosion control techniques such as F 04 tilling, waterbarring, or debris placement on fire lines when there is potential for soil erosion and delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands. Space the waterbars as shown in Table

115 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

BMP Number Best Management Practice C-6 (ROD/RMP). Avoid placement of fire lines where water would be directed into waterbodies, floodplains, wetlands, headwalls, or areas of instability. In broadcast burning, consume only the upper horizon organic materials and allow no more than F 05 15 percent of the burned area mineral soil surface to change to a reddish color. F 06 Avoid burning piles within 35 feet of a stream channel. Avoid creating piles greater than 16 feet in height or diameter. Pile smaller diameter materials F 07 and leave pieces > 12 inch diameter within the unit. Reduce burn time and smoldering of piles by extinguishment with water and tool use. When burning machine-constructed piles, preferably locate and consume organic materials on landings or roads. If piles are within harvested units and more than 15 percent of the burned F 08 area mineral soil (the portion beneath the pile) surface changes to a reddish color, then consider that amount of area towards the 20 percent detrimental soil disturbance limit. Do not operate ground-based machinery for fuels reduction within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), except where machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream. F 09 Do not operate ground-based machinery for fuels reduction on slopes > 35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks may be used on short pitch slopes of greater than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length determined on a site- specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)). Place residual slash on severely burned areas, where there is potential for sediment delivery into F 11 waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands. Emergency Stabilization

or Rehabilitation Implement emergency fire stabilization or rehabilitation treatments to accomplish erosion control as quickly as practicable and before the wet season. Soil and water conservation practices may include, but are not restricted to: – Seeding or planting native vegetation for short-term cover development and long-term recovery, unless not available in quantities necessary for the emergency response. – Mulching with straw, wood chips, or other suitable material. To avoid introducing non-native invasive plants, including noxious weeds, when mulching, use certified weed-free straw mulch or [weed-free materials]. – Placing straw wattles on the contour at adequate spacing between each row to capture eroded material without overflowing. Embed to the surface of the soil in slight trench to prevent F 17 undermining. – Placing and anchoring log erosion barriers similarly to straw wattles. – Spreading available cut vegetation or slash on bare soils. – Placing channel sediment retention or stabilization structures. – Placing trash racks for debris above road drainage structures. – Installing drainage structures, such as waterbars or drainage dips, on fire lines, fire roads, and other cleared areas according to guidelines in Table C-6 (Waterbar spacing by gradient and erosion class). – Repairing damaged road drainage facilities, such as flattened or ripped culvert ends, or burned out plastic pipes, or cleaning ditch lines of materials that impede natural flow. – Blocking or decommissioning roads and trails. Post-fire Road Repair Implement emergency fire rehabilitation treatments to accomplish erosion control as quickly as practicable and before the wet season. Soil and water conservation practices may include, but are not restricted to: – Reducing road system hydrologic conductivity though proper grading, culvert spacing, and F 18 installing drivable dips. – Replacing culverts to increase peak flow capacity of stream crossing culverts to accommodate the 100-year design flood. – Preventing culvert plugging. – Correcting stream diversions. Operations Near

Waterbodies

116 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

BMP Number Best Management Practice Inspect and clean heavy equipment as necessary prior to moving on to the project site, in order to remove oil and grease, non-native invasive plants, including noxious weeds, and excessive soil. Inspect hydraulic fluid and fuel lines on heavy-mechanized equipment for proper working condition. Where practicable, maintain and refuel heavy equipment a minimum of 150 feet away from streams and other waterbodies. Refuel small equipment (e.g. chainsaws and water pumps) at least 100 feet from waterbodies (or as far as practicable from the waterbody where local site conditions do not allow a 100-foot setback) to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into a waterbody. Refuel small equipment from no more than 5-gallon containers. Use absorbent material or a containment system to SP 03 prevent spills when re-fueling small equipment within the stream margins or near the edge of waterbodies. In the event of a spill or release, take all reasonable and safe actions to contain the material. Specific actions are dependent on the nature of the material spilled. Use spill containment booms or as required by ODEQ. Have access to booms and other absorbent containment materials. Immediately remove waste or spilled hazardous materials (including but not limited to diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid) and contaminated soils near any stream or other waterbody, and dispose of it/them in accordance with the applicable regulatory standard. Notify Oregon Emergency Response System of any spill over the material reportable quantities, and any spill not totally cleaned up after 24 hours. Store equipment containing reportable quantities of toxic fluids outside of Riparian Reserve. Spill Abatement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC): All operators shall develop a modified SPCC plan prior to initiating project work if there is a potential risk of chemical or SP 05 petroleum spills near waterbodies. The SPCC plan will include the appropriate containers and design of the material transfer locations. No interim fuel depot or storage location other than a manned transport vehicle would be used. Spill Containment Kit (SCK): All operators shall have a SCK as described in the SPCC plan on- SP 06 site during any operation with potential for run-off to adjacent waterbodies. The SCK will be appropriate in size and type for the oil or hazardous material carried by the operator.

117 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix D—Roads and Access

Table D–1. Approximate roadwork by unit for Alternative 1 (and additions highlighted pink for Alternative 2) EA EA BLM Road Proposed Road Current Proposed Closure Unit Road Road Work Haul Length Gated Surface Surface Type* No. No. No. Type Season (Miles) 1 20-8-9.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.19 Yes 1 20-8-18.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.88 Yes 1 1-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.14 Yes 1 1-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.23 Yes 2 2-1.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.12 Yes 2 20-8-8.5 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.37 Yes 2 2-1.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.15 Yes 2 2-2.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Full decom 0.14 Yes 2 2-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.04 Yes 3 20-8-9.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.47 Yes 3 20-8-9.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.16 Yes 3 3-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.13 Yes 3 3-1.1 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.06 Yes 3 3-2.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.07 Yes 3 3-2.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.10 Yes 3 3-2.2 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.19 Yes 3 3-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.20 Yes 3 3-3.1 New–Natural Natural All Open 0.09 Yes 4 20-8-9.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.36 Yes 4 20-8-9.0 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Open 0.15 Yes 4 4-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.02 Yes 4 4-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.19 Yes 4 4-3.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.35 Yes 4 4-4.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.07 Yes 5 20-8-18.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.96 Yes 5 20-8-4.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.04 Yes 5 20-8-4.3 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.40 Yes 5 20-8-8.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.69 Yes 5 5-1.0 Improvement Unknown Aggregate All Open 0.28 Yes 5 5-1.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.08 Yes 5 5-2.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.06 Yes 5 5-3.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 Yes 5 5-4.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.03 Yes 5 5-5.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.02 Yes 6 6-1.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.07 Yes 6 6-3.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Decom 0.06 Yes 6 20-8-18.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.35 Yes 6 20-8-5.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.72 Yes 6 20-8-5.2 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Decom 0.28 Yes 6 20-8-8.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 2.03 Yes 6 6-2.0 Improvement Unknown Aggregate All Open 0.06 Yes 6 6-4.0 Improvement Unknown Aggregate All Open 0.07 Yes 6 6-5.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.08 Yes 6 6-6.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 Yes Asphalt 7 19-8-29.0 Bituminous Bituminous All Open 0.26 Yes Maintenance 7 19-8-29.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.16 Yes 7 7-1.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.69 Yes 7 7-1.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 Yes 7 7-2.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.63 Yes 7 7-2.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.13 Yes 8 8-1.0 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.07 Yes

118 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

EA EA BLM Road Proposed Road Current Proposed Closure Unit Road Road Work Haul Length Gated Surface Surface Type* No. No. No. Type Season (Miles) 8 8-2.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.05 Yes 8 20-8-6.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.40 Yes 8 20-8-8.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.69 Yes 8 8-2.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 Yes 8 8-4.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.07 Yes 9 9-1.8 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Short-term† 0.28 — 9 19-8-29.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.56 — 9 19-8-30.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Open 0.21 Yes 9 19-8-30.4 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.23 — 9 19-8-30.4 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Open 0.26 — 9 19-8-31.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.29 Yes 9 19-8-32.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.51 Yes 9 20-8-6.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.38 Yes 9 9-1.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.25 — 9 9-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.09 Yes 9 9-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.20 Yes 9 9-4.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.14 Yes 9 9-5.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.02 Yes 9 9-7.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Open 0.08 Yes 10 19-8-31.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.11 — 10 19-8-31.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.38 Yes 10 10-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.15 — 10 10-1.1 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.09 — 10 10-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.10 — 11 19-9-36.6 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.20 — 11 19-9-36.6 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.10 — 11 20-9-1.4 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.26 — 11 11-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.07 — 11 11-2.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.37 — 11 11-2.1 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.04 — 11 11-2.2 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.07 — 11 11-2.3 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.02 — 11 11-3.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.11 — 13 13-2.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.08 Yes 13 20-8-8.4 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.21 Yes 13 13-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.08 Yes 14 20-8-6.1 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Open 0.28 Yes 14 20-8-6.2 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.16 Yes 14 20-8-6.2 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Open 0.58 Yes 14 20-9-27.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.31 Yes 14 14-2.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.14 Yes 14 14-3.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.12 Yes 14 14-4.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.11 Yes 14 14-4.1 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.10 Yes 14 14-5.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.11 Yes 14 14-6.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.13 Yes 14 14-7.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.15 Yes 14 14-8.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.12 Yes 15 20-8-18.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.48 Yes 15 20-8-7.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.32 Yes 15 20-8-7.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Decom 0.20 Yes 15 15-1.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.31 Yes 15 15-2.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.42 Yes 15 15-2.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.23 Yes 15 15-2.1 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.04 Yes 15 15-2.2 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.03 Yes

119 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

EA EA BLM Road Proposed Road Current Proposed Closure Unit Road Road Work Haul Length Gated Surface Surface Type* No. No. No. Type Season (Miles) 15 15-3.0 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.12 Yes 16 20-8-18.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 2.28 Yes 16 20-9-13.1 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Open 0.36 Yes 16 20-9-13.2 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.56 Yes 16 16-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 Yes 16 16-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.03 Yes 16 16-3.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.08 Yes 16 16-4.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 Yes 17 20-8-18.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate Open 0.25 Yes 17 20-8-8.3 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.16 Yes 17 20-8-8.3 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Open 0.16 Yes 17 20-9-27.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.35 Yes 17 17-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.22 Yes 17 17-1.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.02 Yes 17 17-1.2 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.02 Yes 17 17-2.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.16 Yes 17 17-2.1 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.02 Yes 17 17-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.24 Yes 17 17-3.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.01 Yes 17 17-4.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.18 Yes 17 17-4.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.03 Yes 17 17-5.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 Yes 18 20-8-8.3 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Open 0.53 Yes 18 20-8-8.3 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.41 Yes 18 18-1.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.13 Yes 19 20-9-1.1 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Short-term† 0.63 — 19 20-9-1.4 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.61 — 19 19-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.44 — 19 19-1.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.08 — 19 19-1.2 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.10 — 20 19-9-36.1 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Open 0.03 — 20 19-9-36.6 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.45 — 20 19-9-36.8 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.05 — 20 20-9-1.5 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.50 — 20 20-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.02 — 20 20-2.0 Improvement Unknown Aggregate All Open 0.09 — 21 21-1.0 New–Natural Natural All Decom 0.04 — 21 21-2.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.03 — 21 21-3.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.09 — 22 22-2.0 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Decom 0.04 — 22 22-3.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.17 — Asphalt 22 20-9-1.0 Bituminous Bituminous All Open 0.64 — Maintenance 22 22-1.0 Improvement Unknown Aggregate All Open 0.16 — 22 22-3.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.31 — 23 23-2.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.28 — 23 23-3.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.07 — 23 23-4.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.17 — 23 23-5.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.20 — Asphalt 23 20-9-1.0 Bituminous Bituminous All Open 0.96 — Maintenance 23 20-9-1.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.21 — 23 23-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.48 — 24 19-9-35.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.32 — 24 24-1.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.11 — 24 24-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 —

120 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

EA EA BLM Road Proposed Road Current Proposed Closure Unit Road Road Work Haul Length Gated Surface Surface Type* No. No. No. Type Season (Miles) 24 24-2.1 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.15 — 24 24-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.19 — 24 24-3.1 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.10 — 24 24-3.2 Renovation Natural Summer Decom 0.09 — 25 19-9-35.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.12 — 25 19-9-35.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.17 — 25 19-9-35.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.15 — 25 20-9-1.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.59 — 26 19-9-25.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.12 — 26 19-9-36.1 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Open 0.25 — 26 19-9-36.1 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Open 0.18 — Asphalt 26 20-9-1.3 Bituminous Bituminous All Open 0.46 — Maintenance 26 26-1.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.15 — 26 26-2.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.11 — 27 19-8-31.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.84 — 27 19-9-25.1 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Decom 0.38 — 27 19-9-25.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.40 — 27 27-2.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.08 — 27 27-3.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.08 — 27 27-4.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 — 27 27-5.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.03 — 27 27-6.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 — 28 20-9-12.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.82 Yes 28 29-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.11 Yes 28 29-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.08 Yes 28 29-4.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.15 Yes 28 29-4.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.03 Yes 28 29-5.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.09 Yes 28 29-5.1 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.07 Yes 29 20-8-8.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.78 Yes 29 20-9-1.7 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.14 Yes 29 29-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.27 Yes 29 29-1.1 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.09 Yes 30 30-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.17 — 31 20-9-11.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 1.34 — 31 20-9-2.5 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.13 — 31 31-1.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.03 — 31 31-2.0 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.01 — 31 31-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.08 — 31 31-4.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.04 — 31 31-5.0 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Open 0.14 — 31 31-6.0 Improvement Aggregate All Open 0.16 — 32 20-9-11.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.52 — 32 32-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.03 — 32 32-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.03 — 32 32-3.0 Improvement Aggregate All Open 0.17 — 32 32-4.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.05 — 33 20-9-2.3 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.14 — 33 33-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.12 — 34 20-9-11.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.59 — 34 34-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.04 — 34 34-1.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.04 — 34 34-2.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.10 — 34 34-3.0 Improvement Unknown Aggregate All Open 0.25 — 34 34-3.1 Renovation Natural Natural All Decom 0.06 —

121 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

EA EA BLM Road Proposed Road Current Proposed Closure Unit Road Road Work Haul Length Gated Surface Surface Type* No. No. No. Type Season (Miles) 34 34-3.2 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 — 34 34-3.3 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.13 — 35 20-9-2.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.33 — 35 35-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.09 — 35 35-1.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 — 36 19-9-34.1 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 — 36 20-9-3.2 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Open 0.13 — 36 20-9-11.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.37 — 36 20-9-11.2 Renovation Natural Natural Summer Short-term† 0.05 — 36 20-9-11.3 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Open 0.43 — 36 34-3.4 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.13 — 36 36-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.18 — 36 36-1.1 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.02 — 36 36-1.2 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.17 — 36 36-2.0 Renovation Unknown Natural Summer Decom 0.12 — 36 36-2.1 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 — 36 36-2.2 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.14 — 36 36-2.3 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.08 — 36 36-3.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.21 — 37 20-9-10.2 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.17 — 37 20-9-10.2 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.12 — 37 20-9-11.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.16 — 37 20-9-11.4 Improvement Natural Aggregate All Open 0.12 — 37 37-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Full decom 0.52 — 37 37-2.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.23 — 37 37-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.25 — 38 38-2.0 Renovation Aggregate Natural Summer Decom 0.08 — 38 20-9-11.3 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.79 — 38 38-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.11 — 38 38-2.1 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.07 — 38 38-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.02 — 39 39-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.09 — 39 39-2.0 Renovation Aggregate Aggregate All Open 0.16 — 39 39-2.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.22 — * Decom = Decommission, Full decom = Full decommission † Short-term = Private ownership would determine long-term closure status

122 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table D–2. Approximate locations of new or existing waste sites to support road construction Waste Road Underlying Location Site Type Within Site Name Ownership (TRS) (New/Existing) RR Number or No. (BLM/Private) WS-1a T20S–R08W–S09 20-8-9.0 New BLM No WS-1b T20S–R08W–S09 20-8-9.0 New BLM No WS-3a T20S–R08W–S09 20-8-9.3 Existing BLM No WS-4a T20S–R08W–S09 20-8-9.0 Existing BLM No WS-5a T20S–R08W–S08 20-8-8.2 Existing Private — WS-5b T20S–R08W–S04 20-8-8.2 Existing Private — WS-5c T20S–R08W–S05 Unnamed Existing BLM No WS-6a T20S–R08W–S05 Unnamed Existing BLM No WS-7a T19S–R08W–S32 Unnamed New Private — WS-9a T19S–R08W–S31 20-8-6.0 New BLM No WS-9b T19S–R08W–S30 19-8-32.0 New BLM No WS-10a T19S–R08W–S30 19-8-31.1 Existing BLM No WS-11a T19S–R09W–S36 19-9-36.6 New Private — WS-14a T20S–R08W–S07 20-9-27.0 Existing BLM No WS-14b T20S–R08W–S07 20-8-6.2 Existing BLM No WS-16a T20S–R08W–S07 20-9-13.2 Existing BLM No WS-17a T20S–R08W–S07 20-9-27.0 Existing BLM No WS-17b T20S–R08W–S07 Unnamed Existing BLM No WS-17c T20S–R08W–S07 20-8-8.3 New BLM No WS-21a T20S–R09W–S01 Unnamed New BLM No WS-21b T20S–R09W–S01 20-9-1.5 Existing BLM No WS-23a T19S–R09W–S35 19-9-35.2 New BLM No WS-28a T20S–R09W–S01 20-9-12.1 Existing BLM No WS-28b T20S–R09W–S12 20-9-12.1 New BLM No WS-29a T20S–R08W–S06 20-8-8.3 New Private — WS-30a T20S–R09W–S12 20-9-27.1 New BLM No WS-31a T20S–R09W–S11 20-9-11.2 New BLM No WS-34a T20S–R09W–S02 20-9-11.2 New BLM No WS-34b T20S–R09W–S02 20-9-11.2 New BLM No WS-36a T19S–R09W–S34 19-9-34.1 New Private — WS-37a T20S–R09W–S11 Unnamed New BLM Yes WS-37b T20S–R09W–S11 20-9-11.4 Existing BLM No WS-37c T20S–R09W–S10 20-9-10.2 New Private — WS-38a T20S–R09W–S10 20-9-11.3 Existing BLM No WS-38b T20S–R09W–S11 20-9-11.3 New BLM Yes WS-39a T20S–R09W–S10 Unnamed Existing landing BLM No

123 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Figure D-1. Approximate locations of existing or proposed waste/disposal sites to support road construction

124 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table D–3. Spacing guide for cross-drain culverts by road grade and erosion index* Road Moderate Erosion Index High† Erosion Index (30–40) Low Erosion Index (70) Gradient (50–60) (Feet) (Feet) (Percent) (Feet) 3–5 640–725 810–865 1,000 6–10 320–605 405–720 500–835 11–15 215–330 270–395 335–455 16+ 200–225 255–280 310 * Erosion index based upon rainfall intensities of 1–2 inches per hour † Reference BLM Handbook H-9113-1 for higher intensities and higher soil type specific range (USDI-BLM 2011) (p. 23)

Table D–4. Guide for drainage spacing* such as waterbars, ditch-outs, or water dips by road grade and surface type Road Natural-surface Road Gravel or Paved Road Gradient (Feet) (Feet) (Percent) 3–5 200 400 6–10 150 300 11–15 100 200 16–20 75 150 * Spacing generally by slope distance and the maximum allowed for the grade

Because of the checkerboard ownership of BLM lands within western Oregon, the majority of BLM- administered lands are intermingled with private lands. The resulting reciprocal right-of-way agreements, easements, and unsecured access rights will affect recreation use by the public within portions of the West Fork Smith River area. Unsecured legal public access includes public access rights that the United States has not secured on particular roads or road systems. Administrative access is legally and physically available to the BLM; however, the right-of-way agreements or easements do not include legal access rights for public casual use.

Within the West Fork Smith River area, the public does not have any legal road access by virtue of locked gates on private roads or unsecured reciprocal right-of-way agreements (administrative closures) for several project areas. The following table (Table D-5) shows the areas for which there is no legal road access for the public and the applicable road systems, which have restricted use.

Table D–5. West Fork Smith River project area road access EA Legal Unit Description Road Access Access Restriction Type No. (TRS*) 1, 2 20-8-9 Public access 20-8-9.0 (North Sisters Ridge Rd) — Public access on 20-8-9.0 (North Sisters Ridge Rd) — 3, 4 20-8-9 No public access 20-8-8.1 (Sweden Creek Rd) Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† 5 20-8-5 No public access 20-8-8.2 (Sweden Creek Ridge Rd) Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† No public access 20-8-5.1, or 20-8-8.3 (Herb Creek 6 20-8-5 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† Ridge Rd) No public access 19-8-29.0 (M J Line) or spurs 7-1.0, 7 20-8-5 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† 7-1.1, 7-2.0, 7-2.1 No public access 20-8-6.0 (Esmond Creek Ridge Rd) 8 19-8-31 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† or 20-8-6.5

125 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

EA Legal Unit Description Road Access Access Restriction Type No. (TRS*) Public access on 20-9-27.1 (West Fork Smith River — 19-8-30 Rd) 9 19-8-31 No public access 20-8-6.0 (Esmond Creek Ridge Rd) Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† or 20-8-32.0, 19-8-30.0, 19-8-30.4, 19-8-32.0 10 19-8-31 Public access 20-9-27.1 (West Fork Smith River Rd) — Public access 20-9-27.1 (West Fork Smith River Rd), 11 19-8-31 — 20-9-1.4 (Gold Creek Spur #1) Public access 20-9-27.1 (West Fork Smith River Rd) — 12 19-8-31 No public access 20-8-6.5 or spurs 12-1.0, 12-1.1 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† No public access 20-8-18.0 (Russell Creek Rd) or 20- 13 20-8-7 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† 8-8.4 or 20-8-8.9 No public access 20-8-6.2 or 20-8-18.0 (Russell 14 20-8-7 Creek Rd) Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† or 20-9-27.0 (Windy Creek Rd) No public access 20-8-7.0 or 20-8-18.0 (Russell 15 20-8-7 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† Creek Rd) 16 20-8-7 No public access 20-9-13.2 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† No public access 20-9-27.0 (Windy Creek Rd) or 20- 17 20-8-7 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† 8-8.3 (Herb Creek Ridge Rd) 18 20-8-7 No public access spur 18-1.0 Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† Public (West Fork Smith River Rd) — 19 20-9-1 No public access 20-9-1.1 (Gold Creek Rd) Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† Public access 20-9-1.3 (Roman Nose Rd), 20-9-1.4 20-9-1 20 (Gold Creek Spur #1), 20-9-1.5, 19-9-1.5, 19-9-36.6, — 19-9-25 spur 19-1.2 21 20-9-1 Public access 20-9-1.5 — 22 20-9-1 Public access 20-9-27.1 (West Fork Smith River Rd) — 19-9-35 23 Public access 20-9-1.0 (Beaver Creek Ridge Rd) — 20-9-2 24 19-9-35 Public access 20-9-1.0 (Beaver Creek Ridge Rd) — Public access 20-9-1.0 (Beaver Creek Ridge Rd), 19- 25 19-9-35 — 9-35.0, 19-9-35.1 26 19-9-25 Public access 20-9-1.3 (Roman Nose Rd) — 19-9-25 27 Public access 19-8-31.0 (Upper West Fork Rd) — 19-9-36 20-9-1 Public access 20-9-12.0, 20-9-12.1, 20-9-27.1 (West 28 — 20-9-12 Fork Smith River Rd) 20-9-1 29 Public access 20-9-12.1 — 20-9-12 30 20-9-12 Public access 20-9-27.1 (West Fork Smith River Rd) — 20-9-2 31 Public access 20-9-11.2 (Moore Creek Ridge Rd) — 20-9-11 32 20-9-2 Public access 20-9-11.2 (Moore Creek Ridge Rd) — 33 20-9-2 Public access 20-9-11.2 (Moore Creek Ridge Rd) — 19-9-35 34 Public access 20-9-11.2 (Moore Creek Ridge Rd) — 20-9-2

126 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

EA Legal Unit Description Road Access Access Restriction Type No. (TRS*) 20-9-2 35 Public access 20-9-11.0 (Moore Creek Rd) — 20-9-3 36 20-9-3 Public access 20-9-11.0 (Moore Creek Rd) — Public access 20-9-11.0 (Moore Creek Rd), 20-9-27.1 37 20-9-11 — (West Fork Smith River Rd) Public access 20-9-11.3, 20-9-27.1 (West Fork Smith 38 20-9-10 — River Rd) 39 20-9-10 No public access Crane Creek Rd Administrative—Reciprocal ROW† * TRS = township–range–section † Right-of-way (ROW) for timber management only

127 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix E—Special Status Species—Wildlife

Table E–1. Bureau Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species documented or suspected to occur on the Coos Bay District (Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program List July 2015) Documented Common Name Scientific Name (D) or Key Habitats—Species Notes—Species Range Suspected (S) Amphibians Foothill yellow- Primarily found in larger order streams and rivers (4th through 6th order), but Rana boylii D legged frog also documented from 1st through 8th orders Birds Branta Aleutian Canada canadensis D Coastal grasslands- stages in spring in New River bottoms; also a fall migrant goose leucopareia American peregrine Falco peregrinus D Nests along coastal and inland cliffs falcon anatum Haliaeetus Nests mainly in large trees close to open water habitats. No known nests Bald eagle D leucocephalus in project area. Pelecanus Rests on coastal beaches, headlands, harbors, bays, docks, and pilings; feeds California brown occidentalis D on fish in bays, estuaries, and marine near shore; non-breeder along the entire pelican californicus Oregon coast Primarily breeds in white water streams in the eastern and western slopes of Histrionicus the Cascade Mountains; only one breeding location (on the Nestucca River in Harlequin duck D histrionicus Tillamook County) documented in the Coast Range; regular winter migrant to the Oregon Coast Grasslands on or adjacent to the coast; small breeding population on private Oregon Vesper Pooecetes D ranchland in Curry County; has bred at New River ACEC; otherwise a rare sparrow gramineus affinis migrant Purple martin Progne subis D Known on District; nests over water or in the uplands in snags in open areas Open areas in coastal and valley lowlands, especially along river valleys with White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus D scattered trees for perching and nesting; nests in the Coquille Valley and Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area Invertebrates Generalist foragers, they do not depend on any one flower type; Bombus Western bumblebee S important pollinators of wild flowering plants and crops. Limited occidentalis flowering herbs and shrubs within project units, due dense canopy cover. Old-growth obligate species; host is Arceuthobium species of dwarf Callophrys Johnson’s hairstreak D mistletoe; documented in Hunter Creek ACEC. No old-growth with in johnsoni treatment units. Cicindela Siuslaw sand tiger hirticollis D Open sand; documented at New River ACEC beetle siuslawensis Plebejus Coastal greenish blue saepiolus D Formerly the insular blue butterfly; open areas, clover; coastal species butterfly littoralis Grass openings with native grasses and serpentine; documented in Hunter Mardon skipper Polites mardon D Creek ACEC Rocky and talus substrates; many mollusk surveys, but no Coos Bay Oregon Helminthoglypta District records; current known range is Douglas, Jackson, and S shoulderband hertleini Josephine Counties. No talus substrates and limited down wood within treatment units. Found in stands with deciduous trees and brush in wet, relatively undisturbed forest, at low elevations, and in low coastal scrub; climb Monadenia Green sideband D trees in riparian areas and shelter in deep forest floor litter; documented fidelis flava in Curry County. Unlikely within harvest units due to stand management and riparian reserves. Mammals Much of the American west, up and down the coast from Canada and Antrozous Pallid bat S Mexico; arid regions with rocky outcroppings, to open, sparsely vegetated pallidus grasslands; water must be available close by to all sites Historically uses dense herbaceous and shrubby vegetation in old growth Pacific marten Martes caurina D habitat; more recent surveys have also found individuals between the coast and Highway 101 in dense shore pine. Forest dwelling species roosting in snags, rock crevices, caves, mines, Myotis Fringed myotis D buildings, bridges, and green trees. Limited snags and roosting habitat thysanodes within treatment units.

128 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Documented Common Name Scientific Name (D) or Key Habitats—Species Notes—Species Range Suspected (S) Forest and grassland habitats, roosting in caves and mines, buildings, Townsend’s big- Spermophilus D bridges, and basal hollows of trees. Limited snags and roosting habitat eared bat townsendii within treatment units. Reptiles Most common in lentic water (ponds, slow sections of rivers), but also use Actinemys Western pond turtle D streams and rivers, generally in low velocity sections and deep pools; nests in marmorata open areas adjacent to water; can overwinter in forest habitat Bolded species are species documented, or have habitat documented, within the primary analysis area; however, do are not likely to occur in the treatment units. Bold and underlined species may utilize stands within treatment units.

129 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table E–2. Known spotted owl site habitat conditions within all ownerships Site Information Habitat Types (All Landowners) Habitat† Portion Total Total of NRF NRF RF RF Dispersal-only Dispersal-only Habitat Site Buffer Area Habitat (Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent) Area (Acres) Area (Acres) (Percent) 0532B (Roman Nose) Nest Patch 69 69 100.0 0 — 0 — 69 100.0 *Coos Bay BLM—63.5% Core Area 503 329 65.4 0 — 78 15.5 407 80.9 *Northwest Oregon BLM—6.8% Home Range 4,524 1,822 40.3 39 0.9 1,188 26.3 3,049 67.4 *Private—29.7% 2118O (Esmond Creek) Nest Patch 69 45 65.2 0 — 23 33.3 68 98.6 *Coos Bay BLM—3.6% Core Area 503 120 23.9 0 — 257 51.1 377 75.0 *Northwest Oregon BLM—47.1% Home Range 4,524 828 18.3 0 — 2,525 55.8 3,353 74.1 *Private—49.3% 3164O (Moore Creek) Nest Patch 69 64 92.8 0 — 1 1.4 65 94.2 *Coos Bay BLM—79.6% Core Area 503 265 52.7 0 — 80 15.9 345 68.6 *Private—20.4% Home Range 4,524 1,140 25.2 0 — 1,724 38.1 2,864 63.3 3369O (Baldy Trib) Nest Patch 69 60 87.0 0 — 7 10.1 67 97.1 *Siuslaw NF—34.0% Core Area 503 330 65.6 1 0.2 113 22.5 444 88.3 *Coos Bay BLM—49.3% Home Range 4,524 2,405 53.2 85 1.9 682 15.1 3,172 70.1 *Private—16.7% * Ownership percentage within the home range † All nesting (NRF), roosting-foraging (RF), and dispersal habitat

Table E–3. Total ownership and nesting habitat acres within the spotted owl analysis area Spotted Owl Analysis Area BLM U.S. Forest Service Private Total 17,640 acres 1,056 acres 11,543 acres 30,239 acres Total lands (58.3 percent) (3.5 percent) (38.2 percent) (100 percent) 5,534 acres 273 acres 357 acres 6,164 acres Nesting habitat (31.4 percent) (25.8 percent) (3.1 percent) (20.4 percent)

130 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table E–4. Proposed actions within the four known spotted owl sites Site Information Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Total Total Stand LSR RR Group Stand LSR RR Group Site Number Buffer Treatment Treatment Area Retention Thinning Thinning Selection Retention Thining Thinning Selection and Name Area Area Area (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) 0532B Core Area 503 8.8 40.5 7.9 8.9 57.3 16.8 49.0 0.0 — 49.0 (Roman Nose) Home Range 4,524 25.1 117.2 35.4 15.2 167.8 64.5 132.0 7.0 — 139.0 2118O Core Area 503 — — — — 0.0 — — — — 0.0 (Esmond Creek) Home Range 4,524 6.3 30.9 14.9 7.4 53.2 9.1 30.8 5.0 — 35.8 3164O Core Area 503 4.6 21.9 18.8 13.1 53.8 17.3 29.5 5.7 — 35.2 (Moore Creek) Home Range 4,524 89.8 255.3 114.9 63.6 433.8 177.0 302.0 26.5 — 328.5 3369O Core Area 503 — — — — 0.0 — — — — 0.0 (Baldy Trib) Home Range 4,524 3.2 7.9 1.0 — 8.9 4.2 7.9 — — 7.9

Table E–5. Comparison nesting habitat values within 30 years for the No Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 within the four known spotted owl sites Site Information No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Site Number Buffer Area Area Area Area Area Area Area and Name Area (Acres) (Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent) Nest Patch 69 69 100.0 69 100.0 69 100.0 0532B Core Area 503 329 65.4 377 75.0 378 75.1 (Roman Nose) Home Range 4,524 1,822 40.3 2,023 44.7 2,010 44.4 Nest Patch 69 45 65.2 45 65.2 45 65.2 2118O Core Area 503 120 23.9 120 23.9 120 23.9 (Esmond Creek) Home Range 4,524 828 18.3 874 19.3 864 19.1 Nest Patch 69 64 92.8 64 92.8 64 92.8 3164O Core Area 503 265 52.7 306 60.8 300 59.7 (Moore Creek) Home Range 4,524 1,140 25.2 1,551 34.3 1,504 33.2 Nest Patch 69 60 87.0 60 87.0 60 87.0 3369O Core Area 503 330 65.6 330 65.6 330 65.6 (Baldy Trib) Home Range 4,524 2,405 53.2 2,413 53.3 2,413 53.3

131 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–1. Spotted owl analysis area, nesting habitat, historic owl site centers, and treatment areas

132 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–2. Habitat conditions within the four historic spotted owl sites

133 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–3. Murrelet habitat and occupied sites in the project vicinity

134 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–4. Areas with more than 50 percent spotted owl nesting habitat within a 500-acre radius. The red indicates raster cells with more than 50 percent nesting habitat within a 500-acre circular area surrounding the raster cell.

135 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Spotted Owl Survey Effort and Results The proposed actions would occur in dispersal-only habitat. Most of the primary action area does not support 500-acre areas with more than the minimum 50 percent nesting habitat threshold (POCAs), as described in the Biological Assessment (USDI-BLM 2018b), which is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to ensure the BLM would not treat stands within a known nest patch, the BLM proposed a modified survey design:  Survey all habitat within 600 meters of the harvest footprint, which would survey any potential nest patches (300m radios circle around a nest tree) within the harvest area o This includes all habitat within the disturbance distance. With the continuation of spot checks, disturbance would not be an issue for this project  Survey areas with 50 percent nesting habitat within a 500-acre area, as these areas are more likely to support a nesting spotted owl (Appendix E Map E–1) o Surveys expanded to include the entire Roman Nose site o Surveys in the Baldy Trib site are covered by the demography survey effort o Areas of the Moore Creek site supporting more than 50 percent nesting habitat are covered by the 600-meter survey area  Complete survey effort and survey visit protocol to the standards in the 2012 NSO Survey protocol (USDI-FWS 2012 revision)

The BLM described the modified survey effort to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) during the Level 1 meeting on January 7, 2017. The FWS concurred with this assessment, as long as the BLM expanded the surveys to include areas that supported greater than 50 percent nesting habitat within 500- acre areas. This addition incorporated areas with a greater likelihood of supporting a reproductive pair or owls, and expanded the area to include the full Roman Nose known site. The Baldy Trib site also supports more than 50 percent nesting habitat, but is surveyed in the Oregon Coast demographic survey effort.

The final survey area included 67 call points within two known sites and two temporary sites (Figure 2). The BLM completed surveys in 2017 and 2018, and detected no spotted owls but detected barred owls 86 times. A murrelet surveyor detected one unknown Strix spp. while in route to a murrelet survey station. Surveyors did not relocate an owl during a follow-up later that afternoon. Full survey results are available in Table E–6, and Figure E–5 is a map of all detections with treatment units and spotted owl nesting habitat.

136 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–4. Spotted owl survey area for survey years one and two in 2017 and 2018

137 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table E–6. Spotted owl survey results by survey area, survey visit, and survey year Year→ 2017 2018 Site Name and RESP RESP Visit Date Type Species Sex Age Visit Date Type Species Sex Age Number Code Code (MSNO) 3/12/2018 N VN STVA M A 1 3/1/2017 N AN STVA M D 1 3/13/2018 N NR N VN STVA U A 2 4/11/2017 2 5/8/2018 N NR N AN STVA P D 5/29/2018 N NR Beaver Creek 3 5/17/2017 N VN STVA P A 3 5/30/2018 N VN STVA M A (CB6223T) 4 6/28/2017 N VN STVA M A 4 6/18/2018 N NR 7/24/2018 N NR 5 7/24/2017 N AN STVA F D 5 7/25/2018 N NR 8/15/2018 N NR 6 8/22/2017 N AN STVA P D 6 8/16/2018 N NR 3/1/2017 D NR 3/12/2018 D NR N AN STVA F D 3/12/2018 N NR 1 3/1/2017 N AN STVA M D 1 N AN STVA P A N AN STVA F D 3/13/2018 N VN STVA U A 3/3/2017 N NR 4/11/2017 N AN STVA F D 5/8/2018 N NR 2 4/12/2017 N NR 2 5/9/2018 N AN STVA P A 4/15/2017 N NR 5/16/2017 N AN STVA F D 5/29/2018 N NR Moore Creek 3 5/17/2017 N AN STVA F D 3 5/30/2018 N AN STVA M D (3164O) 5/18/2017 N NR 6/22/2017 N NR 6/18/2018 N AN STVA M D 4 N AN STVA P D 4 6/23/2017 N AN STVA U U 6/19/2018 N NR 7/24/2018 N AN STVA M D N AN STVA F D 7/24/2017 N AN STVA M D 5 5 7/25/2018 N AN STVA U J N VN STVA F A 7/25/2017 N AN STVA M D 7/27/2018 N AN STVA M D 8/22/2017 N AN STVA F D 8/15/2018 N NR 6 6 8/23/2017 N NR 8/16/2018 N NR 3/2/2017 D NR 3/12/2015 N AN STVA P A N AN STVA M D 3/13/2018 D NR 1 3/2/2017 1 N AN STVA M D 3/13/2018 N NR 3/3/2017 N NR 4/11/2017 N NR 5/8/2018 N AN STVA M D 2 N AN STVA M D 2 5/9/2018 N AN STVA F D 4/12/2017 5/9/2018 N AN STVA M D 5/17/2017 N NR 5/29/2018 N AN STVA M D N VN STVA U A 5/29/2018 N AN STVA F D 3 3 5/18/2017 N VN STVA P A 5/30/2018 N NR Roman Nose N AN STVA M D (0532O) 6/21/2017 N VN STVA U A 6/18/2018 N NR N AN STVA U U 4 4 6/23/2017 N AN STVA U U 6/19/2018 N VN STVA F A N AN STVA U U N AN STVA P D 7/23/2018 N VN STVA U J N UV STVA F A 7/24/2017 5 N AN STVA U J 5 N VN STVA U J N UV STVA F A 7/24/2018 7/25/2017 N AN STVA F D N VN STVA U J N AN STVA M D 6 8/22/2017 6 8/15/2018 N VN STVA P D N AN STVA M D

138 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Year→ 2017 2018 Site Name and RESP RESP Visit Date Type Species Sex Age Visit Date Type Species Sex Age Number Code Code (MSNO) N AN STVA F D 8/16/2018 N NR 8/23/2017 N VN STVA U A N AN STVA M D 3/12/2018 N NR 3/1/2017 N AN STVA U D 3/13/2018 N NR 1 1 N AN STVA M D 3/15/2018 N NR 3/3/2017 N NR 4/11/2017 N NR 5/8/2018 N NR 2 4/12/2017 N AN STVA M D 2 5/9/2018 N AN STVA F D 4/15/2017 N NR 5/16/2017 N VN STVA U A 5/29/2018 N NR West Fork Smith 3 5/17/2017 N AN STVA F D 3 River (CB6226T) 5/30/2018 N VN STVA F D 5/18/2017 N NR 6/24/2017 N NR 6/18/2018 N NR 4 4 6/28/2017 N NR 6/19/2018 N NR 7/24/2017 N AN STVA M D 7/24/2018 N NR 5 N AN STVA F D 5 7/26/2018 N AN STVA M D 7/25/2017 N AN STVA F D 7/27/2018 N NR 8/22/2017 N AN STVA P D 8/15/2018 N NR 6 6 8/23/2017 N NR 8/16/2018 N AN STVA F D Incidental N/A 5/16/2017 INC AN STVA P A N/A 5/1/2018 N VN STUN U U Table Abbreviations: Species: STVA=Strix varia, STOC=Strix occidentalis, STUN=Strix unknown Type: N=night, D=day, INC=incidental Resp Code: AN=auditory only, NR=no response, VN=visual, no bands observed Sex: M=Male, F=Female, U=unknown, P=pair Age: A=adult, D=adult/subadult, U=unknown, J=juvenile

139 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–5. Owl detections during 2017 and 2018 spotted owl surveys

140 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Murrelet Survey Effort and Results The 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon ROD/RMP requires one of four land management options be applied to projects before “modifying nesting habitat or removing nesting structure” (USDI-BLM 2016b). The definition of modify, in terms of the ROD/RMP implementation refers only to direct modification or removal of nesting habitat or structure. No activities proposed within the WFSR project would directly remove habitat or nesting structure. Biologists identified two new construct roads (Appendix E Map E– 6) with the potential to remove trees adjacent to nesting structure, and enacted Option 1, survey adjacent habitat, to comply with the RMP. Biologists delineated a murrelet survey site, per the PSG murrelet survey protocol (Evans Mack et al. 2003), adjacent to each road (Appendix E Maps E–7 and E–8).

The BLM initiated surveys in 2017 and completed surveys in July 2018. Surveyors completed 10 surveys at the WFS-11A survey site, five each year, with no murrelet detections. The WFS-11B site is on the West Fork Smith River, a flyway for murrelets up the West Fork Smith River drainage, which is reflected in the high number of murrelet detections. In 2017, surveys detected five murrelets during three separate surveys. In 2018, the BLM added two new stations to the survey site, based on detection locations and trajectories from 2017 surveys. After seven detections during three visits, surveyors recorded a sub- canopy, occupancy detection, on June 22, 2018, from one of the new stations (WFS-11B-7).

The BLM delineated the Moore Creek Ridge occupied murrelet site (Appendix E Map E-9) based on the June 22, 2018 occupancy detection. The site extends out one-quarter miles from the occupying detection, per the site delineation requirements in the ROD/RMP (USDI-BLM 2016b). The BLM describes activities associated with the WFSR project, within the occupied site and additional 300-foot site protection buffer within the WFSR Biological Assessment (USDI-BLM 2018b).

Table E–7. Murrelet detections within the WFS-11B site Survey Station Visual Detection Auditory Detection Survey Date (Name/Number) (Number) (Number) WFS-11B-1 7/21/2017 1 WFS-11B-2 7/19/2017 2 7/19/2017 2 WFS-11B-3 5/2/2018 1 WFS-11B-5 5/10/2018 2 WFS-11B-7† 6/22/2018 4* 1 * One sub-canopy visual detection † Station installed in 2018 based on detections in 2017

141 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–6. LiDAR view of murrelet habitat adjacent to the proposed 37-2.0 and 37-3.0 new construction roads

142 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–7. LiDAR view of the WFS-11A murrelet survey site and survey stations

143 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–8. LiDAR view of the WFS-11B murrelet survey site and survey stations. Stations 6 and 7 were surveyed in 2018 only.

144 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map E–9. LiDAR view of the WFS-11B murrelet survey site and the Moore Creek Ridge occupied murrelet site and 300-foot buffer (per 2016 ROD/RMP delineation requirements).

145 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Potential Owl Core Areas (POCA) 30-year Modeling Projection

Map E–10. Modeled Potential Owl Core Areas (POCAs) for the no action and action alternatives within the spotted owl analysis area

146 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Potential Owl Core Area (POCA) Analysis Spotted owl reproduction is more successful with greater than 50 percent nesting habitat within 500-acre (half-mile radius) core areas (summarized in (USDI-FWS 2009, USDI-FWS 2011b)). The BLM is defining these core areas, with greater than 50 percent nesting habitat, as Potential Owl Core Areas (POCAs).The BLM completed a neighborhood analysis of the 20-year GNN spotted owl habitat raster, calculating the percent of suitable and highly suitable habitat within a 500-acre (0.5-mile radius) area around each 30-meter raster cell. The BLM then altered the GNN raster data to reflect spotted owl habitat changes in 30 years, due to the proposed actions and re-ran the neighborhood analysis (Appendix E Map E–10). The solid colored areas on the map reflect potential locations for a POCA centroid.

Appendix F—Spotted Owl and Murrelet Seasonal Timing Restrictions

Northern Spotted Owls Seasonal restrictions would limit noise-disrupting activities during the critical breeding season (March 1– June 30). These restrictions apply to protect areas within 65 yards of suitable NSO habitat. However, protocol surveys are ongoing in all suitable habitats within 1.5 miles of all harvest units. If northern spotted owls did not use any of the adjacent stands, then restrictions would not apply in those project areas as per the protocol (USDI-FWS 2012 revision), provided the spot checks and renewal surveys are conducted as specified by the protocol. Since these overlap with marbled murrelet restrictions, this only extends the operational season for the additional month of March.

Marbled Murrelets Seasonal restrictions would limit noise-disrupting activities during the critical breeding season (April 1– August 5). These restrictions apply to protect areas within 110 yards of occupied or suitable murrelet habitat. From August 6 to September 15, daily timing restrictions would prohibit activities from occurring earlier than two hours after sunrise or occurring after two hours before sunset.

147 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table F–1. Murrelet seasonal restrictions for road renovation and new road construction EA EA BLM Road Proposed Proposed Road Murrelet Closure Unit Road Road Work Road Haul Length Seasonal Type No. No. No. Type Surface Season (Miles) Restrictions 3 3-2.2 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.19 Yes 6 6-3.0 Improvement Aggregate All Decom 0.06 Yes 6 20-8-5.1 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.72 Yes 6 20-8-5.2 Improvement Aggregate All Decom 0.28 Yes 8 8-2.0 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.05 Yes 8 8-2.1 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.06 Yes 9 19-8-30.4 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.23 Yes 9 19-8-30.4 Renovation Natural Summer Open 0.26 Yes 9 19-8-31.1 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.29 Yes 9 9-7.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Open 0.08 Yes 10 19-8-31.1 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.38 Yes 10 10-1.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.15 Yes 10 10-1.1 New–Swing Natural Summer Decom 0.09 Yes 11 19-9-36.6 Improvement Aggregate All Open 0.20 Yes 11 19-9-36.6 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.10 Yes 11 11-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.07 Yes 14 14-8.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.12 Yes 17 20-8-8.3 Improvement Aggregate All Open 0.16 Yes 17 20-8-8.3 Renovation Natural Summer Open 0.16 Yes 18 20-8-8.3 Renovation Natural Summer Open 0.53 Yes 18 20-8-8.3 Renovation Natural Summer Decom 0.41 Yes 19 19-1.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.44 Yes 19 19-1.2 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.10 Yes 20 19-9-36.6 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.45 Yes 20 20-2.0 Improvement Aggregate All Open 0.09 Yes 25 19-9-35.1 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.15 Yes 27 19-9-25.1 Renovation Natural Summer Decom 0.38 Yes 27 19-9-25.2 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.40 Yes 27 27-6.0 New–Natural Natural Summer Decom 0.04 Yes 29 20-9-1.7 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.14 Yes 29 29-1.1 Renovation Aggregate All Open 0.09 Yes 32 32-3.0 Improvement Aggregate All Open 0.17 Yes 34 34-3.3 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.13 Yes 37 20-9-11.4 Improvement Aggregate All Open 0.12 Yes 37 37-3.0 New–Gravel Aggregate All Open 0.25 Yes

148 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map F–1. Areas where stand treatments (purple) and roadwork activities (dashed green) are subject to seasonal restrictions based on proximity to adjacent murrelet habitat for eastern EA units

149 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map F–2. Areas where stand treatments (purple) and roadwork activities (dashed green) are subject to seasonal restrictions based on proximity to adjacent murrelet habitat for central EA units

150 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Map F–3. Areas where stand treatments (purple) and roadwork activities (dashed green) are subject to seasonal restrictions based on proximity to adjacent murrelet habitat for western EA units

151 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix G—Special Status Species—Botany

The BLM botanist reviewed District occurrence potential for each Bureau Sensitive botanical species and rated each as low (0 sites), moderate (1–9 sites), or high (10+ sites). For species with known sites near the project areas, the occurrence likelihood would increase, and for species with sites away from the project areas and primarily coastal zone in nature the likelihood would decrease.

Table G–1. Bureau Sensitive botanical species with potential habitat within the West Fork Smith River analysis area Documented (D) or No. of Likelihood Suspected (S) on Sites in in Project Reason Species Coos Bay District Project Area BLM Area VASCULAR PLANTS Ferns Adiantum jordanii S — Low No sites on District Preferred habitat is scarce in project D — Low Pellaea andromedifolia areas Polystichum californicum S — Low No sites on District Forbs Preferred habitat is scarce in project D — Low Bensoniella oregona areas Erigeron cervinus S — Low No sites on District Eucephalus vialis S — Low No sites on District Iliamna latibracteata S — Low No sites on District Pyrola dentata S — Low No sites on District Preferred habitat is scarce in project D — Low Romanzoffia thompsonii areas Preferred habitat is scarce in project D — Low Sidalcea hendersonii areas Sidalcea malviflora ssp. patula S — Low No sites on District Trillium kurabayashii S — Low No sites on District (= T. angustipetalum) Rushes Scirpus pendulus S — Low No sites on District NON-VASCULAR Bryophytes (Hornworts) Moderate- Two known sites on District, habitat is D — Phymatoceros phymatoides High present Bryophytes (Liverworts) Cryptomitrium tenerum S — Low No sites on District Hyper-maritime, ranges up to 14 miles D — Low Metzgeria violacea from coastline Porella bolanderi S — Low No sites on District Bryophytes (Mosses) Few legacy trees in area, and some of Racomitrium depressum S — Low those are fire scarred with few lichens or (=Codriophorus depressus) bryophytes present Tetraphis geniculata S — Low No sites on District Lichens Moderate- Several sites on District; prefers D — Bryoria subcana High ridgelines Cladidium bolanderi S — Low No sites on District

152 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Documented (D) or No. of Likelihood Suspected (S) on Sites in in Project Reason Species Coos Bay District Project Area BLM Area Leptogium cyanescens S — Low No sites on District One site on District; habitat is present in D — Moderate Microcalicium arenarium analysis area Lobaria linita S — Low Preferred habitat is scarce in project area Usnea nidulans S — Low No sites on District NON-VASCULAR (surveys not practical) Fungi Known sites near Shore Acres/Cape S — Low Albatrellus avellaneous Arago area Chamonixia caespitosa S — Low No sites on District Cortinarius barlowensis S — Low No sites on District (=C. azureus) Gastrolactarius camphoratus D — Moderate Three sites on District (=Arcangeliella camphorate) Phaeocollybia californica D — High Nine sites on District Phaeocollybia gregaria S — Low No sites on District Phaeocollybia oregonensis D — Moderate Two sites on District Ramaria rubella var. blanda D — Moderate Two sites on District Rhizopogon exiguous S — Low No sites on District

153 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix H—Forest Information and Stand Modeling Projections

Table H–1. Current, post-treatment, and 50-year forest stand metrics (by EA unit) based upon the thinning prescription for LSR Unit Quadratic Mean Diameter (Inches) Trees Per Acre Relative Density‡ Canopy Cover (Percent) EA FOI Post No Post No Post No Unit 10-year Current† Post Treatment Action Current† Post Treatment Action Current† Post Current† Post Treatment Action No. Age Condition Treatment§ +50 +50 Condition Treatment§ +50 +50 Condition Treatment§ Condition Treatment§ +50 +50 Classes* Years‡ Years Years§ Years Years‡ Years 1 50 16 16 25 25 220 100 83 119 75 34 82 60 74 69 2 40–60 14 14 25 24 255 120 88 137 71 33 80 60 73 78 3 50 13 13 22 20 290 138 113 191 71 34 83 65 77 81 4 50 14 14 24 23 270 118 94 149 76 33 82 58 72 79 5 50–60 13 13 24 23 305 130 90 143 77 33 82 57 70 77 6 50 16 16 26 26 247 97 77 115 84 33 79 55 65 71 7 50–60 15 15 24 24 254 104 85 135 80 32 81 59 68 77 8 50 13 13 22 19 327 132 114 229 82 33 91 71 84 91 9 50–60 15 15 24 24 245 109 87 133 74 33 79 63 71 74 10 60 14 14 23 22 276 124 93 143 75 34 81 66 73 77 11 50–60 16 16 25 25 202 95 77 109 69 33 74 57 64 70 12 60 15 15 23 23 252 107 91 137 81 34 77 56 66 73 13 60 13 14 23 22 290 121 90 144 78 33 82 60 69 78 14 40–50 14 14 24 22 282 116 94 158 80 33 83 62 71 80 15 40–50 14 14 24 23 294 114 93 157 85 33 85 62 72 81 16 40–50 16 16 29 28 228 98 68 103 77 33 75 54 64 70 17 50 14 14 25 23 270 111 90 153 80 33 83 62 71 79 18 30–40 14 14 27 27 243 114 80 106 71 33 82 64 71 72 19 60 15 15 24 24 214 110 81 112 67 35 75 61 66 72 20 40 13 13 23 22 235 100 100 143 61 33 72 60 71 76 21 50 14 14 24 23 166 111 84 107 49 33 72 62 71 73 22 50 16 16 26 25 218 98 81 117 75 34 74 55 64 70 23 60 14 14 23 23 278 117 91 142 80 33 80 58 67 76 24 50 13 13 21 21 286 130 109 177 73 33 87 65 77 86 25 50 13 13 21 19 354 139 116 225 86 34 91 68 80 89 26 60 13 13 22 22 305 130 94 147 78 33 82 61 69 78 27 50 14 14 23 21 305 123 103 199 83 34 89 71 78 88 28 50–60 13 13 23 21 340 125 101 201 89 33 90 69 77 87 29 40 14 14 24 23 222 122 99 138 60 34 72 60 71 76 30 50 15 15 25 24 234 110 89 134 69 33 80 63 71 78 31 50–60 12 12 20 18 321 149 120 220 74 34 87 69 80 88 32 50–60 12 12 22 20 323 143 113 192 77 34 88 69 78 85 33 40 14 14 26 26 252 120 83 109 68 33 81 65 71 72 34 50–60 13 13 22 19 343 137 114 221 84 34 90 71 79 89 35 40 13 13 23 22 235 125 100 143 62 33 72 60 71 76 36 40–60 13 13 22 21 327 131 107 196 83 33 89 70 78 87 37 60 13 13 22 21 318 136 107 171 79 34 87 68 75 83 38 50–60 13 13 23 21 318 126 101 176 83 33 87 66 74 84 39 50 16 16 28 27 145 86 70 101 52 31 70 60 69 74 * 10-year age classes are based on Forest Operation Inventory data in GIS and provide an estimate of stand age or age range. † The BLM conducted stand exams to determine current stand conditions and used Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling to show projected outcomes post-harvest (Dixon comp. 2002, revised 2018). ‡ The BLM bases the calculation for relative density on Curtis (1982). § Based upon the proportional thinning prescription for LSR 154 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table H–2. Current, post-treatment, and 50-year forest stand metrics (by EA unit) based upon the thinning prescription for the Outer Zone of Riparian Reserve Quadratic Mean Diameter* Basal Area Average Codominant Canopy Cover Trees Per Acre* Relative Density† (Inches) (Feet2 Per Acre) Tree Height (Feet) (Percent) EA No Unit Post Post Post Post Current Post Current Post Current Post Current Post Current Action Post No. Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Condition Treatment Condition Treatment Condition Treatment Condition Treatment Condition +50 Treatment +50 Years +50 Years +50 Years +50 Years Years 1 16 20 31 220 66 60 295 150 75 33 129 174 173 59 67 2 14 16 30 255 99 65 265 134 71 34 131 185 183 60 69 3 13 14 23 290 133 108 252 146 71 39 120 169 168 73 81 4 14 17 29 270 89 69 285 134 76 33 125 176 174 60 71 5 13 19 30 305 69 60 278 142 77 32 131 184 182 60 68 6 16 17 30 247 89 57 332 140 84 33 133 183 181 58 62 7 15 17 28 254 90 64 305 134 80 33 125 165 163 60 67 8 13 19 30 327 75 68 292 142 82 33 125 177 174 66 75 9 15 20 30 245 71 63 280 150 74 34 131 181 180 61 69 10 14 19 29 276 71 62 274 142 75 32 130 183 181 61 69 11 16 20 30 202 70 62 277 150 69 34 136 186 184 56 64 12 15 20 28 252 72 64 315 151 81 34 125 159 158 55 64 13 13 15 26 290 104 67 289 130 78 33 131 180 178 57 65 14 14 17 28 282 88 72 300 134 80 33 129 179 177 58 68 15 14 17 29 294 86 65 320 140 85 34 133 177 174 57 66 16 16 14 29 228 110 65 305 124 77 33 135 183 186 51 62 17 14 17 29 270 87 70 301 134 80 32 130 178 176 58 67 18 14 19 32 243 75 63 264 140 71 33 124 182 181 57 68 19 15 18 29 214 85 60 260 141 67 34 141 194 192 55 63 20 13 17 27 235 95 81 225 140 61 35 118 170 169 56 67 21 14 19 33 166 71 56 186 140 49 32 124 186 179 59 65 22 16 21 31 218 64 59 299 150 75 33 130 175 174 54 63 23 14 17 27 278 91 65 299 136 80 33 127 169 167 66 74 24 13 16 26 286 91 77 264 134 73 33 128 176 173 60 69 25 13 15 25 354 114 88 304 134 86 35 129 174 174 62 71 26 13 14 26 305 117 71 282 134 78 35 129 179 176 59 66 27 14 15 27 305 108 80 303 134 83 34 126 173 173 64 73 28 13 14 25 340 121 85 323 124 89 33 128 167 172 63 72 29 14 17 28 222 83 72 223 134 60 32 120 172 171 53 66 30 15 — — 234 — — 263 — 69 — 133 — 178 — — 31 12 16 27 321 99 83 288 134 80 34 141 206 188 60 73 32 12 15 25 323 110 88 272 134 77 35 128 184 181 64 73 33 14 18 31 252 83 68 252 140 68 33 121 180 179 59 69 34 13 15 25 343 109 86 298 134 84 34 133 185 184 61 72 35 13 17 27 235 95 81 220 140 60 35 118 170 169 56 67 36 13 14 25 327 113 83 297 124 83 33 126 170 171 62 71 37 13 15 25 318 110 84 282 134 79 35 120 170 167 65 72 38 13 15 26 318 108 81 304 134 83 35 126 177 175 63 72 39 16 21 34 145 63 55 209 150 52 33 130 187 186 57 66 * The Quadratic Mean Diameter and Trees per Acre estimates for the ‘No Action + 50 Years’ are the same as those found in the ‘Post Treatment + 50 Years’ column in Table H-1. † The BLM bases the calculation for relative density on Curtis (1982).

155 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table H–3. Land ownership within the forest structure analysis area U.S. Local, State, Total Area BLM Private BIA 6th Field Watershed Forest Service and County Govt. (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) West Fork Smith River 16,823 11,332 4,842 648 0 0 South Sister Creek 16,094 7,998 8,096 0 0 0 Totals 32,917 19,330 12,938 648 0 0

Table H–4. 10-year age class distribution for BLM-managed lands in the analysis area West South Total FOI Fork Age Sister BLM Age Class Distributions Stand Smith Class Creek Area Age River (Percent) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) 0–9 0 0 0 0.00 Age classes in the cohort establishment 10–19 0 53 53 0.27 stage of stand development 20–29 84 1 85 0.44 Subtotal 0–29 84 54 138 0.71 30–39 1,547 405 1,952 10.12 Stands 30–79 years old typically in the 40–49 1,693 518 2,211 11.45 canopy closure-competitive exclusion 50–59 1,681 5,643 7,324 37.95 stage of stand development 60–69 1,480 415 1,895 9.82 70–79 0 0 0 0.00 Subtotal 30–79 6,401 6,980 13,382 69.34 80–89 0 0 0 0.00 90–99 31 191 222 1.15 Age classes typically displaying mature- 100–149 1,546 159 1705 8.84 structurally complex stand characteristics 150–199 1,349 5 1354 7.01 200–299 1,717 589 2,306 11.95 300+ 193 0 193 1.00 Subtotal 80–300+ 4,836 944 5,780 29.95 Forest Total — 11,322 7,978 19,300 100.00 Non-forest N/A 10 20 30 — Analysis Area Total — 11,332 7,998 19,330 —

Table H–5. Pre-commercial thinning within proposed stands Pre-commercial Thinning Pre-commercial Thinning EA Units* (Year) (Acres) 1975 524 10–12, 19, 21, 23 1979 172 22, 26, 27 1980 109 4 1981 43 1 1983 80 4–6 1985 321 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 20 1992 58 18, 29 1997 16 17, 18 Total 1,324 — * Acreages may include portions of EA units

156 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table H–6. Frequency of large seed crops Tree Species Length of Time Between Large Seed Crops (Years) Douglas-fir 2–11 Western hemlock 5–8

Typical Stand Age* Oliver and Larson (1996) Franklin et al. (2002) (Years) Stand Development Stages Structural Stages 0 Disturbance and legacy creation Cohort Establishment 20 Stand Initiation Canopy Closure 30 Stem Exclusion 50 Biomass Accumulation/Competitive Exclusion 80 Understory Reinitiation Maturation

150 Vertical Diversification Old Growth 300 Horizontal Diversification 800–1,200 Pioneer Cohort Loss * Stand ages provided as references. However, stands can achieve structural classes at different stand ages depending on disturbance and site conditions. Figure H–1. Comparison of stand stages by stand age as referenced by (Oliver and Larson 1996), Franklin et al. (2002).

Figure H–2. Typical Douglas-fir-dominated stand represented by FVS before and after treatment; the current condition (top left), 10 years post treatment (top right), and 50 years post-treatment (bottom views).

157 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Modeled T&E Habitat Projections

Pre- and Post-harvest Stand Metrics All FVS metrics reported in this section are from EA Unit 15. The BLM modeled the No Action, which also represents stand conditions within proposed stand retention areas, to grow-out without management. The LSR with group selections (proportional thinning to an RD of 33, with 10 percent stand retention and up to 25 percent of the unit in group selections replanted with redcedar, western hemlock, and Douglas- fir), reflects the LSR stand conditions the BLM proposed in Alternative 1. The LSR with no GS represents (proportional thinning to an RD of 33) the LSR stand conditions the BLM proposed in Alternative 2. The RR prescriptions (variable density thinning to an RD of 33) are the same across both alternative, with only the number of acres treated changing.

158 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table H–7. Average stand growth modeled out 100 years, by treatment specific to T&E habitat metrics LSR Thinning LSR Thinning No Action RR Thinning with Group Selection Harvest without Group Selection Harvest (Stand Retention) (Same For Both Alternatives) (Alternative 1) (Alternative 2) BA TopHt DBH BA TopHt DBH BA TopHt DBH BA TopHt DBH Year TPA TPA TPA TPA (Ft2/Acre) (Feet) (Inches) (Ft2/Acre) (Feet) (Inches) (Ft2/Acre) (Feet) (Inches) (Ft2/Acre) (Feet) (Inches) 0 294 321 133 14.1 294 321 133 14.13 294 320 133 14.1 294 320 133 14.1 10 252 357 143 16.1 429 162 127 8.3 110 157 130 16.2 79 164 143 19.5 20 216 385 152 18.0 379 216 137 10.2 105 191 140 18.3 73 194 153 22 30 190 405 160 19.8 204 245 146 14.8 101 226 149 20.3 69 225 161 24.4 40 172 424 168 21.3 186 288 155 16.8 97 260 158 22.2 66 256 169 26.7 50 157 440 174 22.7 172 328 162 18.7 93 292 165 24 63 287 177 28.9 60 145 454 181 24.0 161 361 169 20.3 89 321 172 25.7 60 315 183 31 70 135 467 186 25.2 151 391 176 21.8 85 345 178 27.3 58 341 188 32.9 80 127 481 190 26.4 143 416 182 23.1 81 366 184 28.8 56 365 192 34.6 90 120 493 194 27.5 136 440 187 24.3 78 386 189 30.2 54 388 197 36.2 100 114 505 198 28.6 130 461 191 25.5 75 404 194 31.5 53 408 200 37.7 Table Abbreviations: RR=Riparian Reserve LSR=Late-Successional Reserve TPA=trees per acre BA=basal area TopHt=top height DBH=diameter at breast height

159 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table H–8. Conifer tree species diversity by treatment and decade, modeled out 50 years Years Post Treatment and Trees Per Acre Treatment or Alternative and Tree Species 0 Year 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 30 Yrs 40 Yrs 50 Yrs Douglas-fir 212 176 148.7 126.6 111 98.8 Stand Retention (No Action) Western hemlock 17.6 16.3 11.7 11.2 11.2 11.2 Redcedar 0 0 0 0 0 0 Douglas-fir 212 188.8 172.2 94.5 87 81.2 LSR Thinning with Group Selection Harvest Western hemlock 17.6 111.9 92.3 79.7 72 66.5 (Alternative 1) Redcedar 0 100 88.3 4.3 3.4 2.6 Douglas-fir 212 78.8 75.5 72.6 69.9 67.3 LSR Thinning without Group Selection Harvest Western hemlock 17.6 6.5 5.7 5.4 5.2 5 (Alternative 2) Redcedar 0 0 0 0 0 0 Douglas-fir 212 59.7 56.8 54.5 52.5 50.7 Riparian Reserve Treatment (Same for Both Alternatives) Western hemlock 17.6 8 6.4 5.5 5 4.7 Redcedar 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note 1: Stand exams in EA Unit 15 did not record western redcedar. Note 2: Redcedar is uncommon within the proposed treatment area, generally with less than one tree per acre.

160 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table H–9. Natural mortality by treatment, modeled 50 years post treatment TPA (No Action) TPA (LSR—Alternative 1) TPA (LSR–Alternative 2) TPA (Riparian Reserve) Diameter 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Class Year Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Year Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Year Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Year Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr (Inches) 2 4.6 1.9 0 0 0 0 4.6 1.8 10.6 4.5 2.9 1.8 4.6 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.9 1.3 5.7 2.4 0.2 0 4.9 1.2 30.7 8.7 0.8 0.6 4.9 0.7 0.4 0 0 0 4.9 0.6 0 0 0 0 6 7.6 6.4 2.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 7.6 1.1 4.2 2.8 5.4 1 7.6 0.6 1.1 0.7 0 0 7.6 2.4 3.3 0.6 0 0 8 14.3 4.9 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 14.3 0.4 0.7 5.8 1.7 3.6 14.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.3 14.4 0.3 1.4 2.1 1.5 0.5 10 7.5 7.4 4.8 2.4 0.8 0.6 7.5 1.6 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.9 7.5 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 7.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.3 12 9.9 9.6 7.8 3.1 2 0.6 9.9 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.2 9.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 9.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 14 2.3 7.5 7.6 6.4 3.5 1.7 2.3 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.7 2.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 16 1.3 1.9 3.5 6 5.4 3.5 1.3 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 18 0.4 0.7 1.7 2.5 3.1 3.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 20 0.2 0.4 0.5 1 1.6 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 22 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 24 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 26 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 28 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Total 53.1 42.2 35.8 25.8 18.3 14.7 53.1 8.5 49.9 25.7 17.4 13.6 53.2 4.7 4.8 4 3.7 3.7 53.2 4 5.5 4.2 3.6 3.3

161 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table H–10. Total trees per acre over 20- and 30-inches DBH by treatment, modeled out 50 years Years Post Treatment and Trees Per Acre Treatment or Alternative and Tree Sizes 0 Yr 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 30 Yrs 40 Yrs 50 Yrs Stand Retention Over 20 in DBH 38.8 56.9 70.3 84.2 91.3 93.2 (No Action) Over 30 in DBH 0.5 4.9 11.7 17.2 22.3 25.4 LSR Thinning Over 20 in DBH 38.8 20.3 34.6 43.6 57.6 66.2 with Group Selection Harvest Over 30 in DBH 0.5 2.3 5.5 8.9 12 15.2 (Alternative 1) LSR Thinning Over 20 in DBH 38.8 24 26.4 48.3 55.9 63.5 without Group Selection Harvest Over 30 in DBH 0.5 2.2 6.1 9 13.5 18.1 (Alternative 2) Riparian Reserve Treatment Over 20 in DBH 38.8 38.6 47.8 48.8 49 49.3 (Same for Both Alternatives) Over 30 in DBH 0.5 2 13.4 20.3 25.9 33

Table H–11. Late-Successional Reserve–Alternative 2, average heights (in feet) by size class for Douglas-fir (DF), western hemlock (WH), and western redcedar (RC) Tree 0 Year Post 10 Yrs Post 20 Yrs Post 30 Yrs Post 40 Yrs Post 50 Yrs Post Diameter DF WH RC DF WH RC DF WH RC DF WH RC DF WH RC DF WH RC Class (Inches Height (Feet) Height (Feet) Height (Feet) Height (Feet) Height (Feet) Height (Feet) DBH) 2 24 14 — 103 16 15 23 25 19 26 19 14 28 21 15 30 22 15 4 28 — — — 20 — 38 28 29 — 39 26 — — 36 36 — 49 6 41 — — 2 — — 39 40 — — 41 — — 54 — — 70 51 8 57 — — 2 — — 46 — — 49 56 — — 59 — — 70 — 10 73 — — 15 — — 67 — — 52 — — 60 73 — 72 78 — 12 88 — — 12 — — 80 — — 83 — — 68 — — 70 91 — 14 99 102 — 21 — — 101 — — 93 — — 95 — — 82 — — 16 110 111 — 8 117 — 113 — — 114 — — 111 — — 108 — — 18 120 111 — 9 119 — 122 120 — 125 — — 125 — — 125 — — 20 128 — — 5 125 — 132 130 — 134 130 — 136 — — 138 — — 22 131 — — 4 — — 140 134 — 143 135 — 145 141 — 148 — — 24 140 129 — 3 — — 152 — — 150 144 — 153 145 — 156 150 — 26 142 129 — 2 — — 152 — — 157 — — 157 151 — 162 154 — 28 143 129 — 2 141 — 155 — — 161 — — 164 — — 166 159 — 30 141 — — 1 141 — 159 — — 161 — — 169 — — 171 — — 32 — — — 1 — — 162 152 — 166 — — 169 — — 175 — — 34 — — — — — — 161 168 — 168 162 — 173 — — 176 — — 36 — — — — — — 164 — — 170 162 — 175 170 — 178 — — 38 — — — — — — — — — 170 — — 176 170 — 181 177 — 40 — — — — — — — — — 160 — — 176 — — 182 177 — 42 — — — — — — — — — — — — 174 — — 181 — — 44 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 184 — —

162 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Modeled Tree Size-class Distribution by Treatment Type

Figure H–3. Modeled size-class distribution in untreated stands, from 0 to 50 years post-treatment

Figure H–4. Modeled size-class distribution in Alternative 1, LSR with group selections, from 0 to 50 years post treatment

Figure H–5. Modeled size-class distribution in Alternative 2, LSR with no group selections, from 0 to 50 years post treatment

Figure H–6. Modeled size-class distribution in thinned stands in the RR, from 0 to 50 years post treatment

163 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix I—Sample Tree Falling

Background The Code of Federal Regulations requires the BLM to sell timber on a tree cruise basis (43 CFR 5422.1) and to have an accurate appraisal at the time BLM offers the sale (43 CFR 5420.0-6). The BLM would sell the West Fork Smith River projects as lump-sum timber sales. In a lump-sum sale, timber cruisers assess the standing timber and give it a specific value. This value becomes the BLM cruise estimate and is the minimum bid for the removal of the timber in the advertised sale. The winning bidder pays the exact amount of the winning bid to the BLM.

Conversely, the Forest Service in Western Oregon normally uses a log-scale sale process. The Forest Service does provide prospective purchasers an appraisal of the timber; however, purchasers make a bid on the average stumpage. Using the average stumpage bid by the purchaser, the Forest Service assesses and determines a final price of the scaled logs after cutting the trees (Howard and DeMars 1985).

The Forest Service does not use sample tree falling, because they do not need as accurate a cruise before the sale offer. However, the Forest Service has used validation falling in the past. The BLM needs a more accurate cruise to prepare the best appraisal for the minimum lump-sum bid price, before the sale advertisement.

It is in the public interest that the BLM maintains accurate and reliable timber cruises. The practice of sample tree falling maintains accurate and reliable timber cruises. Sample tree falling provides statistically reliable data available in no other way. It helps ensure the public receives fair market value for the timber sold as required by Congress through FLPMA.

Other Cruise Methods The BLM has frequently used visual timber cruises but this technique does not allow the BLM to check the accuracy of the final cruise. The pure ocular cruising method makes many assumptions about the trees undergoing measurement:  The cruiser selects the correct form class/bark thickness ratio/volume equation.  The cruiser accurately measures the tree height and diameter at breast height (DBH).  The form of the tree and merchantable height fit the measured form class/volume equation.  Tree defect is apparent by visible indicators.  The cruiser assumes the correct amount of hidden defect and breakage.

Although cruisers can obtain form class and bark thickness by climbing the tree, the other estimated variables are subject to inherent measurement bias.

Accuracy of Sample Tree Falling Conducting sample tree falling removes the measurement bias inherent in making visual estimates. Through checking measurements directly by felling a sample tree, cruisers can make corrections to their estimates. This is because sample tree falling provides the direct measurement of form class, bark thickness, taper, defect, breakage, volume and value without bias. This is a statistically valid sampling methodology (Bell and Dilworth 2007 revised, Iles 2003, USDI-BLM 1989); cruisers select a portion of the cruise trees to cut, buck (cut-to-length) and scale. By felling a sample tree and substituting the scale of the tree for the cruise in the volume calculations, it eliminates the measurement bias created through ocular estimation. Cruisers can apply the measurements gained by felling, such as form class, bark thickness, and stump to DBH ratio, to the remaining standing trees and incorporate that information into district databases.

The BLM Manual Supplement Handbook 5310-1 states, “In addition to meeting sample error standards, the volume estimates of all 3P and variable plot methods must be checked by felling a portion of sample

164 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

trees (USDI-BLM 1989). The following minimum number of sample trees must be felled, bucked, and scaled to minimize technique error through an on-site check of merchantable tree height, form class/bark thickness, defect deduction, and grade estimation.” Thinning in young stands (such as these) has 85–99 percent log recovery; therefore, cruisers need to fell only 10 percent of sample trees to minimize sampling variability and maintain a low sampling error.

Because of the statistically valid cruise design, cruisers can reliably extrapolate the sample results to the rest of the unit.

Sample Tree Falling as a Connected Action The BLM includes sample tree falling in the West Fork Smith River EA as a project design feature and thus analysis of the proposed action includes the effects of sample tree felling. There is no CEQ requirement that a federal agency must issue a single decision for actions considered and analyzed in the same EA document. Sample tree felling is a ground-disturbing activity that must occur prior to the offering of a timber sale.

All of the proposed timber sales could proceed without sample tree falling. In addition, sample tree falling does not depend on the larger action (the timber sales) for its justification. Sample tree falling can proceed without taking other actions. The BLM might not choose to offer these sales. However, the volume tables gained from conducting sample tree falling could assist in the calculation of final cruise volumes in sales that occur within the same watershed and have similar stand characteristics.

Other sale preparation activities occur before a timber sale decision. These include tree marking, flagging of sale boundaries, surveying property lines and biological surveys. Unlike sample tree falling, these activities are not ground disturbing and occur as part of routine timber sale preparation. Nor do these activities justify that a timber sale goes forward. The BLM has conducted many of these activities for a sale and the sale has never gone forward. Therefore, issuing a decision to conduct sample tree falling does not constitute a decision to offer a timber sale.

165 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix J—Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key From (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 2004) Table 2-1, titled Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key: Site-specific analysis to help determine where risk reduction management practices would be applied (p. 2-18).

1a. Are there uninfected POC within, near14, or downstream of the activity area that, whose ecological, Tribal, or product use or function measurably contributes to meeting land and resource management plan objectives? Answer: NO

1b. Are there uninfected POC within, near1, or downstream of the activity area that, were they to become infected, would likely spread infections to trees whose ecological, Tribal, or product use or function measurably contributes to meeting land and resource management plan objectives? Answer: NO

1c. Is the activity area within an uninfested 7th field watershed15 as defined for Alternative 6 (see Table A12-2) (p. A-187 of FSEIS). Answer: NO

If the answer to all three questions, 1a, 1b, and 1c, is no, then risk is low and no POC management practices are required.

If the answer to any of the three questions is yes, continue.

2. Will the proposed project introduce appreciable additional risk16 of infection to these uninfected POC? Answer: Not applicable

If no, then risk is low and no POC management practices are required.

If yes, apply management practices from the list below to reduce the risk to the point it is no longer appreciable, or meet the disease control objectives by other means, such as redesigning the project so that uninfected POC are no longer near or downstream of the activity area. If the risk cannot be reduced to the point is it no longer appreciable through practicable and cost-effective treatments or design changes, the project may proceed if the analysis supports a finding that the value or need for the proposed activity outweighs the additional risk to POC created by the project.

Conclusion: The answer to 1a, 1b, and 1c is ‘no.’ The West Fork Smith River project area is within the natural range of POC; however, POC trees are not present within the project area and no POC management practices are required. This project is not likely to create any additional risk for infection above the existing risk.

14 In questions 1a and 1b, ‘near’ generally means within 25–50 feet down slope or 25 feet upslope from management activity areas, access roads, or haul routes; farther for drainage features; 100–200 feet in streams. 15 Uninfested 7th field watersheds are listed on Table A12-2 (p. A-187 of FSEIS), as those with at least 100 acres of POC stands, are at least 50 percent Federal ownership, and are free of Phytophthora lateralis except within the lowermost two acres of the drainage. 16 Appreciable additional risk does not mean ‘any risk.’ It means that a reasonable person would recognize risk, additional to existing uncontrollable risk, to believe mitigation is warranted and would make a cost-effective or important difference (see Risk Key Definitions and Examples for further discussion).

166 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix K—Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Risk Assessment

1. Does suitable habitat for noxious weeds exist in the planning area? Yes.

If so, what are these areas? Activities and areas where soil or vegetation are removed, imported, or otherwise disturbed create sites for non-native invasive plant establishment, including road sides, project areas, borrow/quarry sites and waste or fill areas.

2. May the actions proposed in the West Fork Smith River project introduce or spread noxious weeds within the planning area? Yes.

What is the level of risk for spreading weeds via project activities? High to Low, primarily High. The protection measures listed as project design features in the staff report for this project would reduce the risk of spreading or introducing weeds within the planning area.

3. What are the primary actions / conditions / vectors that may pose a risk of spreading weeds within the planning area? Proposed actions having a HIGH potential for introducing or spreading invasive plants include: 1. The use of heavy equipment to: 1. Grade, excavate, move, scalp or otherwise disturb soil, gravel, rock 2. Move and stockpile mineral materials such as soil, gravel, rock 3. Move and stockpile trees 4. Move and stockpile topsoil and vegetation

Proposed actions having a MODERATE potential for introducing or spreading invasive plants include: 2. The use of chainsaws, and heavy equipment limited to existing roadways or landings to: 1. Cut and tip trees 2. Cut vegetation such as saplings, vines, shrubs and forbs 3. Driving or parking in vegetation

Proposed actions having a LOW potential for introducing or spreading invasive plants include: 3. The use of handheld equipment and weed-free materials to: 1. Plant or seed 2. Mulch or install soil coverings such as jute mats 4. Driving or parking on existing roads surfaces

5. What are the primary weeds of concern that may be found within or introduced to the planning area? Himalayan (Rubus armeniacus) and cutleaf (R. laciniatus) blackberry; evergreen clematis or old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba); Scotch (Cytisus scoparius); Canada (Cirsium arvense) and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare); meadow knapweed (Centaurea x monktonii); foxglove (Digitalis purpurea); and possibly, but not likely, spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti).

6. Can actions be taken to avoid or minimize weed spread associated with project activities? Yes.

7. What actions can be taken to prevent or minimize the spread of weeds within the planning area? See Protection Measures listed as Project Design Features in staff report for this project.

8. Have any high-risk sites been identified for treatment prior to project implementation? Yes. Invasive plant survey, inventory and treatment data is stored in the National Invasive Species Information Management System (NISIMS). The District develops an Annual Treatment Plan with the goal of treating all priority sites, including where soil-disturbing activities are planned or have recently occurred. The BLM treats noxious weeds and other invasive plants using an integrated pest management approach to prevent the introduction or spread of invasive plants into uninfested areas.

9. Are there any additional conditions or circumstances that need to be considered in relation to weed management within the planning area? No, none have been identified.

167 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix L—Special Status Species—Fish; Fish Habitat, Tree Tipping

Endangered Species Act The analysis area is located within the federally listed (threatened) Oregon Coast Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) evolutionary significant unit (ESU). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published the listing determination and Coho critical habitat (CCH) designation for Oregon Coast Coho February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816).

Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) and Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp.) are on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s species of concern list. The Oregon Coast Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is on NMFS’s species of concern list. Species of concern status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA (USDC-NMFS 2018a).

Magnuson-Stevens Act The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as “…those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (67 FR 2343).The species with designated EFH found within the analysis area include Coho and Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

Special Status Species Aquatic Bureau Sensitive species on the Oregon/Washington State Director’s Special Status Species (SSS) list found in the analysis area include: Oregon Coast Coho Salmon, Oregon Coast Steelhead, Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), Pacific Lamprey, western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata), robust walker (snail) (Pomatiopsis binneyi), Pacific walker (snail) (Pomatiopsis californica), and Haddock’s rhyacophilan caddisfly (Rhyacophila haddocki) (USDI-BLM 2015).

168 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table L–1. Proximity of streams and fish habitat to proposed EA treatment units Stream-flow Distance to Fish Length of Streams with Fish EA Unit Stream Name/Fish Habitat Habitat from Proposed EA Units Habitat within Proposed EA Units No. Nearest to EA Units (Miles, unless noted in feet) (Miles) 1 0.5 — North Sister Creek 2 60 feet — North Sister Creek 3 0.1 — Sweden Creek 4 — 0.9 Sweden Creek 5 — 0.6 Herb Creek 6 70 feet — Herb Creek 7 — 0.4 Herb Creek 8 0.1 — Herb Creek West Fork Smith River 9 — 0.4 Tributary 10 — 1.0 West Fork Smith River 11 300 feet — West Fork Smith River 12 — 0.3 West Fork Smith River 13 — 0.2 Russell Creek 13 — 0.2 Russell Creek Tributary 14 — 0.3 Russell Creek 14 — 0.1 Russell Creek Tributary 15 — 0.2 Russell Creek 16 100 feet — Russell Creek Tributary 17 — 0.3 Russell Creek 18 — 0.1 Russell Creek 19 — 0.5 West Fork Smith River West Fork Smith River 20 — 0.2 Tributary 20 — 0.1 Gold Creek 21 — 0.5 Gold Creek 22 0.1 — Beaver Creek 23 400 feet — Beaver Creek 24 400 feet — Gold Creek 25 0.40 — Beaver Creek 26 0.30 — Gold Creek West Fork Smith River 27 — 0.1 Tributary 28 — 0.3 West Fork Smith River 29 0.60 — West Fork Smith River 30 — 0.4 West Fork Smith River 31 — 0.5 West Fork Smith River 32 — 0.2 Beaver Creek 33 70 feet — Moore Creek 34 — 0.1 Beaver Creek 35 50 feet — Moore Creek 36 — 0.8 Moore Creek 37 — 0.2 West Fork Smith River 37 — 1.0 Moore Creek 38 — 0.3 West Fork Smith River 39 — 0.5 Crane Creek Total — 10.7 — Note: 0.1 mile = 528 feet

169 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Table L–2. Aquatic habitat improvement projects implemented within the analysis area between 1997 and 2017 Log or Cross Stream Reach Within Boulders Project Log/ Boulder Culverts Culverts Roads Drains Project EA Stream Name Logs Added Date Boulder Sites Replaced Removed Decom Added Length Treatment to Streams Sites to Road (Miles) Unit? West Fork Smith River 1997 — — 1 — — — 1 — 0.6 — Russell Creek 2002 — — — — — 1 1 — 0.3 — Church Creek 2002 — — — — — 1 1 — 1.8 — South Sister Creek 2003 — — — — 1 — — — 0.5 — South Sister Creek 2003 — — — — 2 — — — 0.9 — North Sister Creek 2003 — — — — 1 — — — 0.8 — Crane Creek 2003 — — — — 1 — — — 1.7 — West Fork Smith River 2003 1 1 — — — — — — 0.1 — South Sister Creek 2003 — — — — 1 — — — 0.2 — South Sister Creek 2003 — — — — 1 — — — 0.5 — Bum Creek 2003 — — — — 1 — — — 0.5 — North Sister Creek 2003 — — — — 1 — — — 0.8 — South Sister Creek 2003 — — — — — — — — — — North Sister and Bum Creek 2004 — — — — — — — 27 — — South Sister Creek 2004 8 39 — — — — — — 0.7 — Bum and South Sister Creek 2006 9 43 17 770 — — — — 2.5 — South Sister and Jeff Creek 2007 24 120 15 1,260 — — — — 2.5 — South Sister Creek 2009 46 230 — 1,200 — — — — 1.5 — Beaver Creek 2010 53 398 — — — — — — 2.7 Yes Moore Creek 2010 15 84 — — — — — — 1.1 Yes Church Creek 2011 35 204 — — — — — — 1.2 — Coon Creek 2011 22 126 — — — — — — 1.4 — Crane Creek 2011 33 182 — — — — — — 1.7 Yes Gold Creek 2011 29 158 — — — — — — 2.8 Yes Moore Creek 2011 13 73 — — — — — — 1.1 Yes West Fork Smith River 2011 49 299 17 600 — — — — 4.8 Yes West Fork Smith River Trib A 2011 10 46 — — — — — — 0.5 Yes West Fork Smith River Trib B 2011 5 25 — — — — — — 0.3 Yes West Fork Smith River Trib C 2011 13 66 — — — — — — 1.0 Yes South Sister Creek 2011 67 431 — 1,075 — — — — 4.5 — Bum Creek 2013 — — — — — — — — — — Gold Creek 2013 — — — — — — — — — — Jeff Creek 2013 — — — — — — — — — — West Fork Smith River 2013 10 30 31 8,500 — — — — 9.5 Yes Bum Creek 2014 — — — — — — — — — — North Sister Creek 2014 29 144 — 890 — — — — 2.0 — Scare Creek 2014 43 262 — 1,090 — — — — 1.5 — Vincent Creek and Tribs 2014 74 503 — 1,155 — — — — 4.5 — Bum Creek 2015 13 120 — — — — — — 0.8 — North Sister Creek 2015 — — 8 720 — — — — 0.8 — Russell Creek 2015 16 93 — — — — — — 0.8 Yes Big Creek 2017 59 518 — 1,060 — — — — 2.5 — Bum Creek 2017 20 197 — — — — — — 1.0 — Mosetown Creek 2017 24 216 — 221 — — — — 1.3 — Totals — 720 4,608 89 18,541 9 2 3 27 63.4 —

170 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix M—Soil Disturbance Review

Table M–1. Approximate soil disturbance* in proposed ground-based treatment units in Alternative 1. Pre-harvest Ground- Existing Proposed Existing Detrimental based Soil Soil + Soil EA General Summary and Observations Disturbance‡ Disturbance¶ Proposed Disturbance§ Unit (Percent (Percent (Percent (Percent Number† of Unit) of Unit) of Unit) of Unit) Small area on ridge top to mid slope. In the1960s, logging was ground-based yarding. Pre-harvest soil monitoring in north 1 half of unit, area equals 4 acres and included 7 acres of Unit 2. Since they were monitored as 1 unit, they are being shown in 3 10 3 6 both Unit 1 and Unit 2. Small areas in valley bottom. 1960s logging was ground-based yarded. Existing pullout and stockpile area in south unit that 2 is not included in calculations. Pre-harvest soil monitoring in north units, area equals 7 acres and included 4 acres of Unit 1. 7 10 1 8 Since they were monitored as 1 unit, they are being shown in both Unit 1 and Unit 2. Units are lower to mid-slope on gentle sloping ground. 1960s logging predominately ground-based yarding and some cable 8 7 — 6 13 yarding. 9 Small areas in the valley bottom. Existing landing or pullout in part of unit. 7 — — 7 Small (1 acre) area on ridge top to mid-slope. 1970s logging likely ground-based yarding. Existing landing in unit. A new 10 road is being built in the location of the existing landing. Due to same location, the new road disturbance was not calculated 9 — 7 16 into proposed disturbance. 11 Areas are ridge top to valley bottom. 1960s logging was ground-based yarding. 2 — — 2 12 Small unit mid-slope and next to a Unit 19. Ground-based yarding in 1960s. 2 — — 2 16 Small units on lower slope and next to unit 19. Ground-based yarding in 1960s. 15 — — 15 Multiple areas from ridge top to mid slope. 1960s logging was largely cable yarding with some ground-based yarding. Pre- 19 5 7 1 6 harvest soil monitoring in two areas that equal 13 acres of the 50 acres. 20 Multiple areas predominately mid slope. 1960s logging was ground-based yarding. 8 — — 8 21 Small area mid slope. 1960s logging was ground-based yarding. — — 1 1 22 Flat ridge top. 1960s logging created radial pattern, likely from cable yarding. 4 — 2 6 23 Units are on large mid-slope bench. 1960s logging created radial pattern, likely from cable yarding. 5 — — 5 24 Multiple areas from ridge top to mid slope. 1960s logging was largely ground-based yarding. 5 — — 5 25 Mid slope to valley bottom. 1960s logging was a combo of cable yarding and ground-based yarding. 1 — — 1 26 Two ridge top areas. Early1960s and early 1980s logging. Difficult to determine method from air photos. — — — 0 Multiple areas mid slope. Mostly early 1960s logging, both ground-based and cable yarding. Checked for compaction in 27 7 — — 8 some units in field - not compacted. 30 Mid-slope unit. Both 1960s ground-based and cable yarding. Field tests showed minimal compaction at one point. 4 — 4 8 35 Mid-slope unit. 1960s cable yarding. — — 11 11 37 Small area on ridge top to mid slope. 1960s logging was ground-based yarding. 3 — 3 6 Small areas in valley bottom. 1960s logging was ground-based yarding. Existing pullout and stockpile area in south unit that 38 2 — — 2 is not included in calculations. Units are lower to mid slope on gentle sloping ground. 1960s logging predominately ground-based yarding and some cable 39 3 — 4 7 yarding.

171 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

* This is an estimate of soil disturbance, but it is not necessarily detrimental soil disturbance. The BLM geologist calculated the values based on a comprehensive field review of the proposed treatment areas, aerial imagery, and LiDAR. The geologist used the proposed boundaries of Alternative 1 because it encompasses a larger area (e.g., greater disturbance potential) compared to Alternative 2. † For this analysis, the geologist defined ‘treatment unit’ as the assigned EA unit number. Treatment units do not have to be contiguous and were delineated by harvest system (ground-based yarding vs. cable yarding). ‡ The ‘existing’ features include legacy skid trails (assume 10-foot width), landings (assume 0.25 acre), and any shallow landslides that were identified in aerial imagery, LiDAR, or in the field. Existing roads are not part of the detrimental calculation, because past disturbance from roads was accounted for in the PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2016b, p. 754). § The geologist evaluated 10 percent of the proposed ground-based yarding units using the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Paige-Dumbrose et al. 2009). ¶ The ‘proposed’ features include new roads (assume 14-foot width) and new landings (assume 0.25 acre). Fire treatments as proposed are not included, because they would not result in detrimental soil disturbance because the machine piles would occur on pre-disturbed roads and landings, in-unit treatments would be hand piled and include smaller diameter material, and the burning would be completed in the wetter season. The disturbance calculation does not include new skid trails, because the assumed utilization of existing skid trails, to the greatest extent possible, and the BLM incorporated those disturbances into the existing disturbance.

172 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix N—Coos Bay District NEPA Mailing List

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Indians Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Coquille Indian Tribe Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation (previously known as Smith River Rancheria, California Tribe)

Bureau of Indian Affairs NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Rep. Peter DeFazio U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Governor’s Natural Resources Office Oregon Coastal Management Program Oregon Department of Energy Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Forestry Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Oregon Division of State Lands Oregon Water Resources Department

Coos County Commissioners Douglas County’s Attorney Douglas County Board of Commissioners Lane County Board of Commissioners

American Forest Resources Council Association of O&C Counties Cascadia Wildlands Coast Range Association Douglas Timber Operators Kalmiopsis Audobon Society Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center NW Environmental Defense Council Oregon Wild Partnership for Umpqua Rivers Private Citizens (numerous) Roseburg Resources Smith River Watershed Council Tower Timber Services, Inc. Umpqua Watersheds All adjoining landowners within 0.5 miles (1 individual, 1 corporation) All adjoining water rights permittees within 0.5 miles (1 state agency)

173 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Appendix O—References

Acker, S. A., T. E. Sabin, et al. 1998. Development of old-growth structure and timber volume growth trends in maturing Douglas-fir stands. Forest Ecology and Management 104(1–3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 1127(97)00249-1. Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests, 2nd ed. edition. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Agee, J. K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science 72(2), 24–34. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1305&context=barkbeetles. Anthony, R. D., E. D. Forsman, et al. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owl, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monographs 163, 1–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3830755. Ares, A., S. D. Berryman and K. J. Puettmann. 2009. Understory vegetation response to thinning disturbance of varying complexity in coniferous stands. Applied Vegetation Science 12(4), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2009.01042.x. Aztet, T., D. E. White, et al. 1996. Field guide to the forested plant associations of southwestern Oregon. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5319837.pdf. Bailey, J. D. and J. C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40- to 100-year-old Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 108(1–2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00216-3. Bart, J. and E. D. Forsman. 1992. Dependence of northern spotted owls Strix occidentalis caurina on old-growth forests in the western United States. Biological Conservation 62(2), 95–100. http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/SierraNevadaWildlife/CaliforniaSpottedOwl/CASPO- Bart92.pdf. Beechie, T. J. and T. H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1997)126<0217:RBCCWD>2.3.CO;2. Bell, J. F. and J. R. Dilworth. 2007 revised. Log scaling and timber cruising. John Bell & Associates. Corvallis, OR. Berg, D. R., T. K. Brown and B. Blessing. 1996. Silvicultural systems design with emphasis on the forest canopy. Northwest Science 70(Special Issue), 31–36. https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1278/v70%20p31%20Berg%20et%20al.PDF?sequen ce=1. Bonner, F. T. and R. P. Karrfalt, editors. 2008. The Woody Plant Seed Manual. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service, Washington D.C. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/32626. Bosch, J. M. and J. D. Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology 55, 3–23. http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/2117.pdf. Brandeis, T. J., M. Newton and E. C. Cole. 2001. Underplanted conifer seedling survival and growth in thinned Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(2), 302–312. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/defaults/4m90dv88p. Brian, N. J., J. Davis, et al. 2002. Applications of known site management recommendations for Survey & Manage nonvascular species on the Coos Bay District. U.S. Dept. of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management, North Bend, OR. Burnett, K. M., G. H. Reeves, et al. 2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation. Ecological Applications 17(1), 66–80. http://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2007)017[0066:DOSPRT]2.0.CO;2. Busby, P. E., P. Adler, et al. 2006. Fates of live trees retained in forest cutting units, western Cascade Range, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(10), 2550–2560. http://ecobiblio.science.oregonstate.edu/files/ecoinfodev/23061369.pdf. Busing, R. T. and S. L. Garman. 2002. Promoting old-growth characteristics and long-term wood production in Douglas-fir forests. Forest Ecology and Management 160(1–3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 1127(01)00443-1. Busse, M. D., C. J. Shestak, et al. 2010. Soil physical properties regulate lethal heating during burning of woody residues. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74(3), 947–955. Campbell, J., D. Donato, et al. 2007. Pyrogenic carbon emissions from a large wildfire in Oregon, United States. Journal of Geophysical Research 112(G4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000451.

174 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Carey, A. B., J. Kershner, et al. 1999. Ecological scale and forest development: squirrels, dietary fungi, and vascular plants in managed and unmanaged forests. Wildlife Monographs, 3–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3830758. Carey, A. B. and S. M. Wilson. 2001. Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: Responses of small mammals. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(4), 1014–1027. Carey, A. B., T. M. Wilson, et al. 1997. Dens of northern flying squirrels in the Pacific Northwest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61(3), 684–699. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_1997_carey001.pdf. Carlton, G. C. 1988. The structure and dynamics of red alder communities in the central Coast Range of western Oregon. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Castellano, M. A. and T. E. O'Dell. 1997. Management recommendations for Survey and Manage: Fungi. in. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. Chambers, C. L., W. C. McComb and J. C. Tappeiner. 1999. Breeding bird responses to three silvicultural treatments in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Applications 9(1), 171–185. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009%5B0171%3ABBRTTS%5D2.0.CO%3B2. Chan, S. S., D. J. Larson, et al. 2006. Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(10), 2696–2711. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/x06-151. Chen, J., J. F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas- fir forests. Ecological Applications 2(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941873. Coates, K. D. 2000. Conifer seedling response to northern temperate forest gaps. Forest Ecology and Management 127(1–3), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00135-8. Coates, K. D. and P. J. Burton. 1997. A gap-based approach for development of silvicultural systems to address ecosystem management objectives. Forest Ecology and Management 99(3), 337–354. https://bvcentre.ca/files/SORTIE-ND_reports/Coates_and_Burton_1997_Gap-based_approach.pdf. Coates, K. D., E. C. Hall and C. D. Canham. 2018. Susceptibility of trees to windthrow storm damage in partially harvested complex-structured multi-species forests. Forests 9(4), 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9040199. Cole, E. and M. Newton. 2009. Tenth-year survival and size of underplanted seedlings in the Oregon Coast Range. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39(3), 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1139/X08-198. Collier, R. L. and E. C. Turnblom. 2001. Epicormic branching on pruned coastal Douglas-fir. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16(2), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/wjaf/16.2.80. Comfort, E. J., D. A. Clark, et al. 2016. Quantifying edges as gradients at multiple scales improves habitat selection models for northern spotted owl. Landscape Ecology 31(6), 1227–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980- 015-0330-1. Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, et al. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/BarredOwl/Documents/CourtneyEtAl2004.pdf. Crookston, N. L. and A. R. Stage. 1999. Percent canopy cover and stand structure statistics from the Forest Vegetation Simulator. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-24, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/ftp/fvs/docs/gtr/percancv.pdf. Curtis, R. O. 1982. A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Society of American Foresters 28(1), 92–94. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/silv/publications/opt/232_Curtis1982.pdf. Curtis, R. O. 2010. Effect of diameter limits and stand structure on relative density indices: A case study. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 25(4), 169–175. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2010_curtis001.pdf. Davis, L. R., K. J. Puettmann and G. F. Tucker. 2007. Overstory response to alternative thinning treatments in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Northwest Science 81(1), 1–14. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.3955/0029-344X-81.1.1. Davis, R. J., K. M. Dugger, et al. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan The first 15 years (1994–2008) Status and trends of northern spotted owls populations and habitats. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-850, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr850.pdf. Davis, R. J., B. Hollen, et al. 2016. Northwest Forest Plan The first 20 years (1994–2013) Status and trends of northern spotted owl habitats. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-929. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr929.pdf. Davis, R. J., J. L. Ohmann, et al. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan The first 20 years (1994–2013) Status and trends of late-successsional and old-growth forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-911. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.

175 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

de Montigny, L. E. and N. J. Smith. 2017. The effects of gap size in a group selection silvicultural system on the growth response of young, planted Douglas-fir: A sector plot analysis. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 90(3), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpw068. Dixon, G. E. comp. 2002, revised 2018. Essential FVS: A user's guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator (Revised: May 2018). U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Forest Service Management Center. Fort Collins, CO. https://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/ftp/fvs/docs/gtr/EssentialFVS.pdf. Dodson, E. K., A. Ares and K. J. Puettmann. 2012. Early responses to thinning treatments designed to accelerate late successional forest structure in young coniferous stands of western Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42, 345–355. Dodson, E. K., K. J. Puettmann and A. Ares. 2013. Thinning effects on tree mortality and snag recruitment in western Oregon. Pages 71–78 in Anderson, P. D. and K. L. Ronnenberg, editors. Density management in the 21st century: West side story General Technical Report PNW-GTR-880. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. Drever, C. R. and K. P. Lertzman. 2001. Light-growth responses of coastal Douglas-fir and western redcedar saplings under different regimes of soil moisture and nutrients. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(12), 2124– 2133. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-149. Drever, C. R. and K. P. Lertzman. 2003. Effects of a wide gradient of retained tree structure on understory light in coastal Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1139/x02-167. Drew, T. J. and J. W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science 25(3), 518–532. http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid%3D1N4TTFQMM- 25JRP8J-14WL/Stand%2520density%2520management- %2520an%2520alternative%2520approach%2520and%2520its%2520application%2520to%2520Douglas- fir%2520plantations.pdf. Dugger, K. M., F. F. Wagner, et al. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor 107(4), 863–878. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096486. Emmingham, B., S. Chan, et al. 2000. Silvicultural practices for riparian forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Oregon State University - College of Forestry - Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Ernst, R. L. and W. H. Knapp. 1985. Forest stand density and stocking: Concepts, terms, and the use of stocking guides. General Technical Report WO-44. U. S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. Evans Mack, D., W. P. Ritchie, et al. 2003. Methods for surveying marbled murrelets in forests: A revised protocol for land management and research. Pacific Seabird Group https://pacificseabirdgroup.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/PSG_TechPub2_MAMU_ISP.pdf. Everest, F. and G. H. Reeves. 2007. Riparian and aquatic habitats of the Pacific Northwest and southeast Alaska: ecology, management history, and potential management strategies. PNW-GTR-692. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr692.pdf. Falxa, G. A. and M. G. Raphael. 2016. Northwest Forest Plan The first 20 years (1994–2013) Status and trend of marbled murrelet populations and nesting habitat. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. Fernández, C., F. J. Acosta, et al. 2002. Complex edge effects as additive processes in patches of ecological systems. Ecological Modeling 149(3), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00464-1. Filotas, E., L. Parrott, et al. 2014. Viewing forests through the lens of complex systems science. Ecosphere 5(1), 1–23. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/vq27zq40m. Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, et al. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. http://www.ucpress.edu/ebook.php?isbn=9780520950597. Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, et al. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38(3), 214–230. Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, et al. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149, 1–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3830803. Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow and H. M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87, 1–64. Franklin, J. F., D. F. Berg, et al. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: Variable retention harvest systems. Pages 111–139 in Kohmand, K. A. and J. F. Franklin, editors. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. Island Press. Washington, D. C. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70194151.

176 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Franklin, J. F. and M. Hemstrom. 1981. Aspects of succession in the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Pages 212–229 in West, D. C., H. H. Shugart and D. B. Botkin, editors. Forest succession concepts and application. Springer-Verlang. New York. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub124.pdf. Franklin, J. F., H. H. Shugart and M. E. Harmon. 1987. Tree death as an ecological process: The causes, consequences, and variability of tree mortality. BioScience 37(8), 550–556. Franklin, J. F. and T. A. Spies. 1991. Composition, function, and structure of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Pages 71–80 in Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. Franklin, J. F., T. A. Spies, et al. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155, 399–423. Franklin, J. F. and R. VanPelt. 2004. Spatial aspects of structural complexity in old-growth forests. Journal of Forestry 102(3), 22–28. Franklin, J. F. and R. H. Waring. 1980. Distinctive features of the northwestern coniferous forest: Development, structure, and function. Pages 59–86 in Forests: Fresh perspectives from ecosystem analysis. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. Garman, S. L., J. H. Cissel and J. H. Mayo. 2003. Accelerating development of late-successional conditions in young managed Douglas-fir stands: a simulation study. PNW-GTR-557, General Technical Report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research station, Portland, OR. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub2722.pdf. Getzin, S., T. Wiegand, et al. 2008. Heterogeneity influences spatial patterns and demographics in forest stands. Journal of Ecology 96, 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01377.x. Glenn, E. M., M. C. Hansen and R. G. Anthony. 2004. Spotted owl home-range and habitat use in young forests of western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1), 33–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3803767. Grant, G. E., S. L. Lewis, et al. 2008. Effects of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western Oregon and Washington. PNW-GTR-760, General Technical Report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr760.pdf. Gray, A. N. and T. A. Spies. 1996. Gap size, within-gap position and canopy structure effects on conifer seedling establishment. Journal of Ecology 84(5), 635–645. Gray, A. N. and T. A. Spies. 1997. Microsite controls on tree seedling establishment in conifer forest canopy gaps. Ecology 78(8), 2458–2473. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[2458:MCOTSE]2.0.CO;2. Gray, A. N., T. A. Spies and M. J. Easter. 2002. Microclimatic and soil moisture responses to gap formation in coastal Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(2), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-200. Gustafsson, L., S. C. Baker, et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. BioScience 62(7), 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.6. Hansen, A. J., S. L. Garman, et al. 1993. Do edge effects influence tree growth rates in Douglas-fir plantations? Northwest Science 67(2), 112–116. https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1574/v67%20p112%20Hansen%20et%20al.PD F?sequence=1. Harmon, M. E., J. F. Franklin, et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15, 133–302. http://lterdev.fsl.orst.edu/lter/pubs/webdocs/reports/detritus/templates/Harmon%201986.pdf. Harper, K. A., S. E. MacDonald, et al. 2005. Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 19(3), 768–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00045.x. Harr, R. D. 1976. Forest practices and stream-flows in western Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-49, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Harr, R. D. 1983. Potential for augmenting water yield through forest practices in western Washington and western Oregon. Water Resource Bulletin 19(3), 383–393. Harr, R. D., R. L. Fredrikson and J. Rothacher. 1979. Changes in streamflow following timber harvest in southwestern Oregon. PNW-RP-249, Research Paper. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp249.pdf. Harrington, C. A. 2003. The 1930s survey of forest resources in Washington and Oregon. PNW-GTR-584, General Technical Report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Harrington, C. A. 2006. Biology and ecology of red alder. Pages 150 in Deal, R. L. and C. A. Harrington, editors. Red Alder: A State of Knowledge. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-669.

177 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Harrington, C. A., S. D. Roberts and L. C. Brodie. 2005. Tree and Understory Responses to Variable-density Thinning in Western Oregon. Pages 97–106 in Peterson, C. E. and D. A. Maguire, editors. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry - proceedings of a conference. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-635 http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr635/pnw_gtr635b.pdf. Hayes, J. P., S. S. Chan, et al. 1997. Wildlife response to thinning young forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 95(8), 28–33. Hayes, J. P., S. H. Schoenholtz, et al. 2005. Environmental consequences of intensively managed forest plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 103(2), 83–87. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228880128_Environmental_consequences_of_intensively_managed_forest _plantations_in_the_Pacific_Northwest/file/e0b495217fd283f8a5.pdf. Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, et al. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat changes. Pages 483–518 in Meehan, W. R., editor. Influence of forest and range management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. Bethesda, MD. 19. Hobbs, S. D. 1992. Seedling and site interactions. Pages 114–134 in Hobbs, S. D., S. D. Tesch, et al., editors. Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and northern California. Oregon State University - Forest Resources Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. Howard, J. O. and D. J. DeMars. 1985. Comparison of logging residue from lump sum and log scale timber sales. Res. Pap. PNW-33Z. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. Iles, K. 2003. A Sampler of Inventory Topics: A Practical Discussion for Resource Samplers, Concentrating on Forest Inventory Techniques, First edition. Kim Iles & Associates. Nanaimo, B.C. Ilisson, T. and H. Y. H. Chen. 2009. The direct regeneration hypothesis in northern forests. Journal of Vegetation Science 20(4), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01066.x. Ishii, H. and E. D. Ford. 2001. The role of epicormic shoot production in maintaining foliage in old growth Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir) trees. Canadian Journal of Botany 79, 251–264. Ishii, H. and N. McDowell. 2002. Age-related development of crown structure in coasal Douglas-fir trees. Forest Ecology and Management 169(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00751-4. Ishii, H. and M. E. Wilson. 2001. Crown structure of old-growth Douglas-fir in the western Cascade Range, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(7), 1250–1261. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-058. Keenan, R. J. and J. P. H. Kimmins. 1993. The ecological effects of clear-cutting. Environmental Reviews 1(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1139/a93-010. Keeton, W. S. 2000. Occurrence and reproductive role of remnant old-growth trees in mature Douglas-fir forests, southern Washington Cascade Range. PhD Thesis. University of Washington. Keeton, W. S. and J. F. Franklin. 2005. Do remnant old-growth trees accelerate rates of succession in mature Douglas-fir forests? Ecological Monographs 75(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0626. Kuehne, C. and K. J. Puettman. 2008. Natural regeneration in thinned Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 27(3), 246–274. Lam, T. Y. and D. A. Maguire. 2011. Thirteen-year height and diameter growth of Douglas-fir seedlings under alternative regeneration cuts in Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 26(2), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/wjaf/26.2.57. Larson, A. J. and D. Churchill. 2008. Spatial patterns of overstory trees in late-successional conifer forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(11), 2814–2825. https://doi.org/10.1139/X08-123. Larson, A. J. and J. F. Franklin. 2005. Patterns of conifer tree regeneration following an autumn wildfire event in the western Oregon Cascade Range, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 218(1–3), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.07.015. Lefsky, M. A., W. B. Cohen, et al. 1999. LiDAR remote sensing of the canopy structure and biophysical properties of Douglas-fir western hemlock forests. Remote Sensing of Environment 70(3), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00052-8. Lertzman, K. P., G. D. Sutherland, et al. 1996. Canopy gaps and the landscape mosaic in the coastal temperate rain forest. Ecology 77(4), 1254–1270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265594. Lesmeister, D. and C. McCafferty. 2018. Demographic characteristics of spotted owls in the Oregon Coast Range, 1990–2017. Annual research report. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/reo/monitoring/reports/COA%20nso%20demog%20annual%20report%202017.pdf.

178 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Lindenmayer, D. B., R. B. Cunningham, et al. 2000. Structural features of old-growth Australian montane ash forests. Forest Ecology and Management 134(1–3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00257-1. Lippert, J. 2014. Effects of commercial thinning and associated activities on habitat and distribution of fungi— Working Draft. U.S. Department of Agricultureu - Forest Service Region 6 and U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents2/cpt-fu-effects-of-thinning-on-fungi-2014-01.docx. Logan Simpson. 2017. A Class III cultural resource inventory for the BCMSW Instream Restoration Project and the West Fork Smith River timber harvest project, Coos and Douglas counties, Oregon. Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 175143, Eugene, OR. Luoma, D. L., J. L. Eberhart, et al. 2004. Response of ectomycorrhizal fungus sporocarp production to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Forest Ecology and Management 202, 337–354. Lutz, J. A. 2005. The contribution of mortality to early coniferous forest development. PhD Thesis. University of Washington. Mailly, D. and J. P. H. Kimmins. 1997. Growth of Pseudotsuga menziesii and Tsuga heterophylla seedlings along a light gradient: Resource allocation and morphological acclimation. Canadian Journal of Botany 75(9), 1424–1435. https://doi.org/10.1139/b97-857. Maser, Z., C. Maser and J. M. Trappe. 1985. Food habits of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) in Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63(5), 1084–1088. https://doi.org/10.1139/z85-162. McCain, C. and N. Diaz. 2002. Field guide to the forested plant associations of the northern Oregon Coast Range. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-02. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/defaults/0c483q578. Meyer, J. S., L. L. Irwin and M. S. Boyce. 1998. Influence of habitat abundance and fragmentation on northern spotted owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 139, 1–51. Miller, M. and B. Emmingham. 2001. Can selection thinning convert even-age Douglas-fir stands to uneven-age structures? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/wjaf/16.1.35. Miller, S., P. Eldred, et al. 2016. A large-scale, multiagency approach to defining a reference network for Pacific Northwest streams. Environmental Management 58(6), 1091–1104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0739-6. Minore, D. and R. J. Laacke. 1992. Natural regeneration. Pages 258–283 in Hobbs, S. D., editor. Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and northern California. Oregon State University Forest Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. Minore, D. and J. C. Zasada. 1990. Acer macrophyllum. in R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala (technical coordinators), editor. Silvics of North America, Vol. 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. Washington, D.C. Moore, G. W., B. J. Bond, et al. 2004. Structural and compositional controls on transpiration in a 40- and 450-year- old riparian forest in western Oregon, USA. Tree Physiology 24, 481–491. http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/5/481.full.pdf+html. Moore, R. D., D. L. Spittlehouse and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: A review. Journal of American Water Resources Assocation (JAWRA) 41(4), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03772.x. Munger, T. T. 1940. The cycle from Douglas-fir to hemlock. Ecology 21(4), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.2307/1930284. Murphy, P. A., M. G. Shelton and D. L. Graney. 1993. Group selection—Problems and possibilities for the more shade-intolerant species. Pages 229–247 in 9th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Nabel, M. R., M. Newton and E. C. Cole. 2013. Abundance of natural regeneration and growth comparisons with planted seedlings 10–13 years after commercial thinning in 50-year-old Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir/western hemlock, Oregon Coast Range. Forest Ecology and Management 292, 96–110. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/3b5919156. Nadkarni, M. 1984. Biomass and mineral capital of epiphytes in an Acer macrophyllum community of a temperate moist coniferous forest, Olympic Peninsula, Washington State. Canadian Journal of Botany 62(11), 2223–2228. https://doi.org/10.1139/b84-302. Newton, M. and E. C. Cole. 1994. Stand development and successional implications: Pure and mixed stands. Pages 106–115 in Hibbs, D. E., D. S. DeBell and R. F. Tarrant, editors. The biology and management of red alder. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. Newton, M. and L. Cole. 2015. Overstory development in Douglas-fir-dominant forests thinned to enhance late- seral features. Forest Science 61(4), 809–816.

179 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Nonaka, E. and T. A. Spies. 2005. Historical range of variability in landscape structure: A simulation study in Oregon, USA. Ecological Applications 15(5), 1727–1746. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0902. North, M. P. and W. S. Keeton. 2008. Emulating natural disturbance regimes: An emerging approach for sustainable forest management. Pages 341–372 in Lafortezza, R., G. Sanesi, et al., editors. Patterns and processes in forest landscapes. Springer. Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8504-8_19. O'Hara, K. L., P. Latham, et al. 1996. A structural classification for Inland Northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 11(3), 97–102. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/401-OHara.pdf. ODEQ. 2017. Surface water drinking water source areas in Oregon (Updated Sept. 5, 2017). Accessed August 1, 2018. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/programs/Pages/DWP-Maps.aspx. Oliver, C. D. 1980. Forest development in North America following major disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management 3, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(80)90013-4. Oliver, C. D. and B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics Update Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. Parker, G. G. 1995. Structure and microclimate of forest canopies. Pages 73–106 in Lowman, M. D. and N. M. Nadkarni, editors. Forest canopies. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA. Parker, G. G. 1997. Canopy structure and light environment of an old-growth Douglas-fir/western hemock forest. Northwest Science 71(4), 261–270. http://hdl.handle.net/2376/1231. Parker, G. G. and M. J. Brown. 2000. Forest canopy stratification—Is it useful? The American Naturalist 155(4), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1086/303340. Peet, R. K. and N. L. Christensen. 1987. Competition and tree death. BioScience 37(8), 586–595. http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.2307/1310669. Perry, T. D. 2007. Do vigorous young forests reduce streamflow? Results from up to 54 years of streamflow records in eight paired-watershed experiments in the H. J. Andrews and South Umpqua Experimental Forests. M.S. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Perry, T. D. and J. A. Jones. 2016. Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forest in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology 10(2). http://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1790. Pickett, S. T. A. and K. H. Rogers. 1997. Patch dynamics: The transformation of landscape structure and function. Pages 101–127 in Bissonette, J. A., editor. Wildlife and landscape ecology. Springer. New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1918-7_4. Poage, N. J. and J. C. Tappeiner. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of old-growth Douglas-fir in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32, 1232–1243. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/14630/02PoageTappeiner.pdf?sequence=1. Puettmann, K. J., A. Ares, et al. 2016. Forest restoration using variable density thinning: Lessons from Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. Forests 7(12), 1–14. http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/kpuettmann/For%202016.pdf. Rapp, V. 2003. New findings about old-growth forests. Science Update. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-4.pdf. Reeves, G. H., B. R. Pickard and K. N. Johnson. 2016. An initial evaluation of potential options for managing Riparian Reserves of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-937, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr937.pdf. Reiter, M. L. and R. L. Beschta. 1995. Effects of forest practices on water. Pages Chapter 7 in Beschta, R. L., J. R. Boyle, et al., editors. Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices in Oregon. Oregon Department of Forestry. Salem, OR. Ripple, W. J., K. T. Hershey and R. Anthony. 2000. Historical forest patterns of Oregon's central Coast Range. Biological Conservation 93, 127–133. Roberts, S. D. and C. A. Harrington. 2008. Individual tree growth response to variable-density thinning in coastal Pacific Northwest forests. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7), 2771–2781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.043. Rollerson, T. P., C. M. Peters and W. J. Beese. 2009. Variable retention windthrow monitoring project (2001– 2009). Western Forest Products, Inc., Campbell River, BC. Rose, R. and D. L. Haase. 2006. Guide to reforestation in Oregon. College of Forestry, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/WorkingForests/ReforestationGuide.pdf. Satterlund, D. R. and P. W. Adams. 1992. Wildland Watershed Management. John Wiley & Sons. New York. Schrader, B. A. 1998. Structural development of late-successional forests in the central Oregon Coast Range: Abundance, dispersal, and growth of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) regeneration. PhD Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/xd07gw07f.

180 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

Slauson, K. M., G. A. Schmidt, et al. 2018. DRAFT—A conservation assessment and strategy for the Humboldt marten in California and Oregon. U. S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Southwest Research Station. Smith, D. M., B. C. Larson, et al. 1997. The practice of silviculture: Applied forest ecology, 9th edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Spies, T. A. and J. F. Franklin. 1989. Gap characteristics and vegetation response in coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecology 70(3), 543–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940198. Spies, T. A. and J. F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural young, mature and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in Oregon and Washington. Pages 93-122 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, et al., editors. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Corvallis, OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub1244.pdf. Spies, T. A., J. F. Franklin and M. Klopsch. 1990. Canopy gaps in Douglas-fir forests of the Cascade Mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20, 649–658. https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lter/pubs/pdf/pub1074.pdf. Spies, T. A., K. N. Johnson, et al. 2007. Cumulative ecological and socioeconomic effects of forest policies in coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications 17(1), 5–17. www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29685. Spies, T. A., P. A. Stine, et al. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-966. U. S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr966/. Stan, A. B. and L. D. Daniels. 2014. Growth releases across a natural canopy gap-forest gradient in old-growth forests. Forest Ecology and Management 313(2014), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.004. Stein, W. I. 1995. Ten-year development of Douglas-fir and associated vegetation after different site preparation on Coast Range clearcuts. FSRP-PNW-473. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25654. Strothmann, R. O. 1972. Douglas-fir in northern California: Effects of shade on germination, survival, and growth. Research Paper PSW-RP-84. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service - Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Berkley, CA. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/28748. Stubblefield, G. and C. D. Oliver. 1978. Silvicultural implications of the reconstruction of mixed alder/conifer stands. Pages 307–320 in Utilization and Management of Alder General Technical Report PNW-70. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. Swanson, F. J. and J. F. Franklin. 1992. New forestry principles from ecosystem analysis of Pacific Northwest forests. Ecological Applications 2(3), 262–274. https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lter/pubs/pdf/pub1359.pdf. Swanson, M. E., J. F. Franklin, et al. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: Early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1890/090157. Tappeiner, J. C. 2002. Forest stand development. Biological Science Report. USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006, Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Muir et al. editors, U.S. Dept. of the Interior - U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC),, Corvallis, OR. http://eot.us.archive.org/eot/20161224153552/https://fresc.usgs.gov/products/papers/mang_bio.pdf. Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, et al. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl—Report to the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service, Portland, OR. Thompson, J. R., K. N. Johnson, et al. 2006. Historical disturbance regimes as a reference for forest policy in a multiowner province: A simulation experiment. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(2), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-247. USDA-FS and USDI-BLM. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For Management of Port- Orford-cedar in southwest Oregon, Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg Bureau of Land Management Districts and the Siskiyou National Forest in southwest Oregon. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.119278. USDC-NMFS. 2016. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat for the Resource Management Plan for Western Oregon. WCR-2016-4089. U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region. USDC-NMFS. 2018a. Proactive Conservation Program: Species of Concern. Accessed 11/21/2018. http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_of_concern/species_of_concern.html.

181 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

USDC-NMFS. 2018b. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat for the Programmatic Forest Management Program for Western Oregon. NMFS-WCR-2017-7574. U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service. USDI-BLM. 1986. BLM Manual H-8410-1 - Visual Resource Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/program_recreation_visual%20resource%20management_quick%20link_% 20BLM%20Handbook%20H-8410-1%2C%20Visual%20Resource%20Inventory.pdf. USDI-BLM. 1989. BLM Handbook H-5310-Timber Cruising. U.S. Dept. of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. USDI-BLM. 2004. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port- Orford-cedar in southwest Oregon, Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg Districts. BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/024+1792. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. USDI-BLM. 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Vol 2 pp. 532–536 Figure 4-17. Portland, OR. USDI-BLM. 2008b. BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 Release 1-1710. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/366/NEPAHandbook_H-1790_508.pdf. USDI-BLM. 2008c. BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual6840.pdf. USDI-BLM. 2010 Update. Western Oregon District's Transportation Management Plan. U.S. Dept. of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. USDI-BLM. 2011. BLM Handbook H-9113-1 Road Design. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. USDI-BLM. 2015. Final State Director's Special Status Species List. Instruction Memorandum OR-2015-028. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office. Portland, OR. USDI-BLM. 2016a. Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/docset_view.do?projectId=57902¤tPageId=76777&documentId=71567. USDI-BLM. 2016b. Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP). U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/57902/79046/91311/NCO_ROD_RMP_ePlanning.pdf. USDI-BLM. 2018b. West Fork Smith River Variable Retention Thinning Biological Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay District Office. North Bend, OR. USDI-BLM. 2018c. Integrated Invasive Plant Management for the Coos Bay District Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-ORWA-C000-2017-0003-EA. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. North Bend, OR. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=114328. USDI-BLM and Oregon SHPO. 2015. State protocol between the Oregon-Washington State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the manner in which the Bureau of Land Management will meet its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. http://www.achp.gov/blm/OR%20PROTOCOL%20SIGNED.pdf https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/OR%20Protocol.pdf. USDI-FWS. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of the Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1997/970924.pdf. USDI-FWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf. USDI-FWS. 2009. Regulatory and scientific basis for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance for evaluation of take for northern spotted owls on private timberlands in California's northern interior region. 78. USDI-FWS. 2011b. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Dept. of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR.

182 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery/Library/Documents/RevisedNSORecP lan2011.pdf. USDI-FWS. 2012 revision. Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls. U.S. Department of the Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Documents/2012RevisedNSOprotocol.2.15.12.p df. USDI-FWS. 2012a. Federal Register Final Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. 77 FR 71875 (71875–72068). U.S. Department of the Interior - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/12/04/2012- 28714/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-designation-of-revised-critical-habitat-for-the. USDI-FWS. 2016. Biological Opinion on the Bureau of Land Management's Approval of the Proposed Resource Management Plan for Western Oregon. Portland, OR. USDI-FWS. 2018. Species status assessment for the coastal marten (Martes Caurina) version 2.0. U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service. Arcata, CA. USDI-FWS. 2018b. Informal consultation on West Fork Smith River variable density harvest proposed by the Coos Bay District Bureau of Land Management. Reference Number 01EOFW00-2018-I-0625. U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service. Roseburg, OR. Van Pelt, R. and M. P. North. 1996. Analyzing canopy structure in Pacific Northwest old-growth forests with a stand-scale crown model. Northwest Science 70(Special Issue), 15–30. https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1287/v70?sequence=1. Van Pelt, R. and S. C. Sillett. 2008. Crown development of coastal Pseudotsuga menziesii, including a conceptual model for tall conifers. Ecological Monographs 78(2), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0158.1. Weisberg, P. J. 2004. Importance of non-stand-replacing fire for development of forest structure in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Forest Science 50(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/50.2.245. Wiens, J. D., R. G. Anthony and E. D. Forsman. 2014. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 185, 1–50. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1009/pdf. Wilson, J. S. and C. D. Oliver. 2000. Stability and density management in Douglas-fir plantations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30(6), 910–920. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/x00-027. Wimberly, M. C. 2002. Spatial simulation of historical landscape patterns in coastal forest of the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32, 1316–1328. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x02- 054#.WYIUlWxlKHs. York, R. and J. Battles. 2008. Growth response of mature trees versus seedlings to gaps associated with group selection management in the Sierra Nevada, California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/wjaf/23.2.94. York, R. A., R. C. Heald, et al. 2004. Group selection management in conifer forests: Relationships between opening size and tree growth. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34(3), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1139/x03-222. Zabel, C. J., K. M. McKelvey and J. P. Ward Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat- use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73(3), 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1139/z95-049. Zenner, E. K. 2004. Does old-growth condition imply high live-tree structural complexity? Forest Ecology and Management 195(1–2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.026. Zenner, E. K. 2005. Development of tree size distributions in Douglas-fir forests under differing disturbance regimes. Ecological Applications 15(2), 701–714. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0150.

183 | West Fork Smith River EA | DOI-BLM-ORWA-C030-2017-0001-EA | February 15, 2019