a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · T!1e U.S. Department of Agricu[ture (USDA) prohibits discrimination In a[[ its programs and

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Department of Agriculture

Pyramid Thin Project

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Revised June 2009

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Gold Beach Ranger District Curry County, Oregon Township 37 South; Range 13 West; sections 17, 19, 20, 29, 30 and 31; and Township 38 South; Range 13 West; section 6; Willamette Meridian

Responsible Official: Alan Vandiver, District Ranger Gold Beach Ranger District 29279 Ellensburg Avenue Gold Beach, OR 97444 (541) 247-3601

For More Information Contact: John P. Williams, Project Leader Gold Beach Ranger District 29279 Ellensburg Avenue Gold Beach, OR 97444 (541) 247-3620

Oregon

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

GoldBeach

Vicinity Map

/Legend

pyramid_thin_units_20080 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

NOTE: Mapping of different GIS layers may show minor location errors and mapping exercise is only a guide. Actual on-the-ground conditions will determine appropriate actions.

Pyramid Thin Project i Revised June 2009 Environmental Assessment

•••

• • I

Pyramid Thin Project

•

Environmental Assessment Revised 2009

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 • PURPOSE ANI> NEED ....................................................................... 1- I ,x. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... I· I B. I'JTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT AREA ................................................................. 1- 2 C. \JANAGE:VIENT DIRECTIO'J .................................................................................... 1- .3

I. MATRIX LAND ALLOCATION............. ............. """"."".,, " .. " .. . 1- ::\ ~. WATERSHED A'JALYS[S ......... " ... "."" ... ",, .... " ... " ................ . 1- 3 .1. ROADS ANALYSIS 1- 4

D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................................... I- S E. PROP()SED ACTION .................................................................................................. I· 6 F. DECISION FRA:\JE\V()RK ......................................................................................... 1- 6 G. SCOPING ............................................................................................................... 1- 7 H. ISSUES ................................................................................................................... 1- 8

RELEVANT ISSLES ....... " ... " ........... .. I 8 (JUT or SCOPE ISSUES ....... " .................................................................................... " .... . 1- 10

CHAPTER II • ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. II· I A. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................... II- I n. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ............................................................... II· I

I. ALTERNATIVE I - NO ACT[ON ......... " .. " ........... " ....... " ............ " ... " ............... " ... . 11- -)

,"1 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL ACT [ON ALTERNATIVES .... " ... .. 11-

a. Project Design Criteria for Silvicullural Trealnll'nts ............. " ... 11- 2 h. Project Design Criteria for ApplIcation of Logging Systel11~ .......... . 11- <) -c. Project Design CrilCria for Riparian Reserve'> " ...................... .. 11- .\ d. Project Design Criteria ror Decommissioning Temporary roads ....... . [[- 4

e. ProjeLl Design Criteria for Coarse Woody Material (Snags and Large WnwI) . II l L ProjeLl Design Criteria I'm Activity-Generated Fuels Treatment.. . ....... . 11- 5

~. ALTERNATIVE 2 PROPOSED ACTION ...... '.......... ....... ......... .. ................. . I1- () + ALTERNATIVE ~ ......... ........................ .. .......... .............. ..... .... . ............. .. 1[- \) :". :'\I.']'EI{NATIVE-l '.<, "", ••• , , .•.•.•••••• , ••••••• , •••••••..•.•••.• , •••••• " ••.• , •. , •••••••••••. 11- 12 (). MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNAT[VES .............. . I1- 15

a. Soils ...... .. ........................... , .................. .. II- I () h. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................. . I1- 16 c. ]\;ative Grass and Weed Management ... . 11- 17 d. Threatened and Sensitive Fauna Management.................. ........ . .. ..... .. ....... .. 11- I X e. POrl-Orrord-Cedar Root Disease, ................................................................... .. 11- 20 L Air ()uality .......................... , ....................... , .............................................. . II-~()

g. Recreation............ . ....... ".. .................... ............................ .. ............ . 11-20 7. Monitoring Activities.............. ........................................ ............ .. ........... .. 11-20 X. Other Projech ........... . ............................................................................................. ,.. . 11- 21

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS ........... II· 22 D. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. 11- 23

CHAPTER II1·AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQlJENCES .. .. III· I A. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................. III- t B. ATTAINM ENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................. III- 2

I. BAS[S FOR THE PURPOSE A]\;f) NEED ....................................................................... . III - .~

) ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED THROUGH ALTERNATIVE I-NO ACTIO]\; ..... . III- 4 1. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED THROUGH ACTION ALTERNATiVES ........... . 111- 5

a. Alternative 2 Proposed Action ............................................................................. .. III- 6 h. Alternative .1 ........................................................................... . 111- (, h. Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................... .. 111- (,

--_..... _--

-------

I

• C. EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION - RELEV ANT ISSUES ................................................ III- 6

physical Environmentl [. SOILS AND GEOLOGy ................................................................................................... 111- 7 •2. HyDROLOGy ........................................................................................................ [11- 15 .~. WATER QUALITy ............................................................................................................ . III 25 ~ ·L NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN ACS ................................................................................ 1I1-~()

'i FIRE / FUELS ..................................................................................................... 1II- 33 (). AIR QUALITy ................................................................................................ 111- 40 ~iQlo9icat Environmentl 7 BOTANICAL SPECIES AND/OR HABITAT .......................................................... 111- 43 X. NON-NATIVE PLANTS ......................................................................................... 111- 45 9. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE PROPOSED THREATENED OR E"l'DANGERED SPECIES ............. . 111-47

[0. WILDLIFE REGION fl LISTED SENSITIVE SPECIES ..................................................................... . 111- 56 [[ WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ..................................................... 111- 62 [1 OTHER WILDLIFE - RARE OR UNCOMMON SPECIES AND/OR HABITAT ......... .. III- flX [.~. NEO-TROPICAL MIGRATORY BlRDS/LANDBIRDS ...................................................... III- fl9 [-I. SNAGS AND COARSE WOODY MATERIAL ................................................................ III-71 [5. RETENTION or LATE-SUCCESSIONAL FOREST ................................................... . III- 75 [6. AQUATIC SPECIES AND HABITAT .... ......... ..................................... . .......... . III-77 [7. PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR ROOT DISEASE ....................................................... . III- X I JiUrilaniSocial Environmentl

[X. REMOVAL OF LARGE TREES .................................................................................... . III- X4 [t) SEMI-PRIMITIVE UNROADED AREA ..................... .................... . .... . .............. . 11I-Xo 20. ECONOMICS ......................... . III-l)] ::' [ RECREATION / HUMAI\ SAFETy ............................................ '" ............................ . II [- l)3

~2. OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) USE ..................................................................... . 111- 05 ::'0. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................... . II [- 97

D. ()THER EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 111-100

CHAPTER IV - COI\SLLTATION WITH OTHERS ........................................................ ... IV- I

Cl-t;\PTER V - LrrERATURE CITED ...................................................................... V- I

APPENDICES

A. Geology/Soils Report B. Hydrology Report C. Silvicultural Report D. Terrestrial Wildlife Reports

(Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Habitat Examination) E. Fisheries Biological Evaluation F. Botanical Report G. Port-Orford-Cedar Disease Control Strategy H. Fire/Fuels Report J. Recreation Report J. Heritage Determination

T!1e U.S. Department of Agricu[ture (USDA) prohibits discrimination In a[[ its programs and actiVities on the baSIS of race. color, national Origin. gender, re[lgion, age. disability. political beliefs, sexual orientation. or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabi[itles who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape. should contact USDAs TARGET Center at 720-2600 (voice and TOD). To file a complaint of diSCrimination, write USDA. Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Bui[ding. 14th and Independence Avenue. SW. Washington. DC 20250-9410 or call 720-5964 (vOice and TOD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

III

.............~--

Pyramid Thin Project Environmental Assessment Revised June 2009 Page I - 1

CHAPTER I – PURPOSE AND NEED The Gold Beach Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is proposing commercial harvest of timber within the Pyramid Thin Project Area. The Forest Service has prepared this revised 2009 Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA is a document that summarizes the: Purpose and Need for the project; Proposed Action; identification of issues or concerns; development of potential action alternatives and the environmental analysis of anticipated resource impacts resulting from the potential activities including applicable direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The Responsible Official will use this EA to make a rational and informed decision regarding possible implementation of activities on public lands administered by the Forest Service.

A. BACKGROUND In March of 2007, the Gold Beach Ranger District compiled a Pyramid Thin Project Environmental Assessment (EA) that was distributed for 30-day public review and comment. Comments were received which triggered the development of an entirely new Proposed Action and re-initiation of the scoping process. The original 2007 EA was dropped and a new EA was compiled. To comply with the NEPA, it was necessary to re-initiate formal scoping with newspaper publication of the Legal Notice for initiation of scoping on June 6, 2007. In July of 2007, the (new) Pyramid Thin Project EA was distributed for 30-day public review and comment. The responsible official subsequently signed a Decision Notice on November 17, 2007. Appeals were received on the decision; based on the appeals, the responsible official withdrew the decision. It was determined that the July 2007 EA would be revised following additional analysis, clarification, and changed documentation. The March 2008 Revised EA included changes since the July 2007 version that dropped or adjusted proposed units for wildlife habitat, revised silvicultural and Port-Orford Cedar Reports, documented new reconnaissance, analysis for geology, soils and hydrology, more complete review of proposed temporary roads, revised terrestrial Biological Evaluation and Habitat Examination, revised Botanical Reports, revised Fisheries Biological Evaluation, revised Fire/Fuels Report and revised Recreation Report. This EA and its appendices were designed to completely replace all previous versions of the EA and/or reports. The revised March 2008 EA incorporated all public comments and appeal points that were raised through the entire history and development of the Pyramid Thin Project. The revised March 2008 EA was a result of additional analysis, clarification and documentation necessary for the Responsible Official to make an informed and rational decision regarding appropriate land management activities. In March of 2008, the revised March 2008 EA was distributed for 30-day public review and comment. The responsible official subsequently signed a Decision Notice on May 5, 2008. Appeals were received on the decision; based on the appeals and regional recommendations, the responsible official withdrew the decision. It was determined that the March 2008 EA would be revised following additional analysis and clarification. This June 2009 Revised EA contains changes since the March 2008 version that include: adding the option of pre-bunching skyline and helicopter yarding operations; changing the previous haul route due to storm events in 2008; new reconnaissance, analysis and documentation; and revisions to Geology/Soils, Hydrology, Wildlife, Fisheries, Fire/Fuels, POC Disease Control Strategy and Recreation reports. These revised reports are contained as appendices to this revised EA. This EA and its appendices are designed to completely replace all previous versions of the EA and/or reports.


This revised June 2009 EA incorporates all public comments and appeal points that were raised through the entire history and development of the Pyramid Thin Project. The revised June 2009 EA is a result of additional analysis, clarification and documentation necessary for the Responsible Official to make an informed and rational decision regarding appropriate land management activities.

B. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT AREA The Pyramid Thin Project Area is located on public lands administered by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District (see Vicinity Map). The Project Area consists of stands located on suitable forest land that is designated as matrix under the Northwest Forest Plan, in the vicinity of Forest Road 1703. The Project Area is located approximately 8 air miles southeast of the city of Gold Beach, Oregon with a legal description of: Township 37 South; Range 13 West; Sections 17, 20, 29, 30, and 31; and Township 38 South, Range 13 West, Section 6; Willamette Meridian; Curry County, Oregon. A majority of the Project Area falls within the North Fork Pistol River drainage of the Pistol River watershed and a small portion of the area falls within the Hunter Creek watershed. The Project Area is accessed along Forest Road 1703 and its associated secondary roads. Road 1703 is a road that meanders along a series of broad ridges ranging in elevation between 2,000 to 3,000 feet. This area includes such geographic features as (going south to north): Red Flat, Flycatcher Spring, Pyramid Rock, to just south of Pickle Ranch. The Project Area does not include any designated Wilderness or Inventoried Roadless Areas. There are no grazing allotments or active mining operation within or adjacent to the area. Through a preliminary planning process, the Project Area was refined to address only portions of those stands that have been identified as treatment units. For the purpose of this document and subsequent analysis, the Project Area only includes those treatment units, also known as candidate stands. The Project Area is located in the vicinity of multiple intermittent or perennial streams. Riparian Reserves in the area are functioning properly at this time. There are approximately 8-10 acres of Riparian Reserves adjacent to all treatment units with no discernable difference between conditions of Riparian Reserve vegetation and hill slope vegetation. Candidate stands in the Project Area are the result of a stand replacement fire that occurred in the early 1900s. These trees are approximately 65-90 years old, even-aged single-story stands of Douglas-fir (90+%) with overall stand tree diameters generally average between 9-14 inches. These stands contain a few, older, legacy trees (typically 50+ inches in diameter and 200+ years of age) that survived the stand replacement fire. In addition to the single-storied stands and legacy trees, there are scattered trees across the landscape that may be considered larger open-grown trees. Though these trees are similar in age to the majority of the stands, these trees are noticeable as they present diameters approximately 37” and larger and tend to have thicker, deeper bark with larger diameter limbs that go almost to the ground. Several of these trees tend to have double trunks or double tops which imply some sort of disturbance/damage over time. For example, a core sample was taken from a 41” tree and it was determined to be approximately 100 years old. Vegetative competition has increased over time resulting in minor populations of other tree species such as sugar pine, western hemlock, chinquapin, tanoak, canyon live oak, and Pacific madrone. Portions of these stands have a dense understory of primarily rhododendron and salal while other areas have almost no understory. The most frequent understory vegetation consists of salal, rhododendron, beargrass, canyon live oak, chinquapin, madrone and tanoak. Certain small areas within these stands are dominated by hardwood tree species (such as chinquapin, tanoak, or canyon live oak) rather than conifers. Relatively little standing dead (snags) and down coarse woody material is found on the forest floor. The snags and down material are small in size and limited over the landscape. This is probably due to the severity of the stand replacement fire. Tree diameter growth has slowed, crown size has been reduced and natural mortality has increased during the past ten years due to vegetative competition.


C. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The proposed Pyramid Thin Project is located on federal lands administered by the Forest Service. These lands fall under management direction and guidance identified in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SNF-LRMP) as amended by the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan, USDA 1994). Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this EA is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989) as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994). This document also tiers to the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest; and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon (USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 2004); as well as the April 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA 2005a). The SNF-LRMP specifies overall management direction for this portion of the forest including management goals and objectives, activity Standards and Guidelines, and management prescriptions for each land allocation. All uses on this forest must address consistency with management direction (strategies) applicable to specific management areas. NW Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines were developed to supplement existing plans. The Standards and Guidelines of existing plans apply where they are more restrictive or provide greater benefits to late-successional forest-related species than do other Standards and Guidelines identified in the NW Forest Plan. Though vegetative conditions within the Riparian Reserves could be treated to move toward desired future conditions; such activities would have little overall effect, would have minimal contribution to riparian conditions and forest diversity; and are excluded from this project. Therefore, the Pyramid Thin Project falls under one land management allocation: matrix with specific goals, standards, and objectives briefly discussed below.

1. MATRIX LAND ALLOCATION The SNF-LRMP (as amended) designates all lands within the Project Area as matrix: Matrix emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix forest lands considered suitable for timber production (NW Forest Plan, page C-39; SNF-LRMP, pages IV 38-43 and 139-143). For the Pyramid Thin Project, preliminary analysis has found that existing forest conditions of the General Forest are such that vegetation age and physical character are over-stocked and are in a condition of declining growth and vigor. Natural mortality within these stands is already occurring. Any proposed project shall identify appropriate, silviculturally sound treatment within the General Forest areas.

2. WATERSHED ANALYSIS Watershed Analysis (WA) has been completed for the Pistol River Watershed (January 2003) and the Hunter Creek Watershed (July 1998) in which entire watersheds, including all land ownerships were analyzed. Watershed Analyses contain a synthesis of scientific knowledge about watershed trends and conditions at watershed scales as well as by smaller sub-watersheds. These Watershed Analyses are incorporated by reference to this EA. The Project Area is located within the 5th- and 6th-field watersheds listed in Table I-1 and displayed in Figure I-1.

Table I-1. Pyramid Thin Project 5th and 6th Field Watersheds

5th Field and Name 6th Field and Name Watershed

Acreage

Proposed Treatment Acreage

Percent of Watershed

Acreage 04 Pistol River 02 North Fork Pistol 19,227 277 1.4

01 Upper Hunter Creek 12,380 1 <0.01 05 Hunter Creek

02 Lower Hunter Creek 16,088 33 <0.1 Neither the Pistol River nor Figure I-1. Watershed Polygons


Hunter Creek is designated as a Key Watershed. The two watersheds have similar ownerships and management histories. Approximately 55 percent of the Pistol and 40 percent of the Hunter watersheds are located on National Forest System Lands. Public lands are in the upper elevation watersheds. Most of the lower elevation watersheds are owned by private timber companies and managed for timber harvest. The private lands surrounding the estuaries and lower stream banks are agricultural and residential. The Pistol River is listed in the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 1998 303(d) as water quality limited for temperature, from the mouth to the headwaters. Hunter Creek is water quality limited for temperature from the mouth to river mile 16.5. The Pistol River WA evaluated the effects of prior harvest and road construction on hydrologic processes within the National Forest portion of the watershed, and found that 96 percent of the North Fork Pistol is in a state of natural condition or recovery (hydrologically recovered). The Hunter Creek WA found that National Forest portions of Upper Hunter were 85 percent hydrologically recovered o

North Fork Pistol River

Lower Hunter Creek

Upper Hunter Creek

Lower Pistol River

/watershed polygon

Stream Surveys

Streams

pyramid_thin_units_2008

0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles

NOTE: Mapping of different GIS layers may show minor location errors and mapping exercise is only a guide. Actual on-the-ground conditions will determine appropriate actions.

r natural and 80 ercent of Lower Hunter were hydrologically recovered or natural.

. ROADS ANALYSIS

king

s system, allowing land managers the ability to make better decisions toward achieving forest priorities.

p

3 A Forest-level Roads Analysis was conducted for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest January 2004. This analysis was conducted to provide land managers with a science-based analytical tool to helpbalance public needs, scientific information, and funding levels when determining the size, purpose and extent of both existing roads and roads planned for the future. Roads analysis is not a decision-maprocess. Rather it is designed to provide an assessment of existing forest roads from a landscape perspective. Applying this process would highlight problem areas and opportunities in the road


A review was conducted of the Roads Analysis with additional field inspection (road condition surveys) by road engineers. The engineers found that current road conditions meet forest direction for established road use and maintenance level. Through the site-specific analysis, engineers found several locations along project haul routes where road improvements and normal road maintenance activities would improve watershed conditions. Between December 27th and December 30th, 2008 a storm event caused a road failure at mile post 2.6 on Forest System Road (FSR) 1703. This road was planned to be used as part of the haul route to transport forest products from the original Pyramid Thin Project. The primary haul route for stands analyzed under the original Pyramid Thin Environmental Assessment traveled southwest on FSR 1703 to FSR 3680, then west down Hunter Creek. A preliminary review found that correcting the road damage would not be economically feasible under the Pyramid Thin Project. Due to the changed circumstances, the new haul route would travel over FSR 1703 to FSR 1703100, then south on FSR 1703100 to FSR 1601, then west down Pistol River Due to the new proposed haul route, the road activities identified in the proposed action for FSR 1703 would change under this revised environmental assessment. Road 1703 culvert installations at M.P. 2.2, M.P. 2.7 and M.P. 4.3 would no longer be needed for this project. These roading activities along with repair of the washouts at MP 2.6 would be accomplished when other funding becomes available. When the lower section of FSR 1703 is repaired haul could be directed down Hunter Creek. Continuing and reoccurring maintenance activities would take place on all haul routes. Maintenance would include the upkeep of the entire forest development transportation facility including surface and shoulders, turnouts and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient utilization. Haul routes were inspected for danger trees. Though relatively few in numbers, these trees would be cut and left on site. There are a total of six culverts that have reached the end of their service life along the current haul route and have significant signs of deterioration. Five of the culverts would be replaced with similar culverts. The culvert on FSR 1703100 at MP 2.84 is currently 12 inches and would be replaced with an 18” culvert to improve drainage capacities.

D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The overall Purpose of this project is to implement direction from the Land and Resource Management Plan (1989 Forest Plan) for the Siskiyou National Forest, as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. The Pyramid Thin Project is located on lands allocated to matrix which emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with forest lands considered suitable for timber production. For the Pyramid Thin Project, existing forest conditions are such that vegetation age and physical character are over-stocked and are in a condition of declining growth and vigor. Specifically for the Pyramid Thin Project, Needs include: Improve Stand Structure, Composition and Resiliency – Stands within the area are stagnating and are

becoming at risk to loss due to poor vigor and health. There is a need to reduce stand densities so that individual tree growth would improve. The remaining trees would have less competition for sunlight, water and soil nutrients. Forest structure and composition would be maintained or improved by retaining larger open-grown and legacy trees, minor tree species (including all hardwoods), existing snags and coarse woody debris. Such vigor and diversity would create a more resilient forest that would be capable to survive or recover more quickly from natural disturbances such as drought, wind, insects, disease or fire.


Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity - The proposed project is located on lands allocated to matrix and therefore considered as part of the overall Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ). PSQ is the estimated output of commercial timber and other commodities assigned to the Forest under the Northwest Forest Plan. Forest management activities within Matrix will provide a full yield of timber into the future while ensuring ecological systems remain fully functional.

E. PROPOSED ACTION The Gold Beach Ranger District of the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest proposes density management and other related activities on approximately 311 acres of matrix land. This section briefly describes and summarizes the Proposed Action. For more detail, see Chapter II. The Pyramid Thin Project would commercially thin 13 treatment units. Thinning would consist of density management that reduces stand densities by removing Douglas-fir suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees to reach desired tree spacing. Thinning would produce variable spacing by adjusting leave tree distances subject to residual tree diameters (i.e. a larger diameter leave tree would have longer distances between the next leave tree as compared to a smaller diameter tree with shorter distances) while leaving minor species (including all hardwoods), existing snags and coarse woody debris. To implement commercial thinning, a full range of logging systems would be used, including ground based, skyline and helicopter, appropriate to site and ground conditions. Treatment of activity-generated fuels within the harvest units would be a combination of: no treatment, hand piling and burning, machine piling and burning, and leaving tops attached during ground-based or cable yarding operations. The Pyramid Thin Project would construct approximately 1.8 miles of temporary roads. These roads would be decommissioned following treatment activities. To facilitate product removal, this project would conduct normal road maintenance activities on all roads to be used by this action and replace culverts at four locations on Forest Road 1703100 and two locations on Road 1703.190. The Proposed Action would improve natural stand structure within matrix lands by increasing growth and vigor while improving forest composition and structural diversity. All candidate stands (treatment units) proposed for density management would be developed using the following strategies: Silvicultural treatments would be designed to facilitate tree growth and enhance stand variability by

retaining other minor species including hardwoods, open-grown larger diameter trees, legacy trees, existing snags and coarse woody debris.

Thinning prescriptions would emphasize a range of leave tree spacing tolerances that would promote variable spacing.

Treated areas would avoid all Riparian Reserves.

F. DECISION FRAMEWORK Given the scope of the Proposed Action and level of environmental analysis, the responsible official is the District Ranger for the Gold Beach Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Ranger will review the Proposed Action, other action alternatives, and comments received during the public involvement process. Based upon the environmental effects of these alternatives, the responsible official will decide to:

Implement the Proposed Action, one of the alternatives, parts of the alternatives or combinations of the alternatives, or;


Determine whether the proposed project or certain activities analyzed in this document may cause significant impacts (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27) that will require the development of an environmental impact statement prior to making a decision.

G. SCOPING “Scoping” (40 CFR 1501.7) is a process designed to determine the potential issues associated with a Proposed Action and to identify those issues and concerns that may be significant to the decision. Issues identified through the scoping process are used to develop and refine alternative management actions. This section of the assessment discusses Public Involvement - the review process by interested parties from the general public, recognized Tribes, other Federal and State agencies, and further analysis by the Interdisciplinary Team. Public Involvement The Pyramid Thin Project Proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on November 1995 and all subsequent SOPAs since. Formal scoping was initiated with newspaper publication of Legal Notice for initiation of scoping on October 2003. Notice was published in the: Daily Courier, Curry Coastal Pilot and Curry County Reporter (Newspapers of Record). In addition, at that time and as part of the public involvement process, the agency sent letters to all the individuals on the district’s NEPA mailing list (approximately 120 individuals) announcing the availability of the Proposed Action and the opportunity to respond to the proposal. In March of 2007, the Gold Beach Ranger District compiled a Pyramid Thin Project Environmental Assessment (EA) that was distributed for 30-day public review and comment. Comments were received which triggered the development of an entirely new Proposed Action and re-initiation of the scoping process. The original 2007 EA was dropped and a new EA was compiled. To comply with the NEPA, it was necessary to re-initiate formal scoping with newspaper publication of the Legal Notice for initiation of scoping on June 6, 2007. Notice was published in the: Curry Coastal Pilot and Curry County Reporter (Newspapers of Record). In addition, at that time and as part of the public involvement process, the agency sent letters to all the individuals on the district’s NEPA mailing list (approximately 120 individuals) announcing the availability of the Proposed Action and the opportunity to respond to the new proposal. In July of 2007, the (new) Pyramid Thin Project EA was distributed for 30-day public review and comment. The responsible official subsequently signed a Decision Notice on November 17, 2007. Appeals were received on the decision; based on the appeals, the responsible official withdrew the decision. It was determined that the July 2007 EA would be revised following additional analysis, clarification, and changed documentation. In March of 2008, the revised March 2008 EA was distributed for 30-day public review and comment. The responsible official subsequently signed a Decision Notice on May 5, 2008. Appeals were received on the decision; based on the appeals, the responsible official withdrew the decision. It was determined that the March 2008 EA would be revised following additional analysis and clarification. All public input, responses to all scoping efforts, comments on these previous EAs and content of appeals has been incorporated and considered part of this Revised 2009 Pyramid Thin Project EA.


H. ISSUES The interdisciplinary team and District Ranger (Responsible Official) reviewed the entire scoping effort for the Pyramid Thin Project. Through the public scoping process, issues important to this project were identified and tracked. For this analysis, the Forest Service separated issues into two groups: relevant issues, and issues determined to be out of scope. Following this process, the Ranger approved the identification of issues as described below. Maps, resource details, public scoping responses and process records are available in the Project Records for the Pyramid Thin Project, at the Gold Beach Ranger District office.

Issues are defined as points of discussion about the environmental effects of a Proposed Action. The environment can be organized into Physical, Biological, and Human/Social components. Issues are presented in a format that allows the analysis under NEPA to answer the question “what action may have what effect, on what resource or value?” Relevant Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that have been determined to be applicable to the actions being analyzed, are used to disclose consequences, may affect design of component actions, may develop a need for mitigation measures, or whose disclosure of environmental effects are required by law or policy. Some issues may describe minor and/or non-variable consequences. Out of Scope issues include points of discussion that are not relevant to the Proposed Action, including those that cannot be addressed with a project level analysis, issues already decided by law, regulation, or other higher level decisions, and/or issues received from the public that were found to be conjectural or non-substantive.

RELEVANT ISSUES Physical 1. Soils and Geology - How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect soils and slope stability through detrimental soil disturbance and effects on coarse woody material? 2. Hydrology - How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect hydrologic conditions, including channel morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, water yield (flow), and stream temperature? 3. Water Quality - How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect hydrologic conditions and water quality regarding 303(d) listed waterbodies? 4. Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy - How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect attainment of Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Objectives? 5. Fire/Fuels - How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect fuel loading and fire hazard conditions? 6. Air Quality - How would density management (thinning) treatments and activity fuels treatment affect air quality?


Biological 7. Botanical Species and/or Habitat - How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect rare botanical species and habitat, including those listed as Forest Service Sensitive species, or rare and uncommon species? 8. Non-native Plants – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect spread of non-native (noxious) plant species? 9. Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Threatened or Endangered Species – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect terrestrial wildlife Proposed, Threatened or Endangered species and/or Critical Habitat? 10. Wildlife Region 6 Listed Sensitive Species – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect federally listed Sensitive species and/or habitat? 11. Wildlife Management Indicator Species – How would density management (thinning) treatments and connected actions affect Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS species)? 12. Other Wildlife Rare or Uncommon Species and/or Habitat – How would density management (thinning) treatments and connected actions affect other terrestrial wildlife species of concern, including rare or uncommon species and/or habitat? 13. Neo-tropical Migratory Birds/Landbirds – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect Neo-tropical Migratory Birds/Landbirds? 14. Snags and Coarse Woody Material – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect existing and future levels of snags and coarse woody material within watersheds? 15. Retention of Late-Successional Forest – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect existing levels of late-successional forest within matrix at the fifth-field watershed scale? 16. Aquatic Species and Habitats – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect aquatic species and habitats, including Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species and/or Essential Fish Habitat? 17. Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect the spread of Phytophthora lateralis disease, affecting Port-Orford-cedar? Human/Social 18. Removal of Large Trees – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect existing and future levels of large trees within watersheds? 19. Semi-primitive Unroaded Area – How would density management or other treatments change environmental conditions within an area that has no roads and affect semi-primitive conditions? 20. Economics – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect the economic feasibility of implementing treatment activities? 21. Recreation/Human Safety – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect safety to the public along a well-used travelway, Forest Road 1703?


22. Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect the amount of OHV use and associated undesirable effects in the area? 23. Global Climate Change – How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect global clime change and how would global climate change affect the proposed project?

OUT OF SCOPE ISSUES A discussion and rationale for identifying the following issues as Out of Scope follows: Concern for impacts to Wilderness or Inventoried Roadless Areas due to proposed activities: Treatment activities are not adjacent to or within designated Wilderness or an Inventoried Roadless Areas. The Project Area is at least seven air-miles west of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and six miles west and north of the Windy Valley Inventoried Roadless Area. Concern for the preponderance of seasonal restrictions proposed for the action alternatives make timber sales extremely difficult to complete within contract timelines: Many seasonal restrictions are required by laws, rules, and/or regulations. These restrictions are known to encumber activities during implementation and create a burden on prospective purchasers. Wherever and whenever possible, the Agency conducts required surveys to identify only the appropriate seasonal restrictions. Seasonal restrictions are reviewed regarding their impact on the project feasibility and implementability as all action alternatives are developed. Concern for efficacy of thinning stands greater than 50 years of age: A review of various scientific research reveals differing views regarding the effects of thinning stands greater than 50 years and that density management (thinning) treatments in older stands may not change the trajectory of those stands. The Forest Service, specifically the west side (coastal area) of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, has long-standing experience in treating stands greater than 50 years. Soil productivity and climate in this part of the region contribute to favorable growth response from thinning activities in stands of this age. Though growth response is less than in younger trees, these older trees do respond (Williamson, 1982) and display improved vigor. For example: the 2-Thin Timber Sale is a project that was located in the same general location as Pyramid Thin. Stand conditions, as well as soil, slope and aspect conditions are all similar to Pyramid Thin. The 2-Thin Timber Sale was treated in 1997 and growth was sampled by taking core samples of trees in the summer of 2003. Growth rings were measured and it was found that growth rates of these trees of similar age and condition did not change for four years following treatment, but did show increased growth rates after that (Adams conversation, 2007). Thinning these 65-90 year-old stands addresses the stated purpose and need and stand management objectives for matrix lands. There is no requirement to optimize tree growth, or develop late-successional characteristics at the stand scale within matrix. An intermediate harvest is a silvicultural opportunity in these candidate stands, as is regeneration harvest. Treatments only need to ensure that activities do not adversely affect the stands from a forest health perspective and that the trajectory for obtaining their desired future condition is maintained. The Proposed Action and alternatives were designed to do that. A NEPA document should be prepared to consider the consequences of alternative survey protocols, e.g. ground transects versus tree climbing. The development of the Proposed Action and action alternatives was based on established management direction. At this time, including large buffers for red tree voles is outside of established direction. It is beyond the scope of the Pyramid Thin Project to disclose alternatives and analyses to address ways in which to solve concerns for established survey protocols. The concern for adequacy of protocols has been referred to the red tree vole taxa team (Clayton 2007).


Concern for thinning activities along Wildhorse Ridge and the real potential for blowdown as a result of reducing stand densities: During the 2007 wind event, there was quite a number of trees blown over and are now proposed for salvage logging (2008 Blowdown Salvage Project). Thinning stands along this ridge would create conditions that would promote blowdown and a future “timber grab”. Blowdown along Wildhorse Ridge resulted during record-breaking winter 2007/2008 storms that “produced extreme long-duration wind events with hurricane-force winds” (National Weather Service). Several specific areas across the forest (High Cascades and Gold Beach Ranger Districts) were affected by relatively small cells of severe storm activity. On the Gold Beach District, blowdown occurred on Wildhorse Ridge, mostly within recent commercially thinned units of the Too Wild Timber Sale and located approximately 9 miles north of proposed Pyramid Thin Project. An estimated 1,000 of the Too Wild residual trees blew down. The Too Wild sale was commercially thinned from October 2004 to July 2007 and it is presumed that the residual trees did not have a chance to become wind-firm; whereas, the High Cascades district experienced blowdown in natural stands. Pyramid EA, Chapter III - Attainment of Purpose and Need Through all Action Alternatives and Appendix C – Silviculture Report discuss the concern for blowdown potential and possible effects. Current canopy cover over all treatment stands averages 68% with a Relative Density of 67%. Action Alternatives would reduce canopy cover to an average of approximately 48% (range 42% to 59%) with a relative density of 43% (range 40% to 47%). This change would move stand structure forward by increasing growth. Thinning shock and wind throw are not expected to be a problem based on removing an average of 35% basal area (no heavy thinning proposed) which falls within thresholds supported by research. Though these particular weather events were unusual and unfortunate, it is beyond the scope of this analysis to try and reasonably predict timing, location and severity of storm events similar to the 2007/2008 storm events.

Pyramid Thin Project Environmental Assessment Revised June 2009 Page II - 1

CHAPTER II – ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes the process used to develop alternatives. It also describes alternatives considered in detail and a summary of project design criteria, mitigation measures to minimize environmental effects, and monitoring applicable to the Action Alternatives. Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail are also discussed. It concludes with a summary and comparison of the alternatives considered in detail. Forest Service policy requires that all projects undertaken on National Forest System land must comply with their respective land and resource management plan as amended. For the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, this includes the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan ROD) and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (S&Gs).

A. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The Purpose and Need identified during scoping was used to develop the Proposed Action and the relevant issues were used to develop a range of alternative actions considered in this EA. This range is intended to: a) provide clear choices for the decision-maker, b) respond to the scoping comments, c) respond to management direction, including the Northwest Forest Plan, and d) respond to the Purpose and Need for action. The No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is designed to address all the above except factor d), and provides a benchmark against which to evaluate the other alternatives. Potential stands identified for density treatment were inspected on the ground and conditions were verified for inclusion in the Pyramid Thin Proposed Action. Through scoping (both internal and public), issues were identified and various strategies were identified to consider alternative ways of managing the resources for the Pyramid Thin Project and:

1. Meet the Purpose and Need for the project. 2. Consider a reasonable range of alternatives that address the Relevant Issues. 3. Meet Standards/Guidelines of the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan as amended by the NW Forest Plan.

B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL Four alternatives (including a No-Action Alternative) are analyzed in detail. Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, provides a basic description of conditions (both current and ongoing) for which all Action Alternatives are compared. Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, would use vegetation treatments within matrix land to promote forest vigor and resilience while contributing commercial timber to the Forests’ Probable Sale Quantity. Alternative 2 represents the maximum extent of all treatments proposed. Alternative 3 is similar to and is based on the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 differs from the Proposed Action with modification that deletes temporary road construction in Treatment Units 3 and 13 that are associated with soil disturbance, soil productivity and a semi-primitive unroaded area. In areas where temporary road construction would be removed, there would be a change to helicopter harvest systems where conventional ground-based or cable systems would no longer be accessible. Alternative 4 is also similar to and is based on the Proposed Action. Alternative 4 differs from the Proposed Action with modification that deletes treatments within Units 1, 2, 3 and 5 that are within an existing semi-primitive unroaded area. Temporary road construction is deleted as associated with soil disturbance and the unroaded area. Since there would be no temporary road construction, there would be a change to helicopter harvest systems in areas where conventional ground-based or cable systems would no longer be accessible.


1. ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION Alternative 1 prescribes no vegetative treatment for the forest stands under consideration. As required by NEPA, a no-action alternative is included and analyzed as a basis for which the Action Alternatives can be compared. Under this scenario, Alternative 1 - No-Action would not authorize density management and other connected actions to obtain the Purpose and Need for the Pyramid Thin Project. The No-Action alternative should not be confused with a baseline, however. Whereas a baseline is essentially a description of the affected environment at a fixed point in time, the No-Action alternative assumes that other things would happen to the affected environment, particularly in a dynamic, changing ecosystem over time. How this ecosystem could change over time without the proposed management actions is discussed more fully in those sections of this EA that describe potential consequences.

2. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

This section discusses elements related to the design of treatments and actions (i.e., Project Design Criteria), applicable to the Action Alternatives. These elements are to be employed during on-the ground project designation/implementation and are designed to address overall objectives (attain the Purpose and Need) and resource objectives to manage consequences (obtain compliance with Standards and Guidelines). Other elements that manage consequences during actual operations are termed “mitigation measures” and are discussed in subsection 6 (this section) of this Chapter. Design elements are employed concurrent with the various treatment elements described in the Silvicultural Report (EA, Appendix C). Many specific design elements would require site-specific recommendations from Forest Service resource professionals. These are design elements applicable to all treatments.

a. Project Design Criteria for Silvicultural Treatments The primary treatment being proposed for Pyramid Thin Project is density management to reduce existing canopy cover of 61-76%, to 42-59% (relative density of 63-73%, to 40-47%) depending on individual stand conditions. Implementation of this form of treatment is generally referred to as commercial “thinning” and favors retention of quality individual trees. To achieve the desired density, cutting and removal would begin with the smallest diameter trees and move up in size class until the desired objective is met, thus concentrating growth on fewer residual stems. This in turn would hasten the development of the larger residual trees that are elements of habitat for a number of species. The intent is to leave the largest conifer species and all legacy conifers. Due to existing low levels of coarse woody material, if legacy trees or open-grown trees are required to be cut for operational reasons they will be left on site as large woody debris. Open-grown and legacy trees are noticeable as they present diameters at least 37” and larger, and tend to have thicker, deeper bark and larger diameter limbs that go almost to the ground. Several of these trees tend to have double trunks or double tops which imply some sort of disturbance/damage over time.

b. Project Design Criteria for Application of Logging Systems Logging system options for stands that provide opportunities for commercial extraction include ground-based systems, skyline cable systems, and aerial (helicopter) systems. The primary concern involved with use of the various logging systems is the potential for detrimental effects to soils (and indirectly hydrologic systems and aquatic habitat). This concern elevates when equipment is considered for use on steeper slopes, sensitive soil types, or unstable areas.


Conversely, there is an operational concern for economics between the various systems being considered, i.e., ground-based systems are most economic from an operational cost viewpoint, skyline systems increase in operational costs, and aerial systems are the most costly. Road access and landing accessibility are also factors to consider.

Ground-Based Systems - The initial criterion for ground based and skyline systems is directly related to distance from road access. Ground-based systems require direct adjacent road access. If access for landings and product haul are not immediately available, ground based systems would not be utilized. Further, ground based systems are restricted to slopes that are 30% or less. Mitigation measures would require use of existing skid trails where possible and pre-designation of skid trails during operations. The total area of detrimental soil conditions would not exceed 15% of the total activity area (including roads and landings) (SNF LRMP S&G 7-2). Skyline Systems - Skyline systems require direct adjacent road access. Landing access must be adjacent to stands to be treated. Skyline systems would require terrain and cable setup that would allow one-end log suspension during in-haul. Aerial Systems - This system (helicopter) can be utilized where there is no directly adjacent road access. There are limitations however on the flight distance and elevation change from the landing to the stand where material would be transported. Landings must be within a distance of approximately 1 mile from the treated stand. There are also other factors to consider regarding helicopter systems and economic feasibility, including turn size, maintenance and fuel storage landings, etc. Pre-Bunching - In areas designated for skyline or helicopter yarding where slopes are considered stable, less than 35% and outside of Riparian Reserves; yarding activities would be analyzed to have the option to incorporate the use of a single-grip harvester for the purpose of “pre-bunching” logs. Pre-bunching means the mechanical falling, limbing, bucking and bunching of trees to improve efficiency and economic removal by expensive aerial yarding systems. The machine would travel up and down (parallel to slope) the hillside on favorable slopes while “walking” on slash generated from its limbing operations. Resultant soil conditions would not exceed 15% detrimental soil conditions within the activity area. For the purpose of effects analysis and possible implementation, approximately 170 acres of potential pre-bunching within this project was considered as a threshold or the maximum area likely to be impacted by pre-bunching operations.

c. Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserves Pyramid Thin Project does not plan to enter areas classified as Riparian Reserves. There are no fish-bearing or permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams proximal to any treatment units. Field data was collected and reviewed to determine the height of site potential trees within each treatment unit. The values in Table II-1 have been used to designate Riparian Reserve buffers (NWFP, C-30 and 31) adjacent to seasonal flowing or intermittent streams.

Table II-1. Pyramid Thin Site Potential Trees Treatment Unit Average High Site Index Site Potential Tree Height @ 200 years

1 81 110 2 81 110 3 94 127 5 94 127 6 84 114 7 81 110 8 81 110 9 94 127 10 94 127 11 101 135 12 86 116 13 78 105


d. Project Design Criteria for Decommissioning Temporary Roads Under alternatives that have temporary roads, the method used to decommission temporary roads would follow standards and guidelines for managing soil and water resources established in the SNF-LRMP. (Pages IV-44 through 48) All temporary roads would have the following measures applied:

On roads across relatively flat slopes, any thru-cuts that generate berms would be back-bladed into the roadway.

All roads would be out-sloped, scarified, ripped and cross-ditches would be installed at varying distances depending on road grade.

Adjacent slash material generated from road construction would be scattered on top of the disturbed soils.

The entrance of the temporary road would be permanently blocked/closed with a combination of ditching and native materials.

e. Project Design Criteria for Coarse Woody Material (Snags and Large Wood)

Part of the Purpose and Need is to improve stand structure and composition. One objective is to manage snags and large wood in order to provide a renewable supply of coarse woody material well distributed across the landscape in a manner that meets the needs of species and provides for ecological functions. Coarse woody material (CWM) fulfills a number of important ecological functions such as stabilizing surface soils, increasing organic content in soils over the long-term, providing habitat for the many organisms that depend on snags and down logs in various stages of decay, and ensuring adequate coarse woody material recruitment to meet the ecological needs of aquatic systems over time. Large snags over 20 inches diameter are particularly essential for forest function. In addition, at least 96 wildlife species in Oregon and Washington are associated with snags in forests, using snags for shelter, roosting and hunting. Most species use snags greater than 14 inches diameter (Rose et al. 2001). Ridges, upper thirds of slopes, and riparian areas or lower third of slopes are very important for late-successional dependent species. Snags in various size classes also are important to the recruitment pathways of the down coarse materials important to soils. As with snags, down logs are important for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem function. In addition, large coarse woody material is particularly important to maintaining and holding soils in place. Existing snag numbers are found to be very low due to stand age and site-specific observations. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon, 2006, is a compilation of the best available science on large woody material. Thinning treatment being proposed in these stands (65 to 90 years old) are currently lacking snags of sufficient size (14 inch DBH and above). Any snags felled for safety during logging operations or fire concerns would be left on site. Snags and down large coarse wood would be retained to support forest function. Under the Action Alternatives, currently existing down logs are to be retained and are considered excess only when all site considerations have been met and in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (see EA Appendix D - Terrestrial Wildlife Reports, for more detail).


Throughout all treatment units located in matrix lands, snags 10 inches diameter or greater may be considered a fuel or safety hazard. If felling is necessary, leave snags on site above 10” diameter on the large end. Below 10” diameter, fuels may be hand piled. Site specific treatments such as hand piling and burning would depend on specific fuel loading and wildlife recommendations. Prescriptions would account for future large woody material recruitment, i.e., desired leave tree numbers would be increased.

f. Project Design Criteria for Activity-Generated Fuels Treatment Proposed stand density management activities would create fuels that could increase both the risk of wildland fire ignition and potential fire intensities throughout the treatment areas. Activity fuels are all fuels created by or modified by the proposed activities. It would not be economical to treat all activity fuels from planned management activities. Project design should provide buffer zones that would reduce expected fire behavior and spread to a level that would lend itself to successful initial attack by firefighting resources. Buffer zones would be created along any roadway left open to public use after management activities are completed. Buffer zone dimensions would be approximately 100-foot wide strips along areas of concern and would incorporate one or more, or combination of several of the following activity methods described below. The actual method selected to treat activity fuels will be site specific and determined after final layout and design of units.

No treatment: This method would be appropriate for sites where fuel loadings fall well below S & G recommended maximums. When residual fuels exceed the guidelines, not treating the fuels may be appropriate in areas of low risk where risks may be assumed for a period, until the hazard has been reduced by natural processes. Hand piling fuels concentrations: This method would be effective in breaking up fuel continuity thereby reducing fire spread rates. Hand piling, followed by burning of the piles, can remove most fuels from a site. Hand piling is most effective in continuous moderate fuel loadings (25 to 50 tons per acre), and is less effective in scattered light fuels. This method may also be employed in areas where no other disposal methods are prescribed, or in conjunction with non-burning types of treatments, but where the risks may warrant some sort of hazard reduction; such as along a Road 1703. On the commercially thinned units, logging slash within 100 feet of all roads that would remain open after harvest would be hand piled and burned. Yarding of tops: This method would be effective in removing concentrations of the 0 to 3-inch size class fuels. In treatment areas using ground-based or skyline yarding, all tops of commercial trees would be left attached to a commercial log while yarding (Leave Tops Attached – LTA). The tops would be piled and disposed at landing locations. LTA would be waived wherever pre-bunching operations are used. Pre-bunching operations would remove limbs and buck unmerchantable tops. As the harvester travels over this material, the debris would be compressed; thereby, reducing potential fuel loads to acceptable levels. Piling and Burning Landing Slash: This method would be effective in disposing of all remaining un-merchantable vegetation on log landings (piling and burning).


3. ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION This alternative is the Proposed Action (Table II-1 and Figure II-1). This alternative is designed to meet the Purpose and Need for the project and area. As developed, this alternative considers one way of addressing the Purpose and Need while meeting all Forest Standards and Guidelines; and Federal, State, and local laws, rules and regulations. The Proposed Action would commercially thin dense, over-stocked natural stands within lands allocated as matrix while allowing Riparian Reserve areas to continue undisturbed. This alternative would create the maximum potential effects in regard to the Relevant Issues. Timber Harvest Activities: Approximately 4.67 million board feet of timber (mmbf) would be harvested from commercially thinning approximately 13 treatment units totaling approximately 311 acres. Harvest activities would use a combination of helicopter, skyline, and ground-based logging systems. These figures are estimates based on observations made during field review.

Helicopter – 83 acres and 1.19 mmbf Skyline – 213 acres and 3.18 mmbf Tractor – 15 acres and 0.30 mmbf

Roading Activities: Ten temporary road segments totaling approximately 9,410 feet (1.8 miles) would be constructed.

Temporary roads would be decommissioned following harvest operations. No permanent roads are proposed to be constructed.

Existing roads would be brought up to specifications to facilitate log hauling through normal road maintenance activities. This work would consist of roadside brushing, road blading, and culvert/ditch clean-out. There are several road locations where surface rock would be replaced.

Road 1703100 (M.P. 1.3, 2.77 and 2.84) Culvert Replacement - Road condition surveys found a need to replace cross drain culverts that have reached the end of their service life and have significant signs of deterioration.

Road 1703100 (M.P. 3.06) Culvert Replacement – Road condition surveys found a need to replace a 12” culvert in an intermittent stream that has reached the end of its service life and has significant signs of deterioration with an 18” culvert to improve drainage capacities.

Road 1703190 (M.P. 0.58 and 0.62) Culvert Replacement – Road condition surveys found a need to replace cross drain culverts that have reached the end of their service life and have significant signs of deterioration.

Fuel Reduction Activities: During tractor and skyline yarding activities tops of trees removed would be yarded and piled on

landings. Following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be

piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road. Following timber harvest, all landing piles of slash would be burned.

Machine pile and burn landing piles – 6.7 acres Leave tops attached while yarding to the landing – 228.0 acres Hand pile and burn slash concentrations – 18.3 acres


Table II-2. Pyramid Thin Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Summary

Unit # Total Acres

Harvest Volume (MBF)

Mngt. Area

Harvest Method Harvest

System and Acres

Harvest System Volume

Fuel Treatment

Road Construction / Landing Construction

1 2 40 Matrix Commercial Thin Skyline - 2 Skyline - 40 LP-0.2 ac

LTA-2.0 ac HP-1.0 ac

0 Temp Rd S (2-Roadside)




3 123 1,741 Matrix Commercial Thin Tractor – 10 Skyline - 113

Tractor – 199 Skyline – 1,542

LP-2.4 ac LTA-123.0 ac

HP-1.3 ac

3 Temp Rds – 5,015’ T (1-Roadside)

S (26-Roadside) S (3-Full Construction)




6 17 232 Matrix Commercial Thin Heli - 17 Heli - 232 LP-0.7 ac

0 Temp Rd H (LL6-Full Constr or LL9-

Partial Constr)

7 12 238 Matrix Commercial Thin Skyline - 12 Skyline - 238

LP-0.5 ac

LTA-12.0 ac

1 Temp Rd – 410’ S (2-Roadside)

S (1-Full Construction)

8 27 370 Matrix Commercial Thin Heli - 27 Heli - 370 0 Temp Rd H (LL6 or LL9)



11A 2 40 Matrix Commercial Thin Skyline - 2 Skyline - 40 LP-0.1 ac



11 46 734 Matrix Commercial Thin Skyline - 23 Heli - 23

Skyline - 367 Heli - 367

LP-0.9 ac LTA-23.0 ac HP-2.8 ac

3 Temp Rd – 1,200’ S (2-Roadside)

S (2-Full Construction) H (LL11-Partial Constr)

12 5 100 Matrix Commercial Thin Tractor - 5 Tractor - 100 LP-0.2 ac

LTA-5.0 ac

0 Temp Rd T (2-Roadside)



3 Temp Rds -2,785’ S (15-Roadside)


13 Units 311 Acres 4,670 MBF

Tractor – 15 Skyline – 213

Heli - 83

Tractor – 299 Skyline– 3,183

Heli – 1,188

LP-6.7 ac LTA-228.0 ac HP-18.3 ac

10 Temp Roads – 9,410’ T/S – 54 Roadside

T/S – 8 Full Construction Heli – 3

(2 Partial, 1 Full Constr)

MBF volume – one thousand board feet Fuel treatments: LP (Pile and Burn Landing Piles; LTA (Leave tops attached yarding to landing; HP (Hand pile and burn slash concentrations 100’ along roads) Road Construction/Landing Construction – Roadside implies very minimal disturbance (i.e. 1/16 ac); S full = ¼ ac; H partial = ¼ ac; H full = ½ ac. T = Tractor; S = Skyline; H = Helicopter: SL = Helicopter Service Landing; LL = Helicopter Log Landing

Figure II-1. Pyramid Thin Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Unit Map

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Nor

th F

ork

Pis

tol R

iver

Big South Fork Hunter Creek

T 37.0 S - R 13.0 WT 37.0 S - R 14.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 14.0 W

3

13

8

11

6

9

7

5

12

12

11a

10

32

29

2019

30

3133

25

36

24

28

21

06 05

1718

01

13

04

16

1703000

3680000

17031

50

1503

030

1703190

1703110

1703120

1503035

1703100

1703156

1503039

1503

03

7

368

015

0

1703140

Pyramid Units 2008

Temporary Roads

!( Heli Landings

Roads

Streams

/0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

LL-6

SL-3

LL-9

LL-11

SL-11



4. ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3 (Table II-3 and Figure II-2) is a modification of the Proposed Action. This alternative is designed to reduce impacts in regard to Relevant Issues that are associated with soil disturbance, soil productivity and a currently unroaded area while continuing to address the Purpose and Need. Under this alternative, potential impacts to the Relevant Issues would be reduced to a level considered less than that of the Proposed Action. As developed, this alternative would address a change in impacts to Relevant Issues by:

Removing temporary road construction in Treatment Unit 3 (5,015’). Removing the temporary road would change harvest methods in Treatment Unit 3. The tractor portion would not change as the area remains accessible from an existing road. The skyline portion would change to helicopter.

Removing temporary road construction in Treatment Unit 13 (2,785’). Removing the temporary road would change harvest methods in Treatment Unit 13. Only those areas of skyline that may be reached from an existing road would not change. The remainder of the skyline portion would be changed to helicopter.

Timber Harvest Activities: Approximately 4.67million board feet of timber (mmbf) would be harvested from commercially thinning approximately 13 treatment units totaling 311 acres. Harvest activities would use a combination of helicopter, skyline, and ground-based logging systems. These figures are estimates based on observations made during field review.


Roading Activities: Four temporary roads totaling approximately 1,610 feet (0.3 mile) would be constructed.

Temporary roads would be decommissioned following harvest operations. No permanent roads are proposed to be constructed.






landings. Following timber harvest, logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be piled by hand and

burned up to 100 feet from the road. Following timber harvest, all landing piles of slash would be burned.



Table II-3. Pyramid Thin Alternative 3 Summary

Unit # Total Acres


Mngt. Area


System and Acres


Fuel Treatment








3 123 1,741 Matrix Commercial Thin Tractor – 10 Heli - 113

Tractor – 199 Heli – 1,542



H (LL3-Full Constr or LL6-Full Constr)




6 17 232 Matrix Commercial Thin Heli - 17 Heli - 232 LP-0.2 ac 0 Temp Rd H (LL6 or LL9-Partial Constr)

7 12 238 Matrix Commercial Thin Skyline - 12 Skyline - 238

LP-0.5 ac

LTA-12.0 ac

1 Temp Rd – 410’ S (2-Roadside)











3 Temp Rd – 1,200’ S (2-Roadside)

S (2-Full Construction) H (LL11-Partial Constr)

12 5 100 Matrix Commercial Thin Tractor - 5 Tractor - 100 LP-0.2 ac

LTA-5.0 ac


13 55 836 Matrix Commercial Thin Skyline – 10 Heli - 45

Skyline – 152 Heli - 684



H (LL13-Full Construction)



Heli - 241

Tractor – 299 Skyline– 957 Heli – 3,414


4 Temp Roads – 1,610 T/S – 20 Roadside

T/S – 3 Full construction Heli – 5



Figure II-2. Pyramid Thin Alternative 3 Unit Map

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Nor

th F

ork

Pis

t ol R

ive

r


T 37.0 S - R 13.0 WT 37.0 S - R 14.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 14.0 W

3

13

8

11

6

9

7

5

12

12

11a

10

32

29

2019

30

3133

28

21

25

36

24

06 05

1718

0104

1613

1703000

3680000

170

315

0

1503

030

1703190

1703110

1703120

1503035

1703100

1703156

1503039

150

303

7

1703140

1703102

Pyramid Units 2008

Temporary Roads

!( Heli Landings

Roads

Streams

/0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

LL-6

SL-3

LL-9

LL-11

SL-11

LL-3

SL-13

LL-13



5. ALTERNATIVE 4 Alternative 4 (Table II-4 and Figure II-3) is a modification of the Proposed Action. This alternative is designed to reduce impacts in regard to Relevant Issues associated with soil disturbance, soil productivity and a currently unroaded area while continuing to address the Purpose and Need. Under this alternative, potential impacts to the Relevant Issues would be reduced to a level considered less than that of the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. As developed, this alternative would address a change in impacts to Relevant Issues by: Removing all of Treatment Units 1, 2, 3, and 5. Removing temporary road construction in Treatment Unit 7 (410’). Removing the temporary road

would change harvest methods in Treatment Unit 7. Only those areas of skyline that may be reached from an existing road would not change. The remainder of the skyline portion would be changed to helicopter.

Removing temporary road construction in Treatment Unit 11 (1,200’). Removing the temporary road would change harvest methods in Treatment Unit 11. Only those areas of skyline that may be reached from an existing road would not change. The remainder of the skyline portion would be changed to helicopter.

Removing temporary road construction in Treatment Unit 13 (2,421’). Removing the temporary road would change harvest methods in Treatment Unit 13. Only the skyline portions that may be reached from an existing road would not change. The remainder of the skyline portion would be changed to helicopter.

Timber Harvest Activities: Approximately 2.77 million board feet (mmbf) of timber would be harvested from commercially thinning approximately 9 treatment units totaling 180 acres. Harvest activities would use a combination of helicopter, skyline, and ground-based logging systems. These figures are estimates based on observations made during field review.


Roading Activities:

No temporary roads would are proposed to be constructed. No permanent roads are proposed to be constructed.







landings. Following timber harvest, logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be piled by hand and

burned up to 100 feet from the road. Following timber harvest, all landing piles of slash would be burned.


Table II-4. Pyramid Thin Alternative 4 Summary

Unit # Total Acres


Mngt. Area


System and Acres


Fuel Treatment


6 17 232 Matrix Commercial Thin Heli - 17 Heli - 232 LP-0.7 ac 0 Temp Rd

H (LL6 Full Constr or LL9-Partial Constr)


Skyline – 119 Heli-119

LP-0.2 ac

LTA-6.0 ac

0 Temp Rd S (2-Roadside) H (LL6 or LL9)










0 Temp Rds S (2-Roadside)

H (LL11-Partial Constr)

12 5 100 Matrix Commercial Thin Tractor - 5 Tractor - 100 LP-0.5 ac 0 Temp Rd T (2-Roadside)


Skyline – 152 Heli - 684



H (LL13-Full Construction)



Heli - 140

Tractor – 100 Skyline– 582 Heli – 2,087


0 Temp Road T/S – 14 Roadside

T/S – 0 Full construction Heli – 4



Figure II-3. Pyramid Thin Alternative 4 Unit Map

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Nor

th F

ork

Pis

t ol R

ive

r


T 37.0 S - R 13.0 WT 37.0 S - R 14.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 14.0 W

13

8

11

6

9

7

12

11a

10

32

29

2019

30

3133

28

21

25

36

24

06 05

1718

0104

1613

1703000

3680000

1703

150

1503

030

1703190

1703110

1703120

1503035

1703100

1703156

1503039

150

30

37

1703140

1703102

Pyramid Units 2008

!( Heli Landings

Roads

Streams

/0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

LL-6

SL-3

LL-9

LL-11

SL-11

SL-13

LL-13



6. MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA to identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project or reduce adverse environmental effects. Mitigation, as defined in the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20), includes:

Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life

of the action. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment.

Action Alternatives propose commercial tree harvest and removal that would be accomplished by private contractors. Contracts for commercial harvest operations would require mitigation measures to be incorporated as contract requirements. The Forest Service has long-standing experience in applying mitigation measures under traditional timber sale contracts, and therefore, contract language that could be applied to contracts is included. Forest Service contract administrators are responsible for enforcing the implementation of contract provisions. Proposed design criteria, mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects (or implement positive effects) for the Action Alternatives are identified by resource topic area. These measures are specific to implementation of actions considered within this EA. Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan are incorporated by reference as required measures. The effectiveness and feasibility of the following measures are assessed based upon the following rating system. These ratings are applied to all mitigation measures. Each measure identifies the code for effectiveness and feasibility at the end of the statement or paragraph. Ratings were determined by professional resource specialists, based on current scientific research and/or professional experience or judgment.

EFFECTIVENESS (E)

E1 Unknown or experimental; logic or practice estimated to be less than 75% effective; little or no experience in applying this measure.

E2 Practice is moderately effective (75 to 90%). Often done in this situation; usually reduces impacts; logic indicates practice is highly effective but there is minimal literature or research.

E3 Practice is highly effective (greater than 90%). Almost always reduces impacts, almost always done in this situation; literature and research can be applied.

FEASIBILITY (F)

F1 Unknown or experimental; little or no experience in applying this measure; less than 75% certainty for implementation. May be technically difficult or very costly. May be legally or socially difficult.

F2 Technically probable; greater than 75% certainty for implementation as planned; costs moderate to high in comparison to other options. Legally or socially acceptable with reservations.

F3 Almost certain to be implemented as planned; technically easy; costs low in comparison to other options. Legally or socially expected.

The following discussion by specific resource areas, provide additional mitigation and further explanation of the methodology, effectiveness, and feasibility of the mitigation measures.


a. Soils The following are specific mitigation measures for protection of soils. Mitigation measures designed for the protection of soils and site productivity (as well as water quality) are generally referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and are described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. Where applicable, the associated BMP reference number is listed behind the recommended mitigation measure.

1. On tractor operations, skid roads shall be approved by the Forest Service prior to felling operations (BMP T-11). Location of all skid roads shall be no closer than 150 feet apart. Lining operations will be accomplished by yarding material to lead, or at a 30-45 degree angle towards skid roads wherever possible. Suspension of logs is not required during lining operations. E3/F3

2. Operating vehicles and harvest equipment on moist soils will cause compaction to be more severe and at greater depths in the soil. The use of vehicles and equipment shall be limited to dry soils to minimize compaction. E3/F3

3. On skyline operations, location of all skyline corridors shall be approved by the Forest Service prior to felling operations. Parallel corridors will be at least 150 to 200 feet apart. Fan-shaped corridors will have either landings or external yarding limits at least 150 to 200 feet apart, depending on configuration. All skyline logging will be done with equipment capable of suspending one end of the log. Up to 75 feet lateral yarding will be accomplished by yarding material to lead, or at a 30-45 degree angle towards skyline corridors wherever possible (BMP T-12). E3/F3

4. Complete maintenance and erosion control on landings, disturbed cable corridors, skid roads, temporary and permanent roads prior to the onset of extended periods of wet weather and following the completion of operations (BMPs T-13 & R-18). E3/F3

5. The use of harvesters to mechanically pre-bunch logs for skyline and helicopter yarding operations will be limited to slopes that are considered stable and less than 35%. Mechanical harvesters will not be allowed within riparian area no-cut buffers. No access roads will be constructed. Access to treatment units would be a harvester traveling from the nearest roaded access point, over land and to the unit where pre-bunching would occur. Approval of pre-bunching will be limited to site-specific requests by the purchaser. Resultant soil conditions will not to exceed 15% detrimental soil conditions within the activity area. For this purpose, 170 acres of potential pre-bunching will be considered as a threshold for the maximum number of acres permitted for pre-bunching. E3/F3

b. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measures designed for the protection of soils, site productivity, and water quality are generally referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988.

6. While the terminology in the BMPs is dated (for example Streamside Management Unit now falls under Riparian Reserve), they are still considered effective under today’s management direction. E3/F3

Specific BMPs to be implemented under proposed actions (particularly timber sales) include:

TIMBER MANAGEMENT (T)

T-1 Timber Sale Planning Process T-2 Timber Harvest Unit Design T-4 Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection Needs T-5 Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale Activities T-7 Streamside Management Unit Designation T-8 Streamcourse Protection T-9 Determining Tractor Loggable Ground T-10 Log Landing Location


T-11 Tractor Skid Trail Location and Design T-12 Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting T-13 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber Sale Operations T-14 Revegetation of Areas Disturbed by Harvest Activities T-15 Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control T-16 Erosion Control on Skid Trails T-17 Meadow Protection During Timber Harvesting T-18 Erosion Control Structure Maintenance T-19 Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures Before Sale Closure T-20 Reforestation T-21 Servicing and Refueling Equipment T-22 Modification of the Timber Sale Contract

ROAD SYSTEMS (R)

R-1 General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads R-2 Erosion Control Plan R-3 Timing of Construction Activities R-4 Road Slope Stabilization (Planning) R-5 Road Slope and Waste Area Stabilization (Preventive) R-6 Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage Associated with Roads R-7 Control of Surface Road Drainage Associated with Roads R-8 Constraints Related to Pioneer Road Construction R-9 Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing Projects R-10 Construction of Stable Embankments (Fills) R-15 Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris R-18 Maintenance of Roads R-19 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials R-20 Traffic Control During Wet Periods R-23 Obliteration of Temporary Roads and Landings

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT (W) W-3 Protection of Wetlands W-4 Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan W-5 Cumulative Watershed Effects W-7 Water Quality Monitoring

VEGETATIVE MANUPILATION (VM) VM-1 Slope Limitations for Tractor Operation VM-4 Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operation

c. Native Grass and Weed Management

7. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, clean heavy equipment of soil and potential noxious weed seeds before entering National Forest Systems lands. E3/F3

8. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, avoid parking equipment on existing populations of noxious weeds. E3/F2

9. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, do not operate machinery through noxious weed populations. E3/F2

10. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, any seed used will be certified weed-free prior to application. E3/F2

11. Prior to the sale, areas to be avoided will be flagged by the botanist, or other qualified person. E3/F3

12. Best Management Practices recommended in the February 17, 2002, Best Management Practices–Interim Direction for the Prevention and Management of Noxious Weeds, Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease, and Sudden Oak Death for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, are to be incorporated into this project. E2/F2

d. Threatened and Sensitive Fauna Management

Marbled murrelet:

13. To protect marbled murrelets from disturbance; the following Project Design Criteria (PDC) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence (LOC_TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044) dated March 19, 2009 (USDI, 2009) will be applied to proposed activities (Tables II-5 and 6). E3/F3

Table II-5. Project Design Criteria and affected harvest units for the Pyramid Thin Project Activity Zone of Restricted Operation Harvest Unit

Blast of > 2 pounds of explosive 1 mile N/A Blast of <= 2 pounds of explosive 120 yards N/A Impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill 120 yards N/A Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13 Helicopter or single-engine airplane 0.25 miles for Type 1 or 2 helicopters 9, 11, 11a & 13, Chainsaws (hazard trees, tree harvest, etc.) 120 yards Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13 Heavy equipment 120 yards Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13

Table II-6. Project Design Criteria for the protection of marbled murrelet.

Disturbance

For Survey Areas A and B work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road and other construction activities, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, muffled blasting) which produce noises above ambient levels will not occur within specified distances (see Table 2) of any occupied stand or unsurveyed suitable habitat between April 1 – August 5. For the period between August 6 – September 15, work activities will be confined to between 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset.

Disturbance

Blasting (open air/unmuffled) – No blasting activities 1 April through 15 September within 1.0 mile of occupied stands or unsurveyed suitable habitat. This distance may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and nest sites or less than 2 lbs of explosives are used If so, then use described distance.

Disturbance Recommended Delay project implementation until after September 15 where possible

Disturbance Recommended Between 1 April and 15 September, concentrate disturbance activities spatially and temporally as much as possible (e.g., get in and get out, in as small an area as possible; avoid spreading the impacts over time and space).

14. Helicopter operations. During helicopter operations, flights over suitable marbled murrelet habitat will be restricted (helicopter should be a least 1,500 feet above ground level); if not possible, fly a minimum of 500 feet above suitable habitat (above canopy). E3/F3

15. Trash removal. Clean up trash and garbage daily at all construction and logging sites. Keep food out of sight so as not to attract crows and ravens (predators on eggs or young murrelets). E3/F3

16. Fuels treatment. E3/F3 (I) Burning would not take place within 0.25 mile of known occupied marbled murrelet sites,

or unsurveyed marbled murrelet habitat between April 1 and August 6 unless smoke will not drift into the occupied site.

(II) All broadcast and under-burning operations (except for residual “smokes”) will be completed in the period from two hours after sunrise to two hours before sunset.



Northern spotted owl: 17. To minimize disturbance to northern spotted owls the following Project Design Criteria (PDC)

from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence (LOC) on Informal Consultation on Vegetation Management Activities proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (FWS TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044), March 2009 and noted in Tables II-7 and 8. E3/F3

Table II-7. Project Design Criteria and affected harvest units for the Pyramid Thin Project Activity Zone of Restricted Operation Harvest Unit

Blast of > 2 pounds of explosive 1 mile N/A Blast of <= 2 pounds of explosive 120 yards N/A Impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill 60 yards N/A Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters none Helicopter Type 1 or 2 0.25 miles for Type 1 or 2 helicopters Adjacent to unit 7

(NSO activity center #375)

Chainsaws (hazard trees, tree harvest, etc.) 65 yards none Heavy equipment 35 yards none

Table II-8. Project Design Criteria for the protection of northern spotted owl. Any of the following Mandatory PDCs may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys conducted according to the Service-endorsed survey guidelines reveal that spotted owls are non-nesting or that no young are present that year. Waivers are valid only until March 1 of the following year. Previously known sites/activity centers are assumed occupied unless protocol surveys indicate otherwise.

Disturbance

1) Work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road construction, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, prescribed fire, muffled blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels, or produce thick smoke that would enter the stand, will not occur within specified distances (see Table above) of any nest site or activity center of known pairs and resident singles between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) – unless protocol surveys have determined the activity center to be not occupied, non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt. The restricted zone is 1.0 mile for any unmuffled blasting. This distance may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and nest sites. March 1 – June 30 is considered the critical early nesting period; the action agency biologist has the option to extend the restricted season during the year of harvest, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or recycle nesting attempt). The boundary of the prescribed area may be modified by the action agency biologist using topographic features or other site-specific information. The restricted area is calculated as a radius from the assumed nest site (point).

Disturbance 2)Broadcast burning will not take place within 0.25 mile of known active northern spotted owl nests between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) unless smoke will not drift into the nest stand.

Disturbance

3) If an active spotted owl nest or activity center is located within or adjacent to a project area, delay the project activity until September 30th or until an action agency biologist determines that young are not present. For a given situation, the “adjacent” distance is determined by the action agency biologist. If any project activity is so close to a known or suspected owl site that the disturbance would flush a nesting spotted owl, curtail the project activity until September 30. The field biologist has the discretion to conduct surveys and determine fledging activity.

18. Fuels treatment. Broadcast burning will not take place within 0.25 mile of known active northern spotted owl nests between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) unless smoke will not drift into the nest stand. E3/F3

Green tree, snag and coarse woody debris habitat: 19. Within harvest units, leave up to 4 dominant / co-dominant trees per acre which contain nests,

wildlife cavities, structural deformities, and or damage likely to lead to snag formation in conformance with the marking guidelines. E3/F3

20. To the extent compatible with safety provisions, retain all snags with tree diameter >=10”. The intent is to maintain an average of 2.5-4 snags per acre representative of the dominant and co-dominant tree class. E3/F3


21. Retain on site, all down-woody debris with tree diameter >=10”to improve coarse woody material. E3/F3

e. Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease

22. Require washing of all equipment associated with product removal before entering the Project Area. E3/F3

23. Limit activities to dry season operations on Treatment Units 3, 3A, 7, and 11A. All mentioned units would use dry season restriction from June 1 to September 30 and other seasonal resource restrictions if required (i.e. wildlife, fisheries). Operations would cease during significant rain events that happen during the dry season restriction dates but would be allowed to operate outside this period during unseasonably dry weather. Dry season restrictions would remain in effect on roads 1703110, 1703150, and 1703190 behind Port-Orford-cedar gate closures and native surface roads within unit 3, 3A and 7. Dry season is preferred in helicopter yarding operations within units 6, 8, 9, and 10 but could occur as long as additional mitigation measures identified in the POC Disease Control Strategy (EA, Appendix G) are enforced. E3/F3

f. Air Quality

24. For the protection Class I visibility values and air quality within Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRAs), any burning planned to occur would require development of a Burn Plan. Among various factors taken into account; detailing prevailing wind direction, timing and coordination with other agencies would ensure that any burning would occur during conditions where smoke would not degrade air quality within the Grants Pass area (the nearest SSRA), or visibility in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area within the visibility protection period July 1 to September 15 (Oregon Dept. of Forestry, Smoke Management Plan, 2008; 629-048-0130; Visibility Objectives). Slash disposal managers will consult with Smoke Management agencies to determine what proper atmospheric conditions are best to assure that impacts to the Class I area are avoided. Burning under conditions where transport winds are from the North to East to Southwest quadrants will be favorable to such avoidance. E3/F3

g. Recreation

25. Utilize partial area closures during commercial tree removal and/or burning operations to minimize the potential for accidental injury to recreationists during operations. Utilize signing, press releases, and recreation opportunity guides to redirect recreation activities to safe use areas during project operations (recreation). Contractors will be required to set up project operation warning signs. E3/F3

26. All project activities (Forest Service and contract) will comply with State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) codes. All Forest Service project operations will be guided by FS Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code Handbook). E3/F3

7. MONITORING ACTIVITIES Implementation and effectiveness monitoring conducted in association with authorized management activities provide an opportunity for adapting management techniques as needed to better meet the intent of the selected alternative as planned and approved. This section identifies monitoring activities that may apply to the Action Alternatives. The activities may or may not occur depending on appropriate funding.


a. Implementation Monitoring Monitoring by the District Silviculturist begins prior to sale layout by verifying that a stand level prescription would meet the objectives. The District Silviculturist shall work directly (much as possible) with the layout crews during sale preparation. Monitoring prescription layout provides an adaptive management opportunity to modify a prescription based on site-specific evidence. When possible make two or three on site inspections with sale administration during logging operations.

b. Effectiveness Monitoring To evaluate whether prescriptions actually did what was planned, a sampling of each stand representative of prescription type would be conducted after logging is completed. This sampling would be a combination of collecting and evaluating qualitative and quantitative information. Plot information would be taken at post-harvest only in year 1 for this project. Plot information collected should include species composition and distribution, tree diameters, crown closure, wildlife tree retention a verbal description of such stand characteristics as layer development. Other monitoring should include the review of stands for wind damage and the re-evaluation of stand density in year 2010.

8. OTHER PROJECTS With implementation of the Pyramid Thin Project, there may be an opportunity to improve various forest resources in proximity to the proposed treatment activities. Implementation of these projects is contingent on funding and may or may not occur. They may be financed through collections generated via the Pyramid Thin Project (i.e., Knutson-Vandenberg funds), or through Forest Service appropriated resource and restoration funding, or stewardship contract agreements. These actions would occur in proximity to stand treatments; they would not be authorized as landscape scale enhancement opportunities. There may also be opportunities for public learning and interpretation of actions associated with this project. These other projects (or activities) that may be associated with the Action Alternatives are described below. Potential resource impacts from these activities are considered during the environmental analysis process.

Noxious weed treatment – Conduct surveys in the sale area and mechanical removal of any weeds found in the sale area for 5 years after harvest is completed.

Snag Creation within treatment units – Whenever possible, creation of snags over 20” DBH should be implemented. Dependent on need, create a minimum of 2.5 snags per acre that are at least 20” DBH within all treatment units after harvest by girdling and/or topping.

Reforestation – If needed, inter-plant potential disease resistant Port-Orford cedar or sugar pine in areas considered poorly stocked.

Danger Trees – Fall trees considered hazardous to the public along open roads and treatment units by falling danger trees. No old or large residual trees remaining from within the treatment units would be cut, except for danger trees. If old or large trees were felled as danger trees, they would not be authorized for removal under this decision. Additional separate environmental analysis and decision will be conducted prior to any removal of this material.

POC Sanitation – Cut all Port-Orford-cedar <7” diameter along haul routes. Additional Hand Piling along Rd 1703 – Currently, the Action Alternatives plan to hand pile and

burn slash within 100 feet of Road 1703. There may be an opportunity to hand pile and burn an additional 100 feet along Road 1703 to improve the Fuel Management Zone as described in the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project ROD (July 2004).


C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYIS

NEPA requires that Federal agencies explore all reasonable alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were explored but not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14 (a)). The following alternatives or actions within alternatives have been eliminated from detailed study for the reasons stated and/or because they did not meet the Purpose and Need for this project. The need to analyze different thinning treatment activities such as a uniform and variable thinning and to disclose such effects. The concern for variable density thinning (VDT) was considered as a possible action alternative. The current prescription and tree-marking guidelines would adjust leave-tree spacing based on tree diameters. As leave-tree size increases, the spacing to the next leave tree would increase proportionally; thereby, promoting a more diverse leave-tree spacing as compared to a uniform thinning. In addition, minor tree species would have a higher priority to retain as compared to Douglas-fir. Implementing VDT would include a combination of creating: gaps (openings); light, medium and heavy thinning, retaining other minor species; as well a no treatment. The deliberate use of VDT would be more appropriate if the Purpose and Need was to promote late-seral habitat (i.e. Late-Successional Reserves); whereas, this project is within matrix lands. The treatments prescribed under the Pyramid Thin Project would create stand densities and forest conditions which would be consistent with forest plan standards and guidelines. The need to analyze other thinning prescriptions was dropped from further consideration. The need to analyze the removal of ALL ground-based yarding (tractor) and to disclose such effects. This alternative was reviewed as a way to disclose a reasonable range of effects to soils. Preliminary analysis found that soil disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action would fall within Standards and Guidelines. Tractor yarding is such a small part of the project that any other alternative would disclose negligible consequences as compared to the No-Action (0 acres), Proposed Action (15 acres), Alternative 3 (15 acres) and Alternative 4 (5 acres). This alternative action was dropped from further consideration. The need to analyze the removal of PORTIONS of Treatment Units 1, 2, 3, or 5 and to disclose such effects. This alternative was reviewed as a way to disclose a reasonable range of effects to a semi-primitive unroaded area. Treatment Units 1, 2, and 5 are relatively small and positioned beside an existing road. Removing portions of these units would not leave enough of the candidate stand to warrant entry and treatment. Though Treatment Unit 3 is relatively large (123 acres), removing a portion of Unit 3 would not be considered a reasonable alternative. Stand conditions throughout this particular unit are considered uniform. To modify treatment boundaries for this particular unit would not meet the silvicultural desired future conditions for this treatment area. The No-Action, Proposed Action, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would disclose a reasonable range of potential environmental consequences to the unroaded characteristics. This alternative action was dropped from further consideration. The need to analyze vegetation treatment within Riparian Reserves and to disclose effects. This alternative was reviewed as a way to meet the Purpose and Need for the Pyramid Thin Project. Riparian Reserves were inspected by aquatic field technicians and it was determined that there would be approximately 8-10 acres of Riparian Reserves within or adjacent to all treatment units. Though vegetative conditions within the Riparian Reserves could be available for density management, reducing stand densities would not be necessary to maintain or would not be expected to measurably contribute to improved riparian conditions. The Responsible Official determined that such action to treat a relatively small portion of the candidate stands was not necessary to attain the Purpose and Need of the project. Riparian Reserves would be left to naturally develop over time. This alternative action was dropped from further consideration.


The agency should consider treating some areas non-commercially (i.e. thin lightly, create lots of snags, and leave the material on site): Such a non-commercial activity would not meet the intent of the Purpose and Need of this project and is considered outside the scope of this proposal. This alternative action was dropped from further consideration. Alternatives need to be considered that include larger buffers for red tree voles (100 acres or larger per science) and smaller buffers (10 acres per the RTV Management Recommendations). The development of the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives were based on established management direction. At this time, including large buffers for red tree voles is outside of established direction and protocols. This alternative action was dropped from further consideration.

D. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Tables II-8 and 9 provide information for comparing and summarizing the alternatives analyzed in detail. Indicators were developed by the interdisciplinary team. The numbers in this table represent a brief summation of the effects that are detailed in Chapter III of this document.

Table II-8. Comparative Summary of Alternatives – GENERAL INFORMATION Information/Activity Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4

# of Units 0 13 13 9 Acres 0 311 acres 311 acres 180 acres

Volume 0 4,670 mbf 4,670 mbf 2,769 mbf Helicopter 0 83 acres 241 acres 140 acres

Skyline 0 213 acres 55 acres 35 acres Tractor 0 15 acres 15 acres 5 acres

Pre-Bunching Skyline Option 0 120 acres 15 acres 6 acres Pre-Bunching Helicopter Option 0 50 acres 155 acres 56 acres

Total Pre-Bunching 0 170 acres 170 acres 72 acres Number of Temp Roads to be

constructed 0 10 4 0

Constr Temp Roads 0 1.8 miles 0.3 mile 0 Constr Heli Landings 0 3 5 4

Machine pile and burn landing slash

0 6.7 acres 4.4 acres 2.6 acres

Leave tops attached during yarding operations


Hand pile and burn slash concentrations


Attainment of Purpose and Need

No thinning to promote diversity of stand structure and

composition.

Thin 311 acres to enhance stand structure and composition.



-- - --- -- -----

-- - --

-----

I

Table 11·9, Comparative Summary of Alternatives -ISSUE INDICATORS

• ISSUE INDICA TOR Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4

Miles/acres of o mile~ 1.8 l1lile, OJ miles Olllib •IlevV temporary () alTl'-'" '-\.()2 acres o.).? alTC~ () acres

road construction

"cres of tractor. Approx. -' tractor, 67 Approx . .1tract()r. 211 Approx. :2 tractor. 19 ,kv line and ,kyline and .I sky line and 'i skyline and 4o landingsklicoptcr helil'opter landings hclic()ptcr landings ilL Iicopter landings

() acresL.LlHlings correlate to ahout 7.4 correlate tl) ahout 47 eorrdate to ahout :2.~

alTes soil disturbance acres soil disturhanl'l~ acrcs soil disturhancc

\lTes of detri mcntal disturhance predicted fn)ll\ oaeres 14 acres 13 acres x.) acre, tractor. skyline and hel icopter harvest

Percent of lreatnlcnt area IInpaeted hy o percent 7.9 pcrcent :S.9 pcrn~1l1 6.3 perecnt

Soils Hydrology

detrimental

f- ii stllrhanee ALTCS of dl't ri lllental dis t LIl'hance prL'd i l'ted from () dl'J"CS 22.S acres 22J1 dlTl~"" I() acres typical harvest eomhined with

~hunching __ ----------_.- ---------- - -- - ------ ----- - .

Percent of treatmellt area impactcd hy detri mcntal

() percent I !l.h Pl'l\'cnt 8,9 percent 7.1 perccntdisturhancc with t}pical han cst c()1l1hined with

l'r,'-hunching

111.1 I d ) Listed Slre~1 rlls

No Change :\0 Change No Changl' No ChangeWater Pistol River

Quality Hunter Creek

AflcL'ted Riparian No ('hang:c No Effect ;-.,,, Hlcct No Elleet

RC;-'l'rves

1:.& F:..';j1ccies No Change NLAA~MA~U/NS(~ ~LAA-MAMU/NSO _ NLAAMAMU/NSO

Sensitive No Change l-_l\IIllH . Foul:..?pecie-,- Mil H - Four S[lecies _1\'1IIH__:....Four S[1l:cie,--Wildlife ~IS~cies _

--- - No Change . __.- t-- M - Three---,"pecics_ r--M _ Three S[lccics ..M.. Jhrec ~ccic:-,--__ Other Rare No Change M - Three Species r- M- Three S[lecies _ M - Three Species ..

I-NTMK -- -

No Change Long term Kendit Long term Benelit Lon~ term Henefi t

Temp Rd and landing construction

() acres 1.4 acres () acres () acres,\LTe, of

ullroaded area affected

Semi-Veg treatment- 104 acres --

PrimitiV(' oacres Helicoptcr II acres -HelicopterAcres of Helicopter

() acrcs () alTes Skyline () acres - SkylineUnroad{'d U Ilr"aded area 7 acres - Skyline () acr", - Tractor () acres - Tractor

"flected I9 acres - TractorArea ------ Total acres and(1,780 ac) perccnt of 1111 acres / 7,4 o/r oaLTes / () (!, oacres / () (/f un roaded area 1 temp roads totaling No teillp road \vould \Jo temp road would Impacted and (I acrcs ~,()15 feet. be cun~t lllctcd he constructed. impact to Impacts are Impach arc Impacts are ullroaded negligihle negligible negligihle character

Present Net Value () $82.726 :'(~7,')211 -$(49,-'59) Kendi t / Cost

0 1.12 0,91 X6Economics Ratio

o/r Helicopter () 27({ 77% 7)-;(>r

Yarding

T&E - Threatened or Endangered; MAMU - Marbled Murrelet; NSO - Northern Spotted Owl; NTMB - Neo-Troplcal Migratory Btrds: NLAA - Not Ltkely to Adversely Affect (disturbance); MllH - May Impact Individuals or Habitat (minimal); M - May Affect (minimal)

20()L) /I 24I \'rrt III id Thill Project f}Ii'irotlllll'ntlll /\sscss/nent

Pyramid Thin Project Environmental Assessment Revised June 2009 Page III - 1

CHAPTER III – AFFECTED EVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter describes the environmental consequences and effects of implementing the Proposed Action and other alternatives analyzed in detail. Section A includes a discussion on the consequences regarding attainment of the Purpose and Need. Section B discusses and is organized by Relevant Issues, as identified in Chapter I. Within each Sub-section, the affected environment (background or existing condition) is described first, followed by the effects of the No-Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other Action Alternatives considered in detail. Within each Sub-section, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives are presented in terms of the Relevant Issues. Mitigation measures for all ground disturbing activities are required by the Forest Plan. Additional site-specific design elements and mitigation measures are described in Chapter II. The following assessment of effects includes the application of these elements and measures. It provides the decision maker with information needed to compare alternatives and select an appropriate course of action. Potential effects may vary, based on the context in which they were analyzed. Therefore, if pertinent, environmental consequences are presented in context of multiple scales, over various timeframes. The following terms are used to describe relevant spatial and temporal effects:

Short-term effects are environmental consequences that occur during operations, and/or arise within two years post operations. Long-term effects are environmental consequences that are delayed, periodic, and/or arise two years after operations are completed. Direct effects are environmental consequences that occur concurrently and in the same location. Indirect effects are environmental consequences that occur later in time or are farther removed in distance from the point of contact, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are incremental environmental consequences from multiple, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of land ownership, which overlap both time and space.

A. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) interprets this regulation as referring only to the cumulative impact of the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives when added to the aggregate effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on all land ownerships across an area that is deemed appropriate for the impacts being analyzed. The analysis conducted for this project follows the “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” issued by CEQ Chairman on June 24, 2005. The guidance states the expectation that agencies determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects and further notes that CEQ regulations do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.


This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one can not reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, all residual effects of past human actions and natural events are captured, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Because the geographic area of consideration varies by resource, the analysis of cumulative effects for each resource may differ in temporal and spatial scale, as well as the activities that are considered in cumulative effects discussions for each resource. The No Action Alternative under this proposed project would not implement any management activities at this time. With this premise, it is assumed that there would be no change to the environment’s current conditions. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects; which leads to no cumulative effects associated with No Action. It is understood that there would be potential environmental consequences and these effects would be discussed under environmental consequences discussions.

B. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED This section discusses to what level the No Action Alternative and all Action Alternatives address attaining the elements of the Purpose and Need for action. The overall Purpose of this project is to implement direction from the Land and Resource Management Plan (1989 Forest Plan) for the Siskiyou National Forest, as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. The Pyramid Thin Project is located on lands allocated to matrix which emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with forest lands considered suitable for timber production. For the Pyramid Thin Project, existing forest conditions are such that vegetation age and physical character are over-stocked and are in a condition of declining growth and vigor. Specifically for the Pyramid Thin Project, Needs include: Improve Stand Structure, Composition and Resiliency – Stands within the area are stagnating and are becoming

at risk to loss due to poor vigor and health. There is a need to reduce stand densities so that individual tree growth would improve. The remaining trees would have less competition for sunlight, water and soil nutrients. Forest structure and composition would be maintained or improved by retaining larger open-grown and legacy trees, minor tree species (including all hardwoods), existing snags and coarse woody debris. Such vigor and diversity would create a more resilient forest that would be capable to survive or recover more quickly from natural disturbances such as drought, wind, insects, disease or fire.

Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity - The proposed project is located on lands

allocated to matrix and therefore considered as part of the overall Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ). PSQ is the estimated output of commercial timber and other commodities assigned to the Forest under the Northwest Forest Plan. Forest management activities within Matrix will provide a full yield of timber into the future while ensuring ecological systems remain fully functional.


Management activities would improve natural stand structure within matrix lands by increasing growth and vigor while improving forest composition and structural diversity. All candidate stands (treatment units) proposed for density management would be developed using the following strategies: Silvicultural treatments would be designed to facilitate tree growth and enhance stand variability by retaining

other minor species including hardwoods, open-grown larger diameter trees, legacy trees, existing snags and coarse woody debris.

Thinning prescriptions would emphasize a range of leave tree spacing tolerances that would promote variable

spacing. Treated areas would avoid all Riparian Reserves.

1. BASIS FOR THE PURPOSE AND NEED Stands are primarily within young or early seral stand conditions with some medium-sized trees and limited large trees. Proposed treatment units range between 65 to 90 years old with occasional trees over 100 years of age. There may be a few legacy trees (typically 50+ inches in diameter and 200+ years of age) that survived the stand replacement fire, in proximity to stands, and potentially within treatment units. Based on field examination, with the exception of legacy trees, the medium and large trees of the current stand generally fall within the same age range as young or early seral within the proposed units. For further information, refer to EA Appendix C – Silvicultural Report for more detail, incorporated by reference. Current canopy cover within treatment units averages 68 percent with a Relative Density of 67 percent. All treatment units in a Relative Density range of 50% or greater are currently considered under high tree competition or imminent competition for mortality. Individual crown ratios and tree diameter growth have slowed due to high stand densities over the past ten years. Crown ratios are between 25 and 50 percent with average stand crown ratio estimated at 32. The present Live Crown Ratio (LCR) is near the crown ratio which could cause loss of individual tree diameter growth. Based on stand exams tree radial growth is ½ to 1 inch for the last ten years of growth. It is estimated that a 20 % (average) reduction from the previous ten years within co-dominant trees has occurred. Portions of these stands have a dense understory of primarily rhododendron and salal while other areas have almost no understory. The most frequent understory vegetation consists of salal, rhododendron, beargrass, canyon live oak, chinquapin, madrone, tanoak, etc. Certain areas within treatment stands are dominated by hardwood tree species (such as chinquapin, tanoak, or canyon live oak) rather than conifers. Overall snags are limited and are primarily in the smaller diameters (7”-10” dbh range) in Douglas-fir, knobcone pine, madrone, and tanoak species. Douglas-fir snags 20 inch DBH and 16 foot minimum height are currently estimated at less than 1 per acre for the project area. Douglas-fir Large Woody Material (LWM), 20” plus, is consider low and is in class 4 logs. Existing down woody material below 20” ranges primarily in size from 4” to 18” diameter and is found in lengths of 6 to 50 feet. The desired condition within the Pyramid Project Area in matrix is to have a diversity of plant communities and habitats. A hardwood and conifer tree species with a mixture of an understory of huckleberry, salal, rhododendron, and other species is desired. Major plant communities should vary in successional stage from pioneer, with trees of 1 inch to 9 inch Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) to late seral with trees of 30 inch plus DBH. Within 20-25 years, stands being treated should develop the following characteristics: a species composition of 70-90% (DF) and 5-15% (sugar pine (SP), Port-Orford cedar (POC), incense cedar (IC), and 5-20% (Chinquapin, canyon oak, madrone, tanoak, etc); increase stand residual diameters by 2-3” inches; increase the amount of large, down, woody materials (>16” diameter x 16’ long); maintain the number of larger diameter (>16”) snags; provide a low incidence of insect and disease activity at the stand level; provide up to 1-3 trees per acre (TPA) of large diameter (>25” DBH), and large-crowned remnants scattered over the area.


To meet these conditions, silvicultural treatment within the Pyramid Thin Project Area would strive to modify stand conditions that would reflect a residual stand density of 40-47%, residual basal area of 150-171 sqft. and a residual canopy cover of 42-59%. Riparian Reserves would continue undisturbed and existing snags and large woody material would be retained with a Douglas-fir overstory. Distribution of other minor conifer species would provide for a multistory structure. Hardwoods would be a minor component within these areas, with Pacific rhododendron and evergreen huckleberry defining the shrub layer. Overstory canopy cover within the Riparian Reserves would continue to be 60 percent and above.

2. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED THROUGH ALTERNATIVE 1 NO-ACTION

The No-Action Alternative is required by Council of Environmental Quality regulations (4O CFR 1502.14(d)). The No-Action Alternative forms the basis for a comparison between meeting the project needs and not meeting the project needs. This alternative provides benchmark information for understanding changes associated with the Action Alternative and expected environmental responses as a result of past management actions. Selecting this alternative would continue the following resource management actions: Forest development would rely on natural processes to develop stands with diverse structure and

composition and restore biological diversity; No wood products for local and regional markets would be provided within stands designated as

general forest; Normal road maintenance activities associated with this project would not occur. Vegetation

encroachment onto roadways would continue and safe visibility would continue to be lost; and No additional road improvement projects would be implemented and the potential to improve

roadside drainage would be lost. Under No-Action, these natural stands would continue to grow over time. Competition would continue to increase between individuals as trees compete for limited resources, especially light. High tree competition would continue until imminent completion (mortality) would occur. Individual trees would strive to obtain sufficient sunlight, but overall diameter growth would slow in response to a reduction of Live Crown Ratio. Trees may become more susceptible to insects, disease, and windthrow, and stand health may decline. Existing stand conditions are in the stem-exclusion phase, which effectively prevents other trees from becoming established and starts killing the weaker trees in the stand (Oliver and Larson 1996). Mortality would continue to increase, as the intermediate and suppressed trees lose their ability to compete and die. These dead trees would increase snags and coarse woody material, but they would be too small to be of high quality and are expected to decay rapidly. As understory vegetation continues to decline some additional soil movement may be expected on steep slopes. Because stands are fairly uniform, opportunities for establishing species or structural diversity through natural processes would remain low for many years, without major disturbance events. Eventually, over long periods, natural disturbance events would create openings in stands, allowing shade-tolerant species to become established in the understory, gradually creating additional structure and diversity. The lack of sufficient shade-tolerant conifer seed sources would be a major factor delaying the establishment and development of diverse mixed conifer stands. This alternative provides no opportunity to accelerate development of complex, mature forest conditions. Because the existing environment is not static, environmental consequences from selecting this alternative are expected. Depending on the kind and frequency of disturbances and gradual change in vegetation and animal populations, these lands would eventually move toward late-successional forest conditions.


The No-Action alternative promotes the existing condition which is lacking in unique habitat elements, and is declining in habitat diversity (simplification towards coniferous forest). Without treatment, stands would increase in density until there is competition-induced mortality. Existing levels of snags and large woody material would remain on site. Under No-Action, no commercial volume would be generated and funds would not be generated for Other Projects such as: snag creation, Port-Orford-cedar sanitation along haul routes, noxious weed treatments and additional hand piling and burning of slash along Road 1703.

3. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED THROUGH ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

All stands proposed for density management are primarily 65-90 years old, primarily even-aged stands of Douglas-fir that contain scattered, older, legacy trees (>200 years) from the previous stand. Overall stands are overstocked and susceptible to density related mortality, insect, and disease damage. Current canopy cover over all treatment stands averages 68% with a Relative Density of 67%. Action Alternatives would reduce canopy cover to an average of approximately 48% (range 42% to 59%) with a relative density of 43% (range 40% to 47%). This change would move stand structure forward by increasing growth. Thinning shock and wind throw are not expected to be a problem based on removing an average of 35% basal area (no heavy thinning proposed), no cut treatments within the Riparian Reserves, and leaving all minor conifers and hardwoods. If excessive windfall did occur, depending on size and location, it may be beneficial to wildlife by providing for additional openings for food while providing for a source of future down wood. If planting was required due to a natural event, preference would be given to resistant Port-Orford-cedar or selected pine species. Natural regeneration is expected to remain low due to higher density, which includes hardwoods and other conifer species. Other potential stand damage from snow breakage or insect and disease is expected to remain low due to the overall age and condition of units, lower tree competition and current conditions show limited damage from these agents. Competing and un-wanted vegetation including noxious weeds, is not expected to become a problem based on past harvest results, Port-Orford-cedar/ noxious weed mitigation measures, and an overall prescription which removes an average of 35% basal area within all treated areas combined. Douglas-fir trees to be removed average 12.1” DBH. Though some of the trees expected to be removed may be up to 30” in diameter, they appear to be similar in character to other adjacent trees. These trees up to 30” appear to be of similar age and similar height, though they display more developed crowns (live crown ratio). Field measurements of trees in the 23-23.9 DBH had an average age of 85, while a Douglas-Fir 34” DBH within the same stand was 85 years old. There are trees scattered across the hillside outside of clearing limits on several road segments that may be considered larger open-grown trees. These trees are noticeable as they present diameters at least 37” and larger. They tend to have thicker, deeper bark and larger diameter limbs that go almost to the ground. Several of these trees tend to have double trunks or double tops which imply some sort of disturbance or damage over time. The Silvicultural Prescription would develop marking guidelines where these trees would be retained due to their large diameters and temporary road location would avoid them. Based on field reviews no trees in this description were noted along any road segment. All existing snags and coarse woody debris would also be retained where they exist. Under the Action Alternatives, funds would be generated for non-essential Knutson-Vandenburg (KV) projects such as: snag creation, Port-Orford-cedar sanitation along haul routes, noxious weed treatments and additional hand piling and burning of slash along Road 1703.


a. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Approximately 4.67 million board feet of timber (mmbf) would be harvested from commercially thinning approximately 13 treatment units totaling approximately 311 acres. During tractor and skyline yarding activities, tops of trees removed would be yarded and piled on landings on 228 acres. Following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road on 18 acres. All landing piles of slash would be burned. Ten temporary road segments totaling approximately 9,410 feet (1.8 miles) would be constructed and would be decommissioned following harvest operations. No permanent roads are proposed to be constructed. Existing roads would be brought up to specifications to facilitate log hauling through normal road maintenance activities. This work would consist of roadside brushing, road blading, and culvert/ditch clean-out. There are several road locations where surface rock would be replaced. Six culverts would be replaced to improve drainage and reduce future maintenance costs as these culverts are considered to have reached the end of their service life.

b. Alternative 3 Approximately 4.67million board feet of timber (mmbf) would be harvested from commercially thinning approximately 13 treatment units totaling 311 acres. During tractor and skyline yarding activities, tops of trees removed would be yarded and piled on landings on 70 acres. Following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road on 18 acres. All landing piles of slash would be burned. Four temporary roads totaling approximately 1,610 feet (0.3 mile) would be constructed and would be decommissioned following harvest operations. No permanent roads are proposed to be constructed. Existing roads would be brought up to specifications to facilitate log hauling through normal road maintenance activities. This work would consist of roadside brushing, road blading, and culvert/ditch clean-out. There are several road locations where surface rock needs to be replaced. Six culverts would be replaced to improve drainage and reduce future maintenance costs as these culverts are considered to have reached the end of their service life.

c. Alternative 4 Approximately 2.77 million board feet (mmbf) of timber would be harvested from commercially thinning approximately 9 treatment units totaling 180 acres. During tractor and skyline yarding activities, tops of trees removed would be yarded and piled on landings on 70 acres. Following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road on 18 acres. All landing piles of slash would be burned. No temporary roads would be constructed and would be decommissioned following harvest operations. No permanent roads are proposed to be constructed. Existing roads would be brought up to specifications to facilitate log hauling through normal road maintenance activities. This work would consist of roadside brushing, road blading, and culvert/ditch clean-out. There are several road locations where surface rock needs to be replaced. Six culverts would be replaced to improve drainage and reduce future maintenance costs as these culverts are considered to have reached the end of their service life.

C. EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION – RELEVANT ISSUES This section describes the environmental considerations and analysis conducted for this project. It focuses on the resources and issues that are relevant to or affected by the Proposed Action. As presented in EA Chapter I, the relevant issues and this Section are organized into Physical, Biological, and Human/Social components.


Relevant Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that have been determined to be applicable to the actions being analyzed, are used to disclose consequences, may affect design of component actions, may develop a need for mitigation measures, or whose disclosure of environmental effects are required by law or policy. Some issues may describe minor and/or non-variable consequences. Additional information supporting the analysis in this section can be found in the Appendices to this project (referenced in each Section and incorporated by reference to this EA).

PPPhhhyyysssiiicccaaalll EEEnnnvvviiirrrooonnnmmmeeennnttt

1. SOILS AND GEOLOGY How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect soils and slope stability through detrimental soil disturbance and effects on coarse woody material? Though the Proposed Action meets all Standards and Guidelines identified in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 1994 NW Forest Plan, there remain concern for the potential impacts to slope stability and soil productivity. There is a concern that road construction and ground-based yarding may have unacceptable, adverse impacts to the soil resources through disturbance, compaction, and erosion.

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix A – Geology and Soils Report, incorporated by reference. The Pyramid Thin Project lies high on the east-sloping ridge west of the North Fork Pistol River, at an elevation between approximately 1,800 and 2,800 feet. A Mediterranean type climate prevails with cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Annual precipitation ranges approximately 115-120 inches with most falling from October through April. May through September precipitation is normally less than 10 inches. In fall and winter, moist low-pressure systems form in the North Pacific Ocean that produce counterclockwise patterns of air circulation that commonly result in high velocity prevailing winds from the west and southwest. High pressure systems in the summer produce drier winds from the northwest. The Pyramid Thin Project is located within the Klamath Mountains geologic province. Mountain slopes are typically steep, long, and dissected. Geomorphic processes are most typically fluviation (erosional/gradational processes employed by streams) and mass wasting. Fluviation is most evident on the steep, rugged slopes; mass wasting typically occurs in areas associated with fault zones, geologic contacts, highly fractured parent material, areas of moisture accumulation, and stream channel cutting of toe slopes. No areas of instability in the treatment areas were observed during field reviews. The soil map for the Pyramid Thin Project treatment areas was field verified and corrected, resulting in the determination that no treatment areas are located on soils derived from serpentinized rock, except for some minor areas of Mislatnah cobbly clay loam on the south edge of Unit 3 next to FSR1703190. Soils in the Pyramid Thin Project are predominantly made up of loams and clay loams forming from metasedimentary and metavolcanic parent material in the Dothan Formation or Colebrook Schist. Soil depths typically range between 20 and 60 inches plus to bedrock, and are well-drained; permeabilities range from slow to moderately rapid. The majority of treatment areas lie in areas with slopes between 1 and 40 percent. Unit 1 has a slope range of 40 to 60 percent, which is the steepest area proposed for treatment. Treatment areas are located on upland slopes to ridgelines, and outside of stream inner gorge areas that can be subject to landslide activity. Current vegetation provides ample tree root strength to soils (refer to Silviculture report). During field reviews of the proposed treatment areas in 2004 and 2008, no areas of instability were observed.


Soil and water resources are managed to protect and enhance long-term productivity of the forest water quality and associated beneficial uses, and aquatic ecosystems (LRMP, IV 16). Detrimental soils conditions are used to determine standards and guidelines to maintain soil productivity and stability (LRMP, IV 44-48). Detrimental soil conditions include compaction, displacement, puddling, and severely burned soils. The total area of detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings. Activities shall be planned to retain the soil duff and litter, and maintain enough large woody material to maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. Timber harvest and road building should consider the increase potential for mass movement. This leads to an analysis of effects to combustion (severely burned soils), compaction and displacement, erosion and slope stability, and coarse organic matter. Combustion - Project activities that could generate effects to soils from fire include burning of machine or hand piles. Heat produced during the combustion of above-ground fuels (i.e. dead and live vegetation, litter, duff) is transferred to the soil surface and downward through the soil by several heat transfer processes (radiation, convection, conduction, vaporization, and condensation). Fire results in the loss of canopy, litter, and duff cover; and exposes the mineral soil to erosion processes. Typical chemical effects to soil that can occur from fire include nutrient losses, cation exchange capacity loss, and changes to pH. Typical biological effects to soil that can occur from fire include loss of microorganisms, loss of meso- and macrofauna, and loss of roots and reproductive structures such as seed banks. Pile/concentrated slash burning increases the residence time of the fire due to concentrated fuels, which can lead to more consumption of organic matter, higher soil heating temperatures, heating deeper into the soil profile, and thus resulting in isolated patches of severely burned soils directly under the slash pile. Mitigations minimizing to the extent possible the size of the piles and burning during moist soil moisture conditions can reduce these impacts by keeping burn temperatures and soil heating as low as possible. Smaller burn scars tend to recover quicker as well due to the high amount of un-impacted soil around them that contribute to recolonization of soil microorganisms and other soil biota. Landing piles tend to be much larger than hand piles, and usually contain larger material which increases the residence time of the fire, and therefore soil temperatures, regardless of soil moisture conditions. In addition, they are located on landings which have the added impact of soil compaction, which can increase the recovery time of the burned soil. Compaction & Displacement - Project activities that could have an impact on soil compaction and/or displacement include logging systems associated with commercial density management activities, roads, landings, and pile burning. Compaction is an increase in bulk density and a decrease in soil porosity resulting from applied loads, vibration, or pressure, and decreases site productivity. An increase in micro porosity can lead to greater available water-holding capacity throughout the site, but at the expense of aeration and drainage. Fire effects can also result in a compacted soil. When the organic matter in the soil is destroyed from a high severity burn, it causes the soil structure to collapse, decreasing porosity (particularly macro pore spaces) and increasing soil bulk density. Compaction may inhibit occupation of the soil by organisms that assist in the decomposition of wood to soil organic material that improves site productivity, and help to aerate the soil. Compaction also possibly inhibits the growth of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) that provide nutrients to plant roots. Ectomycorrhizal fungi form an essential interface between soil and trees. They usually colonize more than 90 percent of the feeder roots of host plants. Plant development is also restricted in compacted soils due to poor aeration and impeded root growth. As a result, soil productivity is adversely affected.


Soil displacement refers to the physical removal or relocation of soil. Detrimental soil displacement is defined as the removal of more than 50 percent of the topsoil or humus enriched A1 or AC horizons from an area of 100 square feet or more which is at least 5 feet in width. Erosion and Slope Stability - Project activities that could potentially increase soil erosion rates include commercial density management activities, roads and landings, and pile burning. Commercial density management activities, roads, and landings have the potential to affect slope stability. Erosion is the detachment and movement of soil or rock by water, wind, ice or gravity. There is a high potential for surface erosion when soils are disturbed through loss of soil cover, compaction, removal of soil, or loss of site organic matter. Water is the chief cause of surface erosion in the forms of splash, sheet, rill, and gully erosion. These soils require a degree of cohesion to remain stable on steeper slopes. Erosion potential decreases rapidly after the first year with the re-establishment of vegetation, and the input of plant litter and needle cast. Management activities are designed to retain effective ground cover. The Siskiyou National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines establishes limits to how much mineral soil can be exposed from project activities based on the erosion hazard rating of the soil type as defined in the Siskiyou National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (SRI). These limits are shown in Table III-1.

Table III-1. Siskiyou National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines limits to mineral soil exposure. Limit on percent mineral soil exposed Erosion hazard rating

40% Low or moderate (Very slight, slight) 30% High (severe) 15% Very high (very severe)

The majority of soils within the treatment areas have a sheet and rill erosion hazard of moderate to severe, and no soils fall into the very severe category. Coarse Organic Matter - Project activities that could result in structural modification and/or removal of coarse organic matter include commercial density management activities, pile burning, and temporary road and landing construction. Critical to nutrient cycling and productivity is the amount of coarse organic material on the forest floor. It acts as a water reservoir, important habitat for fungi that decompose debris and release nutrients, as a sediment trap to slow surface erosion, and to promote a favorable microclimate for seedling growth. Smaller woody material and litter trap and retain sediment, protect mineral soil from erosion by rain splash and physical displacement, and can increase infiltration rates. Large amounts of coarse woody materials scattered on the surface of the soil can decrease the amount of soil nitrogen available for plant growth until debris decomposition is nearly complete, and can increase soil moisture during that time.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no ground-disturbing activities; therefore, there would be no direct effects to soil productivity and stability. The No Action Alternative would not alter the physical environment. Current conditions would be allowed to develop undisturbed. The environmental consequences of no action would result in the following effects: Combustion - The No Action Alternative would have no adverse effects to the soil resource since there would be no pile burning activities implemented. Soil productivity would be maintained at current levels. Compaction and Displacement - The No Action alternative would have no negative effects to the soil resource since there would be no activities occurring in the area that could cause compaction and displacement. No timber harvest activities, pile burning, temporary road or landing construction would take place. Soil productivity would be maintained at current levels.


Erosion and Slope Stability - The No Action alternative would have no negative impact on current erosion rates or potential slope instability in the project area. Under this alternative, amounts of fine and coarse organic matter would be maintained and even increase at natural rates minus any natural disturbance such as wildfire, and would continue to provide cover for mineral soils that minimize erosion to natural rates. Slopes are currently stable, and would be expected to continue to be stable with no action. There are four locations on the existing road system (three culvert replacements and one culvert installation) that would not be improved. The three culverts would not be replaced with larger diameter pipes and one ditch line relief culvert would not be installed. These roadside locations would continue to be potential road failure sites with the possibility to create road slumps resulting in site-specific sediment sources to downslope streams. Coarse Organic Matter - The No Action alternative would not impact current levels of coarse organic materials. Under this alternative, the amounts of coarse wood would continue to increase at the current rate due to growth and mortality, at natural rates. Soil productivity conditions within the project area would be expected to increase slightly over time due to natural weathering and increase in organic matter levels.

c. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 311 acres of matrix-allocated lands would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. Thinning would conduct density management by removing Douglas-fir suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees to reach desired tree spacing. Other conifers, hardwoods, existing snags and all down large woody material would be left. Fuels reduction activities would consist of some leaving tops attached to landings, machine piling and burning landing piles, and hand piling and burning slash concentrations within 100 feet of Forest Road 1703. The Proposed Action would involve the construction of an estimated 1.8 miles of temporary roads which would be decommissioned following treatment activities. Normal road maintenance activities would occur on existing roads and 3 culverts would be replaced and 1 drainage relief culvert installed.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Combustion - Burning of hand piled slash should not exceed the detrimentally burned soil standard since individual burn piles are designed to be discontinuous and not greater than 10 feet in diameter, and burning conditions typically promote a cooler burn with lower residence times. Landing piles can be expected to result in detrimentally burned soil within the fire scar. Larger landing piles can be expected to be approximately 30 feet by 40 feet (personal communication with Bruce Floyd, Gold Beach Ranger District fire/fuels specialist, 2/29/08). Considering “worse-case scenario” for soil impacts, if all piles were this size, and it is assumed there would be two piles per landing, this would result in an estimated 4 acres of severely burned soil. However, oftentimes for skyline landings where multiple smaller landings are established to facilitate parallel corridors that result in less impact to soils as the corridors approach the landings, piles are of smaller size (ib.). In addition, many times there is only one pile per landing, so it can be expected that actual impacts would be less than what is being estimated. Compaction & Displacement - Effects associated with timber removal equipment such as tractors, skidders, harvesters, log trucks, etc. would be minimized through mitigation measures. The extent of area potentially affected would be minimized by restricting heavy ground-based logging machinery to pre-designated skid trails, landings and roads during dry weather periods. An average detrimental disturbance of 10 percent for ground-based, 5 percent for skyline, and 2 to 3 percent for helicopter logging has been shown through monitoring of logging activities (personal communication with Jim Archuleta, Umpqua National Forest Soil Scientist, 2/28/08). This detrimental disturbance is typically associated with tree felling, yarding, skid trails, and/or skyline corridor activities.


If implemented, an average detrimental disturbance of 9 percent for pre-bunching with a harvester has been shown through calculations found in the Pre-Bunching Report. Combining pre-bunching with skyline or helicopter would subsequently change detrimental soil disturbance for both logging activities to approximately 9 percent over an activity area. Equipment limitations, soil compaction, and soil displacement management concerns are addressed through project design and appropriate mitigation. Tractor Yarding: Ground based logging systems would only be allowed on slopes less than 30 percent. Detrimental compaction occurs primarily on skid trails due to repeat passes over the same ground. Design Criteria requires the use of pre-designated skid trails, and these would be laid out so that no more than 10 percent of the activity area would result in detrimental disturbance. No greater than 15 acres would be treated with a ground-based system, resulting in an estimated 1.5 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Skyline Yarding: Skyline logging systems would require suspension of at least one end of the log, with up to 75 foot lateral yarding required to skyline corridors. Skyline corridors would include parallel corridors and a spacing minimum distance between 150-200 feet. With these measures it can be expected that an estimated 5 percent of the activity area would result in detrimental disturbance (mostly through soil displacement), primarily in skyline corridors. Approximately 213 acres would be treated with a skyline system, resulting in an estimated 10 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Helicopter Yarding: Helicopter logging would have the least impact, resulting in an estimated 2 to 3 percent of the activity area with detrimentally compacted or displaced soil, resulting from tree felling and short distances of drag as the log is cabled and lifted. Approximately 83 acres are proposed for helicopter logging, resulting in an estimated 2.5 acres (using 3 percent) of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Pre-Bunching: If authorized, pre-bunching with a harvester would only be allowed on slopes less than 35 percent on skyline or helicopter operations. Detrimental compaction occurs primarily on travelways due to a single pass over the same ground. Design Criteria requires site-specific authorization, and this would ensure that no more than 9 percent of the activity area would result in detrimental disturbance. No greater than 170 acres would be treated with a pre-bunch system (estimated at 120 acres of skyline and 50 acres of helicopter), resulting in an estimated 15.3 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Combined together, all logging activities would result in an estimated 22.5 acres or 7.2% of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement. Roads and Landings: Approximately 1.8 miles of temporary roads would be constructed, resulting in direct soil displacement and compaction on approximately 3.02 acres. Total acreage of tractor, skyline, and helicopter landings directly impacted by compaction and displacement would be approximately 7.4 acres. Compaction effects are expected to be short term (i.e. through the life of project implementation), as temporary roads and landings would be decommissioned through break up of the compacted layer and closed after use. Displaced soil for the most part would not be recovered, except where berms would be back bladed onto the roadway. Road improvement activities (culvert replacement and installation) would occur within existing road prisms and would have no additional effect to compaction and displacement. Pile Burning: Soil compaction resulting from fire effects would only be expected under severe burn conditions, which would be expected under machine piles on landings. Since these landing areas are already impacted by compaction, the pile scars do not result in an increase in compacted area.


Erosion and Slope Stability - The Temporary Road Report (Attachment A of Appendix C) contains detailed information on each temporary road spur being proposed. Temporary roads are planned on soil units 73F, 87F, 123F and 238E. The first three soil units have a cut and fill slope erosion hazard rating of moderate, and 238E has a rating of slight. Sideslopes where temporary roads would be constructed typically vary between 10 and 30 percent, which would result in cutbank heights of less than 1 foot up to 4 feet high, and estimated fill heights of 0 up to 3 feet (Attachment A). Temporary road grades typically vary between 0 and 10 percent. Road segments 3-1 and 3-2 would have construction across approximately 200 and 100 feet (respectively) of sideslopes between 45-50%, which would result in 4 to 6 foot high cutbanks and up to 14 foot high fill heights (ib.). Segments 3-1, 3-2, and 13-3 have short reaches of road that could potentially have gradients approaching 15 percent. Recommended mitigations to reduce surface erosion off of the road surfaces during operations include outsloping where appropriate and limiting use to dry weather only. Outsloping allows the road surface to shed water and reduces the risk of rilling by minimizing water concentration. Limiting use to dry weather prevents the formation of ruts which would channelize water, and increase erosion, and maintain the functionality of an outsloped road surface. In addition, maintenance and erosion control would be required prior to the onset of extended periods of wet weather which further minimizes erosion off of the temporary road surface. The timber sale administrator or engineering representative would determine which appropriate erosion control measures would be needed and where. Proposed temporary roads have been designed to take advantage of ridgetops as much as possible, and do not cross any stream channels. Proposed treatment areas have been designed to leave out intermittent and perennial stream drainages, establishing no treatment buffers between density management activities and the stream channels. To assure adequate distances between treatment areas and stream channels, Riparian Reserve widths as established in the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within Range of the Northern Spotted Owl of April 1994 (ROD) would be employed (refer to Hydrology Report). Modeling of potential erosion off of proposed temporary roads using FSWEPP:Roads was considered, but there were no areas posing particular risks, such as intermittent or perennial streams or stream drainage crossings, that would be a receptor to sediment that could have adverse affects to other resources. Soil that is moved from the road surface, cutslope, and /or fillslope would be displaced downslope during runoff events, but is expected to be captured by the organic layer and surface litter on the slope where the sediment leaves the road prism. Since the life of these temporary roads is expected to only be one to two years at the most before being decommissioned, the amount of sediment expected off these roads, with proper seasonal maintenance and implementation of mitigations, should not overwhelm the adjacent organic litter layer, and sediment is not expected to travel far enough to reach drainage systems. Slope stability failures are not expected to be an issue in the treatment areas from project activities. Slope gradients in the treatment areas, in addition to well-drained soils, maintenance of sufficient tree root strength after thinning, and not thinning or building temp roads near/across stream channels that are susceptible to landslide activity make the chance of slope failures very unlikely. Road improvement activities (culvert replacement and installation) would occur within existing road prisms and would have a long term beneficial effect to slope stability failures (slumping or road failures) by increasing roadside capacities to divert drainage and flow of surface water.


Coarse Organic Matter - The amount of coarse wood and potential large woody material would continue to increase due to growth and mortality, at an accelerated rate as a result of density management activities that stimulate growth of remaining vegetation. Where large coarse wood would be harvested, the amount of large wood remaining would be mitigated by retention of prescribed amounts of large wood during density management. While temporary roads and landing locations would be cleared of coarse wood during construction and use, rehabilitation of these areas would include scattering slash material on top of the soil surface to reintroduce coarse organic matter.

d. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, approximately 311 acres of matrix-allocated lands would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. Alternative 3 is similar to the Proposed Action, except that Alternative 3 proposes to eliminate temporary road construction in Treatment Units 3 and 13. Due to these changes, 158 acres of skyline yarding would be changed to helicopter while ground-based harvest acres would remain the same. The number of helicopter landings would be increased to 5. Effects to soils would be similar to the discussion for Alternative 2 with the differences noted below.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects No more than 15 acres would be treated with a ground-based system, resulting in an estimated 1.5 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Approximately 55 acres would be treated with a skyline system, resulting in an estimated 4.5 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Approximately 241 acres are proposed for helicopter logging, resulting in an estimated 7 acres (using 3 percent) of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. If authorized, the area considered for pre-bunching activities with a harvester would not change from the Proposed Action except that the proportions would be different (estimated at 15 acres of skyline and 155 acres of helicopter), resulting in an estimated 15.3 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Combined together, all logging activities would result in an estimated 22.6 acres or 7.3% of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement. Approximately 0.3 miles of temporary roads would be constructed, resulting in direct soil displacement and compaction on approximately 0.52 acres. Total acreage of tractor, skyline, and helicopter landings directly impacted by compaction and displacement would be approximately 4.7 acres. Temporary roads would be planned on soil units 73F, 123F and 238E. The first two soil units have a cut and fill slope erosion hazard rating of moderate, and 238E has a rating of slight. The temporary road report for the Pyramid Thin project contains detailed information on each temporary road spur being proposed. The three road segments discussed under the Proposed Action that have short reaches of gradients approaching 15 percent (segments 3-1, 3-2, and 13-3) would be eliminated with this alternative. Temporary road grades of remaining temporary roads typically vary between 0 and 10 percent. Effects of temporary roads on erosion rates in treatment areas would be less than effects from the Proposed Action due to less mileage of temporary roads, but more than Alternative 4 or Alternative 1, which would have no temporary roads.


e. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4, approximately 180 acres of matrix-allocated lands would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. The difference between Alternative 4 and the Proposed Action is that Alternative 4 proposes no temporary road construction, and Treatment Units 1, 2, 3, and 5 would be dropped from consideration. Due to these changes, helicopter harvest would be increased to 140 acres, skyline harvest would be reduced to 35 acres, and ground-based harvest would be reduced to 5 acres. Effects to soils would be similar to the discussion for Alternative 2 with the differences noted below.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects No more than 5 acres would be treated with a ground-based system, resulting in an estimated 0.5 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Approximately 35 acres would be treated with a skyline system, resulting in an estimated 3 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Approximately 140 acres are proposed for helicopter logging, resulting in an estimated 5 acres (using 3 percent) of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. If authorized, the area considered for pre-bunching activities with a harvester would be reduced from the Proposed Action to 62 acres (estimated at 6 acres of skyline and 56 acres of helicopter), resulting in an estimated 5.5 acres of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement from this system. Combined together, all logging activities would result in an estimated 10.0 acres or 5.6% of the total treatment area experiencing a combination of detrimental compaction and displacement. Total acreage of tractor, skyline, and helicopter landings directly impacted by compaction and displacement would be approximately 2.8 acres. No temporary roads would be constructed, resulting in no direct soil displacement and compaction, nor effects from temporary road activities on soil erosion rates in the treatment areas.

f. Cumulative Effects Analysis The area of analysis for determining cumulative effects is considered to be the activity area which includes treatment unit areas and any other additional areas outside the units that may be impacted through road and/or landing construction. This cumulative effects area is considered adequate since there is no landflow mass-wasting through these areas, and no stream channels in the treatment areas, in particular stream channels with inner gorges subject to slope failures. Project design criteria and mitigations are expected to prevent or minimize to immeasurable soil erosion processes that could otherwise extend downslope outside the project area. There have been no past activities within the affected areas that may attribute to existing soil productivity and stability except for the existing permanent transportation system. No other present activities and the potential for removal of special forest products as a reasonably foreseeable future activity, is expected to occur within the next ten years.

1. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The Siskiyou National Forest Plan states that the total area of detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings. Adding together potential detrimental disturbances from all activities (without pre-bunching) results in an estimated 24.4 acres experiencing detrimental soil conditions, or approximately 7.9 percent of the activity area.


If pre-bunching should occur over 170 acres of skyline and helicopter areas, an estimated combined total for all activities of 32.9 acres would experience detrimental soil conditions, or approximately 10.6 percent of the activity area. The Pyramid Thin Project proposed treatment areas have experienced no past management activities and there would be no concurrent activities. No foreseeable future management activities in the treatment areas would be expected for at least ten years. Unauthorized Off Road Vehicle (OHV) use does occur in areas in the vicinity of the treatment areas – these are typically areas with more open vegetation, particularly in relation to serpentine soils. However, with closure and decommissioning of temporary roads, it is not anticipated that OHVs would become in issue in treatment areas. The primary soil concerns tiered to detrimental disturbance are most effectively reviewed, for both short and long-term effects, at the project level. With proper project implementation, with the specified recommendations, unacceptable cumulative effects on the soils resource are not anticipated from any of the action alternatives (BMP W-5). Consequently, the utilization of soil protection measures and Best Management Practices generally precludes the need for additional cumulative effects analysis. Deviations from the Standards and Guidelines would be the primary trigger for a cumulative effects review, and no deviations are expected or planned.

2. Alternative 3 Adding together potential detrimental disturbances from all activities (without pre-bunching) proposed in Alternative 3 results in an estimated 18.2 acres experiencing detrimental soil conditions, or approximately 5.9 percent of the activity area. If pre-bunching should occur over 170 acres of skyline and helicopter areas, an estimated combined total for all activities of 27.8 acres would experience detrimental soil conditions, or approximately 8.9 percent of the activity area.

3. Alternative 4 Adding together potential detrimental disturbances from all activities (without pre-bunching) proposed in Alternative 4 results in an estimated 11.3 acres experiencing detrimental soil conditions, or approximately 4.7 percent of the activity area. If pre-bunching should occur over 62 acres of skyline and helicopter areas, an estimated combined total for all activities of 13 acres would experience detrimental soil conditions, or approximately 7.2 percent of the activity area.

2. HYDROLOGY How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect hydrologic conditions, including channel morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, water yield (flow), and stream temperature? Changes in water quantity and channel morphology (channel form and structure) are potential concerns because these changes may affect the beneficial uses of water. Changes in water quantity can change the amount of aquatic life habitat and the amount of water available for beneficial use. Changes in channel morphology can change the amount and quality of aquatic life habitat.

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix B – Hydrology Report, incorporated by reference.


Watershed Analysis Watershed analyses were completed on the Pistol River Watershed in 2003 (David Evans and Associates 2003) and the Hunter Creek Watershed in 1998 (EA Engineering 1998). These documents were reviewed for this analysis and are incorporated by reference. The Pyramid Thin Project treatment areas are located within two 5th field and three 6th field watersheds in the Chetco River Sub-basin (see Table III-2). Watershed boundaries and acreages in this report are based upon the most up-to-date U.S. Geological Survey watershed delineations in GIS. These new watershed delineations vary somewhat from those in the two watershed analyses, but the biggest difference is the change to 6th field watersheds, where some original 6th fields were combined. However, the discussion of watershed conditions is still relevant – there may just be differences in calculations based on acreages of particular areas. Neither the Pistol River nor Hunter Creek watersheds are designated as Key Watersheds.

Table III-2. Pyramid Thin Project Watersheds. Acres of proposed treatments are the areas where density management activities would occur.

4th Field & Name 5th Field & Name 6th Field & Name 6th Field Acres Acres Proposed Treatments 04 Pistol River 02 North Fork Pistol River 19,227 277

01 Upper Hunter Creek 12,380 1 17100312 Chetco River 05 Hunter Creek

02 Lower Hunter Creek 16,088 33 Elevations in the Pistol River watershed range from sea level to 4,220 feet on Snow Camp Mountain; in the Hunter Creek watershed from sea level to 3,558 feet on Sugarloaf Mountain. Elevations in the proposed harvest areas range from approximately 1,800 feet to 2,800 feet, with an average annual precipitation of 115 to 120 inches. Most precipitation arrives from October through April, with the months of May through September typically receiving less than 10 inches. The transient snow zone, as identified in the Pistol River Watershed Analysis, Version 2.0 (David Evans and Associates 2003) falls roughly between 2,800 and 4,000 feet in elevation. Transient snow zone refers to the elevation break where rain-on-snow events most often occur. Treatment areas for the Pyramid Thin Project are at the low end to just outside this identified transient snow zone; however, this range (particularly the low end) can vary from year to year depending on the winter’s storm patterns. For example the winter of 2007/2008 experienced several storms with snow levels approaching 1,000 to 1,500 feet. The two watersheds have similar ownerships and management histories. Approximately 55 percent of the Pistol and 40 percent of the Hunter watersheds are federally owned and managed. This public land is in the upper watersheds. Most of the lower watersheds is owned by private timber companies and managed for timber harvest. The flat lands surrounding the estuaries and lower stream banks are agricultural and residential. A survey of historical aerial photos in the National Forest portion of the watershed shows that roads were constructed to fire lookouts on Wildhorse and Snow Camp prior to the 1940 photos. The routes went up the Pistol River, along the ridge near Pyramid Rock (through the proposed Pyramid Timber Sale harvest units) on the route of present day Roads 1703 and 1503. Timber harvesting began in the watersheds in the late 1940s on privately owned land, and on National Forest land in the late 1950s. Streamflow - Neither the Pistol River nor Hunter Creek have any dams or impoundments. Permits to withdraw small amounts of water for domestic and irrigation use are held in the lower portions of the watersheds, outside the National Forest boundary (Pistol WA, p. 15). Neither stream has a gage in current use. The gage that most nearly reflects flow patterns in these two streams is USGS gage 14400000 on the Chetco River. The Oregon Water Resources Department measures summer flows in Pistol and Hunter on an irregular basis.


In order to address the question of whether past management activities have altered peakflow processes in the watersheds, the Pistol River and Hunter Creek WA’s used the equivalent clearcut methodology (ECA) to determine hydrologic recovery. This method is explained in detail in the WAs, and takes into account such influences as vegetation structure, stand age and harvest activity, agriculture and development, and roads. The Pistol River WA evaluated the effects of prior harvest and road construction on hydrologic processes within the National Forest portion of the watershed, and found that 96 percent of the North Fork Pistol, and 96 percent of the Sunrise Area, is in a state of natural condition or recovered. The North Fork Pistol and Sunrise Area Subwatersheds identified in the watershed analysis have since been combined into the North Fork Pistol 6th field watershed. Currently alterations to the hydrograph are unlikely due to these conditions, and cumulative hydrologic effects at the watershed scale are uncertain but unlikely (David Evans and Associates 2003). Road densities in the North Fork Pistol 6th field watershed, based on most-up-to-date GIS information, are 2.27 mi/mi2, placing it at functioning-at-risk based on National Marine Fisheries Service criteria (discussed in the WA). The Hunter Creek WA ECA calculations included all ownerships, and found that 85 percent of Hunter Creek and 86 percent of North Fork Hunter Creek were hydrologically recovered or natural. These two watersheds have since been combined into the Upper Hunter Creek 6th field watershed. In addition, 73 percent of Big South Fork, and 83 percent of Lower Hunter Creek were hydrologically recovered or natural. These two watersheds have since been combined into the Lower Hunter Creek 6th field watershed. The Hunter Creek WA broke the analysis discussion into smaller watershed analysis areas (WAAs). The WAAs within the Pyramid Thin Project Area activities (including culvert work) includes: 06M04F, 06S02W, and 06S. WAA 06M04F (83% recovered) would have 1 acre of density management treatments; 06S02W (66% recovered) would have 51 acres of density management treatments; 06S (86% recovered) only involves culvert work. Road densities in the Upper Hunter Creek 6th field watershed are 2.12 mi/mi2 (functioning-at-risk), and are 3.87 mi/mi2 in the Lower Hunter Creek 6th field watershed (not properly functioning), based on most-up-to-date GIS information. Channel Morphology - The Pistol River and Hunter Creek Watershed Analyses characterized stream channels as source, transport, or response reaches, based on stream gradient. Source reaches (over 30 percent gradient) are first and second order channels and colluvial hollows, located in the uppermost reaches of the watersheds. They are generally considered vulnerable to scouring events such as debris flows and shallow landslides. However, field observations in Hunter Creek reported in the WA found these reaches to be stable, in both harvested units and fully vegetated stands, with localized scouring. Transport reaches (3 to 30 percent gradient) dominate the perennial stream networks, with inclusions of response reaches (less than 3% gradient). Field observations in North Fork Pistol and upper Hunter Creek have found these characterizations to be accurate. Hunter Creek has large inner gorge landslides in the peridotite canyon; North Fork Pistol has localized areas of inner gorge instability. In the Project Area, the locations of all intermittent streams, and the few perennial streams adjacent to proposed treatment units, were located and mapped with GPS equipment (Figure I-1 in EA Chapter I and Figure 1 in the Hydrology Report). Channel characteristics were noted during this process. Larger streams downstream of the Project Area were spot checked; the watershed analyses incorporated stream survey data on fish-bearing reaches.


The geomorphology of the area has irregular slopes, in both steepness and aspect. Intermittent stream channels characteristically form in steeper areas, disperse and disappear in flatter topography, then form again as slopes increase. Where channels are well-developed, they tend to be downcutting in deep soils and shallow in rocky areas. The inner gorges that slope down to the stream banks appear stable and well- vegetated. Riparian Reserves - River valley morphology for nearly all channel segments in the Pistol River and Hunter Creek watersheds is classified as confined. This confinement limited floodplain development. Consequently, riparian species (willows, sedges etc.) that depend on fine fluvial sediment deposits for establishment were few and limited to the stream margins. Based on 1940 aerial photographs and field visits to undisturbed riparian zones in the North Fork Pistol and Hunter Creek, riparian zones on perennial streams were dominated by conifer species which provided a full canopy. Many of these stands had an understory component of hardwood species. Due to a dominant component of conifers and a full canopy reducing solar radiation input, streamside shade and large woody debris (LWD) recruitment potential were high. The inner gorge area along the mainstem of Hunter Creek, near Pine Point, had a reduced conifer and vegetative component. Low productivity soil of peridotites along the inner gorge of Hunter Creek supported a minimal canopy cover (less than 30 percent) with an open understory. One reach of the inner gorge is void of vegetation due to constant erosion. Harvest on National Forest land in the watersheds began in 1955. During the late 1950s and early 1960s harvest practices included clearcutting riparian areas. During the period from 1980 to 1989, narrow riparian buffers on perennial streams were usually left uncut or partially cut, but harvest practices included stream cleanout, removing large wood from channels. The Northwest Forest Plan of 1994 implemented Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves, but no regeneration harvest has taken place on National Forest land in these watersheds since then. Perennial Streams - Perennial streams and adjacent riparian areas are generally the most biologically diverse locations in the watershed. Terrestrial species utilize the dense riparian vegetation as a travel and dispersal corridor. The grasses, shrubs, and hardwoods within the riparian zone provide an important food source for both terrestrial and aquatic species. Due to relatively high moisture content and a multiple canopy of hardwoods and conifers, these riparian areas provide thermal refuge in times of heat and drought. The streamside vegetation also provides a microclimate for riparian dependent species such as salamanders and frogs. Perennial streams in the three sixth field watersheds lie outside the proposed treatment areas. The few perennial streams in the vicinity of treatment areas are small and fed by ridgetop springs and seeps. The riparian microsites associated with them tend to be narrow, some with dense undergrowth such as salal, and others with azalea and darlingtonia. Intermittent Streams - The NWFP ROD defines intermittent channels as any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature having a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. Intermittent channels often provide moist microclimates for amphibian species seeking shelter and nest sites, and for terrestrial species seeking thermal refuge and travel corridors. Intermittent channels also act as a conveyance system, delivering sediment and nutrients to perennial fish bearing streams. Riparian zones play a major role in regulating nutrient and energy flow in low-order streams. Streams in the vicinity of the proposed treatment areas usually begin as small, spatially intermittent ephemeral channels. As they continue downhill they often vary in depth, first eroding a channel an inch or two in depth, then disappearing with no evidence of scour or deposition, then eroding a channel up to several feet deep, then dispersing over a flat area and disappearing again, before forming a continuous channel.


Vegetation adjacent to most segments of intermittent channels, as well as further out in their Riparian Reserves, is indistinguishable from the upslope vegetation: Douglas fir, Jeffrey pine, knobcone pine, incense cedar, Port-Orford-cedar, hardwoods including tanoak, madrone, and canyon live oak, with scattered salal and swordfern. In summer and fall when channels are dry, banks and bottoms are also dry, with no cool or moist microsites. Rarely, a short stretch of intermittent stream channel is discovered with damp banks, green grasses, or small puddles. Where these microsite locations are found, the cooler, moister conditions do not extend beyond the stream banks up into the inner gorge. These dry conditions limit the extent to which intermittent streams around the treatment areas contribute to the processes described above. Meadows are scattered through the area. Intermittently flowing channels in these meadows provide nutrient diversity to the streams in this otherwise forested landscape. Bedrock and hillslope confinement limit the extent of hyporheic areas in most of the terrain in and around proposed treatment areas. Canopy Cover - The Pistol River WA identified 38 percent mature and old-growth forest, 23 percent “young” and 38 percent seed-sapling-pole sized trees within the North Fork Pistol Riparian Reserves (perennial streams only). In the vicinity of the Pyramid Thin proposed treatment areas, approximately 10 percent of the 515 acres of intermittent stream Riparian Reserves (both Pistol and Hunter watersheds) are in previously harvested areas. The remaining 90 percent is primarily young to mature conifers, with open and sparsely vegetated serpentine areas. The Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis found that the biggest concern within the riparian zone is the lack of large tree structure. The existing large tree structure does not, and is not expected to for the next 50 years; provide adequate large wood recruitment into the channel environment. Lack of large tree structure has also reduced habitat connectivity and species diversity.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to the existing vegetation or ground-disturbing activities; therefore, there would be no direct effects to the area’s hydrologic condition. The No Action Alternative would not alter the physical environment. Current conditions would be allowed to develop undisturbed. The No-Action alternative would have no direct effects to streamflows or channel morphology since there would be no thinning or temporary road construction activities implemented. Natural processes would continue to occur. Stream crossings identified for increases in culvert size, as well as the area identified as needing a culvert, would continue to run the risk of causing localized problems with difficulties in passing higher flows and affecting channel morphology, maintaining the risk of crossing failure over time. The No-Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects to riparian vegetation and large wood recruitment in Riparian Reserves. Natural processes would continue to occur. The No-Action Alternative would have no direct effects to sediment delivery processes. Natural processes of sediment delivery would continue to occur. There would be no potential inputs of sediment from culvert replacement or installation activities, but the risk of eventual crossing failure, and subsequent sediment input, would remain.



Under the Proposed Action, approximately 311 acres of matrix-allocated lands would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. Thinning would conduct density management by removing Douglas-fir suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees to reach desired tree spacing. Other conifers, hardwoods, existing snags and all down large woody material would be left. Fuels reduction activities would consist of some leaving tops attached to landings, machine piling and burning landing piles, and hand piling and burning slash concentrations within 100 feet of Forest Road 1703. The Proposed Action would involve the construction of an estimated 1.8 miles of temporary roads which would be decommissioned following treatment activities. Normal road maintenance activities would occur on existing roads and 6 culverts would be replaced.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Vegetation Treatment - For partial cuts (thinnings), studies have found small increases in early fall peak flows following removal of 59 percent to 69 percent of the timber volume over an entire watershed of 1050 acres, but no increase in storm peaks of events large enough to occur only once a year or less frequently. Under Alternative 2, the thinning prescription for this project would remove approximately 35 percent of the existing basal area within all proposed treatment units, resulting in a canopy cover of 42 to 59 percent. What this would typically look like on the ground is as follows (personal communication with Eric Martz, Gold Beach Ranger District Silviculturist, 3/4/2008): right after thinning treatments, gaps in the overstory canopy would be created that would allow precipitation and sunlight to directly reach the forest floor. Over a period of roughly 3 to 5 years, these gaps would be expected to fill in with resident understory vegetation such as rhododendron and salal. Within 10 to 20 years of the initial thinning treatments, canopy cover of remaining trees would for the most part fill in these original gaps in the canopy. Comparing this treatment to the studies, no effects on storm peaks, nor indirect effects on channel morphology would be expected as a result of post-harvest rainfall events. Portions of the proposed harvest lie within the lower elevations of the transient snow zone, usually considered to be approximately 2800 to 4000 feet in this area. Potential for effects on peak flows is greatest where precipitation is temporarily stored as snow, then released during rain on snow events, concentrating runoff. The mechanisms for increased peak flows are increased snow accumulation in clearcuts and increased melt rate in clearcuts. The increased snow accumulation results partially from loss of interception and evaporation from the forest canopy, and partially from increased snow deposition caused by changes in wind patterns in areas where clearcuts create abrupt changes in canopy height. The increased snow accumulation mechanism is greatest when the diameter of the created opening approximates 10 times the tree height, or 20 acres for trees 100-120 feet tall. The increase in melt rate is caused by removal of canopy protection. This results in greater solar radiation, but during rain on snow events a larger factor is the increased wind speed and higher temperatures of both wind and rain. It is possible that the proposed thinning of the canopy could result in some short term increase in snow accumulation and melt rate due to loss of canopy interception and evaporation, but this would decrease within approximately 3 to 5 years as understory vegetation fills in and starts intercepting precipitation. Effects would likely be diminished to close to pre-treatment levels by 10 to 20 years as residual tree canopies fill in the gaps. Proposed thinning of the canopy would not cause abrupt changes in canopy height. If short term increases in snow accumulation and melt rate occur, they could cause some increase in stream flow in the small tributaries that drain the proposed thinning areas, during periods of rain on snow. If stream flow increases, it could result in downcutting or bank scour as these small tributary channels adjust. However, no changes in channel size or upstream extents of channels have been observed on previously thinned areas in similar elevation zones on the Gold Beach Ranger District; and no effects are expected from this proposed thinning.


Temporary Road Construction and Decommissioning - Roads have the potential to increase peak flows through concentration of runoff and more rapid routing to stream channels. Road density may be an indicator of the potential for channel network expansion to increase peak flows. Densities under 2 miles per square mile are considered low; 2 to 3.5 moderate and over 3.5 high. No permanent roads are proposed for construction under the Proposed Action. Normally, temporary roads are not to be used in calculating road densities due to the temporary nature of this type of road (decommissioned after use); but, for the purpose of describing potential short-term effects, Table III-3 compares current road densities in the three 6th field watersheds with changes to road density from temporary road spurs constructed for this project. Road density totals would barely change, and effects would not be expected to be measurable at the 6th field watershed size. Table III-3. Short term changes to road density from proposed temporary roads in the Proposed Action

6th Field Watershed

Watershed Mi2

Miles of Road

Miles of Road including

Temporary Roads

Miles of Road per Mi2

Miles of Road per Mi2, including Temporary

Roads Upper Hunter Creek

19.3 41 No spurs 2.12 2.12

Lower Hunter Creek 25.1 97.2 97.7 3.87 3.89

North Fork Pistol River 30.1 68.2 69.8 2.27 2.32

Temporary roads are proposed to access landing sites for timber harvest, and are located on upper slopes to ridgelines where they would not cross any drainages. Temporary road construction would have similar effects as thinning prescription treatments, in that overstory vegetation would be removed, creating short term openings in the canopy. Temporary road widths would be 12 to 14 feet wide, and, similar to the description above for the thinning prescription, over 10 to 20 years these openings would close as residual tree canopies close. The temporary roads would be decommissioned through methods such as outsloping, back blading berms (where spurs are on relatively flat ground), ripping, cross-ditching, seeding, and covering with adjacent slash to facilitate rehabilitation and maintenance of long-term hydrologic function. Effects of temporary roads on runoff could be a one to two season increase in localized runoff that would be intercepted by surrounding vegetation and organic litter, but would be localized and become immeasurable by the 6th field watershed. Once the temporary roads are decommissioned, potential runoff from these areas would be greatly diminished due to an increase in infiltration, as well as interception over time as vegetation becomes reestablished. Potential Combined Effects of Roads and Harvest - Recent studies examining the effects of roading and harvest on small and large basins have found differing effects. Jones and Grant (1996) found that clearcut harvest increased peak discharges by as much as 50 percent in small basins and 100 percent in large basins, with the primary mechanism being the interaction between roads, harvested units, and the stream network. Thomas and Megahan (1998) examined the same data and found no effect or inconclusive effects of harvest in large basins. In small basins, they found increases of 40 percent (where patchcut with roads) to 90 percent (where clearcut with no roads) in peak flows of smallest storm events; diminishing with the size of the storm to no effect on peak flows for storm events with two-year or greater return intervals. With the Pyramid Thin Project, the effects of thinning would likely be immeasurable at the 6th field watershed scale, due to the kind of treatment it is (i.e. thinning of trees versus clearcutting or patch cutting in the studies), and the small acreage being treated. The combined effect of the thinning harvest prescriptions with the existing road network is not expected to measurably alter streamflow patterns. Culvert Replacement and Installation - Alternative 2 includes the installation of four culverts on FSR 1703100 as well as two culverts on FSR 1703190, to facilitate drainage and reduce future maintenance costs. The culvert replacements would improve drainage along the route in the headwaters of the North Fork Pistol River subwatershed, which would reduce the risk of road failures and erosion associated with poor drainage off roads.


Riparian Reserves, Canopy Cover, and Large Wood Recruitment - The Pyramid Thin Project treatment areas avoid intermittent and perennial stream systems. No treatments would occur in Riparian Reserves, or close enough to stream systems to affect canopy cover and large wood recruitment in these systems. A potential concern with Pyramid Thin treatments has been introduction of disease that could attack and kill Port Orford Cedar (POC) in the area. A direct effect of this could be loss of POC in riparian areas, which would in turn reduce canopy cover and potentially increase stream temperatures. However, POC trees are scattered in the stream drainages in this area with other tree species in the riparian areas that would continue to maintain comparable canopy covers and stream temperatures in these systems (personal communication with Eric Martz, Gold Beach Ranger District Silviculturist, 3/4/2008). Sediment Delivery Processes - No thinning is proposed within inner gorges, on unstable slopes, or within any portion of Riparian Reserves. Temporary road spurs are proposed on stable upper slopes to ridgelines, with no stream crossings, ditches, or culverts. No increases in sediment delivery are expected from these sources. Refer to the Geology and Soils Report (EA Appendix A) for more information on erosion processes. Activities that have the potential to increase peak stream flows may also increase sediment delivery, through downcutting and destabilizing stream banks. Since measurable increases in peak flow are not expected, current rates of downcutting and bank erosion are not expected to increase as a result of activities proposed under this alternative. Replacement or new installation of culverts has the potential to add small amounts of sediment during and immediately following construction work. These impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible through implementation of standard best management practices for those activities.

d. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, approximately 311 acres of matrix-allocated lands would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. Alternative 3 is similar to the Proposed Action, except that Alternative 3 proposes to eliminate temporary road construction in Treatment Units 3 and 13. Due to these changes, 158 acres of skyline yarding would be changed to helicopter while ground-based harvest acres would remain the same. The number of helicopter landings would be increased to 5. Effects to hydrology would be similar to the discussion for Alternative 2 with the differences noted below.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would eliminate roughly 1.5 miles of temporary road construction, in Units 3 and 13. Remaining temporary roads would have similar effects as described under the Proposed Action. Units 3 and 13 would not have the effects of openings created from road construction in addition to effects from the thinning prescription. Overall road densities including temporary roads would be less than the Proposed Action, and effects would still not be expected to be measurable at the 6th field watershed size. While no increases in sediment delivery from temporary roads to the stream systems are expected under the Proposed Action, eliminating temporary roads in Units 3 and 13 reduces the amount of soil displacement that would occur onto the neighboring slopes.



1. Direct and Indirect Effects The difference between Alternative 4 and the Proposed Action is that Alternative 4 proposes no temporary road construction, and Treatment Units 1, 2, 3, and 5 would be dropped from consideration. Due to these changes, helicopter harvest would be increased to 140 acres, skyline harvest would be reduced to 35 acres, and ground-based harvest would be reduced to 5 acres. Effects to hydrology would be similar to the discussion in Alternative 2 with the differences noted below. Effects of Alternative 4 would be similar to those in the Proposed Action, but over less ground in the North Fork Pistol River, and with no treatment in Upper Hunter Creek. There would be no effects related to road construction or decommissioning activities since these activities would not occur. While no increases in sediment delivery from temporary roads to the stream systems are expected under the Proposed Action, eliminating temporary roads eliminates soil displacement that would be caused by that activity.

f. Cumulative Effects Analysis The concept of hydrologic recovery is commonly applied to assess cumulative effects. The watershed analyses for Pistol River and Hunter Creek used the equivalent clearcut methodology (ECA) to measure the effects of past and current management activity on the state of watershed health for each 5th field watershed, as well as for the subwatersheds within those 5th field watersheds. The methodology analyzed such characteristics as vegetative stand age, acreage, road densities, stream crossings, and rural and agricultural development. On privately owned commercial timber lands in the Pistol River and Hunter Creek watersheds it is expected that timber will continue to be harvested every 30 to 50 years, as trees reach a size that is marketable. On timber industry land there has been a pattern of large clearcuts, both mature conifer forest and more recently second growth including large tracts of alder. State of Oregon forest practices have different regulations governing size of timber harvest units and treatment of riparian areas than Federal regulations. Clearcutting riparian areas and stream banks is permitted on intermittent and small perennial streams. Partial cuts are permitted along large perennial and fish-bearing streams. These State regulations have been followed on the timber industry land. Additional portions of the lower watersheds are privately owned. Some of this has been cleared and maintained in an unforested state for agricultural, residential, and industrial use. It is possible that the changes in vegetative cover as mature conifer forest was removed, alder grew in and matured, then was removed, have altered the flows in the Pistol River and Hunter Creek, but there are no stream gage data to verify this. Pistol River Watershed - A key finding of the Pistol River watershed analysis was that nearly all of the FS managed acres in the watershed are in a hydrologically natural condition or are hydrologically recovered. The North Fork Pistol and Sunrise Area subwatersheds (now combined as the North Fork Pistol River 6th field watershed) rated out as 96 percent hydrologically recovered and/or in natural condition.


Another key finding was that, at the 5th field scale, cumulative hydrologic effects at the watershed scale are uncertain, but unlikely due to the high percentage of hydrologically recovered federal land, and low development in the watershed. Besides continued harvest activities on private lands, foreseeable future actions in the Pistol River watershed include Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments (CHFT), which would involve commercial thinning of timber stands that are approximately 70 years of age or less. These treatments would maintain the age of the stands, and would not involve any new FS system road building, so CHFT implementation in the watershed would not have an impact to ECA or the overall hydrologic recovery of the Pistol River watershed. Hunter Creek Watershed - The Upper Hunter Creek 6th field watershed is made up of what were the Hunter Creek and North Fork Hunter Creek 6th field watersheds in the Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis. These two watersheds rated out as 85 percent and 86 percent hydrologically recovered, respectively. The Lower Hunter Creek 6th field watershed is made up of what were the Big South Fork and Lower Hunter Creek 6th field watersheds in the Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis. These two watersheds rated out as 78 percent and 83 percent hydrologically recovered, respectively. The majority of the Big South Fork, and a high percentage of Lower Hunter Creek, is comprised of private forest products industry lands that are typically harvested on a regular rotation every 30 to 50 years. Other foreseeable future actions in the Hunter Creek watershed include implementation of the Southwest Timber Sale, which involves commercial thinning of approximately 494 acres of timber stands that are approximately 70 to 110 years in age, and would maintain the age of the stands. It also involves no new construction of roads, and just under 5 miles of road decommissioning, which has a net benefit to the hydrologic recovery of the watershed. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments (CHFT) are also anticipated in the foreseeable future, which would involve commercial thinning of timber stands that are approximately 70 years of age or less. These treatments would maintain the age of the stands, and would not involve any new FS system road building, so CHFT implementation in the watershed would not have an impact to ECA or the overall hydrologic recovery of the Hunter Creek watershed. The Hunter Creek Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project plans to increase habitat diversity on 2 miles of Hunter Creek on NFS lands for coastal cutthroat trout. The project involves constructing log and boulder instream structures to increase and develop hiding cover, pool habitat and spawning habitat. Implementation is planned for 2008.

1. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Since there are expected to be no measurable direct or indirect effects resulting from the Proposed Action at the 6th field watershed level, and the hydrologic recovery of the watersheds would be maintained, there would be no potential for adverse cumulative effects at the Pistol River or Hunter Creek 5th field level. The Pyramid Thin Project would maintain the age of the stands being treated within the Pistol River watershed. Road densities in the watershed would increase by 0.05 percent during implementation, but with decommissioning would return to current condition. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not have an impact to ECA or the overall hydrologic recovery of the Pistol River watershed. The Proposed Action would maintain the age of the stands being treated within the Hunter Creek watershed. Road densities in the watershed would increase by 0.02 percent during implementation, but with decommissioning would return to current condition. Implementation of the Pyramid Thin project Proposed Action would not have an impact to ECA or the overall hydrologic recovery of the Hunter Creek watershed.


2. Alternative 3 The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2. The difference would be a reduction of effects associated with the temporary road density that would be approximately 1.5 miles less than Alternative 2. Since there are expected to be no measurable direct or indirect effects resulting from Alternative 3 at the 6th field watershed level, and the hydrologic recovery of the watersheds would be maintained, there would be no potential for cumulative effects at the Pistol River or Hunter Creek 5th field level.

3. Alternative 4 The cumulative effects of Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 2. The difference would be the elimination of any temporary road construction; therefore, there would be no temporary increase in road densities. Since there are expected to be no measurable direct or indirect effects resulting from Alternative 3 at the 6th field watershed level, and the hydrologic recovery of the watersheds would be maintained, there would be no potential for cumulative effects at the Pistol River or Hunter Creek 5th field level.

3. WATER QUALITY How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect hydrologic conditions and water quality regarding 303(d) listed waterbodies? Several waterbodies associated with stands proposed for density management have streams listed by the Department of Environmental Quality 303(d) report as water quality limited with regard to water temperature or other listing parameters. Past timber harvest may have exacerbated these conditions by removing trees that provide stream shade. Natural disturbance, roads, mining and water withdrawal can also cause increased stream temperatures.

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix B – Hydrology Report, incorporated by reference. Several streams in the 6th field watersheds associated with the Pyramid Thin Project treatment areas and associated actions are considered water quality limited by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and are on the 303(d) list in the 2004/2006 Integrated Report. Table III-4 identifies the streams that are listed as Category 5 water quality limited, the parameters for which they are listed, and the beneficial uses that are protected by the pollutant standard.


Table III-4. Water Quality Limited Streams. Includes streams within the North Fork Pistol River, Upper Hunter Creek, and Lower Hunter Creek 6th field watersheds.

Stream / River Mile

Parameter Season Beneficial Uses

Hunter Creek 0 to 7.2

pH Summer Resident fish & aquatic life Water contact recreation

Hunter Creek 0 to 18.4 Temperature

Year Around (non-spawning) Salmon & trout rearing & migration

North Fork Hunter Creek 0 to 4.8 Temperature

Year Around (non-spawning) Salmon & trout rearing & migration

Fecal Coliform Year Around Shellfish growing

pH Summer

Anadromous fish passage Resident fish & aquatic life

Salmonid fish rearing Salmonid fish spawning Water contact recreation

Pistol River 0 to 19.8

Temperature Year Around (non-spawning)

Salmon & trout rearing & migration

The Chetco River Sub-basin is currently in the process of developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and associated Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which will include a management strategy for achieving the TMDL. Once approved by EPA and implemented, these stream segments would be delisted. Temperature - The State evaluation criterion for streams that support coldwater fisheries is less than or equal to 64oF. The U.S. Forest Service has monitored stream temperatures above the National Forest boundary in the Pistol River and Hunter Creek with recording thermometers during the summer months beginning in 1991. The USFS data indicates that the 7-day average temperatures exceed the State standard of 64o Fahrenheit (Table III-5). Table III-5. FS Monitoring of Stream Temperatures in Pistol and Hunter Watersheds.

Site Years Monitored Range of 7-Day Average Max °F Pistol River above East Fork 4 66.6 to 68.3 East Fork Pistol 4 64.6 to 67.4 Pistol River above North Fork 3 65.7 to 71.1 North Fork Pistol at Forest Boundary 4 63.7 to 66.3 North Fork Pistol at Bridge 6 66.6 to 73.8 Hunter Cr at Rd 3680190 bridge 9 63.0 to 64.5 Hunter Cr at Forest Boundary 10 72.1 to 80.0

The 7-day average maximum temperatures at the Pistol River sites are typical of streams of this size on the west side of the Siskiyou National Forest, whether or not they are in previously harvested watersheds. The 9 to 15 degrees of heating in Hunter Creek in the 2.2 miles between the 3680190 bridge and the Forest Boundary is extreme. Each year, the temperature at the Forest Boundary site is warmer than any other monitored stream of its drainage size on the westside of the Siskiyou National Forest; and in some years it is the warmest of any stream regardless of size. The creek flows through a canyon formed of ultramafic bedrock that supports very little vegetation and has little shade of any kind. This area has had no timber harvest, and the only road is outside of the inner gorge. There are several large, naturally occurring inner gorge landslides in this canyon that continually ravel, delivering coarse sediment to the stream and keeping its bed wide and shallow so that it has a large amount of surface area for the volume of water, adding to its exposure to solar radiation.


Effects of prior management activities - During the period following clearcut harvest of the riparian areas of these streams in the late 1950s and early 1960s, temperatures in the stream segments may have increased. A temperature study in Elko Creek, a tributary to Hunter Creek, found that timber harvest in the early 1980s increased stream heating through the harvested reach. Subsequent dense vegetation growth now shades Elko Creek, and temperatures recorded in the 1990s approximate pre-harvest data (SWTS EA, p. IIII-8). pH - The State evaluation criterion for pH is a range of 6.5 to 8.5 units. pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of water, and is important in determining the chemical form and availability of nutrients and toxic chemicals. pH can vary in streams naturally throughout the day due to photosynthesis and respiration cycles of attached algae. When pollution results in higher algal and plant growth, pH levels may increase. This is because photosynthesis uses up dissolved carbon dioxide, which acts like carbonic acid in water. As carbon dioxide is decreased, the acidity of the water decreases. These changes in pH can aggravate nutrient problems by increasing the solubility of phosphorus, making it more available for plant growth. Hunter Creek at river mile 2.4 exceeded the criteria range on 6/27/2000, and at river mile 0.6 from 6/12/2002 to 9/18/2002 exceeded the criteria range 3 out of 13 samples (Oregon DEQ 2004/2006 Integrated Report Database). The 2004/2006 Integrated Report Database shows that the Pistol River at river mile 0.2 exceeded the pH criteria range 5 out of 31 samples between 1994 and 2003. Fecal Coliform - Bacteria in the coliform group are used as indicators to test the sanitary quality of water for drinking, swimming, and shellfish culture. Fecal coliform bacteria enters streams from many sources associated with human and animal wastes in urban and agricultural watersheds. The State evaluation criterion is a fecal coliform median of 14 organisms per 100ml, with no more than 10 percent of samples greater than 43 organisms per 100ml. Between 1994 and 2002, Pistol River at river mile 0.2 reported 9 out of 38 samples (24 percent) with greater than 43 organisms per 100ml and a median concentration of 11.5 organisms per 100ml (Oregon DEQ 2004/2006 Integrated Report Database). Turbidity - Characteristically, streams in this area have brief periods of increased turbidity during winter storms, then clear within a few days. The portions of the Pistol River and Hunter Creek and their tributaries that lie within the National Forest have been observed to follow this general pattern. There may have been increases in turbidity in these watersheds following harvest in prior decades, when harvest and road building practices disturbed stream channels. These increases would probably have subsided after the first winter following completion of activities. How much effect this had on turbidity further down in the Pistol River and Hunter Creek is unknown.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to the existing vegetation or ground-disturbing activities; therefore, there would be no direct effects to water quality. The No Action Alternative would not alter the physical environment. Current conditions would be allowed to develop undisturbed The “No-Action” Alternative would have no direct effects to water quality since there would be no thinning activities implemented. Natural recovery and processes would continue to occur. The composition and character of forest stands adjacent to streams would not be altered. Thus, there would be no effect to stream shading and no change to stream temperature. There would be no effects to pH or fecal coliform. There would be no direct effects from fine sediment to streams from the “No-Action” Alternative. Since there would be no soil disturbance from management activities, there would be no chance of fine sediment delivery and no change in turbidity. Indirect effects could occur from the increased risk of crossing failures at the locations identified for culvert installation or upgrades.


Under No Action, timber stand age would be maintained and no new roads would be constructed, therefore there would be no change to ECA or the overall hydrologic recovery of the Pistol River watershed.


Under the Proposed Action, approximately 311 acres of matrix-allocated lands would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. Thinning would conduct density management by removing Douglas-fir suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees to reach desired tree spacing. Other conifers, hardwoods, existing snags and all down large woody material would be left. Fuels reduction activities would consist of some leaving tops attached to landings, machine piling and burning landing piles, and hand piling and burning slash concentrations within 100 feet of Forest Road 1703. The Proposed Action would involve the construction of an estimated 1.8 miles of temporary roads which would be decommissioned following treatment activities. Normal road maintenance activities would occur on existing roads and 6 culverts would be replaced.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Temperature - Any activity that removes shade from a perennial stream has the potential to increase stream temperature through increased solar radiation reaching the stream surface. No harvest or temporary spur road construction is proposed within Riparian Reserves, so there would be no effect on stream temperature as a result of shade removal. Changes in channel morphology also may affect stream temperature. Downcutting from increased flows may make the water column deeper and narrower, exposing less surface to solar radiation; aggrading from increased sediment delivery may make the water column shallower and wider, exposing more surface to solar radiation. Where sediment deposits are porous, streams may flow subsurface, exposing less water to solar radiation. No measurable changes in channel morphology are expected, so there would be no effect on stream temperature from this source. If coarse sediment from proposed activities is delivered to stream channels, transported downstream, and deposited in Hunter Creek, North Fork Hunter Creek, or North Fork Pistol River in sufficiently large amounts to make the channels wider and shallower in unshaded reaches, it could have the potential to increase stream temperature if water flows over the sediment; or decrease temperature if the water flows through the sediment. No measurable increases in sediment delivery are expected from this project, so there would be no increases in stream temperature from this mechanism. Forest Service regulations require that haul roads be maintained for safe travel. Roadside brushing is necessary for visual safety. This requires the cutting of roadside vegetation and could include riparian vegetation at stream crossings. Vegetation pruning is the removal of branches from the ground up to a height of eight feet. The treatment would remove only the bottom branches of the tree and maintain the overstory canopy. Since roads are usually constructed outside the flood zone of a stream and trees are located back away from the stream, trees that can provide stream shade along a roadside are typically 50 feet or taller. For trees 50 feet tall, pruning would not remove branches in the upper 75% of the crown. Thus, the portion of the tree that provides most of the shade throughout the day would not be affected. For stream crossings, the road fill over the culvert shades the stream, not riparian vegetation. Thus, road maintenance activities would not affect stream temperature.


A potential concern with Pyramid Thin treatments has been introduction of disease that could attack and kill Port Orford Cedar (POC) in the area. An indirect effect of this could be loss of POC in riparian areas, which would in turn reduce canopy cover and potentially increase stream temperatures. However, POC trees are scattered in the stream drainages in this area with other tree species in the riparian areas that would continue to maintain comparable canopy covers and stream temperatures in these systems. pH - Changes in pH are usually associated with increases in pollution that cause an increase in algal and aquatic plant growth. The Pyramid Thin proposed treatment activities are not expected to have impacts to stream systems through sedimentation or any other form of pollution. Small amounts of sediment may enter stream systems during culvert replacement and installation locations, but these inputs would be short term and most likely immeasurable at the 6th field watershed scale, therefore no measurable effect to water quality related to pH is expected in any of the associated 6th field watersheds. Fecal Coliform - Fecal coliform bacteria in stream systems are typically associated with human and animal wastes in urban and agricultural watersheds. Since the Pyramid Thin proposed activities do not involve human or animal wastes, no effect to water quality related to fecal coliform is expected in any of the associated 6th field watersheds. Turbidity - The activities that have the potential to deliver sediment to streams would also have the potential to increase turbidity. The portion of the sediment delivered that is fine enough to be suspended and create turbidity would depend on the soil type eroded. The only actions that are expected to have a small and short term, but potentially measurable increase in sediment delivery, and therefore turbidity, would be culvert replacements and installation (refer to Sediment Delivery Processes discussion).

d. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, approximately 311 acres of matrix-allocated lands would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. Alternative 3 is similar to the Proposed Action, except that Alternative 3 proposes to eliminate temporary road construction in Treatment Units 3 and 13. Due to these changes, 158 acres of skyline yarding would be changed to helicopter while ground-based harvest acres would remain the same. The number of helicopter landings would be increased to 5. Effects to hydrology would be similar to the discussion for Alternative 2 with the differences noted below.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would eliminate roughly 1.5 miles of temporary road construction, in Units 3 and 13. Remaining temporary roads would have similar effects as described under the Proposed Action. Units 3 and 13 would not have the effects of opening creation from road construction in addition to effects from the thinning prescription. Overall road densities including temporary roads would be less than the Proposed Action, and effects would still not be expected to be measurable at the 6th field watershed size.



1. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 4 would involve commercial thinning of stands on 180 acres of matrix-allocated lands using a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter harvest methods. The difference between Alternative 4 and the Proposed Action is that Alternative 4 proposes no temporary road construction, and Treatment Units 1, 2, 3, and 5 would be dropped from consideration. Due to these changes, helicopter harvest would be increased to 140 acres, skyline harvest would be reduced to 35 acres, and ground-based harvest would be reduced to 5 acres. Overall road densities would be less than the Proposed Action and effects would still not be expected to be measurable at the 6th field watershed size.

f. Cumulative Effects Analysis Cumulative effects analysis for water quality is similar to those described under the Hydrology issue discussion. Since there are expected to be no measurable direct or indirect effects resulting from the Proposed Action at the 6th field watershed level, and the hydrologic recovery of the watersheds would be maintained, there would be no potential for cumulative effects at the Pistol River or Hunter Creek 5th field level for water quality under any alternatives considered.

4. NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY

How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect attainment of Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Objectives?

a. Background – Existing Conditions The Aquatic Conservation Strategy contains four components: riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analyses and watershed restoration. Each part is expected to play an important role in improving the health of the region’s aquatic ecosystems. Riparian Reserves are established as a component of the ACS, designed primarily to restore and maintain the health of aquatic systems and their dependent species. Riparian Reserves also help to maintain riparian structures and functions and conserve habitat for organisms dependent on the transition zone between riparian and upland areas. Riparian Reserves include lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, and potentially unstable areas that are subject to special Standards and Guidelines designed to conserve aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Widths for Riparian Reserves necessary to ensure ACS objectives for different waterbodies are established based on ecological and geomorphic factors. Pyramid Thin Project does not plan to enter areas classified as Riparian Reserves. There are no fish-bearing or permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams proximal to any treatment units. Field data was collected and reviewed to determine the height of site potential trees within each treatment unit (see Chapter II, section c: Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserves). The values in Table II-1 have been used to designate Riparian Reserve buffers (NWFP, C-30 and 31) adjacent to seasonal flowing or intermittent streams. Key Watershed designation is a component of the ACS that is applied to watersheds that contain at-risk fish species or anadromous stocks and that provide high quality water and fish habitat. Neither the Pistol River nor Hunter Creek fifth-field watersheds are designated as a Key Watershed.


The Northwest Forest Plan requires consistency with ACS with specific reference to nine ACS Objectives. Below, is a summation of the environmental analysis regarding consistency with the elements and components of the objectives. Specific rationale may be found in analysis documented under other Relevant Issues: Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality.

b. Consistency with ACS Objectives

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

All action alternatives are expected to improve stand structure and composition within the designated treatment units. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. Density management thinning is expected to improve species and habitat diversity across the hillside while leaving Riparian Reserves intact. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed, utilized and decommissioned after use, and logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. All action alternatives would have an insignificant and undetectable effect with a long-term beneficial effect on watershed and landscape-scale features.

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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. Density management thinning is expected to improve species and habitat diversity across the hillside while leaving Riparian Reserves intact. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed, utilized and decommissioned after use, and logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. All action alternatives would have an insignificant and undetectable effect on network connections between watersheds.

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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain physical integrity of the aquatic system. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. Density management thinning is expected to improve species and habitat diversity across the hillside while leaving Riparian Reserves intact. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed, utilized and decommissioned after use, and logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. Impacts to stream flow and riparian habitat are expected to be undetectable. All action alternatives would have an insignificant and undetectable effect on physical integrity of the aquatic system.


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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. Density management thinning is expected to improve species and habitat diversity across the hillside while leaving Riparian Reserves intact. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed, utilized and decommissioned after use, and logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. Impacts to water quality are expected to be undetectable. All action alternatives would have an insignificant and undetectable effect on water quality.

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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. Density management thinning is expected to improve species and habitat diversity across the hillside while leaving Riparian Reserves intact. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed, utilized and decommissioned after use, and logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. All action alternatives would have an insignificant and undetectable effect on sediment regime.

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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. Density management thinning is expected to improve species and habitat diversity across the hillside while leaving Riparian Reserves intact.

Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed, utilized and decommissioned after use, and logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. All action alternatives would have an insignificant and undetectable effect on in-stream flow.

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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. Density management thinning is expected to improve species and habitat diversity across the hillside while leaving Riparian Reserves intact. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed, utilized and decommissioned after use, and logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. Impacts to floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands are expected to be undetectable.


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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in Riparian Reserves and wetlands. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. No impacts are anticipated from the action alternatives that would affect species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in Riparian Reserves and wetlands.

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

All action alternatives are expected to maintain habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Manipulation of vegetation within Riparian Reserves would be avoided. No impacts are anticipated from the action alternatives that would affect habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Therefore, as an overall conclusion, the impacts associated with the action alternatives, either directly, indirectly, individually or cumulatively, would not prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy nor the nine ACS Objectives, at the site, watershed or landscape scales.

5. FIRE / FUELS How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect fuel loading and fire hazard conditions?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix H – Fire/Fuels Report, incorporated by reference. The general watershed area has a low occurrence of lightning caused fires. Most of the lightning storm events are accompanied by moderate and sometimes heavy rainfall. Under these circumstances, fires have sometimes been started, burned small areas, and then have been put out by the accompanying rainfall shortly thereafter. Most lightning fires have been detected while they are small in size, and have been suppressed before becoming larger than one acre. The potential for human caused starts could be considered low to moderate. Public and industrial users travel the main road through the area during the dry season, although industrial activity during the past decade has reduced considerably. Hunters frequent the area during the fall time, but camping opportunities are limited. The existing levels of dead and down fuels in the proposed treatment units are considered light, consisting primarily of fine limbwood from the self-pruning occurring in the stands. In the Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues in Common Vegetative Types of the Pacific Northwest (PNW-105, 1980), the classification 1-MC-3 closely represents the fuels present in these stands, with 2.5 to 4 tons per acre of 0 to 3-inch material, and very little larger material. These fuels are compact and low to the ground, and are best described as a Fuel Model 8-Closed Timber Litter, of the Fire Behavior Fuel Models (Anderson 1982). Hardwoods are a minor component of these stands, either in the overstory or understory, which is typical of fire generated stands such as these.


Live ground fuels are also scattered and comprise a very minor amount of the available fuels. Salal is the primary ground cover, and is considered a low to no threat component of the overall fuel picture due to its fire resistant nature. Wild Rhododendron and Evergreen Huckleberry make up the shrub layer of vegetation, with burning characteristics similar to Salal. In general, ladder fuels capable of carrying a fire from the ground to the crowns of trees are minimal within these stands. The trees themselves are generally reaching a point where their bark thickness is more likely to tolerate the heat that is generated by the low to moderate intensity surface fire which may pass through the stands. Fires, burning in this fuel model, are generally characterized by slow burning ground fires; with short flame lengths (less than 4 feet), and present only minimal control problems, under normal dry season weather conditions. High winds and temperatures, steep slopes, and low humidity can cause control difficulties in this fuel model; as well as create a more stand-damaging effect. Fire behavior is influenced by the shading and wind-breaking effects of the closed conifer canopy. This shading effect generally maintains a cooler microclimate, as opposed to an open-grown area where increases in solar radiation and wind tend to decrease fuel moisture and increase fire intensity. The closed canopy creates conditions conducive to cooler fire behavior by reducing fuel bed heating (a function of shading) and by buffering the prevailing wind speeds. While these stands could tolerate a surface fire, they are still vulnerable to an independent crown fire initiated from the outside, and carried into the area by weather (wind) and/or topographic conditions. The closed canopy condition would readily allow fire to move from one crown to another. Steeper slopes will amplify this situation due to pre-heating. Such a fire would likely be lethal to the stand. Relationships of Fuels and Fire Effects on Thinning-Aged Stands - The Biscuit Fire of 2002 provided considerable empirical evidence that many managed stands of commercial thinning size had poor chances of surviving a wildfire, where no fuels treatments had been employed. A goal of this project is to improve forest resiliency which would help control the possibility of stand replacement disturbances such as those created by severe wildfire. The range of harvest treatments proposed with the Pyramid Thin Project would need to consider stand and fuels treatment which would promote stand survivability, in the event that they are subjected to a wildfire, or perhaps are intentionally burned, in the future. A hierarchy of potential treatments to prevent stand replacement disturbances by fire has been established. The initial step to be taken is to reduce the potential for a surface fire to get into the crowns of the trees in the stand. Research indicates that to keep a surface fire on the surface, breaking the ladder fuel chain, while concurrently raising the crown base height (with emphasis on raising crown base height), must be accomplished. The general recognized practice to accomplish this is to thin from below. Fuels created by any harvest operations must be reduced to the point where surface fire intensity will be low enough to prevent mortality of residual trees by crown fire initiation (keep the fire on the ground), as well as minimizing any lethal amounts of heat being applied to the base of the bole of the tree. Timber stand improvement work without treatment of the fuels created by such activities, were burned more severely than unmodified areas. Whole tree harvest, with disposal of tops at the landing; is most effective at preventing surface fuel increases in the residual stand.


The next level of treatment is to prevent the spread of an active crown fire, once it has been initiated. Fire can spread from crown to crown through heat transfer, via two mechanisms. Pre-heating of the crowns by an advancing surface fire will allow a passive crown fire (torching) to escalate to an active crown fire, and propagate in the direction of fire spread, so long as the surface fuels allow this pre-heating to occur (not withstanding the thorough treatment of surface fuels), and by the continuity of the crowns which allow for the aerial spread of the fire. Combinations of steeper slopes, drier/hotter conditions, and the influence of wind can exacerbate this problem; and could lead to an independent crown fire, spreading through the crowns without the need of pre-heating by burning surface fuels, and regardless of the crown base height. Reducing the crown densities is the common recommendation. Given the proper degree of crown bulk density reduction, this chain can effectively be broken, causing the fire to drop back to the surface. There are general guidelines for addressing crown continuity. An example of a field-based rule is that the distance between adjacent tree crowns should be the average diameter of the crown of the co-dominant trees in the stand. Another rule of thumb taught at S-490 (Advanced Wildland Fire Behavior Calculations) is that thinning to a 75% canopy closure is generally adequate. Thinning to below these levels further reduces the risk of crown-to-crown fire spread. Reduction of crown density can open up the understory so that mid-flame wind speed may be increased, fine fuel moisture may be reduced due to increased solar radiation, and growth of fine herbaceous fuels may be promoted due to increased exposure to sunlight. Using the Fire Behavior Field Reference Guide (PMS 436-4), the effects to surface winds and fine fuel moistures, as a result of opening up the canopy can be described. Wind Adjustment Tables indicate that a wind speed of 10 mph at the 20 ft. level would result in a 1-2 mph mid flame wind speed (ground level); in a fully sheltered stand, such as can be found with the existing condition. Implementation of the Proposed Action would leave the stand in a partially sheltered condition, with a resulting mid flame wind speed of 3 mph. The table itself offers only 3 levels of sheltering: Fully Sheltered, Partially Sheltered, and Unsheltered. Fine Fuel Moisture Adjustment Tables offer two levels of comparison, Shaded (>50% shading) and Exposed (<50% shading) of surface fuels. The differences in fine fuel moisture corrections can range from 1-3%. The existing condition would be considered as shaded, any portion of the proposed action which opens up the canopy more than 50% would be considered exposed. Both the wind and fine fuel moisture components described above relate more to the probability of ignition and rate of fire spread, than to fire intensity, in the overall picture of Fire Behavior. The amount, size, and arrangement of the fuel left on site will dictate fire intensity and any resultant mortality. The effects on the potential for increased growth of fine herbaceous fuels, due to increased exposure to sunlight; is addressed in the Silvicultural Prescription. The last treatment identified is to develop more fire resistant stands by retaining the largest of the existing trees while developing larger trees at a faster rate. Larger trees are more fire resistant in nature because of their thicker bark and higher crown base height. Modeling of crown fire initiation, the potential to sustain an active or independent crown fire, and the types of treatments needed to mitigate these problems, generally requires in-depth stand data (stand examinations). FVS-FFE (Forest Veg Simulator-Fire Fuels Extension) is the analytical tool which uses stand exam data to estimate potential mortality and the type of fire burning within a given stand. The modeling uses simulated silvicultural harvest prescriptions (recommended by the Silviculturist) to remove trees from the stands. A simulated fire is then run through these stands under set weather and fuel moisture parameters, using surface fuel types assigned to most nearly represent the results of either the pre-harvest conditions, or post-harvest conditions representing different levels of fuel treatment.


Analysis shows that in their existing condition most stands of the stands proposed for treatment would generally tolerate a wildfire burning under the 95th percentile conditions; with less than 25% potential mortality resulting from the fire (see Table III-6). Fire characteristics tend to be surface fires, with low flame lengths, and the modeling shows that crown fires are difficult to initiate in all sizes/ages of stands. While the fuel models in these stands varied between Low to Moderate Load Conifer Litter models, the Moderate Load Conifer Litter model was used to represent a worst case scenario in the analysis. FFE modeling results, % mortality based on Basal Area, and type of fire:

Table III-6. Percent mortality by proposed fuels treatment Unit Existing Condition Post-Harvest,

Leave Tops Post-Harvest,

Yard Tops 3 12%, Surface Fire 17%, Surface Fire 9%, Surface Fire 6 20%, Surface Fire 26%, Surface Fire 18%, Surface Fire 11 9%, Surface Fire 12%, Surface Fire 7%, Surface Fire 13 14%, Surface Fire 34%, Surface Fire 8%, Surface Fire

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no management activities within the project area would occur. It would be expected that current stand conditions would continue to develop in a natural and undisturbed manner into the foreseeable future. Deep shading, tight canopy cover inhibiting air flow, low crown ratios, and advanced decomposition of the more volatile surface fuels aid in reducing fire severity in forested stands. The stands in the Pyramid Thin area are reasonably resilient to the effects of wildfire in their current condition. These stands have survived almost 100 years of vulnerability to the potential adverse effects of fire, and have evolved into a condition of becoming more resistant and resilient to these effects. Crown base heights are generally raised and the fuel ladder will continue to be eliminated (both positive fire resistive attributes). They could tolerate most surface fires, with the only true threat to mass mortality being an independent crown fire situation. This condition would not remain static over time however. While fuels in the majority of the areas proposed for commercial thinning presently constitute a low to moderate hazard, stand dynamics would slowly alter this situation over time. Natural foliage loss and self-pruning are presently contributing fine fuels to the litter layer. Suppressed and intermediate trees would slowly begin to die out and contribute larger fuels to the forest floor. This process is being somewhat offset by the meltdown (slow decomposition) of these same fuels, with the smaller more flammable fuels decomposing at a much faster rate than the larger fuels. The process of fuels build up and the inevitable changes in stand dynamics is a very slow cycle, possibly taking numerous decades to actually develop a noticeable hazard. The results of these processes would more readily facilitate fire spread and contribute to potentially higher severity fire, which can put the stand at an increasingly higher risk of mortality than currently exists. During this same time period the trees themselves would be developing a thicker bark layer, making them more resistant to the effects of fire, countering (to a degree) the potentially higher fire severity created by fuels being contributed from the stand itself. The long-term combined effects of other past, present or future projects from a fire and fuels perspective would be to improve the Fuel Management Zone along the ridgetop road system as described in the 2004 Biscuit Fire Recovery Project Record of Decision. Stands along the ridgetop road system would be thinned and slash would be treated with hand piling concentrations and LTA to help establish a defensible space if another wildfire were to start in the area. With No Action, lack of implementing the Pyramid Project would create a “gap” in defensible space along the ridgetop road system and an opportunity to improve the Fuel Management Zone would be lost.



The Proposed Action would commercially thin approximately 13 treatment units totaling approximately 311 acres. Harvest activities would use a combination of helicopter (83 acres), skyline (213 acres), and ground based (15 acres) logging systems. During tractor and skyline yarding activities, tops of trees removed would be yarded and piled on landings. Following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road and all landing piles of slash would be burned. Following timber harvest, all landing piles of slash would be burned.


Prescriptions and treatments would be designed, whereby in the event of an unwanted wildfire, the treated stands would be left in such a condition that wildfire would pass though without generating unacceptable levels of mortality, and provide an area where the fire can be managed by ground based initial attack resources.

1. Direct Effects The direct effects of this project from a fire and fuels perspective would be a short-term increase in fuels loading and the associated fire hazard within the units as generated from activity-generated slash. Such an increase would be ameliorated by implementing fuels treatment activities. Other untreated slash would be expected to reach a near natural condition within approximately 5 years. The Silvicultural Prescription for the proposed thinning calls for modifying the existing canopy cover to a condition of 42 to 59 percent. This action, in itself, generally reduces the potential for a running crown fire by opening up the spacing between tree crowns. The prescription also anticipates that the crowns would re-occupy these voids within 10 years, during which time the dead ground fuels would have returned to a state of near pre-harvest flammability. The primary concern to fire managers, related to fuels remaining after harvest, is the amount of the smaller diameter (0 to 3 inch) fuels that are left on site. These smaller fuels constitute a hazard from two points. The finer fuels are the most receptive to an ignition source (spark, match, lightning), and are the elements that promote rapid fire-spread and increased flame lengths. While the larger fuels (3 inches and greater) contribute to the duration and intensity of a fire (once one has started), the reduction of these fuels is of lesser importance than the reduction of the finer fuels, in the scheme of hazard reduction to reduce the potential for adverse affects of wildfire. Besides being of lesser importance in hazard reduction, the retention of this larger material would provide a multitude of other benefits, which enhance site productivity and complement other ecosystem values. The stands are most vulnerable to the potential adverse effects of fire from the time the fine fuels (needles and small twigs) become cured, until these fuels drop to ground level and become part of the litter layer. Curing usually occurs within the first month of exposure to late spring/early summer like weather conditions. The needles would generally fall off the twigs by the second or third year following harvest. The twigs decompose at a slower rate, taking four to six years to fall from the main branches. Larger branch wood follows suit, taking upwards of eight to twelve years to decompose to ground level. Once these smaller diameter fuels (<1”) have all reached ground level, decomposition is rapidly accelerated, and the risks associated with a wildfire have substantially diminished. Without treatment, the first 0 to 5 years present the window of highest risk.


Harvest activities (i.e. tractor, skyline and helicopter yarding systems) associated with the Proposed Action would add needles, limbwood, and tops to the existing fuel bed in varying degrees throughout each treatment area. Disturbed ground vegetation and larger woody material would contribute to the dead fuel loading. In comparison with the natural long-term accumulation of ground fuels, harvest would contribute fuels to the site at an accelerated rate. The fuels remaining after harvest would be mostly of the smaller size classes, as most of the larger fuels would be removed for utilization, unless contractual requirements specify that they be left on site. The estimated fuel bed remaining after harvest is best described as a Fuel Model 11- Light Logging Slash, of the Fire Behavior Fuel Models. The Photo Series For Quantifying Forest Residues (GTR PNW-51), 3-DF-3-PC; with a substantial reduction 3.1-9.0 inch size class due to increased utilization also is representative of this fuel type. This fuel bed typically has 5 to10 tons per acres of 0 to 3 inch size class fuels. In the event of an un-planned fire start, the potential for rapid-fire spread would be higher than a stand in a natural condition (2 to 7 chains per hour in a natural state, compared to 6 to 9 chains per hour after harvest). Implementing mechanical pre-bunching would result in activity-generated fuel bed conditions where fuels are not scattered across the area, but concentrated under the tracks of the machine as it moves about. Needles and small diameter limbs (fuels) are crushed / compressed. Air space in the fuel bed, as well as loft of the material is reduced; thereby, reducing potential flame lengths and fire intensities. This condition actually accelerates the results of natural decomposition and subsequent faster response to a reduction of potential fire intensities over time. Below, are fuels treatment options employed as Project Design Criteria (PDCs found in EA Chapter II) for proposed units. Implementation of these fuels treatment methods would be one or a combination of several treatments.

No treatment (NT), Hand piling fuels concentrations (HP), Yarding of tops (LTA), and/or Piling and Burning Landing Slash (MP)

SNF-LRMP Standards & Guidelines (S&G) 7-2 (Detrimental Soil Conditions) directs that the application of prescribed fire be conducted so that thresholds for bare soil exposure are not exceeded. Burning in the winter and spring windows of opportunity will best meet this objective, and will also compliment the objectives of maximizing the retention of Large Woody Material (S & G 7-8). Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for fire management (SNF-LRMP; pages IV-59 through 62) would be applied to this project. The fire hazard presented by natural, activity or prior activity fuels should be reduced to appropriate levels; and proposed activities should be designed and coordinated on the ground to help make the fuel treatment and fire protection as practical and economical as possible. With implementation of the fuels treatment activities above, predicted fuel loading in the commercial thinning units would be at or slightly lower than the Standard and Guideline (S & G), and would not require treatment to reduce the hazard, except along roads that would remain open after harvest.

2. Indirect Effects The indirect effects of this project from a fire and fuels perspective would be an increase in potential fire intensity due to reduced canopy closures. The reduction of canopy closure would allow for an increase in solar radiation and air movement. Both of which, would potentially decrease fuel moistures and allow an herbaceous and shrub understory to develop. These conditions would continue to develop until the residual canopies grow together within approximately 10 years. At that time, the treated stands would return to near natural conditions.


d. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 3 The number of treatment units and acres would not change from the Proposed Action. The relevant difference between the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 is a change in yarding methods for Treatment Units 3 and 13 which reflects changes to the entire project as follows: 213 acres of skyline yarding are reduced to 55 acres, 83 acres of helicopter yarding are increased to 241 acres and the number of acres incorporating LTA would decrease from 228 acres to 70 acres.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Though development of activity-generated fuels would be similar to the Proposed Action, the change of yarding systems in Unit #13 from skyline to helicopter would reduce the number of acres treated with LTA, though hand piling fuel concentrations would still occur within 100 feet of open roads. Fuels treatment would continue to result in conditions that meet Forest standards and guidelines. Potential fire intensities would be expected to be higher beyond the 100-foot hand pile buffer area along roads for the short-term. Instead of being removed through LTA, those fuels loads beyond the 100-foot buffer zone would continue to contain unmerchantable tree tops and slash that would be allowed to deteriorate at natural levels.

e. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 4 Treatment units 1, 2, 3 and 5 would not be treated. In addition to the reduction in treatment units, the relevant differences between the Proposed Action and Alternative 4 are: 15 acres of tractor yarding are reduced to 5 acres, 213 acres of skyline yarding are reduced to 35 acres, 83 acres of helicopter yarding are increased to 140 acres and the number of acres incorporating LTA would decrease from 228 acres to 40 acres.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Development of activity-generated fuels would be approximately 131 acres less than the Proposed Action. Treatment units 1, 2, 3, and 5; which are located along Road 1703 would not be treated to reduce canopy closure. This alternative would continue to result in conditions that meet Forest standards and guidelines. Hand piling activity-generated fuel concentrations would still occur within 100 feet of open roads. Within treated areas, potential fire intensities would be expected to be higher beyond the 100-foot hand pile buffer area along roads for the short-term. Instead of being removed through LTA, those fuels loads beyond the 100-foot buffer zone would continue to contain unmerchantable tree tops and slash that would be allowed to deteriorate at natural levels.

f. Cumulative Effects Analysis Analysis for determining cumulative effects is considered to include stand density reduction and activity-generated fuels on fuel loading and fire hazard along FSR 3680, 1503 and 1703. This analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Any other past, present or future treatment activities such as Too Wild Timber Sale (past), Southwest Timber Sale (past), Pyramid Thin (present), 2008 Blowdown Salvage Project and Equine Thin Project (proposed future) would be expected to meet Forest Standards and guidelines. This cumulative effects area is considered adequate since the concern is relevant to activity-generated fuels.


1. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Though there may be a short-term increase in fire hazard due to the generation of fine fuels, there would be a long-term benefit by decreasing tree/crown spacing and roadside fuels so that defensive measures could be deployed. The long-term combined effects of this project and other past, present and future projects from a fire and fuels perspective would be to improve the Fuel Management Zone along the ridgetop road system as described in the 2004 Biscuit Fire Recovery Project Record of Decision. Stands along the ridgetop road system would be thinned and slash would be treated with hand piling concentrations and LTA to help establish a defensible space if another wildfire were to start in the area. This along with the removal of the future potential for natural tree mortality would contribute to reducing the potential for catastrophic fire in this portion of the forest.

2. Alternative 3 The reduction of approximately 158 acres of LTA within Units 3 and 13 would have a proportionally reduced short-term increase in fire hazard due to the generation of fine fuels and there would be a proportionally reduced long-term benefit by decreasing tree/crown spacing and roadside fuels so that defensive measures could be deployed. The reduction of approximately 158 acres of LTA within Units 3 and 13 would not meet, to the level of the Proposed Action, the desired future conditions to improve the Fuel Management Zone along the ridgetop road system as described in the 2004 Biscuit Fire Recovery Project Record of Decision.

3. Alternative 4 Development of activity-generated fuels would be approximately 131 acres less than the Proposed Action and would have a proportionally reduced short-term increase in fire hazard due to the generation of fine fuels and there would be a proportionally reduced long-term benefit by decreasing tree/crown spacing and roadside fuels so that defensive measures could be deployed. Treatment units 1, 2, 3, and 5; which are located along Road 1703 would not be treated to reduce canopy closure and would not enhance Fuel Management Zone conditions at strategic locations. Due to the reduction of area treated along the ridge top road system, this alternative would not meet, to the level of the Proposed Action, the desired future conditions to improve the Fuel Management Zone along the ridgetop road system as described in the 2004 Biscuit Fire Recovery Project Record of Decision.

6. AIR QUALITY How would density management (thinning) treatments and activity fuels treatment affect air quality?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix H – Fire/Fuels Report, incorporated by reference. Total suspended particulate (TSP) emissions from National Forest lands in southwest Oregon have been analyzed (U.S. Forest Service 1984) and individual Forest baselines were developed as a result of that analysis. The baseline for the Siskiyou is 7,300 tons annually. This baseline value represents the arithmetic average of the annual TSP production for the Forest for the years 1975 through 1979. The average annual production of TSP from all forestlands in Oregon during the same period was 92,835 tons.


The 1977 amendment to the Clean Air Act (1970) established a national goal of “the prevention of any future, and remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” The visibility regulations require states to make “reasonable progress” toward the Clean Air Act goal. The regional haze regulations did not define visibility targets, but gave the states flexibility in determining reasonable progress. The rules require states to: 1) Improve visibility on the haziest 20 percent of the days and 2) ensure no degradation occurs on the clearest 20 percent of the days over the period of each implementation plan. States are required to develop implementation plans that make “reasonable progress” toward the national visibility goal. The Oregon Dept. of Forestry, Smoke Management, manages manmade smoke (pollutants, and their potential effects to visibility) by assessing the proposed burning needs of all land management agencies (including private lands) on a regional basis. They provide direction as to how much smoke can be produced in a given area for a given day (or series of days), and provide information as to the direction that smoke may travel, and how well or poorly that the smoke may disperse and dissipate. The Oregon Department of Forestry, Smoke Management Plan (2008), provides direction on compliance with the Oregon Visibility Plan (OAR 340-200-0040, Section5.2) for protecting Class I Area Visibility. Dept. of Forestry, Division 48 Smoke Management, 629-048-0130 Visibility Objectives, provides the following direction: When prescribed burning is conducted outside any Class I Area during the visibility protection period (July 1 to September 15), an objective of the smoke management plan is to minimize any smoke that impairs visibility inside the Class I Area. And, when prescribed burning is conducted outside the visibility protection period in proximity to, but outside and upwind of Class I Areas… burn bosses and field administrators are encouraged to closely observe local conditions at the burn site to avoid the main smoke plume entering the Class I Area at ground level. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for air quality resources (SNF-LRMP; pages IV-48 through 50) would be applied to this project. Activities shall be planned: to maintain air quality at a level adequate for the protection and use of the National Forest resources, coordinate with the appropriate air quality regulatory agencies, reduce total suspended particulate emissions and minimize the impact of prescribed burning on smoke-sensitive areas. The use of prescribed fire would be limited in the implementation of the Proposed Action, or any of the action alternatives. The proposed project area is approximately twenty miles west of the coastal crest. The combination of good air circulation along the Pacific coast and relatively limited industrial development has resulted in only minor air quality problems west of the coastal crest. Wildland fires that occasionally occur are the primary source of air quality problems in this area. The nearest Class I Federal Area is the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, approximately 9 miles east of the project area. The nearest Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area listed in the Oregon Smoke Management Plan is the city of Grants Pass, about forty-five miles to the east. Grants Pass and the surrounding areas were designated as a PM-10 (Particulate Matter, 10 microns and smaller) non-attainment zone beginning in November 1993.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no management activities within the project area would occur and there would be no effect to air quality or the Class I Federal areas.


c. Environmental Consequences from All Action Alternatives All action alternatives (including the Proposed Action) would burn landing piles and hand piles which may affect air quality. Though the amount of burning may vary between action alternatives, the intent of this discussion of effects is to disclose to what extent burning activities would have on the air quality in the Grants Pass area, or to visibility in the Class I Federal area. As such, any burning would fall under the following effects. Direct, indirect and cumulative analysis of all action alternatives relates to those activities which may affect the Grants Pass and Kalmiopsis Wilderness Class I Federal areas; therefore, effects analysis is combined below.

1. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The use of prescribed fire would be limited in the implementation of the proposed action, or any of the action alternatives. Fire would be applied for the burning of landing slash and burning of hand piled slash. Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) for the action alternatives could be as much as 55.5 tons with the proposed action, of which 50 tons would be PM-10 (particulate matter) particulates. Of these 50 tons of PM-10, 35 tons would be PM 2.5. The other action alternatives would be less than proposed action. SNF-LRMP Standards and Guidelines 8-1 would be followed. This Standard states, “Management activities shall be planned to maintain air quality at a level adequate for the protection and use of National Forest resources and meet or exceed applicable Federal and State standards and regulations.” (36 CFR 219.27(a)(12). The forest is limited to the production of no more than 7,300 tons of TSP in one year. “Reasonable progress shall be demonstrated in reducing TSP emissions.” To further comply with this direction, the forest has several strategies to manage prescribed fire smoke: Curtailment, reduction, avoidance, dilution, and education. The figure of 7,300 tons of TSP per year was established in the early 1980s and based on the level of harvest for that period. Since the early 1990s, harvest amounts have dropped. If all areas that were harvested throughout the Siskiyou portion of the National Forest over a period of the last several years were burned in a single year, the TSP generated would not reach this threshold. For the protection of Class I Area visibility values, as well as preventing any air quality degradation in the Grants Pass area, avoidance is the key to preventing any impacts due to man-made pollutants, such as smoke created by slash disposal. Any burning planned to occur would require development of a Burn Plan, to include avoidance measures. Among various factors taken into account; detailing prevailing wind direction, timing, and coordination with regulatory agencies would ensure that any burning would occur during conditions where any smoke would not degrade air quality within the Grants Pass and/or visibility within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness areas (Class I Area). Further, burning will not take place during the visibility protection period of July 1 to September 15. Using the direction and tools described above, slash disposal managers will consult with Smoke Management agencies to determine what proper atmospheric conditions are best to assure that impacts to either are avoided. It the case of the Pyramid Thin action alternatives, burning under conditions where transport winds are from the North to East to Southwest quadrants will assure avoidance. Burning under a westerly flow condition could create a risk of smoke traveling toward the Grants Pass area, and will be avoided. As the burning to be done is pile burning, and can be accomplished in a broad window of opportunity, there is little risk of not being able to meet the slash disposal needs as a result of this constraint. Direct Effects- Burning would not take place within 15 miles of the Grants Pass area or within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class I Area). Further, burning would not take place during the visibility protection period of July 1 to September 15. Therefore there are no expected direct effects to air quality in either the Grants Pass area or the Class I Area. Indirect Effects- The potential for the smoke produced by any of the proposed actions, to enter either of these areas would be mitigated by the avoidance methods such as implementation of the visibility protection period and not burning during weather conditions when smoke could travel to those areas.


Cumulative Effects- All past, present, and foreseeable future projects; have been, are, or will be conducted under the same air quality restrictions, so there would be no expected cumulative effects to air quality.

BBBiiiooolllooogggiiicccaaalll EEEnnnvvviiirrrooonnnmmmeeennnttt

7. BOTANICAL SPECIES AND/OR HABITAT How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect rare botanical species and habitat, including those listed as Forest Service Sensitive species, or rare and uncommon species?

a. Background - Existing Conditions Further information may be found EA Appendix F - Botanical Report, incorporated by reference. The potential effects of the Pyramid Thin Project on Special Status Plant Species and other rare or uncommon plant species known or suspected to occur on the Gold Beach Ranger District were analyzed. The potential for the Project Area to support suitable habitat for Sensitive and other rare or uncommon plant species that are protected by Forest Service regulations and manual direction was determined by pre-field analysis of soils and topographic maps, knowledge of Sensitive and other rare or uncommon plant species range, distribution, and habitat characteristics; and review of the district’s Sensitive Plant files. Vascular and nonvascular plant surveys were performed between August 21 and August 31, 2000 and during the field season of 2004 within the 311 acres of the Pyramid Thin Project. No Sensitive or other rare or uncommon plant species were found. No currently listed Special Status Plant Species are known to occur within the proposed sale units. Suitable habitat does exist for several Sensitive species. As shown in Attachment A to Appendix F - Botanical Report, no Sensitive and rare or uncommon plant species were found within the proposed treatment units. The reconnaissance reports, including a map of the area surveyed, are on file at the Gold Beach Ranger District. The following Forest Service Sensitive plant and lichen species are considered as having potential habitat within the active areas of the proposed project:

Arcostaphylos hispidula - Howell’s manzanita Bensoniella oregana – Bensoniella Erigeron cervinus - Siskiyou daisy Gentiana setigera –Waldo gentian Iliamna latibracteata - Globe-mallow Leptogium cyanescens Sidalcea malvaeflora ssp. Patula - Coast checkerbloom Viola primulifolia ssp. occidentalis - Western bog violet

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments, and therefore no mechanism to affect botanical species or habitats; current conditions would continue.


c. Environmental Consequences from All Action Alternatives

1. Direct and Indirect Effects No Special Status Plant Species or other rare or uncommon plant species are known to exist within the project area. No direct adverse impacts are anticipated from this project for any of the action alternatives. Suitable habitat was found during field surveys for several Special Status Plant Species. The habitat may be altered with the potential to impact individuals or individual habitat for the following:

Arctostaphylos hispidula Sidalcea malvaeflora ssp. patula Leptogium cyanescens Mycena monticola Peltigera pacifica

Habitat may be altered by ground-disturbing activities associated with tree falling, yarding methods and temporary road construction. Refer to Appendix F, Attachment A: Special Status Plant Species known or suspected to occur on the Westside of the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, potential effects of the proposed project on these species, and rationale for determination of no effect. Though similar to the Proposed Action, Action Alternatives 3 and 4 may be considered something less. The amount of ground-based yarding is equal (Alternative 3) to or less (Alternative 4) than the Proposed Action; and the amount of temporary road construction is less (Alternative 3) or none at all (Alternative 4). Therefore, it is expected that the potential to affect Special Status Plant Species and their suitable habitat or other rare or uncommon plant species would be similar to or less than those described for the Proposed Action. No federally listed Threatened Endangered, or proposed plants, nor suitable habitat are known to occur in the Project Area. The Pyramid Thin Project would have No Effect to Federally Proposed or Threatened plant species. The Pyramid Thin Project may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species for Sensitive plant species: Leptogium cyanescens, and Sidalcea malvaeflora ssp. Patula and other species listed in Attachment A to the Botanical Report.

d. Cumulative Effects Analysis The area of analysis for determining cumulative effects is considered to be the activity area which includes treatment unit areas and any other additional areas outside the units that may be impacted through road and/or landing construction (known as the Project Area). This cumulative effects analysis area is considered adequate since the direct and indirect effects to plant species are limited to the area of ground-disturbing activities. There have been no past activities within the affected areas that may attribute to existing plant populations. No other present activities are occurring within the Project Area and the potential for removal of special forest products can be expected in the reasonably foreseeable future activity within the next ten years.

1. All Action Alternatives Cumulative effects are not considered to be of sufficient magnitude to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Sensitive plant species. No past activities have occurred within the treatment units and no additional activities are expected in the foreseeable future except the potential removal of special forest products.


Potential cumulative effects to Special Status Plant habitat include increased erosion from temporary roads, and a potential for increased use by Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs). However, all proposed temporary spur roads for logging would be decommissioned and closed to vehicle traffic, including OHV’s, subsequent to the harvesting being completed. Therefore potential cumulative effects from the ongoing unauthorized use of these temporary roads by OHV’s would be negated. Following Project Design Criteria (PDC’s) for decommissioning temporary spur roads, such as revegetation with native grass, forb and shrub species and placing large downed wood, rocks and debris in the road prism’s would additionally discourage the use of the temporary spurs by OHV’s. Most of the Sensitive plant habitat being impacted by OHV use on the Gold Beach Ranger District is located in open serpentine shrub and scrub ecosystems where the lack of forested conditions allow easy access from permanent roads into small meadow openings and areas where trees are absent. Harvesting within this project would not occur in these types of ecosystems and therefore would lessen the chances of unauthorized OHV users. In order to ensure that OHV use does not create additional adverse effects as a result of this project, a botanist will monitor changes to permanent and temporary roads and document if increases in OHV use and adverse effects have occurred. Based on the information gathered from monitoring, proposals for restoration of OHV caused damage would be considered. However, with other resource mitigation measures in place, there is no expectation that OHV use would change in the project area (also see Recreation Report).

8. NON-NATIVE PLANTS How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect spread of non-native (noxious) plant species?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix F – Botanical Report (Attachment B), incorporated by reference. Noxious weeds are those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of a serious insect or disease, or being native or new to or not common to the United States or parts thereof. Further management direction on this subject is given in the SNF-LRMP under forest-wide Standards and Guidelines item 12-6: "Control of noxious weeds should be accomplished in cooperation with state, county, and private organizations through Weed Control Districts or Coordinated Resource Management Agreements. Preventive management is critical to an effective control program." Current Management Direction for noxious weeds as stated in the Forest Service Manual 2080, Amendment No. 2000-95-5, effective November 29, 1995 includes the following: 1.de ject im

2. tractors anpe

For projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, the project cision document must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during proplementation.

Use contract and permit clauses to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious weeds by cond permittees. For example, where determined to be appropriate, use clauses requiring contractors or rmittees to clean their equipment prior to entering National Forest System lands.

Management direction also includes the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (September 2005). Under this decision, invasive plant management direction is added to all National Forest Plans in the Region and became part of the individual Forest Plans.


As a result of noxious weed surveys conducted in the proposed Project Area, the noxious weeds Cytisus scoparius (scotchbroom), and Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle) Hypericum perfoliatum (St. Johnswort), and Senecio jacobaea (tansy ragwort), and were discovered along the sides of FS Road 1703 in the Project Area. There is one historical site of Ulex europaeus (gorse) on FS Road 1703030, approximately two miles east of the Project Area and one historical site of Cortaderia jubata (Pampas grass) approximately two miles southeast of the Project Area.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments, and therefore no mechanism to affect non-native plants; current conditions would continue. On-going normal vehicle traffic and the potential for unauthorized OHV use in the general area would be expected to continue.


1. Direct and Indirect Effects Weed locations are mapped and the following measures would be initiated under the Action Alternatives:

Avoid road grading through known sites and parking equipment on known sites. KV funds will cover noxious weed surveys in the sale area and mechanical removal of any weeds found in the sale area for 5 years after harvest is completed. Prior to the sale, areas to be avoided will be flagged by the botanist, or other qualified person. Permittees will be required to wash their equipment prior to entering FS lands.

With the implementation of mitigation measures, it is expected that there is moderate potential for the Proposed Action to introduce noxious weeds to other parts of the Project Area, or facilitate the nearby infestations to spread into the Project Area. Beneficial impacts, i.e. a reduction in noxious weeds would occur if mitigations are followed. Refer to Chapter II, Mitigation Measures. Though similar to the Proposed Action, Action Alternatives 3 and 4 may be considered something less. The amount of ground-based yarding is equal (Alternative 3) to or less (Alternative 4) than the Proposed Action; and the amount of temporary road construction is less (Alternative 3) or none at all (Alternative 4). Therefore, it is expected that the potential to introduce noxious weeds to other parts of the Project Area would be similar to or less than those described for the Proposed Action.

d. Cumulative Effects Analysis The area of analysis for determining cumulative effects is considered to be the activity area which includes treatment unit areas and any other additional areas outside the units that may be impacted through road and/or landing construction (known as the Project Area). This cumulative effects analysis area is considered adequate since the direct and indirect effects to the introduction of non-native plant species is limited to the area of activities. There have been no past management activities within the affected areas that may attribute to existing non-native plant populations. No other present activities are occurring within the Project Area and the potential for removal of special forest products can be expected in the reasonably foreseeable future activity within the next ten years. It is recognized that on-going normal vehicle traffic on existing roads and unauthorized Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) are known mechanisms to introduce non-native plant species to Forest System Lands.


1. All Action Alternatives All action alternatives under this project and any other management activities that may occur would follow existing management direction and would employ noxious weed control measures. The intent is to reduce a moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds. It is recognized that it is near impossible to negate any risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds due to normal vehicle traffic on the forest. As discussed under the Botanical Species and/or Habitat issue, the potential for increased unauthorized OHV use would be mitigated by closing temporary roads; thereby, ensuring this mechanism of spread would not be available.

9. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE PROPOSED, THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect terrestrial wildlife Proposed, Threatened or Endangered species and/or Critical Habitat?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix D1 – Wildlife Biological Evaluation, incorporated by reference. Of more than 200 vertebrate and thousands of invertebrate wildlife species that may live in the project analysis area, wildlife analysis emphasizes species of concern (SOC), which are:

Species Federally listed as Proposed, Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Forest Service Manual Direction require the review of all federal activities on species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Threatened, Endangered and Proposed species, as well as those species identified as Sensitive on the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (February 2008) through a Biological Evaluation (BE) analysis (FSM 2672.4). The Forest consults with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (per Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) for any management activities which “may affect” individuals of these species or their habitat. For detailed information on the natural history and management of the Forest’s Endangered and Threatened species, see the most recent programmatic consultation for timber sales (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2003, 2006; FWS log # 1-14-03-F-511, FWS log # 1-15-06-F-163 and 1-15-06-I-0164). Information in these referenced documents was used in the subsequent determination of effects of Threatened and Endangered species in this project. The potential effects of the Pyramid Thin Project (including the associated activities with helicopter landings, temp roads, road repair, and burning) on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) species occurring on the Gold Beach Ranger District were analyzed (Table 1). Two federally-listed species occur on the District: marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl. Marbled Murrelet - In the Pacific Northwest, murrelets have been found as far inland as 53 miles. Examining murrelet survey data for the Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F., found that no murrelets were detected more than 32 miles from the ocean, although surveys had been conducted up to 47 miles inland. South of the divide between the Rogue and Coquille Rivers, the farthest inland murrelets had been detected was 17 miles. The Pyramid Thin Project is approximately 7 miles from the ocean.


FWS listed the marbled murrelet as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1992. The primary reasons postulated for the decline in marbled murrelet numbers included a loss of nesting habitat and poor reproductive success. Predation via corvids and or rodents is also considered a threat to reproductive success. Critical habitat for marbled murrelets was designated in 1996 and corresponds primarily to areas designated as Late-Successional Reserve in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994, USDI FWS 1996). Current management direction for the marbled murrelet comes from the Northwest Forest Plan ROD and the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994, USDI FWS 1997). If surveys determine a stand is occupied, then a Late-Successional Reserve is set up to protect all contiguous existing and recruitment habitat (i.e. stands that are capable of becoming marbled murrelet habitat within 25 years) within one-half mile of the occupied site. Suitable habitat is generally 80 years of age or older, is a minimum of 36 inches DBH at the stand level, contains multiple canopy layers, and contains platforms or nesting branches > 5.9 inches in diameter (USDI 2006). Scattered throughout the area around the Pyramid Thin Project, are small pockets and scattered, individual large trees (legacy structure) some of which could serve as nesting habitat and is considered “potential nesting structure” (Roberts, 2004). Approximately 98 acres of potential marbled murrelet nesting structure was surveyed to protocol in 2005 & 2006 within portions of units 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13. No murrelets were detected. Protocol surveys have occurred in the analysis area in 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2006. This has resulted in 23 sightings of marbled murrelets within the analysis area, none of which are within proposed treatment units. Six occupied marbled murrelet areas have been designated within the analysis area. Units 11 and 13 are located immediately adjacent to occupied marbled murrelet habitat. Units 1, 3, 9, 11, 11A and 13 are within specified disturbance distances of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat. Northern Spotted Owl - The northern spotted owl was listed as a Threatened species by FWS on 26 June 1990 (USDI FWS 1990). The Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI FWS 2008a) relies on Federal lands to provide the major contribution for spotted owl recovery. In the western Physiographic Provinces, Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCAs) are recommended to provide habitat for the recovery of the spotted owl. Outside of MOCAs, substantially all older and more structurally complex multi-layered confer (high quality) forests on Federal lands are to be maintained in the western Provinces. In the fire-prone Provinces (East Cascades Provinces of Washington and Oregon, California Cascades), a landscape management approach is recommended to allow spotted owl recovery in an area strongly influenced by natural disturbances. In the Oregon and California Klamath Provinces, this Plan calls for an adaptive management approach to fire management and spotted owl recovery. Conservation Support Areas (CSAs) are also described and are intended to support the MOCA network and the landscape-management approach. The MOCA network is based on previous designs of conservation areas for the spotted owl, and is intended to support a stable number of breeding pairs of spotted owls over time and allow for movement of spotted owls across the network. Conservation Support Areas (CSAs) outside of Federal lands were added to support the MOCA network and assist in achieving the Recovery Criteria (USDI FWS 2008a). Primary prey species of spotted owls are small mammals that include northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and dusky-footed (Neotoma fuscipes) and bushy-tailed (N. cinerea) woodrats, followed by tree voles (Arborimus and Clethrionomys) and mice (Peromyscus spp.).


In their 2004 evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl, Courtney et al. (2004) state that present major threats to the species include the effects of past and current timber harvest; loss of habitat to fire; and barred owls. The 2004 authors go on to state that other threats are also present but of threats identified at the time of listing, only one (predation linked to fragmentation) is not well supported. The Pyramid Thin Project analysis area is within the Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest (SOMC-H Forest) habitat type where northern spotted owl is known to breed and forage (O’Neil et al. 2001). Structural conditions, within the SOMC-H Forest habitat type used by the spotted owl include the Small tree (10-14” DBH) – Single story – Open (10-39% canopy cover) condition for feeding, to the Giant (>29” DBH) – Multi-story condition used for feeding and breeding. The proposed treatment units are dominated by the mid-seral stage and consist largely of dispersal only habitat for spotted owls. The mid seral stage is defined as areas with trees less than 22 inches DBH. The average diameter at breast height of trees in the units is 12 to 20 inches; average stand ages is from 65 - 90 years Spotted owl sightings for the analysis area were associated with spotted owl surveys of 2003, 2004 and 2008; with an incidental detection during murrelet surveying in 2006. (Table 4 of the Biological Evaluation). The analysis area is being surveyed in 2009. No suitable nesting, roosting, foraging habitat occurs within treatment units. (Table 5 of the Biological Evaluation) The proposed project is not within any designated Managed Owl Conservation Areas or Conservation Support Area. The proposed project is outside of Mapped Late-Successional Reserves. Critical Habitat - Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl was designated on 1 January 1992 (USDI FWS 1992a). A revised designation of critical habitat was published in the Federal Register in August 2008 (USDI FWS 2008b). Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl corresponds closely with those areas designated as Late-Successional Reserve in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994). The spotted owl’s listing reflected primarily the loss of suitable habitat for spotted owls. The proposed project is outside of designated northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Units.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments or connected actions, and therefore no mechanism to affect terrestrial wildlife Proposed, Threatened or Endangered species; current conditions would continue. Natural processes would continue to occur and would continue to develop undisturbed by management. Competition would continue to increase between individuals as trees compete for limited resources, especially light. Existing stand conditions are in the stem-exclusion phase, which effectively prevents other trees from becoming established and starts killing the weaker trees in the stand. Mortality would continue to increase, as the intermediate and suppressed trees lose their ability to compete and die. These dead trees would increase snags and coarse woody material, but they would be too small to be of high quality and are expected to decay rapidly.


Because stands are fairly uniform, opportunities for establishing species or structural diversity through natural processes would remain low for many years, without major disturbance events. Eventually, over long periods, natural disturbance events would create openings in stands, allowing shade-tolerant species to become established in the understory, gradually creating additional structure and diversity. The lack of sufficient shade-tolerant conifer seed sources would be a major factor delaying the establishment and development of diverse mixed conifer stands. This alternative provides no opportunity to accelerate development of complex, mature forest conditions that would benefit marbled murrelet or northern spotted owl. Most of the area would remain as dispersal habitat for an indefinite time.


Under Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, approximately 311 acres would be thinned using a combination of ground-based, skyline, helicopter and potential mechanical pre-bunching harvest methods. Thinning would conduct density management by removing Douglas-fir suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees to reach desired tree spacing. Other conifers, hardwoods, existing snags and all down large woody material would be left. Fuels reduction activities would consist of some leaving tops attached to landings, machine piling and burning landing piles, and hand piling and burning slash concentrations within 100 feet of Forest Road 1703. The Proposed Action would involve the construction of an estimated 1.8 miles of temporary roads which would be decommissioned following treatment activities. Normal road maintenance activities would occur on existing roads and 3 culverts would be replaced and 1 drainage relief culvert installed. Environmental effects were analyzed subject to implementation of the following Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. Marbled murrelets To protect marbled murrelets from disturbance; the following Project Design Criteria (PDC) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence (LOC_TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044) dated March 19, 2009 (USDI, 2009) will be applied to proposed activities. Table III-7: Project Design Criteria and affected harvest units for the Pyramid Thin Project

Activity Zone of Restricted Operation Harvest Unit

Blast of > 2 pounds of explosive 1 mile N/A Blast of <= 2 pounds of explosive 120 yards N/A Impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill 120 yards N/A Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13 Helicopter or single-engine airplane 0.25 miles for Type 1 or 2 helicopters 9, 11, 11a & 13, Chainsaws (hazard trees, tree harvest, etc.) 120 yards Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13 Heavy equipment 120 yards Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13


Table III-8: Project Design Criteria for the protection of marbled murrelet.

Disturbance

For Survey Areas A and B work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road and other construction activities, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, muffled blasting) which produce noises above ambient levels will not occur within specified distances (see Table 2) of any occupied stand or unsurveyed suitable habitat between April 1 – August 5. For the period between August 6 – September 15, work activities will be confined to between 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset.

Disturbance

Blasting (open air/unmuffled) – No blasting activities 1 April through 15 September within 1.0 mile of occupied stands or unsurveyed suitable habitat. This distance may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and nest sites or less than 2 lbs of explosives are used If so, then use described distance.

Disturbance Recommended Delay project implementation until after September 15 where possible

Disturbance Recommended Between 1 April and 15 September, concentrate disturbance activities spatially and temporally as much as possible (e.g., get in and get out, in as small an area as possible; avoid spreading the impacts over time and space).

Helicopter Operations - During helicopter operations, flights over suitable marbled murrelet habitat will be restricted (helicopter should be a least 1,500 feet above ground level); if not possible, fly a minimum of 500 feet above suitable habitat (above canopy). Trash Removal - Clean up trash and garbage daily at all construction and logging sites. Keep food out of

sight so as not to attract crows and ravens (predators on eggs or young murrelets). Fuels Treatment

(I) Burning would not take place within 0.25 mile of known occupied marbled murrelet sites, or unsurveyed marbled murrelet habitat between April 1 and August 6 unless smoke will not drift into the occupied site.

(II) All broadcast and under-burning operations (except for residual “smokes”) will be completed in

the period from two hours after sunrise to two hours before sunset. Northern spotted owl To minimize disturbance to northern spotted owls the following Project Design Criteria (PDC) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence (LOC) on Informal Consultation on Vegetation Management Activities proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (FWS TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044), March 2009) will be applied to proposed activities. Table III-9: Project Design Criteria and affected harvest units for the Pyramid Thin Project

Activity Zone of Restricted Operation Harvest Unit

Blast of > 2 pounds of explosive 1 mile N/A Blast of <= 2 pounds of explosive 120 yards N/A Impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill 60 yards N/A Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters none Helicopter Type 1 or 2 0.25 miles for Type 1 or 2 helicopters Adjacent to unit 7

(NSO activity center #375)

Chainsaws (hazard trees, tree harvest, etc.) 65 yards none Heavy equipment 35 yards none


Table III-10: Project Design Criteria for the protection of northern spotted owl. Any of the following Mandatory PDCs may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys conducted according to the Service-endorsed survey guidelines reveal that spotted owls are non-nesting or that no young are present that year. Waivers are valid only until March 1 of the following year. Previously known sites/activity centers are assumed occupied unless protocol surveys indicate otherwise.

Disturbance

1) Work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road construction, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, prescribed fire, muffled blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels, or produce thick smoke that would enter the stand, will not occur within specified distances (see Table above) of any nest site or activity center of known pairs and resident singles between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) – unless protocol surveys have determined the activity center to be not occupied, non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt. The restricted zone is 1.0 mile for any unmuffled blasting. This distance may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and nest sites. March 1 – June 30 is considered the critical early nesting period; the action agency biologist has the option to extend the restricted season during the year of harvest, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or recycle nesting attempt). The boundary of the prescribed area may be modified by the action agency biologist using topographic features or other site-specific information. The restricted area is calculated as a radius from the assumed nest site (point).

Disturbance 2)Broadcast burning will not take place within 0.25 mile of known active northern spotted owl nests between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) unless smoke will not drift into the nest stand.

Disturbance

3) If an active spotted owl nest or activity center is located within or adjacent to a project area, delay the project activity until September 30th or until an action agency biologist determines that young are not present. For a given situation, the “adjacent” distance is determined by the action agency biologist. If any project activity is so close to a known or suspected owl site that the disturbance would flush a nesting spotted owl, curtail the project activity until September 30. The field biologist has the discretion to conduct surveys and determine fledging activity.

1. Direct Effects

Potential effects to the marbled murrelet occurring on the Gold Beach Ranger District were analyzed and are summarized in Table III-11. Table III-11. Project effect determinations for special status wildlife species in the Pyramid Thin Wildlife Analysis area. Highlighted cells indicate specific mitigation measures are called for.

Pre-Field Review1 Field Reconnaissance2

Wildlife Species Sighting/Habitat Sighting/Habitat Determination of Effects

Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened Species; Critical Habitat.

Marbled murrelet Habitat Sightings and Habitat2 May Affect, NLAA3

Marbled murrelet CRITICAL HABITAT

No No No Effect

Northern spotted owl Habitat Sightings and Habitat2 May Affect, NLAA3

Northern spotted owl CRITICAL HABITAT

No No No Effect

NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect. Marbled Murrelet - There is no suitable nesting habitat for murrelets within any treatment unit for any action alternative. The project is considered “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)” for marbled murrelet, because a Limited Operating Period prevents harassment of potentially nesting murrelets adjacent to operating areas. “Informal Consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed (Letter of Concurrence (LOC)_TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044, dated March 19, 2009) on Pyramid Thin Project (USDI, 2009).


Treatment Units #11 & 13 are adjacent to occupied marbled murrelet Late-Successional Reserves. Portions of units 1 and 3 are adjacent to unsurveyed suitable habitat. The Limited Operating Period minimizes the potential for harassment to nesting murrelets. The proposed thinning would remove 33 to 40 percent of the trees within the harvest units while leaving the largest trees. Over the long term, the thinning should allow the remaining trees to reach a larger diameter and develop larger branches sooner than would be possible if no thinning occurred. The planned major haul route is on roads already open to public use suggesting a murrelet tolerance to motorized traffic on these roads including road maintenance and road improvement activities. The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to marbled murrelet critical habitat. The project is considered NE because harvest units are not within marbled murrelet Critical Habitat Units and the proposed action will not impact or modify any primary constitute elements of marbled murrelet Critical Habitat (CHU). Northern Spotted Owl - Thinning would remove the smaller trees leaving between 60-65% percent of the trees on site. The remaining trees may include some exceeding 30 inches DBH. These trees are not old trees, just young trees growing well on good growing sites. A few larger diameter trees may be cut and removed, primarily associated with temporary road construction. The expected canopy closure after thinning is approximately 42-59 percent. For treatment units or portions thereof within specified distances of known nest or spotted owl activity centers, work activities which produce noise and are above ambient levels will not occur during the period March 1 through June 30 (USDI 2009). This measure decreases the likelihood of treatment activities impairing reproduction or substantially altering animal behavior. Given current information, including surveys in 2003, 2004 and 2008, ground operations are not temporally limited at any of the treatment units. Treatment Unit #7 has a spotted owl center (#375) about 0.28 miles to the northeast; Treatment Unit #1 has a center (#81) about 0.9 miles to east-northeast; Treatment Unit #12 has a center (#361) about 1 mile to the east-southeast. The Proposed Action is considered “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the northern spotted owl. The project is considered NLAA for northern spotted owl because of habitat degradation (stand simplification of spotted owl dispersal habitat). A Limited Operating Period prevents harassment of potentially nesting spotted owls adjacent to operating areas. The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to northern spotted owl critical habitat. The project is considered NE because harvest units are not within northern spotted owl Units (CHU). The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to northern spotted owl Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCAs) and Conservation Support Areas (CSAs) because the proposed project is not within any designated Managed Owl Conservation Areas or Conservation Support Area. The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to Late-Successional Reserves because the proposed project is outside of Mapped Late-Successional Reserves. The proposed action would treat and maintain 291 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat and treat 20 acres of non-habitat. The Pyramid Thin Project is determined to be “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the northern spotted owl. The resultant canopy closure (42-59%) and residual tree structure (the larger tree component) is likely to maintain the dispersal function of the treated stands. The reduced structural complexity, e.g. loss of snags and vertical canopy diversity, is a degradation of habitat quality for late-successional associated species but the effect on wildlife of this degree of change is likely quite low. Northern spotted owls already using the area would most likely continue doing so and their ability to disperse across, into, and through the North Fork Pistol River drainage is not likely to be impeded.


The project area has been surveyed to protocol and detected spotted owls are not nesting within any of the units. Detected owls may be using the project area for foraging and would likely continue to do so. Originally, some larger trees existed within the units; however, boundaries for the harvest units were re-delineated or units were dropped to avoid areas where large diameter trees were common and there was potential for suitable habitat for spotted owls. The nature of the treatment prescription would retain the largest overstory trees. A few of the larger diameter trees may be removed as part of temporary road construction (see Temporary Road Report, Appendix A). Over the long term, the thinning should allow the remaining trees to reach a larger diameter and develop larger branches sooner than would be possible if no thinning were done. No snags or down woody material is proposed for removal. Dispersal habitat would be maintained within all units.

2. Indirect Effects Marbled Murrelet - Under the Proposed Action, indirect effects include the potential for harassing, via noise, of undetected murrelet in the analysis area. However, seasonal restrictions included in the Project Design Criteria and mitigation measures should minimize this potential. Northern Spotted Owl - Harvest and vegetation treatments may improve foraging habitat conditions for prey (USDI, 2009). Lemkuhl et al. (2006) confirmed the importance of maintaining snags, down wood and mistletoe. Primary prey species of spotted owls are small mammals that include northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and dusky-footed (Neotoma fuscipes) and bushy-tailed (N. cinerea) woodrats, followed by tree voles (Arborimus and Clethrionomys) and mice (Peromyscus spp.). While flying squirrels tend to increase in abundance in older forests, they can also be common in younger stands. Dusky-footed wood rats tend to be more abundant in younger and drier forest stands and bushy-tailed woodrats are often associated with cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus, but they also occupy hollow trees and logs. Tree voles appear to show a positive correlation with stand age and are more abundant in old-growth forests. Density management can have short term (less than 5 years) adverse impacts on prey species and foraging and dispersal habitat given the removal of vegetative cover for small mammals. However, Gomez et al. (2005) noted that commercial thinning in young stands of Coastal Oregon Douglas-fir (35-45 yr) did not have a measurable short-term effect on density, survival or body mass of northern flying squirrels, an important prey species for spotted owls. Gomez et al. (2005) also noted the importance of fungal sporocarps, which were positively associated with large down wood. Some disturbance of habitat may improve forage conditions, provided under-story structure and cover are retained. Removal of some tree canopy, provided it is not too extreme, would bring more light and resources into the stand, stimulating forbs, shrubs and other prey food. Once the initial impact of disturbance recovers (6 months to two years), the understory habitat conditions for prey food should increase over the next few years, until shrubs and residual trees respond to again close in the stand. In addition, residual trees, snags and down wood that are retained in the thinned stands would provide some cover for prey species over time, and would help minimize harvest impacts to some prey species. Some arboreal prey species would venture into harvest units a short distance for food. Northern spotted owls seldom venture far into non-forested stands to hunt. However, edges can be areas of good prey availability and potentially increased vulnerability (i.e. better hunting for owls) (Zabel 1995). The retained trees may respond favorably to more light and resources and gain height and canopy over time (USDI, 2009). Indirect effects of the proposed action (timber harvest activities, haul, road maintenance, fuels, etc.) to prey species of the proposed action is expected to be minor.


d. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, the same number of acres would be treated; though yarding systems would change and temporary road construction would be reduced to approximately 0.3 mile. The reduction in temporary roads would occur from the deletion of spurs in treatment units 3 and 13.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the similarities between Alternatives 2 and 3, it is expected that impacts to marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls would also be similar. See discussion under Alternative 2. Marbled Murrelet - Unit 13 is located immediately adjacent to occupied marbled murrelet habitat and Units 3 and 13 are within specified disturbance distances of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat. The reduction in road construction in these areas may have a reduction in potential noise harassment. With project design criteria and mitigation measures in place, it is expected that such reduction would be inconsequential and too small to measure. Northern Spotted Owl – The reduction of temporary road construction and change in yarding systems would have no measurable change from the effect described for Alternative 2.

e. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4, approximately 180 acres would be treated with a commensurate change to yarding systems and no temporary road construction would occur. Units 1, 2, 3, and 5 would not occur and temporary road construction would not occur in Units 7, 11 and 13.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Marbled Murrelet - Units 11 and 13 are located immediately adjacent to occupied marbled murrelet habitat and Units 3, 11 and 13 are within specified disturbance distances of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat. Dropping treatment activities within Unit 3 would have the potential to delay development of larger trees over the long-term for those acres, similar to no action. Eliminating treatment activities within Unit 3 and road construction in Units 7, 11 and 13 may have a reduction in potential noise harassment. With project design criteria and mitigation measures in place, it is expected that such reduction would be inconsequential and too small to measure. Northern Spotted Owl – The elimination of treatment within four units, all temporary road construction and subsequent change in yarding systems would have the potential to delay stand development as described for No Action

f. Cumulative Effects Analysis The area of analysis for determining cumulative effects for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls is considered to be complex and includes such boundaries as stand level, forest level, specie provinces and regions. Consultation by the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest and the Fish and Wildlife Service ensures that activities that may cross over time and space (i.e. different analysis boundaries) are recognized to ascertain an appropriate determination of effects on a species.


1. All action Alternatives Marbled Murrelet - Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for murrelets in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable murrelet habitat by approximately 37,000 acres. Density management effects of this project also combine with those of district-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275, including 1,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat for murrelets. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 10 acres of suitable habitat for murrelets. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale proposes to treat 114 acres of forest and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres, some of these acres are potentially murrelet habitat. Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres) and all projects that could potentially treat murrelet habitat would have protocol surveys conducted during implementation and prior to treatment. Based on surveys, no occupied habitat would be treated. Northern Spotted Owl - Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable spotted owl habitat by approximately 65,000 acres. Vegetation management projects that may treat spotted owl suitable habitat are ongoing on the District; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275 acres, including 1,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 100 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale treated and maintains 114 acres of suitable habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres of suitable habitat. Density management effects of this project combine with those of forest-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres) and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres; these sales treat dispersal habitat and would maintain dispersal habitat. These sales would likely increase growth and allow young stands to become suitable for spotted owls sooner than if they were not treated.

10. WILDLIFE REGION 6 LISTED SENSITIVE SPECIES How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect federally listed Sensitive species and/or habitat?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix D1 – Wildlife Biological Evaluation, incorporated by reference. Of more than 200 vertebrate and thousands of invertebrate wildlife species that may live in the project analysis area, wildlife analysis emphasizes species of concern (SOC), which are:

Species listed as Sensitive by Region 6 of the USDA Forest Service.


Forest Service Manual Direction require the review of all federal activities on species identified as Sensitive on the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (February 2008) through a Biological Evaluation (BE) analysis (FSM 2672.4). Bald Eagle - No suitable habitat for bald eagles exists in or adjacent to the Pyramid Thin Project, and no documented sightings are on record. There are no rivers or other large water bodies in the area large enough to support nesting bald eagles. American Peregrine Falcon - No sightings of peregrine falcons have been reported in the Pyramid Thin analysis area, Hunter Creek watershed or Pistol River watershed. No suitable habitat exists within the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area and no peregrines falcons have been observed in the area. Lewis’s woodpecker - The population of Lewis’ woodpeckers has fallen dramatically across Oregon as pine – oak woodlands are lost (Gilligan et al. 1994). A contributing factor in the decline has been the spread of the European Starling, which aggressively out competes this species for available cavities. Habitat loss is due to a wide variety of concerns that include urbanization of valley floors, fire suppression and encroachment of conifer forests, timber harvest of pine components in the oak forests, etc. This species would benefit from a variety of active management practices designed to enhance large ponderosa pine snags in an open stand. This includes wide spaced thinning of Ponderosa pine, and commercial thinning of young pine stands. Snag creation within pine stands would also benefit the species. Treatments that remove the large trees and older snags from stands would be detrimental to the species. The species has been detected within the analysis area, close to the northeastern edge of Unit #8. Treatment units 7 & 8 have Oregon white oak and pine trees. Lewis’s woodpecker may be negatively impacted by the felling of snags associated with logging operations and temporary road construction which would reduce the availability of standing dead wood and increase the amount of down dead wood. Pacific Fisher - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that fishers in the Cascade Range and all areas west, to the coast in Oregon and Washington; and in California, the North Coast from Mendocino County north to Oregon, east across the Klamath Mountains, across the southern Cascade Range and south through the Sierra Nevada as the West Coast Distinct Population Segment (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Currently, there are two documented populations in southern Oregon which appear to be genetically isolated from each other (Aubry et al. 2004). This is considered to be due to the presence of potentially strong ecological and anthropogenic barriers including the white oak savanna habitat of the Rogue Valley and Interstate 5. Based on DNA analyses, individuals in the southern Oregon Cascades appear to be descendents of animals re-introduced from British Columbia and Minnesota during the late 1970s and early 1980s by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Drew et al. 2003). Animals in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon are genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California population, which is indigenous (Wisely et al. 2004, Farber and Franklin 2005). The Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) conducted a smokeplate track survey in 1997 (following Zielinski and Kucera 1995) for marten and fisher across the Gold Beach and Chetco Ranger Districts. Marten were detected in the Lower Rogue, Hunter Creek, Pistol River and Chetco watersheds. Fisher were detected in the North Fork Smith watershed. Spotted skunk, gray fox, ringtail, and northern flying squirrel were also detected. Remote cameras sets were installed at four locations along Agness Road in 1993 (1 station) and 1996 (3 stations). Spotted skunk, gray fox and turkey vultures were captured on film. No fishers were recorded. Recent surveys by the Coos Bay BLM detected fisher in the Upper Pistol River and North Fork Chetco River watersheds (Greg Bennett pers. comm.). Suitable habitat for fishers exists in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. There is a 1966 record of a fisher approximately 2 miles south of treatment unit 13.


A total of 35.5 miles of snow track surveys within the Hunter Creek watershed and 33 miles within Pistol River watershed were completed in 1994 and 1997(Dillingham, 1997). Additional surveys within these watersheds occurred on 27 Jan 1999 and 30 Jan 1999. No fisher tracks were observed, however marten, cougar, bear and other wildlife tracks were identified. Currently, forested areas surrounding the project area provide opportunities for movement and dispersal of fishers. Northwestern Pond Turtle - Suitable habitat for the species is not present in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. In addition, no recorded sightings of northwestern pond turtles exist in the FAUNA database. Suitable habitat for the northwestern pond turtle does not exist in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area and no pond turtles have been observed in the area. California Slender Salamander - The range and habitat type for this species is outside of the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. The FAUNA database contains no records of sightings of California slender salamanders in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. In addition, no California slender salamanders have been found during extensive salamander surveys of the Hunter Creek or Pistol River watersheds. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog - Habitat conditions within the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area are not considered suitable for this species. The FAUNA database contains no records of sightings of foothill yellow-legged frogs in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. Johnson’s Hairstreak - This small brown butterfly occurs in isolated pockets in the western mountains of California up into British Columbia. On the Rogue River-Siskiyou, range maps indicate a population in the coastal mountains of Coos, Curry and Josephine counties. A second population is in northern Jackson County around Crater Lake National Park. This butterfly is an old-growth obligate and spends a lot of its time in the tops of mature conifer forests, making survey efforts extremely difficult. They do nectar on some lower plants, like Oregon grape and males come into damp earth sites, such as seeps and springs. Caterpillars feed on Pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) which grows on conifers. Timber harvest of mature forests may be a threat to this species. Other threats include spraying BT for tussock moth and other pests. No surveys have been carried out for this species on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Old-growth hemlock trees do occur within the analysis area. Very few small hemlock trees occur within treatment units. These may or may not have mistletoe. Thinning prescriptions leave minor species, including hemlock. It is possible that a hemlock tree with mistletoe may be impacted by treatment activities. Green Sideband - All known sites of this terrestrial snail currently occur in Curry County, Oregon. The type locality is in a patch of trees and brush near the mouth of the Pistol River, Curry Co., OR. Other areas with reported locations for this species include Port Orford, and “between the Sixes River and Winchuck River, mostly in sites near the Coast or west side of southern Oregon Coast Range. Habitat generally occurs in stands with deciduous trees (including alder), brush in wet relatively undisturbed forest, at low elevations, and also in low coastal scrub (Roth 1981a, 1993). Habits include seasonal climbing of trees in riparian areas and shelter in deep forest floor litter (Roth 1993, p.18). Site from Roseburg BLM was in a proposed thinning unit, in a mixed conifer/hardwood community with heavy accumulations of residual down wood; the oldest live Douglas fir trees were approximately 80 years of age. This site was not in a riparian community. Mardon Skipper - There is a historical record of the skipper form 2 miles north of Gold Beach just inland of the beach. The skipper has been found at Lone Ranch Beach in Curry County north of Brookings during surveys in 2007. No records exist for the Gold Beach Ranger District.


Two of the California sites are in Del Norte County which is adjacent to the project area county. In both the Oregon and California areas, frequent low-intensity fires are considered to have historically played an important role in maintaining grassland plant communities. The dominant threat to this species is loss of habitat including loss via encroachment by invasive nonnative and native vegetation, and vegetative succession from grassland to forest. Coronis Fritillary - Coronis fritillary has not been documented in Curry County. Rocky serpentine meadow habitat occurs in the analysis area. Robust Walker - Sites for this species have been documented in southern Curry and Jackson Counties, on federal land in the Chetco and Winchuck River basins in the Chetco Ranger District and in the Josephine Creek watershed of the Illinois River basin in the Illinois Valley Ranger District, of Siskiyou National Forest. The Chetco River sites are within 3 miles of Coos Bay District BLM land, Myrtlewood Field Unit. Pacific Walker - There are two documented sites for this species in Oregon. One site is in the Lower Millicoma River sub-basin in northern Coos County. This site is approximately 6 miles from Coos Bay District BLM land, Umpqua Field Unit. The second site is near the Pacific Coast in Lane County, on the Waldport Ranger District of the Siuslaw National Forest land, in the Cape Creek subwatershed of the Alsea River subbasin. The historic range of this species included all of the Pacific Coast, from southwestern Oregon to San Mateo County, CAL. The range has also been described as being confined to within a half-mile of the coast (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008). Pacific walker has not been documented in Curry County. Highcap Lanx - Historical locations for highcap lanx include the counties Josephine, Jackson, and Curry along the Rogue River, including sites within the Siskiyou National Forest. However, sites on the Rogue River National Forest may be extirpated. Although the Rogue River is approximately 7 miles NW of the analysis area, the project area does not contain any large rivers or major tributaries that would qualify as habitat. Western Ridged Mussel - The western ridged mussel occurs in all sizes of streams within mid to low elevation watersheds, inhabiting mud, sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. They can tolerate moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from habitats with highly unstable or very soft substrates (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008). Western ridged mussels have been found in the Rogue, Umpqua and Willamette rivers of Oregon, however, it most abundant in the large tributaries of the Snake River and Columbia River in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments or connected actions, and therefore no mechanism to affect terrestrial wildlife Sensitive species; current conditions would continue. Under No-Action, these natural stands would continue to grow over time. Natural processes would continue to occur and the forest stands would continue to develop undisturbed by management. Competition would continue to increase between individuals as trees compete for limited resources, especially light. Existing stand conditions are in the stem-exclusion phase, which effectively prevents other trees from becoming established and starts killing the weaker trees in the stand. Mortality would continue to increase, as the intermediate and suppressed trees lose their ability to compete and die. These dead trees would increase snags and coarse woody material, but they would be too small to be of high quality and are expected to decay rapidly.


Because stands are fairly uniform, opportunities for establishing species or structural diversity through natural processes would remain low for many years, without major disturbance events. Eventually, over long periods, natural disturbance events would create openings in stands, allowing shade-tolerant species to become established in the understory, gradually creating additional structure and diversity. The lack of sufficient shade-tolerant conifer seed sources would be a major factor delaying the establishment and development of diverse mixed conifer stands. This alternative provides no opportunity to accelerate development of complex, mature forest conditions that would benefit marbled murrelet or northern spotted owl. Most of the area would remain as dispersal habitat for an indefinite time.


1. Direct and Indirect Effects The potential effects of the Pyramid Thin Project (including the associated activities with helicopter landings, temp roads, road repair, and burning) on Sensitive species occurring on the Gold Beach Ranger District were analyzed and are summarized below. No Impact (NI) - The project is considered NI on the following Region 6 Sensitive species: bald eagle, harlequin duck, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Northwestern pond turtle, foothill yellow-legged frog, insular blue butterfly, Mardon skipper, Coronis fritillary, hoary elfin, Pacific walker, robust walker, highcap lanx and western ridged mussel. There is No Impact because these species are associated with habitats that would be unaffected by the project. This project is outside the known range for white-headed woodpecker , northern waterthrush, California wolverine , Pacific pallid bat, fringed myotis, Oregon spotted frog, Siskiyou Mt. salamander, California slender salamander, black salamander, Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper, Franklin’s bumblebee, Siskiyou Hesperian, pristine springsnail , Crater Lake tightcoil, traveling sideband, Chace sideband, scale lanx, Oregon shoulderband snail, Klamath rim pebblesnail and evening fieldslug. May Impact (MIIH) - The project is considered May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but is not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) for the following species: Lewis’ woodpecker, Pacific fisher, green sideband, and Johnson’s hairstreak. It is unlikely that surveys would detect all individuals, and surveys for all species were not done. It is more accurate to state “may impact….” than “no impact” on these species. Impacts on these species are considered unlikely, immeasurable, and or minor. Populations for these species are not considered small, vulnerable, and are tolerant of small scale loss of individuals without compromising short and long term viability. Lewis’ woodpecker - Lewis’s woodpecker may be adversely impacted by the felling of snags associated with logging operations and temporary road construction which would reduce the availability of standing dead wood and increase the amount of down dead wood. However, the thinning prescription leaves all hardwoods and conifers other than Douglas-fir and the creation of snags by girdling or topping following sale activities would increase the amount of snags currently available within treatment units. Pacific fisher - Suitable habitat for fishers exists in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area; however habitat within units is likely only used as forage habitat as it lacks structural characteristics for denning and denning by fisher. Removal of understory and some mid-story canopies around large structures may reduce the effectiveness of the structure as a secure rest site because they contribute to the microclimate of the site. Under- and mid-story canopies probably also provide some protection for female and juvenile fishers from predation or harassment by large raptors and mobbing by corvids because sight distance is reduced in dense, multi-storied stands.


High canopy closures have been shown to be important to fishers for resting and den sites. Based on the literature, reduction in canopy closure to below 80% could result in the loss of den or resting habitats at a fine-scale. Research that has quantified canopy closure at rest and den sites in northern Oregon and California has focused on a very fine scale, generally 1 acre or less (Aubry and Raley 2006, Yeager 2005, and Zielinski 2004). Reduction of canopy closure to below 80% around large live trees and snags that are clumped and large logs where there is a multi-storied stand component likely has the potential to have the most detrimental effect on potential den and rest sites. Since fishers use the largest live and dead trees for den and resting habitats, loss of these structures can also reduce habitat quality for resident animals. Older trees must also have the types of structures that provide for den and rest sites such as cavities, rust and mistletoe brooms, and large, clumped branches. These types of habitats are rare within treatment units and are widely available in the analysis area. Habitat for the fisher can be enhanced by minimizing forest fragmentation, both in remaining old-growth and in second-growth forest, maintaining a high degree of forest floor structural diversity in intensively managed plantations, preserving large snags and live trees with dead tops, maintaining continuous canopies in riparian zones, and protecting swamps and other forest wetlands (Zielinski and Kucera 1995 GTR PSW 157, Aubrey and Lewis 2003). The abundance and distribution of appropriate prey species and suitable den sites likely contribute to the ability of habitats to support fisher populations (USDA 1994 GTR RM 254, Aubrey and Lewis 2003). Positive direct and indirect impacts could occur by providing large down wood habitat where currently none exists may also provide some denning habitat and prey habitat, if felled trees are retained as large down wood. Green sideband - 276 acres impacted by treatment is less than 1% of the watersheds: Pistol(66,869), Cape Ferrelo Frontal (39,418), Chetco (225,217) and Winchuck (45,607)); within the known range of the species and all treatment stands have very few deciduous trees within them. Hardwoods are not prescribed to be cut. No riparian habitat would be impacted. Johnson’s hairstreak - No surveys have been carried out for this species on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Very few hemlock trees occur within treatment units. These may or may not have mistletoe. Hemlock trees do occur within the analysis area. It is possible that a hemlock tree with mistletoe may be impacted by treatment activities.

d. Cumulative Effects Analysis The area of analysis for determining cumulative effects for listed Sensitive species is considered to be complex and includes such boundaries as stand level, forest level, specie provinces and regions. Consultation by the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest and the Fish and Wildlife Service ensures that activities that may cross over time and space (i.e. different analysis boundaries) are recognized to ascertain an appropriate determination of effects on a species. The determination of “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but is not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” (MIIH) is a finding based on established protocols which consults on all anticipated management activities that may occur over time and space relative to each species.

1. All action Alternatives Lewis’ woodpecker - Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is likely little habitat on private land for the woodpecker in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which may have reduced oak woodlands to some extent, but also likely greatly increased snag habitat over the approximately 470,000 acres within those fires.


District-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations are ongoing; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275 acres of forest lands. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale proposes to treat and maintain 114 acres of suitable habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres. The Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment may treat 47,400 acres and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres. All of these projects could potentially impact snag habitat for woodpeckers but may also increase forage and snag habitat for the woodpecker. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration which would likely increase early seral habitat and snag habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers. Other meadow restoration projects in the Gold Beach RD would also increase habitat opportunities for this species by eliminating conifers encroaching into historical meadow habitat. Pacific fisher - Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls in the analysis area and no State lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of habitat associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable late seral habitat by approximately 65,000 acres. Forest vegetation management projects such as Equine Thin propose to treat approximately 1,275 acres, including 1,000 acres of mature habitat. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 100 acres of potentially suitable habitat for fisher. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale proposes to treat and maintain 114 acres of mature habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres of mature habitat. These projects could reduce canopy closure and structural complexity in these mature stands which could result in a reduction of resting and denning opportunities for fisher. Density management effects of this project combine with those of District-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres) and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres; these sales treat only younger, smaller stands and while they may impact some potential foraging habitats for fisher they would not likely impact resting or denning habitats for fisher.

11. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES How would density management (thinning) treatments and connected actions affect Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS species)?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix D2 – Wildlife Habitat Examination, incorporated by reference. Of more than 200 vertebrate and thousands of invertebrate wildlife species that may live in the project analysis area, wildlife analysis emphasizes species of concern (SOC), which are:

Species identified as Management Indicator Species by the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Siskiyou Forest Plan) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan.


Management Indicator Species (MIS) (USDA 1989) represent the issues, concerns, and opportunities to support recovery of Federally-listed species, provide continued viability of sensitive species, and enhance management of wildlife and fish for commercial, recreational, scientific, subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses. Management indicators representing overall objectives for wildlife, fish, and plants may include species, groups of species with similar habitat relationships, or habitats that are of high concern (FSM 2621.1). An indicator species represents all other wildlife species which utilize a similar habitat type. Indicator species act as a barometer for the health of various habitats and will be monitored to quantify habitat changes predicted by implementation of the Forest Plan (1989 pages IV-10 and 11, FEIS page III-102). MIS and habitats include bald eagle (habitat along major rivers), osprey (habitat along large rivers), spotted owl (old growth forest), pileated woodpecker and American marten (mature/interior forest), black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk (early successional forest stages, and woodpeckers/cavity nesters (wildlife trees [snags]). The Biological Evaluation for this project (EA Appendix D1) addresses Federally-listed and Sensitive species and summarized above in wildlife issues. Table III-12. Wildlife Management Indicator Species and Habitat Represented

Species Habitat Represented Bald Eagle Habitat corridors along major rivers Osprey Habitat corridors along large creeks and rivers Spotted owl Old-growth forest Pileated woodpecker, American marten Mature forest Woodpeckers Snags (standing dead trees) Black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk Early successional forest stages

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments or connected actions, and therefore no mechanism to affect MIS species; current conditions would continue. Natural processes would continue to occur and the forest stands would continue to develop undisturbed by management. The No Action would be less effective at accelerating the development and maintenance of mature and old-growth forest habitat. The No-Action alternative would maintain existing snag levels and promote further development of additional ones. The additional snags would be the result of normal within snag mortality resulting from tree to tree competition for resources.

c. Environmental Consequences from all Action Alternatives This project proposes treatments in natural stands which are between 65 and 90 years old and currently in a forest stand condition that is classified as young or small forest. This habitat condition is common. Small amounts of change are expected in the other habitat types. Prescriptions would include density management on stands that currently have 235 to 416 trees per acre. Prescriptions would call for leaving 70 to 94 conifers trees per acre. The desired number of trees per acres when these stands reach late-successional condition is ~35 to 60 trees per acre. This leaves 10 to 59 trees available for creating snags and down wood now and into the future. Silvicultural prescriptions would emphasize retaining existing snags and down wood. Total snag numbers are estimated to range between 0 to 3 snags per acre over the entire stand. Snags 10 inches diameter or greater not considered a fuel or safety hazard would be left. If felling is necessary, leave snags on site above 10”. Below 10” diameter fuels may be hand piled from 2”on the large end four feet and greater. Specific treatments such as hand piling would depend on fuel loading and wildlife recommendations.


Prescriptions would account for future large woody material recruitment, i.e., desired leave tree numbers would be increased. If residual trees are felled (e.g., human safety or skyline corridors), provisions for replacement trees would be made during operations. Whenever possible, creation of snags over 20” DBH within treatment unit should be implemented through top removal or girdling. The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (S&G 4-13a) determined that snag habitat should be managed to maintain habitat capability for woodpeckers at not less than the 60% level. This would equate to 2.5 trees per acre The Siskiyou Supplement Guidelines for Harvest Prescriptions, Large Woody Material, Green Tree Retention, Wildlife Reserve (Snag) Tree Retention, 2001, provides further guidelines to manage snags and down wood by Plant Association Groups (PAG).

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Habitats and Associations For the treatment units in particular, the dominant and chronic condition is the steady accumulation of competitive pressure for forest growing resources, e.g. sunlight, water, nutrients, space. This process maintains a relatively high canopy closure, preventing the establishment or growth of a grass/forb/shrub ground cover. Snag development, especially in the smaller tree classes, is promoted as trees in dominant position continue their advantage. The Action Alternatives would promote the availability of larger snags and down wood. Noise and or smoke harassment potential is effectively mitigated via the use of Limited Operating Periods. In the arena of Biological Diversity, the Action Alternatives take a more favorable position by providing a more limited habitat type, one in which the habitat is forested but with a lower canopy closure and more rapidly growing overstory trees. Overall, the Action Alternatives are considered more beneficial as they best promote biodiversity conservation (effects on species, habitat elements, ecological processes) across the wildlife analysis area. Mature and old-growth forest habitat: Habitat necessary for the maintenance of population viability for species dependent on mature and old-growth forest habitat is protected under Late-Successional Reserve (USDA, USDI 1994). The entire project, through a density management (commercial thinning) treatment, does promote and accelerate the attainment of larger tree structure as would be present within late successional conifer forest habitat, e.g. spotted owl habitat. Biological Diversity: The Proposed Action is proactive and most effective at the development and maintenance of biological diversity which in this case is defined as a combination of habitat diversity (coarse scale), and unique habitat elements (fine scale). The Proposed Action provides for the co-occurrence, and in proximity to one another, of multiple habitat types (e.g. upland meadow, high canopy-closure conifer forest, low – to – mid canopy- closure conifer forest, and edge habitat) with unique habitat elements (e.g. snags, large trees, and down wood). Management Indicator Species Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). This species is closely associated with open water (lakes, rivers, and streams). It breeds in the project area’s major habitat types but only when adjoining open water. Osprey are regularly observed along the major rivers across the district. Neither the treatment units nor the helicopter flight paths are in proximity to open water. As such, no impact is expected.


Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). This species is generally associated (feeds and breeds) with the Mixed forest habitat type, and present in the Oak habitat type. This species feeds and breeds in a variety of structural conditions especially in a landscape mosaic of habitat types. Decadent wood and snags are essential habitat components. This species is present across the district including sightings within the analysis area, and within the southern edge of Unit #9. As discussed above, activities would help promote and accelerate the attainment of larger tree structure and biological diversity which would be a beneficial effect to the species over the long term. American marten (Martes americana). Though not within any of the proposed treatment units, American marten have been documented within the analysis area. This species is associated with forested environments though not with any particular structural condition. It may den in snags, down logs, and rock outcrops. Of seven documented records of marten activity, five were the result of a Pacific Southwest Research Station conducted a smoke-plate track survey in 1997 for marten and fisher across the Gold Beach Ranger District. A 1992 sighting of a single marten indicated its presence as 1.2 miles west of the Unit #3; a 1979 sighting and five 1997 sightings were of individual martens about 1 mile west of Unit #8. A total of 35.5 miles of snow track surveys within the Hunter Creek watershed and 33 miles within Pistol River watershed were completed in 1994 and 1997(Dillingham, 1997). Additional surveys within these watersheds occurred on 27 Jan 1999 and 30 Jan 1999. No fisher tracks were observed, however marten, cougar, bear and other wildlife tracks were identified. The proposed action alternatives would promote the development of larger trees thereby increasing the possibility of a den tree resulting. However, retention trees are dominated by vigorous trees lacking damage and cavities thereby reducing their potential use as a den tree. Snags that may pose a hazard to logging operations would likely felled and these would have had the greater potential for marten use. Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus). An associated and important habitat element is oak trees and snags. The treatment units are marginally suitable habitat for this species. The nearest sighting is within 500’ of the eastern edge of Unit #10. An additional sighting is documented about 4,500’ south from Unit #13. The action alternatives do not purposely remove snags, though a limited amount of them would be lost during harvest operations. Project mitigations for snag habitat ensure the availability of the snag resource within the units; therefore, no measurable effects would be expected. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). This species is moderately associated with the major Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat of the project area. It is closely associated with the Grass/Forb-Open structural condition. The project units are not considered suitable for this species and its presence has not been documented within the analysis area. As such, no adverse impacts are expected. Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). This species is generally associated (feeds and breeds) with the Mixed forest habitat type, and occasionally present in the Grasslands type. There is not a strong association with a particular structural condition. It may feed and breed in the project area providing that deciduous trees are present for feeding, and decadent, deciduous trees are present for nesting. It may also nest in snags. Important habitat elements are hardwood trees, and snags. The species has not been detected within the analysis area. As such, no adverse impacts are expected. Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus). This species is generally associated (feeds and breeds) with the Mixed forest habitat type, and occasionally present in the Grasslands type. There is not a strong association with a particular structural condition. The species may feed and breed in project area providing that decadent trees are present. The species may nest in snags. Important habitat elements are decadent trees, and snags. The species has been detected within the analysis area but outside the treatment units. As such, no adverse impacts are expected.


Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). This species is closely associated with the oak habitat type though not strongly with any structural condition. Important habitat elements are hardwood trees, and snags. The treatment units are not considered suitable habitat for this species, though the species has been detected within the analysis area, close to the northeastern edge of Unit #8. As such, no adverse impacts are expected. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). This species is generally associated (feeds and breeds) with the Mixed forest habitat type but require a ponderosa pine component. There is not a strong association with a particular structural condition. Important habitat elements are pine trees and snags. The project units are not considered suitable for this species and its presence has not been documented within the analysis area. As such, no adverse impacts are expected. Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) and Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti). These species are generally associated with the Oak woodland, Mixed forest, and the Grasslands habitat types. The species feed and breed in the project area though tend to avoid areas with heavy slash accumulation. The forested structural conditions are also used for cover. These species are present across the district and within the analysis area and units. Deer and elk are considered MIS for early successional forest habitat stages. Some neo-tropical migratory bird species, as well as other vertebrate species (bear, quail, rodents, etc.) require habitat conditions similar to those of deer and elk. Providing for deer and elk habitat should therefore provide habitat and population viability for other vertebrates. Habitat elements for deer and elk are present throughout the entire forest. Current elk and deer populations are below Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife management objectives and populations are stable to slightly increasing, especially within the Biscuit Fire perimeter (personal communications with Clayton Barber, ODFW District Wildlife Biologist). As per the Pistol River watershed assessment, all of the Pistol River sub-watersheds have road densities in excess of 2 mi/sq mi with the exception of East Fork sub-watershed. The highest overall road densities are in the Glade and Deep Creek, Lower Pistol main stem, and Upper Pistol main stem sub-watersheds (4.1, 4.7, and 3.4 mi/sq mi, respectively). The highest riparian road densities are in the Glade and Deep Creek, South Fork, and Lower Pistol main stem sub-watersheds (2.9, 1.7, and 2.9 mi/sq mi, respectively). Harassment potential is increased via the construction of 1.8 miles of temporary road though the effects of that are expected to be too small and scattered to be measurable. Furthermore, given the temporary nature of the roads, the potential impact is most likely removed within five years of project completion. There would no change to existing levels of road density across the affected watersheds, most of which is the Pistol River watershed. Security (hiding) cover is reduced via the proposed activity. Coupling of the diverse array of vegetative conditions with undulating terrain results in a low likelihood of deer and or elk being unable to efficiently locate and use effective security cover. Forage production, in the form of grasses – forbs – shrubs, is improved via the opening of the forest canopy which in turn allows increased levels of sunlight to reach the forest floor. The existing canopy cover in the majority of the harvest units exceeds 75% and in many places exceeds 90%. The proposed treatment, commercial thinning, is expected to at least maintain existing levels of habitat use by deer and elk. The increased access (physical and viewable) into forested areas increases harassment potential albeit to an immeasurable degree of effect.


d. Cumulative Effects Analysis The area of analysis for determining cumulative effects for listed species is considered to be complex and includes such boundaries as stand level, forest level, specie provinces and regions. Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is likely little habitat on private land for the woodpecker in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which may have reduced oak woodlands to some extent, but also likely greatly increased snag habitat over the approximately 470,000 acres within those fires.

1. All action Alternatives Habitats and Associations Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the analysis area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls and other forest associated species in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of mature forest habitat associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable spotted owl suitable habitat by approximately 65,000 acres. Vegetation management projects that may treat forested habitats are ongoing on the District; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275 acres, including 1,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 100 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale, sold, will treat and maintain 114 acres of suitable habitat and Low Meadow Timber Sale, sold, will treat 152 acres of suitable habitat. Density management effects of this project combine with those of forest-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres), Southwest Thin (sold, 522 acres) and Too Wild Timber Sale (sold, treated 529 acres); these sales treat primarily young forest habitat and will maintain this habitat. These sales will likely increase growth and allow young stands to become suitable for spotted owls sooner than if they were not treated. Management Indicator Species Lewis’ woodpecker - District-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations are ongoing; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275 acres of forest lands. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale proposes to treat and maintain 114 acres of suitable habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres. The Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment may treat 47,400 acres and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres. All of these projects could potentially impact snag habitat for woodpeckers but may also increase forage and snag habitat for the woodpecker. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration which would likely increase early seral habitat and snag habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers. Other meadow restoration projects in the Gold Beach RD would also increase habitat opportunities for this species by eliminating conifers encroaching into historical meadow habitat. Pacific fisher - Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls in the analysis area and no State lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of habitat associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable late seral habitat by approximately 65,000 acres.


Forest vegetation management projects such as Equine Thin propose to treat approximately 1,275 acres, including 1,000 acres of mature habitat. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 100 acres of potentially suitable habitat for fisher. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale proposes to treat and maintain 114 acres of mature habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres of mature habitat. These projects could reduce canopy closure and structural complexity in these mature stands which could result in a reduction of resting and denning opportunities for fisher. Density management effects of this project combine with those of District-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres) and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres; these sales treat only younger, smaller stands and while they may impact some potential foraging habitats for fisher they would not likely impact resting or denning habitats for fisher.

12. OTHER WILDLIFE – RARE OR UNCOMMON SPECIES AND/OR HABITAT How would density management (thinning) treatments and connected actions affect other terrestrial wildlife species of concern, including rare or uncommon species and/or habitat?


Other rare or uncommon species. Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus). The project units are considered marginally suitable for this species though its presence has not been documented within the analysis area. Great gray owl (Strix nebulosai). The project units are not considered suitable for this species and its presence has not been documented within the analysis area. As such, no impact is expected. Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea). The project units are not considered suitable for this species and its presence has not been documented within the analysis area. As such, no impact is expected. Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus). Project-wide surveys for red tree voles were conducted in 2002. Management recommendations at the time required the delineation of habitat areas around active red tree vole nests (USDA and USDI 2000). For single active nests, habitat areas should consist of a 10-acre area with a buffer between the nest and the habitat area boundary of at least one site potential tree height. The intent of the habitat area is to protect the integrity of the nest and retain adequate habitat for an increase in the number of active nests in the area. Nest tree distribution was interpreted to represent two red tree vole sites each of which was appropriately buffered. Two red tree vole habitat buffer areas were established, both south of Treatment Unit #13. The Red Tree Vole Survey Protocol, Version 2.1, October 2002, placed the Chetco, Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts in the Mesic Forest Distribution Zone. The 2003 Annual Species review removed the pre-disturbance requirement for the Mesic Zone. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/Annual_Species_Review/2004/IM_OR_2004-034_Att1.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/Annual_Species_Review/2004/IM_OR_2004-034_Att1.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/Annual_Species_Review/2004/IM_OR_2004-034_Att1.pdf


However, the 2003 Annual Species Review Team also created a map with Mesic and Xeric zones which included a portion of the Gold Beach Ranger District within the Xeric Zone. http://www5.or.blm.gov/geobob/Data/RTV/documents/RTV_Range_and_BioZone_Map.pdf The Pyramid Thin project area, as well as the entire Hunter Creek & Pistol River watersheds are in the Mesic Zone. Pre-disturbance surveys are no longer required in that portion of the range (USDA/USDI, 2003).

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments or connected actions, and therefore no mechanism to affect other rare or uncommon terrestrial wildlife species and their habitats; current conditions would continue. Natural processes would continue to occur and the forest stands would continue to develop undisturbed by management.

c. Environmental Consequences from all Action Alternatives

1. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The Project Area is within the OR Klamath physiographic province. This project is consistent with the Record of Decision (ROD) pertaining to Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA 2001).

The range for the great gray owl includes the project area however neither individual sightings of the species nor suitable habitat are present in the units or the wildlife analysis area. The project units are not considered suitable for this species and its presence has not been documented within the analysis area. As such, no impact is expected.

The project does not affect caves, mines, wooden bridges, or buildings. Such structures could be used as roost sites by bats. By design, the project maintains and promotes the development of large trees, large snags and decadent trees which could serve as roosting habitat.

Surveys for red tree vole were conducted during 2002. Two protection buffers (Biswell et al., 2002) were established south of unit 13.

The Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standard and Guidelines from Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA, 2007) determined there is sufficient habitat range-wide in the NWFP area, but insufficient habitat in the portion of its NWFP area range north of Highway 22. Because we are south of Hwy. 22, the proposed treatment area is within sufficient habitat for the red tree vole, and no pre-project clearance is required.

13. NEO-TROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS/LANDBIRDS (NTMB) How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect Neo-tropical Migratory Birds/Landbirds?


http://www5.or.blm.gov/geobob/Data/RTV/documents/RTV_Range_and_BioZone_Map.pdf


Neo-tropical migratory birds/landbird focal species identified by Partners in Flight (PIF): Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon and Washington.

In September, 2000, the USDA Forest Service Landbird Strategic Plan was distributed. This plan set forth goals and actions to assist meeting the Forest Service commitment to provide habitat for sustainable resident and migrant landbird populations and monitor their populations through time. An Executive Order (EO) 13186) was signed in 2001. Provisions within this document directed agencies to integrated bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency planning process, restore and enhance habitat of migratory birds as practicable, and ensure that analysis evaluates the effects of actions on migratory birds, especially species of concern. In December, 2008, the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds (USDA, USDI 2008). The purpose of this MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds. Focus first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. Within the National Forest System, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales. The Rogue River-Siskiyou NF is within Bird Conservation Region 5 (Northern Pacific Forest).

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments or connected actions, and therefore no mechanism to affect neo-tropical and migratory birds; current conditions would continue. Natural processes would continue to occur and the forest stands would continue to develop undisturbed by management.


1. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Project analysis is based on neo-tropical migratory birds/landbird focal species identified by Partners in Flight (PIF): Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon and Washington. As per the Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan, … if you provide all of the habitats to some degree over some landscape, then you will probably be taking care of most if not all of the landbirds in that habitat. The conservation emphasis is on ecosystems, habitats, and habitat conditions, not species.” Priority bird species for varying habitats within the fifth-field watersheds are summarized in Table 8 of the Habitat Examination. Effects to NTMBs are variable depending on the habitat associations of the individual species and effects to habitats. Impacts to habitat for some species may occur from commercial thinning of younger forests; however, due to the limited amount of area affected by these projects, relative to the Forest, effects to NTMBs are expected to be minimal. Because of their association with large trees, snags and higher canopy closures, Vaux’s swift, pileated woodpecker, Brown creeper; red crossbill varied thrush, Hermit warbler; Hammond’s flycatcher; Pacific-slope flycatcher populations may be somewhat reduced for some time within the units until canopy closure and structural attributes associated with these birds increase. Some species such as Olive-sided flycatcher; western bluebird; orange-crowned warbler; rufous hummingbird may increase because of habitat associations that are retained or increased due to the proposed treatments.


Because of the limited acres of dry land grass sites, the biggest concern with NTMB on Forest Service lands may lie in degradation of riparian habitat, and subsequent loss of brush cover favored by many species (Bock et al. 1992). Riparian habitat in the Project Area would not be altered or impacted by the proposed activities since the Rogue River– Siskiyou National Forest Riparian Guidelines (USDA FS 2006) provide protection (no treatment within 25 feet) of riparian habitat (also see discussion in the Biological Evaluation under riparian dependent species). Since the majority of the species occupy or require a riparian habitat component; the proposed project would not be impacting this habitat type. Overall, potential population numbers for grass and shrub nesting birds are expected to increase. The long term impacts of fuels reduction may have beneficial impacts by maintaining grasses by reducing brush competition for available space. Another benefit is the creation of some snag trees (usually 1-2 per acre) caused by scorching from burning activities; although there are mitigations to help limit this, some may occur; thus creating some foraging and nesting habitat for woodpeckers and secondary cavity nesters. For those species dependent on acorns, reducing conifer encroachment on oak woodlands helps to maintain and increase growth of oaks, thus benefiting bird foraging habitat. Lastly, the remnants of some unburned or partially burnt piles may benefit nesting and cover habitat in areas that currently lack these components. Disturbance from operations and smoke during the nesting period is also a concern for NTMBs. Efforts should be made to reduce impacts to nesting birds that may be present in the Project Area that may be directly impacted by broadcast burning operations. Timing of operations should occur outside of the spring breeding/nesting season as much as possible (May 15 to July 15). The Proposed Action which includes seeding would benefit NTMBS overall by increasing landscape level habitat diversity.

14. SNAGS AND COARSE WOODY MATERIAL How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect existing and future levels of snags and coarse woody material within watersheds?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix D2 – Wildlife Habitat Examination, incorporated by reference. Coarse woody material (CWM) fulfills a number of important ecological functions such as stabilizing surface soils, increasing organic content in soils over the long-term, providing habitat for the many organisms that depend on snags and down logs in various stages of decay, and ensuring adequate coarse woody material recruitment to meet the ecological needs of aquatic systems over time. Large snags over 20 inches diameter are particularly essential for forest function. In addition, at least 96 wildlife species in Oregon and Washington are associated with snags in forests, using snags for shelter, roosting and hunting. Most species use snags greater than 14 inches diameter. Ridges, upper thirds of slopes, and riparian areas or lower third of slopes are very important for late-successional dependent species. Snags in various size classes also are important to the recruitment pathways of the down coarse materials important to soils. As with snags, down logs are important for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem function. In addition, large coarse woody material is particularly important to maintaining and holding soils in place. Twelve of the wildlife species analyzed use down wood habitat for their primary needs. Twenty-two species analyzed use snag habitat for their primary needs.


The vegetation diversity within Pyramid Thin Project is influenced by many factors including soil types, slope, exposure, elevation, climate, fire patterns, diseases, insects, and past road building and timber harvest activities. Province-wide and within the fifth-field watersheds associated with the Project Area, there are very few early seral habitat areas containing moderate to high densities of large snags, which is habitat needed by certain species, such as the western bluebird and some bats. A key element of desired conditions for Plant Association Groups (PAGs) is down dead woody material. Desired levels of dead wood have been developed by PAG, based on Ecology Plot data, adjusted by past conditions with consideration of the DecAID1 advisory system. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon, 2006, is a compilation of the best available science on large woody material. It uses ecosystem management strategies that focus on; 1)all dead wood dependent species and ecosystem function; 2)using historic range of variability for reference conditions which attempts to mimic natural levels and distributions; 3)landscape level approach. The information and data in DecAID are organized by Wildlife Vegetation Conditions, a combination of wildlife habitat type and structural condition class. Because the Forest’s PAG analysis is conducted at a finer scale than DecAID the forest uses the PAG analysis for snags and CWD. Province wide, there is roughly 2-3% cover of large down wood greater than 5” diameter; about half are greater than 20” diameter. In addition, high concentrations of down wood, above 10%, occur on about 3% of natural stands. About 76 percent of the Federal lands within the watersheds are natural stands. The northern spotted owl and other species have shown a positive relationship with increasing amounts of down wood. Province wide, there are roughly 8 snags per acre in natural stands that are greater than 10” DBH; about 4 of these 8 snags per acre are greater than 20” DBH. In addition, high concentrations of snags (about 28 per acre > 10”), cover about 2% of these natural stands. About 80 percent of the Federal lands within the watersheds are natural stands. High concentrations of snags have the greatest value for many snag-associated animals. The above data from the analysis area was collected before the 2002 Biscuit Fire or the 2005 Blossom Fire. Portions (8,677 acres) of the East Fork Pistol River subwatershed are within the Biscuit Fire boundary and some areas now have high concentrations of large snags. (Biscuit Fire EIS, Table III-66.) Biscuit fire (472,500 acres) resulted in an estimated 168,900 acres with dead overstory. Salvage occurred on less than 15,000 acres. (Biscuit Appendix G (p.G11) Seventy-six percent of the Federal acres within the watersheds (Hunter Creek & Pistol River) are in a natural condition, 44% of which is in a land allocation with no programmed timber harvest. Very few large snags (over 20” DBH) exist in Forest Service plantations that were clear-cut before 1990: about 450 acres within the watersheds associated with the candidate stands. This is about 1% of roughly 42,167 acres of Forest Service land in the watersheds. Data gathered within stands proposed for thinning in the Pyramid Thin Project indicate that snag densities are relatively low (0-3 snag per acre), which is typical due to stand origin (fire), stand age, and site-specific conditions from dense mature stands undergoing stem exclusion. The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (S&G 4-13a) determined that snag habitat should be managed to maintain habitat capability for woodpeckers at not less than the 60% level. This would equate to 2.5 trees per acre.

1 DecAID is a work in progress on a decayed wood advisory tool for Washington and Oregon forests (Marcot et al., PNW Research Note 2002). The title can be read as decayed wood advisor and management aid “decay-aid” or “decision-aid”.


Prescriptions would account for future large woody material recruitment, i.e., desired leave tree numbers would be increased. If residual trees are felled (e.g., human safety or skyline corridors), provisions for replacement trees would be made during operations. Whenever possible, creation of snags over 20” DBH within treatment unit should be implemented through top removal or girdling. The Siskiyou Supplement Guidelines for Harvest Prescriptions, Large Woody Material, Green Tree Retention, Wildlife Reserve (Snag) Tree Retention, 2001, provides further guidelines to manage snags and down wood by Plant Association Groups (PAG) and is discussed here.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments, and therefore no mechanism to affect snags ad coarse woody material; current conditions would continue. Natural processes would continue to occur and the forest stands would continue to develop undisturbed by management. No Action would continue to promote the availability of smaller snags and down wood and would be less effective at accelerating the development and maintenance of mature and old-growth forest habitat. Within the next 10-20 years, if left untreated, small-diameter snags would appear naturally through suppression and subsequent stem mortality. However, if left untreated, the development of large trees that could become large snags could be delayed.

c. Environmental Consequences from All Action Alternatives Existing snag numbers are low due to stand origin (fire), stand age, and site-specific conditions. Prescriptions include density management on stands that currently have 235 to 416 trees per acre. Prescriptions would call for leaving 70 to 94 conifers trees per acre. The desired number of trees per acres when these stands reach late-successional condition is ~35 to 60 trees per acre. This leaves 10 to 59 trees available for creating snags and down wood now and into the future. Silvicultural prescriptions would emphasize retaining existing snags and down wood. Total snag numbers are estimated to range between 0 to 3 snags per acre over the entire stand. Snags 10 inches diameter or greater not considered a fuel or safety hazard would be left. If felling is necessary, leave snags on site above 10”. Below 10” diameter fuels may be hand piled from 2”on the large end four feet and greater. Specific treatments such as hand piling would depend on fuel loading and wildlife recommendations. Prescriptions would account for future large woody material recruitment, i.e., desired leave tree numbers would be increased. If residual trees are felled (e.g., human safety or skyline corridors), provisions for replacement trees would be made during operations. Whenever possible, creation of snags over 20” DBH within treatment unit should be implemented through top removal or girdling. The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (S&G 4-13a) determined that snag habitat should be managed to maintain habitat capability for woodpeckers at not less than the 60% level. This would equate to 2.5 trees per acre. However, Rose et al. (2001) report that results of monitoring indicates that the biological potential models used to provide and assess snag habitat are a flawed technique (page 602). The Siskiyou Supplement Guidelines for Harvest Prescriptions, Large Woody Material, Green Tree Retention, Wildlife Reserve (Snag) Tree Retention, 2001, provides further guidelines to manage snags and down wood by Plant Association Groups (PAG) and is discussed here. Snags - Intermediate Harvests (Thinnings). At thinning entry estimate how standards and guidelines for Wildlife Reserve Trees (WRT) might ultimately be implemented (prescribed) at the time of final removal. For all Plant Series: retain Wildlife Reserve Trees by marking EXISTING snags, remnant trees, and other large trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife; leave up to 2 or 2.5 trees per acre, depending on which group of woodpecker species is present.


Large Woody Material - For non stand-replacement events such as thinning retain all existing down, cull or standing large woody material up to 21 pieces per acre as recommended by PAG; retain all existing snags at each entry. These amounts may be achieved in more than one entry (White 2001). Analysis of effects was determined with the assumption that the following mitigation measures would be implemented for all action alternatives. Wildlife trees. Within harvest units, leave up to 4 dominant / co-dominant trees per acre which

contain nests, wildlife cavities, structural deformities, and or damage likely to lead to snag formation in conformance with the marking guidelines.

Snags & Down-woody debris. To the extent compatible with safety provisions retain all snags

with tree diameter >=10”. Retain on site, all commercial size down-woody material. Leave trees damaged during harvest operations will be left on site. Timber Sale Administrator will tract the number of snags (>=10”) felled. Snags felled during harvest operations will be replaced by creating (girdling) snags from leave trees damaged during harvest operations. The intent is to maintain existing snag numbers following all treatment activities.

Following harvest operations, if funding is available, snags will be created by girdling or topping to increase snags to an average of 5 snags >10 inches DBH per acre representative of the dominant and co-dominant tree class.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects

Thinning and temporary road construction would reduce the current amount of existing snags and delay the development of future snags created through stem exclusion. Thinning with felling, yarding, and piling and other connected actions would have effects on these habitats, and appropriate amounts for each site would be retained or created in accordance with project design criteria and mitigation measures. The abundance of this habitat would meet the needs of each site and PAG. The Proposed Action would affect 311 acres of natural stands within the Pistol River and Hunter Creek watersheds. Riparian Reserves would not be entered. Much of the subwatershed and adjoining LSR would continue to develop naturally. Treatment unit locations would continue to maintain undisturbed habitat corridors that would allow wildlife the capability to travel between the two LSRs. Proposed treatments including mitigation measures such as the creation of snags within the treatment units would benefit current snag conditions by promoting the development of larger trees for future recruitment. Thinning activities may “divert suppression mortality” but over time, such mortality would be developed that would consist of larger-sized, much more suitable snags and coarse wood sooner than if the stands were not treated. The creation of snags under Other Projects in the EA could create larger snags and coarse wood in the short term. Treatment unit size and location across the landscape would allow areas to remain undisturbed thereby ensuring a diverse component of snags and coarse wood across the landscape. For the treatment units in particular, the dominant and chronic condition is the steady accumulation of competitive pressure for forest growing resources, e.g. sunlight, water, nutrients, space. This process maintains a relatively high canopy closure, preventing the establishment or growth of a grass/forb/shrub ground cover. Snag development, especially in the smaller tree classes, is promoted as trees in dominant position continue their advantage. Noise and or smoke harassment potential is effectively mitigated via the use of Limited Operating Periods. In the arena of Biological Diversity, the Action Alternatives take a more favorable position by providing a more limited habitat type, one in which the habitat is forested but with a lower canopy closure and more rapidly growing overstory trees. Overall, the Action Alternatives are considered more beneficial as they best promote biodiversity conservation (effects on species, habitat elements and ecological processes) across the analysis area.


d. Cumulative Effects Analysis Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the analysis area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls and other forest associated species in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of mature forest habitat associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable spotted owl suitable habitat by approximately 65,000 acres. Vegetation management projects that may treat forested habitats are ongoing on the District; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275 acres, including 1,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 100 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale, sold, will treat and maintain 114 acres of suitable habitat and Low Meadow Timber Sale, sold, will treat 152 acres of suitable habitat.

1. All Action Alternatives Density management effects of any of the action alternatives combined with those of forest-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres), Southwest Thin (sold, 522 acres) and Too Wild Timber Sale (sold, treated 529 acres); would treat primarily young forest habitat and would maintain snag and down wood habitat. These sales would likely increase growth and allow young stands to become suitable for spotted owls sooner than if they were not treated. Mature and old-growth forest habitat. Habitat necessary for the maintenance of population viability for species dependent on mature and old-growth forest habitat is protected under Late-Successional Reserve (USDA, USDI 1994). The entire project, through a density management (commercial thinning) treatment, does promote and accelerate the attainment of larger tree structure as would be present within late successional conifer forest habitat, e.g. spotted owl habitat. Biological Diversity. The Proposed Action is proactive and most effective at the development and maintenance of biological diversity which in this case is defined as a combination of habitat diversity (coarse scale), and unique habitat elements (fine scale). The Proposed Action provides for the co-occurrence, and in close proximity to one another, of multiple habitat types (e.g. upland meadow, high canopy-closure conifer forest, low – to – mid canopy- closure conifer forest, and edge habitat) with unique habitat elements (e.g. snags, large trees, and down wood). 15. RETENTION OF LATE-SUCCESSIONAL FOREST How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect existing levels of late-successional forest within matrix at the fifth-field watershed scale?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix D2 – Wildlife Habitat Examination, incorporated by reference. The Northwest Forest Plan ROD has Standards and Guidelines designed to limit harvest of older forest in watersheds/analysis areas where little late-successional forest remains (Northwest Forest Plan ROD, page C-44).


The proposed project is not in stands that can be identified as old-growth or late-successional forest Northwest Forest Plan ROD, page B1-4 discusses structure and composition of late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems and does not limit the determination of such stands to diameter and canopy cover. Existing conditions of the proposed treatment areas have occasional, larger open-grown and legacy trees; yet, the stands in general, lack important elements such as: live old-growth trees, standing dead trees, fallen trees, multiple canopy layers, smaller understory trees, canopy gaps and patchy understory. Stands within the treatment units are not considered old-growth. By design within the Silvicultural Prescription, the larger open-grown and legacy trees would be protected to enhance structural diversity over the landscape. Though scattered across the landscape, the majority of legacy trees tend to be found within Riparian Reserves which is considered typical in fire generated stands such as these. The Pyramid Thin Project would not treat vegetation within Riparian Reserves. In the development of the Pyramid Thin Project, the Management Objectives and Desired Future Conditions for matrix and LSR are quite different; and each land allocation would have different Purpose and Need elements. With the Pyramid Thin Project, LSR land allocations were excluded from consideration in conjunction with matrix lands. The entire area associated with proposed treatments (the Project Area) is within the land allocation designation of matrix. Two 5th field watersheds are affected by the project. Late-successional and old-growth forest habitat by 5th field watershed is summarized in Table III-13

Table III-13. Current late-successional and old-growth forest within 5th field watersheds 5th FIELD

WATERSHED WATERSHED Federal acres % Late-successional or Old-growth

Hunter Creek 7,001 12% Pistol River 55,216 29%

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments. Natural processes would continue to occur and the forest stands would continue to develop undisturbed by management. Therefore, no mechanism would be employed to affect current or future levels of late-successional forest.


1. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Standard and Guideline C-44 of the Northwest Forest Plan ROD establishes the need to provide for retention of old-growth fragments in watersheds where 15% or less is late-successional forest within 5th field watersheds. As shown in Table III-8, existing conditions are below the 15% threshold in Hunter Creek and well above 15% in Pistol River. The Action Alternatives would affect those areas considered mid-seral and NOT late-successional or old growth. No change is expected to occur to the existing levels of late-successional habitat or old growth. There would be a beneficial impact where the larger tree component in the existing stands would be retained and density management would remove competition thereby improving growing conditions for the residual trees. This would allow for a more healthy and resilient forest that could grow into late-successional forest in the future.


16. AQUATIC SPECIES AND HABITAT How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect aquatic species and habitats, including Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species and/or Essential Fish Habitat?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix E – Fisheries Biological Evaluation, incorporated by reference. Activities may have the potential to affect downstream fisheries habitat. Southern Oregon Northern California (SONC) coho salmon was listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened on May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588). Critical habitat for SONC coho salmon was designated by the NMFS on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24049). Interim protective regulations for SONC coho were issued under section 4(d) of the ESA, on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38479). Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and Puget Sound pink salmon Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) was defined by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PMFC) in Appendix A to Amendment 14 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). This designated EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) as amended by the Sustainable fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267). The Pyramid Thin Project occurs in Hunter Creek and Pistol River Watersheds. However, the Project Area in Hunter Creek is 33 acres and has been evaluated and determined to have no effect to fisheries in this watershed. The Pyramid Thin Project in this watershed is on a ridge-top with no stream channels, and well above any stream with the presence of fish. The Project Area constitutes 33 acres of 28, 450 acres within the Hunter Creek which equates to <0.01% of the entire watershed. Therefore no further analysis was conducted on the fish populations within the Hunter Creek watershed. The Pyramid Thin Project within Pistol River is 278 acres of 66,860 acres which equates to 0.5% of the entire watershed. Further analysis was needed for the Pistol River Watershed. Coho salmon and Chinook salmon are present in the Pistol River Watershed, the nearest critical habitat or EFH for these species is approximately 1.5 miles, for Pistol River, from the nearest harvest unit or haul route. Most of the treatment units and haul route locations are two (2) or more miles from critical habitat within either the Hunter Creek or Pistol River watersheds. Coastal cutthroat trout inhabit Pistol River within 1.5 miles of proposed treatment units. Winter steelhead, inhabit Pistol River and the nearest steelhead individuals to proposed treatment units or haul routes are about 1 ½ miles. Most treatment units are more distant from winter steelhead habitat. Chinook salmon inhabit about the same habitat of coho salmon, all more than 1.5 miles distant from treatment actions and haul routes. These three anadromous fish species and resident cutthroat trout are included on the Region 6 – Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Chinook salmon, steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout are on the Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest’s Salmonid Indicator Species List. The location of actions miles from critical habitat and outside of Riparian Reserves renders the probability of measurable effects at critical habitat or affects to the essential features of critical habitat not probable. The effects are determined to be neutral for all indicators individually and collectively. Much of the discussion of possible effects to coho salmon, essential features of critical habitat and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) centers on fine and coarse sediment delivery to the stream system and transport to critical habitat downstream.


Models to predict sediment are variable. Riparian Reserves left intact at delivery zones would buffer ground disturbance from the stream system. The great distance of the project from critical habitat, coupled with the distance of activities from stream channels, would cause little or no amount of fine or coarse sediment to reach any streams. Hunter Creek and the Pistol River naturally transports a very large sediment load and has high peak flow values during storm periods. Production of sediment that would affect coho salmon or critical habitat is a non-issue. Activities considered in the Project Proposal require a Fisheries Biological Evaluation to be completed (FSM 2672.4). The Biological Evaluation process (FSM 2672.43) is intended to conduct and document activities necessary to ensure Proposed Actions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence or cause adverse modification of habitat for:

A. FFeder

ish species listed or proposed to be listed as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) or Proposed for al listing (P) by the National Marine Fisheries Service. B. Fish species listed as Sensitive (S) by USDA, Forest Service.

Listed fish species that may have suitable habitat on the Gold Beach Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest are listed in Table III-14. Table III-14. Federal Listed and USFS Regional Sensitive Fish Species that occur or have suitable habitat on the Gold Beach Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Species Common Name Scientific Name

ESU Status Habitat suitability or known occurrences of listed

species in or near the project area.

Species to be Analyzed Further?

(Yes or No)* Coho Salmon

Oncorhynchus kisutch Southern Oregon and Northern

California Coast ESU

Threatened

Limited distribution within Hunter Creek and Pistol River Watersheds. Steep stream gradients prevent larger distribution. Yes

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast ESU

Sensitive

Limited distribution within Hunter Creek and Pistol River Watersheds. Steep stream gradients prevent larger distribution. Yes

Pit Sculpin Cottus pitensis Sensitive

Species does not inhabit Hunter Creek or Pistol River watersheds. Within Oregon, only found in tributaries to Goose Lake (Lake County)

No

Inland Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Sensitive

Species does not inhabit Hunter Creek or Pistol River watersheds. Within Oregon, found in multiple river systems east of the Cascade Mountains.

No

*Yes – the proposed projects potential effects on this species will be analyzed further in this document. *No – No further analysis is necessary, and a determination of “No Impact” is rendered.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments, and therefore no mechanism to affect aquatic species or habitats; current conditions would continue. The watershed conditions would continue to remain at the environmental baseline condition. Current fish habitat and fish population conditions and trends would persist. Indirect effects could occur from the increased risk of crossing failures at the locations identified for culvert installation or upgrades which would not be implemented under this alternative.



Determinations for this project are: All Action Alternatives may have no effect on OC and SO/NC coho salmon or their critical habitat. Sediment would likely be delivered to critical habitat as a result of road maintenance and haul. However, the amount of sediment delivered to stream channels would be very small and of short duration. Adequate mitigations would be in place to limit the amount of sediment to levels within the range of natural variability for the season of impact. Therefore, this increase in sediment would not likely render critical habitat unsuitable or affect coho salmon productivity, survival, or mortality. Since proposed activities would have No Effect for coho salmon and coho critical habitat and would not affect Essential Fish Habitat for coho salmon and Chinook salmon, no consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service is required. All Action Alternatives would not adversely affect essential fish habitat for OC and SO/NC coho salmon or OC and SO/NCC Chinook salmon. The Pyramid Thin Project would not treat within Riparian Reserves. All Action Alternatives may impact individuals but not lead to Federal listing for OC and KMP steelhead trout and OC and SO/CC Coastal cutthroat trout habitat. Only a small amount of sediment would enter streams from the maintenance and use of native surface roads and would not be enough to harm trout or trout habitat.

1. Direct Effects

No actions are occurring within stream channels. As a result, no direct impacts to individual species are expected. No individuals would be harmed or harassed during implementation of this project. There are no direct effects to fish species. No channel modifications are occurring within a channel with fish species present. There would be no modifications of fish bearing stream channels. There would be no direct effects to fish habitat. No mortality or permanent habitat modification would be expected.

2. Indirect Effect

As no actions are occurring within the riparian buffer, there would be no increases to water temperature, reduction in riparian vegetation, increased sedimentation, increased peak flows, or reduction in stream bank conditions. This project is located along ridge tops in the upper Pistol River and Hunter Creek Watersheds. There are no fish bearing streams within the project area. The amount of area within the Hunter Creek Watershed is 33 Acres, and any effects on this watershed are insignificant. In the Pistol River watershed, trout and steelhead are found approximately a mile and a half downstream of Treatment Units 12 and 13. The log haul for this sale would occur on Forest Service roads 1703, 1703100, 1601 and some small spurs. The route was inspected, and no culverts within fish bearing reaches needed to be replaced. There are a few small culverts on intermittent or perennial non-fish bearing streams that may be replaced. These culvert replacements would not increase sediment delivery, nor impact fish or fish habitat. Improvement of these culverts would have a long term beneficial impact to downstream conditions because roadside drainage flows would be improved to reduce future potential road failures and subsequent sediment input. No chemical contamination would be expected. Fuel for logging equipment would be stored at landing areas located well outside of the Riparian Reserves. Materials used in prescribed burning would not be used or stored in riparian areas. Spill equipment would be on hand to prevent any spilled substances from leaving the site or entering any stream course.


No change in physical barriers to fish access of the streams is expected. Effects to aquatic habitats from Port-Orford-Cedar (POC) root disease include, but are not limited to: reduced stream shading, decreased bank stability, and a long-term decrease in available large wood. POC root disease is not present within any proposed treatment units, but has been confirmed along proposed haul routes and adjacent riparian areas. No treatments within riparian areas are included as part of this project. The location of the proposed treatment units (i.e. uplands/ridge tops) in conjunction with project design features and mitigation measures substantially reduces the potential for project activities to result in additional spread of POC root disease. New effects to aquatic habitats from POC root disease, associated with proposed Pyramid Thin Project activities, are not expected or likely.

d. Environmental Consequences from Alternatives 3 and 4

1. Direct and Indirect Effects These alternatives are variations of the Proposed Action. These alternatives are designed to reduce impacts to the Relevant Issues (soils and unroaded area) while continuing to address the Purpose and Need. Under these alternatives, potential impacts to the Relevant Issues would be reduced to fall between the maximum (Alternative 2) and no impact (Alternative 1). As developed, these alternatives would address a change in impacts to soils and the unroaded area by reducing the number of temporary roads to be constructed, reducing the number of treatment units and/or changing the amount of acres designed for cable yarding systems to helicopter yarding systems. These alternatives would have similar, though reduced Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative effects as Alternative 2 - Proposed Action. There are no differences from a fisheries perspective as the project still does not enter into Riparian Reserves.

e. Cumulative Effects Analysis

1. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Past timber harvest is prevalent within the Hunter Creek and Pistol River watersheds. Forest Service managed lands are located within the upper portions of these watersheds. In general, timber harvest within the lower portions of watersheds on private land has been more extensive. The activities that are occurring or have recently occurred on US Forest Service Lands are Southwest Thin in the Hunter Creek Watershed and Steed Fire Salvage Timber Sale. The Southwest Thin project has implemented some thinning within Riparian Reserves within Hunter Creek watershed. These were along intermittent stream channels. This thinning that is not expected to result in increased sediment delivery to streams within the Hunter Creek Watershed (Southwest Thin EA). No Riparian Reserves were impacted in Steed Fire Salvage Sale. Thus, no increase in sediment delivery is expected from this action. These projects would have no cumulative effects when combined with the effects of the Pyramid Thin Project. In the future, pre-commercial and commercial thinning activities (e.g., coastal Healthy forest treatments) will occur within managed stands on the coastal districts of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Some thinning may occur within Riparian Reserves, but would not occur within inner gorge areas. Sedimentation could occur but is not likely from the thinning activities, as buffers would be left along stream channels to naturally filter runoff. These projects would be designed utilizing best management practices and direction provided within the Northwest Forest Plan and the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. As such, adequate protection of aquatic resources would be assured.


Activities that occur off-forest are primarily timber harvests within private timberlands. Under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, timber harvest is allowed to occur within Riparian Reserves; however a one tree buffer is necessary along fish bearing streams. These restrictions reduce the amount of sedimentation that occurs on private lands. Some sedimentation may occur from areas where there are intermittent stream channels or where perennial non-fish bearing streams are found. This increase in sedimentation could impact fish habitat by filling in pool habitat and reducing spawning habitat. In general, the Oregon Forest Practices Act provides direction for protection and maintenance of important aquatic habitats across the state.

2. Alternatives 3 and 4 These alternatives would have similar, though reduced Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative effects as Alternative 2 - Proposed Action. There are no differences from a fisheries perspective as the project still does not enter into Riparian Reserves.

17. PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR ROOT DISEASE How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect the spread of Phytophthora lateralis disease, affecting Port-Orford-cedar?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix G – POC Disease Control Strategy, incorporated by reference. As discussed in the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest; and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon (incorporated by reference), the ROD replaces previous direction for management of Port-Orford-Cedar. The ROD specifically addresses project-specific direction and use of the Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key. This approach precludes the need for additional project-specific analysis of risk because the risk key describes conditions where risk reduction management practices are assumed (expected) to be applied. A Port Orford Cedar Root Disease Control Strategy for the Pyramid Thin Project was conducted and is contained in EA Appendix G, incorporated by reference. The general area contains Port-Orford-cedar but no P. lateralis root disease was identified during field inspections within proposed units. The P. lateralis was identified along haul roads and riparian areas however no activity is proposed within any riparian area. Port-Orford-cedar is found along access roads and within the proposed units, based on stand exams and personal observations. This lowers the risk of infestations due to the scattered nature of Port-Orford-cedar and where present, is primarily within 100 feet of identified drainages where no treatment is proposed. Within the Project Area outside of proposed units, an estimated 20% of the area contains varying percentages of Port-Orford-cedar scattered throughout the Project Area based on GIS interpretation.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments, however the P. lateralis root disease could still move into areas associated with the proposed units due to animals, local traffic, and recreational activities.


Under No Action, movement of the PL root disease could still occur in areas associated with the proposed units due to animals, local traffic, and recreational activities; however, this is considered a low probability due to current road closures which would restrict most human/vehicle movement. Forest Service roads 1703110, 1703150, and 1703190 are currently gated and would remain so under seasonal Port-Orford-cedar dry season restrictions. Movement along main haul roads 1703 & 3680 are open year round for public/fire/administrative use and considered infected with the Phytophthora lateralis root disease.


Action alternatives would have the greatest risk of disease spread due to treatment activity but project design criteria and mitigation measures are expected to be effective. Individual mitigation measures are effective but the use of a combination of measures can reduce the probability of long-distance spread better than a single treatment. The proposed treatments include timing of activities (dry season, and scheduling treatment in un-infested before infested areas), washing equipment with using certified clean or Ultra Clorox bleach-treated water, and continuing education efforts with the public and contractors has suggested probability of 2.1% to 4 % chance of the spread of P. lateralis root disease. Combining these treatments with current road closures, the percentage drops to 0 to 2% (USDA USDI 2004) per activity. Dry season restrictions would occur on treatment units 3 (including 3A) and 11A, on Forest Service Port-Orford-cedar gated spur roads 170310, 1703150, and 1703190. All operations would cease during rain events that happen during the dry season. Dry season operations is preferred in helicopter yarding operations in units 6, 8, 9, and 10 but could occur outside of the dry season restrictions with additional mitigations measures identified in the Port-Orford-cedar Disease Control Strategy. Road haul on road 1703 and 3680 would follow fisheries and standard wet season haul restrictions with the addition of a wash station if haul occurred during the wet season. Other units 1, 2, 5, 11, 12 and 13 were also in both the tanoak-moist and Douglas-fir/Ultramafic-SW Oregon PAGs, however no Port-Orford-cedar was identified in the canopy cover in the upland portion of these units. Any activity in these units would follow other resource restrictions and selected District recommended measures including washing before entering the sale area, wet season haul restrictions along roads 1703 and 3680, no movement of soil, to or from waste sites, would be allowed during wet conditions and if loading equipment becomes muddy, it would be washed prior to moving to a new location and rewashing would be necessary if movement of equipment from units not under dry season restrictions occurs in units 3, 3A, 7 and 11A. All of these actions are planned individually or in combination with, dependent on management activities, within the Pyramid Thin Project. Employing a planned combination of treatments can reduce probability of long-distance spread more than a single treatment. An integrated treatment program that uses a combination of sanitation treatments, vehicle washing treatments, road drainage improvements, timing of activities during dry seasons, using certified clean or Ultra Clorox bleach-treated water, scheduling treatments in un-infested before infested areas, regulation of special use activities such as cedar bough collecting, and public education efforts has a suggested probability of 2.1 to 4 % chance of resulting in the spread of P. lateralis root disease. If such treatments are combined with road closures, the percentage drops to 0 to 2% (USDA USDI 2004) per activity. This direction represents a practicable level of effort to control a disease that will spread at some rate regardless of management activity. Thus, management consistent with this direction is essentially “neutral” to POC for the purposes of meeting NWFP guidance for management actives. An activity would be a single trip by a vehicle, a single person walking in the woods, a single trip by someone riding a mountain bike or a horse (The Biscuit Fire Recovery Project FEIS, 2004).


Under the Proposed Action, density management activities within the project area would occur along well traveled forest roads. Actions that may affect the spread of PL root disease use may be associated with the following: 1) harvest activities would include approximately 15 acres of ground-based logging systems; 2) roading activities would include constructing approximately 10 temporary road segments totaling 1.8 miles; and 3) product haul would occur on existing road system.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Under Proposed Action, there is a risk of disease spread due to treatment activities; but, project design criteria and mitigation measures are expected to be effective. The use of a combination of measures can reduce probability of long-distance spread more than a single treatment. The proposed treatments include timing of activities (dry season, and scheduling treatment in un-infested before infested areas), washing equipment with using certified clean or Ultra Clorox bleach-treated water, and continuing education efforts with the public and contractors has suggested probability of 2.1% to 4% chance of the spread of P.lateralis root disease. Combining these treatments with current road closures, the percentage drops to 0 to 2% (USDA USDI 2004) per activity.

d. Environmental Consequences from Alternatives 3 and 4 Action Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar to the Proposed Action. Ground-based yarding would consist of 15 acres and 5 acres, respectively. Roading activities for Alternative 3 would include constructing approximately 4 temporary road segments totaling 0.3 miles and Alternative 4 would have no temporary road construction.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Though similar to the Proposed Action, the action alternatives may be considered something less. The amount of ground-based yarding is equal to or less than the Proposed Action; and the amount of temporary road construction is less or none at all. Therefore, it is expected that the potential to affect spread of the PL rot disease within the area would be similar to or less than those described for the Proposed Action.


1. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action As discussed above in the Background Information, the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest; and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon (incorporated by reference), replaces previous direction for management of Port-Orford-Cedar. The ROD specifically addresses project-specific direction and use of the Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key. This approach precludes the need for additional project-specific analysis of risk because the risk key describes conditions where risk reduction management practices are assumed (expected) to be applied. Application of the Risk Key and maintaining risk of spread within 0-2% precludes additional analysis requirements.


2. Alternatives 3 and 4 Though similar to the Proposed Action, the action alternatives may be considered something less. The amount of ground-based yarding is equal to or less than the Proposed Action; and the amount of temporary road construction is less or none at all. Therefore, it is expected that the potential to affect spread of the PL rot disease within the area would be similar to or less than those described for the Proposed Action.

HHHuuummmaaannn///SSSoooccciiiaaalll EEEnnnvvviiirrrooonnnmmmeeennnttt

18. REMOVAL OF LARGE TREES How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect existing and future levels of large trees within watersheds?

a. Background - Existing Conditions Potential environmental consequences for the loss of large trees have been discussed in several biological issues earlier in this EA. This discussion seeks to address the possible number of large trees which may be removed under all action alternatives. Conifer stands in the Project Area are the result of a stand replacement fire that occurred in the early 1900s. These trees are approximately 65-90 years old, even-aged single-story stands of Douglas-fir (90+%) that contain a few, older, legacy trees (typically 50+ inches in diameter and 200+ years of age) that survived the stand replacement fire. There are additional scattered trees across the landscape that may be considered larger open-grown trees. These trees are noticeable as they present diameters approximately 37” and larger. They tend to have thicker, deeper bark and larger diameter limbs that go almost to the ground. Several of these trees tend to have double trunks or double tops which imply some sort of disturbance/damage over time. For example, a core sample was taken from of 41” tree and it was determined to be approximately 100 years old. Overall stand tree diameters generally average between 9-14 inches with occasional larger open-grown trees (30+”). The proposed project is not in stands that can be identified as old-growth or late-successional forest Northwest Forest Plan ROD, page B1-4 discusses structure and composition of late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems and does not limit the determination of such stands to diameter and canopy cover. Existing conditions of the proposed treatment areas have occasional, larger open-grown and legacy trees; yet, the stands in general, lack important elements such as: live old-growth trees, standing dead trees, fallen trees, multiple canopy layers, smaller understory trees, canopy gaps and patchy understory.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments, and therefore no mechanism to affect removal of large trees; current conditions would continue as discussed in several Biological Issues, previously. Natural processes would continue to occur and the forest stands would continue to develop undisturbed by management.



1. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects By design within the silvicultural treatments, the larger open-grown and legacy trees would be protected to enhance structural diversity over the landscape. Though scattered across the landscape, the majority of legacy trees tend to be found within Riparian Reserves which is considered typical in fire generated stands such as these. The Pyramid Thin Project would not treat vegetation within Riparian Reserves. The treatment prescription was reviewed, as well as stand exam data and cruise plot data. National Timber Cruise Reporting System (NATCRS) reports were developed and information was compiled and extrapolated to determine estimates of trees larger than 21” that could potentially be removed through commercial thinning activities. Estimates were verified by field reviews on the ground. Table III-15 displays estimates for the number of trees greater than 21”estimated to be removed from the Proposed Action. Table III-15. Summary Of Trees >21” Potentially Removed Under the Proposed Action

Units Acres Total number of trees >21” removed

per acre

Maximum diameter of trees removed

Percentage of trees >21” compared to total trees

to be removed 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11A and 12

28 0 17” 0%

3 123 2 23” 1.2% 6 17 9 27” 6.3% 8 27 10 22” 7.2% 9 15 2 29” 1.8% 11 46 6 30” 4.8% 13 55 1 28” 1.0%

Total 311 ac 1.2 tr/ac < 30” 1.1% Though some of the trees may be up to 30” in diameter, they appear to be similar in character to other adjacent trees. These trees up to 30” appear to be of similar age and similar height, though they display more developed crowns (live crown ratio). The improved crowns imply better vigor, most probably attributed to better micro-site conditions (soils and sunlight). For example, a core sample was taken from a 34” tree and it was determined to be approximately 85 years old. Occasional legacy or remnant trees tend to be scattered across the landscape with a majority located within Riparian Reserves. Legacy trees are not the target for removal and most would be expected to remain under the marking guidelines for tree removal. Marking guidelines describe a process to determine “leave trees” and “cut trees”. The process starts with determining the largest tree (which would be the leave tree). All other smaller conifer trees within appropriate spacing which varies by unit between 15 and 17 feet would be cut. To encounter a condition where two large, legacy trees grow within 15-17’ would be extremely rare. Those larger trees considered legacy or remnant would be identified as “one leave tree” and retained under the marking guidelines. Overall, it is noted that some trees greater than 21” diameter would be removed through density management. Such treatment would allow other (possibly larger) trees to continue to grow with less competition. The Pyramid Thin Project is proposed within matrix lands and as such, most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of matrix with suitable forestlands and should contribute to the forest’s probable sale quantity (NWFP, page C-39).


19. SEMI-PRIMITIVE UNROADED AREA How would density management or other treatments change environmental conditions within an area that has no roads and affect semi-primitive conditions?

a. Background - Existing Conditions The term “semi-primitive unroaded area” was developed for the Pyramid Thin Project process. This process was used as part of a project-level NEPA analysis and does not claim to be in accordance with national roadless policy. It does attempt to reflect the concerns and values expressed during project scoping; furthermore, it is not meant to satisfy any one particular set of values as received from any one person or organization. Roadless area management became a national issue in 1972 when the Forest Service initiated a review of National Forest System Lands (NFSL) greater than 5,000 acres to determine their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The second and final review process, the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II), resulted in a nation wide inventory of roadless areas. In the 24+ years since the completion of RARE II, Congress has designated some areas to Wilderness or other protective status, including portions of the Gold Beach District, which were added to Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area. The eastern-most edge of the overall Project Area is approximately seven air-miles west of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area and six air-miles west and north of the Windy Valley Inventoried Roadless Area. There are no lands designated as Wilderness or inventoried as Roadless within the Pyramid Thin Project Area. There are areas on NFSL within the Pyramid Thin Project Area that were not identified in the RARE II inventory, but currently have few or no classified roads. These other “unroaded areas” contain roadless characteristics similar to inventoried roadless areas. There is an opportunity and obligation under NEPA to respond to the public input received during scoping for this project. The Pyramid Thin Project Area does contain areas that possess some semi-primitive unroaded character and values, not inventoried under RARE II. These areas are further discussed throughout this EA; note that areas identified under the Pyramid Thin analysis as having semi-primitive unroaded values have not been identified as an inventory in conformance with Interim or Final Rules associated with any Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation policy. Criteria for Identification of Unroaded Areas – Pyramid Thin Project Area

Below, is the criteria used to identify semi-primitive unroaded areas in the Pyramid Thin Project Area. Note: Under this process, in order to be considered as semi-primitive unroaded areas, areas should simultaneously meet all of the criteria, as applicable. For the Pyramid Thin Area, those criteria include:

SIIdcocrfrec

REF“c ro

ZE entification of areas of any reasonable size 1,000 acres or larger for any one individual area, non-ntiguous to any other area. “Reasonable” is further defined as having habitat value and character; a iterion of 500 feet was used to define any area in width at its narrowest point. This figure is derived om an assumption that a viable habitat “corridor” could be 300 feet with an additional 100 feet as an otone on either edge (300 ft. plus 200 ft.).

OADS and DISTANCE FROM ROADS ach area shall not include any managed or unmanaged, “classified” or “system” road currently on the orest Transportation system. A “road” is defined as a motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide. A lassified” road is a road within NFSL planned or managed for motor vehicle access including Stateads, County roads, private roads, permitted roads, and Forest Service Roads (36 CFR 212.1).


Ahetr

VBst

F14grwfo DAac(e

n area could be adjacent to a Maintenance Level 1 system road; it should be no closer than one tree ight from Maintenance Level 2, 3, 4 or 5 roads (as road maintenance includes falling hazard/danger

ees).

EGETATION CONDITION ased on average natural stand conditions, stands should be at or near to late seral or late-successional age conditions for the Project Area or sub-watershed.

or the Pyramid Thin Project Area, this has been determined to be stands ages of approximately 120 – 0 years or more. Forest structure should include some multi-layering. Densities should be at or eater than 100 square feet of basal area and have approximately 50% in overstory crown closure as ell as late seral forest characteristics. Vegetative areas can also include contiguous natural, non-rested or sparse vegetation types and plant communities, e.g., meadows.

EGREE OF PAST MANAGEMENT reas should be relatively un-entered and un-managed; minimal past salvage activity would be ceptable. Areas should not include any areas that were managed as regeneration is the last 100 years .g., clear-cut or shelterwood silvicultural treatments).

Mapping Process for Unroaded Areas – Pyramid Thin Project Area

Using the criteria described above, a geographic information systems (GIS) mapping process was employed to assist in identification and location of areas within Pyramid Thin Project Area.

This process resulted in identifying the following 1,780 acres semi-primitive unroaded area associated with the Pyramid Thin Project Area (Figure III-1).

NOTE: Mapped areas associated with Figure 9 have not been specifically named, numbered or permanently mapped within any forest-wide data base (GIS). The portrayal of this area is exclusive to the project level analysis of the Pyramid Thin Project.

Figure III-1 Pyramid Thin Project - Unroaded Area

Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Hunter Creek

Nor

th F

ork

Pis

tol R

iver


T 37.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 37.0 S - R 14.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 14.0 W

33

11

28

16

21

09

34

32

10

12

0304

09

07

22

10

27

1517

29

20

13

11

19

25

08

0506

18

30

12

36 31

01

07

14

2423

08

26

35

02

11

02

35

26

23

11

14

03

0405

14

06

13 18

0102

17

16 15

02

14

1703000

3680

000

150

30

50

160

100 0

1503000

1703100

1703150

1503

03 2

1703190

1503

052

3680190

1703101

1703110

1601010

1503035

1703

108

1703120

1703114

3680

180

1407237

1503

057

1503039

1503

037

3680

150

1703102

Unroaded Area

Roads

Streams

/0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Hunter Creek

Nor

th F

ork

Pis

tol R

iver


T 37.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 37.0 S - R 14.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 14.0 W

3

13

8

11

6

9

7

5

12

12

11a

10

33

11

28

16

21

09

34

32

10

12

0304

09

07

22

10

27

1517

29

20

13

11

19

25

08

0506

18

30

12

36 31

01

07

14

2423

08

26

35

02

11

02

35

26

23

11

14

03

0405

14

06

13 18

0102

17

16 15

02

14

1703000

368

0000

1503

050

160 1

00 0

1503000

1703100

1703150

150303

2

1503

052

3680190

1703101

1703110

1601010

1503035

1703

108

1703114

3680

180

1407237

1503

057

1503039

1503

037

3680

150

1703102

Unroaded Area

Pyramid Units 2008

Temporary Roads

!( Heli Landings

Roads

Streams

/0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Hunter Creek

Nor

th F

ork

Pis

tol R

iver


T 37.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 37.0 S - R 14.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 14.0 W

3

13

8

11

6

9

7

5

12

12

11a

10

33

11

28

16

21

09

34

32

10

12

0304

09

07

22

10

27

1517

29

20

13

11

19

25

08

0506

18

30

12

36 31

01

07

14

2423

08

26

35

02

11

02

35

26

23

11

14

03

0405

14

06

13 18

0102

17

16 15

02

14

1703000

368

0000

1503

050

160 1

00 0

1503000

1703100

1703150

150303

2

1503

052

3680190

1703101

1703110

1601010

1503035

1703

108

1703114

3680

180

1407237

1503

057

1503039

1503

037

3680

150

1703102

Unroaded Area

Pyramid Units 2008

Temporary Roads

!( Heli Landings

Roads

Streams

/0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Hunter Creek

Nor

th F

ork

Pis

tol R

ive

r


T 37.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 37.0 S - R 14.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 13.0 W

T 38.0 S - R 14.0 W

13

8

11

6

9

7

12

11a

10

11

33

11

28

16

21

09

34

32

10

12

0304

09

07

22

10

27

1517

29

20

13

19

25

08

14

05

23

06

18

30

12

36 31

26

35

01

07

24

02

08

1413

1817

0304

16 15

05

11

10

06

15

22

27

34

01

02

03

02

10

35

26

23

14

11

1514

0302

1703000

3680

000

1503

050

160

1000

1503000

1703100

1703150

15030

3 2

1703190

3680190

1503

052

1703101

1703110

1601010

1503035

1703

108

1703114

368

0180

1600001

1503039

1503

03

7

3680

150

1703102

Unroaded Area

Pyramid Units 2008

!( Heli Landings

Roads

Streams

/0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles



The treatment of candidate stands, construction of roads, and the introduction of human management actions (e.g., timber harvest) into these previously undeveloped areas have effects. These effects are discussed below. Table III-16 shows the acreage of commercial treatment units and miles of temporary road construction by alternative, within the identified semi-primitive unroaded area.

Table III-16. Activities Within Semi-primitive Unroaded Area, by Alternative Alternative 1

(No-Action) Alternative

2 Alternative

3 Alternative

4 Acres of Density Management 0 130 130 0

Miles of Temporary Road Construction 0 0.95 0 0

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Selection of the No-Action Alternative would not change current conditions within the area specifically identified under the Pyramid Thin planning process as semi-primitive unroaded. These areas have no formal protection status and management activities could be proposed in the future. Alternative 1 would defer effects to semi-primitive unroaded areas.


1. Direct Effects

Alternative 2 would conduct density management activities in Treatment Units 1, 2, 3, and portion of 5 totaling approximately 130 acres of the unroaded area. Approximately 5,015 feet of temporary road would be constructed to access Treatment Unit 3. Following use, the temporary road would be closed and rehabilitated. Stand density treatment (thinning) within this unroaded area would include the following:

0 acres requiring helicopter yarding. 120 acres requiring cable yarding. 10 acres requiring tractor yarding.

This acreage equates to a total direct impact of approximately 130 acres, or 7.3% of the 1,780 semi-primitive unroaded area.

2. Indirect Effects Activities associated with the Proposed Action may affect a (non-inventoried) “roadless” or semi-primitive area that is currently unroaded. Unroaded areas, like roadless areas and Wilderness, may be valued for their very existence in an undeveloped state. This value is experienced practically by users of the area, and intrinsically by those who place value in simply knowing that undeveloped lands, perceived as “wild,” still exist. Human values associated with mature, late-successional, or old-growth vegetative conditions are difficult to describe in detail. These values are dependent on many factors such as a person’s background, personal beliefs, spiritual background, etc. Alternative 2 would compromise the undeveloped character of portions of the semi-primitive unroaded area, by constructing temporary roads and thinning forest. These actions change the physical structure, composition, and appearance of the forest. The ability of these areas to meet the criteria for semi-primitive unroaded would be reduced according to the amount and extent of area affected.


It is recognized that the impacts to human values associated with wildland features occur in ways that exceed the amount of acres included in roads and forest management treatment units. This impact is difficult to measure and is highly subjective. It can be stated that some adverse impact to these values would occur, at some level approaching, but probably not including 100% of the area currently possessing these values, within the identified semi-primitive unroaded area.

d. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 3

1. Direct Effects Alternative 3 is similar to the Proposed Action except this alternative would not construct any permanent or temporary roads within the area identified as semi-primitive unroaded. Stand density treatment (thinning) within this unroaded area would remain the same. Due to the lack of temporary road construction, harvest methods would be changed from cable yarding to helicopter yarding.

113 acres requiring helicopter yarding. 7 acres requiring cable yarding. 10 acres requiring tractor yarding.

Overall, direct impacts may be experienced over the same acreage as described in Alternative 2.

2. Indirect Effects Such affects are similar to Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, though reduced due to the lack of temporary road construction and removing cut trees by helicopter instead of cable. This impact remains difficult to measure and is highly subjective. It can be stated that some adverse impact to these values would occur, at some level approaching, but probably not including 100% of the area currently possessing these values, within the identified semi-primitive unroaded area.

e. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 4

1. Direct Effects The effects are similar to the No-Action Alternative and would not change current conditions within the area specifically identified under the Pyramid Thin planning process as semi-primitive unroaded. Alternative 4 is designed to defer effects to semi-primitive unroaded areas; no acres of commercial thinning treatment or temporary road construction would occur within the contiguous area. Treatment Units 1, 2, 3, and portion of 5 would not be implemented. The current conditions would remain for the semi-primitive unroaded area.

2. Indirect Effects Alternatives 4 would not construct new system roads or enact forest management actions within the unroaded area, and would therefore maintain the existing undeveloped character of this area. Except for the effects from current use, the “wildland” features would be maintained in their current condition for all who value them either practically or intrinsically. The ability of this area to meet the criteria for semi-primitive unroaded would remain unchanged.


f. Cumulative Effects Analysis

1. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The proposed commercial harvest actions are the primary activities that would occur in this semi-primitive unroaded area, for this planning period. No other present activities are proposed in the area nor are there any activities planned in the foreseeable future. Therefore, there are no additional adverse cumulative effects (associated with identified semi-primitive area) anticipated.

2. Alternative 3 The proposed commercial harvest actions are the primary activities that would occur in this semi-primitive unroaded area, for this planning period. No other present activities are proposed in the area nor are there any activities planned in the foreseeable future. Therefore, there are no additional adverse cumulative effects (associated with identified semi-primitive area) anticipated.

3. Alternative 4 No other present activities are proposed in the area nor are there any activities planned in the foreseeable future.

20. ECONOMICS How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect the economic feasibility of implementing treatment activities?

a. Background - Existing Conditions The Pyramid Thin Timber Sale is scheduled for auction and award in fiscal year 2009. There are three alternatives plus a No-Action alternative being considered. The proposed sale volume varies with each alternative between a high of 4,670 thousand board feet (MBF) in both Alternative 2 - Proposed Action and Alternative 3, to a low of 2,769 MBF in Alternative 4. There is approximately 1.8 miles of temporary road construction identified in the Proposed Action. The demands for timber harvest are most affected by regional and national economics as well as costs from other markets. One of the Benchmark Outputs and Effects is the determination of Present Net Value as a basis for an economic comparison between alternatives, as well as a basis for determining the effect of various constraints on outputs and costs. Further discussion is found in the SNF-LRMP Standards and Guidelines where and economic analysis shall be included when areas have alternatives with substantial roading and harvesting, and choices that maximize net public benefits are not obvious from environmental and resource considerations (SNF LRMP, page IV-39). Cost increases, with all other factors held constant would reduce the likelihood that a proposed project would sell. It is good practice to have stumpage values greater than logging costs for projects to be sold. Cost efficiency analysis utilizing net present value (NPV) calculations can provide an indication of whether or not a timber sale would be “cost efficient”. When costs associated with sale planning, preparing, administrating, and implementing timber sales exceed benefits the sale may be considered “below cost”. Increasing logging costs, with all else held constant, will result in projects being below cost.


Present value of benefits is based on current log prices for timber sold in Region 6 obtained through the Transaction Evidence Appraisal System. This amount reflects deductions for logging, road re-construction, and log haul, road maintenance, general logging overhead and temporary developments. Additional deductions may include special tree falling costs, slash disposal, environmental protection, engineering design, and operator profit and risk margin. Present value of expenses includes those for harvest administration, road engineering and re-construction, and KV expenses for mitigation and enhancements. Sale activity expenses include costs for timber sale planning, preparation, an implementation. The ratio of benefit to cost is a useful parameter of cost efficiency intended to complement the NPV calculations associated with projects. The ratio is simply the total discounted benefits divided by the total discounted costs and reflects an average value rather than the “total return to the government”. This ratio is a measure to cost efficiency given different levels of investment among the alternatives. It does not reflect benefits from future use of a road prism developed for temporary use for harvest of this entry. It is important to recognize the impact more expensive harvest methods such as helicopter yarding in lieu of temporary road construction and cable yarding methods has on the economic feasibility of a project. Historical information has shown that the cost to tractor yard (with associated construction of roading access) is the least expensive operation. As yarding systems change to cable (skyline) and helicopter, these costs increase with helicopter yarding considered as very expensive due to the price of equipment and required support of material and personnel. Though an expensive piece of equipment may be added to skyline or helicopter operations, mechanized falling, limbing, bucking and bunching of logs would have the potential to improve cost efficiency over implementation of the entire project. Pre-bunching is considered an option and is not a required action. As such, pre-bunching should not be considered in an economics analysis for a proposed project.

b. Environmental Consequences from All Alternatives (including the No Action)

The result of economic analysis shows that the Proposed Action is the most economically feasible (Table III-17) and is the only alternative that is not potentially “below cost”. The Proposed Action has the only positive timber value (reflected in a B/C > 1). The Proposed Action utilizes the smallest % of helicopter yarding by utilizing low impact temporary spurs to allow access for tractor and cable yarding. Alternatives 3 and 4 are considered “below cost” and have B/C ratios < 1, with Alt. 3 having a greater B/C than Alt. 4. Generally, this “below cost” return for Alternatives 3 and 4 is reflected in the use of a greater % of high-cost yarding, (i.e. helicopters) as opposed to conventional yarding systems. Table III-17. Present Net Value and Benefit/Cost Ratio Comparison Between Alternatives

Alternative Volume in ccf % of acres yarded by helicopter

Net Present Value

Predicted High bid-$/mbf

Benefit-Cost Ration (B/C)

No-Action 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alternative 2 9,673 27% $82,726 $92.77 1.12 Alternative 3 9,673 78% -$(57,921) $75.42 0.91 Alternative 4 5,136 78% -$(49,359) $71.10 0.86

Under Alternative 2, the Proposed Action would construct approximately eight temporary roads totaling 1.8 miles. These roads would access approximately 213 acres of land capable to be harvested with skyline cable systems within Treatment Units 3, 7, 11 and 13. Under Alternative 3, temporary road construction would be deleted from Treatment Units 3 and 13 totaling approximately 0.3 miles. This reduction in temporary road construction would result in changing those skyline harvest areas no longer accessible, to helicopter harvest.


Under Alternative 4, all temporary road construction would be deleted. This would result in no temporary road construction in Treatment Units 3 and 13 (Alt 3), as well as Treatment Units 7 and 11. In this scenario, Treatment Unit 3 would also be deleted from density management (thinning) and falls out of this comparison. It is difficult to display multiple economic factors affecting comparison between alternatives. Below in Table III-18, important factors such as temporary road construction necessary to access treatment areas and respective affected harvest systems is displayed to give the reviewer an idea of the changes to each of the affected treatment units (those portions with temporary road construction proposed). Table III-18. Comparison of Affected Treatment Units and Economic Factors between Action Alternatives

Affected Unit # Proposed Temporary Road Construction

Number of Skyline Harvest Acres

Number of Helicopter Harvest Acres

Unit 3 Alt 2 5,015’ 113 0 Alt 3 0 0 113 Alt 4 0 0 0

Unit 7 Alt 2 410’ 12 0 Alt 3 410’ 0 113 Alt 4 0 6 6

Unit 11 Alt 2 1,200’ 23 23 Alt 3 1,200’ 23 23 Alt 4 0 17 29

Unit 13 Alt 2 2,785 55 0 Alt 3 0 10 45 Alt 4 0 10 45

TOTALS Temp. Road Constr Skyline Harvest Helicopter Harvest Alt 2 9,410 213 acres 83 acres Alt 3 1,610’ 55 acres 241acres Alt 4 0 44 acres 140 acres

21. RECREATION / HUMAN SAFETY How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect safety to the public along a well-used travelway, Forest Road 1703?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix I – Recreation Report, incorporated by reference. The main and most heavily traveled roads accessing the project area are: FSR 3680, 1503, 1703 and 1601. The greatest amount of recreational driving occurs during hunting season and on summer weekends. There are no developed trails and no developed campgrounds, though dispersed camping does occur (primarily during hunting season). Pyramid Rock is a site of local interest. There is a wooden sign nailed to a tree at the intersection of a dirt road and FSR 1703 stating “Pyramid Rock.” The Pistol River Watershed Analysis (January, 2003; pages 114-115) states that the watershed is popular with local residents of Gold Beach and Brookings for dispersed recreation such as deer and elk hunting, both archery and rifle. Driving and sightseeing is also popular. The demand for recreational opportunities in the watershed, and specifically the project planning area, is expected to stay the same or gradually increase from current levels.


The Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis (July, 1998; pages 2-11 and 12) states that the watershed is popular for recreational driving and dispersed camping. The heaviest use for both activities is during deer and elk hunting seasons, as well as summer weekends. There is a concern for increased risk of accidental injury to members of the public who may be recreating in the area and/or utilizing the roads while project activities are occurring. Project activities that would potentially cause hazards to the public were considered and include: roadside timber falling; landing construction and use; helicopter flights with external loads across roads; log hauling, and road maintenance and reconstruction.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no management activities within the project area would occur. It would be expected that recreational use in the area would gradually increase over time as the local area becomes more populated. All roads currently open to the public would remain open and maintained to established safety standards. Under No Action, there would be no activities associated with this project; therefore, no direct effects would be expected. Maintenance of the existing road system would depend on appropriated funds. There would be no guarantee that roads would be maintained at their current standards. It is expected that the recreational experience while traveling along forest system roads would slowly decline due to deteriorating road conditions, though the roads would continue to meet safety standards. Road reconstruction including replacing six culverts along the haul route would not occur. Such conditions would remain as potential road failure events that would require immediate closures and remain so until emergency funding is allocated.

c. Environmental Consequences from All Action Alternatives Under the Proposed Action and all action alternatives, density management activities within the project area would occur along well traveled forest roads. Actions that may affect recreation and human safety would be such activities as: tree falling, construction and use of skyline and helicopter landings, helicopter yarding of logs over or along travelways, product haul and road reconstruction/maintenance.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Activities under the Proposed Action would pose a hazard to forest users as they travel along forest system roads. To control and reduce exposure to these roadside hazards, all project activities (Forest Service and contract) would comply with State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) codes. All Forest Service project operations would be guided by FS Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code Handbook). The application of standard mitigation measures designed for public safety would minimize this risk. These measures have been developed over time and incorporated into timber sale contracts to ensure forest users experience safe and relatively undisturbed recreational activities. These measures have been found to be highly implementable and highly effective to minimize adverse impacts to the public. Proper signs, flaggers and/or watchpersons shall be employed to temporarily restrict travel (up to 20-minute delays) at times of eminent hazard. The improvement of road drainage structures (3 replaced and 1 installed) on the existing road system would be expected to have an indirect beneficial impact for on-going and future public use as these problematic areas would be repaired and stabilized. Road maintenance activities would be part of the timber sale contract such activities would continue to keep roadways at current safety standards.


e. Cumulative Effects Analysis Cumulative impacts of the Pyramid Thin Project, in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities were reviewed to determine effects to public safety along FSR 3680, 1503, 1703 and 1601 (affected environment). In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of any action alternative, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Present actions include the Southwest Timber Sale which has road maintenance requirements on portions of these roads. No other actions are reasonable foreseen except for the forests’ responsibility to maintain the current road system to designated maintenance levels. The six culverts would not be replaced and would not correct problematic conditions that would continue to have an adverse effect on public use and access.

1. All Action Alternatives Any activities, present or reasonably foreseeable, would be constrained by federal and state rules and regulations. As such, any activities would have a neutral effect to public safety.

22. OFF-HIGHWAY VEICLE (OHV) USE How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect the amount of OHV use and associated undesirable effects in the area?

a. Background - Existing Conditions For further information, refer to EA Appendix I – Recreation Report, incorporated by reference. Within the general area (i.e., within about ½ mile of the treatment units) there is evidence of concentrated use by off road four-wheel drive vehicles and all terrain vehicles (ATV’s); which are referred to as Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs). This OHV activity is primarily located in an area immediately west of FSR 1703 and the junction of FSR 1703.190 which includes a quarry site and continues south and west into the area of Flycatcher Springs and Red Flats. The area has fairly open vegetation and low to moderate-sloped uneven ground. There are obvious signs of OHV tracks and disturbance in the area. The Pistol River Watershed Analysis (January, 2003; pages 114-115) states that OHV use is noted to occur on old mining roads between Pistol River and Hunter Creek in the Red Flats area. The Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis (July, 1998; pages 2-11 and 12) states that OHV use in open serpentine areas is another recreational pastime. Historically, the Red Flats and Flycatcher Spring areas have had concentrated use by off road four-wheel drive vehicles and all terrain vehicles (ATV’s); which are referred to Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs). It is a favorite area due to relatively open and gentle terrain broken with short, steep “humps and bumps” that allow users of all experience levels to participate. The area is also used due to the benefit of “looping” and traveling off-road between Red Flats and Flycatcher Spring. The area displays tracks meandering across the ground with evident disturbance of the organic layer and soils. The concern is that thinning the forest stands and constructing temporary roads would create conditions where OHV use would expand into other areas and cause additional resource damage.


b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no management activities within the project area would occur. There would be no activities associated with this project; therefore, no direct effects would be expected. No temporary roads would be constructed and the roadside vegetation would remain to develop naturally. The current OHV use in the Red Flat / Fly Catcher Spring area has been occurring over a long period of time and has remained isolated to that specific area. OHV use would not be expected to change.


Under the Proposed Action, density management activities within the project area would occur along well traveled forest roads. Actions that may affect an increase in OHV use may be associated with the following: 1) harvest activities would include approximately 15 acres of ground based logging systems and 2) roading activities would include constructing approximately 10 temporary road segments totaling 1.8 miles.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects OHV use has been limited to a specific area due to the nature of favorable conditions. Though treatment units are located along FSR 1703, the forested areas would only be thinned and a natural understory of vegetation would develop over time. Residual forest conditions would not provide for a favorable OHV experience and OHV use would not be expected to expand into other forested areas. There are approximately 15 acres of ground-based logging proposed. These areas are generally located on gentle sloping ground and skid trails have the potential for OHV use. These skid trails are relatively short and would not have the potential to develop a “loop system” as the trails would be locat4ed from landing locations to the external yarding limits. These trails would be closed and obliterated after use. Such measures would not allow for OHV access from existing roads. There are approximately 10 temporary road segments planned to be constructed with this project proposal (approximately 1.8 miles). These roads are short and would not have the potential to develop a “loop system” as the roads would be constructed to access landing locations. These roads would be decommissioned after use. Such measures would not allow for OHV access onto the road locations. Implementation of established mitigation measures are expected to ameliorate the potential for an increase of OHV use. Standard mitigation measures designed for closing and obliterating skid trails, as well as decommissioning temporary roads to protect soil and water resource would be applied (see Temporary Road Report). These measures would minimize the risk of potential OHV use expansion and have been developed over time and are incorporated into timber sale contracts. These measures have been found to be highly implementable and highly effective to restrict OHV use within commercial thinning treatment areas similar to conditions described in the Pyramid Thin area. Mitigation measures would include: construction of water bars, scarification, scattering of slash and debris within disturbed areas, seeding and permanently barricading/closing the road entrance with native materials.


It is recognized that permanent closure of temporary roads is seldom 100 percent effective. OHV use cannot be stopped; consequently, even with decommissioning in place, adverse impacts from OHV use still remains a possibility. Vandalism and unauthorized OHV use is a national occurrence. Though protection measures are highly implementable, certain circumstances have shown that any closure device may not be effective. As stated above, temporary road locations in the Pyramid Thin area would not create favorable OHV-use conditions (i.e. no loops, no destinations, steep and forested conditions for view). These conditions would not promote unauthorized OHV use and subsequent vandalism to occur. It is not anticipated that the Pyramid Thin Project activities would lead to increased OHV use in the area.

d. Environmental Consequences from Alternatives 3 and 4 Action Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar to the Proposed Action. Ground-based yarding would consist of 15 acres and 5 acres, respectively. Roading activities for Alternative 3 would include constructing approximately 4 temporary road segments totaling 0.3 miles and Alternative 4 would have no temporary road construction.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Though similar to the Proposed Action, the action alternatives may be considered something less. The amount of ground-based yarding is equal to or less than the Proposed Action; and the amount of temporary road construction is less or none at all. Therefore, it is expected that the potential to affect OHV use in the area would be similar to or less than those described for the Proposed Action.


1. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action There are no measurable direct and indirect impacts that would affect a change in OHV use associated with this alternative. The Proposed Action and any other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions would have no measurable effect on OHV use along the transportation system which follows the broad ridgetop. It is not anticipated that current use in the Red Flats/Flycatcher Springs would change or migrate into the treated areas.

2. Alternatives 3 and 4 Though similar to the Proposed Action, the action alternatives may be considered something less.

23. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE How would density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions affect global clime change and how would global climate change affect the proposed project?

a. Background - Existing Conditions Although it is possible to quantify a project’s direct effects on carbon sequestration and Human Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, there is no certainty about the actual intensity of individual project indirect effects on global climate change. Uncertainty in climate change effects is expected because it is not possible to meaningfully link individual project actions to quantitative effects on climatic patterns. Complete quantifiable information about project effects on global climate change is not currently possible and is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. However, based on climate 13 January 2009 v2 7 change science, we can recognize the relative potential of some types of proposals and alternatives to affect or influence climate change and therefore provide qualitative analysis to help inform project decisions.


While there is ongoing research on the potential impacts of global climate change in the region and while no specific forest management recommendations have been published regarding global climate change, a review of climate change research in the region was conducted to assess predicted changes in climate and relate the changes to impacts, climate change may have on the desired outcomes of, and the potential impacts from, this project. Effects of Climate Change on the Project Although El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation comprise the primary factors for climate variability in the Pacific Northwest (Climate Impacts Group 2006b), the influence from global climate change is a growing concern. According to the Climate Impacts Group, based out of the University of Washington, climate modeling for the Pacific Northwest predict a future rate of warming of approximately 0.5 degrees Farenheit per decade for the Pacific Northwest through at least 2050, relative to the 1970-1999 average temperature (2006b). Temperatures are projected to increase across all seasons, although most models project the largest temperature increases in summer (June-August), and the average temperatures could increase beyond the year-to-year variability observed in the Pacific Northwest during the 20th century as early as the 2020s. Nakawatase and Peterson (2006) studied the effects of climate variability on forest growth across the western and northeastern Olympic Mountains. Their results suggest that warmer temperatures predicted for the Olympic Mountains would result in decreased productivity at high elevations (i.e. subalpine forest types) in the northeastern region of the Olympic Mountains as a result of decreased summer soil moisture. Growth in low- to mid-elevation Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests, however, would depend on the combined effect of potential decreases in precipitation and increased temperature in the summer. Whether and how increasing temperatures resulting from global climate change would alter predicted forest response to the proposed commercial thinning under any of the action alternatives would depend on specific site conditions in relation to temperature and soil moisture availability on tree growth. If temperature were to increase while precipitation changes minimally, as predicted by the Climate Impacts Group, tree evapotransportation would increase nonlinearly, leading to more frequent drought stress. Douglas-fir, in particular, is sensitive to low soil moisture (Climate Impacts Group 2004b). A moderate density commercial thinning could decrease competition for water during the summer while limiting additional evaporation from the soil and transpiration from the understory in the summer. Such thinning could also maximize the duration of snowpack in spring by having an open enough canopy that more snow accumulates in the ground rather than on the forest canopy, yet, is still shaded from melting by the sun in the spring. The resulting increased available moisture, in turn, could reduce the risk of dead or drought-stressed trees created by increasing temperatures and changes in precipitation caused by climate change and that would be susceptible to fire and disease in the near-term. The aim of this project is to promote and sustain healthy, more resilient forest stands that should also serve to better protect the forest from climate change impacts. Increasing forest habitat connectivity would also allow species to reach new locations as climate change alters existing habitat (Climate Action Group 2004a). Effects of the Project on Climate Change Forests and forest management are important influences on global warming (and vice versa). Forests help mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by removing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it in biomass (King et al 2007). Scientists estimate that U.S. forests and harvested wood sequestered 162 Tg (or about 178 million tons) of carbon per year over the period 1990 through 2005. This rate of forest carbon sequestration offset approximately 10% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (Woodbury et al 2007). Reducing stand densities in simplified, second-growth stands would maintain or restore forests to healthy and productive conditions considered important to maintain carbon stocks and sequestration rates.


Significant increases in disturbance events, such as large, high-severity fires and major forest diebacks caused by drought stress, insects, or disease (Breshears et al 2005, Allen 2007) can release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and reduce carbon stocks for several decades (Field et al 2007). GHG emissions of carbon to the atmosphere are reduced to the extent that wood products production and use causes less fossil fuel carbon emissions than production and use of substitute products. Production and use of wood products under this Proposed Action would allow such products to be utilized in place of other alternate products with associated higher carbon emissions; thereby, reducing carbon emissions and associated contribution to global warming. In the future, biomass grown for cellulosic ethanol production, such as crops, may further offset carbon emissions from fossil fuels. (Interim Update of the 2000 Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment, pp. 83-85). Any burning of activity-generated fuels associated with the Proposed Action would be consistent with applicable State or Federal air quality regulations or standards. Under the Proposed Action, minimal burning of hand piles along travelways and private landownership boundaries, and road construction debris would be too small to measure and discountable to cumulative effects for air quality and potential carbon emissions within the Project Area.

b. Environmental Consequences from Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, simplified, second-growth forests would be left to continue through the stand development without intervention. Opportunities to accelerate development of healthy and resilient forest characteristics, and road improvements would be foregone. As all management activities would be foregone, there would be no change to current stand densities in simplified, second-growth stands. Carbon stocks and sequestration rates would continue to develop undisturbed. Due to natural stand development, there can be a potential increase in disturbance events, such as large, high-severity fires and major forest diebacks caused by drought stress, insects, or disease which can release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and reduce carbon stocks for several decades. While an increased likelihood of extreme precipitation events may also be a result of climate change, there is little information to confirm the increased risk for the Pacific Northwest region. Effects of Climate Change on the Project - Climate change may affect an increase in peak flows with a correlating risk to roads, potential landslides and downstream flooding. According to the Climate Impacts Group (2006a, 2007), however, while changes in precipitation are less certain than changes in temperature, most models predict modest changes in regional precipitation through the mid-century. Models suggest that there would be slight decreases in summer precipitation and slight increases in winter changes, but little change in the annual mean by mid-century. Winter precipitation changes are predicted to be largest in December – February, but still within the range of year-to-year variability observed during the 20th century. A larger percent of the precipitation, however, would fall as rain rather than snow with the warmer temperatures, but natural year-to-year and decade-to-decade fluctuations in precipitation are likely to be more noticeable than longer term trends associated with climate change. As road improvements would be foregone, these culverts would continue to be potential sites for future road failures due to potential changes to precipitation. Effects of the Project on Climate Change - As all management activities would be foregone, there would be no change to current stand densities in simplified, second-growth stands. Carbon stocks and sequestration rates would continue to develop undisturbed. Due to natural stand development, there can be a potential increase in disturbance events, such as large, high-severity fires and major forest diebacks caused by drought stress, insects, or disease (Breshears et al 2005, Allen 2007) which can release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and reduce carbon stocks for several decades (Field et al 2007).


c. Environmental Consequences from All Action Alternatives Under all action alternatives, up to 311 acres of simplified, second-growth forests would be treated to accelerate development of healthy and resilient forest characteristics and road improvements would be implemented.

1. Direct and Indirect Effects Effects of Climate Change on the Project - The environmental effects to soils analyzed and documented in the EA details slope stability conditions being low risk. Given the fact that treatment would result in canopy closures between 42 and 59%, no new permanent roads would be constructed as part of this project, temporary roads built are expected to be decommissioned within five years of their construction, and that road improvements would replace six culverts to improve drainage; global climate change is not expected to discernibly increase the risk to roads used in this project and hillside conditions that may cause landslides and downstream flooding. Effects of the Project on Climate Change - Emissions of carbon to the atmosphere would be reduced to the extent that wood products production and use causes less fossil fuel carbon emissions than production and use of substitute products. Production and use of wood products under the action alternatives would allow such products to be utilized in place of other alternate products with associated higher carbon emissions; thereby, reducing carbon emissions and associated contribution to global warming. Any burning of activity-generated fuels associated with the action alternatives would be consistent with applicable State or Federal air quality regulations or standards.

d. Cumulative Effects Analysis

1. All Action Alternatives As GHG emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with any number of particular projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful effects analysis for project decisions. A qualitative cumulative effects discussion could incorporate a summary of local, regional, or national climate change scientific assessments to recognize overall climate change effects expected as a result of all contributions to climate change. However, it will not be possible and it is not expected that the effects of a particular project or multiple projects can be specifically attributed to those effects. While an increased likelihood of extreme precipitation events may be a result of climate change, there is little information to confirm the increased risk for the Pacific Northwest region.

D. OTHER EFFECTS This section deals with those effects for which disclosure is required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, Forest Service policy or regulation, various Executive Orders, or other laws and direction covering environmental analysis and documentation. In many cases, the information found here is also located elsewhere in this document. In other cases, the effects are not necessarily connected to any particular resource area.


1. Irreversible Commitment - Irreversible impacts result from the use or modification of resources that are replaceable only over a long period of time. Soil Productivity Soil productivity would be lost to some degree on temporary roads, skid trails, and landings due to soil displacement. Full recovery of productivity on temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would not be anticipated despite efforts to reclaim these areas. The losses in productivity from the above would occur on a small part of the Project Area, 7.4 – 8.8%. All activities would avoid unstable soils susceptible to mass failures. All effects are within Standards and Guidelines. 2. Irretrievable Commitment of Resources - Irretrievable commitments are opportunities for resource uses that are foregone because of decisions to use that land in another way. For example: Timber Production Generally, management activities, such as thinning, improve timber production. However, opportunities to increase the net production of timber would be forgone in those areas not thinned at this time to protect other resources. Road Activities Generally, road activities such as road surface rock replacement and temporary road construction use (or create) different sources of rock. However, under this project, any rock would be used from established rock quarries either on or off National Forest System lands. No rock quarry pits would be developed or enlarged. 3. Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided - Implementation of any action alternative would result in some adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided. For example: Timber harvest and temporary road construction activities would have some adverse effects on water quality, soil productivity and stability. The magnitude of these effects relative to the proposed project, however, is very small and within prescribed Standards and Guidelines. The degree of adverse effects is substantially reduced by following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and by including the Mitigation Measures outlined in Chapter 2. See Relevant Issues discussed earlier in this chapter for more information. 4. Relationship to Other Agencies and Jurisdictions - The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act of 1972. A Memorandum of Understanding prepared and agreed to by the Forest Service and DEQ states that Best Management Practices, used by the Forest Service to control or prevent non-point sources of water pollution, will meet or exceed State water quality standards. The Oregon State DEQ is also responsible for enforcing the Clean Air Act of 1972. The State Smoke Implementation Plan provides guidelines for compliance which are intended to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. All burning plans for activities associated with this project would comply with this Plan. The United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for the protection and recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species. Where any such species or their habitat may be affected, the USFWS is consulted. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for the protection and recovery of Threatened and Endangered marine fish species. Where any such species or their habitat may be affected, NOAA - fisheries is consulted. Cultural Resource Site Reports for all cultural resources found within the Pyramid Thin Project Area are filed with and approved by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer.


5. Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land - Historically, there have been range allotments within the overall area. There have been no range activities within the last two decades. There are no prime farm lands or prime range lands associated with the Pyramid Thin Project Area. 6. Effects on Energy Requirements - There would be no unusual energy requirements associated with implementing any alternative. Energy consumption needed to harvest timber or for recreation would not necessarily be conserved by lower levels of either activity in Pyramid Thin Project. Helicopter yarding operations are always considered due to their relative higher level of fuel consumption, but it is likely that, if these activities did not occur within this project, they would occur at similar levels elsewhere in the Forest or region, with correspondingly similar energy requirements. 7. Effects on the Human Environment - While the sale of National Forest timber would create or sustain jobs and provide consumer goods, no quantitative output, lack of output, or timing of output associated with implementation of any alternative would affect the civil rights, privileges, or status quo of consumers, minority groups, women or American Indians. Forest Road 1703 is a well-traveled road by the public. Proper signing for safety would follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). Special attention will be focused on any helicopter operations associated with the proposed project. There would be no adverse effects to human health or safety associated with the implementation of any alternative for this project. 8. Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains - Because the Project Area is not associated with floodplains, and considering the mitigation measures included under the action alternatives, there would be no adverse effects to wetlands or floodplains by the implementation of any action alternative. 9. Effects on American Indians - The Pyramid Thin Project Area has a history of traditional use by Native American groups either inhabiting or using the general vicinity. These people were the Tututni or Coast Rogues. Several independent groups, speaking different dialects, inhabited much of southwestern Oregon from the beaches to the upland forests. Collectively called the Tututni, these groups occupied the region from south of Bandon, Oregon to northern California, extending up the river drainages like the Chetco, Pistol, Smith, Illinois and the Rogue River as well as their major tributaries. The bands were numerous, and the locations diverse. The Tutuni Band, which occupied the Pistol River drainage, were known as the Chetl-Essentans (or Chetleschantunne) meaning “People among the rocks”. Their villages were located along the coast and up the Pistol River valley miles into the interior. Scoping letters for this project were sent to the Confederated Tribes of the Lower Rogue; Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umqua, and Siuslaw; the Karuk Tribe of California, Coquille Indian Tribes; Confederated Tribe of the Siletz; and the Cow Creek Umqua Tribe. No responses to the scoping letters were received. 10. Effects on Cultural Resources – No historic and cultural sites are located in the Pyramid Thin Project. Considering the mitigation measures included with the Action Alternatives (location of treatment units and related activities), there would be no adverse effects to cultural resources by the implementation of any alternative. Under the terms of the Programmatic Agreement of 2004 with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, this action is determined to be a “No Effect” determination (J. Joyer 10/22/04; see EA Appendix J). 11. Environmental Justice - Environmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner, by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment.


One goal of Executive Order 12898 is to provide, to the greatest extent practicable, the opportunity for minority and low-income populations to participate in planning, analysis, and decision-making that affects their health or environment, including identification of program needs and designs. The Executive Order makes clear its provisions apply full to programs involving Native Americans. Analysis for this Proposed Action has been conducted under Departmental regulation 5600-2, December 15, 1997, including the Environmental Justice Flowchart (Appendix E), and CEQ’s Environmental Justice - Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Proposed Action, its purpose and need and area of potential effect have been clearly defined. Scoping under NEPA has utilized extensive and creative ways to communicate. Consultation with Native American Tribes has occurred. This Proposed Action and alternatives do not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low income populations, or Indian Tribes. The Proposed Action and alternatives do not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health effects, high or adverse environmental effects, substantial environmental hazard, or affects to differential patterns of consumption of natural resources. Extensive scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns associated with the principles of Environmental Justice. No mitigation measures to offset or ameliorate adverse affects to these populations have been identified. All interested and affected parties will continue to be involved with the comment and decision making process.

Pyramid Thin Project Environmental Assessment Revised June 2009 Page IV - 1

CHAPTER IV – CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS Issues associated with these proposals were identified by an interdisciplinary team through an extensive scoping process. This process included a review and evaluation of information gathered through specialist input and ongoing public involvement and correspondence received from FY 2005 and until a decision is determined. Since January of 2005, a team of Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Forest Service employees have conducted review and environmental analysis for the Pyramid Thin Project. The makeup of the team was based upon the action being proposed and the expected effects of the proposal on other resources and values. Members and contributors to this team are listed below.

Table IV-1: IDT Members and Contributors NAME CONTRIBUTION Rolando Mendez-Treneman/Michael Miller/Dave Clayton Wildlife Biologists Connie Risley / Hilaire Peck/Joni Brazier Hydrologists Ed Gross/Joni Brazier Soil Scientist James Simino/Steve Brazier Fisheries Biologists Jenifer Hutchinson / Robin Taylor/Clint Emerson Botanists Phil Hicks/Eric Martz Silviculture/POC Jerry Darbyshire/Nancy Schwieger Recreation Planners Bruce Floyd Fire/Fuels Planner Dave Green/Paul Podesta Transportation Planners Jim Adams Logging Systems/Economics Tex Martinek Heritage Resources John Williams Timber/POC Mike Dearborn NEPA –Writer/Editor Ken Grigsby NEPA Process and Editor John Borton District Ranger Mike Lawrence Acting District Ranger Alan Vandiver District Ranger

Following development of the Proposed Action, scoping letters were distributed to the general public and to the following recognized Tribes, and other Federal and State agencies listed below. Any responses from these parties were considered and incorporated into: further refinement of the Proposed Action, development of action alternatives and/or analysis of environmental effects. More detailed information may be found in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis files.

Table IV-2: Agencies Consulted NAME Confederated Tribes of the Lower Rogue Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Karuk Tribe of California Coquille Indian Tribes Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Cow Creek Umpqua Tribe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

Pyramid Thin Project Environmental Assessment Revised June 2009 Page V- 1

CHAPTER V – LITERATURE CITED

Agee, James K.; Skinner, Carl N., 2005 Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211 83-96

Aubry, K. B., M. J. Crites, and S. D. West. 1991. Regional patterns of small mammal abundance and community composition in Oregon and Washington. Pages 285-294 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, A. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Rpt. PNW-GTR-285.

Biswell, B., M.Blow, R.Breckel, L.Finley, and J.Lint. 2002. Survey Protocol For The Red Tree Vole. Arborimus longicaudus (=Phenacomy longicaudus in the Record of Decision of the Northwest Forest Plan).

Burroughs, E.R. Jr., G.R. Chalfant, and M.A. Townsend. 1976. Slope Stability in Road Construction: A Guide to the Construction of Stable Roads in Western Oregon and Northern California. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. 102p.

Carey, A. B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. General Technical Rpt. PNW-GTR-276.

Castellano, M.A., J. E. Smith, T. O’Dell, E. Cázares and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal Species in the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-476.

Catton, S. 2000. Southwest timber sale: biological evaluation - wildlife. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Chappell 2001. In D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 2001.

Christy, J. A. and D. H. Wagner. 1996. Guide for the identification of rare, threatened or sensitive bryophytes in the range of the northern spotted owl, western Washington, western Oregon and northwestern California. USDI-Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District; USDA-Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest; The Nature Conservancy; and The Northwest Botanical Institute.

Conrad, H. S. and P. L. Redfearn, Jr. 1979. How to Know the Mosses and Liverworts, 2nd Edition. Wm. C.Brown Company Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa.

Corkran, C. C,. and C. T. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia: a field identification guide. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta.

Corn, P. S., R. B. Bury, and T. A. Spies. 1988. Douglas-fir forests in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and Washington: is the abundance of small mammals related to stand age and moisture? Pages 340-352 in Szaro, R. C., K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, editors. 1988. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. Proceedings of a symposium, 19-21 July 1988, Flagstaff, AZ. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Rpt. RM-166.

Corn, P. S., and R. B. Bury. 1991. Small mammal communities in the Oregon Coast Range. Pages 241-254 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, A. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Rpt. PNW-GTR-285.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E.Bigley, M.L.Cody, J.P.Dumbacher, R.C.Fleischer, A.B.Franklin, J.F.Franklin, R.J.Gutierrez, J.M.Marzluff, and L.Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystem Institute. Portland, OR. Sept. 2004.


Csuti, B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2003. Pistol River Watershed Analysis, Version 2.0. January 2003. 130p.

Dillingham, C. P., R. C. Miller, and L. O. Webb. 1995. Marbled murrelet distribution in the Siskiyou National Forest of southwestern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 76:33-39.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1998. Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis. August 1998.

Elzinga et al., 1998. Elzinga, C.L., Salzer, D.W., Willoughby J.W. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1.

Ferrero, T. 1991. Geology, Soil and Land Stability Characteristics, Northwest Gold Beach USFS Ranger District, Curry County, Oregon. Contract Number 43-0M00-0-0435. For The USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District and Soil Conservation Service, Curry County Soil Survey. February 20, 1991. 45p.

Fillmore, M.H., 2004. Soil Survey of Curry County, Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1043p.

Floch, R.F. 1988. Shovel logging and soil compaction: A case study. Masters Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. May 1988.

Forsman, E. D., K. M, Horn, and W. A. Neitro. 1982. Spotted owl research and management in the Pacific Northwest. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 47:323-331.

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.

Forsman, E.D. 1998. Northern Spotted Owl. In: Mac, M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haeker, and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the nation's biological resources. Vol. 1 and 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 1-964 pp.

Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, 1986, Classification of Stream Habitat and Watershed Systems in South Coastal Oregon and an Assessment of Land Use Impacts; Progress Report for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Garrett, M. G., J. W. Watson, and R. G. Anthony. 1993. Bald eagle home range and habitat use in the Columbia River estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:19-27.Gilbert, F. F., and R. Allwine. 1991. Small mammal communities in the Oregon Cascade Range. Pages 257-267 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, A. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical Rpt PNW-GTR-285.

Goodman, Linda. May 10, 2004. Clarification: Updated Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. USFS Region 6, Letter to file.

Goodman, D.M. and J.A. Trofymow. 1998. Comparison of communities of ectomycorrhizal fungi in old-growth and mature stands of Douglas-fir at two sites on southern Vancouver Island. Can. J. For. Res. 28: 574-581.

Gross, E. 2004. Pyramid Thin Timber Sale Planning, Affected Environment - Soils and Geology. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District.

Gutiérrez, R.J. and R.G. Tanner. 1995. A partial inventory of northern spotted owls in Redwood National Park, 1994 Annual Report. Annual Report to: National Park Service, Redwood National Park, Cooperative Agreement No. CA 8480-3-9005. Contractor: Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA


Harr, R.D. 1979. Effects of timber harvest on streamflow in the rain-dominated portion of the Pacific Northwest, paper presented at Workshop on Scheduling Timber Harvest for Hydrologic Concerns, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Hamer, T. E., and S. K. Nelson. 1995a. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting stands. Pages 69-82 in Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152.

Hamer, T. E., and S. K. Nelson. 1995b. Nesting chronology of the marbled murrelet. Pages 49-56 in Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152.

Hickman, J. C., Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.

Holland, D. C. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history - final report. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Hornocker, M. G., and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the Wolverine in Northwestern Montana. Canada Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1201.

Incerti, M., P.F. Clinnick, and S.T. Willatt. 1987. Changes in the physical properties of a forest soil following logging. Austr. For. Res. 17: 91-97.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington DC.

Johnson, D.H. 1992. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the Central Oregon Cascades. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources research 32(4): 959-974.

Jordan, J. M., and S. K. Hoghes. 1995. Characteristics of Three Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees, Vancouver Island, B. C. Northwest Naturalist 76:29-32.

Keppeler, Elizabeth T. and Robert R. Ziemer. 1990. Logging Effects on Streamflow: Water Yield and Summer Low Flows at Caspar Creek in Northwestern California. Water Resources Research. 26(7): 1669-1679.

Keslick, J.A. Jr. 1997. Fact Sheets: “Dozer” blight. One absorptive structure, mycorrhiza. How to kill a tree.

Latham, P. and J.C. Tappeiner, 2002, Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in stand density in western Oregon forests: Tree Physiology, v.22, p. 137-146.

Lawton, E. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Botanical Laboratory. Nichinan, Japan.

Leonard, W. e .al. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington.

Leskiw, T. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29(3):225-226.

Luce, C.H. and Black T.A. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Productions, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho.


Marshall, D. B. 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: with Special Emphasis on California, Oregon and Washington. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(30). 19pp.

Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest, from the coast to the high Cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 406p.

Maser, C.,B. R. Mate, J. F. Franklin, and C. T. Dryness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast mammals. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-133. Pacific Northwest Region, Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. 496p.

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Mellen, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K.Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, B.B. Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2006. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. V 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf

Meyer, L.C. and M.P. Amaranthus. 1979. Soil Resource Inventory. Siskiyou National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service. 258p.

Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of Juvenile Northern Spotted Owls in Western Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Mullens, L. 2000. A Guide to Rare Plants of the Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Nelson, S. K., and T. E. Hamer. 1995. Nest success and the effects of predation on marbled murrelets. Pages 89-97 in Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152.

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., R. T. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. A Northwest Naturalist Book, by the University of Idaho Press. 332pp.

Omi, P.N., Martinson, E.J., 2002. Effects of fuels treatments on wildfire severity. Final report, Joint Fire Sciences Program. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger, Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G. Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. 2001. In D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2004/2006 Integrated Report, Water Quality Assessment. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/.htm

Oregon Natural Heritage Program Data Base. 1997. Portland, Oregon.

Park, C. and H. Jubas. 2005. Channel and Shade Monitoring for the 1996 Water Thin Fuel Reduction Project. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. November 2005. 5 p.

Paton, P. W. and C. J. Ralph. 1990. Distribution of the Marbled murrelet at Inland Sites in California. Northwest Naturalist 71:72-84.

http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/.htm


Peterson, David L.; Johnson, Morris C.; Agee, James K.; Jain, Theresa B.; McKenzie, Donald; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D. 2005 Forest structure and fire hazard in dry western forests of the Western United States.

Ramp, L, H.G. Schlicker, and J.J. Gray. 1977. Geology, Mineral Resources, and Rock Material of Curry County, Oregon. Bulletin 93. State of Oregon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 79p.

Roberts, K. 2004. Management of potential marbled murrelet nesting structure in younger stands: Recommendation to supplant your guidance of June 25, 1999. Draft Memorandum from the Chair of the Level 1 Team (terrestrial subgroup) for the North Coast Province, to the Level 2 Team for the North Coast Province.

Ripple, 1994. Ripple, W.J. Historic Spatial Patterns of Old Forests in Western Oregon. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 11. November 1994

Risley, Connie (2003). Hydrologist Input for Pyramid Thin Project, Gold Beach Ranger District Project Files.

Rosgen, D.L. (1996), Applied River Morphology, Published by Wildland Hydrology

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, A. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, editors. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-254.

Siskiyou National Forest. 2001. Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for Southwest Timber Sale (SWTS). Gold Beach Ranger District.

Stalmaster, M. V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York.

Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Peterson Field Guild Series #16, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass.

Tappeiner, J.C., date unknown, Perspectives, Silviculture for Ecological Goals, Oregon State University.

Thomas, Robert B. and Walter F. Megahan. 1998. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basin, western Cascades, Oregon: a second opinion. Water Resources Research, 34(12): 3393-3403.

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. Portland, Oregon.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Physiognomy and Mammal Faunas of Oregon. In: LAND MAMMALS OF OREGON. Univ. of CA. Press. 668 pp.

Webb, L. 2001. E-mail message from Lee Webb (U.S. Forest Service, Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forests, wildlife biologist) to John Williams (U.S. Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach and Chetco Ranger Districts, west side timber management assistant) on 18 June 2001.

Welsh, Hartwell H. Jr. and Amy J. Lind 1992. Population ecology of two relictual salamanders from the Klamath mountains of northwestern California. Dale R. McCullough and Reginald H. Barrett editors. Wildlife 2001: Populations, pgs 419-437. Elsevier Applied Science. New York, New York.


Welsh, H. H. 1990. Relictual amphibians and old-growth forests. Conservation Biology. Vol 4, pgs 309-319.

Wemple, Beverley C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Oregon State University.

Witt, Holly. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay District. Coos Bay, OR. Personal communication, February 22, 2007.

Wright, Kenneth A., Karen H. Sendek, Raymond M. Rice, and Robert B. Thomas. 1990. Logging Effects on Streamflow: Storm Runoff at Caspar Creek in Northwestern California. Water Resources Research. 26(7): 1657-1667.

Yocum, C. F. 1973. Wolverine Record in the Pacific Coastal States and New Records for Northern California. California Fish and Game 59(3):207-209.

Ziemer, Robert R. 1981. Storm Flow Response to Road Building and Partial Cutting in a Small Stream of Northern California. Water Resources Research 17(4): 907-917.

USDA Forest Service. 1978- 2000. Sensitive and endemic plant records and plant survey records on file at Gold Beach RD, Gold Beach, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. November 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific Northwest Region. 86p.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan – Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest region.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual: wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant management (Section 2670), WO Amendment 2600-91-3, effective 5/31/91.

USDA Forest Service. February 1993. Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple Activities.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. The scientific basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores - American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Stations. General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Pacific Southwest Research Station. General technical report PSW–GTR–152.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual: Series 2000 - National Forest Resource Management, WO Amendment 2000-95-5, effective 11/29/95 - Noxious Weed Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. 1998 Regional Supplement to the Forest Service Manual FSM 2520 – Watershed Protection and Management, R-6 Supplement 2500-98-1, Effective August 24, 1998.

USDA PNW. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30p.

USDA/USDI. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for Late-successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management . Portland, Oregon

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Southwest Oregon Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, 10/95. Medford District, Bureau of Land Management and Siskiyou National Forest, United States Forest Service.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.


USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Management of Port-Orford cedar in Southwestern Oregon (January 2004) and its Record of Decision (March 2004).

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Memorandum to Bureau of Land Management district and field managers and Forest Service forest supervisors from California and Oregon state directors of the Bureau of Land Management and regional foresters for Regions 5 and 6 of the Forest Service regarding management recommendations for the Oregon red tree vole Arborimus longicaudus, version 2.0. 1920/2600 FS, 1630/1736-PFP BLM-OR931; BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-086. Dated 27 September 2000.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standard and guidelines. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Endangered species list - 1967. Federal Register 32:4001.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Final rule. Federal Register 55:26114-26194.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Final rule. Federal Register 57:1796-1838.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population of the marbled murrelet. Final rule. Federal Register 57:45328-45337.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in all of the lower 48 states. Final rule. Federal Register 60:35999-36010.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 203pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. Final rule. Federal Register 64:46542-46558.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Proposed rule. Federal Register 64:36453-36464.