The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-0804 Study Session PACKET EII".Y 'Q,F -A$HIlAND CITY COUNCIL ECUnVE SESSION AGEN.DA Monday, August 4,2008 at 5:30 p.m. Jury Room, 11 5 East Main Street 5:30p.m. Executive Session i 1. To consult with legal council regard~ng real property transactions pursuant to ORS 192.860 (2)(3) i CITY COUNCll~STUDY SESSION AGNDA Monday, August' , 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 11175 East Main Street ! 6:00.p.m. Study Session ~ ] , 1. Look Ahead Review i 2. Review of r~ular meeting agenda fOrtUgUst 5, 2008 3. Does Coun,Cil have any questions ab, 0 t the status of the R, egional Problem Solving (RPS) Process or any specific concer s about the draft participanfs agreement? [1 Hour] , ! 4. Does the Council wish to endorse the fshland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Atemative? [1 Hour) ,! 5. Update on status of Reeder Reservoir ![15 Minutes] · In compliance with the Americans with Disabilitie~, 'ct if you need special assistance to participate in this meetin, g, Plea, 88," Contact".. the City Administmor'.$ 'at (541) 48~6002 (1TY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting, J/enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.10 -35~ 104 ADA Tit/el). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BRbADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S w!EB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US I I ! J! CD I>> en CD ~ o S' . . S iii' iii' I>> ~ -n '"'t I>> ~ Q, en 6- 'i' C') - S' g. I>> ~ CQ !D :r ~ "2:f. ~l( ~.::! n ~~ I\) 0> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'TI ;;:0 'TI ;;:0 0 00 0 0 30 0 S CD c CD ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.~a~~5Q:Q:3Q: -c--c-O)CDffiffig.ffi tx:J ~ tx:J ~ :JO ~:JO O:J =N::JO == 0 == 0 - :J -:J CD g CD CD 50 CD S' CD CD - CD CDen co CD ... en-;;:o- 0.- :J or!.Cr!.orCD!. en 0'" -. ::r _0 0'" < _0 CD' =: c5 0) c5 =: 00 c5 ~ ~_a_~CD_ ~o soO-OIl~o'iO co 5) ~ ~ _0 "0 () ~~ 0)_00) o CD:J CD::r::r* .0 en ~ CD ~ 50 ~ ~o "0 CD I -S co CD::!o co 0 ~ 3:J C ~ CD CD 2S: ^' _0 co CD =.:J C :J ~ _0 co 5) -en en 0 ---1 - - :J --, c)" 0';;:0 0)2 :J ~ _0 :J en en Ig. 0.- w 00) 0'TI e!. ca as 0" ~o ~ en 0. ~ c5 en _ 50 ~ ~ ~ c en en CD - o - ;;0 m (FJ 0" 0) :J 50 - o I o c en 50 co -i ~ c en - "'0 5) :J :J 50 co "'Or 5)~ 5 e!. 50 "'0 co~ r"'O ~5) e!.5 ~~o ;;0 m (FJ o 0 ;;0 ;;0 ~ ~ o 0 ;;0 ~ ~ ~ o 0 ;;0 ;;0 c c N N o e: N I\) o <0 c>> ~ 0; ~ ~ w c () "'0 "'0 rCD Z )> ;;:0 ?;' "OOOCO)CD:JCD< g.33~gen~~~!g CD _0 ~ 0 st :t' e!. c- 0. o~e!.~:t'O)<g:a :J c)"OO) ~ g e!.:J CD () :J CD ::!o 0 2: 0. ~ CD 5)- Q.c5 2: en re ~ Sl '< 0 ~ 0 0 en CD -i ::!o enOO) tx:JCD 0);;:000 ~ 2. g: CD II~ ~ ~ -i e!. CD :J ~~ CD 0 0. CD 9t o::r CD CD ~ ur,~ r - en CD 3 I- - ~o 0) en _ 3 CD 0 ::!o :J ... C ~ CD :J_ 0-0 0'" CD .... ~ CD :J C CD 0. "0 CD - -.. i3 ~ ::!o -i c---..Q O:J OJ encQ)> :JcO :J "Oo)>'T1 ?O m a~enZ CDg o "0 s: 2: '--=' ....CD~_ ~ CD _0 0) ~ ,- OJ o ::L~:J0 0 :J ,<~o.CD - ~ ~- "2 o 2. '0 o ? - ::r CD "'0 0) ~ " en r CD .5D ~ r"'O"'O CD-O) co~* e!.:Jen 50 'TI co 50 0) :J o CD "'0 "'O---1---1()'TIm 0) <: --, --, 0 _0 - *<:rr:Jffi~ en ~~m:JS: :II e!.e!.<~o :J 0) 0) ~ :J 0 o :J CD z m ~ (') (') (') (') (') "'0 0 0 0 0 0 :J: Z Z Z Z Z (FJ (FJ (FJ (FJ (FJ z m ~ o 00 " .... I\) ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0> ~ ~ ~ o ur o C en en c)" :J CD 5) - 50 30 0 0 )> 0 )> -i () )> en ;;:0 ~ 0 "0 CD 0 _0 ~ CD 3 9:9:~ 3"0 ac-a 0"0 o :J :J 0 3 0 0) ::L 0 0 g: 0) 0) < a 50 ~ s: ~ )> ::L ~ g g e!. CD 3" ~ _0 s::g =t'o 50 CD CD 0 CD CD en _0 CD co~~--:JO~~0)3 CD CD () tx:J - ~CD 'TI 0'TI I- 0 o.CD 5) 5) ::r 0) 0 _0 < ~ CD 0) a- - ~o CD CD CD ~ _0 :J 0. 3 0) tx:J 0 en CD 0) < o co _ ~ C :J 0) en ::!o :J CD_-....O)o. :JO):Jo _0 0 ~-co g 0.:J1cC ~ ~~ ~ () 9t s: () 0.');;:J ::r~30 ()CD::r()o.-i 0) ~'" a 0 0) 0) ::r 0) 0) ~ :J1~0 ~ 3 en~;::! 0) 3 en -Sco ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ cO .::;.. " CD b - -0 CD en CD 'TI co ~~ 5f ~~~ ~ E,.00) CDeeCDr CD !.~~ 3Q..5Dm - 00 ~::r CD O);;:ow )> :J e re 3 30 _0 s: 0. wen 0'" ~ g. ~ 3 e!. ~ ~~2. w 0" -o~o; s: ~ 0 ::r- 0) _0 0) ~ ~ :J C 0. ::r co o.~ 0) C ::+ ~ en CD o - - o 0. ur - ::!o 0'" C - 00 :J o - -i o -i r CD st s: 0) ~ ::r 0) 'TI 50 0) :J o CD ~ 3 50 rr)> CD,~ 0. co~3 0) 0) _0 --:J ;;:or CD~ 8 e!. a CD ~ 'TI'T1"'O)> 50 50 5) 0. 0) 0) :J 3 g g 2050 CD CD c5 "'0 r"'O 5) ~ ~ 5 e!. ~o 'TI 50 0) :J o CD o ;;0 ~ o z z ~ m m ~ ~ ~ Z "'0 "'0 "'0 ;g ~ :J: :J: :J: rn (FJ (FJ o ;;0 c ~ I\) )> :J :J C e!. 3 CD CD - 50 ~ ::+ ::r I o en ::+ e!. tx:J o 0) a ;;:0 CD o o a CD ~ ~ 3 50 (FJ ::: () a 3 0) :J s: 0) en - CD ~ "'0 5) :J en - C 0. en CD en en 00 :J "'0 5) :J :J 50 (FJ (FJ - rn- -y . * * * * * ~ ~ ~ n a: a ~ :r ii' ~ A. n o c ~ S: . . . . . . 3: fD fD c:r. ~ tD r- 8 ~ :a. :r fD It A. if. if. if. if. if. " 0\1.11 ~ IN N ..... J! CD l>> en CD ::s o c;- . . S iii' iii' l>> t:J ~ ~ l>> ::s Q. en c:: -2' CD' (") - S' g. l>> ::s CQ !D :I: 1B i~ ,S!l! ~.:::! n ~~ ~ ~ 0;00 a.~a. S. ~ S. Q) CD Q) ::::) ::::) ::::) o a. 0 CD c: CD Ci1 3 Q) .. en 3 -i-CD .., ;0::::) ~ 0.9: en :::r::::) "O~co o a.)> 6t-3: ~ (') g ~ (') w o 0) 3 ? ;0 o. :::r Q) a. 3: CD ! ~ u:t ~ 8 ~ :.- :r CD AI C. o 0 e: e: N tV --------------m-, City of Ashland, Oregon - 08/05 Page 1 of3 City of Ashland, Oregon / City Recorder / City Council Information / Packet Archives / Year 2008 / 08/05 08/05 Please Note: For your convenience, agenda items are hyper-linked to supporting documentation. The supporting documentation is in HTML &lor PDF format. For further information on any agenda item, please contact the City Recorder's Office. Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 5, 2008 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 6:00 p.m. Executive Session to consult with legal council regarding pending litigation pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes] 1. Executive Session of July 15, 2008 2. Regular Council of July 15. 2008 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &. AWARDS 1. Mayor Proclamation of August 6 and 9 as Hiroshima and Nagasaki Days VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. . Ashland Airoort Commission meetina of May 6. 2008 . Ashland Forest Commission meetina of Mav 13. 2008 . Ashland Forest Commission meetina of Julv 8. 2008 . Ashland Historic Commission meeting of June 4, 2008 . Plannina Commission Regular meeting of June 10. 2008 · Planning Commission Special meeting of June 24. 2008 . Traffic Safety Commission meetina of Mav 22. 2008 · Traffic Safety Commission meeting of April 24. 2008 . Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee meetina of Julv 16. 2008 · SiskiYOU Safety Ad Hoc Committee meeting of June 4. 2008 Does the Council wish to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of 2. Medford, Oregon, for the transfer of ownership of surplus mesh (public safety) communications equipment? http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID= 11260&Print=True 8/8/2008 City of Ashland, Oregon - 08/05 Page 2 of3 Will Council approve an agreement between ODOT and the City of Ashland to fund the improvement of Plaza Avenue under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program? Will Council approve an agreement between Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc. (CORP) and the City of Ashland authorizing construction within the railroad right of way at the East Main Street railroad crossing? Will the City Council approve Amendment 2, Additional Services for Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Review to be added as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update? Will Council approve a contract amendment with Copeland Construction, LLC to expand the scope of work and increase the contract amount by $43.346.00 or 860/0 over the original contract for the 2007 Miscellaneous Concrete Construction Project No. 2006-34? Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board. consent to entering in to a public contract for $81.066.45 with Pathways Enterprises, a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility (QRF), to provide City-wide janitorial services for the fiscal year 2008-2009? Should Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2008-2009 Budget to create appropriations and authorize expenditure of asset forfeiture revenues received in conjunction with the City's participation in the regional drug enforcement program and a grant for firefighter protective clothing? Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law? Will the Council. acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Special Procurement for a class of services - WTP, EPA Mandated Water Quality Testing and WWTP, DEQ Mandated Waste Water Effluent Testing - for a period of three (3) years beginning July 1, 2008 to June 30. 2012? VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subiect of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two- thirds vote of council {AMC ~2.04.040} 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Will Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to reliquish a publiC pedestrian walkway easement at 99 Granite Street? [30 Minutes] Will the Council approve increases to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges and approve a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting Miscellaneous Fees for Service Where Necessaryll? IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum] 1. 2. X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Does the Council wish to approve an order authorizing a lease of real property to the Ashland Gun Club? [30 Minutes] Please note: This is a continuation of deliberation - Council will not take oral testimony on this item. XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Will the Council reject the initiated measure which requires food establishments post grade based 1. on health services and submit the initiated measure to the voters on November 4. 2008? [15 Minutes] Which four legislative priorities would the City Council select as the top priorities for the League 2. of Oregon Cities (LOC) during the 2009 session of the Oregon Legislature? [10 Minutes] Does the Council wish to endorse the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative? [20 3. Minutes] Will the Council approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of 4. Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent Booster Pump Station? [15 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID= 11260&Print=True 8/8/2008 --------~-~'--rII-. City of Ashland, Oregon - 08/05 Page 3 of3 1. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.46, Prohibiting Camping, Revising Penalties, Clarifying and Amending Timeframes and Procedures, and Other Requirements" .and move the ordinance on to second reading? [10 Minutes] XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title I). End of Document - Back to Top http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID= 1 1 260&Print=True 8/8/2008 ---------~--- ---"''''''', CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Update on the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Process August 4, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Community Development E-Mail: bill@ashland.or.us Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 60 minutes Question: Does Council have any questions about the status of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Process of any specific concerns about the draft participant's agreement? Background: In 1999, the members of a Multi-jurisdictional Committee, representing several jurisdictions in the valley, authorized the Rogue Valley Council of Governments to prepare an application for the present Regional Problem Solving grant, which was initially awarded in April 2000. Collaborative regional problem solving establishes a process through which local governments may seek to solve regional problems through a cooperative process. As part of this process, existing land use issues are examined in relation to the regional problems of the area. The program acknowledges that regions throughout the state differ from one another in key characteristics that may cause the state's land use regulations to have unintended results. Ashland's Initial Position in RPS - December 2003 In December of 2003, after a series of five public study sessions with the Planning Commission, Housing Commission and City Council, the Council determined that it would not propose new growth areas. Instead, the City decided to address future growth through the promotion of more efficient land use strategies on existing lands within its Urban Growth Boundary (UBG). Initially, the City proposed two potential growth areas, both approximately 90 acres. One site bordered the City's UGB to the southwest near Tolman Creek Road and Crowson Road, while the other proposed site bordered the northeastern UGB line along East Main Street. Both of the potential reserve areas were zoned for Exclusive Farm Use. Three other areas were proposed by private property owners. They included a IS-acre site behind the Mountain Meadows Retirement Community, as-acre site near the intersection of North Mountain and 1-5, and the 440-acre Neil Ranch near the Ashland Airport Ultimately, none of the five proposed growth areas were advanced to the Policy Committee deliberations stage of the process. Ashland has maintained a relatively constant Urban Growth Boundary since its adoption in the early '80's. Based on the 2005 Buildable Lands Inventory, Ashland still has 240 acres remaining outside the City Limits and inside the UGB. Of those, 180 acres are zoned for future residential use, while approximately 60 acres are zoned for industrial or employment use. Public discussion also centered on Ashland's continued commitment to keeping a small town feel, as well as potential implications with Page 1 of 3 080408 RPS Update.CC.doc r~' CITY OF ASHLAND respect to affordable housing. In the end, the Council decision reaffirmed the choice of growing within the existing Urban Growth Boundary. Ashland's Comments on Draft Plan - November 15,2007 The Council had a special meeting in October 2007 devoted to a discussion on the draft Regional Problem Solving Plan. A letter (see attachment) was sent from Mayor Morrison to the Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee, dated November 15, 2007, that described several areas where Ashland would like to see the draft Plan change prior to final adoption or enactment of a participant's agreement. Elements of the draft Plan that were of particular interest to Ashland included: Efficient Use of Existing Lands, Transportation Planning and Implementation, Loss of High Value Agricultural Lands. The Regional Problem Solving response to issues raised in Ashland's letter is attached, while a complete list of responses is available at the website. Regional Problem Solving Participant Agreement Chapter 6 of the draft Regional Problem Solving Plan provides a narrative of the region's approach to meeting the requirements of the RPS statute, as well as a summary of the elements identified in the draft Participants' Agreement. A summary of the draft Participants' Agreement are described, as well as a discussion on what was not included or addressed in the regional plan, as well as issues that will not be fully resolved upon completion of the RPS process. Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Approval Process Strategy Representatives from Jackson County, DLCD, and the cities of Eagle Point, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland met in June 2008 to determine an acceptable process for taking RPS through to adoption. Based upon the results of that meeting, which were ultimately ratified by the RPS Policy Committee, the Participants' Agreement has been slightly amended to require the region to commit to a comprehensive plan amendment process based on (rather than incorporating) the draft Plan. Consequently, the process of each local jurisdiction approving the Participants Agreement would take place before work begins on comprehensive plan amendments. Upon all jurisdictions signing the amended Participants' Agreement, and the subsequent acknowledgement of Jackson County's comprehensive plan amendment incorporating the Regional Problem Solving Plan, cities would be free to proceed at their own pace with their comprehensive plan amendments, and could take advantage of their urban reserves immediately upon LCDC acknowledgment. To accelerate acknowledgement of their comprehensive plan amendments, cities could proceed concurrently with the county, with or without joint hearings. Since the City of Ashland has not identified any urban reserves, the city is not directly impacted by the plan amendment process as it relates to identified urban reserves. Council Options: No action is requested at this time. The Council may, however, direct staff to provide additional comments to the Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee with respect to the Participant's Agreement and/or proposed Approval Process Strategy. Page 2 of3 080408 RPS Update.CC.doc r~' CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: Since this item is intended to provide the Council with an update on the RPS project, specifically the proposed Participants' Agreement and RPS Approval Process Strategy, a Council motion with respect to specific action has not been suggested. Attachments: · Regional Problem Solving - Locations of Pertinent Website Documents - A . Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement - B . Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Approval Process Strategy - C · Comments ofRPS draft plan - City of Ashland letter dated 11.15.08 - D . RPS Response to Ashland's letter of November 15, 2008 - E Page 3 of3 080408 RPS Update.CC.doc rA' Regional Problem Solving Locations of Pertinent Website Documents · Jurisdiction RPS Review Packet - From this page -From this From this page - http://rvcog.orghnn.asp?pg=rps main page, you can link to the latest versions of each document, i.e., participants' agreement, DLCD correspondence, population allocation and land uses, high/low land needs simulators, maps (in the regional plan), responses to public testimony, etc · RPS Policy Committee meeting agendas, packets and minutes, dating back to January 2008, can be accessed from the main RPS page or directly by clicking here: http://rvcog.org/mn.asp?pg=agendas&grp=17 · Responses to Public Hearing Testimony - Specifically, the response to Mayor Morrison's letter (Exhibit #37) is found under "Testimony Addressing Regional Issues", pgs. 22-24. To link directly to the Mayor's letter, click here: hUp://rvcog.org/rps pdf/RPS Letters/l11507 City of Ashland.pdf · DLCD correspondence - is included as an appendix in the Regional Plan and can be accessed from the main page. To link directly to that correspondence, please click here: hUp:/ /rvco g. org/ros/J urisdiction oi<>20Deli berations %20Packet 2008/Regional (%20 Plan/XI<%20DLCD Correspondence fina1.pdf 1 GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY 2 REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT 3 version 07/08/08 4 (incorporating 5/13/08 County changes; 5/20/08 Cities changes; 5 5/28/08 additional County changes; 6/06/08 Attorney changes, 6 6/16/08 Policy Committee changes, 6/25/08 T AC changes, 7/01108 Policy Committee 7 changes) 8 9 This REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is 10 entered into this of ,2008 by and between Jackson County, the duly 11 incorporated Oregon municipalities of Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville, 12 Talent, Eagle Point, Ashland, the Department of Land Conservation and Development 13 ("DLCD"), the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), the Oregon Department 14 of Housing and Community Services ("ODHCS"), the Oregon Economic and 15 Community Development Department ("OECDD"), the Oregon Department of 16 Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ("ODA"), the 17 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS). 18 19 RECITALS 20 WHEREAS Jackson County and the cities of Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Eagle 21 Point, Jacksonville, Ashland, and Talent (each a "Local Jurisdiction" and collectively, the 22 "Region") are part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley, described more particularly in the 23 Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference, that expects to see 24 a doubling of the population over the long term future; and 25 WHEREAS the increasing population in the Region will create an ongoing 26 demand for additional lands available for urban levels of development; and 27 WHEREAS that demand for urbanizable land will have to be balanced with the 28 Region's need to maintain its high quality farm and forest lands, as well as to protect its 29 natural environment; and 30 WHEREAS the Local Jurisdictions recognize that long-term planning for which 31 lands in the region are most appropriate for inclusion in each municipality's urban 32 reserve areas ("DRAs") in light of the Region's social, economic, and environmental 33 needs is best determined on a regional basis; and 34 WHEREAS a collaborative regional plan (the "Plan") is the RPS Policy 35 Committee's recommended means of elaborating the regional solutions to the identified 36 regional problems; and 37 WHEREAS the State's Regional Problem Solving ("RPS") statute provides a 38 special process for addressing regional land use issues that allows the Local Jurisdictions, 39 upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, to implement regional strategies through the 40 adoption of post-acknowledgement comprehensive plan amendments that do not fully 41 comply with the regulations (the "Regulations") adopted by the Land Conservation and 42 Development Commission ("LCDC") to implement the Statewide Planning Goals (the 43 "Goals"); and 44 WHEREAS one of the conditions the Local Jurisdictions must satisfy in order to 45 deviate from the Regulations is that all the participants in the RPS process enter into an 46 agreement that: identifies the problem faced by the Region; the goals that will address the Discussion Draft RPS IGA 1 07/02/2008 1 problem; the mechanisms for achieving those goals; and the system for monitoring the 2 implementation and effectiveness of those goals; and 3 WHEREAS various entities were identified as potential stakeholders within the 4 regional planning process, and invitations were extended to every incorporated 5 jurisdiction (Jackson County, Eagle Point, Medford, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix, 6 Talent, and Ashland), school district (Ashland School District #5, Central Point School 7 District #6, Jackson County School District #9, Medford School District 549C, and 8 Phoenix- Talent School District #4), and irrigation district (Eagle Point, Medford, Rogue 9 River, and Talent Irrigation Districts) in the study area, plus the Medford Water 10 Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, Rogue River Valley Sewer 11 Services, Rogue Valley Transportation District, and the appropriate state agencies 12 (DLCD, ODOT, ODA, ODHCS, OECDD, and DEQ); and 13 WHEREAS the stakeholders mentioned above chose to exercise different levels 14 of participation and responsibility within the planning process, the "participants" (as the 15 term is employed in ORS 197.656(2)(b)), are those jurisdictions and agencies that elect, 16 by signing this Agreement, to implement the regional solutions to the regional problems 1 7 identified hereinafter; and 18 WHEREAS this Agreement constitutes compliance with ORS 197.656. 19 NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement agree to commit to 20 comprehensive plan amendment processes based on the attached draft Plan (Exhibit A). 21 With this agreement, participants acknowledge that, notwithstanding the fact that the 22 draft Plan is the result of eight years of collaborative and jurisdiction-specific planning, it 23 may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan as a result of the 24 comprehensive plan amendment process. 25 26 AGREEMENT 27 I. 28 29 30 31 II. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 III. 41 42 43 44 45 Recitals The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. General Agreement Signatories to this Agreement agree to abide by a Plan developed under Regional Problem Solving, as adopted by participating jurisdictions into their comprehensive plans, and acknowledged by the State of Oregon. Signatories agree to maintain internal consistency with the adopted Plan on an ongoing basis, and when necessary and appropriate, either to amend their comprehensive plans and related policies, codes, and regulations to be consistent with the adopted Plan, or to pursue amendments to the adopted Plan. Statement of Problems to Be Addressed [ORS 197.656] The parties to the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS process (the "Project") identified three problems to be addressed by the Project: PROBLEM # 1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning Discussion Draft RPS IGA 2 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IV. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 The region will continue to be subjected in the future to growth pressures that will require the active collaboration of jurisdictions within the Greater Bear Creek Valley. A mechanism is needed that accomplishes this without infringing on individual jurisdictional authority and/or autonomy. This Problem #1 shall be referred to hereinafter as "Coordinated Growth Management." PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Expansion As our communities have expanded incrementally, there has been a tendency to convert important farm and forest lands to urban uses while bypassing lands with significantly less value as resource lands. This has been exacerbated by the region's special characteristics and historic settlement patterns, which can cause some state regulations governing urban growth to have unintended consequences, some of them contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. This Problem #2 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Valuable Resource Lands." PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing separation between some of the communities in the study area, which jeopardizes important aspects of these jurisdictions' sense of community and identity. This Problem #3 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Community Identity." Project Goals [ORS 197.656(2)(A)] The parties to this Agreement have adopted the following goals with respect to the Problems: GOAL #1: Manage future regional growth for the greater public good. GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural, and livability benefits. GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each community within the Region. Discussion Draft RPS IGA 3 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 v. Optional Techniques for Implementation [ORS 197.656(2)(B)] (where "optional techniques for implementation" refers to strategies and mechanisms to implement regional solutions that are in compliance with the statewide goals and statutes, but which may not strictly adhere to Oregon Administrative Rules). These optional techniques for implementation are those identified as appropriate for implementation of the draft Plan. As stated in the Recitals, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these optional techniques for implementation, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. A. PROBLEM #1: Lack ofa Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning GOAL #1: Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good Optional Implementation Techniaues (1) Coordinated Periodic Review Signatory jurisdictions may engage in a coordinated schedule of regular Periodic Reviews following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally coordinated Periodic Review will begin in 2012, will take place every 10 years, and will coincide with the ten-year regular review of the Plan. This coordinated Periodic Review will provide an opportunity to take advantage of an economy of scale in generating technical information, and to incorporate a regional perspective in the Periodic Review process, but it does not mandate a simultaneous or linked process among jurisdictions. (2) Ten-year RPS Review Signatory jurisdictions will abide by the review process described in Section VI of this Agreement. The,review process complies with the monitoring requirement in the RPS statute, and affords participating jurisdictions flexibility in responding to changing regional and local circumstances by establishing a process and venue for amending the adopted Plan. (3) Coordinated Population Allocation Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, a state-mandated responsibility of the County, will reflect the proportional allocation of future population within the adopted Plan and its future amendments consistent with statute. (4) Greater'Coordination with the MPO As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the study area, the MPO, as the federally designated transportation planning entity, will plan and coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies critical to the success of the adopted Plan. Of special focus will be the development of mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for major transportation infrastructure, and a means of creating supplemental funding for regionally significant transportation projects. B. PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Expansion GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural, and livability benefits. Discussion Draft RPS IGA 4 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Optional Implementation Techniaues (1) Long Range Urban Reserves The establishment of Urban Reserves sufficient to serve a doubling of the region's urban population will allow long-term production decisions to be made on agricultural land not included in urban reserves. (2) Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards Signatory jurisdictions will apply the adopted Plan's set of agricultural buffering standards as a means of mitigating negative impacts arising from the rural/urban interface. (3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan are available as an option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently preserving areas of separation between communities (community buffers). These COSA strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit. C. PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each community within the Region. Optional Implementation Techniaues (1) Community Buffers The establishment of Urban Reserves outside of recommended areas of critical open space provides for a basic level of preservation for the Region's important areas of community separation. (2) Allocating to Comparative Advantages The Region agrees to a distribution of the calculated need of residential and employment lands necessary to support a regional doubling of the population. This distribution, which depends on a number of factors that relate to the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each of the cities, will allow each community to develop its own balance of viability and individuality within the larger regional matrix. (3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan are available as an option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently preserving areas of separation between communities (community buffers). These COSA strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit. VI. Measurable Performance Indicators [ORS 197.656(2)(C)] These measurable performance indicators are those identified as appropriate for monitoring purposes of the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these measurable performance indicators, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. The following are measurable performance indicators: Discussion Draft RPS IGA 5 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 + 1) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, the region's jurisdictions may participate in a process of coordinated periodic review. 2) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, all Signatories to this Agreement will participate in the regular RPS review process. Jackson County shall initiate the RPS review process by providing notice of the RPS review to each Signatory to this Agreement and requiring that each Signatory submit a self-evaluation monitoring report addressing compliance with the performance indicators set out in this Section to the County within 60 days after the date of the notice. Jackson County will distribute these monitoring reports to all Signatories. 3) Participating cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS Plan that are applicable to each individual city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and will reference the larger Regional Plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's comprehensive plan. To incorporate applicable portions of the RPS Plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, cities will adopt at least the following: a) urban reserve areas; b) target residential densities (for the urban reserve areas); c) agricultural buffering standards (for the urban reserve areas); d) implementing ordinances (for the urban reserve areas). 4) Signatory jurisdictions will com?JY with the general and specific conditions to the Agreement set out in Sectior(X~\ ~J 5) Signatory jurisdictions serving or projected to serve a designated urban reserve will adopt an Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA). 6) Urban reserves identified in the adopted Plan are the first priority lands used for UGB expansions by participating cities. 7) Cities, when applying urban designations and zones to urban reserve land included in a UGB expansion, will achieve, on average, at least the "higher land need" residential densities in the adopted RPS Plan. 8) Cities, when applying urban designations and zones to urban reserve land included in a UGB expansion, will be guided by the general distribution of land uses proposed in the adopted RPS Plan, especially where a specific set of land uses were part of a compelling urban-based rationale for designating RLRC land as part of a city's set of urban reserves. 9) Conceptual plans for urban reserves will be developed in sufficient detail to allow the Region to determine the sizing and location of regionally significant transportation infrastructure. This information should be determined early enough in the planning and development cycle that the identified regionally Discussion Draft RPS IGA 6 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 significant transportation corridors can be protected as cost-effectively as possible by available strategies and funding. Conceptual plans for an urban reserve in the RPS Plan are not required to be completed at the time of adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating urban reserves into a city or county comprehensive plan. 10) The county's population element is updated per statute to be consistent with the gradual implementation of the adopted Plan. VII. Incentives and Disincentives to Achieving Goals [ORS 197.656(2)(D)] These incentives and disincentives are those identified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these incentives and disincentives, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. Incentives 1) Continued regional cooperation through the 10-year review process and coordinated periodic review may improve the Region's ability to respond to challenges and opportunities more effectively than it does presently. 2) Adherence to the adopted Plan may provide the region with a competitive advantage, increase the attractiveness of the region to long-term investment, and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state. 3) Adherence to the Plan may produce significant reductions in transportation infrastructure costs by minimizing future right-of-way acquisition costs and by improving the overall long-range coordination of transportation and land use planning. 4) Adherence to the Plan will provide participating jurisdictions with population allocations that are predictable, transparent, and based on the relative strengths of the different participating jurisdictions. 5) The adopted Plan will offer compelling regional justifications and state agency support for Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that may not have been available to an individual city proposal. 6) Adherence to the Plan will permit jurisdictions to implement the flexibility provided by the concept of the "Regional Community", in which cities, in the role of "regional neighborhoods", enjoy a wide latitude in their particular mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses, as long as the sum of the regional parts contributes to a viable balance of land uses that is functional and attractive to residents and employers and in compliance with statewide goals. Disincentives 1) Cities that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as urban reserve will be required to go through the RPS Plan minor or major amendment process prior to or concurrent with any other process. 2) The region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan may damage its competitive advantage, the attractiveness of the region to long-term investment, and southern Oregon's profile in the state. Discussion Draft RPS IGA 7 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 VIII. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 3) The transportation projects of jurisdictions signatory to the Agreement not adhering to the adopted Plan may be assumed to be less cost-effective, and may be assigned a lower priority by the MPO when considered for funding. 4) Jackson County may reconsider the population allocations of jurisdictions signatory to the Agreement not adhering to the adopted Plan. 5) Jurisdictions signatory to the Agreement not adhering to the adopted Plan may face issues over failing to observe their comprehensive plans, or may find it difficult to make modifications to their comprehensive plans that deviate from the adopted Plan. 6) The region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan will compromise its ability to implement the concept of the "Regional Community", and will not provide the participating cities with as wide a latitude in their desired individual mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses. Progress Monitoring System & Amendment Process [ORS 197.656(2)(E) and (F)] This progress monitoring system and amendment process is that which is identified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially this progress and monitoring system and amendment process, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. Monitoring Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Plan will be a shared responsibility. Each signatory city will be responsible for monitoring its adherence to the portion of the adopted Plan that is incorporated into its comprehensive plan. Jackson County, which will have the full adopted Plan incorporated into its comprehensive plan, will be responsible for overall monitoring. Adherence to the RPS Plan The RPS Plan is directly applicable to comprehensive plan amendments, land use regulation amendments, and the adoption of new land use regulations that affect land in urban reserve areas and/or URA designation changes. The RPS Plan shall not be directly applicable to other land use decisions by signatory jurisdictions. Adherence to relevant RPS Plan provisions adopted by a signatory jurisdiction as part of its comprehensive plan or implementing ordinances will be addressed by the existing state and local mechanisms for ensuring jurisdictional compliance with acknowledged comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. RPS Plan Amendments Processing amendments to the adopted Plan will be the responsibility of Jackson County, and can only be proposed by the governing authority of a signatory jurisdiction. In acknowledgement of the collaborative process by which the adopted Plan was created, Jackson County will have available the assistance of the signatory entities to this Agreement through a Technical Advisory Discussion Draft RPS IGA 8 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 . 43 Committee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-needed basis, and both serve in an advisory capacity to Jackson County. (a) Technical Advisory Committee The TAC will be comprised of planners and senior-level staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies, and each signatory will have one vote, irrespective of the number of participating representatives. Recommendations to the Policy Committee or directly to Jackson County will be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending signatory jurisdictions and agencies. (b) Policy Committee The Policy Committee will be comprised of elected officials or executive staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies. Each signatory jurisdiction will designate a voting and alternate voting member, and each signatory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations to Jackson County will be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending jurisdictions. State agencies, the MPO, and Rogue Valley Sewer Services, while Signatories, will not be voting members of the Policy Committee. When an amendment to the adopted RPS Plan is proposed, Jackson County will make a preliminary determination regarding whether the proposed amendment is a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment, as defined below, will notify signatory jurisdictions and agencies of the County's preliminary determination, and will solicit input for a final determination. Upon its final determination, Jackson County will review the proposed amendment according to the procedures for Minor Amendments or Major Amendments set out below. Proposed amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following prOVISIons: 1) Minor Amendment A minor amendment is defined as any request for an amendment to the adopted Plan that: a) does not conflict with the general conditions listed in Section X of this Agreement or specific urban-reserve conditions listed in the adopted RPS Plan; and b) does not propose an addition of more than 50 acres to a city's urban reserves 'established for a city in the adopted RPS Plan or more than a 50-acre expansion of the UGB into non-urban reserve rural land. In the case of Ashland, which did not establish urban reserves during the development of the Plan process, a proposal to establish an urban reserve or expand its UGB of not more than 50 acres will be considered a minor amendment. Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for adding to its urban reserves during the term of the Agreement, it may not use the minor amendment process for further alterations to its urban reserves. Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for expanding its UGB into non-urban reserve rural land during the Discussion Draft RPS IGA 9 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 planning horizon, it may not use the minor amendment process for further expansions of its UGB into non-urban reserve land. Any participant jurisdiction may initiate a minor amendment to the adopted Plan. The proposing jurisdiction must clearly identify the nature of the minor amendment, and specify whether the minor amendment would require any other signatory jurisdiction to amend its comprehensive plan. Should any signatory jurisdiction other than the proposing jurisdiction and Jackson County be required to amend their ~omprehensive plans as a result of the proposed minor amendment, the affected signatory jurisdiction will be a party to the minor amendment proceeding. Jackson County's process, and the proposing jurisdiction's process, for a minor amendment to the Plan will be equivalent to the state and local required processes for a comprehensive plan amendment. Signatory jurisdictions and agencies shall be provided with notice of the County's and proposing jurisdiction's final decision on each minor amendment request within five working days of the adoption of the final decision. Maior Amendment A major amendment is defined as any requested amendment to the adopted Plan that does not meet the definition of a Minor Amendment. (a) Ifmultiple signatory jurisdictions are involved in a single request for a major amendment, a lead jurisdiction will be selected by the affected jurisdictions; (b) notice containing a detailed description of the proposed change will be forwarded by Jackson County to all signatory jurisdictions and agencies; ( c ) staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and will meet as a Technical Advisory Committee and generate a recommendation to the Policy Committee by vote of at least a supermajority of those present (simple majority plus one); (d) decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and will meet as a Policy Committee and consider the proposal and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. Attending jurisdictions will constitute a quorum; and (e) the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation to Jackson County by vote of at least a supermajority of those present (simple majority plus one). Jackson County's process, and the proposing jurisdiction's process, for a major amendment to the Plan will be equivalent to the state and local required process for a comprehensive plan amendment in addition to the above provisions. Signatory jurisdictions and agencies shall be provided with notice of the County's final decision on each major amendment request within five working days of the adoption of the final decision. Discussion Draft RPS IGA 10 07/02/2008 I' IX. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Newly Incorporated City Should White City or some other area of Jackson County within the area of the adopted Plan incorporate while the adopted Plan is in effect, and should the newly incorporated city desire to become a signatory to the Agreement, increased population will be added to the regional target population adequate to accommodate the projected population growth of the newly incorporated city for the remainder of the adopted Plan's planning horizon. The addition of a newly incorporated city to the adopted Plan, the establishment of urban reserves, and other such actions shall be accomplished through the major amendment process. Conditions to Agreement General Conditions The Signatories agree that the Plan shall comply with the the general conditions listed below, which apply to all jurisdictions signatory to the plan. These general conditions are those which have been identified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these general conditions, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. 1) Agricultural Buffering Where appropriate, cities shall apply the agricultural buffering guidelines developed through the Regional Problem Solving process. 2) Transportation The Plan shall include policies to: a. Identify a general network of locally owned regionally significant north-south and east-west arterials and associated projects to provide mobility throughout the region. b. Designate and protect corridorsJor locally-owned regionally significant arterials and associated projects within the MPO to ensure adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize right of way costs. c. Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding to mitigate impacts arising from future growth. These policies shall be implemented by ordinance upon the adoption of the latest update of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan and the local adoption of the RPS Plan through individual city and county Comprehensive Plan amendments. Participating cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS Plan relative to transportation that are applicable to each individual city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and will reference the larger regional plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's comprehensive plan. Discussion Draft RPS IGA 11 07/02/2008 1 Specific Conditions 2 Specific conditions apply to specific jurisdictions and urban reserve areas, and 3 will be contained within the adopted Plan. The signatory jurisdictions agree to 4 abide by these conditions. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary 5 to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially the specific conditions, as 6 a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. 7 8 XI. Amendments to the Agreement 9 Amendments to the Agreement can be made at any time by full consensus (all 10 parties in agreement) of the Signatories. 11 12 XII. Termination of Participation 13 A jurisdiction may petition Jackson County for termination of its participation 14 in the Agreement, which may be granted by a supermajority (simple majority 15 plus one) of Signatories to the Agreement. A jurisdiction terminating its 16 participation with the consent of the Policy Committee shall not be considered 17 to have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan. Should a jurisdiction terminate its 18 participation in the Agreement without approval of the supermajority of 19 Signatories to the Agreement, it will be considered to have failed to adhere to 20 the adopted Plan, and may be subject to the Disincentives in Section VII and 21 applicable legal and legislative repercussions. For remaining jurisdictions, the 22 validity of this Agreement will not be adversely impacted by a city's 23 termination of participation, by supermajority decision or otherwise. 24 25 XIII. Termination of the Agreement 26 This agreement may be terminated when one or more of the following occur(s): 27 1) A supermajority (simple majority plus one) of Signatories agree that the 28 Agreement is terminated; 29 2) The doubled regional population is reached; 30 3) 50 years have passed since the Agreement was signed. 31 No Signatory to this Agreement will be adversely impacted by a supermajority 32 decision to terminate this Agreement. 33 34 XIV. Applicability 35 Signatories to this agreement agree that necessary amendments to their 36 comprehensive plans will occur as required by the Plan, and that the Plan is in 37 effect for each jurisdiction at the time that its and Jackson County's 38 implementing comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations are 39 adopted and acknowledged. 40 41 Once the RPS plan is implemented by the appropriate comprehensive plan 42 amendments and land use regulations, a jurisdiction's failure to adhere to the 43 Plan as adopted or subsequently amended will expose that jurisdiction to the 44 usual legal and legislative repercussions from non-compliance with 45 acknowledged comprehensive plans. Discussion Draft RPS IGA 12 07/02/2008 1 2 Signatories acknowledge that statutory authority over land use regulation 3 ultimately resides with the Oregon legislature. Additionally, signatories to this 4 agreement recognize that the provisions of the Plan may be determined in the 5 future to be in conflict with existing or yet to be adopted statutes. 6 7 Signatories to this agreement expressly recognize that land use regulations and 8 actions must otherwise comport with the statutes and other applicable 9 regulations of the State of Oregon other than those LCDC regulations for which 10 the adopted RPS Plan authorizes less than full compliance. 11 12 Therefore, Signatories agree that, when conflicts between statute and the Plan 13 arise, Oregon statute shall prevail. 14 15 XV. Severability 16 Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under 17 any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions 18 shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties. The Agreement shall be 19 reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and 20 enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention 21 of the stricken provision. 22 23 XVI. Entire Agreement 24 This Agreement contains the entire agreement, between the parties and 25 supersedes all prior negotiations, discussions obligations, and rights of the 26 parties regarding the subject matter of this agreement. There is no other written 27 or oral understanding between the parties. No modification, amendment or 28 alteration of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by 29 the parties hereto. 30 31 XVII. Counterparts 32 This Agreement may be signed in counterpart by the parties, each of which shall 33 be deemed original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same 34 instrument, binding on all parties hereto. 35 36 XVIII. Authority to Execute Agreement 37 Each person signing of behalf of a governmental entity hereby declares that he 38 or she, or it has the authority to sign on behalf of his or her or its respective 39 entity and agrees to hold the other party or parties hereto harmless ifhe or she 40 or it does not have such authority. 41 42 43 44 Chairman, Mayor, City of Ashland 45 Jackson County Board of Commissioners Discussion Draft RPS IGA 13 07/02/2008 1 2 3 4 Mayor, City of Talent 5 6 7 8 Mayor, City of Medford 9 10 11 12 13 Mayor, City of Central Point 14 15 16 17 18 Director, Oregon Department of Land 19 Conservation and Development 20 21 22 23 24 Director, Oregon Department of 25 Environmental Quality 26 27 28 29 30 Director, Oregon Department of 31 Agriculture 32 33 34 35 36 Chair, Rogue Valley Metropolitan 37 Planning Organization 38 39 40 41 Chair, Land Conservation and 42 Development Commission Discussion Draft RPS IGA Mayor, City of Phoenix Mayor, City of Jacksonville Mayor, City of Eagle Point Director, Oregon Department of Transportation Director, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department Director, Oregon Housing and Community Development Department Chair, Rogue Valley Sewer Services 14 07/02/2008 RPS Approval Process Strategy June 27, 2008 BACKGROUND Technical representatives from Jackson County, DLCD, and the cities of Eagle Point, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland met on Friday, June 2ih to arrive at a recommendation to the Policy Committee on a process to take RPS to conclusion. After a wide- ranging discussion, one issue was identified that was considered a determining factor in the sequencing of the process to take local jurisdictions to the final acknowledgement of their individual comprehensive plan amendments - the apparently inescapable need for a signed Participants' Agreement (PA) by all participants before the county or any city could be granted acknowledgement of comprehensive plan amendments based on the RPS Regional Plan. Depending on whether the PA is modified or not, the process could take one of two major paths: No modification of the PA: At present, the PA directly references the draft Regional Plan, by attachment, as a document to be adopted as part of the PA. As a result, jurisdictions would not be able to sign the PA until they had completed a major land use and comprehensive plan amendment process. Although not inefficient in itself, this process would obligate LCDC to suspend full acknowledgement of individual comprehensive plan amendments until every jurisdiction had fully completed their comprehensive plan amendments, including developing Urban Reserve Management Agreements (URMAs) and amending existing Urban Growth Management Agreements (UGMAs). With a modification of the PA: By modifying the PA to require the region to commit to a comprehensive plan amendment process based on (rather than incorporating) the draft Plan, the process of approving the PA in each jurisdiction becomes a minor land use action, which can then take place before work begins on comprehensive plan amendments. Upon the signing of this modified PA, and the subsequent acknowledgement of Jackson County's comprehensive plan amendment, cities would be free to proceed at their own pace with their comprehensive plan amendments, and would be able to take advantage of their urban reserves immediately upon LCDC acknowledgment. To accelerate acknowledgement of their comprehensive plan amendments, cities could proceed concurrently with the county, with or without joint hearings. RECOMMENDATION By consensus, the group favored the modified PA process. The general sequence would be as follows: Step 1 The region presents the draft Regional Plan and PA to LCDC in October. The region asks for input as follows: 1) A fatal flaws analysis of the draft Regional Plan; 2) A determination of the PA's consistency with the RPS statute; 3) An "If and Then" statement of support from LCOC, which would stipulate in some fashion that LCOC anticipates acknowledging local comp plan amendments that closely reflect the draft plan; and 4) A statement of agreement from LCOC that the use of the PAPA process (or a suggestion of another process) for local approval of the Participants' Agreement is appropriate. Step 2 Local participants and state agencies sign the PA (the RPS Policy Committee will facilitate the local process, and the Governor's ERT and the OLCO director will facilitate the state agency process). Step 3 LCOC signs the Participants' Agreement. Step 4 County and cities work concurrently on comprehensive plan amendments. County adopts first, and cities follow at their convenience. City comprehensive plan amendments must include Urban Reserve Management Agreements (URMAs) and newly amended Urban Growth Management Agreements (UGMAs). CITY OF ASHLAND November IS, 2007 Greater Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee C/o Rogue Valley Council of Govemments Post Office Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Chair Jackson and Members of the RPS Policy Committee: On behalf of the entire City Council, I am writing to offer comments on the Regional Problem Solving Draft Plan. The Ashland City Council supports a Regional Plan that recognizes the participants' mutual dependence and our desire to see the valley grow in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. We are committed, as you all know, to accommodating our growing population and growing businesses within our existing boundaries, and we know that our fate as a community is dependent on the decisions of the County and other Cities in the Bear Creek Valley. I hope you will consider our comments as part of our strong commitment to regional coordination and to growth that supports a healthy, robust economy and also preserves our high quality of life and our commitment to environmental protection. First, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for the considerable effort and countless number of hours that members of the Policy Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and RVCOG staffhave dedicated to this valuable undertaking. The Regional Problem Solving process has been an opportunity to mutually evaluate scenarios that provide for managed growth, efficient land use patterns, a transportation strategy, protections for the region's air and water, and sound management of the valley's agricultural and forest lands over the long haul. At a special meeting devoted to this topic on October 29,2007, the City Council identified several areas where Ashland would like to see the draft Plan change prior to final adoption or enactment of a stakeholders agreement. Efficient Use of Existing Lands The draft Plan appears to emphasize the size and location of proposed urban reserves as a strategy for accommodating population growth. We perceive that this focus has meant other important regional issues, such as protection of resource lands, the connection between land use and transportation planning, and affordable housing have received less emphasis. Administration 20 E. Main Street Ashland. Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Te/: 541/488-6002 Fax: 541-/488-5311 TTY: 800/735-2900 _.w ...~ PRINTEO OH RECYCLED PAPER The City Council is concerned this emphasis may compromise the very thing that the Plan is trying to protect -- the region's remarkable quality of life. The Council believes development of vacant properties, redevelopment of existing land, and increased densities and infill within established urban growth boundaries should be a top priority of the Plan. By directing communities within the region to first enact land use incentives to achieve greater densities on existing lands within established urban growth boundaries, a reduction in the total land acreage committed for urban reserves could likely be achieved. It appears that the City of Medford, in particular, has done an excellent job in considering redevelopment and in accepting that infill has to be a key strategy, and we believe all participants need to similarly commit to greater densities. The City of Ashland recognizes that we still have work to do in this area ourselves. Although we plan to accommodate growth within our existing urban growth area, our current and planned densities need to be closely examined to make sure we are doing our part to reduce unneeded urban expansion, protect fann and forest land, and support transit in our community and region. Transportation Planning and Implementation Upon a cursory review of the draft Plan, the City Council believes the plan lacks an emphasis on the role of alternate forms of transportation and seems to accept as inevitable a need to increase the capacity of arterial street systems. Ashland believes the Regional Plan should prioritize alternative forms of transportation, including transit and other forms of higher occupancy travel. Where it is clear that, over time, certain road improvements will be necessary, the location, type and approximate time frame for implementation should be described. Lastly, the draft Plan should explicitly encourage and reward communities that actively plan for alternative forms of transportation. Regional funding measures must give equal weight to communities that implement strategies aimed at reducing automobile trips, rather than depending on building facilities for additional vehicle capacity. We believe the transportation modeling conducted by RVCOG as part ofRPS reinforces that concern. The modeling shows that mixed use development with density clustered around transit nodes is best way to reduce total vehicle miles, traffic congestion and investments in roads. As noted above, we hope the Regional Plan and Stakeholders Agreement will create incentives to ensure that, before any urban reserves are moved into any City's Urban Growth Boundary, each City should have to demonstrate it has developed its existing urban areas to densities that support fixed-route transit service. Loss of High Value Agricultural Lands The concern over the loss of resource and forest lands caused by urban expansion is one of three stated problems being addressed through Regional Problem Solving. One of the stated "Project Goals" is to "Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural and livability benefits." Administration 20 E. Main Street Ashland. Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541/486-6002 Fax: 541-/468-5311 TTY: 800n35-2900 ".t. , According to the draft Plan, however, of the 9,200 acres included within Urban Reserve Areas, 77 percent are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and 18 percent are considered critical to the region's commercial agricultural land base. The City of Ashland is very concerned about the long-term implications of expansion into production lands, especially the "critical" commercial agricultural lands. We would ask the Policy Committee to please consider amendments to the draft Plan to prolong the need for extending urban growth boundaries into the region's commercial agricultural base of land by encouraging all of the region's cities to actively achieve higher densities in appropriate areas in their existing urban growth boundaries. The Council hopes that through a concerted regional effort focused on obtaining reasonable increases in residential and employment density on lands already committed to urbanization, a proportional reduction in the need for future urban reserve areas is possible. A Regional Approach to Housing and Economic Development The City Council believes the long term health of the regional economy relies on a range of housing styles and types at prices that serve a wide variety of households. The draft Plan should identify a time line for the creation of regional strategies that encourage a range of housing types throughout the region. The American Planning Association's extensive 2003 study, Regional Approach to Affordable Housing, noted that the most important element in ensuring the provision of affordable housing on a regional basis is political will and leadership. The Regional Problem Solving process provides the vehicle by which the region can demonstrate its clear commitment toward addressing the region's affordable housing needs. Other regional planning efforts across the United States have coordinated policy objectives in the areas of affordable housing, transportation, economic development and smart growth practices, which have helped business, increased jobs, supported schools and other public agencies, and reduced the environmental and social costs of growth. We think RPS could help all of the jurisdictions in the VaJIey work together on these issues, with lasting benefits for all our communities. Coordinated Population Allocations The draft stakeholder's agreement makes reference to the County process for proportional allocation of future population as identified and adopted in Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Ashland has reviewed the population allocation documents and believes the population allocation is not an accurate reflection of population trends in Ashland. Our projected growth rate is about ~ of the rate we have experienced over the last two decades, and our proj ected population is therefore too low. The proposed stakeholder agreement should recognize the concern over the accuracy of future population projections for the City of Ashland, based upon the absence of data to support the County's identified 20-year and 50-year growth rates. The County's population allocation for Administration 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541/468-6002 Fax: 541~466-5311 TTY: 800/735-2900 r... , Ashland should not be adopted as a conclusion within the Regional Problem Solving process, but rather these population allocations should be revisited and agreed upon by all jurisdictions before Periodic Review. The Ashland City Council and citizens of Ashland appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Plan. Weare confident the issues raised can be further evaluated and integrated into the final document so the City of Ashland can readily support this important step toward regional coordination and action. shland C: Ashland City Council Martha Bennett, City Administrator Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Administration 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541/488-6002 Fax:541~48~5311 TTY: 8001735-2900 r., RPS Responses to Public Hearing Testimony (1/17/08) Testimony Received During Regional Public Hearings on September 24th and October 10th, 2007 TESTIMONY ADDRESSING REGIONAL ISSUES: EXHIBIT 037 (letter from Mayor John Morrison and Ashland City Council, City of Ashland) November 15, 2007 REGIONAL TESTIMONY SUMMARY: The City of Ashland identifies several areas in which it would like to see refinements in the final Regional Plan: improved efficiency in the use of existing urbanized areas; greater focus on alternative means of transportation; less impact on commercially important agricultural lands; and an early refinement of the present population element of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The overall desire for the City of Ashland to be part of a progressive pianning process in the valley is acknowledged and appreciated. It has been clear that the city is taking a stand on what it believes in by deciding not to expand its municipal footprint through this process. The region also recognizes that . circumstances having to do with the environment, the economy, and climate change have been changing quickly over the last several years, calling into question the sustainability of commonly accepted development patterns. While the Plan is progressive, it is not a response in itself to the growing concerns over business as usual. On the other hand, the Plan does not create circumstances that would prevent the region, or individual cities, from encouraging such things as greater future efficiencies in land use, encouraging better agricultural productivity, and providing for more alternative transportation and affordable housing. What this Plan does is outline where future growth, if and when it comes, will be located. How that growth is distributed and accommodated depends on a continued regional conversation. · Improved efficiency in the use of existing urbanized areas: The City raises an issue that was raised to varying degrees in public hearing testimony, and that is that the Plan is not perfect, and not as proactive or progressive as it could have been. That perception, depending on how far one takes it, is accepted by most who have worked on developing it. But there is also general acknowledgment that, with this process, we have gone as far as we could have in a region that is heavily supportive of jurisdictional autonomy and has limited experience with the type of regional cooperation that could result in mandates on detailed, internal policies of individual cities. This Plan, although in every way revolutionary for the region and for the state, is still an evolutionary step in regional collaboration. Because RPS requires consensus on all decisions, and because the communities are politically and culturally divergent on many of the issues needing consensus, compromise is inevitable. On the issue of agricultural lands, it was decided that, given the fact that almost no jurisdiction in the process was not constrained by the large percentage of EFUDzoned land around it, heightened attention would be given to the more commercially viable agricultural lands. The Plan has a complete explanation of the process whereby cities were given information about the location and relative productivity of agricultural lands surrounding them, and discusses the resulting efforts by cities to avoid the more important of those EFU lands. The Plan also documents the fact that the percentage of EFU land in the proposed urban reserves is actually less than the percentage in the county overall, a result of the efforts by participating cities to avoid, when at all feasible, agricultural lands. In addition to this level of protection, the region has also agreed to much improved agricultural buffering standards, which are designed to protect existing agricultural production from adjacent urbanization. Finally, the point is made in the Plan that 10ngDterm establishment of urban reserves is an overall positive for agricultural production in the valley due to the predictability if affords the agricultural lands not in urban reserves. The City also mentions that the connection between transportation planning and land use is deficient in the Plan. The majority of participants, including state agencies, would take issue with that perception. From the outset, this Plan did not intend to replace the Regional Transportation Plan (an MPO responsibility) or individual city Transportation System Plans, but rather, for the first time, to provide a matrix of 10ngDterm developable lands to assist in better transportation planning at all levels. The process also allowed a consideration of major transportation constraints when identifying potential urban reserves, which, in the case of Eagle Point, resulted in the removal of large proposed urban reserves on the west side of Highway 62 due to the probable impacts their development would have on the highway. The region has also created a direct relationship between the Plan and the MPO's planning process, and has gained the MPO's support for mechanisms to identify and protect significant transportation corridors in the urban reserves, and to raise additional revenue for that purpose. Finally, the RPS process was the direct impetus behind ODOT developing the state's first LUSDR model, which for the first time permits the region to perform long 0 range integrated land use and transportation modeling. The City also mentions the lack of attention to affordable housing in the Plan. The region agrees that the issue is not directly addressed, but does not consider the Plan to be the appropriate mechanism for doing so. · Greater focus on alternative means of transportation: While the region acknowledges the importance of alternative means of transportation, especially of a viable, fixed 0 route public transportation system, the Plan was not designed or intended to address that issue. The most appropriate place to do so is at the local jurisdictional and MPO level. What the Plan can and does do is provide the means whereby better 10ngDterm land use and transportation planning can take place. As for increasing regional densities, the Plan does call for significantly increased densities, which will, in time, make public transportation more viable. The Plan also calls out the attractiveness of nodal development, but where and how much would be optimal needs to await the conceptual plans that will follow the designation of the urban reserves. · Less impact on commercially important agricultural lands: This is addressed within the discussion above on more efficient land use. · An early refinement of the present population element of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan: The County has agreed to a regular review of the population element in its Comprehensive Plan. More to the point for the City of Ashland, it has been suggested that an amendment could occur as early as 2009 as part of the process of amending the County's Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Regional Plan. Although the County is not obliged to follow the proportional distribution of population within the Regional Plan, it has been in general agreement with the logic in doing so in the future. ~ Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Planning ..... - 11 . .......... .... Ashland' Central Point. Eagle Point. Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix. Talent. White City Jackson County. Rogue Valley Transportation District. Oregon Department of Transportation DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 29, 2008 Mayors and Council Members Michael G. Quilty, RVMPO Chair Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan As the RPS participating jurisdictions begin in earnest to review the draft Participants' Agreement and Regional Plan, which many of your elected officials and staff have assisted in developing, I would like to stress how important the RPS Plan is to our ability to plan transportation infrastructure for the next 40 to 50 years. The ability to conceptually layout, well ahead of time, the infrastructure needed to support twice our population is significant, as are the cost savings from the early purchase of right-of-way (ROW) and/or the adoption of easements to provide for future growth. Considering the fact that current ROW costs have been as high as 60% on some projects, the early designation of major transportation corridors could essentially double the effective purchasing power of our transportation dollars in the future. Certainly, the Plan has its detractors. They point to the RPS process itself-how difficult it has been and how long it has taken. The truth is, it has been both. But if cross-jurisdictional and regional planning were fast and easy, we wouldn't be the first region in the state preparing to complete an RPS process. Could we have done as much as we have without RPS? Possibly. But without the RPS process we may never have gotten together to even begin collectively planning our regional land use and transportation needs for the next 50 years. Certainly, we would not have been able to enjoy anything close to the flexibility that RPS affords us. Consider the urban reserves themselves-many of these areas that have won the approval of the RPS Policy Committee and the participating state agencies would not have been even close to being likely candidates under the normal state system. There are those who think that too much agricultural land is being dedicated to future urbanization. While the RPS Plan does show the valley growing into agricultural land, the more important issue is to acknowledge the much greater amount of productive agricultural land that will be protected from development pressure over the life of the RPS Plan. Considering the continued strength of our pear industry, the significant increase in wine grape production over the last decade, and the growing interest in local food supplies, the window of stability the RPS Plan will afford the agricultural sector could be as important for the future regional economy as the RPS-derived transportation benefits. There are also fears that cities are promising too many changes in the future, especially in the higher densities they are agreeing to. Although that is an understandable concern, we are faced with realities that will soon narrow our potential outcomes to just two----one that we largely end up controlling and one that RVMPO is staffed by Rogue Valley Council of Governments · 155 N. First St. · POBox 3275 · Central Point OR 97502. 664-6674 ends up largely controlling us. Increasing density rationally, modifying our housing mixes, exploiting our region's comparative advantages, fine tuning our transportation and land use planning, and building a more cooperative way of meeting challenges and opportunities are less about giving things up and more about what we stand to gain individually as cities and collectively as a region. These are just a few of the reasons that I urge you to support the RPS process as it moves forward for LCDC acknowledgment. While I will not argue that the RPS plan is perfect, it is one that many Rogue Valley leaders have worked hard to make workable for all of us. This document, like all planning documents, is a living one, as the ability to make changes when future needs and knowledge dictate is built into it. Every participant in the process knows that changes will be made to the Plan as the valley grows and develops over the next fifty years. Each city will soon be asked to vote to move forward with the Participants' Agreement and to commit to following the policies laid out in the RPS Plan. Once we have taken that step to trust ourselves on how to meet these challenges and opportunities, we can begin the process of making them come true. As RVMPO Chair, I would be pleased to discuss the advantages to the MPO and the region of successfully completing the RPS process with your council. Sincerely, -ALf6zf; ~ Michael G. Quilty, R VMPO Chair RVMPO is staffed by Rogue Valley Council of Governments .155 N. First St.. POBox 3275 · Central Point OR 97502. 664-6674 CHAPTER II - ALTERNATIVES 6/18/08 kg A. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL An additional alternative, the Prefe"ed Alternative is designed and included........ Minor additions and clarification to mitigation measures and design elements..... Moved considered but eliminated section after the alternatives in detail section....... B. INTRODUCTION This Chapter identifies and compares in detail four alternatives; the Forest Service Proposed Action, the Community Alternative, the Preferred Alternative1, and the No-Action Alternative, for conducting management activities for the purpose of hazardous-fuels reduction. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 (2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4332 (2)), the USDA, Forest Service is analyzing Ashland Forest Resiliency as an authorized hazardous fuels project under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This Chapter discusses goals, objectives and philosophies that are common to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative, as well as Common specific design elements, treatments, and connected actions. This Chapter also discusses actions and alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study, as well as the City of Ashland's Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and background to the detailed proposal developed by community members as an alternative (the Community Altegtative) to the Forest Service Proposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency. The development of the Proposed Action and alternatives is in accordance with Title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). Under HFRA, authQrized hazardous fuel treatment projects cannot take place in any of the following: Wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or areas where the removal of vegetation is prohibited by an act of Congress or Presidential proclamation (including prohibitions in the area's implementation plan). Ashland Forest Resiliency contains no such areas. All proposed HFRA actions must be consistent with the applicable resource management plans and they must be on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (or USDI BLM). This means that any proposed action that would not be consistent with a resource management plan must be: modified to make it consiste 1 The Preferred Alternative was developed between the Draft and Final EIS and was based on further collaboration with the City of Ashland and further analysis of the effects of the two Action Alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency Ashland Forest Resiliency is authorized under several provisions of Title I ofHFRA. The Proposed Action includes areas within the wildland-urban interface, as well as areas beyond 1 1/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community. For areas within the wildland-urban interface, but farther than 1 1/2 miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, the USDA Forest Service is not required to analyze more than the proposed agency action and one additional action alternative (Section 104(d)(I)). Ashland Forest Resiliency is also authorized under the municipal watershed provisions of Title I ofHFRA (Sections 102 (a)(2) and (3). Ashland Forest Resiliency is additionally authorized under Section 102 (a)(5); projects that will enhance protection from catastrophic2 wildland fire for threatened and endangered species or their habitats and that maintain and restore such habitats. Under HFRA, Agencies are expected to analyze the effects of failing to take action;. under Ashland Forest Resiliency, the No-Action Alternative is analyzed in detail in accordance with HFRA and the NEP A process. 1. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan The City of Ashland's Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is the result of community- wide fire protection planning and the compilation of proJectdocuments developed by the staff and citizens of the City of Ashland and interested orgat1.izations relative to managing private and public land in and adjacent to the Ashland Creek W~tetshed. This plan was compiled in the summer of 2004 in response to the Federal Healtl1Y Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) and the Forest Service Proposed Action. . The City of Ashland Forest Lands Conunission, in conjunction with local conservation groups, individual citizens, and city staff worked for over five months on the details and organization of this plan. Weekly sub-committee meetings, email communications, a public forum, and a presentation to the Ashland City Council all took place between May and October of2004. The goals of the CWPP are as follows: );> Summarize and review regulations, past plans, community values, and actions as they relate to wildfife and forest management in the Ashland community and watershed; );> Present a community vision and plan for restoring resiliency to the forests of the watershed as allowed under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003; );> Analyze issues of community wildfire safety and make recommendations for increasing community wildfire preparedness; and );> Identify actions to decrease community wildfire hazards. 2 A wildland fire starting in the forest interface portion of this area during extreme fire weather conditions would likely result in a large percentage of the area burning at a high fire severity. A large-scale, high-severity wildland fire would remove vegetation from large areas exposing highly erosive granitic soils, threatening quality and quantity of Ashland's municipal water supply, and impairing the condition and function of the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve and therefore could be considered "catastrophic" . Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency The CWPP is designed as a living document meant for review and revision as the needs of the community change over time. Chapter 1 is a description of the Community Setting. Chapter 2 is a history of Wildfire and Community Involvement. Chapter 3 is a Community Wildfire Hazard Assessment. Information on Ashland's Wildfire Fuels Reduction Program is contained in Chapter 4. Recommendations for wildfire preparedness are outlined in Chapters 5 through 7. The last chapter contains all the action items identified throughout the plan so specific actions can be tracked. The action items include who is accountable, a timeline, and identification of funding. Chapter 8 of the CWPP contains details of a proposal developed by community members as an alternative to the Forest Service Proposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency. This alternative, crafted by volunteer professional forest and ecological scientists within the Ashland community, outlines a strategy addressing the risk of large-scale, stand replacing fire in the watershed. The alternative plan is referred to as the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative (AFRCA). The AFRCA is specifically designed to address the Purpose and Need statement established by the Forest Service as well as the requirements for an alternative as defined in the HFRA. According to the CWPP Executive summary, the community belieyes that "The wildfire threat to the City of Ashland and the surrounding watershed is manage~Jjle if we work together to address the issues. Local fire agencies are excellent resources for wildfire information and assistance. It is only through the combination of homeowner actions, community awareness, and firefighting capabilities that the community can reduce wildfire hazard. All of these elements are incorporated into the Ashland Community Wildfire Protection plan." 2. Developing the Proposed Action and Alternatives Section 1 04 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes special procedures when agencies prepare Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. Categorical exclusions cannot be used for the act's authorization to analyze fewerNEPA alternatives (Sectionsl04(c) and (d)), however, most of the requirements of Section 1 04 are consistent with normal NEP A practices. Section 104(e) of the HFRA requires agencies to provide notice of the project when preparing authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. Section 104(f) encourages meaningful public participation during preparation of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. The Forest Service shall facilitate collaboration when they are preparing authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. As appropriate, -c611aboration should include representatives from Tribes, local representatives from Federal and State agencies, local governments, landowners, other interested persons, community-based groups, and other nongovernmental organizations. Local involvement is critical when planning projects, setting project priorities, and allocating resources at the local level. In conjunction with the development of the Forest Service Proposed Action, a collaborative process was enacted with the City of Ashland. This collaborative process evolved with meetings in November and December 2004, and on into May 2005 with representatives of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical Team and the Forest Service NEP A planning team. The Technical Team provided details governing the strategy of the Community Alternative but did not participate in the analysis of consequences (a Federal Agency responsibility under NEP A) Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11- 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency () A 45-day public comment period for the Ashland Forest Resiliency DEIS formally began on June 24, 2005 with publication of a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (FR 44080). The 45-day comment period closed on August 8, 2005. In December of2005, representatives of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical Team and the Forest Service NEP A planning team to discuss and evaluate the possible "blending" of several aspects of the two action Alternatives that were analyzed in the Draft EIS. Discussions were ongoing without formal resolution or consensus. Collaboration continued in early 2006 between the Ashland Forest Lands Commission (AFLC) and the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Team (AFRCA T) regarding the Abiotic Suitability Model and the degradation of northern spotted owl habitat. Collaboration continued in early 2006 between the Ashland Forest Lands Commission (AFLC) and the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Team (AFRCAT) regarding the Abiotic Suitability Model and the degradation of northern spotted owlhabit'it. These discussions centered on the applicability of this model to the AFR project. Discussions with the Forest Service Forest Biologist occurred to understand the model and whether it could be applied. In spring 2006, planning for this project was delayed pendingJ;olllpletion of additional surveys for other rare or uncommon species, particularly for red tree vole and other mollusk species. These surveys were required by court orders and were <;Plllpleted by fall of 2007. The results of these surveys are being utilized for this projectand iisarid analysis. Forest Service planning resumed in early20Q8 wHhinformal discussions and communications with the District Ranger and the City of Ashlcindrepresentatives regarding the formulation of an additional action alte~ative, to be portrayedatid analyzed as the "Preferred Alternative". a. Number of Alternatjves Analyzed In Detail Under the HFRA, if the at-risk community has adopted a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the agency proposed action does not implement the recommendations in the plan regarding the gen~rallocation and basic method of treatments, agencies are required to analyze the rec()nullendations in the plan as an alternative to the Proposed Action (Sections 1 04( d)(2)and (3)). According to the HFRA, Agencies are not expected to develop a full no-action alternative. However, they should evaluate the effects of failing to implement the project. This information will be useful if courts consider requests for an injunction and must balance the short- and long-term effects of taking or failing to take an action. See the Judicial Review section of the Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide for more detailed information. \ For areas within the wildland urban interface, but farther than 1 1/2 miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, the Forest Service is not required to analyze more than the proposed agency action and one additional action alternative (Section 1 04( d)(1 )). Agencies are expected to analyze the effects of failing to take action. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 4 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( For authorized HFRA projects in all other areas, analyses must describe the proposed action, a no-action alternative, and an additional action alternative, if one is proposed during scoping or the collaborative process. If more than one additional alternative is proposed, the agency will select one and provide a written record describing the reasons for its selection (Section 104(c)). Ashland Forest Resiliency includes proposed fuel reduction treatments that occur under all of these criteria established by the HFRA. Therefore, a No-Action Alternative, the agencies Proposed Action and one additional alternative, the Community Alternative developed and offered by the City of Ashland, was analyzed in detail in the DEIS. There were no other formal alternatives proposed during scoping, however there are several strategies and other component actions that were considered but eliminated, as documented in Section D, below. Under the provisions ofNEPA, for the Final EIS, the Forest Service has developed and analyzed an additional action alternative, designed as the Preferred Alte:rnative; see below. b. Identification of the Preferred Alternative NEP A requires that this Final EIS identify the agency's Preferred Alternative or alternatives, if one, or more than one exists. As noted above, the Fo.restService has developed and analyzed an additional action alternative, designedJls tpe Preferred Alternative. The Forest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has identified this alternative as the Preferred Alternative, and is described at SectionC: 6, this Chapter. C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL This Section of this Chapter identifi~s and compares in detail four alternatives; the Forest Service Proposed Action, the CommUllity Alternative, the Preferred Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative or conducting manag~1l1ent activities for the purpose of hazardous-fuels reduction. The Proposed Action, the GotWnlinity Alternative, and the Preferred Alternative are hereafter referred to as the "Action ~lternatives." Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 02 (2) of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4332 (2)), the USDA, Forest Service is analyzing the Action Alternatives for the Ashland Forest Resiliency project as options for an authorized hazardous fuels project under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of2003. 1. The No-Action Alternative As required by NEP A and the HFRA, a No-Action Alternative is included and analyzed in this Final.EIS as a baseline against which the Action Alternatives can be compared. In this analysis, it also serves to analyze the consequences and effects that may occur without the implementation of currently proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatments. This alternative represents the current level of management within the Analysis Area with no additional hazardous fuel reduction activities. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 5 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( ( The No-Action Alternative under this EIS would have some very specific consequences if selected, because of the current vegetation conditions, and the potential effects to human values at risk. No-Action would also not be in concert with the existing Cooperative Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the City of Ashland. a. Function of the No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline against which to compare other alternatives. The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter (III) identifies and . describes in detail the baseline conditions of the physical, biological, and social envirofunents within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Under HFRA, the No-Action Alternative also has a special function. Persons maybring a civil action challenging an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project in a Federal District Court only if they raised the issue during the administrative review process and they have exhausted the administrative review process (36 CFR 218) established by the Secretary of Agriculture. Section 106 of the HFRA establishes direction goveiningjudicial review of lawsuits challenging hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the Act. This section requires lawsuits to be filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt where the project is located (Section 106(a)), encourages expeditious judicial review of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects (Section 106(b)), and limits preliminary injunctions and stays to 60 days, subject to renewal. At each renewal, parties to t~eaction shall provide the court with updated information on the project (Sections 106(6)(1) and (2)). HFRA also directs courts to balance the impact of the short- and long-term effects of undertaking or not undertaking the proJect when weighing the equities of any request for an injunction of an authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction project (Section 1 06( c )(3)). The agencies' analyses an9 documentation of the short- and long-term effects of action or taking no action will be important to the court's evaluation of any request for injunctive relief. It is important that theNEP A analysis documents the anticipated short- and long-term effects of proposed HFRAtreatments. The analysis and documentation for the short- and long-term effects of action or taking no action under HFRA are intended to be integrated with the analy~js and documentation done under current NEP A guidance and other relevant guidance. b. Description of the No-Action Alternative \ / Fire Prevention . Wildland fire prevention activities would continue to occur under the No-Action Alternative. Wildland fire prevention is the informing, educating, and regulating of human behavior or activities that influence the various types of potential ignition sources within flammable vegetation. Analysis of human-caused fire indicates that these fires are most likely to occur near inhabited areas or heavily used areas such as campgrounds or along forest roads or trails (2003 Upper Bear Assessment). Most escaped fires have required only minimal suppression response and have generally been suppressed at less than 0.1 acres per incident. Efforts to educate the public on safe fire use would continue through personal contacts, interpretive programs, interagency fire prevention cooperatives, the use of posters and signs, radio and press releases. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 6 Ashland Forest Resiliency (~ '",-- Cooperative fire prevention with the City of Ashland, Oregon Department of Forestry, and Jackson County fire agencies would continue to maintain a proactive effort in preventing human-caused fires. Such cooperative fire prevention efforts as the volunteer mobile fire prevention patrol, the volunteer mountain bike patrol and Forest Service patrol would continue and be coordinated. Continuation of public neighborhood fire prevention meetings, discussions of defensible space, fire apparatus access, education about home construction materials (flammability) design, etc., would continue to take place periodically. Under No-Action, certain high-risk areas would continue to be closed to public use during high to extreme periods of fire danger. These closures (Public Use Restrictions) are recommended by the District Fire Management Officer in consultation with the District . Ranger and RR-SNF Fire Staff, and approved by the Forest Supervisor. Any closures would continue to be coordinated with neighboring agencies (State, local, and other Federal Agencies) to be sure the prevention message is consistent throughout the fire management unit. Pre-suppression Actions Under No-Action, no management activities for the purpose of tire hazard reduction would occur. Agreements with the City of Ashland (as outlined in~he Memorandum of Understanding between the Ashland Ranger District and the City of Ashland) to conduct fuels management for the protection of the Municipal Watershed may need to be re- negotiated. Previous management actions have occurred. withi1.lthe Analysis Area to aid in fire suppression activities. The primary activities were the construction of shaded fuel breaks and prescribed underburning to reduce fuel loadings. Although no hazardous fuel reduction activities would occur under this alternative (other than that identified in the Record of Decision for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (A WPP), actions would continue to occur to prevent and suppress wildland fire ignitions The management of fuels along strategic ridgelines has been the strategy in the Ashland Watershed for the past 20 to 25 years. Over this time, approximately 9.5 miles of shaded fuelbreaks have been COllstructed. The ~haded fuelbreak strategy employed in the Ashland Watershed focused 6n treating ridgelines more intensively and utilizing those ridglines to implement prescribed underburning to improve the effectiveness of the shaded fuelbreaks for suppression tactics. Prescribed underbuming, anchored to existing roads and fuelbreaks has been implemented on many acres in the Ashland Watershed since 1983. These treatments on the landscape were designed to reduce the fuel loadings in strategic areas, breaking up larger areas of heavier fuel loading into smaller, more manageable "compartments". The efficacy of the previously created shaded fuelbreaks has been largely lost because of inadequate or no maintenance. Without maintenance, woody vegetation will encroach, fuel loads will increase, and the effectiveness of fuelbreaks will be decreased (Agee et al. 2000). Many of the acres that were underburned have returned to the levels of fuel loading present before they were treated. Follow-up treatments to some of these areas would occur under AWPP. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-7 Ashland Forest Resiliency () The actions authorized under A WPP. are scheduled to implement approximately 1,500 acres of mechanical tree removal, manual fuel reduction treatments, and/or prescribed underbuming. No additional shaded fuelbreak construction or maintenance of existing fuelbreaks is planned to occur. The actions to be implemented under A WPP are deemed to be pre-suppression actions designed to aid in suppression, with some benefit to reducing effects. Fire Suppression Within the Upper Bear Analysis Area, the appropriate response for a wildland fire on National Forest System Lands would continue to be suppression (RRNF Fire Management Plan, Section 2). The Forest Service policy for fire suppression is to conduct fire suppression in a timely, effective, and efficient manner with a high regard for public and firefighter. safety. It is the objective of the Forest Service to respond to each wildland fire jgnition in a timely manner with appropriate forces, based upon established fire management direction as documented in the RRNF Land and Resource Management Plan and Fire Management Plans. It is important that, in addition to Federal fire fighting resources, St~teand local resources for initial attack are trained, equipped and prepared to address fire~ in th.e wildland urban interface. Appropriated Federal funds for preparedness applyonly to lands for which the Forest Service has direct fire protection responsibilities. l~ecause of this, most of the Upper Bear Analysis Area would continue to be covered by multi-agency mutual aid initial attack agreements. These mutual aid agreements would be reviewed and updated periodically by the various cooperative agencies. Updates and review would entail looking at the most efficient manner to help prevent or reduce effects t6 the Values At Risk. In Southwestern Oregon, annual coordination meetings occur in the spring. Agencies discuss the qualifications of personnel, anticipated availability or resources, funding opportunities, interagency support for fire and fuels management programs, as well as a critique of the previous operating season (Section 4 of the RR-SNF Fire Management Plan). Suppression by itself would J10t ensure that a large wildland fire would not occur within the Analysis Area. Due to the Constant change in annual Federal funding levels, it is difficult to predict the numbercpld type of suppression forces that would be available for any given season. Based OIi.paSfexperience, these forces are often spread thin by other local and regional incidents that require additional crews and equipment. In recent seasons, suppressioilactions have proven to be successful, and this can be attributed as well to other factors such as favorable weather conditions at the time of ignition, or early detection. In theJast few years and typically, the fire season will generally last from June 1 through October 31, with the most extreme conditions usually occurring in mid to late August. Various seasonal fluctuations in weather conditions may cause fire managers to lengthen or shorten the season. An early start to the fire season usually means fuels are drier for a longer period of time, which relates to the potential for a more severe wildland fire later in the season. ( Under the No-Action Alternative, the risk of a large-scale high-severity wildland fire would not change and would likely increase due to the growth and increase in vegetation and mortality of trees in dense stands that would occur, adding to the existing fire hazard. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 8 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( The main factors involved when assessing the risk of a large-scale high-severity wildland fire include the likelihood of ignition, the current fire hazard conditions as well as the agency's fire suppression capabilities of the time. The probability of a fire burning over a landscape is based on factors such as the chance of ignition, potential rate of spread, historical and predicted weather conditions, topography, and length of the fire season (Miller 2003). Consequences regarding these factors are analyzed and based on fire behavior and effects modeling using software designed for these purposes, and are discussed for the No-Action Alternative, as well as the Action Alternatives, in Final EIS Chapter III. Since no activity is proposed under this alternative, no additional mitigation measures or management requirements and constraints would be necessary, and therefore not displayed. 2. Goals, Objectives, and Assumptions Common to the Action Alternatives As previously noted, in conjunction with the development of the ForestSetvice Proposed Action and the City of Ashland's Community Alternative, a collaborative process was enacted. This collaborative process evolved with meetings in November and pecember 2004, and on into May 2005 with representatives of the Ashland Forest ResiliencyCoIl1Il111uity Alternative Technical Team and the Forest Service NEPA planning team. One objective of this collaboration process was to identify commonalities as well as differences in order to define and analyze the two Action Alt~rnatiyes (as analyzed in the Draft EIS). During the course of this process, many goals, objectives and overall assumptions were identified as being common to the Action Alternatives. This.. Section serves to identify these commonalities so they are not unnecessarily duplicateda..s further detail is presented for the Action Alternatives in this Chapter. The Action Alternatives propose treatment of National Forest System lands within the Upper Bear Analysis Area to develop a resilient ecosystem (see definition of resiliency in Chapter I). The stated Purpose is "to protect Values At Risk, reduce hazardous fuels, reduce crown fire potential and obtain conditions that are more resilient to wildland fires". The stated Need is "for urgent reductioll of the potential for large-scale, high-severity wildland fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area". .. Action Alternatives are responsive to this Purpose and Need. Action Alternatives are based on the Purpose and Need and propose management in the form of hazardous fuel reduction treatments, implemented at an appropriate scale over approximately the next 10 years to reduce the potential for large-scale, high-severity wildland fire events while maintaining other resource values. These values include water supply and quality and late-successional species habitat in forests that are influenced by fire over the long term. -, l ) Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-9 Ashland Forest Resiliency () CO_') ,.~..____:~jl Action Alternatives propose to make substantial progress toward attainment of Purpose and Need by making reasoned, prudent and professionally credible alterations to and manipulations of existing vegetation and fuels in order to promote restoration of long-term ecosystem function while simultaneously reducing short-term, immediate threats to important Values At Risk. Action Alternatives utilize the following strategies, where ecologically appropriate, to meet these goals: ~ Treating primarily small-diameter hazardous fuels; ~ Reducing the density of understory seedlings, saplings and poles to reduce ladder fuels; ~ Variable density management (thinning from below) to create more open stand conditions; ~ Proposing treatment prescriptions based on Plant Association Groups, plant associations, and site-specific conditions, such as aspect, slope, soils, geologic hazard, ~ctive nest sites for northern spotted owl, etc.; and ~ Using prescribed fire where appropriate and feasible to reduqeexistjpg fuels. Action Alternatives would achieve goals beyond fire resiliency by creating a more natural landscape. The Action Alternatives seek to: ~ Restore integrity and resilience of terrestrial and ~quaticecosystems by promoting functional ecosystem processes that contribute to (orest stand densities, structures, and species compositions that are sustainable over the long-term. This approach recognizes that a range of seral conditions is appropriate at any one time in the Analysis Area and that the potential for development and long~term expression of late seral conditions varies across the landscape. ~ Design treatment strategies fOfthe Analysis Area supporting ecological processes that foster the structural, compositional, and functional diversity at all spatial scales inherent in this portion of the eastern Slskiyou Mountains. ~ Retain late seral condition forests where the site potential is high for sustaining them over the long term. . . In early and mid seral stands, actively manage where necessary to restore ecological processes that would lead to the development of late seral conditions in a shifting pattern. across the landscape, consistent with an active natural fire regime. ~ Manage to maintain and restore habitat connectivity for late-successional species in those sites that best support this kind of habitat. ~ Restore stands of open canopied pine and Douglas-fir with abundant legacy trees (including hardwoods and other species) where the site potential is high for sustaining such systems over the long term. ~ Manage the Analysis Area to protect the municipal watershed including protection and restoration of aquatic and riparian conditions, to support and allow for continued production of high quality drinking water for the City of Ashland. ~ Reduce the potential for large-scale high-severity disturbance events, particularly wildland fire events. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 10 Ashland Forest Resiliency ,.--..--...""" () '- --..;.-"" Ashland Forest Resiliency is intended to meet the restoration goals and objectives listed above. Stand treatments and other vegetation manipulations would be implemented only where needed to facilitate restoration of ecosystem processes, or to reduce immediate threats to Values At Risk. Restoring biological, physical and chemical processes and functions to ensure the long-term ecological sustainability of the public lands in the Analysis Area is more important to the Forest Service and the Ashland Community than the output of forest products. As a result, any commodity production derived from the implementation of this proposal would occur only as a by-product of management and only when such activities do not impair efforts to restore the ecological integrity of the Analysis Area. While this project primarily focuses on initiation of planned disturbances and structural manipulation of existing hazardous fuels and vegetation, the long-term goal is to use these efforts to facilitate the return of a more dynamic range of natural functional proce~ses; particularly fire. Where possible and appropriate, prescribed fire should be introducediJ.1,un~giately to help return fire as a functional process in the Analysis Area. - .. - In the long-term, however, it is anticipated and hoped, that theactioJ1s proposed herein will facilitate a return to conditions where natural disturba~l.c~ processes, including prescribed fire and Wildland Fire Use, can playa more natural l"ole as. a basic functional process within the ecosystem. a. Confidence of Planning Level Data As noted in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment and in this Draft EIS, development and design of proposals (vegetation analysis) is 1JClSedon satellite imagery and organized by PAGs. Satellite imagery is utilized instead of extensive ground-based inventories. Given the urgency and need for hazardous..fuel reduction treatments, the best and most readily available data was utilized. Data accuracy for planning purposes and analysis under NEP A is deemed to be adequate. This sub-section further discusses the confidence in planning level data. The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was completed in December 2003. Since that time (2004- 2005), there have ~een several corrections, updates, and supplements to the information provided in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. These updates are documented in Appendix D to this Draft EIS,to provide a most accurate assessment of the current condition (Affected Environment)as possible, in support of analysis under Ashland Forest Resiliency. An update to thePAG analysis was conducted by a collaborative team and is also documented in Appendix D. Satellite Imagery Accuracy The use of satellite imagery allows large areas to be assessed on a consistent basis and is considered the "best available" data that maps and provides consistent vegetation characteristics throughout the Analysis Area regardless of ownership. Other vegetation maps either stopped at the National Forest boundary or consisted of interpreted data (assumptions of conditions made from aerial photos). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 11 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( Satellite imagery utilized for Ashland Forest Resiliency was developed by Geographic Resource Solutions in 1994 in conjunction with the Applegate Adaptive Management Area, designated under the Northwest Forest Plan. The area covered by this imagery includes the area within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. An accuracy assessment for this imagery was performed in the Applegate Watershed (immediately west of the Analysis Area) and determined the imagery to be 86+% accurate (Hill 1996). When used at the watershed and sub-watershed scales, local Forest Service experience has shown the reliability of the imagery to be relatively high (Boucher pers. obs. 2005). Accuracy for satellite imagery utilized for the Action Alternatives for Ashland F ores! Resiliency is assumed to be 80+%. It is important to note some limitations in terms of the satellite imagery used for this analysis. The imagery was classified over a large area and as such, individual pixels of data may not exactly match on the ground. Though, when viewed at the landscape or Analysis Area scale, the imagery presents a consistent "snapshot" which is useful for design of actions and planning. The overriding assumption for the Proposed Action and Community Alternative is that actions would be performed only after field verification of specifictreatIllent criteria (see sub-section b, below). PAG Map Accuracy Plant Association Group (P AG) mapping is based on &tati~tical analysis of ecoplot data and adjusted based on field review. In development oftheJatest and revised map, the PAG map was compared against ecoplots, stand exams, andPA6 plots. Sampling of plots found to be correctly identified by the P AG model map identified an 87% accuracy rate. Fuel Model Accuracy Fuel models characterize major Pl1ysicalproperties of vegetation and how they react to fire, including expected flame length and rate of spread. These fuel models are described in: Aids to Determining Fuel Models For ESJimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 1982. Fuel model mapping was updated from the map contained in 2003 Upper Bear AssessIllentbased on additional information gathered in the field by fuels specialists. Various vegetation characteristics (using vegetation mapping derived from LandsatTM satellite imagery) were correlated to the 13 standard fuel models described by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. The accuracy of this mappIng, based on field review and validation,spggests that Fuel Model map accuracy is 95+%. Other Inventories Data associated with certain other resource areas has been inventoried and ground validated in conjunction with the need or ability to accomplish inventory. Many resource planning inventories are primarily related to consequences analysis, and as such, are further discussed in Draft EIS Chapter III. Detailed resource inventories have been conducted within the Upper Bear Analysis Area, and especially the Ashland Watershed for many years. Due to numerous previous management activities and the importance of the Values At Risk, the Analysis Area has a very high level of inventory and resource knowledge; much higher than most landscapes located on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-12 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( (~) ,___~;...,;.._,p";/ Examples of resource data inventories that are related to design and development of alternative proposals that has been field validated to a high level of accuracy include rare and Sensitive plants and plant communities including non-native species (approximately 95% accuracy), and nest sites for northern spotted owls (approximately 90% accuracy). Aquatic inventories are 95+0/0 accurate. Insect and disease surveys are at 95%+ accuracy. Site-specific soils and geologic stability mapping for planning inventory purposes is approximately 90+% accuracy. Heritage surveys are 95% accurate. Critical to a number of physical and biological resources are the site-specific inventory of locations and condition~ of existing and potential helicopter landing sites (field inventoried to approximately 85% accuracy). b. Assumptions About Implementation A key assumption common to the Action Alternatives is the basis of implementation. Action Alternatives utilize a concept that treatments would be located and conducted as specified in design elements and/or specific mitigation measures. These criteria are, specific to each Action Alternative and are discussed in the following sub-sections of this Chapter. As seen in the Action Alternatives, certain amounts of tre'!t.!TIeilts are proposed associated with certain design criteria or limitations. The on-the-~6tJ.1.idconditions that trigger these criteria are to be identified and validated at the time <,>f9fg0l1current with implementation. Concurrent monitoring would ensure that -the effec~o:(.any decision are equal to or lesser than those documented in NEP A planning analy~ls.~d decision. Under NEP A, there is a need to accurately,estimate the extent of treatments, their locations, and the degree of environmental effect.Ata landscape scale, this NEP A process predicts this extent in order to predict co;nseque:nces. These predictions are used to set limits or "thresholds" on this extent. Wit? extensive active and concurrent monitoring, these thresholds would allow the implementation of the decision under NEP A and ensure that the decision would not exceed the established thresholds and therefore the predicted effects. c. A WPP Assumptions The Community Alternative Technical Team analysis and design presumed that the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (A WPP) would be completed in its entirety (Record of Decision May 2001). Completion of the planned A WPP was identified as a "top priority", integral to the fuel discontinuity network of the Community Alternative. The majority of the manual treatments under A WPP have been accomplished at this time. None of the mechanical treatments have been accomplished. Federal funding and the economic feasibility of treatments under the A WPP decision remain uncertain. Depending on the final decision for Ashland Forest Resiliency, the decisions under A WPP mayor may not be compatible (for example, maintenance of shaded fuelbreaks under A WPP calls for removal of large snags; creation of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones under the Proposed Action does not). . Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 13 Ashland Forest Resiliency c. Under collaborative discussions, the Forest Service and City have agreed that the Forest Service should plan the entire landscape based on its current condition at the time of implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency, and not defer treatments until after A WPP treatments are completed. It is possible that implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency could combine with portions of uncompleted A WPP treatment areas, where logical and feasible. d. Prioritizing and Scheduling Treatment Common to the Action Alternatives, the overall recommended strategy for action is to develop and implement AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, an integrated package of connected actions designed to obtain (to a high degree), the stated Purpose and Need, while meeting. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Action Alternatives involve a landscape-based strat~gy for approximately the next 10 years. The following Sections of this Chapter are designed to categorize andqrgfiWize proposed actions designed to obtain the stated objectives. Each Action Ahernat!.y~ identifies potential treatments and delineates priorities. They suggest an approximatetemp()ral scheduling scenario, including follow-up and maintenance treatments. ( '. When priorities are identified, they identify what typepttteatment should occur frrst (and where), compared to other priorities. This does not briplythat priorities cannot be implemented concurrently or that the initial pri9ri~!.,s must be completed prior to enactment of the next priority; priorities only suggest a logical order and sequencing of treatments. The range of scheduling is dependeht.bn funding and available workforce, however, should funding be available, the authorized actions (treatments) could be accomplished in less than 10 years. .. . The need for additional treatments.for.beyond 10 years should follow the same logic and criteria. For example, the wildlaJ:1d urban interface and Municipal Watershed will likely always be the highest priority for treatment. Not including the need for continued maintenance of treated areas, the next highest priority for treatment would be areas within the wildland urban interface that have not already been treated. The overall objective for the majority of the area is ecosystem resiliency, as defined by desired conditio1.1s and processes associated with P AGs. Similar logic should be applied to other areas where treatments are recommended, i.e., after priority areas have been treated within the first 10 years, continue treatments in untreated areas during the next 10-year period. Proposed treatments described herein do not imply actions or decisions for the next phase. The need for additional treatments in the next phase would be re-assessed under NEPA and a new analysis and decision-making process. C) The overall strategy of the Action Alternatives is to return conditions to a more natural state; therefore the closer the current condition is (whenever that may be) to a more natural state, the less need there is for active/intensive management. It has taken nearly 100 years for conditions to develop into the non-natural conditions seen today; it would likely take several decades of intensive management to return to more natural and desired conditions. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11-14 Ashland forest Resiliency (-~-".'\ I 1 " ,of 3. Specific Actions and Elements Common to the Action Alternatives As noted above, the Acton Alternatives were finalized under a collaborative process with representatives of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical Team and the Forest Service NEP A planning team. During the course of this process, many elements of proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatment action were identified as being common to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative, and to the Preferred Alternative. This Section serves to identify common actions, treatments and treatment methodologies associated with the Action Alternatives. a. Methodology for Application of Treatments This planning process under NEP A has focused on the objectives and extent oftfeatments (the outcome or what is left on the landscape), rather than focusing on implementation (or the output of what is taken from the landscape). Additionally, throughout this process, the focus has been on ecological, rather than economic design criteria. There are a number of options to accomplish implementation of proposed fuel reduction treatments. Implementation of the different aspects of the proj~c~ proposals could be accomplished through various acquisition methods, or com~ination of methods, such as contracts, formal agreements, volunteers, community-s~rvicecrews and Forest Service work crews. The type of contract, agreement, or work crew~>sel.ected for use would be part of an overall project implementation strategy and plan, bas'e<jon methods that best meet each project goal or objective, combined with Federalacquisition regulations and financing available for implementation. Under the Action Alternatives, within vatioustreatment proposals and prescriptions, there is a potential to generate material with cOmmercial product value. While not ignoring that aspect of the proposal, it has not been the focus, i.e., neither the Forest Service nor the City of Ashland is specifically prgposing a commercial timber sale, and are not proposing the sale of cODhpercial products to exclusively finance the hazardous fuel reduction treatments. Under the HFRA, financing and other opportunities would be developed subsequent toa decision under NEP A to go forward with treatments. Subordinate tothis methodology, there has been no specific effort to estimate the quantity of commercial product; this is simply not the emphasis for treatments. Although rough estimates Qfpotential total amounts of biomass (measured in cubic feet) that would be generated are presented in Chapter III (consequences), there is no estimate of product in commercial sawlog quantities (i.e., board feet). Appropriate methods for any commercial product evaluations would be accomplished during implementation, ensuring fair value and return to the US Treasury from public lands. At this time, a likely scenario for implementation of this multi-year proposal for hazardous fuel reduction treatments is the use of Stewardship authorities for contracting. This is summarized in the following sub-section. F.inal EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II 11-15 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ,.~~ / -- ''''>\. t, ) ~, j..v Stewardship Contracting "Stewardship Contract" is a term applied to a service contract that "bundles" or combines numerous actions into contracts to capitalize on economies of scale, more efficient scheduling of work, and to minimize impacts on the land through staging of the work. Authority to utilize stewardship contracting for Ashland Forest Resiliency has been obtained by approval of the Regional Forester, per Section 323 of Public Law 108-7 (2450/6320; April 28, 2004). The general purpose of stewardship end results contracting is to achieve land management goals for the National Forest System lands while meeting local and rural community needs. Stewardship contracting is a tool and should be used when it is the most effective tool for accomplishing the land management objectives described by the land and resource management plan (FSM 1920 and FSH 1909.12). Stewardship contracting provides for multi-year contracts up to 10 years duration. The use of multi-year contracts is encouraged to provide incentives to potentialcontractors to invest in long-term landscape improvement projects. In accordance with161J.S.C. 2104 note (d)(3), the value of services received, payments made, or resoutbes,pfQvided under a stewardship contract shall not be considered to be monies rece.iyedfrom the National Forest System for the purpose of calculating payments to States (FSH(j509.11 g, sec. 61.1). Therefore, stewardship contracts do not require a minimllDTde.posit to National Forest Fund (NFF) as prescribed in FSM 2431.31 and FSH 2409, ,Section 45.42. When the value of the products generated by a steWaJ:"pship contracting project exceeds the cost of the services rendered, excess offsetvaluer~srilts and residual receipts (sec. 60.5) are generated. Residual receipts may be transferte4.to another stewardship contracting project (when approved in advance by the Regional Forester) or directed to trust funds. Residual receipts should be used on the samest~wardship project or other approved stewardship projects. Title 16 V.S.C. 2104 note (c)(4) (sec. 60.1, para. 4) allows for the use of designation of trees by descriptio~3.1Jd designation of trees by prescription without marking. These methods must be used in a manner that ensures that the amount of material removed is verifiable and accountable; 1. Desifmation bv Description. Designation by description may be used for both commercial and non-cofIll11ercifll material, independent of the means of estimating the quantity of material to be removed. Qesigriation by description should be used only when it is the most efficient method of designation. The description must be based on characteristics that can be verified after the material is removed; an example would be a certain species of tree with a given stump diameter. 2. Desigriation bv Prescription. Designation by prescription may be used for non-commercial material, independent of the means of estimating the amount of material to be removed, and for cotnmercial material when the amount of material to be removed is determined by scaling in accordance with FSH 2409.11. Forest Service Designation, Authority and Responsibility This sub-section discusses Federal Forest Service responsibility for designation of trees to be removed. Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 V.S.C. Section 472a (g), states "Designation, marking when necessary, and supervision of harvesting of trees, portions of trees> or forest products shall be conducted by persons employed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Such persons shall have no personal interest in the purchase or harvest of such products and shall not be directly or indirectly in the employment of the purchaser thereof." Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II 11-16 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( '~ , \ _....l There also may not be any influence in the trees designated by anyone other than an employee of the Department of Agriculture with no personal interest in the purchase or removal of designated forest products. Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act ofFY 1999 - As amended by Sec. 323 of P.L. 108-7,2003 "Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects" (c) (4) Relation To Other Laws. "The Forest Service may enter into agreements or contracts under sub-section (a), notwithstanding sub- sections (d) and (g) of Section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16U.S.C. 472a)." b. Treatment Elements To accomplish the objectives for each Action Alternative, a variety of treafinent options are identified. The various proposed treatments that would be used to impl~ment each alternative that are common to the Action Alternatives are described in: more detail below. They are organized for this discussion into three categories: density management, surface fuel treatments, and prescribed fire. These terms are utilized in subsequent discussions on applications of treatments. /Density Mana2emen~ Density management involves the selective cuttingJand sometimes disposal or removal) of some trees within a stand to allow for growtbin, the crowns and root systems of the remaining trees. Stands receiving this treatnlentare generally over-dense, with high crown density and ladder fuels. Usually all large; dominant or pre-dominant trees are left. Methods are designed to treat stands in a way tha,t'miinics past or other desired conditions that improve forest health and reduce'fireh~ards. Methods to dispose of slash created during the activity may include chipping, handpiling and burning, jackpot burning, and/or underburning. Variable density managemeritrefers to a range of non-uniform stand treatments that modify vegetation (i.e., reducethedensity of existing trees) to achieve the objectives described above for each eletnent.'x common methodology to achieve this treatment is also referred to as "thin from below". Under the Action Alternatives some level of treatment would occur, depending on location and specific objective. Density would be varied in some areas for high levels of insect risk, unstable areas, northern spotted owl core areas, and Riparian Reserves, and legacy trees, depending on the alternative. All diameter and age classes are available for treatment based on a description of desired conditions. "thin From Below" - Is a type of silvicuhuraltreatmentthat. reduces stand density. To. achieve the desired density, cutting or removal would begin with the smallest diameter trees and move up in size class until the desired objective is met.'" Thinningremoves the smaller diameter trees that serve as ladder fuels and reducesstressJothe larger diameter residual trees. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-17 Ashland Forest Resiliency () (-) ~ ....-.$" Under the Action Alternatives, stands would be thinned from below to a specified relative stand density index. Treatments would be designed to produce an average flame length of 4- 6 feet or less under 90th percentile weather conditions.. "90th percentile" Weather Conditions are defined as "9()Ih Percentile Weather b. . f h 'd' . d d fu 1 Conditions" the com InatIon 0 temperature, umI Ity, WIn , an e 1 h -- F IM-. t ---5201 . h' dri d' d' h 900/ f our ue OIS ure - . 10 mOIsture t at IS warmer, ~r, an w~n Ier t an /00 10 hour Fuel Moisture 6.0% all summer days. Under 90 percentIle weather 100 hour Fuel Moisture 9.3% conditions, 10% of the summer days are assumed to be 1,000 hour Fuel Moisture. 1 0.6% hotter, drier, and windier. For example: the fire season is Herbaceous Fuel Moisture 57.7% described as the 153-day period between May 1 and Woody Fuel Moisture 80.0% September 30th. Ten percent (or 15 days) would be 20footWind Speed 5.9mph h d . d' d' h h d. . d 'b d Temperature 92 degrees otter, ner, an WIn Ier t an t e con ItIons escn e as - -- _- 90th percentile. For Ashland Forest Resiliency, weather and fuel moisture data was taken fronithe Buckhorn Springs Remote Automated Weather Station (RA WS)3 that is typical for the lower elevations within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Relative Stand Density Index is used to express the relationship offhe actual density of trees in any stand relative to the theoretical maximum den~~typossible for trees of that size (Reineke 1933). Values can be determined based on the number of trees per acre and the diameter of the average tree. This value is comparedtotbe.maximum density by primary species to achieve a relative value. A value of 1.0vvoQ,1.d be equivalent to the theoretical maximum density. Management actions, such a$thihning, can be implemented to create stand densities that optimize various resourcc;;rbbjectives. For example, relative density can be used to establish a stand density thatJully>occupies a site while preventing initiation of understory vegetation and ladder fuels: Sp~cific treatment prescription guidelines are described for each Action Alternative;DEIS Appendix Band C further describe and discuss relative stand density objectives. Common to Action Altern4tives and associated with density management and relative stand density index is a design element that staggers or "stages" density management treatments. This element is designed to allow time for root development (wind firmness) in residual trees, and to minimi~e"shock" related responses that reduce tree or stand vigor. Quality and vigor of the trees to. be retained would help determine the need for staging under density management to. obtain desired relative densities. Where existing stand density conditions are in excess of 0.6, and treatments are designed to reduce dep.sity to 0.6 (or less), in many cases (especially in Interface Compartments Douglas- fir PAGs) this thinning would be done in stages to slowly release stands from the excessive densities that have existed for many years, and to minimize detrimental effects on soil productivity. Staged areas are candidates for further treatment in 3-10 years, depending on site and stand conditions. 3 Data from Buckhorn Springs: Calculated by Fire Family Plus, version 3.0.4. Data years 1996-2003. Elevation 2,900 feet. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-18 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( Variable density management treatments under the Action Alternatives are designed to promote and maximize retention of "legacy" trees throughout the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area. The term "legacy" tree refers fo existing large, old trees that were present prior to the beginning of fire exclusion. For this analysis, these trees are typically pine species or Douglas-fir over 150 years old (which may be determined by coring), or trees with a detectable fire scars with a diameter that is at least twice that of the average diameter for the stand surrounding it. Legacy trees can also include hardwoods and other species where these species are remnants of a previous stand. ISurface Fuel Treatment~ Surface fuels include removal or rearrangement of dead and down wood on the forest floor and understory vegetation (generally shrubs and small trees 6 to 8 feet tall). ~emoval of ladder fuels is also included in this category. This component of forest structure would be managed in various amounts to minimize or reduce the intensity of surface fires and minimize the potential for a crown fire to be initiated. Coarse woody material and snags would be maintained within the ranges identified for each individual P AG (see Component 2, pages 2-31 through 2-35 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, and sub-section C, this Chapter). Within unstable areas and Riparian Reserves, coarse w~ody material would be maintained in the upper end of the desired range to additionally proviqe for specific resource needs, such as soil stabilization, etc. Pruning The objective of this method is to eliminate ladder fuels by cutting branches from larger trees to specified heights above the ground Or surface fuels. This is typically accomplished with chain saws or long-handled pole saws. Manual Slashing This term applies to the cl!tting of dense brush or saplings to reduce fuel loadings, primarily with chainsaws or hand labor. Manual slashing aids in creating greater vertical separation between surface fuels and canopy fuels, thus reducing the risk of torching and crowning. It is typically followed by handpiling and burning. This treatment would be employed where there is generally ahopen canopy (less than 40% canopy closure) and would not include heavy mechanical equipment. Lop and Scatter This is a method of slash reduction where accumulations and concentrations are mechanically broken up (with chainsaws and hand labor) and dispersed from dense locations. This places woody material in proximity to the soil, where decomposition and soil building processes can begin. No burning is prescribed under this method. This treatment is typically used where the slash accumulation is not expected to be heavy and risk of ignition is low. This method could be applied on unstable areas (Landslide Hazard Zone 1) where additional ground cover is required. . Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 19 Ashland Forest Resiliency ^)............'.... () (:~ \ (~) , - j/ Chipping There are two opportunities for chipping. A limited amount of chipping using a mechanical chipper that is towed behind a truck could be accomplished where treatments are adjacent to existing classified4 roads (see Component 4 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment) to dispose of small diameter material. Chipped material could be used for erosion control along cut banks or fill slopes or could be hauled away as a miscellaneous forest product opportunity. Another opportunity is to locate a large "drum chipper" on a landing area and chip material that is.hauled to the site. This method may be utilized in areas where the fuels could not be treated on site by burning or piling without causing unacceptable resource damage. Chip~ would then be hauled from the site. Another untested potential application is use ofa portable chipper that is moved around by helicopters. Hand Piling This method would be used when the amount of fuels build up is too heavy t()Underburn without resulting in detrimental effects to the residual forest stand and soils. Concentrated areas of existing and post-treatment fuels are hand cut with chainsaws and piled (3 to 6 feet in diameter). Off-Site Removal of Fuels An additional consideration of surface fuels treatments is the need to remove fuels from the site, typically when resulting fuel loading is very high (eith~r naturally or created). This condition can occur if burning is not practical (because()f unacceptable soil effects or burning window [see below] is too small), or when other methods are likewise impractical. !Activity Fuel Treatment~ During hazardous fuel reduction treatments. (understory slashing, pruning, and thinning operations), activity fuels would be created. Because hazardous fuel reduction treatments without follow-up slash treatment would only aggravate wildfire potential and behavior, activity fuels would be managed on all treatment areas to reduce subsequent fire behavior. These treatments would likely be a combination of the surface fuel treatments as described above. Once hazardous fuel reduction treatments and activity fuel treatments are completed, it is hoped that prescribed fire would be utilized extensively in a long-term maintenance program, returning low t6 mQderate severity fire to more of its historical role as an ecosystem disturbance proc~ss. WrescribedFir~ A prescribed fire is any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written. prescribed fire plan, also referred to as a burn plan, is required to be developed and approved by the District Ranger prior to ignition. Prescribed fire plans guide the implementation based on site-specific conditions (including fuel moisture and weather conditions) at the time of planned ignition, and provide for pre- and post-bum evaluation to monitor the burn and its effectiveness at meeting resource objectives. These defined conditions when burning could occur, are termed the "bum window". 4 Classified Roads are roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, County roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service (36 CFR 212.1). Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 20 Ashland Forest Resiliency C) (_._~~.) '.. -~,j' To meet State air quality requirements, prescribed burning would be implemented during periods of atmospheric instability (when weather disturbances are moving into or through the area) and air is not trapped by inversions on the valley floor. Presently, the majority of burning is carried out in the spring when fuel moisture and soil moisture levels are highest and air conditions offer more opportunities. This can limit the number of days when prescribed fire may be used. While fall burns present challenges to fire managers, such as increased temperatures, erratic winds, lower fuel moisture and increased fire behavior, conducting prescribed burns at this time may reduce adverse effects to non-target plant and wildlife species. Under the Action Alternatives, prescribed fire would be utilized any time of the year when desired resource objectives can be attained. Types of prescribed burning that would be used to achieve the various fuel reduction objectives are described below: Pile Burning Small piles (3-6 feet in diameter) of vegetation debris (that are a result. ofharid piling) would be allowed to cure or dry to optimize consumption, and wQuld be burned following adequate moisture accumulation to prevent escaped fire and achieve resource objectives. U nderburning Prescribed underburning involves the controlled applicatiopoffire to understory vegetation and coarse woody material. This would occur when fuelIlloisture, soil moisture, and weather and atmospheric conditions allow for the fiteto be confined to a predetermined area and intensity to achieve the planned resourqe objectives. Where underburning is prescribed as the sole treatment for an are~, follo",,-up maintenance burning would be needed in 5 to 8 years to remove the vegetatior( killed from the first prescribed underburn. A period of time between the initialand second underburn is needed to allow for protective soil cover (duff, litter, forbs) to rebuild for soil protection, and for the material killed by the first burn to fall to the forest floor. Swamper Burning Swamper burning involvesgand-cutting material to be burned, starting a small fire, and continuously feeding hand cut material into the fire. The fire ring size ranges from about 4 to 10 feet in diameter, depending on the steepness of the slope (on steep slopes the fire ring can increase in size as a result of rolling debris and convection heat). Jackpot Burning Jackpot burning is the burning of discontinuous, concentrated areas of slash created from veg~tation treatments (e.g., variable density management). Burning would typically occur following an extended period of dry weather which would allow the slash to cure for optimal consumption. c. Design Elements During the course of the collaborative process, several design elements of proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatment action were identified as being common to the Action Alternatives. This sub-section serves to identify common design elements associated with the Proposed Action and Community Alternative. Elements that are not common or are unique or specific to the Proposed Action or Community Alternative are discussed in other specific sub-sections of this Section and Chapter. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 21 Ashland Forest Resiliency ()'.~"'""~:"' '-.." / ( \, ( ") ~ - . ~~ __,..;,i ICoarse Woody Material (Sna2s and Down Wood~ 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. CWM also moderates temperature and moisture extremes and provides a seed bed for some plant species. Past management has changed the recruitment and accumulation of snags and downlogs. Mortality salvage immediately changed the forest structure by removing snags and subsequently changed the recruitment and accumulation of down logs. Fires PlCiY akey role in mediating the recruitment, accumulation and reduction of snags and downlogs. With fire suppression and longer interval between fires, the recruitment, size, composition and processes associated with coarse woody material changes. At the same time, with increased density in stands, mortality resulting from drought stress, insects, and clisease is increasing by an order of magnitude. How these conflicting impacts have changed the dynamics of coarse woody material is incompletely understood. Therefore, the Action Alternatives rely on the assumption that all snags and down logs serve important ecological roles. The general overall strategy under the Action Alternatives is to conserve snags and down wood by retaining them on site. When specific management considerations (such as proximity t6fire suppression lines, fire management safety, application of prescribed fire, urban interface, and the potential for insect outbreak) trigger a site-specific need to reduce coarse woody material, the material may be removed, provided worker safety and the ecological needs for coarse woody material have been satisfied. Snags Large snags over 21 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 forsheIter, 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 thirds of slopes are very important for late-successional dependent species. Clusters of snags are especially important. In riparian areas and upslope areas prone to landslide, snags of all size classes contribute the large woody material that is critical to creation and maintenance of stream structure and function. Snags in various size classes also are important to the recruitment pathways of the down coarse materials important to soils. Snags also can compromise wildfire suppression activities and the efficacy of fire suppression lines by increasing the rate of spread of a fire " through firebrand production (spotting) in their tops. This can result in a significant safety hazard that can limit or prevent personnel deployment into critical fuel management zones (A WSA 1999). Similar problems can occur during prescribed fire, but in those instances these concerns can be accommodated more readily with preplanning and treatment design. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II 11-22 Ashland Forest Resiliency () () Under the Action Alternatives, snag levels would be determined during implementation to identify where snags are deficient. In such circumstances, trees otherwise identified for removal may be retained as snags in lieu of removal. Largest diameter trees not selected for retention would be considered highest priority for snag creation/retention. Snag creation can also include blasting the tops, girdling, inoculation with fungi, or leaving trees with heavy mistletoe. If snags are determined to be in excess of the targeted maximums, they may be felled to meet down wood or other objectives first, then subject to evaluation for removal as hazardous fuel. Snag levels on lower slopes would be retained within the upper one third of the range. for snags for that P AG as described in the 2003 Upper Bear Ecosystem Assessment. Greater retention on lower slopes would help offset reductions required in areas that are a high priority from a wildfire management perspective, such as ridge tops and other ~tfategic locations. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at currenJlevJels(i.e. no additional snags would be created) unless their retention would create .~wildfire management hazard. Snags that increase fire hazard would be felled and left on sit~lmless that, in turn, increases wildfire hazard. Snags should be retained as high as possible on slopes. Snags that extend above the primary canopy, but do not extend abovethelcevel of the ridgeline would be priority for retention. Areas around clusters of three or !l1ore snags are a priority for understory vegetation slashing arid pruning. Activity fuels would be hand piled and burned to reduce the potential for ignition around snag clusters~ Down Wood As with snags, down logs are important for 'Yildlife and aquatic ecosystem function. In addition, large coarse woody material is particularly important to maintaining and holding soils in place throughout the Analysis Area. Consistent with retention goals for snags, down coarse wood would be retained to support forest function. Under the Action Alternatives, down logs are to be retained and are considered excess only when all site considerations have met and in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. In general, Action Alternatives would maintain coarse woody material within the upper one third of the range for down logs for that P AG, with more logs retained in riparian areas and on northerly aspects than on southerly slopes. Where standing green trees are felled to meet habitat objectives; felled trees would be left in place as needed to meet coarse wood and/or soil objectives: ... A target range for number of pieces of coarse woody material per acre was developed for each Plant Association Group using current plot data presented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (see Component 2, Section VI). This report assumes that by maintaining the desired range of coarse woody material over all the sites, long-term site productivity would not be reduced. The target ranges (desired conditions) for the area are shaped by the land management goals and objectives, with domestic water quality being a primary concern (for the Ashland Creek Watershed), as well as late-successional habitat goals within most of the National forest portion of the Analysis Area. Because people, their management systems and their social and economic values are now part of the Upper Bear landscape, a return to past processes and exclusively natural conditions is not necessarily be the desired goal. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-23 Ashland Forest Resiliency C)) <~ (~ \" C) A key element of desired conditions for P AGs is down dead woody material. Desired levels of dead wood per acre are shown below for each PAG. These figures were derived from Ecology Plot data, adjusted by past conditions established by P AGs, with consideration of the DecAID5 advisory system. Table ll-l. Target Coarse Woody Material Levels Plant Association Group Diameter Class 10" -19.9" 0-7 0-7 0-7 0-12 0-11 10 - 33 >20" 0-9 0-9 0-9 0'-11. 0-1'1 , 0'- 11 < 10" 54 - 93 54 -122 0-94 0-67 0-69 0-35 /Hardwood~ Unlike many past and typical forest management projects thattend to encourage conifers, the Action Alternatives intend to more broadly promote eCQsystem functioning. Hardwoods are a critical part of the species mix and may require non-traditional practices to maintain their roles in ecosystem function and resiliency. Hardwoods. are particularly important structural features for wildlife habitat. Hardwoods are also encouraged, especially deciduous hardwoods such as Oregon white oak and California black oak, because they are les prone to crown fires than are conifers They help to reduce the overall potential forcrown fire while allowing for a greater canopy cover, Since hardwoods have the ability to sprout and hold soil after fire, areas with soil conservation concerns (e.g,'landslide hazard zones) are places where hardwoods should be encouraged. Oregon white oak:, California black oak, Pacific madrone, and golden chinquapin are the primary hardwoods in the Analysis Area, and larger individuals 'of these species (16 inches diameter and greater) are high priorities for retention and promotion. Special efforts to maintain hardwoods in developing stands are an important part of the Action Alternatives. Thinning around these remnant hardwoods is designed to increase their vigor, particularly since they tend to be shade-intolerant and easily overtopped by younger developing conifers in many situations. Removal of conifers from around preferred hardwoods should be dependent on the ability to remove them without damaging the preferred hardwood. Hardwoods of all species are particularly important components of stands and vegetation on more southerly to westerly aspects in the Analysis Area, while Pacific madrone is important on more northerly aspects on lower and mid elevations. 5 DecAID is a work in progress on a decayed wood advisory tool for Washington and Oregon forests (Marcot et aI., PNW Research Note 2002). The title can be read as decayed wood advisor and management aid "decay-aid" or "decision-aid": Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 24 Ashland Forest Resiliency C)\} '...... ,.,CC I/----."":~. ("..) \Botanical Resource~ Forest Service botanists, contract botanists, and other knowledgeable professional and amateur botanists have visited many portions of the Analysis Area over several decades. These visits have been on behalf of Forest Service planning efforts, academic and student- related botanical investigations, and recreational visits. Field reconnaissance for botanical resources in areas proposed for treatment under the Action Alternatives has been completed on the majority of proposed treatment areas. This sub-section discusses important botanical resource design elements common to the Action Alternatives. Complete botanical current conditions and consequences of Action Alternatives are described in DEIS Chapter ITI. Additional mitigation measures for botanical resources are described in Section C, sub.;; section 6, this Chapter. Clustered Ladyslipper and Mountain Ladyslipper Orchids Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered ladyslipper orchid) is present in the.National forest portion of the Analysis Area and is a Forest Service Sensitive v~cuJarplant. There are roughly 6 occurrences (13 small patches) of the clustered lady-slipper Qrchid; they are in the Tolman, Neil, and Wagner Creek sub-watersheds. The majority otthe patches and individuals are in the Tolman Creek sub-watershed in a relatively small portion ofT39S, RIE, sections 27, 34, and 35. Occurrences are in older Douglas-fir forest with madn)ne,white fir and dogwood. Two blocks (about 180 acres) in the upper Tolman sub-watershed would be excluded from hazardous fuel treatments to protect the ladyslipper orchid habitat under the Action Alternatives. Cypripedium montanum (mountain l~clyslipper orchid) is an uncommon and locally rare vascular plant. An occurrence with seven individuals was discovered in the upper Tolman Creek watershed T39S, RIE, section 34 during 2004 botany field reconnaissance. No other populations of Cypripediurrz montanum are known in the Analysis Area. Locally, suitable habitat for the mountain ladyslipper orchid is the same as for the clustered ladyslipper orchid. There is some evidence thafthe mountain lady-slipper orchid may be more able to survive habitat changes callsed by mechanical disturbance or fire than clustered lady-slipper orchid. Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum occurrences not within the 180-acre excluded area described above would also be excluded from hazardous fuel treatments with buffers placed around them that are 100 ft. radius on the north side and 200 ft. radius on the south side (designed to provide shade). Oak Fern In 1969, Dr. Frank Lang reported a population of Gymnocarpium dryopteris (oak fern) on Quartz Creek, a tributary of Neil Creek, in the Analysis Area. Field reconnaissance in 1995 and summer 2004 determined the population occupies approximately 1 mile of creek corridor from 3,630 ft. elevation up to 4,500 ft. The vast majority of plants are above 4,000 ft. The oak fern was found in a l/3-mile-Iong reach of another (un-named) tributary of Neil Creek in T40S, RIE, section 13 NW ~ and section 14 NE~. This occurrence presumably extends upstream into section 11 SE~. In the Analysis Area, oak fern is strictly riparian (and not associated with oaks). It is always within 100 ft. of these perennial streams and usually within 25feet. The habitat is moist, cool, shady or partly shady. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11- 25 Ashland Forest Resiliency C) .~ ( ) _..._.,,/iI The two riparian corridors where Gymnocarpium dryopteris (oak fern) grows would be excluded from treatments to maintain the cool, moist, shaded environment that currently exists there. The untreated area on the north bank would extend 150 ft. outward from the active stream channel. The untreated area on the south bank (which provides most of the shade) would extend 300 ft: outward from the active stream channel, with the exception that treating surface fuels and ladder fuels, without affecting the shade provided by the canopy, could occur in the outer 150 ft. of this buffer area. Other Botanical Design Elements Additional botanical design elements are noted here, as well as in the mitigation measure section for botanical resources (Section C, sub-section 6, this Chapter). They are discUssed here because of their noteworthy prominence and/or occurrence within the Ana~ysisArea. Perennial wetlands (with or without clearly defined stream channels) would be managed under the Action Alternatives in the same manner as perennial streams, iQ order to maintain habitat for the rich bryophyte and vascular plant communities thatqccur in these wetlands. Throughout all hazardous fuel treatments, Juniperus occidenta/is (western juniper) trees (locally rare) shall not be adversely affected or cut, or removed~ The old alder wetland within the Ashland RNA where the D}oss Ulota megalospora occurs would be left undisturbed. Black oaks that are known to harbor the licheI).Dehfiriscocaulon intricatulum, and _ neighboring black oaks as well, shall not b~adversely affected or cut, or removed. Throughout all hazardous fuel treatments,Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce) trees shall not be adversely affected or cut, or r~moved. A shady or partly shady ground condition (suitable for spruce reproduction) would be maintained where spruce trees currently exist (only pertinent in a few places where spruces grow more than 50 ft. away from a perennial stream channel or wetland, where treatments could open the canopy more than desirable for spruce reproduction. Typically, riparian prescriptions under the Action Alternatives fulfill this need. ~nvasive N on-native Specie~ Invasiye non-native species alter the composition, structure, and ecosystem processes where they invade native systems. Some species already are established in the Analysis Area, particularly, hedge hog dogtail grass (Cynosurus echinatus), scotch broom (Cytisis scoparius), bull thistle (Circium vulgare), dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), among others. Weed species may spread by taking advantage of disturbed habitat adjacent to or in the proximity of existing colonies. Roads and vehicle use can be an important vector for the spread of weeds. Informing implementation plans with the location and extent of existing weed colonies, along with control actions prior, during and after treatment can help avoid spreading them to new areas. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 26 Ashland Forest Resiliency (~ ( Under the Action Alternatives and Forest Policy, a list of target species of concern would be developed, mapped, and entered into a GIS database. Prior to hazardous fuel reduction treatments, treatment of invasive non-native species populations is required within 250 ft. of treatment areas prior to new disturbance. Hazardous fuel treatment implementation plans would prescribe entry routes to avoid weed patches. Vehicle and equipment would be washed prior to entering project areas after any use in other areas with potential for supporting invasive non-native species. Post-treatment monitoring is required to detect the spread of existing or invasion of new invasive non-native species . populations. A spreading or a new population would be treated so it can be controlled or eliminated. Any areas authorized for hazardous fuel reduction treatments would be surveyed for invasive non-native species and other invasive non-native plants during the second summer after activity occurs. If invasive non-native species are detected, appropriate action would be taken, in accordance with the Forest Weed Management Plan. Hazardous fuel reduction treatments shall generally not be conducted in the 20-acre dalmation toadflax population in the Ashland RNA near the end of the Lamb Mine Trail. Himalayan blackberry located within potential helicopter landin,gs would be treated in accordance with the RRNF Weed Management Plan before landing development proceeds. In areas prone to weed invasion, a seed mix of native species would be sown where ground disturbance took place during management activities. Site-specific species would be determined and local collections will be made to meet seeding needs. d. Connected Actions In addition to the hazardous fuel~ Feduc.tiQn treatments described in the Action Alternatives, there are additional and inherent connected actions associated with implementation. According to Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, Section 1508.25, connected actions are closely relatedaqtions that: automatically trigger (or are triggered by) other actions, cannot or would not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously, and/or are.interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Connected actiolls discussed in this Draft EIS are those that are directly related to hazardous fuels reduction treatments. Under HFRA, there is no authority to propose or analyze actions that are notrelated to the Purpose and Need for action. For example, there are opportunities for watershed restoration, recreational enhancement or road-related improvements. Unless restoration or reclamation of sites is within the area affected by hazardous fuels reduction treatments, they are not included under this proposal and analysis (see Section D, this Chapter). Connected actions that are common to the Action Alternatives are as follows: Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 27 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( n,..,~\, I ) ~ f !Helicopter Landin2s and Acces~ As described by the mitigation measures, all hazardous fuels reduction treatments and vegetation manipulation activities must meet LRMP Standards and Guidelines and more specific thresholds established for this project (see Mitigation Measures, Section C, 7, this Chapter). Further, design elements and mitigation require minimal ground disturbance. Given these constraints, it is anticipated that aerial systems, e.g., helicopters would be the primary system used to accomplish any mechanical treatments requiring movement of larger material (e.g., logs or bundled slash too largelheavy to be manipulated by humans). Helicopters can be used to move material from the treatment area sites, and move them to processing areas (i.e., landings). From the landings, material can then be rem()ve.d from the forest by trucks, utilizing classified roads suitable for such use. Helicopter~ could also move equipment such as portable chippers, to the site for processing. The use of helicopters allows for full suspension of trees or material from the treatment area to the landing area and does not create excessive ground disturbance via skid trails or corridors.. To complete the consequence analysis for the Action Alternatives, ascenario was developed by the forest Service that assumed the use of helicopters anpestabIishment of a system of landings that could be used as a place to stage productsor~xcess surface fuels. These landing sites would also be utilized for other yarding or bundling systems not involving the use of helicopters. National Forest and private lanQ~ within the entire Analysis Area were reviewed by the Forest Service for location~ where existing landings already exist, as well as logical sites where new landings could be developed. Upwards of 75 potential sites were inithlJlyjdentified. These candidate areas were then refined based on the areas proposed for treatments under the Proposed Action and Community Alternative within their respective Project Areas. During 2004, the majority of these sites were field verified by the Forest Service. This verification and refinement resulted in a total of 31 candidate landing sites. Criteria and considerations for identifying and selecting candidate ~ites included: o Utilization of previously utilized helicopter landings, including service landing sites; o Utilization of previously disturbed areas (e.g., existing ground based landings or existing open areas); o Consideration for utilizing existing landings located on adjacent private lands that may be strategic to access on NFSL, would require minimal additional clearing, and have adequate road access that would require minimal road maintenance for use; o Development of new landing areas along existing classified roads and that would require minimal new road construction access; o Locating landings on ridgetop areas and away from unstable areas or Riparian Reserves; o Locating landings on strategic topographic sites that would provide helicopter access to large areas; o The distance between landings (affecting the length of the helicopter flight path and ultimately, economic feasibility); and o Development of new landing areas that minimized effects to large trees, late-successional habitat, or intact and healthy forested areas. Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 28 Ashland Forest Resiliency o I I \ These 31 sites are the basis for consequence analysis under the Final EIS for the Action Alternatives. Under this analysis, all of these potential landings in the identified locations were assumed to be utilized. To ensure adequate consequence analysis, during actual implementation, there would be no additional landings authorized for use beyond this scenario. It may be possible to exchange sites if the effects were determined to be equivalent or less, and the final implementation plan could utilize less than this identified number. In addition, the use of existing roads (in addition to or instead of additional landing construction) could be utilized during actual implementation, as long as compliance with State operational safety guidelines (OR-OSHA) occurred. New landings would be limited in size to approximately 0.75 acres in size. This generally equates to a landing that is approximately 175 feet by 175 feet in size. Some existing landings are larger than this. Some new landing areas may be designed to occupy an area as small as 0.4 acre (80 feet by 200 feet). Using a "maximum case" scenario, these 31 landings would include a total of approximately 24 acres, of which over 60% of the area to be potentially utilized for a landing, is already disturbed (15 acres),.becauseit is or has been used as a road or log landing in the past. There would be a total ofhp to 9 acres of new additional disturbance associated with landings. Helicopter landings, or roadways utilized as landings are required to have adequate "flight paths" and "drop zones" under State operational safetyguideIines (OR-OSHA). Compliance with these guidelines would require the felling of some larger diameter trees. This situation was minimized to the extent possible during refinement and selection of sites, as noted in criteria and considerations above. NOTE: Before a final decision is made, fUrther verification and refinement of these sites is expected to occur. Not all of these potential sites may be needed to facilitate the treatments proposed under the Proposed Action, the Community Alternative, or the Preferred Alternative. In summary, of the 31 landings, several existing landings are proposed for use, and are currently adequate for thisrteed. Some landings are existing, but would need additional expansion and clearing. Five existing landings were identified on private land and would need some expansion and/or right-of-way approval foraccess and road use. Several landings are on existing roads and would require new development without additional road access. Two landingS are away from existing roads and would require additional new road construction access (2 segments; 0.2 mile and 0.1 mile - total 0.3 miles). None of the candidate helicopter landings are located within the Ashland Creek Research Natural Area or the Inventoried Roadless Area. Table 11-2 provides reference and condition assessment for each of the 31 landings. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 29 Ashland Forest Resiliency () '.'...c.c?' ( I Table ll-2. Candidate Helicopter Landings Reference Location Reference Condition or Comments No. 0 PVT - City of Ashland Existino, adeQuate (rockpit) 1 NFSL Existino, adeQuate 4 NFSL Existing, expand 5 NFSL Develop; on existing road 11 NFSL Existing, adequate 8 Horn Gap Develop; on existino road 9 NFSL Existino, adeQuate 12 NFSL Existing, adeQuate 74 PVT land Existing, expand 73 PVT land Existino, expand (75) PVT land (possible) Existino, expand 70 PVT land Existino, expand 10 NFSL Existino, adeQuate 22 NFSL Existino, expanded under AWPP 23 NFSL Develop, on existino road .. 19 NFSL Existino, expand .,. 20 NFSL Existino, expand 17 NFSL Existing, adeQuate 16 NFSL Develop, on existing road ,. .. 15 NFSL Develop, .1 mile new road aGooss 13 NFSL Existino, expand , 24 NFSL, 4-Corners Existing, expand , 26 NFSL Develop, on existino.r()~d/ 50 NFSL Develop, on E:lXi$ttrig rQad 31 NFSL, Bull Gap Develop, oneXlsijna road 45 NFSL Existing,expand. 47 NFSL ExistinQ,expclnd; on PVT access road 66 NFSL .. Deyel6p,.2 mile new road access 54 NFSL Existino, adeQuate 56 NFSL Existino, adeQuate 53 NFSL Develop, on existino road PVT = private NFSL = National Forest System~ Lan~s Map II-I displays existing helicopter landing sites as well as potential locations for additional helicopter landingcol1struction. These sites are the basis ofNEP A effects analysis ( consequences). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11- 30 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( MAP 11-1. Potential Helicopter Landings and Access Ashland Forest Resiliency 'Ill': eSDA For.:st S..:-rvicc Hses the most cum:,nt cUld ~l)mplete data avail:lbl~, Existing r.:s()un::~ data and existing boundary illld J~\cility locatiOllS area approximate. GIS data and product accuracy may valy. Using GIS product" f~)r plu-poses other than (()r which they are intended Illay yield inaccurate or misleadillg results. ~ational Forest Boundary ~ Roads /"'../Streams @ Potential Helicopter Landing Location ') N A o ! i r' i 25 25 30 30 28 28 27 ~,t3 35 31 R.IW, R.II9.1 32 33 34 35 36 Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11- 31 Ashland Forest Resiliency () .........~~;liil' ( !Road Improvements and Us~ In conjunction with helicopter landings and access, the connected actions associated with equipment access and commercial products haul to and from potential helicopter landings is discussed. Landing access and use could be for mechanical treatment, disposal, or commercial sorting and removing of fuel treatment materials removed from the site to commercial vendors off-Forest. Potential landings identified as 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 have the option of hauling north over Forest Service (FS) Road 2060 through Lithia Park if a permit from the City of Ashland is obtained. Another longer (twice as long) haul route not requiring a permit would be over Road 2060, to Road 2080600 (section 34) to FS Road 2080 (section 35), then north over FS Road 2080 onto Tolman Creek Road leading into the City of Ashland. Potential landings identified as 16, 17, 19,20,22,23,24,26,31,45,50,52,53,54,56 and 69 would haul north over Road 2060, to Road 2080600 (section. 34) toFS Road 2080 (section 35) then north over FS Road 2080 onto Tolman Creek Road leading into the City of Ashland. Potential landings identified as 46,47 and 68 would haul.south over FS unclassified roads (sections 11, 13 and 24) to the intersection of County Road 1151 (section 22) then east over County Road 1151 to Interstate five. Swanson Group Inc. owns those lands outside ofNFSL thereby requiring the FS to obtain RJW in order.touse this road. Potential landings identified as 70, 73 and 7 4. would haul over FS Road 2200900 to the Wagner Gap FS Road 22, then north ()verFSRoad 22 to County Road 557 (Wagner Creek) to Talent, Oregon. Commercial haul or administrative access with the use of any vehicle of five axles or greater cannot be conducted north.over FS Road 2060 that enters Morton Street (section 16) that leads into the City of Ashland. Morton Street roadways have insufficient road width to allow safe passage of any five-axle vehicles. All of the above FS roads are either Maintenance Level 2 or 3 and may be in need of road maintenance prior to use. This maintenance may include various amounts of light brushing, culvert cleaning, ditching, and blading of road surfaces. Some roads may need additional surfacing (aggregate rock). Some weekend use of Roads 2060 and 2080 is listed in the Rogue River commercial road use rules (May 28, 2002). The above routes have heavy seasonal recreation traffic consisting of bikers, hikers and passenger vehicles that would require appropriate safety measures during commercial use periods. This could come in the form of signing, traffic control by traffic flag persons, periods of recreational road closures and/or a combination of all of the above. Refer to 2003 Upper Bear Assessment for a project-level Road Analysis for the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The purpose of this analysis is to identify access routes with existing haul restrictions for commercial and administrative haulers utilizing a five axle or larger vehicle to access the potential helicopter landing sites. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 32 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( 4. The Proposed Action In order to conserve or promote resiliency in ecosystems, the Siskiyou Mountains (formerly Ashland) Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest identified opportunities to achieve the restoration of physical and biological processes and patterns that create and maintain diverse networks of habitats and populations while also recognizing the need for protection of socio-economic values. Findings and recommendations are documented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. This document provides the basis for the development of the Proposed Action. At the core of the analysis under the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment is the analysis of Plant Association Groups (PAGs)6. A qualitative evaluation of past conditions was overlain with assumed "sustainable" disturbance regimes and current vegetative conditions to determine future desired conditions for the P AGs, further refined by seral stage and proportions. Additional driv,ing factors of this analysis were based on ecological and social issues surrounding occurrence of high human-caused fire ignition and high fire occurrence history. Specific "values at risk" include human life and property associated with the wildland/urban interface; ecological sustainability including protection and maintenance of pine; water quality including protection of the municipal water supply, and protection of threatened species and maintenance of late- successional habitat. a. Function of the Proposed Action A key function of the Proposed Action and its proposed fire protection strategy for Ashland Forest Resiliency is the concept of"compartmen~alization". Compartmentalizing landscapes would serve to protect larger surrounding are~s at risk. This strategy is recognized in the Northwest Forest Plan as means to martage th~ risk of disturbance within Late-Successional Reserves (NWFP page C-12, 13). Compartmentalization was also identified by local citizen's groups under previousplanhingefforts (A WSA 1999; page 33). The compartmentalization strategy associated with this Proposed Action involves creating compartments that range iIl size from approximately 800 - 6,700 acres (see Map 11-2, and Component 5, Section 5, A, of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment for more information on Compartments). The overall objective of compartmentalization is to be able to contain any fire start (human or lightning), and subsequent fire spread, within the compartment in which it started. The delineation of compartments is based primarily on strategic topographic features, regardless of land managem.ent responsibility or ownership. The topographic features coincide with strategic ridgelines, vegetation changes, and/or human-made features such as roads. Underthe Proposed Action, areas within compartments would be managed with the long-term objective of achieving a fire resilient ecosystem, with special emphasis on providing short-term protection to the Values At Risk7. As part of the recommended strategy, areas within the compartments would be treated using a variety of hazardous fuel reduction treatments over wide areas, based on desired conditions by P AGs. \ i $: / 6 Plant Association Groups (pAGs) are discussed in detail in Component 2 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment; also see DEIS Appendix D for updates to PAGs. 7 Values At Risk are discussed in detail in Component 5 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 33 Ashland Forest Resiliency (1 '-~ (~) MAP 11-2. Compartmentalization Strategy under the Proposed Action " " -Analysis Area Boundary ~ .\\. ~ational Forest Boundary ~' ;'-l~"'~:~~ ~ ~ Roads ~Streams 1 ~ 1. & L> .... .' Compartment Boundary J \,~ ~,~~ i'o. , , (compartment name shown in gray)) ~ l~, N ,H : b ......... ~ 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet A /{\) \ ~ rn 11 I..... .. ,/ .... - I ...f'" {," L~ \~~, " I. , - I I' = ('\' _ \ "'--'~_, P"'~~ ') - " 'Ii ,J;' d \ ~ J[I~ = ~ = \ 11 \ __~_ b... , "'\ ~ .'~ ~~/ \" ,r'-~':~ ,~~l ~~~a, i~~~f\\ \ \ ( ~"Il -dt :;", ~Shl,~[U~~ 1~/r~1 !~ ;~~ "" . \ l ,"', ,ll~~.anlher ,~,', ,/ ... ,,~? it' j~(r.' if (tit. ~.~ ;tJl~.. ~~\,' \ ,T /~ .<?~ [~," ~(--., ,?~l<~,~-r-f\, 1~"( ~~,~ 2"\ "":2 /! ~~' \J } I >~'\ '.)I . '; ) ~. .~ ',t\ A ~--~.J .f' ~~// ,...)i ~. , { ( ( , ~ .~~' llt:Jbr~ GlI{~' p.~. ..~" Jl!~dj;..*. \ J;.",ro1m ---"'. ~.\J I ~P ~ J) l't \" -!7 /; /\ 2~, - 25 / '\30 \ '~/"" \;\ "':\\,,'~27 't\.,,'26, ,J CT5 ../' "I ,l /) f/t.. / ,,'... ..f'~ : .. \ " \.: ~ (! 1;)) 4' '. I ;,.~, \__ .~~' ~i I '~~alll.~) f .I.' ~.". . -"-' ~.~.''r>'Vk~t F~\~k ~ ,~~j '...1 I~~Z . 1>--'// I '),' . I ~l. Y ~~ '- ~~/ -(' ,( ~: U 9"- I / . .,---.~~ \ \i?Jl P 315-.-. \ 3 " '-., ) " '" 33,~ ~ : '., 4 . ~ 35 ,...., 36 t ~ 1 ... l _/(, _ ' , . ,____.?-~, .. , \. "" -- (-<< \ ~,~ ....(--r~j ..' .s. T.39S. ~ ,;" - - -.,,, /" ~~ \', .~~ ~., .' .L ~ '-- ,.,- r )~\ ~ ,'" -'-,:., ~;""~-_____._ /,Jftjrl t'" \:p ~/,' /I ~~ ~_I~'(O""~._~) ~~OS. ~., 02" 01 '\ ,0 /.J,1 \::~ I .I' -'... i;~ 02 / .,..- 01 /..../ i3 1\ \' Up.p~~_:. ~t 1;'i wI'i ) ~ / \ ....- m) / :/ I " ~!/~~,: .....'.~.,_./ ~---'~',1 J ~".-l(' / '} ..~,r ~ \\ ",,/. {~. '/~, ;' l'~~" ,I-II,,' ) l '-I "'~l (, ..- / ' \ \.-' ,', ...j f. I, " '\-' , .-, r .<C, ').- , r 51 " >>"-, \ I ..- ) 10.;;./ /1 - ( 1.. ,: 07), f8 .--(' GQ I \.10 11 '11L....( 'f-Ol- / !~, ~~~. ~. \ \ / , -..- .' ' \ F' , ) , N ') r , I ~ \} "'-~ ~\'., \'_,/..... \ '..:-_ .J. '~asJ( r~/\" '\_, el /......... r ~ ~~"\...."""c;--- I (/ ' "/\ \ \/~~"---('" > " ~ _15 _ It. ~~ ~ ~ \ 13 \', "\ \ 18 1\ 17 )~ '1'- ?' ( ~..'\~! '. ',[ I~J/' \" . \1"d~ \ ,~. R\. 1 J - 1 .., ~ I -~"-\ ! I '-! 'l---~-- \ /:)~\ /./'- "~~~' /" ")ii' ....... ~-~.. 'i..j ~ >,' '\ V - .,-'.!_- ~~ /,,{'~, v:;Z' ~ ---- I ( ~ ' \22 --- '.Ii ~fo.=...:.24'" " · ~ ..-.--, ,...,..--.....r' .........""""" .' --'\::' c:;; "\. '-,..J .,\< \ \'. 1 20 ~1 /", r 23 1<. .II ""'" .... ~ I "\,.\. ~ \ . ., , _ I \ "'..";~ 'I. t.i.\ ~~' I/Ir - . ~ ~-i -.~I, " ;:J:"~~.//',- .......... U - ~ j '\':!~ rfi-~ 2~.lW. R.IE. b. Description of the Proposed Action The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with the Proposed Action include those that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Stand treatments are designed to influence fire behavior by altering available fuel, fuel arrangement, fuel moisture, and species composition. Under the Forest Service Proposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency, a total of approximately 8,150 acres would be treated. Proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatments are categorized into two broad groups: Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 34 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( 1) Treatments that modify fire behavior facilitating effective fire suppression, and 2) Treatments that modify fire behavior to reduce potential and/or subsequent adverse effects. All of the actions and activities proposed under the Proposed Action fall under one of four elements8: ~ creation of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones, ~ Interface Compartment treatments, ~ Late-Successional Habitat treatments, and ~ Research Natural Area treatments. \Defensible Fuel Profile Zone~ Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) are the foundation of compartmentalization and as such, transcend boundaries of all compartments and is considerecJ. the highest priority (Priority 1). Within the Project Area, a maximum of 2,800 acres would be treated with DFPZ objectives and would include a combination of variable density management, surface fuels treatments, and prescribed burning. These 2,800 acres would complement existing naturally resilient features or previously established fueJbreaks9 for a total DFPZ acreage of approximately 3,600 acres on NFSL. The objective of the fuel modification within the nFPZ is to create zones that are "crown- fire-resistant"10. Active crown fires moving into these areas would slow and drop to the ground and become a surface fire. Refer to Appendix 3-A of Component 3 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment for more detailed information on how DFPZs would function. The DFPZs proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are designed to: (1) reduce the extent of wildland fire severity11 by limiting the amount of area affected by wildland fire, (2) create areas where fire suppression efforts can be conducted more safely and effectively, (3) break up continuity of fuels overa large landscape, and (4) serve as anchor points for further area- wide fuel treatments, such.. as prescribed burning. To develop theDFPZs, surface fuel reduction and understory vegetation clearing would cover a greatera:rea than the existing current shaded fuel breaks. The variable width of the treated area. would generally be ~ to ~ mile, depending on vegetation cover, roads, geographic features, strategic location, elevation and overall potential wildland fire risk relative to the compartments. 8 "elements" are simply a way to organize the suite of treatments associated with the Proposed Action into 4 groupings, with specific and unique objectives. 9 Approximately 9.5 miles of shaded fuelbreaks have been constructed to date in the Ashland Watershed. The efficacy of these fuelbr~aks has been largely lost due to lack of maintenance over the years since they were established (USDA 2001). 10 A crown is defined as the part of a tree or woody plant bearing branches and foliage; a crown fire is one that burns in the crowns of trees and shrubs, usually ignited by a surface fire. 11 Fire severity is the degree which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; also used in this document to describe the product of fire intensity and residence time (McPherson et al. 1990, Agee 1994, Rowe 1983). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 35 Ashland Forest Resiliency o (--~\ " --,)) Stands within DFPZs would be thinned from below (treating all diameter classes) to a relative stand density of 0.4 to 0.6 followed by treatment of all existing or activity created fuels to resemble a Fuel Model 8 or 9. An underburn would occur approximately 7-10 years following the thinning to maintain the stand conditions. Treatments would achieve a live crown base heights of20-25 feet above the surface fuels and are designed to produce an average flame length of 4-6 feet or less under 90th percentile weather conditions (see sub-section b, Density Management for a description of 90th percentile conditions). Density would be varied in some areas for high levels of insect risk, unstable areas, northern spotted owl core areas, Riparian Reserves, and legacy trees with variation by P AG. The areas where DFPZs would occur are conceptually displayed (in green) on Map II-3. Not all of the area shown in green would be treated under Ashland Forest Resiliency at this time; treatments would only occur where conditions are otherwise not at desired conditions and would not exceed 2,800 acres ( see above). The completed DFPZs would consist mostly of stands12 that maintain a..relative stand density index of 0.4 - 0.6, depending on P AG and seral stage. This depsitywould maintain a closed canopy in portions of the DFPZ where it currently exists. . The relative stand density index for most of these stands is currently 0.7 to 1.0. Reaso~s for maintaining a relatively closed' canopy include: maintaining higher fuel moistures of remaimng surface fuels, reducing understory vegetation establishment, and reducing fi1emaintenance cost, interval, and intensity (compared to currently existing shadedfuelbreaks). The majority of treatments in the DFPZs would be surface fuel reduction treatments and the removal of ladder fuels 13 by cutting smaller diameter trees that would allow fire to reach the crowns, as well as pruning the lower limbs of larger diameter trees. Pruning would remove remaining ladder fuels and raise the crown base height (height from the ground to the bottom of the live crown) to 20-25 feet, providing vertical discontinuity. The focus of treatments within the DFPZs is on maintaining the largest and healthiest trees, however there are situations where larger diameter trees may need to be cut and removed. For example, larger diameter trees that are suppressed under more dominant and vigorous overstory trees, dead or dying (within 1-2 years) trees that create a hazard for worker safety, live or dead tree~. that are part of overall implementation and would need to be removed for (helicopter) landings or helicopter flight paths14, and in some cases, heavily dwarf mistletoe infected trees that compromise DFPZ objectives (by providing ladder fuels). 12 As used under the Proposed Action, a "stand" is a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality to be a distinguishable unit. 13 Ladder fuels are shrubs, trees and other foliage that provide continuous fine material from the forest floor into the crowns of dominant trees. 14 The potential for helicopter use, including landings is discussed under Section 2, e. (Methodology for Accomplishment of Treatments, this Chapter. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 36 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( ( Treating to a more open canopy around large individual "legacy' pine and Douglas-fir trees would reduce drought stress and insect risk to these trees. To accomplish this objective, some larger diameter trees may be removed immediately adjacent to these larger and older trees. On unstable areas (Landslide Hazard Zone 1) additional ground cover would be maintained. Oaks and madrone would be favored and coarse woody material (CWM; down material of various sizes or diameters) would be placed in contact with the soil and oriented to provide a barrier to surface soil movement. Ranges of desired levels of coarse woody material is described by P AGS, as discussed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, Component 2, and is described in Section 3, c, this Chapter. A higher density of trees may be left on these sites than on other areas with similar vegetation conditions, however this would not compromise the effectiveness of the DFPZs due to the small extent of Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas. The DFPZs are considered an interim measure to facilitate protection of tpeV alues At Risk within the Ashland Watershed: namely water quality and late-successi()J?alhabitat. By interim, it is meant that DFPZs would need to be maintained as a Il1anCilg~ment feature until the point in time where the treatment of adjacent larger areas withil1 the compartments has been accomplished and the landscape has developed to the desired condition. In the forest/urban interface area, this is estimated to be approximat.ely! 0- 25 years depending on availability of funding and workforce, and recovery of re~ol.irce conditions between treatments. A graphic example ofDFPZ treatments shown on Cilprofile view is presented in Figure II-I (below). This picture shows the current conditions..on a typical ridgeline before, and after DFPZ treatment. Treated areas represent the cr()wn closure, ladder fuel removal and variability of width. This is presented only tqcommunicate the concept; it is not meant to be specific to any particular area and does notrepresent the extreme variability of current conditions. Figure 11-1. Protlle View: Defensible Fuel ProfIle Zone CURRENT CONDITION ~\ 1, ) "14 - 1J2 mile (not to scale) Ashland Forest Resiliency Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11- 37 C) ~nterface Compartment Treatment~ Interface compartments (Priority 2) include Wagner Gap, Horn Gulch, Reeder, Ashland, Tolman, and Clayton. Under the Proposed Action, these areas are of high need in terms of creating a strategic area of protection against large wildland fires entering the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) and the Ashland Municipal Watershed via the forest/urban interface15. Efforts in these interface areas would be focused on modifying the existing stand density and current/future surface fuel loads so that: 1) wildland fires are primarily surface fires (as compared with active crown-fires); 2) fires that generate less than 4-6 foot flame lengths from surface fire under 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture conditions; and 3) maintain coarse woody material to levels consistent with LSR and individual P AG objectives. Treatments in these areas would focus primarily on two seral stages; the mid-closed and late- closed conditions16, though other seral stages would receive some treatment. Treatments would reduce the density of the current mid-seral and late..seral closed stands so they become mid-seral and late-seral open stands in amounts that approximate the desired distributions. This treatment would also accelerate growt~ offnid-seral stands into late-seral conditions. Reductions in stand density in the late, closoostands would reduce the insect and disease risk levels in these areas. Where density is notma,naged within the mid and late-seral closed stands, treatments would focus on hazard redudtiOn (fire behavior modification) treatments that move toward a Fuel Model 8 or 9 in closed stands, and Fuel Model 217 in the more open areas. Stands would be thinnedfro:mbelow to a relative stand density of 0.2 - 0.3 followed by treatment of all existing excess or activity created fuels. Treatments would be designed to achieve a flame length of4-6 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions. Treatments should generally not affect the species composition of the individual P AGs, however, some species would be giyen special consideration. Large madrone and oaks associated with the dry P AGs would be maintained in early, mid open and late open seral stands. Ponderosa pine, sugar pine and incense cedar would be retained in all seral stages and all P AGs. A fraction ()fthe stands would be left with older trees infected with dwarf mistletoe that may be used as nesting platforms for northern spotted owls (young infested trees would not likely develop into large trees with good platforms because of the effects of the mistletoe). / \, ...\ 15. The foresVurban interface or wildland urban interface (WUI) is the area or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the WUI is assumed to be approximately 1.5 miles from the identified "At-Risk Community" (66 FR 753, January 4, 2001 and State or Oregon Emergency Management Plan, December 2003). 16 These seral stage stand conditions are defined and discussed in Component 2 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. 17 Fuel models are based on Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 1982): see 2003 Upper Bear Assessment Component 2 and DEIS Appendix D for an update to information and examples of Fuel Models. " , ,/ Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-38 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ''''~ ( Treatments could occur within the core area of northern spotted owl activity centers, but would not change late seral, closed conditions. Within Riparian Reserves18, treatments would occur within strategic areas where large areas of continuous fuels can be interrupted to reduce "wick-effect" conditions that would allow fire to travel unimpeded from low to higher elevations. Another objective within the interface compartments is to retain large legacy pines and Douglas-fir. While density management may benefit these trees, complimentary treatments could include creation of non- uniform openings around pines (termed small group selection). "Wick-Effect" - In this context, refers to the ability of fire to spread through a drainage via the riparian vegetation. If the Riparian Reserve areas are left untreated, surrounding by treated areas, then the untreated contiguous fuels in these areas could actas "wicks", allowing fire to spread. The proposed area for interface compartment treatments is also shown on Map.II..3. Note that the yellow shaded area portrays (based on satellite imagery) conceptual ateaswhere conditions are not currently at the desired conditions. Because not all acres within these compartments and yellow-shaded areas would be treated, the spati~larrangement of treatments is important to accomplish the stated objectives. Strategically locating the treatments can create non-continuous landscape fuel patterns that collectively slow fire growth and modify behavior while minimizing the amount of a;rea needing treatment (Finney 2001). Of the total acres of National Forest System Lands within the interface compartments (6,630 acres), a maximum of 3,200 acres would be treated under the Proposed Action. Approximatelyl ,600 acres would be treated with variable density management and 1,600 acres would be treated with surface fuel treatments or prescribed fire. Factors affecting the location of treatment area.s include topography, existing fuel loadings and their characteristics (rate of spread, crown fire potential, flame length, etc.), and local weather conditions. The following figure graphically displays the potential effectiveness of the arrangement of Interface Compartment treatments. An example of area treatm~rits placed on the landscape designed to interrupt fire spread and modify fire behavior (cIearareas) is shown in Figure 11-2 (below). The winds in this example are from the northwest (A) and north (B). The lines indicate that the head of a spreading wildland fire would be continuously forced to flank around treated areas, causing lower rates of spread and fire intensity than if it were uninterrupted (adapted from Finney 1999). 18 Riparian Reserves as defined by Northwest Forest Plan and White Paper #36 for the Rogue River NF. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11- 39 Ashland Forest Resiliency --------nr-.- C") ~.-....~ l,~ .'} \ j' Figure 11-2. Landscape Arrangement of Treated Areas /Late-Successional Habitat Treatment~ Under the compartmentalization strategy, there are two.mainar~as where treatments would be applied with the primary emphasis being the mainteIlanceof late-successional habitat in relation to Late-Successional Reserve objectives (PrioJ;ity3). One is in the Neil compartment; the other is within the Ashland Watetshed(Lower West Fork compartment) where there is an equally important objective of protecting water quality in regard to municipal water supply. To accomplish these objectives, the focus is on strategic treatment of mid-seral closed stands where the average stand diameter is 5 - 17 inches. Within these stands, trees less than 17 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) would be removed within the Lower West Fork and Neil c()JI1partnients to provide for horizontal discontinuity in fuels. Hazardous fuel reduction treatments'.proposed here are focused to encourage healthy, less dense mid seral stands that would develop into late-successional habitat. Proposed treatments (maximum of 60p .acres) would primarily be variable density management that would also reduce the fire hazard (see Map 11-3 where treatments are shaded in light blue). An objective for these compartments include maintenance of at least 60 percent canopy closure in those areas that currently provide northern spotted owl habitat, particularly on north and east as.pects on the lower 1/3 of slopes. Large legacy trees (pines and Douglas-fir) are important, particularly on ridges or south and west facing slopes. Implementing a non- uniform spacing adjacent to these trees (small group selection) would reduce competition and increase the likelihood of maintaining these existing individual legacy trees. Additionally, to reduce fire risk (risk of human ignition), proposed treatments include roadside areas (maximum of250 acres) with variable density management (about 100-150 feet below and 50 feet above the clearing limit of the road). Roadside areas to be treated include portions (approximately 8 miles) of Forest Service Road 2060 (see Map 11-3 where treatments are shaded in a darker blue). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIl II - 40 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Careful spatial arrangement of treated areas would inhibit fire from moving unimpeded from low to higher elevations without entering a managed area. Treatments proposed under the Proposed Action would be the first in a series of planned treatments over time to move these stands toward the desired condition (seral stage distribution) identified in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. Factors affecting the location of treatments areas include topography, existing fuel loadings and their characteristics (rate of spread, crown fire potential, flame length, etc.), and local weather conditions. No treatments would occur within the core areas for known northern spotted owl pair activity centers or on unstable lands (Landslide Hazard Zone 1) at this time within the Neil and Lower West Fork compartments. Some treatments would occur within Riparian Reserves. Treatments would generally not affect species composition, however, some species would be given special consideration. Large madrone and oaks would be maintained in early, mid open and late open seral stands. Ponderosa pines, sugar pines and incense cedars would be retained in all seral stages. Group selection treatments would promote regeneration of the . . pIne speCIes. !Research Natural Area Treatment~ The Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA) was established on May 4, 1970, to provide examples of the "Pacific" ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosd) and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest found west of the Cascade Range in southern Oregon. More detailed information is found in Component 1 of die 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. The overall proposed treatment for this. area is to selectively remove competition to existing large ponderosa or sugar pine and Dougla.s- fir to create conditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species. . Approximately 1,300 acres are proposed for treatment (Priority 4). Variable density management, prescribed burning and other surface fuel reduction treatments are options that would encourage more natural species diversity and a more fire resilient forest. Stands in these compartments would be thinned from below to a relative stand density of 0.2-0.3 followed by treatment of all existing or activity created fuels to resemble a FuelModel 8, or 9. Treatments would be designed to achieve a flame length of 4-6 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions and help maintain the target speCIes. Prescribedunderburning is proposed as routine maintenance after variable density management treatments as a complementary method that would encourage more natural regeneration of pines and sustain the pine ecosystem. An underburn would occur approximately 10 years following the thinning to maintain stand conditions. The most northerly portion of the RNA is included in the Reeder Compartment, for which wildland interface density management is proposed (see Map 11-3). Additionally, the compartment boundary between Reeder Reservoir and the RNA portion of the East Fork Compartment would be treated as a DFPZ. This is deemed a critical area for location of a DFPZ to meet fire size and spread compartmentalization objectives. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 41 Ashland Forest Resiliency ,.--~,\., ( ) '....._~j,~ \ On unstable areas (Landslide Hazard Zone 1) additional ground cover would be maintained. Oak and madrone would be favored and coarse woody material would be placed in contact with the soil and oriented to provide a barrier to surface soil movement. As with other LHZ 1 treatments, a higher density of trees would be left. A primary objective within the RNA is to retain large legacy pines and Douglas-fir. While density management may benefit these existing trees, complimentary treatments would include creation of non-uniform openings around these trees (small group selection) for pine regeneration. Large madrone and oaks would be maintained in early, mid open and late open seral stands. Late seral, closed conditions around northern spotted owl activity centers and in Riparian Reserves would be maintained. ISummary of Treatment~ Table 11-3 provides a summary of treatment elements as discussed above, based on PAGs. Map 11-3 portrays the Forest Service Proposed Action, based on conceptual location of treatments and areas. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIl II - 42 Ashland Forest Resiliency MAP II -3. Proposed Action Treatment Areas ( , Ashland Forest Resiliency Proposed Action -.....~~,~-~ C) ~ational Forest Boundary .P~>/ Roads ~Streams Defensible Fuel Protile Zones Interface Treatments Late-Successional Habitat Treatments Research Natural Area Treatments _ Roadside Treatments qlc' I .\]). \ ]."1\.':,1 S,r, !,',_' 1I~<;, Ill.. 11].\:;1 ,111T,.lll .:nd l"'li1pl,~k ,bu :1', :l1I..,hk' !, \hl111~~ r,>;,'IIIC,: ,hi:! .1I1d ,'\.i'.,lin:,: h'.>lllld:lr\ :111..1 !:,,'lIil\ ['k,lli"m: :ir,:i .'11Plt'\11Jl:1I..'. l.iIS d:lla ;llll! pr"dlld :IU:llr:I,.\ Ill:!\ \;ll~.. I. ,;ill,,: ',ilS pr,;dlk'h k.r pllrp')~"" ,'Ih..::r Ih:1ll d I. 'I' \\ Illdl Ihc\ :Ir.: !I1kmkt! 1lI:!\ \ idd ina,.,.lIr:tk _ "1 'llJ"'''':ldI11~ k:-;Ults 'J" ~~ ~f. , - ,/I "'-'>>"'<.,'>" , ... N A o 2 Miles ~\ ''''', l' i """dT""\ .---- I : ".. ......... I: '::.r.. -+- \ I{. Ii R1W. RIB'.' Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11-43 Ashland Forest Resiliency \ Table ll-3. Proposed Action - Summary of Treatments by P AGs Treatment Elements Defensible Fuel Interface Late-Successional Research Plant Association Groups Profile Zones Compartments Habitat Natural Area (PAGs) Compartments (Priority 1) (Priority 2) (Priority 3) (Priority 4) Dry Douglas-fir (1407) 541 1,184 104 (+9 Roadside) 218 . Moist DouQlas-fir (1408) 702 1,131 244 (+98 Roadside) 482 . Dry White Fir (2004) 984 387 124 (+85 Roadside) 220 Moist White Fir (2003) 268 498 128 (+59 Roadside) 380 Cool White Fir (2098) 180 NT NT NT Moist Mountain Hemlock (2301) 94 NT NT NT Cool Mountain Hemlock (2311) 31 NT NT NT Totals 2,800 3,200 600 (+250 roadside) 1,300 Grand total 8,150 acres NT = No treatment proposed c. Specific Design Elements and Specific Mitigation Measures This sub-section includes specific design elements thatarejderttified as unique and/or different than those contained under the other Action Alternatives (i.e., they are not common). These elements also include discussions thatare considered specific mitigation measures. Implementation Methodology Under the Proposed Action, certain amounts of treatments are proposed associated with certain design criteria or limitations. .The actual on-the-ground conditions that trigger these criteria are to be identified and valid~ted'concurrent with implementation. Concurrent monitoring would ensure that the effects of any decision are equal to or lesser than those documented in NEP A planning analysis and decision. Identification of conditions meeting treatment criteria may include slope, aspect, soils type, tree size class distribution, basal area, species composition, PlantA~sociation Group, snags, down logs by decay class, dwarf mistletoe levels, fueLI9aq~ng, etc. Protocol for identification of conditions would be determined to influe:nc~site-specific prescription and operational plans. This non-traditiQnafmethodology is proposed for Ashland Forest Resiliency under the Proposed Action because of the urgency and need for fuel reduction treatments and the time constraint associated with accomplishing planning inventories in traditional ways (i.e., stand exams over several years). It is hoped that this methodology can be more efficient and flexible to accomplish implementation via stewardship contracting, etc. Soils and Site Productivity All hazardous fuels reduction treatments and vegetation manipulation activities must meet LRMP Standards and Guidelines and more specific thresholds established for this project for soil quality and site productivity (see Mitigation Measures, Section C, 6, this Chapter). The Proposed Action requires that no ground-based equipment would be allowed off classified roads, temporary roads, or landings. Given these constraints, it is anticipated that aerial systems, e.g., helicopters, would be the primary system used to accomplish any mechanical treatments requiring movement of large material (e.g., logs or bundled slash) under the Proposed Action. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11-44 Ashland Forest Resiliency 5. The Community Alternative The Community Alternative is based on Chapter 8 of the CWPP (see Section A, 1, this Chapter). This alternative was crafted by volunteer professional forest and ecological scientists, and community members within the Ashland community as an alternative to the Forest Service Proposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency. This alternative outlines a strategy addressing the risk of large-scale, stand replacing fire in the watershed. The alternative plan is referred to as the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative (AFRCA) or Community Alternative. The AFRCA is specifically designed to address the Purpose and Need statement established by the Forest Service (a requirement ofNEP A), as well as the requirements for an alternative as defined in the HFRA. On May 12, 2004, the Responsible Official (Forest Supervisor) met to discuss thc.City of Ashland's response to the Forest Service's proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency project being planned under the guidelines of the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The City of Ashland had responded to the Proposed Action with Phase I of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), an element ofHFRA that can be prepared bya community at-risk to wildfire, a definition met by the City of Ashland. When the Federal agency's Proposed Action does not implement the recommendations in the CWPP regarding the general locations and basic method of treatments, the agency is directed to evaluate the CWPP as an alternative to the agency's Proposed Action. On this date, the Responsible Official offered to haltp:reparation of the DEIS based only on the Forest Service Proposed Action to provide the~ity of Ashland time to provide the details of the CWPP and alternative with enough specificityfor thc.Forest Service to include it in the DEIS and meet fair ~nd equal analysis requirelllentsrelative to the Proposed Action. The objective of the Responsible Official was to have the Forest Service environmental analysis complete in order for implementation to begin field season 2005. To meet this schedule, the Responsible Official stated a need for completed details of the alternative based on the City of Ashland's CWPP by October 1, 2004. The City met the October 1 st deadline, however, understanding the Community Alternative in order for the Forest Service to conduct fair and equal analysis, as well as other Forest Service priorities, resulted in further collaborative work into May of 2005. This proposal was fUllY developed over the summer of 2004 by an informal group of experienced natural resource professionals representing the City of Ashland (Technical Team19), thus building on many years ofcolJ1munity involvement in public land management in the Ashland Watershed. The development of the Community Alternative devoted several months to defining the process and obtaining existing data from the Forest Service. The work of the Technical Team was heavily influenced by conceptual ecological models applied by the team based on extensive experience and varying degrees of field time in the Analysis Area and related systems. 19 Marty Main, Consulting Forester, City of Ashland (Team Leader); Darren Borgias, Southwestern Oregon Stewardship Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy; Richard Brock, Consulting Botanist; Chris Chambers, Forest Work Grant Coordinator, City of Ashland; Evan Frost, Consulting Ecologist; Jay Lininger, Conservation Fellow, University of Montana; Tony Kerwin, BLM Wildlife Biologist; Frank Betlejewski, Forest Service Natural Resource Specialist; George Badura, Soil Scientist, (Forest Service retired); Cindy Deacon Williams, Conservation Director, Headwaters (fish biologist); Diane E, White, Forest Service Ecologist; and Keith Woodley, Fire Chief, City of Ashland. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II. 45 Ashland Forest Resiliency The work attempted to integrate a host of watershed information into spatially explicit treatment "settings"20 with prescriptions for treatment in specified priority areas rendered primarily by Plant Association Group, and/or in combination with topography. Information used included: spatial data21 on vegetation, wildlife, and riparian areas; digital elevation models and assessment of landscape position to translate conceptual models; ecological and community social values; and informed judgment on environmental sensitivities. The Technical Team provided details of the alternative strategy but did not participate in the analysis of consequences, a responsibility of the Federal Agency. a. Function of tbe Community Alternative This alternative addresses the Purpose and Need by treating surface fuels and by creation of more open stand structure and reduction in vertical continuity (i.e., ladder fuels) in areas most appropriate (based on PAGs) for this type of treatment. It proposes stand density reduction to create a more fire resilient landscape while maintaining a high level of structural heterogeneity across the landscape. This alternative offers a different approach to managing fire in the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area - the establishment of a mosaic of fire resistant patches to restore landscape-scale resiliency. Implementation of this management approach is designed to result in an immediate reduction in the risk of large-scale, high-severity wildland fire in the Analysis Area. This alternative addresses the landscape homogenization of fuels and vegetation that has resulted from past managemellt a.ctivities, including fire exclusion. Its underlying design concept is restoration of stand and fuel heterogeneity in the Analysis Area, and in particular, the Ashland Watershed. Variable density management is an appropriate conceptual approach for fire hazard reduction and the Community AltemativebasedLto the greatest extent possible, its application of variable density management on natural landscape and vegetative features. This alternative proposes to reestablish lan~scape-scale habitat patchiness through a "Fuel Discontinuity Network" (FDN). The AFR~A relies on this patchiness to ameliorate fire behavior but does not directly address creating:fi:re suppression zones as described with DFPZs. The Community Alternative calls for the following actions and constraints on management: ~ Focus inventory and treatment on the lower elevation dry Plant Association Groups (Ponderosa Pine, Dry Douglas-fir, Moist Douglas-fir, and Dry White Fir). ~ Establish a Fuel Discontinuity Network (FDN): o Identify and use features that are currently fire resilient. Areas fitting this classification are referred to as "Category 1". o Identify and implement fuel reduction treatments in areas where relatively little management investment may be able to create relatively fire resilient stand conditions. Such lands readily made resilient are referred to as "Category 2". ( 20 "settings" are defined as classification of place, plant associations, slope, aspect, topographic position, and existing degree of resiliency (Borgias pers. com 2005). 21 Spatial data and PAG mapping was provided by the Forest Service. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-46 Ashland Forest Resiliency /~~" \ ) '.._~oY ( o Identify and implement treatments in those areas that occupy strategic geographic positions and connections in the landscape relative to Categories 1 and 2. These areas are referred to as "Category 3". Note: Numbering of categories above does not imply priorities within categories; see further descriptions, next page. ~ Where landscape-scale fuel reduction is determined to be most strategic, plan treatments that recognize and foster natural variability, pose the least risk to resource values, and facilitate the restoration of fire as a key ecosystem process. b. Description of the Community Alternative The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with AFRCAalso include those that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Like the Proposed Action, stand treatments are designed to influence fire behavior by altering available fuel, fuel arrangement, and affect species composition. This approach would take advantage of the existing heterogeneity in the Analysis Area, and where necessary, create additional discontinuity in fuels (both horizontally and vertically) to establish a fuel discontinuity network and thereby reduce landscape-scale fire hazard not necessarily by improving control lines, but by reducing the potential overall severity of fire. Such an approach would achieve variability in fuel density across the landscape while treating the least number of acres necessary in prcler to address the Purpose and Need effectively. The Community Alternative identifies approximately 8,990 acres of treatment settings22. The primary hazardous fuel reduction treatments are associated with creation of a Fuel Discontinuity Network. The FDN is defined by three broad categories introduced above. Within these categories, priorities are identified. As discussed in sub-section C, 2, D of this Chapter, each Category identifies potential treatments and identifies Priorities with categories. As with the Proposed Action, this does not imply that priorities cannot be implemented concurrently or that the initial priorities must be completed prior to enactment of the next priority; priorities only suggest the order and sequencing of treatments. Extent of proposed treatments are estimated and rounded up to the nearest 10 acres in the following discussions. ICate~ory 1. Features that are Currently Fire Resilien~ Category 1 includes identification and use of all features that currently have lower potential for crown fire as the initial starting or anchor points for treating fuels in the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area. This may include natural openings, meadows, relatively open ridgetops, moist riparian areas, relatively fire resilient late seral forest, and areas where previous management has temporarily reduced crown fire potential. These areas would serve as the cornerstone for re-establishing more landscape-level patchiness in fuels and vegetation conditions, assuming adequate maintenance occurs. 22 The 8,990 acres of settings represent a maximum potential and is used for analysis. Inventory may reduce the overall amount of setting area during implementation Final EIS I! DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 47 Ashland Forest Resiliency Based on this strategic assumption, Category 1 features do not require treatment at this time and are not part of the Community Alternative's proposal for hazardous fuel reduction (with the exception of previously treated areas in need of maintenance, see below). Category 1 areas are however a key component and basis of adjacent areas that are being proposed for treatment (i.e., Category 2 and 3). Map 11-4 portrays areas analyzed as Category 1 under the Draft EIS. MAP 11-4. Community Alternative - Category 1 Areas Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative '111e 1 is])r\ FurL'sl SLT\'in' us.::, ilK' mosl curn:nl and c()l\Ipkll.': data <I\:ailahle, Existing r,:solln:c data :mll existing hOllnuUJ:v iUld 1l1l'iliLy 1~)l'aLions areil approximale. GIS data and )lJ\)lluCI accuracy may vary. {1~illg UlS product:, for purposes l)th.:r Ihall I<\r whiclt tlt..::y arc inkmkll may yidd inaccuraLe or misleading results. ( \ ~ational Forest Boundary ~if Roads ~Streams " " ' Analysis Area Boundary .. Category 1 Fire Resilient Areas N A o Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 48 Ashland Forest Resiliency C) ( An examination was made of the mapped vegetation and physical features of the Analysis Area that, according to conceptual ecological models, might currently exhibit conditions that support low crown fire potential. These areas make up approximately 3,800 acres of the total 22,286 National Forest acres in the Analysis Area, the bulk of which are represented within the Riparian Reserves. Most of the natural openings are at high elevation within the Shasta Red Fir and Mountain Hemlock Plant Association Groups. While important for the high elevation sites, natural openings contribute little to the desired fuel discontinuity network that would reduce the potential for widespread stand replacement fire at mid and low elevations. While Riparian Reserves and the riparian habitat they encompass are relatively widespread, some of the forests have dense understories of seedlings, saplings and poles that areniore prone to severe fire effects and therefore less fire-resilient. As originally analyzed, this alternative assumed that the Forest Service would complete the projects scheduled in the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (A WPP). Basedon examination of the landscape and professional judgment, it is assumed thatmany of the areas that previously had been treated to reduce fuels, such as the units of the AWPP (see sub- section 2, c, Section C, this Chapter), the prescribed broadcast underburns in and around the East Fork of Ashland Creek and shaded fuel breaks, would require ongoing periodic maintenance at a minimum. These previously treated lands were re-allocated to Category 2, Priority 3 areas. \cate2ory 2. Features that are "Readily" Made Fire Resilien~ Category 2 includes identification and implementation of fuel reduction treatments in those areas where relatively little resource investIpenrmay be able to create relatively fire-resistant stand conditions. This may include low-productivity sites with relatively little encroachment of small trees, dry Plant Association Groups on south and west aspects, or open stands dominated by large conifers or hardwoods. Targeting initial work, as needed, in these areas would maximize the area to be treated with available funds and personnel, and thereby provide the greatest opportunity to quickly reduce fuels and restore ecosystem function at larger spatial scales. Physical information and vegetation data were analyzed to identify sites in addition to the previously treated.lands discussed above, where forest composition and structure should be managed or maih~~ined to restore conditions that increase the potential for fire resiliency by sustaining r~latively low fire intensity and severity in the future. Based on conceptual ecological models and judgment, category areas dominated by pine species and areas predol11inantly in upper and middle slope positions were included, primarily on southerly and westerly slopes prone to desiccation due to solar and wind exposure, shallower soils, and overall lower soil moisture retention. These are conditions that typically support ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir at relatively low density, along with hardwoods, particularly oak speCIes. Based on analysis, this alternative excluded patches where fire resilient, late seral and old- growth conditions were likely to occur based on modeling with the vegetation data. Ground validation during implementation likely would identify some areas currently included that should not have been, as well as locate some areas currently excluded that should have been included (see sub-section C). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 49 Ashland Forest Resiliency ---rrrT. ~~-~- () ( Under this Category, sensitive areas prone to landslide hazard (LHZ 1 and 2), areas with slopes greater that 65 percent, areas with shallow or sensitive soils and sites within 'l4 mile of a spotted owl activity are excluded. There are approximately 5,320 acres identified in this Category. Map 11-5 portrays treatment areas proposed with the Community Alternative under the DEIS. Priority 2 Several forest types were classified for treatment within this Category and Priority to meet the goal of enhancing the survivorship of large fire-tolerant white and black oak, ponderosa pine and sugar pine dominated forest stands. These legacy oaks and pines confer a high degree of stand resilience to fire provided the understory of seedlings, saplings and poles are not excessively abundant (conditions that create horizontal and vertical homogeneity in the fuel bed that are conducive to canopy fire), and are a threatened structural element. Stands were mapped where pine is the predominant species and that occur on the upper two thirds slope positions on any aspect and a high priority was placed on these areas for variable density management (thinning from below) around the legacy trees. The legacy trees on these sites are considered susceptible to reduced growth and vigorresulting from drought and density related moisture stress. Reduced vigor promotes insect and disease related mortality; hence the high priority for treatment in these stands. Approximately 1,810 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. Priority 3 Some areas previously treated with hazardous fuel reduction actions need maintenance to remain effective. Under AFRCA, areas thatreceived fuel reduction treatment in the past originally were grouped within Category 1, btitafter further consideration, it was determined at least some would need to be treated and were considered Category 2 (and Priority 3) because of their current or near-termfutureneed for maintenance to retain conditions that support low crown fire potential and satisfy other stated goals. Treatments may include follow-up understory slashing, prescribed burning or thinning. Approximately 580 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. Priority 4 Lower elevation southerly and westerly slopes on the upper two-thirds of hillsides and ridges, typically supportqpenmixed stands of oaks and madrone, large Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and sugar pine often with a high abundance of seedlings, saplings, poles and younger, mature Douglas- fir and white fir. Such low elevation mixed conifer stands are a high priority for understorythinhing below and around these reserve trees to restore their fire resiliency by improving the survivorship of the legacy trees in a subsequent fire. Currently, moisture competition with the dense understory that has grown up since effective fire suppression, raises the urgency to treat these stands. \ } Fuels would be reduced and the density of the smaller trees would be thinned to re-establish more open conditions that would have occurred had fire suppression not affected stand structure. Historically these areas were prone to relatively frequent (yet variable) wildfire of low and mixed fire severity that killed predominantly young trees, thinning from below, while larger trees more frequently survived. The intended manual treatments are designed to reestablish horizontal discontinuity in dead and live fuels, removing the abundance of young recruits that have established and grown in the long fire-free interval. Approximately 1,480 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 50 As~land Forest Resiliency () ( Priority 5 Compared with south and west aspects, moisture stress is less on the northerly and easterly aspects of the upper thirds of the slopes at lower elevations-areas that include Douglas-fir P AGs and the Dry White Fir P AG. Because of hill slope shading, temperatures are cooler and available moisture is typically greater (not included here are stands of the Moist White Fir PAG, which may occur in the same general slope and aspect, but within draws or on benches where greater available moisture is retained). These areas have a higher site potential to support a healthy growth of trees at greater density than slopes facing the afternoon sun. However, not having developed with recurrent fire during their growth, many such stands are found with excessive stand densities especially of abundant understory and Cohort 2 trees (defined below) in the canopy, including some larger diameter Cohort 2 trees. These conditions increase the potential for severe fire effects and threaten the large legacy Douglas-fir and pine Cohort 1 trees where they occur. These same trees often are threatened by loss of vigor due to density related issues that increase the potential for more severe effects of insects, fungi, and parasitic plant populations. Approximately 1,380 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. Priority 6 The upper one-third of southerly and westerly aspects at middle elevation predominantly supports the Cool White Fir Plant Association Group. Abundant legacy trees of Douglas-fir, pine species, and Shasta red fir occur in such areas aIld.these historically conferred fire resilience to such stands, provided the interval between fires was not too extensive. Good examples can be seen along the road from Four Cot.ners to Bull Gap. Understory and canopy encroachment by younger white fir and the accumulation of down and dead fuels in the absence of fire increase the potential for stand replacement fire in these stands. Other stands in these areas are dominated by white fir that developed as dense stands in the absence of thinning by low intensity fire. While these stands are naturally thinning their ranks to varied degrees through Gompetition for site resources (and potentially through insect and fungal related mortality) a greater probability of fire events burning with intense fire behavior and severe effects is expected. Reducing the density of such stands is proposed as a means to reduce potentic.ll. fire severity and increase the potential for development of late- successional habitat conditions and protection of watershed values, particularly water supply. This Priority includes portions of the Moist White Fir PAG which may occur in such slope positions and aspec.ts, but within draws or on benches where there is greater available moisture. ... ApprOximately 70 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. \Cate2ory 3. Strate~ic Connections (geographic, ecological, logistical, and social)1 .This Category accounts for many types of treatment areas that may include all P AGs including the Cool White Fir P AG, Dry Douglas-fir (which contains inclusions of Oregon White Oak, Ponderosa Pine P AGS), Moist Douglas-fir, Dry White Fir and Moist White Fir P AGs. The areas were evaluated for fire hazard based on several factors including ecological value at risk and the social values and hazards associated with the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). A high priority and need for treatment was identified for these areas. There are approximately 3,670 acres in this Category. Map II-5 portrays treatment areas proposed with the Community Alternative. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 51 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( ) ',~.J' Priority 1 The highest priority strategic area within the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area under this alternative is considered the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) because of the hazard of fire in the proximity of homes and other development and escape routes. Under AFRCA, this area is defined by the first major ridge above the city limits including Clayton Creek to the south, Wildcat Canyon to the northwest, and an area around the Reeder Reservoir and water treatment plant. Much of the WUI on Federal land has already been treated or identified for treatment under A WPP. Also proposed for treatment are Landslide Hazard Zone 2 and slopes up to 75% in the interface (with proper mitigation measures and rationale) to allow for optimal abatement of fire hazard for the urban values. Approximately 1,260 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. Priority 7 Corridors, not including the area within 50 feet of riparian areas within the middle and lower elevation P AGs, that also are within 200 feet of any setting described above, were ranked as Priority 7. These areas would extend the higher priority treatments described above, further down slope into Riparian Reserves to reduce the potential for the "wick effect" described earlier, and to take advantage of resiliency, existing or created. Approximately 510 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. Priority 8 Roadside corridors within 100 feet on either side of r()adsspanning short distances between other selected units are identified as Priority 8. Id~ntifica.tion of these corridors was further restricted to the lower elevation P AGs. These wereqesigned to offer fuel reduction zones that would be useful in promoting use of prescribed fire and to facilitate wildfire fire suppression. Areas identified for inclusion in this priority also extend fire resilient linkages between treated areas. Approximately 230 acres would be treated within this Priority. Priority 9 Under Category 3, northern spotted owl 1/4 mi. activity centers in low/mid elevation P AGS were identified for some light touch prescriptions to restore late-successional habitat benefits for northern spotted owls. Approximately 1,670 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority. MapU..5 does not portray Priority 9 treatment areas proposed with the Community Alternative to avoid drawing attention to locations of known pair activity centers. IStand Densityf ( Inventories completed on both City of Ashland and Forest Service lands indicate that in most situations stand densities are high to extreme, with relative densities very commonly at 0.6 to 1.0 (irrange that brackets the beginning stage of competition-related mortality and the theoretical maximum). These conditions result in increased stress and reduced vigor and growth among the trees of the stand increasing their susceptibility to the effects of insects, parasites, and fungi. These conditions result in a disadvantage for shade intolerant, fire resistant species. In the absence of fire, and with increasing duration of the fire free period the increasing proportion of the Analysis Area in this density range increases the potential and concern about a rapid widespread wave of insect mediated mortality that would disproportionately affect the oldest cohort of trees (see below). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 52 Ashland Forest Resiliency Under the Community Alternative, identified stands within this range would be prioritized for treatment in order to improve retained tree vigor, particularly of preferred larger trees of preferred species. Thinning should be "from below", creating stand structure that retains the most fire resistant trees and facilitates return of natural disturbance processes and creates fire resiliency. This strategy has been successfully employed on City of Ashland lands in the Analysis Area, with staged removal of non-commercial and commercial size class trees determined on a stand-by-stand basis. Coupled with ensuing slash treatment, this strategy has both improved vegetation (stand) vigor and reduced potential wildfire severity on an area-wide basis. It is also important to retain untreated portions of the landscape to encourage important structural variation, wildlife habitat, and other important values, thereby reducing total acreage treated This maintains and/or promotes heterogeneity of the vegetation throughout the area and is a critical project-level objective. IStand Structur~ Of the three characteristics that traditionally describe forested sta:nds,density, structure, and composition, structure is the most important of the three affecting fire behavior and severity. The diverse set of stand structures within the Analysis Area makes prescription development to achieve wildfire management benefits difficult. Nonetheless, in order for this approach to succeed, existing, desired, and future stand structure .mustbe specifically described in order to assess the effectiveness of proposed treatments. Under AFRCA, description of stand structure can be facilitated by delineating each of the various sizes/ages/layers of vegetation in a stand, typically referred to as cohorts. In all settings and treatments included under the Community Alternative, the intention is to primarily leave trees that were part of the stand prior to fire exclusion, the first cohort, and to reduce the abundance ofyoungyr recruits in the third and second cohorts grown over the last 80 to 100 years. To maintain diversity of ages and inclusion of multiple regeneration events, and to ensure ongoing stand development, it is important under AFRCA that some individuals of each cohort are retained. In the Analysis Area~ combinations of three general cohorts tend to occur as classified below (AWSA 1999); ( Cohort #1 - Older, Mature Cohort ~ Generally 25 to 50+ inches DBH, 150 to 300+ years ~ Tend to be spatially dispersed, occurring singly or more commonly in small aggregations, thereby creating a clumpy horizontal stand structure ~ Generally initiated and developed in the pre-settlement era when disturbance patterns were more frequent, of low to moderate intensity, creating greater diversity of age classes ~ More common in topographical areas that act as fire refugia such as gentle ridgelines and npanan areas ~ The most common P AGs and species: Oregon White Oak P AG; Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine P AG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir;Douglas-fir P AGs: ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; and White Fir P AGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas- fir, Shasta red fir Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlI II - 53 Ashland Forest Resiliency (~) ., - '"' ( Cohort #2 - Intermediate Cohort )> Generally 10 to 25 inches DBH, 80 to 140 years )> Tend to be more spatially and structurally uniform, typical of more even-aged stand structures )> Typically initiated following moderate to high-severity disturbance, such as the 1901 or 1910 wildfrre events )> Not having been thinned by subsequent fire, this cohort often currently is at excessive stand densities more typical of the stem exclusion stage of stand development, and declining in growth and vigor )> The most common P AGS and species: Oregon White Oak P AG; Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-frr; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, California black oak; Douglas-fir PAGs; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir; White Fir PAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red frr, white fir Cohort #3 - Young Cohort )> Generally 1 to 10 inches DBH, 10 to 50 years old )> Typical of the stand initiation or understory re-initiation stage of stand development )> Tend to be spatially and structurally uniform (e.g., plantations) typical of even-aged stands; a younger example of Cohort #2 )> Most noticeable in stands with recent disturbance history )> The most common P AGs and species: Oregon White Oak P AG; Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, California black oak; Douglas-fir PAGs; ponderosa pine, Douglas-frr, white frr; White Fir PAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red frr, white fir ISpecies Composition' Due to fire exclusion, tree species composition has shifted from that expected under natural conditions. In those areas of the Analysis. Area that historically were typified by vegetation adapted to frequent fire, absence of fire has provided a competitive advantage for the tree species that are both more shade tolerant and fire intolerant. These have replaced recruitment of species that are both shacleintolerant and fire tolerant which typically prosper when fires occur more frequently. Asaresult, white fir is now more abundant on sites that would have supported Douglas-fir (in White Fir P AGs) and Douglas-fir has moved onto sites where frequent fire favored dominance by pine and occasional oak and madrone (Oregon White Oak and PonderosaPine PAGs). To remedy this change in species composition and resistance to fire, pine and hardwood retention would be favored over Douglas-fir on many lower elevation sites (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir P AGs). Under AFRCA, Douglas-fir and pine retention would be favored over white fir retention in the Douglas-fir and White Fir P AGs. Historically, both white and black oak are thought to have been more abundant throughout the Analysis Area, particularly at low elevation and hot dry aspects. Without disturbance, black oak is eventually crowded out of the best sites and remains only as scattered remnants in mixed-conifer forests. It rarely exists as an understory tree, especially beneath a closed canopy (McDonald 1990). Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 54 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( ") ,/ Retention and promotion of Oregon white oak (tree form) is a primary objective for the Community Alternative. White oak tends to occur in soil and aspect settings with a lower potential for sustaining conifers. Nevertheless, Douglas-fir has encroached and overtopped many such oak settings. AFRCA promotes removing young encroaching conifers except pine and cedar species from the white oak sites. Under AFRCA, a species hierarchy is presented for each P AG, favoring those species that are generally part of the first cohort and for which recruitment has declined in abundance with changes in disturbance history over the last 150 years. All of the more detailed prescriptions (contained in DE IS Appendix C) are designed in part to promote and maximize retention of Cohort 1 trees throughout the Analysis Area. Among the 2nd and 3rd cohorts, the largest (based on height, diameter, or crowns) trees, and large, limby trees that developed in a more open, windy environment would be the priority for retention. Thinning would retain those trees best suited to withstand the more open conditions that would result from the thinning and modified group selection23. ISummaryj Under the Community Alternative, treatment areas are limited to National Forest lands in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Categories were defined by the citizens group in April 2004. Treatment areas, categories and priorities were developed.hy the AFRCA Technical Team, representing the City of Ashland. Selected treatments exclude primary and secondary Landslide Hazard Zones (LHZ 1 and 2), ecologically functioning riparian areas, slopes >.65%, or areas within ~ mile of northern spotted owl activity centers, unless noted. Some of these priorities include limited acreage within the McDonald Peak InventoriedRoadless Area (see following discussion). Total area identified for potential treatment, including within plantations is approximately 8,990 acres. 23 Modified group selection under the Community Alternative would create growing space around desired reserve trees by removing less desirable trees at a distance within the crown radius of the reserve tree. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 55 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( '] ,,) ( Table 11-4 provides a summary of Categories and treatment Priorities as discussed above, based on P AGs. Map II-5 portrays the Community Alternative, based on areas identified for potential treatment. Table n-4. Community Alternative - Summary of Treatments by P AGs Plant Association Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Groups (PAGs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dry Douglas-fir 403 490 143 299 266 NT 46 31 396 ( 1407) Moist Douglas-fir 447 485 176 287 438 NT 133 45 279 (1408) Dry White Fir 112 615 123 894 676 NT 128 72 693 (2004) Moist White Fir 298 184 102 NT NT 42 178 58 247 (2003) Cool White Fir NT 36 36 NT NT 28 25 24 55 (2098) Moist Mountain NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT Hemlock (2301) Cool Mountain NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT Hemlock (2311) Totals 1 ,260 1,810 580 1 ,480 1,380... 70 510 230 1 ,670 ... Grand total 8,990 acres NT = No treatment proposed Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII It - 56 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( MAP II -5. Community Alternative Treatment Areas Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative ilk I :..;;). \ j-.'h'"t ~',T\ k, II"" i/;, fll.);l ~!IIT~111 ,tile! c:..HlIl'kk (!;:!:l :I\:lii.Jhk, j\I...jjI1L', r',.<"lIr,',' d.il.l ;;l1d ,\1:--1111,;: hdl!l.hl\ ,:11.1 1;\Ulil\ 1",.;tti"ll-; .1"";\ :ljJpr".\im:lk, Cl:-- '/.11:1 .Ilid p."ilk') .1~'''Ur:II;\'ln;l\ <11'\ 1'''lli~ (i is pr,',lli'.!~ i: 'I' pllq\< )W~ ..1Ilt.'1 I han Jll Ii)!' \\ hidl (h~'\ :11'(' inkmkd 11'0:\\ ~. j,.l.J lILic>,'II1':11<: ,.1 "r !lll"k;ldm~, I'c',.lIlh .::::~,=== ~ational Forest Boundary </,/ Roads /"'v/Streams L~ Priority 1 CJ Priority 2 .. Priority 3 I?~ Priority 4 CJ Priority 5 r'--l Priority 6 .. Priority 7 12]11 Priority 8 N A Note: Priority 9 is not shown on this map but is described in text. 1 0 I "'::-., '~~ '. ~ '~ f:'\- ,,-P '.. j \:J"- ~, r;' , ~ .... I Rlwl RIE~-\ --I \~ Ii .fl Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II-57 Ashland Forest Resiliency /\'''' \ \ 'Jhlan I ~ , I I I' I I j i I ,\~ { "'~J '-"i/l --~ '+.:.. ./ Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative c::J National Forest Boundary - Forest Service Road Other Road - Streams c=,~~ Priority 1 ---''''--1 . .1" I Priority 2 '01 -.,---" ~ II Priority 3 Priority 4 C 1 Priority 5 L l Priority 6 _ Priority 7 ,:'''--:] Priority 8 ~ ~ ~ o 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles c. Specific Design Elements and Specific Mitigation Measures This sub-section includes specific Community Alternative design elements that are identified as unique and/or different than those contained under the Proposed Action (i.e., they are not common). These elements also include discussions that can be considered specific mitigation measures. Implementation Methodology The original Community Alternative, dated April 2004, called for a spatially explicit inventory of vegetation and soil conditions in the Ashland Watershed during the planning process under this DEIS. Therefore, a key design element under the Community Alternative is the requirement for a site-specific ground-based inventory that would be accomplished concurrent with and at the time of implementation. This element is non-traditional to typical Forest Service planning efforts where inventories and even preliminary implementation are accomplished in the planning phase. The Community Alternative envisions forthcoming explicit inventories to gather a variety of data during implementation, including site and stand evaluation data (i.e., slope, aspect, soils type, tree size class distribution, basal area, species and cohort. composition, Plant Association Group, snags, down logs by decay class, dwarf mistletoe levels, fuel loading, etc.) with a protocol to be determined to influence the site-specific prescription and operational plan for a given treatment area. Certain amounts of treatments are proposed associated with certain design criteria or limitations. The actual on-the-ground conditions that trigger these criteria are to be validated concurrent with implementation. Concurre~tmonitoring would ensure that the effects of any decision are equal to or lesser than those documented in NEP A planning analysis and decision. Further, development of inventory protocols and a detailed monitoring plan would be developed concurrent with and afthe time of decision. Baseline Inventory and Monitoring Under AFRCA, there is a specific and unique requirement to conduct inventories and acquire baseline data for monitoring. This inventory is to be gathered at a sufficient time prior to implementation oftreatlllents to allow it to be used to establish baseline conditions, for which implementation monitoring data can be compared, Most important of the data elements is vegetation data, which would validate the satellite imagery and validate the accuracy of the P AG mapping. Soil Conservation Given the highly erosive nature of the soils in the Analysis Area, the following general prescriptions would be imposed (to ensure long-term soil productivity is maintained) on any vegetative treatment. See Soil and Site Productivity, Chapter III for specific soil types and further discussion. ( The AFRCA promoted alternative strategies for small-diameter material utilization, and therefore was developed with the assumption that ground based yarding equipment could be utilized, as appropriate, where soil quality and site productivity could be maintained. Machinery use such as tracked and rubber tired equipment can be detrimental on the soil units except on existing roadways without site specific mitigation measures designed to protect the soil productivity and water resources. Their use would be mitigated as follows: Final Els IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 58 Ashland Forest Resiliency (, -Slopes less than or equal to 20 percent would be the upper limit for ground based equipment. "Slashbuster" tracked machines would not be allowed as an appropriate tool for brush or tree thinning anywhere within the AFRCA Project Area. -Slopes below 20 percent may require one or more of the following mitigation measures which would be included after evaluating site-specific conditions: -Use of skid pans. -Skid on the contour. -Remove blades from equipment so that no dozing occurs. -Line to a designated skid trail w/extra coarse woody or large woody material placed on the trail after operation. -Do not water-bar. -Other opportunities may occur depending on site-specific conditions. -No ground-based equipment would be used on slopes greater than 200/0. 1) Slopes 0 to 20 percent: Mechanical use from existing roadways is valid with the prescriptions addressing soil Standards and Guidelines for the Municipal Watershed. Areas exposed and not having effective ground cover must be protected before the winter weather begins. 2) Slopes 20 to 65 percent: No ground-based treatments would be used on these slopes. In areas of resource conflicts, mitigation measures designed for soils would be developed. 3) Slopes 65 to 75 percent: No treatment except with site specific rationale. For this slope range the site-specific rationale must be developed by geologists in the case of slope stability concerns or soil scientists in the case of soil productivity and surface erosion concerns. 4) Slopes above 75 percent: No treatment areas. - Hand piling of slash to be burned would be minimized under the canopy (drip line) of standing green trees to protect feeder roots within the topsoil and important soil humus. -If treatment on'a steep slope would otherwise be considered necessary to restore ecological integrity, a site specific rationale must be developed to justify any treatment on that site and must incorporate measures to protect soil productivity, water quality and address erosion and slope stability concerns. Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers Treatments within 0.25 miles of owl activity centers would be highly limited unless undergrowth is considered excessive to provide for protection and/or restoration of existing habitat. This situation exists where undergrowth inhibits owls from accessing ground- dwelling prey species over 50 percent or more of any particular stand of 40 acres or more. In all cases, at least 25-35 percent of a treatment area would remain untreated to provide habitat for prey species. Treatments would concentrate on small diameter shrub and tree species that preclude meeting the 50 percent target. Prior to treatment of owl activity centers, site-specific treatment plans would be developed in consultation with a wildlife biologist knowledgeable in habitat characteristics, and needs of spotted owls and other late-successional dependent species. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 59 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Treat only ladder fuels within approximately 0.25 miles around known nest sites. From 0.25 to approximately 0.5 miles from known nest sites, other treatment options are possible. The strict "core" areas (activity center out to 0.5 miles) may be somewhat dissected by ridges that support less suitable habitat. Within these areas, based on P AG or slope position, there are a number of different prescriptions identified (see DEIS Appendix C). The prescription below takes precedence over those prescriptions unless otherwise stated. Variable density thinning around retention pine and hardwoods is a potential treatment in upland areas (upper 1/3 slope) and on slopes with southern exposures where habitat is not currently suitable for spotted owls. Retain characteristics of suitable habitat and avoid canopy reduction within currently suitable habitat, particularly along riparian corridors and on north slopes. Thinning prescriptions by P AG and aspect can be utilized around leave trees with the following restriction. Relative density treatment within these areas would be at or above the highest relative density identified in the prescription. In areas without retention pine or hardwood, high pruning, slashing, light understory thinning, and a prescribed fire treatment are recommended. Where appropriate, and only where necessary to meet ecological objectives, generalP AGprescriptions may be employed. However, note the canopy and habitat restrictions above. ,Canopy may be retained in any canopy layer above 20 feet in height and can be composed of any conifer or hardwood species. Within areas that would provide for connectivity between nest sites, such as northerly aspects and riparian corridors, avoid reduction in canopy closure and retain other habitat characteristics generally considered tobe important for spotted owls. Retain a multi- storied canopy where it is available. Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe Management of Douglas- fir infected with dwarf mistletoe is complicated by its inherent tendency to both promoteimportant late-successional values (e.g., spotted owl nesting sites) while exacerbating processes (e.g., increased wildland fire severity) and/or successional trends (species composition change) that can detract from project goals. The complicated nature ofDouglas-firdwatfmistletoe management, particularly given the multiple and sometimes conflicting goals of the project, necessitates decision-making on a site-by-site basis during the implementation phase. Under AFRCA, the implementation process would require a spatially explicit inventory of mistletoe infections at a landscape scale to support assessment of the need for treatment at a stand scale. Projections for long-term availability of dwarf mistletoe infected trees with large brooms, and subsequent protection and/or promotion of such features, should be included. Several features of dwarf mistletoe can be used to develop successful management practices that may promote goals outlined for the project. First, mistletoe is an obligate parasite that requires a living host to survive. Second, it is generally confined to a single host species. Third, dwarf mistletoe has a long life cycle and generally slow rates of spread. Fourth, dispersal of dwarf mistletoe seed is generally limited to short distances, typically about 10 feet. And fifth, dwarf mistletoe infected trees usually are easy to visually detect. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!I II - 60 Ashland Forest Resiliency Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe management practices under the Community Alternative include: . Killing some infected trees by girdling or cutting them. · Retaining non-host tree or shrub species between infected and uninfected Douglas- fir trees to prevent or slow spread of the parasite. · Selecting infected trees for removal in thinning of younger, lightly-infected stands, · Pruning infected branches, although seldom effective in eliminating the disease due to latent infections, can diminish parasite abundance while raising crown base heights to address fire hazard. This is particularly effective in vigorous trees and stands with low levels of infection. · Clumping the distribution of infected trees into small groups widely separated from each other, thereby reducing spread. · Cutting heavily-infected trees that can easily facilitate the movement of fire from the ground surface into tree crowns, particularly in stands that have other large trees of preferred species in close proximity. · Utilizing potential barriers to dwarf mistletoe spread, such as roads, meadows, rocky outcrops, creeks, species composition changes, etc. Management of dwarf mistletoe-infected trees can be avoided at lower slope positions where reduced spread rates and spotted owl nest sites tend to occur. A much lower priority for management exists in relatively vigorous even-aged stands that feature limited Douglas-fir understories or understories dominated by non-hostspecies, Treatments generally are more appropriate at upper two-thirds slope positions and in multi-layered stands with infected overstory trees. From a fire management perspective, dwarf mistletoe management can reduce vertical fuel continuity through broom pruning or felling of heavily-infected trees. Management also can reduce horizontal fuel continuity through felling or removal of infected trees in small, created openings subj ect to the retention preferences discussed above. Thinning around vigorous, lightly infected trees also can promote long-term availability of wildlife nesting trees. Infected trees with branches able to support large brooms are particularly important features to retain for potential spotted owl nest sites (Marshall et al. 2003). Ecologically Functioning Riparian Areas During implementation, the Community Alternative proposes that the riparian area delineation be tailored to reflect site-specific characteristics throughout the Analysis Area. In general, these ecologically functioning riparian areas and an ad~itional 50-foot buffer would not be treated. Above the no treatment zone in areas identified as priorities for fuel reduction, treatments gradually would increase in intensity so that they would receive the same treatments as northerly aspects for that P AG. I { \ Within the riparian areas, restoration treatments would occur only where past timber harvest and management activities (including establishment of plantations) have encroached into the riparian area and natural recovery is not occurring. In such circumstances, recruitment of large woody debris may have been impaired and therefore, likely would need to be supplemented. Final EIS !I DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 61 Ashland Forest Resiliency ~, Inventoried Roadless Area The Technical Team made assessments and planned management based primarily on ecological attributes, but adjusted consideration and sensitivities based on social values as well. During the alternative development process, the Team discovered some of the priority settings included limited acreage within the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area. The Technical Team recognized that treatments in the Roadless Area may be socially controversial. Therefore, the nature of management actions was minimized on these lands to prescribed fire and limited "light touch" hand work on small diameter (under 7 inch DBH) understory fuels and vegetation. Reintroduction of prescribed (and eventually naturally ignited fire) to the Ashland Creek Watershed is very important to restoration of forest ecosystems because it supports natural, dynamic interactions between ecosystem structure and process. Wildland fire offers distinct advantages over other management options in terms of restoration of landscape structures and spatial patterning, and reflects one of the overall goals of this project and the Community Alternative, to restore wildland fire as a natural process in the Watershed. The most appropriate places to implement landscape-scale fire restoration treatments include the Inventoried Roadless Area and large blocks of lightly roaded areas where risks to human life and property are low, such as the lands outside of the wildland-urban interface. Large Tree Retention AFRCA is designed to promote and maximize retentiqh of Cohort 1 and larger Cohort 2 trees throughout the Analysis Area. This alternative proposes to reduce fuels and the density of the smaller trees. Cohorts 2 and 3 would be thinned from below to establish more desired open forest structure and, to the extent possible, 'the largest trees of all species in the stand would be retained. Under the Community Alternative, specific justification would be required for felling and/or removal of tree~ in Cohorts 1 and 2. Site-specific prescriptions would be developed during implementation; protocols are discussed below. Around Cohort 1 trees, stand density reduction would be employed in priority areas identified for treatment to improve vigor, reduce susceptibility to attack from bark beetles and/or disease, and redu~ethe potential for damage from wildfire and/or prescribed fire - that is, to maximize their potenthll for long-term retention. Stand density reduction should focus on smaller Cohort 2 and 3 trees first within the immediate vicinity of the retained Cohort 1 trees and out to a radius equal to 2 crown radii. Complete, tree and/or vegetation removal within this crown radii is not the intention; rather, an overall reduction in stand basal area not to exceed 50 percent of existing basal areas, or a specified basal area target (100 square feet per acre in Ponderosa Pine and Douglas- fir P AGs; 150 square feet per acre in White Fir P AGs),whichever is greater (see FEIS Appendix C). Basal area targets in all P AGs are intended as guides to facilitate site-specific evaluations. Where management is necessary, thinning would start first with the smallest trees on the site. Conversely, the largest trees on the site would be reserved first. Trees identified for thinning would be used to satisfy snag and down wood targets (largest first). Density and spacing of trees left after stand density reduction can be ordered, clumped, or variable, ideally with vegetation and tree felling and removal greatest in downhill directions (or in the direction of expected spread in a wildfire event). Ladder fuels within the crown radius of the preferred Cohort 1 tree are also a priority for removal. In the treatment area around the preferred Cohort 1 tree, retention of the most vigorous Cohort 1 or 2 trees is desired to reach target basal areas, with pines and larger hardwoods particularly preferred. Final EIS I! DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIl II - 62 Ashland Forest Resiliency III 1------- () In stands within Priority areas identified for treatment where greater than 500/0 of basal area is in trees between 25 to 50+ inches (Cohort 1), the AFRCA requires site specific rationale for cutting trees or creating snags from trees over 25 inches. Cutting typically means trees are left on site to satisfy habitat or soil obj ectives. Once density targets, snag recruitment, down wood, and soil management objectives are satisfied, felled trees are considered excess to fuel hazard objectives, and are available for removal. A transparent validation process is required for removal of trees over 25 inches DBH. In stands where greater than 50% of basal area is in trees 10-25 inches DBH (Cohort 2 dominated), AFRCA requires site-specific rationale for cutting and then removing (defined above) trees over 17 inches, or creating snags, when all other objectives are met. The transparent validation process discussed above is required for cutting and removal of trees in this size class. 6. The Preferred Alternative Under the provisions ofNEP A, for the Final EIS, the Forest Service has developed and analyzed an additional Action Alternative, designed and identified as the Preferred Alternative. This Action Alternative was developed from the results of analysis of the two Action Alternatives analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS, further collaboration with the City of Ashland and their representatives, and the extensive comments received on the Draft EIS during the Comment Period, The Preferred Alternative was designed to include the most effective and efficient treatment methodologies, in the most strategic locations. In designing this alternative, the Community Alternative was instrumental for informing the Forest Service in meeting the objective of identifying the most efficient and effective treatments. In essence, the Preferred Alternative ori~iI1atedas the Community Alternative adjusted in certain strategic ways, based on the Forest Service obligation to meet public land management objectives. At the core of the Preferred Alternative is the consideration of Plant Association Groups (P AGs). A qualitative evaluation of past conditions was overlain with assumed "sustainable" disturbc;lnce regimes and current vegetative conditions to determine future desired conditions for the P AGs, further refined by seral stage and proportions. Additional driving factors of this alternative were based on ecological and social issues surrounding occurrence of high human-caused fire ignition and high fire occurrence history. Specific Forest Service "values at risk" include human life and property associated with the wildland/urban interface; ecological sustainability including protection and maintenance of pine; water quality including protection of the municipal water supply, and protection of threatened species and maintenance of late-successional habitat. a. Function of the Preferred Alternative ( The function of the Preferred Alternative is to obtain the stated Purpose and Need to a high degree, while minimizing adverse environmental effects. Utilizing the most effective and efficient treatment methodologies of the two Action Alternatives analyzed in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative focuses treatments in areas with strategic value in relation to fire spread and intensity. The result of this alternative is to reduce the overall amount of area potentially treated, as well as minimize the adverse physical, biological, and human/social environmental effects over the two alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 63 Ashland Forest Resiliency This alternative functions predominately to represent the goals, objectives, and outcomes expressed by the Community Alternative, developed by the City of Ashland. Some aspects have been specifically adjusted to represent a "preferred" 'course of action, and to meet agency goals for the entire Upper Bear Analysis Area, The Preferred Alternative proposes stand density reduction to create a more fire resilient landscape while maintaining a high level of structural heterogeneity across the landscape. Variable density management followed by prescribed burning would reduce canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, thereby providing maximum protection from severe fires in the future (Peterson and others 2003). The Preferred Alternative proposes to reestablish landscape- scale habitat patchiness as designed in the Community Alternative, based to the greatest extent possible on natural landscape and vegetative features in concert with treatments along strategic ridgeline areas. The Preferred Alternative is based on a spatial arrangement of treatments that primarily modifies fire behavior in a dispersed pattern over a large area within the landscape. Treatment areas would achieve the greatest potential reduction in wildland fire size and severity when they limit fire spread in the heading direction. The heading fire also holds the most potential for initiating crown fire and spotting. These behaviors (crowning and spotting) also make suppression more difficult (Finney 2000). Treatments within strategic ridgeline areas are designed to: (1) reduce the extent of wild land fire severity by limiting the amount of area affected by wildland fire, (2) create areas where fire suppression efforts can be conducted more 'safely and effectively, (3) break up continuity of fuels over a large landscape, and (4) serve as anchor points for further area-wide fuel treatments, such as prescribed burning and maintenance burning. Within the Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA) treatments would selectively remove competition to existing large ponderosa or sugar pine and Douglas-fir and to create conditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Variable density management, prescribed burning and other surface fuel reduction treatments are options that would encourage more rtatllral species diversity and a more fire resilient forest. Treatments along portions of Forest Road 2060 not otherwise treated are designed to offer fuel reduction zones that would be useful in promoting use of prescribed fire and to facilitate wildfire fire suppression access and ~gress. The areas identified for inclusion in this priority also extend fire resilient linkages between treated areas. b. Description of the Preferred Alternative The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with the Preferred Alternative include those that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Treatments are designed to influence fire behavior by altering available fuel, fuel arrangement, fuel moisture, and species composition. f I ~ " ) Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 64 Ashland Forest Resiliency f f This approach would take advantage of the existing heterogeneity in the Analysis Area, and where necessary, create additional discontinuity in fuels (both horizontally and vertically) to reduce landscape-scale fire hazard and potential overall severity of wildland fire. This approach would achieve variability in fuel density across the landscape. The Preferred Alternative identifies approximately 7,600 acres of treatment24. The focus of treatments is on maintaining the largest and healthiest trees, however there are situations where larger diameter trees may need to be cut and removed. For example, larger diameter trees that are suppressed under more dominant and vigorous overstory trees, dead or dying (within 1-2 years) trees that create an imminent danger for worker safety, or live or dead trees that are part of overall implementation and would need to be removed for (helicopter) landings or helicopter flight paths. The Preferred Alternative does not include nor allow any new temporary road construction. On unstable areas (Landslide Hazard Zones 1 and 2), additional ground coverwould be maintained. Oak and madrone would be favored and coarse woody material would be placed in contact with the soil and oriented to provide a barrier to surface soil movement. In addition, a higher density of trees would be left on these unstable areas. The Preferred Alternative is defined by four broad "Strategic Categories" as introduced above. For the four broad categories, a prioritization of treatments is identified and described below. As with the other Action Alternatives, this does not imply that priorities cannot be implemented concurrently or that the initial priorities triust be completed prior to enactment of the next priority; priorities only suggest the order and sequencing of treatments. Extent of proposed treatments are estimated and rounded to the nearest 10 acres in the following discussions. The Project Area includes natural openings, meadows, relatively open ridgetops, moist riparian areas, relatively fire resilientlate seral forest, and areas where previous management has temporarily reduced crown fire potential. These areas would serve as the cornerstone for re-establishing more landscape-level patchiness in fuels and vegetation conditions, assuming adequate maintenance occurs., Based on this strategic assumption, these features do not require treatment at thi~time and are not part of the Preferred Alternative (with the exception of previously treated areas in need of maintenance). Proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatments under the Preferred Alternative are organized into four Strategic Categories25: These categories are conceptually displayed on Map II-6 ~ Fuel Discontinuity Treatment Areas, ~ Strategic Ridgeline Treatment Areas, ~ Research Natural Area Treatment Areas, and ~ Roadside Treatment Areas. 24 The estimated 7,600 acres of treatments represents a maximum potential and is used for analysis. Acreage of actual treatments may be reduced during implementation. 25 "Strategic Categories" are simply a way to organize the suite of treatments associated with the Preferred Alternative into 4 groupings, with specific and unique objectives. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 65 Ashland Forest Resiliency MAP 11-6. Preferred Alternative Strategic Categories llr,- '-'~ \ (' , ~ \ Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11-66 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Two fundamental strategies for landscape-level fuel management are to contain fires (compartmentalization) or to modify fire behavior with area-wide treatments (Finney 2000). The Preferred Alternative is designed around a combination of these two strategies by utilizing the fuel discontinuity treatment areas and strategic ridgeline areas. Fire effects and behaviors would be modified wherever fire encounters treated areas. In the description of the Preferred Alternative, the fuel discontinuity areas are described first because they form the foundation for the distribution of treatments areas. The application of fuel treatments in strategic ridgeline areas supplements the fuel discontinuity treatment areas and forms the connections to provide for an effective network. The strategic ridgeline areas and fuel discontinuity areas would be treated simultaneously starting with the lower elevations conceptually "radiating" from the City of Ashland, and then treatments would move further up into the Ashland Creek and surrounding watersheds. Treatment of the Research Natural Area would be the next priority. The roadside treatments could be implemented at any time to extend resilient linkages and facilitate maintenance burning. Figure II-2. Conceptual Implementation Scenario for Fuel Discontinuity. and Strategic Ridgeline Treatments Ashland ~ IFuell)iscontinuity Treatment Areasl The Preferred Alternative proposes to reestablish landscape-scale habitat patchiness as designed in the Community Alternative, based to the greatest extent possible on natural landscape and vegetative features in concert with treatments along strategic ridgeline areas. The location of the fuel discontinuity treatment areas is based on the prioritization model used in the Community Alternative with prescriptions for treatment in specified areas rendered primarily by Plant Association Group, and/or in combination with topography. Prioritization for treatment of the areas is generally based on elevation. That is, the lower elevations would be treated first, and then treatments would move further up into the Proj ect Area. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 67 Ashland Forest Resiliency The following "Priority Settings" from the Community Alternative are used to describe conditions and areas where treatment would occur. Approximately 3,210 acres would be treated in these areas. Priority Setting 1. This area is defined by the first major ridge above the city limits including Clayton Creek to the south, Wildcat Canyon to the northwest, and an area around the Reeder Reservoir and water treatment plant. Within this area, Landslide Hazard Zone 2 and slopes up to 750A> (with proper mitigation measures and rationale) would be treated to allow for the abatement of fire hazard. Priority Setting 2. Several forest types were classified for treatment to meet the goal of enhancing the survivorship of large fire-tolerant white and black oak, ponderosa pine and sugar pine dominated forest stands. These legacy oaks and pines can contribute to stand resilience to fire. These areas are identified by stands where pine is the predominant . species and occur on the upper two thirds slope positions on any aspect. The legacy trees in these sites are considered susceptible to reduced growth and vigor resulting from drought and density related moisture stress. Reduced vigor promotes insect and disease related mortality; hence the need for treatment in these stands. Priority Setting 4. Lower elevation southerly and westerly slopes on the upper two- thirds of hillsides and ridges, typically support open mixed stands of oaks and madrone, large Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and sugar pine often with a high abundance of seedlings, saplings, poles and younger, mature Douglas-fir and white fir. Low elevation mixed conifer stands are a priority for understory thinning below and around these reserve trees to restore their fire resiliency by improving the survivorship of the legacy trees in a subsequent fire. Priority Setting 5. Compared with south and west aspects, moisture stress is less on the northerly and easterly aspects ofth,eupper thirds of the slopes at lower elevations-areas that include Douglas-fir PAGs arid the Dry White Fir PAG. Because of hill slope shading, temperatures are cooler and available moisture is typically greater (not included here are stands of the Moist White Fir P AG, which may occur in the same general slope and aspect, but within draws or on benches where greater available moisture is retained). These areas hayeahigher site potential that could support a healthy growth of trees at greater densitythall slopes facing the afternoon sun. Priority Setting 6. The upper one-third of southerly and westerly aspects at middle elevation predominantly supports the Cool White Fir Plant Association Group. Abundant legacy trees of Douglas-fir, pine species, and Shasta red fir occur in these areas and that historically conferred fire resilience to such stands. Other stands in these areas are dominated by white fir that developed as dense stands in the absence of thinning by low intensity fire. These areas include portions of the Moist White Fir P AG which may occur in such slope positions and aspects, but within draws or on benches where there is greater available moisture. ( Priority Setting 7. Areas within 50 feet of riparian areas within the middle and lower elevation P AGs, that also are within 200 feet of any treatment area described above. These areas would extend the treatments described above, further down slope into Riparian Reserves to reduce the potential for the "wick effect", and to take advantage of resiliency, existing or created. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIl II - 68 Ashland Forest Resiliency IStrategic Ridgeline Treatment Area~ The areas treated along the strategic ridgelines are designed to maintain a relative stand density index of 0.4 - 0.6, depending on P AG and seral stage. This density would maintain a closed canopy26 in those areas where it currently exists. The relative stand density index for most of these stands is currently 0.7 to 1.0. Reasons for maintaining a relatively closed canopy include: maintaining higher fuel moistures of remaining surface fuels, reducing understory vegetation establishment, and reducing the maintenance cost, interval, and intensity (compared to currently existing shaded fuelbreaks). An estimated 2,780 acres could be treated wi thin these areas The majority of treatments in the Strategic Ridgeline areas would be surface fuel reduction treatments and the removal of ladder fuels by cutting smaller diameter trees thatwould allow fire to reach the crowns, as well as pruning the lower limbs of larger diameter trees. Pruning would remove remaining ladder fuels and raise the crown base height (height from the ground to the bottom of the live crown) to 15-20 feet, providing vertical discontinuity. The treatments within the Strategic Ridgeli~e areas are considered an interim measure to facilitate protection of the Values At Risk within the Ashlan.~ Watershed: namely water quality and late-successional habitat. By interim, it is meant that these areas would need to be maintained as a management feature until the point intime where landscape-wide treatments have been accomplished. In the forest/urban interface area, this is estimated to be from approximately 10-25 years depending on availability of funding and workforce, and recovery of resource conditions between treatments. !Research Natural Area TreatmentArea~ The Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA) was established on May 4, 1970, to provide examples of the "Pacific" ponderbsa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest found west of the Cascade Range in southern Oregon. More detailed information is fOUJldin Component 1 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. Due to fire exclusion, tree species composition has shifted from that expected under natural conditions. In those areas of the RNA that historically were typified by vegetation adapted to frequent fire, absence of fire has provided a competitive advantage for the tree species that are both more shade tolerant and fire intolerant. As a result, white fir is now more abundant on sites thatwould have supported Douglas-fir (in White Fir PAGs) and Douglas-fir has moved onto sites where frequent fire favored dominance by pine and occasional oak and madrone (Oregon White Oak and Ponderosa Pine PAGs). , The overall proposed treatment for this area is to selectively remove competition to existing large ponderosa or sugar pine and Douglas- fir to create conditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Approximately 1,280 acres are proposed for treatment. ( 26 For this analysis, a "closed canopy" refers to a canopy closure of 60% or greater. A stand density index of 0.4 - 0.6 generally refers to this canopy closure. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 69 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( ") ',.~7 ( \ Variable density management, prescribed burning and other surface fuel reduction treatments are options that would encourage more natural species diversity and a more fire resilient forest. Treatments would be designed to achieve a flame length of 4-6 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions. Prescribed underburning is proposed as routine maintenance after variable density management treatments as a complementary method that would encourage more natural regeneration of pines and sustain the pine ecosystem. An underburn would occur approximately 5-8 years following the thinning to maintain stand conditions. Under the Preferred Alternative, a species hierarchy is presented for each P AG, favoring those species that are generally part of the first cohort and for which recruitment has declined in abundance with changes in disturbance history over the last 150 years. Thinningwould retain those trees best suited to withstand the more open conditions that wouldresult from the thinning and modified group selection IRoadside Treatment Areasl The, roadside treatments are designed along portions of Forest Road 2060. These treatments would extend approximately 250 feet below and 50-75 feetabove the side of the road spanning the distances between other treated areas. Th~se \\fere designed to offer fuel reduction zones that would be useful in promoting use of prescribed fire and to facilitate wildfire fire suppression access and egress. Areas identified for inclusion in this priority also extend fire resilient linkages between treated areas; Approximately 330 acres would be treated as roadside treatment areas. !Maintenance Underburnin~ Prescribed underburning is proposed as routine maintenance ~fter the initial treatments. Prescribed fire is a useful t()ol thaftan effectively reduce the loading of fine fuels, duff, large woody fuels, rotten material;~hrubs, and other live surface fuels. This is a complementary method that would maintain desired fuel loadings and conditions. An underburn would occur approximately 5-8 years following initial treatments to maintain stand conditions. Underburningwouldalso accomplish the maintenance of stand conditions in those areas that do not currently require treatment. To most effectively utilize underbuming, the boundaries are usually tied to ridgelines or roads, or other areas where control lines can be anchored, such as strategic ridgeline areas or roadside treatment areas. The boundaries of the prescribed underburning area do not always match with areas that are mechanically treated (i.e. density management areas). It is likely that areas larger than the initial treatment would be included in the areas prescribed for 'maintenance underburning to include both treated and untreated areas and to utilize natural barriers. Final Els !IDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II 11-70 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( ) ''''~Y IStand Structur~ Of the three characteristics that traditionally describe forested stands, density, structure, and composition, structure is the most important of the three affecting fire behavior and severity. The diverse set of stand structures within the Project Area makes prescription development to achieve wildfire management benefits difficult. Nonetheless, in order for this approach to succeed, existing, desired, and future stand structure must be specifically described in order to assess the effectiveness of proposed treatments. A description of stand structure can be facilitated by delineating each of the various - sizes/ages/layers of vegetation in a stand, typically referred to as cohorts. Under the Preferred Alternative, the intention is to primarily leave trees that were part of the stand prior to fire exclusion, the first cohort, and to reduce the abundance of younger recruits in the third and second cohorts grown over the last 80 to 100 years. To maintain diversityof ages and inclusion of multiple regeneration events, and to ensure ongoing stand development, it is important that some individuals of each cohort are retained. In the Project Area, combinations of three general cohorts tend to occur as classified below (A WSA 1999): Cohort #1 - Older, Mature Cohort ~ Generally 25 to 50+ inches DBH, 150 to 300+ years ~ Tend to be spatially dispersed, occurring singly or more commonly in small aggregations, thereby creating a clumpy horizontal stand structure ~ Generally initiated and developed in the pre-settlement era when disturbance patterns were more frequent, of low to moderate intensity, creating greater diversity of age classes ~ More common in topographical areas that act as fire refugia such as gentle ridgelines and npanan areas ~ The most common PAGs and species: Oregon White Oak PAG; .Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine P AG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir;Douglas-fir P AGs: ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; and White Fir P AGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red fir Cohort #2 - Intermediate Cohort ~ Generally 10 to 25 inches DBH, 80 to 140 years ~ Tend to be more spatially and structurally uniform, typical of more even-aged stand structures ~ Typically initiated following moderate to high-severity disturbance, such as the 1901 or 1910 wildfire events ~ Not having been thinned by subsequent fire, this cohort often currently is at excessive stand densities more typical of the stem exclusion stage of stand development, and declining in growth and vigor ~ The most common P AGS and species: Oregon White Oak P AG; Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, California black oak; Douglas-fir PAGs; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir; White Fir PAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red fir, white fir Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 71 Ashland Forest Resiliency 1 Cohort #3 - Young Cohort ~ Generally 1 to 10 inches DBH, 10 to 50 years old ~ Typical of the stand initiation or understory re-initiation stage of stand development ~ Tend to be spatially and structurally uniform (e.g., plantations) typical of even-aged stands; a younger example of Cohort #2 ~ Most noticeable in stands with recent disturbance history ~ The most common P AGs and species: Oregon White Oak P AG; Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, California black oak; Douglas-fir PAGs; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir; White Fir PAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red fir, white fir ISummary ofTreatment~ Table II-5 provides a summary of treatment elements, based on PAGs. Map 11..7 portrays the Preferred Alternative, based on the conceptual location of treatments and areas. This alternative considers the Plant Association Group (P AG) the key determiner of the proposed prescriptions. Individual site differences may suggest slight prescription changes to more accurately reflect the inherent heterogeneity of site conditions within and among the treatment units/areas arrayed across ~he watershed. Treatment types are described in more detail in Appendix D. Table ll-5. Preferred Alternative - Summary of Treatments by P AGs Strategic Categories Plant Association Groups Fuel Discontinuity Strategic Rldgeline Research Roadside (PAGs) Treatment Areas Treatment Areas Natural Area Treatment Areas Dry Douglas-fir (1407) 1,040 680 310 30 Moist Douglas-fir (1408) 1 ~ 170 860 520 100 Dry White Fir (2004) 810 980 280 120 Moist White Fir (2003) 140 120 170 80 Cool White Fir (2098) 50 140 NT NT Totals ", 3,210 2,780 1 ,280 330 Grand total 7,600 acres' NT = No treatment proposed , ( \ Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlt II -72 Ashland Forest Resiliency .. - .', ~~, (J C'C~' MAP II -7 Preferred Alternative Treatment Types \. -:'\ ~""')' ~: Ashland Forest Resiliency Preferred Alternative Treatment Types D Dry Douglas-fir: South and West Aspects Dry Douglas-fir: Northerly Aspects D Moist Douglas-fir. South and West Aspects Moist Douglas-fir: Northerly Aspects D Dry White Fir: South and West Aspects D Dry White Fir: Northerly Aspects r-~ L-----.J Moist White Fir: South and West Aspects [-~ Cool White Fir: All Aspects c:J National Forest Boundary - Forest Service Road ,,---. Other Road - Streams 0.5 , 2 Miles Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11-73 Ashland Forest Resiliency /~) ("~; ,~,~Y ( \ c. Specific Design Elements and Specific Mitigation Measures This sub-section includes specific design elements that are identified as unique to the Preferred Alternative. These elements also include discussions that can be considered specific mitigation measures. Implementation Methodology Under the Preferred Alternative, certain amounts of treatments are proposed associated with certain design criteria or limitations. The actual on-the-ground conditions that trigger these criteria are to be identified and validated concurrent with implementation. Concurrent monitoring would ensure that that the effects of any decision are equal to or lesser than those documented in NEP A planning analysis and decision. Identification of conditions meeting treatment criteria may include slope, aspect, soils type, tree size class distributiQri; basal area, species composition, Plant Association Group, snags, down logs by decay class, dwarf mistletoe levels, fuel loading, etc. Protocol for identification of conditions would be determined to influence site-specific prescription and operational plans. This non-traditional methodology is proposed for Ashland Forest ResilIency under the Preferred Alternative because of the urgency and need for fuel reduction tre'atments and the time constraint associated with accomplishing planning inventories in traditional ways (i.e., stand exams over several years). This methodology can be more efficient and flexible to accomplish implementation via stewardship contracting, etc. Soils Given the highly erosive nature of the soils in the Project Area, the following general mitigations would be imposed (to ensure long-term soil productivity is maintained) on any vegetative treatment. See Soil and Site, Productivity, Chapter III for specific soil types and further discussion. ' Under Preferred Alternative, it i~assumed that ground based yarding equipment could be utilized, as appropriate, where soil quality and site productivity could be maintained. Machinery use such as trac~edand rubber tired equipment can be detrimental on the soil units except on existing,roadways without site specific mitigation measures designed to protect the soil productiyity and water resources. Their use would be mitigated as follows: -Slopes le~s than or equal to 20 percent would be the upper limit for ground based equipment ,', -"Slashbtister" tracked machines would not be allowed as an appropriate tool for brush or tre~ thinning anywhere within the Project Area. Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe Management of Douglas-fir infected with dwarf mistletoe is complicated by its inherent tendency to both promote important late-successional values (e.g., spotted owl nesting sites) while exacerbating processes (e.g., increased wildland fire severity) and/or successional trends (species composition change) that can detract from project goals. The complicated nature of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe management, particularly given the multiple and sometimes conflicting goals of the project, necessitates decision-making on a site-by-site basis during the implementation phase. Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSll 11-74 Ashland Forest Resiliency Several features of dwarf mistletoe can be used to develop successful management practices that may promote goals outlined for the project. First, mistletoe is an obligate parasite that requires a living host to survive. Second, it is generally confined to a single host species. Third, dwarf mistletoe has a long life cycle and generally slow rates of spread. Fourth, dispersal of dwarf mistletoe seed is generally limited to short distances, typically about 10 feet. And fifth, dwarf mistletoe infected trees usually are easy to visually detect. Douglas- fir dwarf mistletoe management practices under the Preferred Alternative include: . Killing some infected trees by girdling or cutting them. . Retaining non-host tree or shrub species between infected and uninfected Douglas-fir trees to prevent or slow spread of the parasite. . Selecting infected trees for removal in thinning of younger, lightly-infected stands. . Pruning infected branches, although seldom effective in eliminating the disease due to latent infections, can diminish parasite abundance while raising crown base heights to address fire hazard. This is particularly effective in vigorous trees and stands with low levels of infection. . Clumping the distribution of infected trees into small groups widely separated from each other, thereby reducing spread. . Cutting heavily-infected trees that can easily facilitate the movement of fire from the ground surface into tree crowns, particularly in'stands that have other large trees of preferred species in proximity. From a fire management perspective, dwarf mistletoe management can reduce vertical fuel continuity through broom pruning or felling of heavily-infected trees. Management also can reduce horizontal fuel continuity through fellingor removal of infected trees in small, created openings subject to the retention preferences discussed above. Thinning around vigorous, lightly infected trees also can promote long-term availability of wildlife nesting trees. Infected trees with branches able to support large brooms are particularly important features to retain for potential spotted owl nest sites (Marshall et al. 2003). Riparian Areas During implementation, the Preferred Alternative proposes that some treatments would occur in riparial}areasthroughout the Project Area. In general, areas within 50-feet of perennial streams, no treatment would occur. Outside these areas treatments gradually would increase in intel1sity'so that they would receive the same treatments as northerly aspects for that P AG. Inventoried Roadless Area The Preferred Alternative would generally treat the same areas and utilize the prescriptions as described in the Community Alternative. The Community Alternative prescribes fire and limited "light touch" hand work on small diameter (under 7 inch DBH) understory fuels and vegetation for areas within the IRA. The Preferred Alternative would not include specifications for diameter limits for treatments within the IRA. The Preferred Alternative would not allow development of connected actions such as roads, use of roads or skid trails, or landings within the IRA. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 75 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Reintroduction of prescribed (and eventually naturally ignited fire) to the Analysis Area is very important to restoration of forest ecosystems because it supports natural, dynamic interactions between ecosystem structure and process. Wildland fire offers distinct advantages over other management options in terms of restoration of landscape structures and spatial patterning, and reflects one of the overall goals of this project and the Preferred Alternative, to restore wildland fire as a natural process in the Inventoried Roadless Area. The most appropriate places to implement landscape-scale fire restoration treatments include the Inventoried Roadless Area and large blocks of lightly roaded areas where risks to human life and property are low, such as the lands outside of the wildland-urban interface. Large Tree Retention Around ,Cohort 1 trees, stand density reduction would be employed in areas identified for treatment to improve vigor, reduce susceptibility to attack from bark beetles and/or disease, and reduce the potential for damage from wildfire and/or prescribed fire - that is, to maximize their potential for long-term retention. Stand density reduction should focus on smaller Cohort 2 and 3 trees first within the immediate vicinity of the retained Cohort 1 trees and out to a radius equal to 2 crown radii. Complete tree and/orveget~tion removal within this crown radii is not the intention; rather, an overall reduction in~tand basal area not to exceed 50 percent of existing basal areas, or a specified basal. area target (100 square feet per acre in Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir P AGs; 150 square feet per acre in White Fir P AGs), whichever is greater (see FEIS Appendix D. Basal area targets in all P AGs are intended as guides to facilitate site-specific evaluations. Where management is necessary, thinning would start first with the smallest trees on the site. Conversely, the largest trees on the site would be reserved first. Trees identified for thinning would be used to satisfy snag and down wood targets (largest first). Density and spacing of trees left after stand density reduction can be ordered, clumped, or variable, ideally with vegetation and tree felling and removal greatest in downhill directions (or in the direction of expected spread in a wildfire event).HLadder fuels within the crown radius of the preferred Cohort 1 tree are also a priority for removal. In the treatment area around the preferred Cohort 1 tree, retention of the most vigorous Cohort 1 or 2 trees is desired to reach target basal areas, with pines alldlarger hardwoods particularly preferred. 7. Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives This Section <iiscusses mitigation measures to constrain management actions that are applicable to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative that propose fire hazard reduction treatments. These measures would be applied during implementation. Upon a final decision as documentedin a Record of Decision, selected measures would become a requirement. \ As previously noted, the Forest Service Proposed Action and the City of Ashland's Community . Alternative was finalized under a collaborative process with representatives of the City of Ashland's Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical Team and the Forest Service NEP A planning team. During the course of this process, many design elements that can be categorized as mitigation were identified as being common to the Action Alternatives, and are documented herein. Design elements and specific mitigation measures that were identified as not being common, are discussed in the specific Section presented under each Action Alternative (above). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 76 Ashland Forest Resiliency (,' '\ \\ I ...,......._~/ The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions ofNEP A to identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project. 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. Proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to (ivoid or minimize adverse effects (or implement positive impacts) for the Action Alternatives are identified by resource topic area. Recommendations contained in the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis, the 1996 Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, and the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment for achieving desired conditions and protecting resources were reviewed by the IDT. While some recommendations were specific, many are stated as general concepts. Therefore, it is necessary to further develop concepts based on site-specific information, and where appropriate, recommendations were incorporated into thepf.()ject design, or as mitigation measures. Mitigation measures identified herein are specific to the implementation of actions considered within this EIS. Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the RRNF Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan are also incorporated by reference as required measures. The effectiveness and feasibility of the mitigation measures are assessed based upon the following rating system. These ratings are applied to all mitigation measures, except the Standard Operating Procedures identified below. Each measure will identify the code for effectiveness and fea~ibility 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 judgineIlt Table 11-6 Effectiveness and Feasibility of Mitigation Measures EFFECTIVENESS (E) E1 Unknown or experimental; logic or practice estimated to be less than 75%; 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. Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIl II - 77 Ashland Forest Resiliency \ FEASIBILITY (F) F1 F2 F3 a. Standard Operating Procedures A number of mitigation measures are basically standard operating procedures thatwould be employed by the Forest Service and those implementing authorized actions, p'Ufsuant to Federal and State regulations and Forest Service Manual direction. These procedures would apply to all aspects of fire hazard reduction activities. (1) Comply with all Terms and Conditions and standards for prote<<:tion of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. (E3, F3) (2) Comply with the ROD and Mediated Agreement for the Northwest Region's FEIS for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation: (E3, F3) (3) Comply with all requirements and standards of the Clean Water Act. (E3, F3) (4) Comply with all requirements and standards of the Clean Air Act. (E3, F3) (5) For each project, action or combination of actions, an Implementation Plan will be prepared detailing the data needs (or criteria identification) associated with the action, the details of enacting the aCtion, and will list site specific Mitigation Measures (including those from this Section and others as deemed appropriate). This plan will be approved by the Forest Service prior to implementation of any project or action. (E3, F3) (6) When vegetation management is involved with any action or project, a site-specific silvilcultural prescription for treatment will be developed and will be certified by a Forest Service Certified Silviculturist (R-6 FSH 2409.17-2000-1, FSM2478). (E3, F3) (7) Provide for public safety at all times. (E3, F3) (8) Concurrent with implementation, specific areas of concern will be reviewed and designed with qualified professional resource specialists. Examples include treatment of owl activity centers, where site-specific treatment plans would be developed in consultation with a wildlife biologist knowledgeable in habitat characteristics, and needs of spotted owls and other late-successional dependent species. Other examples include soils, geology, and hydrology. Recommendations and/or determinations will be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service. (E3, F3) Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 78 Ashland Forest Resiliency (' ') ,~ -'" ~7 ( b. Hydrology, Soils and Site Productivity Best Management Practices (BMPs) BMPs as identified in General Water Quality Best Management Practices_(USDA PNW 1988) contain mitigation measures that will be used to protect watershed conditions and water quality. While the terminology in these BMPs is dated (for example Streamside Management Unit now falls under Riparian Reserve), they are still considered effective under today's management direction. Specific BMPs determined to be applicable to hazardous fuel reduction actions include: (E3, F3) TIMBER HARVEST (T) T -1 Timber Sale Planning Process T -2 Timber Harvest Design T -3 Use of Erosion Potential Assessment for 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 -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 and 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 t\Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures Before Sale Closure T-21 Servicing and Refueling Equipment . ROAD SYSTEMS (R) R-1 General Guidelines for the Location'and Design of Roads R-2 Erosion Control Plan R-3 Timing of Construction,Actiyities R-4 Road Slope Stabilization (Planning) R-5 Road Slope and Waste Area Stabilization (Preventive) R-9 Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing Projects R-18 Maintenance of Roads R-19 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials R-20 TrafficContrbl During Wet Periods R-23 , Obliteration of Temporary Roads and Landings FUELS MANAGEMENT (F) F1 Fire and Fuel Management Activities F~2 Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Prescribed Fire Prescriptions F~3 Protection of Water Quality During Prescribed Fire Operations Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 79 Ashland Forest Resiliency (~) / I WATERSHED MANAGEMENT (W) W-1 Watershed Restoration W-3 Protection of Wetlands W-4 Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan W-5 Cumulative Watershed Effects W-6 Control of Activities Under Special Use Permit W-7 Water Quality Monitoring W-8 Management by Closure to Use (Seasonal, Temporary, Permanent) W-9 Surface Erosion Control at Facility Sites RECREATION (REG) REC-3 Management of Sanitation Facilities REC-4 Control of Refuse Disposal VEGETATIVE MANIPULATION (VM) VM-1 Slope Limitations for Tractor Operation VM-2 Tractor Operation Excluded from Wetlands and Meadows VM-3 Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas VM-4 Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operations The following more specific mitigation measures are cOlllll1pnto all Action Alternatives to reduce surface erosion, sedimentation rates, and the risk for landslides, protect water quality, and maintain or enhance soils/site productivity. Soils and Site Productivity The objectives relating to direct soil effects specific to this analysis are 1) to meet direction in the National Forest Management Actof1976,arid other legal mandates, 2) to manage National Forest System lands under ecosystem management principles without permanent, irreversible impairment to soil and site productivity, 3) to maintain or improve soil and water quality and 4) to emphasize protection over restoration. Soil and site productivity is maintained when soil compaction, displacement, puddling, burning, erosion, loss of siteo:rganic matter (soil and down woody material), and altered soil moisture regimesare,keptwithin defined Standards and Guidelines. The direct detrimental effects on soils and site productivity occur when the indicators for these effects exceed Standards and' GUIdelines. The indicators are contained in Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. For this analysis, indicators are re-organized by compiling direction from the from the 1990 Rogue River National-Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards and Guidelines for soil quality'and the 1998 Regional Supplement to the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2521 R-6 Supplement 2500-98-1, Effective August 24, 1998), dealing with soil resource and site productivity protection. The mitigation measures as expressed by Standards and Guidelines for soil and site productivity for Ashland Forest Resiliency are as follows: Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI! 11-80 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( (1) For areas with no prior soil disturbances, design projects such that detrimental soil conditions do not exceed more than 20 percent of an activity area (this includes the permanent transportation system), (E3, F3) (2) For areas where less than 20 percent of the site is in a detrimental soil condition from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effect of the current activity following project implementation and restoration must not exceed 20 percent. (E3, F3) (3) In areas where more than 20 percent of the site is a detrimental soil condition from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration must, at a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and shall move toward a net improvement in soil quality. (E3, F3) Definitions for detrimental soil conditions: Detrimental compaction is the increase in soil bulk density of 15percel1t~ or more, over the undisturbed level, a macropore space reduction of 50 percent or more, and/or a reduction below 15 percent macro porosity. Detrimental puddling is the observable soil deformation and loss of soil structure when the depth of ruts or imprints is six inches or more. Soil bulk density usually increases with puddling. Detrimental displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon, from a contiguous area greater than 100 square feet~which is at least 5 feet in width. Detrimental Burned Soil is the condition where the mineral soil surface has been significantly changed in color, oxidi~~dto a reddish color, and the next one-half inch blackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer. The detrimentally burned soil s~andardapplies to a contiguous area greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width. Detrimental Surface Erosion is the 1) visual evidence of surface soil loss in areas greater than 100 feet through sheet, rill or gully erosion over a contiguous area greater than 100 square feet and 2) the reduction of an effective ground cover below a minimum-percent-acceptable level. (4) Foractivities to meet acceptable levels of soil loss and soil management objectives (based on implementation monitoring), the minimum-percent-effective ground cover following cessation of any soil-disturbing activity for this project is shown in Table II-6. First year implies after the ground disturbing event. Second year implies another year from the first year monitoring of the event. Effective ground cover is defined as any material (i.e. rock, litter, vegetation), which is attached to, or lying on the soil surface. These standards are based on predicted erosion rates from the WEPP erosion model (see Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS [August 2004] for description of model) for soil and site variables specific to the mid to lower elevations of the Ashland Watershed. Further detail on these standards and the WEPP model is contained in Chapter III of this Draft EIS. (E3, F3) Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 81 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table D-7. Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover by Erosion Class Erosion Hazard Class 1st Year 2nd Year Moderate (<35% gradient) >60% >70% Severe and Very Severe (>35 gradient) >70% >85% (5) Soil Moisture Regime must remain unchanged (except for activities that restore natural water tables). petrimental conditions are changes in soil drainage classes (Soil Survey Manual and Handbook) or aquatic cOl}.ditions (Soil Taxonomy Handbook) that are incompatible with management objectives. Evaluate the effect of management-induced water table or subsurface flow changes on plant growth or potential community composition. (E3, F3) Down Wood As with snags, down logs are important for wildlife and aquatic ec.osystem function. In addition, down coarse woody material is particularly important to :maintaining and holding soils in place throughout the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area. Consistent with retention goals for snags, down coarse wood will be retained to support forest function. (1) In general, Action Alternatives will maintain down log~ within the upper one third of the range for down logs for that PAG, with more logs retained in riparian areas and on northerly aspects than on southerly slopes. Where standing green trees are felled to meet habitat objectives, felled trees will b~ left in place as needed to meet down log and/or soil objectives. (E3, F3) A target range for number of pieces of coarse woody material per acre was developed for each Plant Association Group using current plot data presented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (see Component 2, Section VI). This range assumes that by maintaining the desired range of coarse woody material over all the sites, long-term site productivity would not be reduced. A key element of desired conditions for P AGs is down dead woody material. Desired levels of dead wood pe~acreare established for each P AG, and are displayed in Section 3, c, this Chapter. These figures were derived from Ecology Plat data; adjusted by past conditions establisheq byPAGs, with consideration of the DecAID advisory system. c. Geology (1) Reduce risk to landslide and surface erosion hazards as much as possible by locating any fuel reduction units, helicopter landings, and/or spur road construction away from unstable terrain and/or wetland areas. Avoidance of these features is the best mitigation in most cases. When these slopes must be crossed to access management units, roads should be adequately drained with water bars, drain dips, and/or culverts to avoid concentrating surface and groundwater onto sensitive slopes. Drain dips and culvert outlets may need to be armored with riprap to reduce surface erosion and increase stability. (E3, F3) Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11-82 Ashland Forest Resiliency (2) Slope stability and erosion mitigation measures need to be designed to prevent landslides and soil erosion from occurring at freshly disturbed sites. This could include utilizing geotextile fabric with rock blanketing to armor exposed slopes to prevent surface water from transporting soils off site and/or concentrating flows into unstable locations. Erosion control blankets combined with vegetation plantings are also a good method to use to stabilize disturbed soils on steep or moderately steep slopes. (E3, F3) (3) Proper road construction methods are a very important requirement within the Analysis Area. Soil and rock in cut and fill slope copstruction needs to be stabilized by adequately compacting these materials. Well-compacted road prisms and fill slopes are very important to road strength, intrinsic permeability, and resistance to erosion and slope failures. Reducing the size and rock armoring many of the large fill slopes would reduce the likelihood of large debris slides developing from fill failures during peak 'flow storm events. (E3, F3) (4) A large majority of the Upper Bear Analysis Area contains sandy soils, which are extremely erosive during wet weather conditions and may cause, road and other resource damages. To prevent these damages in these granular soils, roadways should be surfaced with crushed aggregate from rock sources located in the near-by area, or restrict use during wet weather conditions. (E3, F3) (5) Road construction and reconstruction will be accomplished by October 31, or if conditions are still dry, roadwork will be finished prior to the onset of wet weather season as determined by a Forest ServiceqHydrologist, Geologist, Fisheries Biologist, or Soils Scientist. (E3, F3) (6) After a precipitation event or at the beginning of operations following the wet season, it will be necessary to determine when conditions are dry enough for construction activities to resume. Localyariations in soil type, hydro-geomorphology, and road composition will result in certa.in areas or road segments drying sooner than others. Therefore, discretion is required and universal determinations can rarely be made. In general, if the road)Vayor work area can support vehicles without causing rutting, soil displacement, damage to drainage structures, and with no sediment delivery to streams, it can be used. '", (~3, F3) (7) Inspectioriby Forest Service specialists experienced in construction practices will provide additional control of activities and is effective in minimizing adverse envirortmental effects. (E3, F3) d. Fuels and Air Quality (1) Contractual fire requirements will be enforced. (E3, F3) (2) Bum during periods of atmospheric instability (fire). (E3, F3) (3) Utilize techniques for reduced consumption and smoldering of large woody material and duff layers. (E3, F3) ( Final Els IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II 11-83 Ashland Forest Resiliency \, ( (4) Implement prescribed burning of slash piles during periods when the atmospheric conditions will transport smoke in a southerly direction away from the Medford Air Quality Management Area. (E3, F3) (5) Apply erosion control measures (native grass seeding, lop and scatter wood, etc.) to areas of exposed mineral soil in excess of 100 square feet and 5 feet width that may result from prescribed fire. (E3, F3) (6) Minimize fireline construction utilizing changes in aspect or wet line to the extent that is operationally feasible. Firelines will be constructed as close to the date as possible that underburning would occur to minimize weathering and erosion. Litter-duff will be raked back into the fireline after the prescribed underburn is declared out. (E3, F3) e. Botanical Resources In addition to the design elements described in sub-section 3, this Section, this Chapter, the following specific mitigation measures are prescribed for protection of botanical resources: (1) Slash shall be kept off of known occurrences of Horkelia iridentata, Cryptantha milobakeri, Swertia radiata, Alliium campanu/atum, or Hieracium greenei. Logs shall not be dragged through these occurrences and vehicles will stay off of them. (E3, F2) (2) As funding is available, canopy openings and gaps designed to improve light conditions for Horkelia tridentata, Cryptantha mil~bakeri, Swertia radiata, Alliium campanulatum, Hieracium greenei and Juniperus occiden ta lis, beyond what the hazardous fuels prescriptions provide, will be creat~dwhere occupied habitat for these species is becoming too shady to sustain reproduction and survival. (E3, F2) (3) If candidate helicopter landing #26 is developed, adjust location to the north of the Swertia radiata (monument plant) population here. Landing should be far enough away from the population that individuals and occupied habitat are not lost to disturbance by vehicles and machinery. (E3, F3) (4) The mock orange shrub uphill from the East Fork sediment dam (Reeder Reservoir) that supports the Jichen Lobaria scrobicu/ata (or L. hallii), as well as neighboring hardvvoodsand large shrubs, shall remain undisturbed, (E3, F3) (5) As funding is available, canopy openings designed to improve light conditions for l)endriscocaulon intricatu/um and Lobaria scrobiculata (or L. hallii) beyond what the hazardous fuels prescriptions provide, will be created where occupied habitat for these species is becoming too shady to sustain reproduction and survival. (E3, F2) (6) If field reconnaissance for Forest Service Sensitive plant species has not been completed by the time the Record of Decision is issued for this project, that reconnaissance will occur before implementation of treatments. If Forest Service Sensitive plant species are found, the mitigation measures in this section will be applied. (E3, F3) Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 84 Ashland Forest Resiliency (7) If additional Forest Service Sensitive plant species not covered by these mitigation measures are found, mitigation measures will be developed to ensure the viability of those species in the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area. (E3, F3) f. Invasive Non-native Plants This EIS and these mitigation measures incorporate by reference the Decision Notice signed by J. Michael Lunn, Forest Supervisor, on September 1, 1999 for the Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Management on the Rogue River National Forest (RRNF Weed Management Plan). This EIS and these mitigation measures also incorporate by reference the Region 6 FEIS for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation (December 1988b), its Record of Decision and the terms of a Mediated Agreement (March 1989), which provides the basis for the RRNF Weed Management Plan. (1) Limit activities at sites with known infestations of Oregon Dept of Agriculture A, B, and T -listed noxious weed species (excluding bull thistle and Klamath weed). Treat known occurrences in accordance with the RRNF Weed Management Plan before project implementation, if activities must occur in these areas. Continue annual treatments as long as activities continue in these areas. (E3, F3) (2) Logging, road-building, and construction equipment and machinery will be cleaned of dirt, mud, and plant parts before arriving atthe Project Area. If working in a portion of the Project Area infested with OregonDept of Agriculture A, B, and T-listed noxious weed species (excluding bull thistle' and Klamath weed), wash and/or clean equipment and machinery on-site before moving or leaving the area. (E3, F3) (3) Use the cleanest rock source possible, if aggregate is needed. If possible, do not grade or disturb road shouldersin the vicinity of noxious weed occurrences. If soil disturbance (grading, road reconstruction, road maintenance etc.) must occur, do so after infestations have been treated. If grading must occur, grade into an infestation, not away. (E3, F3) ( 4) Any areasauthbrized for hazardous fuel reduction treatments will be surveyed for noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants during the second summer after activity occurs. If noxious weeds are detected, appropriate action will be taken, in accordance with the RRNF Weed Management Plan. (E3, F3) (5) Hazardous fuel reduction treatments shall generally not be conducted in the 20-acre , dalmation toadflax population in the Ashland RNA near the end of the Lamb Mine Trail. A DFPZ proposed on the northwestern edge of this population will be re-routed as much as possible to avoid the infested area. Prescribed fires used to reduce hazardous fuels may occasionally overlap the fringes of this population but will not be conducted in the majority of the infested area unless non-herbicide control methods are developed in the future that are shown to be effective on this species in this environment (E3, F3) ( Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11- 85 Ashland Forest Resiliency (6) Himalayan blackberry at potential helicopter landings # 52, 56, and 24, and star thistle at potential helicopter landing # 11, will be treated in accordance with the RRNF Weed Management Plan before landing development proceeds. (E3, F3) (7) Under the terms of the RRNF Weed Management Plan and any authorized contracts, workers are required to help prevent new infestations, limit the expansion of existing populations, and report new sites. (E3, F2) g. Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitat Mitigation Measures to protect northern spotted owl pair activ;tv centers (PACs): Any of the following mandatory mitigation measures may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys conducted according to US FWS-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. With previously known sites, activity centers are assumed occupied unless protocol surveys indicate otherwise. (1) Work activities (such as tree felling, yarding. road construction, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels, will not occur within specified distances (see TabJe II~7 below) 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. (E3, F3) March 1 - June 30 is consid~red the critical early nesting period. A Forest Service Biologist has the option to extendthe restricted season to as late as 30 September during the year of activity, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or recycle nesting attempt). The restricted area is calculated as a radius from the assumed nest site (point). Table ll-8. Northern Spotted Owl Restrictions Type of Activity (2) In the event new spotted owl pair activity centers are found adjacent to or within the Project Area, mitigation to prevent disturbance will be designed in accordance with the Project Design Criteria (PDCs) listed in the Rogue River/South Coast Biological Assessment and Opinion (USDA Forest Service 2006). (E3, F3) Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II 11.86 Ashland Forest Resiliency C) ( Fuels Management, Prescribed Fire Fire firefighter safety must he taken into account at all times when using mitigation measures If implementation of PDCs might cause human safety risks, the action agencies will respond to the human safety threat and will determine if that response is grounds for re-consultation. (1) 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). The 0.25 miles is calculated as a radius from the assumed nest site (point). (E3, F3) (2) During helicopter operations, flights over suitable habitat will be restricted (helicopter should be a least 120 yards above ground level). (E3, F3) Mitigation Measures to protect bald eaJ!les: (1) No known bald eagle nest trees, perch trees, or roost trees will be cut, or modified to preclude function on NFSL. This includes habitat at alternate nest sites. Eagles forage from these sites. Perch trees along shorelines are especiallyimportant. The intent is to protect those potential perches that "stand out." (E3, F3) . (2) Work or other activities above ambient noise levelsthat~ause disturbance, including helicopter use, logging, and construction will not t~ke.place within 0.25 mile (approximately 400 m) of active nests/roosts (notline of site) or within 0.5 mile (approximately 800 m) (line-of-sight) froml}ests/roosts during periods of eagle use, unless surveys demonstrate that the n~st {)rr,oost is not being used. Critical nesting periods generally fall between 1 J anuaryand 31 August. Active winter roosts need protection from disturbance fromapproxirnately 15 November to 15 March. Work restriction windows may be modified by local biologists, based on site-specific information. (E3, F3) Mitigation Measure to minimize effects to J!oshawks: (1) If a goshawk nest site is detected within the Project Area, a Wildlife Biologist will determine nesting status (presence or absence of young). If young are determined to be present, activities will be restricted within 0.25 mile of the nest site until August 31 or until a Wildlife Biologist determines young to be successfully fledged from the nest. (E3, F3) Mitigation Measure to minimize effects to J!reat J!rav owls: (1) If a great gray owl nest is discovered during project implementation activities, protect nest site with a 0.25 mile no activity buffer around the nest site and a 300 foot no activity buffer around natural meadows and openings. (E3, F3) Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 87 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Mitigatioll Measures to millimize effects to Pacific fisher alld American martell: (1) With the exception of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones under the Proposed Action, and not in addition to design criteria under the Action Alternatives, retain a minimum of one 0.5 to 1 acre untreated patch per 40 acre block of the largest diameter trees, snags, and CWM where overstory canopy closure is 2: 70%. These patches are designed to provide suitable den and rest sites for American marten and Pacific fisher throughout all treatment areas and will probably be attained via design criteria. (E3, F3) Mitigation Measures to millimize effects to bats: Abandoned mines pose hazards to people using public lands. Abandoned mine hazards include falling into open shafts, trenches, or pits; radiation; falling rocks; rodent droppings with Hanta virus; and suffocation. (1) As funding permits, construct a bat gate on the entrance of Lamb mine to eliminate disturbance to roosting bats by recreational users of the mine. As funding permits, construct a bat gate on Ashland Loop Mine. Currently, the dOQr blocking the mine is insufficient to eliminate use by the general public. There is an opening above the door which restricts the entry by bats to a small area; this has the potential to increase predation rates on bats by predators. (E2, F2) . (2) For sites occupied by bats, prohibit disturbance that.could change cave (mine) temperatures within 250 ft. of the site. Develop management direction including inventory and plans for protection from di~turbance and vandalism (from ROD To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines 2004). (E3, F2) General Wildlife Mitigation Measure - Pile Burlling: (1) Slash piles provide hapitat for multiple species of wildlife. Mollusks, salamanders, and small mammals use these piles as refugia where surface and activity fuels have been treated. Pacific fisher and American marten forage in these piles for prey. Within 0.5 mile of northern spotted owl pair activity centers and elsewhere, leave 3-5 unburned piles/acreforwilqlife where they do not serve as ladder fuels. (E3, F2) h. Aquat!c Sf.lecies and Habitat (1) Re.fuel power equipment, or use absorbent pads for immobile equipment, at least 150 feet distant from water bodies, to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into a water body. (E3, F3) (2) Avoid application of dust abatement materials (for example, lignon or Mag-Chloride) within 25-feet of a water body or stream channel during or just before wet weather, and at stream crossings or other locations that could result in direct delivery to adjacent water bodies. Procurement of water used in dust abatement activities from pump chances will follow the Project Design Criteria for Pump Chance Use programmatic category (NOAA Fisheries 2001). (E3, F3) Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 88 Ashland Forest Resiliency (~) \, (3) Prescribed burning within Riparian Reserves to achieve fuel reduction and wildlife habitat objectives will occur with the following restrictions: (E3, F3) hand piles closer than 50' of a stream will not be burned, no direct ignition will be done within 50' of a stream, and underbuming initiated outside of the 50' buffer will be allowed to back into this buffer as long as the underburn is of low intensity and the midlevel and upper canopies are not at risk. (4) The bum plan for treatments adjacent to perennial streams will include the objectives of retaining an unburned strip of duff next to the stream averaging between 25-50 feet wide, as well as retention of coarse woody material within 50 feet. These objectiveswill be met through means such as igniting well outside 50 feet, watering down or removing fuels around at-risk coarse woody material, constructing handlines, etc. (E3, F3) i. Cultural Resources (1) Notify Forest Archaeologist of any heritage resources discovered during project implementation. If a cultural resource is found, ceas~ construction activities at that location until site evaluation and determination of effect have been completed. (E3, F3) (2) Maintain strict confidentiality of the location of any identified heritage sites within the Project Area by designating them as "avoidance areas". No equipment transport, work- crew "lunch camps," or other activities.willbe permitted in avoidance areas. (E2, F3) j. Recreation and Public Safety (1) Restrict hauling during the ,hours of8:00 am to 9:00 am, and 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm to avoid safety concerns in school'zones. Commercial tree removal and hauling operations will not be allowed otiweekends or holidays. (E3, F3) (2) Utilize partial area closures during commercial tree removal and underburning operations to minimize the p()tential for accidental injury to recreationists during operations. Utilize sigmng, press releases, and recreation opportunity guides to redirect recreation activities to safe use areas during project operations (recreation). Contractors will be requir~d to set up project operation warning signs. (E3, F3) (3) AU: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) (4) Restrict or close areas to hunting where contractors or Forest Service personnel are working. (E3, F3) (5) Prior to implementation, develop a safety planes) relative to public access. This will require close coordination with the City of Ashland, especially in areas where access to NFSL is gained from City lands. (E3, F3) Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II. 89 Ashland Forest Resiliency (6) Identify public access points to NFSL. This includes City of Ashland roads and trails such as the Ashland Loop Road, and the White Rabbit and Alice in Wonderland trails. Also identify trails and routes onto NFSL that are not mapped. For instance, there are a number of unmapped and/or unauthorized trails that access Forest Road 2060 between Morton Street and the Lamb Mine Trailhead. (E2, F2) (7) A number of mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the effects of implementation on recreation users. These would include advanced notice of closures, signing at appropriate locations, alternate route suggestions, and notification of various user groups. (E3, F3) (8) Mitigation measures to reduce this effect include increased patrol by law enforcement personnel and trained volunteers, continued cooperation with user groups to educate the public27, and signing placed at strategic locations (e.g., where DFPZs cross roads or trails). Due to funding shortages, increased patrol by FS law enforcement officers may not be possible. (E3, F3) (9) To the greatest extent possible, continue to authorize long established special use recreation events at their traditional locations. This will require close coordination between FS recreation and contracting officer representatives in concert with permit holders. Provide legible maps to the public that clearly show area closures and/or areas of project activities. (E3, F2) (10) Immediately re-establish authorized trails in areas where project activities have blocked or otherwise impeded traditional trailllseby recreationists. Examples include reestablishment of trail tread and clearing of fuels on the trail. (E3, F3) (11) Identify recreation improvements (trails, trailheads, signs) on contract area maps and protect, repair and restore any damage caused by project operations. (E3, F3) 8. Monitoring Common to the Action Alternatives The HFRA contains provisions requiring that the USDA Forest Service monitor the results of a representative sample of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects and submit a report every 5 years that includes an evaluation of the progress toward project goals and recommendations for project modifications. Fire sciences research funded by the National Fire Plan is assessing monitoring.schedules and protocols to meet the requirements of the HFRA, as well as those of the National Fire Plan. Recommendations for implementation will be made to the Wildland Fire LeadersHip Council. ( 27 For instance, the Southern Oregon Mountain Bike Association (SaMBA) is a highly respected local organization that has actively participated in educating mountain bikers about responsible trail use in both the Analysis Area and other areas in Southern Oregon. Members have regularly donated their time in decommissioning illegal trails as well as in construction and design of trails approved by the Forest Service. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 90 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Multiparty Monitoring Section 102(g)(5) of the HFRA instructs the USDA Forest Service to establish a collaborative multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process when significant interest is expressed in such an approach. The process would be used to assess the beneficial or adverse ecological and social effects of authorized fuel-reduction projects. The requirement for multiparty monitoring is not directly connected to the requirements for monitoring a representative sample of projects, but shall be used where "significant interest is expressed," in the judgment of the field unit involved. The Forest Service has experience with multiparty monitoring, which can be an effective way to build trust and collaborate with local communities and diverse stakeholders, including interested citizens and Tribes. Multiparty monitoring would be subject to available funding and the ability of stakeholders to contribute funds or in-kind services. 3. Introduction Significant interest has been expressed during the Scoping process for the Forest Service to provide for multi-party monitoring under Ashland Forest Resiliency. Associated with the forthcoming Record of Decision, the Forest Service would provide the opportunity for interested parties to collaborate on the development of a multi-party monitoring plan. This plan would identify objectives for monitoring, specific items to be monitored, protocols for monitoring, and mechanisms for implementing the monitoring plan. There are substantial areas of uncertainty - both.in theory and practice - surrounding the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems and r~duction in large-scale high-severity fire. We have a great deal to learn about the ecological effects of various restoration treatments and how they can be most effectively impl~in~nted to produce desired outcomes. Thus, w~lI- designed multiparty monitoring prograrns[pursuant to HFRA section 102(g)(5)] should be built into the Record of Decision so that adaptive management can occur. Quantitative monitoring should be ongojng to assess project layout and implementation and evaluate treatment effects across a variety of different stand types. While much can be gained from a well-designed program of monitoring, some basic research also is critically importarit. Research programs should be developed to study the effectiveness of fuels reduction treatments. Where possible, projects should be designed as experiments witlrreplicates and controls to test alternative hypotheses. New understanding resulting from these efforts should then be used to adjust subsequent restoration activities, enabling an adaptive management approach. The Ashland Research Natural Area provides an excellent opportunity to monitor experimental and ecologically sensitive forest management strategies designed to restore more fire resistance and resiliency. To maximize the opportunities for such research it may be necessary to update the RNA plan. ( Monitoring of all hazardous fuel reduction activities is a required element of all Action Alternatives and would be carried out according to the Monitoring Plan. A detailed Monitoring Plan would be incorporated by reference and made an attachment to the Record of Decision (ROD) for authorized hazardous fuel reduction activities. This would allow it to be developed specifically to the activities contained in the ROD, and be specific to the area(s) where authorized treatments would occur. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 91 Ashland Forest Resiliency () The following Section provides a Draft EIS "framework" or strategy for development of the forthcoming Monitoring Plan. b. Monitoring Framework This Section of this draft EIS discusses monitoring elements and requirements that would be specifically designed for proposed management activities, under the recommended strategy for action, or any other action selected under the NEP A process. Monitoring is important for tracking the implementation of a project; ensuring projects are implemented as planned, as well as to measure success in meeting the stated project goals, objectives, and required mitigation. Monitoring and evaluation are separate, sequential activities that provide information to determine whether programs and projects are meeting Forest Plan direction. Monitoring collects information, on a sample basis, from sources specified in the Fore~t Plan. Evaluation of monitoring results is used to determine the effectiveness of theflores~ Plan and the need to either change the plan through amendment or revision, or to coritinuewith the plan. Overall direction is found in FSM 1922.7, Forest Service Handbook (FSH)..1909.12 (Chapter 6), and 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2l9.12(k). When designing a monitoring plan, a full spectrum oftechhiques and methods should be used to evaluate the results obtained from monitoting., Evaluation techniques include, but are not limited to: o Site-specific observations by on-site n~sburce specialists. o Field assistance trips by other technical specialists. o On-going accomplishment reportingprocesses. o Formal management re~iews()nascheduled basis. o Discussions with other agencies. and various public users. o Interdisciplinary team reviews of monitoring results. o Involvement with existing research activities. o Review and analys~s of records documenting monitoring results. o Re-measuringexisting permanent inventory plots. Recommended Monitoring Elements Project activities should be monitored during and after implementation of management actions to ensure that design features and mitigation measures are implemented as specified. Monitoring is also proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of planned activities, including standard practices and mitigation measures, in achieving desired project outcomes. Lessons learned from monitoring and evaluation should be incorporated into future project planning efforts. If monitoring indicates that laws, regulations, standards or critical objectives are not being met, the project should be modified as necessary. The following monitoring evaluation questions are designed for application to selected actions considered in detail under this NEP A process. Questions would be further developed for implementation specific to the selected alternative, based on decisions documented in a forthcoming Record of Decision. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 92 Ashland Forest Resiliency (-) ._....;..,...;i/o Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring asks the question, did we implement the project as outlined in the decision document, including consistency with land allocations guiding the implementation of management activities in the project area? The following specific evaluation questions would be used to complete implementation monitoring: 1) Were treatments implemented according to design criteria including appropriate mitigation measures and management constraints outlined in the decision description and associated listing of Mitigation Measures and Management Constraints? If implementation deviated from design criteria and mitigation measures, document how and why implementation deviated and whether the desired objectives were achieved. 2) Were fire hazard reduction treatments implemented according to the schedule outlined in the decision document? )> How many acres were planned for implementation by treatment method, by fiscal year? )> How many acres were treated by treatment method, by fiscal year? Results of implementation monitoring should be documented by area,or groups of units, for review by the Responsible Official and placed in the project file. , Funding to complete implementation monitoring is included in project costs. The overall responsibility for the completion of implementation monitoring lies with the ,Responsible Official. Effectiveness Monitoring ", , Effectiveness monitoring answers questions concerning whether the implementation of proposed fire hazard reduction activities were effec'tive in achieving the overall Purpose and Need for the project, as well as goals and objectives of the management land allocations guiding the implementation of managemenfactivities in the project area. The effectiveness of actions in obtaining overall long-term goals will eventually be demonstrated when a fire start (which is not suppressed) bums across a landscape as a low intensity fire with low-moderate severity effects on forested conditions. While some questions ,will have more immediate answers (1 to 3 years following implementation),other,questions will need to be monitored over time (5 to 10 years, or longer in the cas~ of trend monitoring). Proposed- effectiveness monitoring is outlined below under monitoring questions and monitoring methodology. IEffectiveness Monitoring Questionsl Fire Behavior 1 Y Were surface fuels and crown fuels reduced, and were crown base heights increased, such that a wildland fire initiated within the Analysis Area would result in a low to moderate severity fire, and bum as a ground fire? Fire Resiliencv \\ 1) What is the proportion of seral stages by P AG after treatment? How does it compare to desired conditions? Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 93 Ashland Forest Resiliency ()., , '~ 2) What is the proportion of fire adapted to non-fire adapted species within treatment units (pre- treatment, post treatment, and 10 years)? 3) What is the stand vigor (pre-, post-treatment and 10 years) as measured by: ~ Species composition by size class? ~ Average growth by species and size class? ~ Average crown ratios by species, size class? Soils 1) Were Forest and Regional Standards and Guidelines for soil protection met? How effective were project design criteria and mitigation measures in achieving desired results for soil protection as measured by: ~ Percent of treatment unit where effective soil cover maintained? (immediately following treatment; and 2 years following treatment) ~ Percent of treatment unit where soils detrimentally burned? ~ Percent of treatment area detrimentally compacted? Water Qualitv and Hvdrolof!ic Function 1) Are water quality and hydrologic function being maintained? ~ Were stream temperatures maintained at existing leyels? ~ Was there a measurable change in stream bottom composition as measured by the Wolman pebble counts? ~ Percent of riparian areas protected from disturbance during activities. Late-Successional Reserve 1) Did the project result in a change in ;1verage tree diameter within units treated? If change occurred, was the trend upward (larger average diameter) or downward (smaller average diameter)? 2) What was the change in proportion of the LSR in late-successional habitat? 3) How did late-succession~lcharacter change (improvement or degrade) within stands treated as measured by per acre averages (by size and decay class) of large woody material, average stand diameter, diameter range (structure), average stand canopy closure, and snags per acre? Are resulting stand conditions within the ranges identified in the Desired Future Conditions? 4) Did theprojec(result in changes in timing (frequency or magnitude) of natural distutbance regimes (fire,il1sect, disease, wind)? 5) What is the number of breeding owl pairs, before and after treatments? What is the effect to other late-successional species (e.g. fisher) to treatment activities? 6)' What is effect on prey base? Scenery Manaf!ement 1) Was the valued landscape character maintained as anticipated by the analysis of fire hazard reduction project proposals. ( 2) Were the scenic visual quality objectives maintained as anticipated by the analysis of fire hazard reduction project proposals. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 94 Ashland Forest Resiliency IRecommended Monitoring Methodolog~ ( Fire Behavior. Fire Resiliencv. Soils and Late-Successional Reserve Evaluation questions developed under fire behavior, fire resiliency, soils, and Late-Successional Reserve can be answered using a combination of methodologies including soil and vegetation transects, assessment of aerial photography and satellite imagery, long-term or trend monitoring of ecology plots, and research level investigations designed to answer specific questions. Landscape Scale Monitoring: Monitor watershed or landscape level trends in proportion and distribution of successional stages by evaluating aerial photography and satellite imagery post project, and at 1 O-year intervals over time. Regional Aerial Detection Surveys are used to monitor trends in insect and disease outbreaks over time. Stand Level Monitoring: Delineate and stratify the Analysis Area by P AGS andseral stages, sample a proportion of the various PAGs. Track sample points by type of management activity. Install variable and fixed radius permanent inventory plots. Coordinate the location of a proportion of plots with existing Forest Service ecology plots. Locate the remaining plots using the CVS established grid system and fill in the grid. Distribute samples at representative aspects, elevations, and P AGs. Collect the following tree data pre~ and post-treatment, and at IO-year intervals: )> Species )> Diameter )> Height )> Crown ratio (proportion of the tree with live crown) )> Radial growth )> Mistletoe infection rating )> Stand position (dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, suppressed) )> Li ve or snag )> Dead and down material In addition to data collection,col1duct photo monitoring at plot centers. Install 30-meter (1 OO-foot) transects with a sample of plots. Transects would run the contour of the slope, randomlyselec(the direction of each transect from plot center. Collect the following data at pre-designated intervals: )> Shrub cover by species )> Herbaceous and grass cover (by species if possible) )> Effective soil cover )> Coarse woody material by size class )> Compaction/displacement (percent) )> Bare soil (percent) In addition to data collection, conduct photo monitoring along transects. Delayed bark beetle mortality in ponderosa and sugar pine: Underbuming treatments in forest stands where fire has been excluded for decades would likely injure some pines. When older pines are stressed by physical injury, they become more susceptible to be killed by bark beetle infestations. Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSll 11-95 Ashland Forest Resiliency /-~) C,"~ ( To monitor the effects over time of underburing on large pine, establish plots within a selected sample of prescribed underbum areas (including the effects of burning during different times of the year). For comparison, also establish control plots in unburned sites. Track the amount of bark beetle infestation over the following 20 years. Ecology Plots: Ecology Plots, monitored by the Area Ecology Program, provide an opportunity to measure the effects and trends over time, of management activities in the Watershed. Plots established and inventoried (1975-85) provide information on plant species composition, structure, and landscape pattern. To date, only a decade of time separation is established. More time series data would further refine change and help to evaluate the cause of change as it is detected. Water Qualitv and Hvdrolo2:ic Function Continue monitoring the four permanent "Rosgen" stream sites for Wolman Pebble Count data, slope, and cross-sectional stream information (Two sites are located on East Fork and,twoon West Fork). Continue monitoring stream temperature. Aquatic Habitat In addition to water quality parameters, other aquatic and ripariaJ:} parameters should be monitored. These parameters can be used to assess changes in aquatic habitatand biological composition: )> Macroinvertebrate assemblages and abundance,' ~ Resurvey fish habitat and populations in upper~eil and Ashland creeks using Forest Service Region Six Level II Stream Survey protocofafter AFR implementation (these streams have been surveyed before implementation) Scenery Mana2:ement Scenery resource monitoring will evaluate changes to the valued landscape character as a result of fire hazard reduction treatments. ,Alterations to the landscape will be measured as changes in scenic quality, when viewed from the viewpoints identified below: )> The Analysis Ar~a its~!f.(views from key public use areas within the Analysis Area), and )> City of Ash~and 'ViewPpints (near Helman School, Interstate-5) and the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. Establish repeata.plephoto points from viewpoint locations. Photograph view shed prior to project implementation, during implementation, following completion of the project, and in 3 to 5 years after project is completed. Photos should be taken at both.a 50-70 rom and 150-200 mm focal length to replicat~ a naked eye view and zoomed image view, respectively. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII II - 96 Ashland Forest Resiliency (~) '".~'"'. D. ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY NEP A 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 potential alternatives have been eliminated from detailed study for the reasons stated and/or because of their contribution to the stated Purpose and Need for this proj ect. 1. Different Overall Strategies Expanded Suppression Forces Without Fuel Reduction Treatments The Purpose and Need for this project calls for the urgent reduction of the potential for large- scale, high-severity wildland fire. The overall strategy to accomplish this is the reduction of hazardous fuels that are the basis for the large fire potential. A different overall strategy considered but eliminated would expand the ability to effectively suppress potential wildland fire rather than reduce the fuels that would likely reduce the effects of large-:scale fire. Rationale for eliminatioll: This alternative would likely cost as much 'as any landscape hazardous fuel reduction treatment and would not reduce the potential for high-severity fire effects, when wildland fire occurred. This alternative would not be ill accordance with the HFRA, could not be logically funded (Federal fire-suppression funding w()ul4 'not likely increase to support an increased workforce level) and would not ad~r~ss.,:the stated Purpose and Need. It was therefore eliminated from detailed study by the Responsi~leOfficial. Continued Use and Development of Shaded Fuelbreaks Another overall strategy for meetingthePurpose and Need would be to continue the use and development of additional shaded fuelbreaks. For example, additional construction of a shaded fuel break could occur on the ridge upslope of Reeder Gulch, and management of a 300-foot flank area on the north side of this fuel break. This action was considered during the original 1997 HazRed Environmental.Assessment. Rationalefor elimill ation:' Although shaded fuelbreaks were recommended in the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysisahd 1996 Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, actual on-the-ground implementation has not met with overall acceptance and support from this community, primarily because oftheil' appearance and physical environmental effects. Further, the Forest Service has not been able to maintain the effectiveness of shaded fuelbreakscreated in the past through required arid.routine maintenance. Community support for continued use of this strategy would not likely increase and was not recommended in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. In the example area suggested for additional shaded fuelbreaks, findings of geological field investigations resulted in this action being eliminated from further consideration under the A WPP EIS, to avoid any additional impacts on geologically unstable areas. Therefore, continuation of the shaded fuelbreak strategy was not considered for detailed study under this Draft EIS by the Responsible Official. Final EIS lIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSll II - 97 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefits The use of wildland fire for resource benefits is the method of allowing naturally ignited (lightning-caused) fire to bum, assisted by fire management response, in order to meet prescribed resource objectives for an area. The area surrounding the LSR has not been determined to be suitable for wildland fire use, meaning that any fires burning out of the LSR and into adjacent areas would have to be managed as suppression events. Federal Fire Policy implementation direction allows for only one general response to an unplanned ignition (fire use or suppression) and any wildland fire use incident that has been converted into a suppression incident cannot be returned to wildland fire use status. Given the existing fuel conditions, typical weather patterns, and size and shape of the LSR, the probability is very high than any fires of ecological significance would breach the wildland fire use area and have to be declared a wildfire. Forest Service policy allows the use of wildland fire where a completed and approved Fire Management Plan is in place that has assessed the use of naturally ignited fires to meet resource objectives. Fire Management Plans must contain adequate prescription elements that are measurable and would guide the selection of appropriate management responses to wildland fire. The plan can be used to help guide decisions during initial attack on wildfires, and to describe when fire can be used to achieve natural resource benefits. The Community Alternative as presented included a strong desire to allow and include wildland fire. Rationale for elimination: A Fire Management Plan was completed specifically for the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve, including the Ashlan~Wa.tershed, for the 1996 the Late- Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) process in Clcc()tdance with direction of the Northwest Forest Plan. An alternative to use wildland fire for resource benefits was examined during the LSRA process and was not determined to be vial:>.le~,The 1996 LSRA Fire Management Plan did ( not recommend the use of wildland fire forresourcebenefits, for the following reasons: . Lightning usually results in fire igJ1itions'during the period of late spring through fall when soil and fuel moistures are dropping to levels where soil conditions cannot be maintained within Standards and Guidelines and protective duff layers and coarse wood are adversely affected; . Even if wildland fire use:~ere an option, there is no guarantee that suffici,ent acres would burn a! the appropriatt~Jntensity and severity under this option to address the identified hazard. ' . Seasonal low fuel nloistures, combined with 40 to 90 years of live and dead vegetation build up (due to missed fire cycles and fire suppression activity) has created a situation with a high probability of a wildfire escaping management suppression capabilities, which would likely result in ,stand replacing wildfire; . Wildland Fire Use under current conditions, with the high probability of high-severity wildland fire, would be inconsistent with Late-Successional Reserve objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan, and with the Cooperative Agreement between the Forest Service and the City of Ashland for the protection of water quality; and . The use of wildland fire would be inconsistent with Standards and Guidelines for Protection in the Restricted Watershed Management Area under the current Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! II - 98 Ashland Forest Resiliency /""""-,.~...'.':".. () ...~iiti1' The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment reiterates those findings and also did not recommend Wildland Fire Use at this time. Therefore, because of existing conditions, Wildland Fire Use is not considered an appropriate response in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. For these reasons, the Responsible Official does not consider Wildland Fire Use a viable management tool that is available for use at this time, and was eliminated from detailed study. As fuel reduction treatments are enacted and as monitoring is accomplished with additional information gathered, Wildland Fire Use could become one of the tools used by land managers in the future within the Analysis Area. Use of Prescribed Fire Exclusively As received during scoping on this project, some people suggested the exclusive use of prescribed fire as a method to reduce buildup of hazardous fuel. The basis of this isaretum to the more natural (historical) conditions that would occur under a natural fire regime. Prescribed fire alone may constitute a problem in that the first one or two bums will kill a lotof small material and create a lot 0 dead fuel requiring follow-up bums within short time periods. Note that the use of prescribed fire (human intentional ignition) is not the same as Wildland Fire Use (natural ignition). Prescribed fire is being proposed and is an essential component of the Proposed Action and Community Alternative. Rationale for elimination: Although not the same as Wildland Fire Use, the exclusive use of prescribed fire was not considered in detail because of similar reasons: the ecosystem is so far from natural (and desired) conditions that the use of fireexchisively would likely involve effects to human values that would be unacceptable. This is due to the potential severity of environmental effects during burning. Existing.f\lelloading is considered too high to allow prescribed fire to occur with conditions remainil.1Rwithin the LRMP Standards and Guidelines, over much of the Analysis Area. The overall Draft EIS strategy being proposed is to treat hazardous fuels primarily with methods otherthan burning, with follow-up to these treatments with prescribed burning as activity fuels or maintenance treatments. Limited prescribed burning is being proposed where current fuel loadings and conditions would allow, but exclusive use as an overall strategy was eliminajed by the Responsible Official at this time. Treatments to Obtain Desired<Conditions by P AGs or Condition Classes Exclusively At One Time Another overall strategy.considered was fuel treatments to obtain desired (or natural) conditions exclusively by Plant J\ssociation Group (P AG) or to obtain Condition Class lover the entire Upper Bear Analysis ,Area at one time. This would suggest nearly every P AG would be treated (except the higJ1-eleyation Hemlock P AGs), since most are not currently in their natural fire regimes and an~ihCondition Class 2 or 3. Under this strategy, there would be no phasing, i.e., all areas would be fully treated within the next 8-10 years. Neither the Proposed Action nor Community Alternative are proposing this extent at this time. The definition of Condition Class 1 is where fire regimes are within or near a natural range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies (either increased or decreased) by no more than one return interval. Vegetation attributes (sp,ecies composition and structure) are intact and functioning within a range of natural variability. Action Alternatives include objectives that would result in an overall trend toward Condition Class 1. Areas currently in Condition Class 3 would treated to result in Condition Class 2 and Condition Class 2 areas would be treated to result in Condition Class 1. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11-99 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( ~) Rationale for elimination: This strategy was eliminated on a similar basis as the exclusive use of prescribed fire. Analysis shows that the ecosystem is too far from natural (or desired) conditions and treatment of all P AGs (over approximately 15,000 acres) would likely involve effects to human values (e.g., water quality and late-successional habitat) that would be unacceptable. Further, it would be unrealistic to assume there would be adequate funding available to treat this amount of acreage, some of which would not meet the criteria for planning or funding under the HFRA. Treating all P AGs as an overall strategy was eliminated by the Responsible Official for these reasons. The highest priority areas (P AGs) are being proposed for treatment under the Proposed Action and Community Alternative. 2. Deletions or Limitations Relative to Action Alternatives Treatments Within Ashland Municipal Watershed Only Consideration was given to treatments exclusively within the Ashland MunicipalW atershed. This has been the focus of previous watershed projects. The Upper Bear Analysis Area includes three sub-watersheds, Neil Creek, Hamilton Creek, and Upper Wagner Creek, in addition to the Ashland Creek Municipal Watershed. Rationale for elimination: While it is clear that the priority area for hazardous fuel treatments is the wildland urban interface and municipal watershed associated with Ashland Creek, there is also the threat to the Watershed from'wildland fire originating within the other sub-watersheds. Not to propose treatment in the entire interface area ~dinareas that are also in highly un-natural fire regimes and condition classes that could adYl?~~e.1yaffect the Municipal Watershed would be irresponsible for a landscape proposal and would not be in accordance with the HFRA. For these reasons, the Responsible Official eliminated thisfrom detailed consideration. No Treatments in RNA Consideration was given to exclusion of treatments within the Ashland Creek Research Natural Area (RNA). Established in 1970, the' Ashland Research Natural Area lies within the Upper Bear Analysis Area and withinth~ Ashland Municipal Watershed. A description of this area is included in the 2003 Upper,BearAssessment. Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands are administered by the Forest Service and are located within Ranger Districts with normal management arid protective activities the responsibility of District Rangers and Forest Supervisors. However, scientific and educational uses made of these tracts are a responsibility of the Director of the Pacific Northwest Research Station. Ration ale for elimination: The current conditions of the Ashland RNA do not currently trend toward the 'conditions for which this specific RNA was established and is it considered at risk in reference to the ability to maintain natural vegetative conditions (biological diversity) within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Loss of pine species is one element of biological diversity of particular concern. The RNA was established as a representative area for ponderosa pine and :Douglas-fir plant communities and is a focus of the Action Alternatives. The overall recommended strategy for this area is to utilize silvicultural principals to selectively remove competition to existing large pine and Douglas-fir and/or create conditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Prescribed underburning is also a complimentary proposed treatment method that would encourage more natural species diversity. ( Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIII - 100 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ( In consultation with the Forest and Range Experiment Station, proposed treatments within the RNA are supported and encouraged (see DEIS Appendix A). Not to propose treatment in the entire RNA and in adjacent areas that are also in highly un-natural fire regimes and condition classes that could adversely affect the RNA would be irresponsible from a landscape proposal, would not be in accordance with the HFRA, nor be supported by the Director of Forest and Range Experiment Station. For these reasons, the Responsible Official eliminated this from detailed consideration. No Treatments in Inventoried Roadless Area Consideration was given to exclusion of treatments within the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The McDonald Peak IRA is located entirely on lands administered by the RR-SNF. The McDonald Peak IRA is not adjacent to, contiguous to or near any designated Wilderness area. It is not adjacent to or contiguous to any other area previously or currently inventoried as roadless. Approximately 7,380 acres of the 9,425 acre IRA is contained within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The IRA includes P AGs that are not in natural (desired) fire regimes or condition classes and actually overlaps a portion of the wildland urban interface (2003 Upper Bear Assessment). Rationale for elimination: The location and current cOl!ditions of the IRA suggest that portions, especially the lower elevation portions are in need of hazardous fuel reduction treatments to protect the Values At Risk. The highest priority areas are bei#g proposed for treatment under the Proposed Action and Community Alternative. Not to propose 'treatment in the entire IRA that is in highly un-natural fire regimes and condition classesthat could adversely affect the municipal watershed would be irresponsible for a landscape proposal and would not be in accordance with the HFRA. For these reasons, the ResponsibleOffi<?ial eliminated this consideration from detailed consideration. Overall Limitations on Tree Diameters or Tree Age Consideration was given to overall limitations on diameters or age of standing trees treated as part of density management or other hazardous fuel reduction prescriptions. This idea was received during scoping and is viewed by many people as "control" of Federal operations based on a lack of trust. Rationale for elimination: Assessment of current conditions and proposed treatments to reduce hazardous fuels suggests that many age classes and all diameters of trees are part of needed treatments. To plaG.ylimits on age or diameters would hamper attainment of the Purpose and Need and mayin some cases, limit attainment of resiliency goals. Overall limitations would also adversely affeCt the potential health of forests in terms of density, disease mitigation and promotion of older forests and stands. The Action Alternatives utilize, where ecologically appropriate, treatments that meet the ,following goals: reducing primarily small-diameter fuels, and reducing the density of understory seedlings, saplings and poles to reduce ladder fuels. No Action Alternative includes overall limitations on diameters of trees involved with proposed treatments. For these reasons the Responsible Official is not considering in detail the application of overall limits on tree age or diameters. Final EIS tlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIII - 101 Ashland Forest Resiliency The focus of treatments is on maintaining the largest and healthiest trees, however there are situations where larger diameter trees may need to be cut and in some cases, removed. For example, larger diameter trees would be removed where they are suppressed under more desirable dominant and vigorous overstory trees, and dead or dyjng (within 1-2 years) trees that create a hazard for human safety, would need to be felled (e.g., helicopter landings or helicopter flight paths). Within the RNA, a diameter limit would preclude removal of tree species that are not consistent with reducing fire hazards or with meeting species objectives associated with restoring resiliency (i.e. focus on retaining fire tolerant and fire resistant species and removing fire sensitive species) or with restoring conditions that meet the intent for which the RNA was established. 3. Alternative Implementation Methodology This sub-section includes considerations for alternative component actions primarily associated with implementation methodology. Commercial Timber Sales Exclusively Restoring biological, and physical processes and functions to ensure the long-term ecological sustainability of the public lands in the Analysis Area for this project is more important to the Forest Service and this community than the output of forest products. As a result, any commodity production derived from the implementationgftpisproposal is expected to occur only as a by-product of management. The Proposed Action a.nd Community Alternative are based on authorities that involve Stewardship contracting. .. Rationale for elimination: The Forest Service is proposing hazardous fuel reduction treatments under the HFRA. Commercial timber sales are IlOt the goal, nor are they the sole expected methodology to finance hazardous fuel reduction treatments. While commercial products may be generated by fuel reduction treatriient&,sole use of or reliance on commercial timber sales was eliminated by the Responsible Official. More Efficient Yarding Systems The Proposed Action and Community Alternative are primarily based on helicopter systems to move or remove tree material, sometimes as a commercial product. Increased utilization of other ground-based syst~ms(e.g., tractor or skyline systems) would change and likely improve the economics of implerh~ntation. This option would have also increased the possibility additional roads being necessary. Rationalefor elimination: This consideration was eliminated from detailed study because it would have resulted in additional ground disturbance from tractor skid roads, skyline corridors, and additional roads that may have increased the chance for erosion and accelerating sediment production. The Analysis Area is composed of highly erosive soils especially sensitive to disturqance. The overall goal is to accomplish hazardous fuel reduction treatments with acceptable and minimal environmental effects. ( Helicopter systems are proposed because they include the least detrimental soils effects while effectively (and feasibly) accomplishing implementation of the project. Maximizing economic feasibility is not a goal of this project. These reasons are the basis for the Responsible Official not considering in detail any system that improves economic profitability with increased physical resource impacts. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 102 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Additional Landings and/or Roads The Proposed Action and Community Alternative are primarily based on helicopter systems to move or remove tree material as needed. The Action Alternatives are based on a field-validated scenario of existing landings, roads and new additional landings and roads that are designed to minimize environmental effects. In helicopter operations, costs are proportional to the distance of flight to landings (i.e., shorter flight times and more landings make the operation more operationally and economically efficient). An option considered would include the construction and use of additional landings and access roads over that associated with the Action Alternatives. Rationalefor elimination: As above, this consideration was eliminated by the Responsible Official from detailed study because it would have resulted in additional ground disturbance from additional landings and additional roads (over the proposed scenario) that may have increased the chance for accelerating erosion and sediment production within the Arialysis Area. The overall goal is to accomplish hazardous fuel reduction treatments with acceptable and minimal environmental effects. Maximizing economic feasibility is not a goal of this proj ect. See discussion in Section C, 3, d, this Chapter, regarding the selection criteria and use of selected helicopter landings. ' 4. Other Non-Connected Actions Connected actions discussed in this Draft EIS are those that ar,~directly related to hazardous fuels reduction treatments and vegetation management. UnderHFRA, there is no authority to propose or analyze actions that are not related to the Purpose and Need for action. These were considered but eliminated by the Responsible Officia.lasnon-connected actions. Restoration Opportunities that were considered but elimina~ed for this reason include watershed restoration projects, road restoration and improvements, wildlife and fisheries enhancement projects, and recreational facilities improvements. These identified opportunities would not have been in proximity to hazardous fuel reductibntreatments or related to the Purpose and Need. EnglemanD Spruce Protectioll ' Another non-connected action considered but eliminated would involve hazardous fuel reduction treatments in and around the, Englemann spruce grove, located at higher elevations above the 2060 Road in the C()ol White Fir and Mountain Hemlock P AGs. The Forest Botanist recommended treatlllents here to reduce the potential for severe effects to the spruce, should a wildland fire pass through. This alternative was dropped from detailed consideration by the Responsible Official because the Englemarinspruce grove is not within or adjacent to any areas (P AG) that have been identified as being in need of immediate hazardous fuel reduction treatments, based on fire regime or fire conditioifclass. Also see discussion under sub-section 1, this Chapter. Final EIS lIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIII -103 Ashland Forest Resiliency ".~,:~) ( .'".~ '-~ ( \ E. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This Section compares the alternatives considered in detail, based on information presented in this Chapter, as well as environmental consequences presented in Chapter III. The first section contains a short description of the Proposed Action and Community Alternative; Table II-8 contains a comparison of the alternatives in relation to the acres ofPAGs; Table II-9 contains indicators of attainment of Purpose and Need; Table II-I 0 contains a comparison of some of the indicators relevant to the Significant Issues for the environmental consequences, and Table II-II contains a comparison of the alternatives to Other Issues. a. Description of the Alternatives Considered in Detail The following contains a brief description of the No-Action Alternative, and the components and elements of the two Action Alternatives that are analyzed in this DEIS. !No-Action Alternativ~ The No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline against which to compareother alternatives. No activity is proposed under this alternative. IComponents of Proposed Actionl DFPZ treatments include: . A maximum of 2,800 acres on NFSL; . Primarily surface fuel reduction treatments and removal of ladder fuels (small tree removal and pruning); . Variable density management andpres,cribed burning where appropriate; . Open canopies around large individual legacy trees (group selection); . Maintenance of a closed cariopyoyer most of the area; and . Modified treatments for protecti~n of Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas, Riparian Reserves, and northern spotted owl core areas. Interface Compartment treatments include: . A maximum ,()f3 ,200 acres; . Variable density management of current mid-seral and late-seral closed stands to obtain desired conditions (approximately 1,600 acres); . Hazard reduction to desired Fuel Models (8,9, or 2) with surface fuel reduction treatments and prescribed burning where appropriate (approximately 1,600 acres); . ' Open canopies around large individual legacy trees (group selection); and . Modified treatments within Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas, core areas for northern spotted owls, and within portions of Riparian Reserve Late-Successional Habitat treatments include: . A maximum of 600 acres variable density management in mid seral stands within the Neil and Lower West Fork compartments (tree removal would not include trees greater than 17" DBH); . Open canopies around large individual legacy trees (group selection); . Approximately 8 miles (250 acres) of variable density treatments along specific portions of Road 2060; and . No treatments within northern spotted owl core areas or Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II II - 104 Ashland Forest Resiliency () / \ Research Natural Area treatments include: . Variable density management and surface fuel treatments on a maximum of 1,300 acres; . Surface fuel reduction treatments and prescribed burning where appropriate to encourage more natural species diversity; . Management as DFPZ in one strategic area within RNA; and . Modified treatments within Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas, core areas for northern spotted owls, and within portions of Riparian Reserves. !Elements of Community Alternativ~ Category 1 - Existing Fire Resilient Areas28 . Total Category 1 = 5,800 acres Category 2 - areas "Readily" Made Fire Resilient, including: . Priority 2- Ponderosa and sugar pine dominated stands on upper two-thirds slopes within the dry Douglas-fir, moist Douglas-fir, dry white fir, moist white fir, and cool white fir P AGs. (1,810 ac.) · Priority 3-Maintenance of previously treated prescribed burnsang fuel treatments. (580 ac.) . Priority 4-South and west-facing upper two-thirds slopes within the lower elevation P AGs (dry Douglas-fir, moist Douglas-fir, dry white fir). (l,480ac.) . · Priority 5-North and East facing upper one-third slopes~ithin the lower elevation P AGs. (l ,380 ac.) · Priority 6- Middle PAGs (moist white fir and cool-white fir) on South and West facing upper one-third slopes. (70 ac.) , Category 3 - Strategic Connections (geographic; ecological, logistical, and social) · Priority 1- Ashland Wildland Urban ,Interface. Area defined by the first major ridge above the city limits including Clayton C~eek to the south, Wildcat Canyon to the northwest, and an area around Reeder Reservoir and:water'treatment plant. (1,260 ac.) · Priority 7 -Corridors within 50 feet of riparian areas within the middle and lower elevation P AGs, that also are within 200 feet of other treatments (510 ac.) · Priority 8- Roadside corridors within 100' on either side of roads spanning short distances between other selected units in the lower elevation P AGs. (230 ac.) · Priority 9-Northern Spotted Owl 1/4 mi. activity centers in low/mid P AGS (treatment for owl habitat restorationonly). (1,670 ac.) \Elements of the Preferred Alternativ~ 28 Category 1 features are assumed to not require treatment at this time and are not part of the Community Alternative's proposal for hazardous fuel reduction (with the exception of previously treated areas in need of maintenance). Category 1 areas are however a key network and basis of adjacent areas that are being proposed for treatment (Le., Category 2 and 3). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIII -105 Ashland Forest Resiliency .r...........""."..,",..,. () '---.,-~~ ( b. Comparison of Action Alternatives by Plant Association Group The scale of vegetation mapping forming the basis of this analysis incorporates attributes of plant series and plant associations and is termed Plant Association Groups (P AGs). The utility of P AGS provides a scale or grouping for which similar consequences can be predicted (refer to the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment). Table 11-9. Summary of Alternative by P AGs Plant Association Groups Total Acres Proposed Community Preferred (Analysis (PAGs) Area) Action Alternative Alternative Dry Douglas-fir (1407) 7,201 2,056 2,074 2,060 Moist Douglas-fir (1408) 7,944 2,657 2,290 .'... 2,650 Dry White Fir (2004) 7,595 1,800 3,313 2,190 Moist White Fir (2003) 5,525 1,333 1,109 510 Cool White Fir (2098) 1,598 180 204 190 Moist Mountain Hemlock 1,116 94 !., 0 0 (2301 ) Cool Mountain Hemlock 1,378 ,31 0 0 (2311) .. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!III -106 Ashland Forest Resiliency () ..............~';); ( "0 QJ QJ Z "0 = ~ QJ fI.l o C. J..... = ~ ~ o ~ = QJ e = 0; ~ ~ < ~ o fI.l e J..... QJ ~ = ~ - .; ~ QJ Q = ~ "0 QJ J..... QJ "0 .- fI.l = o U fI.l QJ > .- ~ ~ = J..... QJ ~ < ~ o = o fI.l .- J..... ~ C. e o u c,j "Cl ~ ~ Z "Cl = = ~ ~ Q Q. - = ~ '- Q ~ = ~ a = .; ~ ~ -< Q ,.... I l-4 l-4 ~ - ,.Q ~ ~ G) > ;; ca E G) ~ ~ ... '2 ~ E E o o '5 c: .0 =:.... Q) -c e Q) (/)Q)O=: cu>'Oo ~eQ)= 00.00 Q)E:J-c -c .- '0 c: >'.sa ~ ctl ;it::'O"" c:sc:~ ~(/)ctlro !EQ)~E C:a.;..Ol(/) 0) ~ :J (/) 'en -c '; ~ offi:J~~ c: - 0 - 'C (/);g"E~Ol Q)~ctlc:a> .gctl~S(/) C (/)..c: &. : ~~'OO) 'c a c: .5: , .Q) a. ~ ~ ' _:JoE o (/) ::::J ~.9i~ :B~~:5 ~:C:5~ o ctl ..c: 'en a~ g> &3 Ol-O'O ~ :5 - c o ;; (.) c( "tJ G) en o c. o ... D.. c o ~ ~ o Z Cai~~g-g Q)--co~cu t:~'OQ)S:O ::::J(/)cGOl= o cb ~.E O)Q) ~ ~~~>.>o ~~ct=Q)ro:':Q) .- .... ~~ c: Ol ~ Q) .e 'C ~ .Q .a g>ro ~ "5 ~ 0) cu ~ Ol 0 '0 .5: -5&3 <{> =:co:g oo.g,~E ~ z o.:c 'C ~ 5. ... o ... ca (.) :c .5 ~ ~(/) -c(/) C Q) ctl c: C Q) .Q~ ~o c: Q) .Q)~ - o C ~.Q =(/)- .- (/) co ~ ~= .0 0.- eg-~ a.(/)_ "tJ G) G) Z "tJ C ca G) II) o c. ... ::::J D.. Q) ..c: ..... .5: cb? g ~~ ts~Q) ::::Jo<{>Ol -c~.ctE ~ ro .Q)-c ..... ._.c C Cc ~co Q)Q)~- ~o ~;g :::> a. (/) ~ it) "tJ~ G) G) G)O) Zca .9: !3~ (/)0) E C ct= Q).Q) c: ~ e Q) 0) C .- Q) - .5 ~s~02m.~ co(/)(/) (/)0) ~ro-c~'(;)~o2 - Q):;~ C:'V ~ -~o O-c cro:>....oQ)Ol Q)Q):>Q)>.(/)E Eo'O~.o::::Joui ~J2ct/J::>"Ol(I)C: a. .... cu ~ "'-.0 Q) 0 ES~c~ >."OE .- c..... Q) ctl ... '>- "0 .- ... E (I)'V c: 32 Q) .0 - .... E e 8 ::::J.c Co. ro Ol _ a. 0"'" Q).....cu ... ~ .E -=.g,:5 32 t::' ct= ::::J .- ~~~E (/) "0 ct= C ::::J ro C Q) =0 (/).0 (/)~ >cm~ N-C e~""o 0.= -go.....co~ LL ~ .~ E S "0 ~ o g> ~ :s ';;;8 a. ~ S C .- .... C Q) Q)'V Q) ~ .9 Q)E ~ l5 J:i '0 E = (/) co..c:"" Q)cuQ)t::E-~ c.~~ ~ Q) ~ ..... E'c E::t:= 00 '-0 ctl~ I 32 'co. 8 .c =0 (I) :J ""''OQ) 0'(;) ~cug ~tE N <( z ~ (/) ~g>Ol~ ......_.0 c: >."0"00 E~"5~ Ol....8~ ~S""'~I oo.cucu 0 8 :5 (/) I' I ._ ...J (/) Ol Q) en co O)..c: U. '0 fficoz ~ -5~c:~ 0....0:J ZCU c: .Q ro C Q) E Ol a. .5 m ~ ..!. 0) ..9: (/) Ol C o N .?:- ~ co en - o 0) .E~ :;N "O..!. Q)= ..c:0) 00. en_ .?:- .!!? co en ... Ol 1: 0) ct= ~ u: (/) ~ o co o 0) 0) cO (/)c Ol.Q ....0 O:J co-c """Q) 0).... ,.....~~ NO ~N e (/) ~ o co o to ~ co (/)c Q).Q ....0 O::::J co '0 COQ) ~.... ~~~ ~o ~O) e (/)g 0).- ....0 o :J ctl"O OQ) C"').... q~ """0 Ie 0) co co cO ~ - o (/) ~ 00 co...... ~m Ul"8 ~~ >.Q) ;i:J C:LL ~ :J :() :: I' lB m /,. :5= ::::JCO ' m O)CO u. m :J C c: - "0 I' -(/) ~co 00 ~C Ol:5 (/)~ oOl E.... ~- "E .5 co S 0 Q) co co q:: co co L! ~~ ~~ Eo .c-...... Q) 0)____ e....._ _c:o..c:Q)C"')-Oco o~'7~.o'7Ol::'7 (/) 0 = (/)"0 = 0) Q) = Q):J- Ol-- c:-c- o"Oo.05g:~oa <(~,e<(=:.s()~-9 (/) ::::J o "E co(/) N- coOl .co2 Q) Q) o 0 -6~ Q) :J o::(/) :if1 0- c.G) ...0) :J ca D...9: (/)g ~ts o ::::J co "0 C"')Q) ~ .... ~~~ tOC"') I~ 0) 32 >. c:::::J0. .~~ g ~5~ .E ts g> ~ <( '0 OlOl (/) "0 ::::J .... c: Q) "0 0) Ol(I)Q)Ol '0 8.~'O ~0::::J"" ~a::5~ o Q) en.Q) .cQ)..c: ~I-Q)>' ::::J . -= ~ 'O"OQ)O) ~S ~= "Ococu(l) -Q)-CO ::::JJ:iQ)0 ~(I)o"'" ~ E .?:- (I) 0 .- ~co~~ ~=.c:Ol co co 0) '0 Ec= Q) 0 (I) ::t:=(I)Q) coQ)> .cQ)0 -....E S ~~ "0 Q) C) c: m .c (.) o Z ~ 'en C Q) "0 C ~ e o C .;;.... .- co Q)~ O)..!. c- ro~ .co. 0- ~ ct= c: ~ e o Olro o~ :J c: -cQ) Q)- 0::8. Q)C> O).E = ....~..... J2:J5 _0 ot::~ ~ ro.- 'C '(;) (/) .2, 0.5: CO-"O-C E -c .... Q) Q)ctl> Q)C=:Ol :5 .Q) g-:2 .!: ~ Q) ~ S"O > (I) cO) 0.- 'm t;;. E ~ E:"O~ -cc: "OCctlOl "5Ol....."O ~E~'O :>ro~c (I) Ol (/) co Q)....Ol'(;) >t-Q) ~I-=-g ro .... a.;.. E (I) Q)'en Q) -g Q) Ol ::t:=SE"O <((I) co g .!: =0 ~.c.... o ~ Q) <(~=iij .c:(/)E oQ)(/) co~ Q) ~ Q) ~ ~ - 10 Q) 0- C c_ CUOlO) C:C:~ S &.= .!: E- cu8C> ~ ..9: Q) 0) c: ctl ..c: o o Z ~ ro 5-05 ....:5 SO ctl .... =: 0 ~~ ~~ o c: a..Q> "0 en C (/) cu co .!!? .~ =~ ~ro E ~ .E~ -w 00 g .~ :.t=..c: 0- S.E e:5 ':'~ m"O ~Q) .o(/) cu (/) . .c:~~ -"0.0 ~"OS o ctl (/) 'w ~ :c ~ctl~ ~~~ ~~S cb~~ ~~o _Q)C o ..c: Q) ~ ~ (ij cO-c cu1i)c C 0 ro S~"O C Q) 'm . Q) Egz "O:c-g ~ ~ ctl (/) .m Q)(/) Q)- '0 ~ 8. Q) (/) .... 0.- ::::J (/)~o. -g '0, '0 Co- sga5 ctlQ)E ~ 'Y"'O C .c: """.- ~~~ o ~ cu c:~o ~ 8:~ o:JQ) .... S ~ m eQ)"Q) o.m~ ,,~ ~ !!l ::::J cu cu u,g;Q) .E .~ (ij, ~5(/) .~ E ~ +ooQ)a5 cu :5 :J ~'O g :J c: (/) ~.Q g :: t) 0 ~S~ '0 e Q) Q) o..c a. c> t- (j) C ' ..=O(/) .!~~ o<.)(/) Z ,~ !!l (/) Ol ~ Q) ~ co ...J ~ u r:: ~ 'w Q,) a::: - en Q,) t.- O LL "C r:: .!! ~ en <( r--. o .... I = U) U) w a::: C) o a::: D. ~ ~ ~ o ~ l- LL <( a:: c U) w ca r:: u: f._.--~~~"\ (] ".~~' ( d. Comparison of Action Alternatives In Terms of Significant and, Other Issues Issues are defined in this analysis as points of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of a Proposed Action or alternatives. Significant Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that are used to evaluate alternatives, affect the design of component proposals, prescribe mitigation measures, and/or describe important and variable environmental effects. They are significant because of the extent of their geographic consequence, the duration of the effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict. Other Issues, as used in this analysis, differ from Significant Issues in that they often describe 'minor and/or non-variable consequences. The following table briefly describes the consequences for each of the alternatives. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS !I II - 108 Ashland Forest Resiliency () '-'-::"'-~~ \, ~Q) .- > I: .- ::1fti E E E Q) o~ 0<( '0 Q) I: II) 0 0.- c.- o U ...<( 0.. II) ~ = II) II) 1-01 ... = ~ c..l = ..... = OJ) ..... rJJ , II) ~ ;> ..... ... ~ = ... ~ ... < '- o = o II) 'C ~ Q. 8 o u ~ ~ , = ~ - ,rJ ~ ~ Q) > ~ co I: ... Q) .... Ci '0 ~ .e e 0.. I: o ~ U cs; b z ... o .... co U :c .5 II) Q) ::1 II) .!!! - I: co U :e I: C) en Q) == ~- en~N '0._ , 1:-- cog=~ 11)'0 =0 o ... eno.. , - , .. fIJ ~ o co ('t) 00 fIJ ~ o co o fIJ ~ o co C\I 00 (I) ~ o co 10 ('t) 0> fIJ ~ o co o (I) ~ o CU o "0 Q) (I) o C g..Q a~ c: C €8 .~S (I) I: ~ Q) o E CU'I: - Q) Q) ro"O ECU 'x .S eJ!} c.c: c.Q) ~E .n11U o~ 1-- ~ C\I Q) Q) c: c: o 0 N N 'E 'E CU CU N N CU CU I :c c: :E'E l~ "0$(1) Q)'" Q) ro-8a ~~N (1)"0 Q)C: ... co :t-' >. == :Sco S~ en= Q)C) c.c. 0- Ui , N . , ,. ~ ~ .QQ) Q) E ~cu "0(1) "5~ ~;. (I)"t: Q)CU ~~ C Q) 0.0 . 'Ci) "0 .!!2 e"5 ~ Q)~.9l 8(1)"0 ~ES :J~e (1)"'0 cnent5 ~.9CU ~ ~.o m~ E~ C"O 0_ :pc COQ) g.5 'E~ 5(1) .- "0 ~~ .. ~ u CU C\I C\I 00 (I) ~ u CU <0 ('t) ...... .9~'~ ~ ~~ ai (I) Q) > ... r.t= ro t) fIJ ~ ~~ ~ -g ... Q) ~ u co 0)- co 13 c.... co .t:.S ~ 32:C ~ g o 0 en Q)'- ~ .- o 'x - ~ ~ 0 Z Q) 5 CU.S CU - (I) E co ~ - (I) .9 ~ Q) .~ Q3 "0 - C Q) E :0 Q) en c;;- .... M i ~:r: EQ)C) :c .~ c. Q)"Q;- VJC , M :' c: CU '1: CU C. ~ c: :E - .~ J!} c: Q) E - co ~(I) oQ) (I)~ Q) (I) ~ Q) <(~ U co .- M C)I: ' 00= O~~ ... U _Q ~5--- ~u. , "It (I) ~ u co ...... o 10 (I) ~ o co o ... o "'=t. ~ (I) ~ u CU o - - :., ..lll:: .n1 (I) J9 (I)'; <2 ..lll:: :c ~ :c .9l '.. .:. .., ~ ~ ~'E ~'E ..,. ro' ro ro <0 ~ ~ ~d ~~ .~ .~.~~ > O"O.S "0 .S (I) (I) .:' ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ j ~8.~ 8 8 8 ~ :3" ~ fG'tJ (I) '0 ~ ~ g; ~ ~ E~ Q) cDQ)cD-' '.n1 .... E "0 - - _ "0 .e .- Q)~ Q)~ ~~~c:~16 € ~ € ~ .S en .S ~ .S I, - o ~ Q) 0 ~ Q) Q) t) Q) (I) Q) ro .",. ~Q) I: 0"" C 0 - 0) Q) 0<( 0) 0 Q)"O c: Q)"O c: I:'~ C I: +=- > :0 ... ~ ::0 ... ~ co e co ~ co ~~ .9l co 0 co 0 .t: a.. J: ..:: .t: '-' "0 =S"OQ)~=S"OQ)~~ I ~ I ~ I S '^ > '^ > c: _ C _ c: _ ... v, >:t:l VI >.- Q) S Q) co Q) S W ni 0 0 15 0 t) U.- o:t::: U.- .5 .tJECO-ECO...'O...'O...'O en ~~o~~o~~~~~~ w o ~ ci 0> 0> ~ 00 C\I 00 0> <0 ...... ci ci N ~ ('t) 10 ci ,;' ...... C\I 0 10 0> ...... 0> ...... ...... ci ci N . .' <0 "'=t ('t) ci "'=t 0> 00 ci 00, 0> 10 ci ..lll:: Q) ~ o "0 c: co ~ ~ ..lll:: Q) ~ u 'Q) z o :P ~ ..lll:: (I) '1: "E J9 "5 (I) Q) ~ ~'tJ N .- Q) ,. ~ill)= ::1 ... .... C) ESuC. ::1CO~- o~w , It) fIJ ~ u co o fIJ ~ o co o fIJ Q) ... o co o fIJ ~ / ~ N co .', 0", '.., I: ~ ~ ;'0_= .l: Q) S C) ~~:cc. Oc.co- zen:J: , CQ (I) ~ u co 10 0> ('t) (I) ~ u co 10 -.;t -.;t (I) ~ o co o ~ o C"') N ~ I ~ o C\I <'i I cfl 10 M ~ I ~ o co <'i I ~ o o ~ o o n; C c;;- o It) 'Iii ..l 11)-= Q)COC) cb u== c. ftig.g- ..J(I)~ I .... cfl - '1 ~ o co '1 ~ o o cfl 10 ci VI ~ o 10 ci VI cfl ...... Lri ~ ~ o 10 ci VI cfl ~ cD ~ (I) ~ o co ~ o C\I ~ ~ u c !! in 4) ~ ~ o 10 I ('t) ~ o o ~ 00 -.;t. ~ (I) ~ o co <0 ~ ill ~ ~ o 00 ~ .... en 4) L- o U. "C C .!! .r:. en <( (I) ~ o co o ~ o o (I) ..lll:: (I) co Q) Q) =c a.. co "0 fa ro " ... C -.;t ..lll:: 0 C\I co 0 ~ U) Q) 0 ~ ,ft a..:2 v, "0 c: .S W ro :E (I) 0:: C _ Q) C) ,8 .~ ~ 0 o "0 - 0:: ....:2 S a Q. ro CO coni Q) Z_ -'O~Q).tJ~ OQ)-....OC~ ':::t)(I)<(::e OQ) ~(I) 0... 0:: -:t= u th_ Q) 0 53 co co~ c: CD 3: f::?~S-g~E ~~~&~~ t: <( 0:: C 'tJ~ Q)- fti=i' "Q;~"i' D:O= -:E~- U Q) Q) Q) II) ... .5.... , ClO Jg Q) .~ . .9 Q) :J "0 ~ ~ o E co Q) 'tJ<t:" .! II) ~ 011)= Q)- .... - C) I: '0 C. ~~- .5D: e>> en o """ I = Q) ~ as ..J ~ -; as Xl c 'tJQ)U: - ... Q.... I~ en W (~) ( \ ~Q) .- > c .- ::s1U E E E Q) o~ u< "0 Q) C CI) 0 o .- 0.- o C.) ~< Q. Q) > ~ c ~ Q) ... < "0 Q) ~ ~ of Q) ~ Q. c o ~ o z ~ o ... IV C.) :0 .5 CI) Q) ::s CI) !.! - C IV U It: 'c 0) en ~ o ~ ~ o N ~ o a J: CC o c ~ N ^ fIJ 0) ~ .... .... ::s U co .... .9 - o .... c 0) U ~ 0) D... c;; ~ CD ..e: c ~ .E 0> , ,..... ~ LL o o a a a ci N I L() ~ , I c: ~ .E a ~ I co ~ a a aLL "':0 ~O co ~ c: ~ .E a ~ , co ~ a a aLL "':0 NO N N <( Z <( Z U) 8 "0 0) -ro .5 U) 0) co 15 I- fIJ fIJ ca E o :.a ~ "E ~ o a. "0 0) - co E :;:i fIJ W "0 C IV - ~ IV U ~"'It 5 .- ~ ";- .- E== "'0.0- E c';; CD ~8:..e: owu. I ~ ~ - ~Q) .- > c.- ::s- E ~ E ; o~ u< "0 Q) C CI) 0 0- 0.- o U ~C( Q. fI.l ~ = fI.l fI.l ~ - ~ -= ...... o I fI.l ~ > .. ...... = = - ~ ...... < c..- o = o fI.l .. - = c. S o U M ...-4 I ~ ~ QJ - ~ = ~ Q) > ... IV E Q) - < "0 ~ of f Q. .::t:. fIJ .t: ....0) ::s~ .o~ fIJ"O Q) c: ....ca ::s- .0:2 ~.~ ;? .- 0) -> ca Q) ::s fIJ 0'", ~.l: Q)O) -ro:c ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ tt=fIJ ca' 0) .92> -ca co- E.E ~"O 8.~ c: ::s .- "0 Q) 0) fIJ ~ ca 0) Q).o ~ U"O c:- ._ ::s E~ .2> Ci5 c. o ~ u 1 o z - I ar _ .l: "0 U 0.2> ~ X-.l:- Q) c: ~ "0 Q)~~~Q) ~O)B~tE ca Q) fIJ.t: .l:=cDQ) Ut:O)> 0'- ro Q) z _fIJ ~ o 'tV u :0 .5 ~ co ::s 0'" ~ 0) -ro ~ .S fIJ 0) 0) 0)- C:.E co.t: .l:~ Oco CI) Q) ::s CI) !.! ~ Q) .c o ~ - CI) 'E c;; Q)..... .cool u= ~O) Q)o. - - IV ~ ~ ~ .E fIJ Q) .s ~fIJ .5 "E C)Q) "0.5 c: ca co ~ fIJ- "OC: ~ 0 co.- "00 c: ::s co "0 ti5~ Q)Q) Q)..2 E fIJ "O::S -0 ::S"O ~ ro fIJ N Q) co >.l: :;:i "0 co 0) E fIJ Q) 0 ....a. ;a:e c:a. o ~ <( ;a: <( Z fIJ 0) .S D...~~ ~'5 ~ >C)fIJ Z"OO) -c:O:: ocac: "EflJca "'0 .C: Q)~ca Ecoa. .S -g ~ ~co~ <(ti5.E Q) ~ Q) CI) "0 N &; 0;>> CCl)CI): IV "0 Q) 'C i'= 21 IV "0 Gi.e .~ c "0 ~ S':; NcnC) M a N I ~ co N co N , co '.. ~ .' . N CJ) -r- I CJ) ,...... ,...... ~ N I o o ~ .. .::t:. fIJ .t: .S Q) fIJ co ~ U .S E .2> U; 0) ".;' 0) <( <( ~ Z Z ....."fi' .'. o Z < - - o 0 fIJ fIJ c: c: .9 .9 co co ::s ::s c: c: c: c: co co "0 "0 0) Q) - - ca co .5 ~.5 ~ U)~U)~ WD...WD... in ~oo ~..l 1ij= ::so) AS ~ ~ ('I') - o .::t:. fIJ .C c: ~ .0; e O).l: ~15 .c .s O~ " c: ;S .~ "E 0) E -ro ~ - - o fIJ ~<( uZ <(0:: fIJ ~ u co o N l{') fIJ "E Q) E - co Q) ~ - ..... c: Q) Q) fIJ E co 0) m ~:o c: ~ co 0 E en ~5 . en :;:i c:S 0) fIJ "O.! "E .S Q) ~ E.E ~~ a..t: .5 Q) :2g ::s"O ~ ~ en:2 Q) ::s ~~ E-ro O).t: ..... ..... ;a: c: o ~ <( ;a: c o ~ co >- Q) f!! Q) > "0 co .9 >- Q) ~ ci ~ co >- co ~ 1I "E 0) .5 co 0) .= <( Z <( Z en ~ u co o o c-q ~ fIJ ~ u co o , .. '. o Z ~ ~ .E .e ~ ~ . ~~ ~~ ,. Q) 0 0) 0 o~o~ g~ g~-ro :;:l a. :;:i a. ~ ~ fIJ ~ fIJ .g .~ ~ .~ ~ ~ Q).t: Q).t: u Q)"E Q)"E~ oc:oc:u .'. '., ~ "0 ~ ::s c ~ _ fti ~ IV:~ c(-';; :>cn Z OUCI)CI)"'lt Cl)c ~oo;>> .c ~Q)c=~ca~f~Q. ~: "0 u :~:8 CI):'C:~.f ~ ;; CD c i 21";: So C1U;~-o'~Z "gS ~ ~ IV.e~: Q)S ~:2S ~"O =>. CI) Q)! -....c f Q) => en Q) c > c(D::c( 0_1- 1->::cnIV I I . "'It &t) CQ ..... ~en en- c: c: ....,.. 0) 0) "OE -..... o co c: ~ 0- ~"E .....0) c E 0) 0) EO) 0) co -c: a. co .sE >. CJ c: .~ 'en CI) a:t:: - CI) CI) ~ o LL "C c: .!! .J:: en <( o or- 0r- a tI) tI) w 0:: (!) o 0:: 0.. Z ~ 0:: o ~ to- LL <( 0:: C en jjj cu c: u: (, ~'\ J "'-_/ ( ( CD > ;J ns E CD - :a: '0 CD ... ... .! CD ... a. . ~Q) .- > \:.- :;,C; E c: E ~ o~ 0<( " ~~ (I) gal ~ ro _ a> \: g .5 (I) g 'en :; a a> 0 0 .~ .J:; E ro ~ .0 (I)(I)C ro I:t::: € > ~ ~ ffi (I) ai t-- [(I) ~ m _ :0 . .. .!fl.:: 0.2"0 0'- a> .... oJ ~ ~ .... ro'~ LO ex: ~ J!j (j) ~ a> ~ "0'- 0 .... !!J.5 a> ~ '0 "0.5'0 a> 'S; ~ ....:; 0 ~ ro;; ~ E . ;t::: E a> 0 :0 o~ ~ffi ~'~ex:co4= ~'O g.ffi .5 ~ 00 ~.... I- ~ .9 4= .5 -g 0.2Q::=~ 0)::1 ~roa:ro:o ~~~~ ro .5 ;- ~ .~ 0.5 (I) .- e: .- "0 ~ ~ a> "'C > 0 \: \: E E ~.- ~ e: a> ::I .... ~ (I) 0 :E e: I :> ro c..r.;;.:5 '- ro (I) (I) ro a> v _ ::> a> 'S; 0 .... a> 0) 0 '0 ~.- . ro (I) (I) ~ e: ::> e: a> '- e: ..... a> ~ E: a> - (I) 0 .- ~ ~'2 "'C c. !!J (I) [ ~ ~ - ~ E ro a> e: e: (I) ro a>.- a> E 0 ro a> >-~ ro ~ ~ 0 ex: ~ - ~ g E ro - i5. - I- ro ro 0 .- 0 ~'O ex:~LO~ 00 " e: - I--- '0 CD c: en 0 0.- 0.- e~ a. \: o :e ~ I o Z "0 a> ~ :0"0 o a> E ~ -roE :5~ ro '- .J:;O o Z <( z ... o - ns (,) :c .E .... .S! J!j~ ~E ::a:: (I) a> ~ '000 e: a> o.~ ~~ ~a> .- 00 (I) J=_a> t: (1)._ a> a> 0 -....a> a>oa. OLL(I) !!J 19 :c ro ::r: \: ro 'C ro a. a: en Q) :J en ~ ... Q) .c - o ...J!l Q) ns .c -- -'-0 o.Q~ :!Ij!~ J::Q)ji= en :t::: .- C) e::c (,) c.. ...-Q)- Q)'- Q, l-3:cn I ClO (Q m . en= .! C) (,)Q, Q)- Q, U> (I) - ro - :0 ro ::r: a> e: ~ !!il ~ex:~ "2 ~:B :~ ro.~ "0 a> > .5 ro ~ o ~'o ~._ a> roEg. ~~'O a> a. (I) a> (I) ~~(I) > ~.Q "Oe:ro ro 0 ... >-~o ro= OlC. 0) E'- e: 0) ro .5 ,,~ :P :2 0) 0) ~ 'S; ~ 3: > ~ .- - - 0) J1.S! ~O~g "00) ts~~ffi "5 .5 ro.2 a> '- o (I) (I) ro LL :> roO) a> 0 ::> >.5- ~ 0_ ~_"O > .5 S ro"5 e: ~ >-.- E (I) ~ ro.o.o 0) a>- E~J1 ~ ~ro ~ g..' e: Q) ~ .A' a. 0 ~ ::I ~ E ts = ~ '... o .- <( 0 .... :Pro _e:o 0._ ro ~ _~ ..,' <( ~ ;:i 0) a> ~.....~ ~ ~ -g.5OO.. .p ::::> "'C a> ~ :0"0 o a> E ~ ~E :o~ ro '- .J:;o o Z (I) 'E in ~ o -ro .... 0) ~ B 'Q. e g z ~ Q) - Q) > 0) (I) o o ex: e: ~ ro E e: ~ 'E: 0) E <( '- 0) 0) "0 "0 ~ S I ~ o ro CO en Q) 'u -Q)- \: e: c.M nsQ)(I)~ a.-E~~ Q)O= - cn-- ennscocn Q)... \:.~ 0. ns'O- ~:E.5 . m . -0 ~b o E~ ~a> a>o .0 lIe: a "0 e: T"" "5:= ..!. ~ ~ (I)~ 0)(1) roe: ~.Q a>o E ro 0"0 (I) 0) .J:;(I) ~8. o e ;;0. < ,"... -"- a> :c ro t:. co ~ a> ::I (I) ~ - \: ~." ~ '2 0) U5 a> 0) 00 0) ;;~ e::p :E'S; ~ts (l)ro a> e: .- 0 ~ts 0.::1 (1)"0 ~ ~ ~- .- a> (I) ::I e:- a>>- 00.0 (\') "'C a> a> .J:;> .....e '-a. .S!E "0 .- a> (I) 0(1) a>.2 a.- x 0 O)~ (I).~ o ex: ~. a>m a> '- (1)<( ~o > a> "0 '-' roe 00.. Z ro ~ <( o a> 'e- o.. 0) .J:; - .5 '- ::I o o o .9 e: ~ o e: ~ Q) '- ro a> e: o Z ~ .5 d> B = - '- ="0 a. 2> a> a> -ga>~~6>'- E>x-(I)~ o Q) 0 I "01 -E _.J:;e: 19 a> tf e: .2l ~ 1/ :O'-a>~.J:;"O J1o~a>.9il o oQ)ro Z z:5~ "0 e: ro ~ ~ o ~ f!? "0 ~ ~ :m .g. ~ o 0 ~ g. ~-g ~ ~ ~ .J:; co ~ S ~.J:; z a: '0 (I) ..... e: ro a. '- ro "5 o (I) ro > . "0 e: ro e: Q) .J:; o ::J fIi Q) >. .J:; g.'o, ~5 (])LL a> .... ro (I) o ~ a> a> f!? a>"'C > Q) "0..... roO oQ) e:~ c:a> o ~ ro 0) :P 'E :5 ~ .5 d> ~ ..... O)'E: g.ro~~ ~=~~ Q) 0 I "0 ......'S,e: o e:._ ro a>Q).J:;;:; """ > - Q) Q) .9i .~ oQ)ro z:5~ .9 ro e: o :e o a. e a. .~ ~ (I) 0::"0 .a> ~€ 'S; :J ts~ ro"O "0"0 Q)e: (I) ::I ro e ~O) 0_ .5 0 .91: Q) ::I ::I 0 "OE ~ro (I) 'E: .5 Q) (I) ro ~ o .5 1: .2l Ci5 t> ~ ro >- Q) f!? a> > "0 ro .9 >- Q) ~ ..... o e: tf ~ ro >- ro ~ " ~ (.) c: ! en Q) ~ - en Q) t.- O U. "C C .!! .c en <( _e: o'n; .!fl.E ~ ~ ~"O ....."5 e: 0 ~ ~ ::I~ () .~ e: I .- a> a~ ~~ ~o tf ~ ..... ~ > ..... a> Q) ..... o Q) · z:5 = , . " .... o "0 c: ~ a> ~J!i'5 a>e:= "0 ro . '0 a. ~ .........>. J!j~~ 0::1 a. 0) 0 0 ::a::~~ W>.o t/) t/) .... w .S! ~ e: C) ~ 0 c: ro ~ ~ e: 0- ro .~ c: Z_ t) .".. 0) 0 .' -.~_ Q).5 ~ i, "0 ro ~ - (I) 00 0 o 00 ~ . a>~ ~ ~'ffi8 t: <( ~ C '0, c: .a ..",.,.,,' ft. ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ - \: c: \: __ .~ ns en'O en ca Q) ns. Na. N:C I~ ii:Q)C: ~5iii:=-g NQ) C"')CO t/)w- 'iQ)Q)...~ca ~E~"'~ca ~~ ~~.c CJ en > ca ;iIl\ ~ ..!. ........ ca ,..... ~ 1:: en..!. " 'A .- _ ;J -.c \: = E ,,-.c c =.v CD = .:::.:: c; \: en'- :J Q, CD '-, ~ =:;, c. Q) '-, ~ Z .- CI - u.. c S ! ~ ~ O.c ~ 8 ~ ~ 0 .c g>> c ~ _0. ~"O u.'- o 0 CD ns ~.~:J cons ~.~ ~ 0 c. --- C'" C ~u..cn>~~~ ~~>~~u.. zU> ~ca . . . I o ~ N C"') ,~ I~ 1- I~ ( \ Q) > ;; ca E Q) ... Ci: " ~ ~ .! Q) ~ D.. ~Q) .- > c .- ~-; E c E ~ o~ oc( =0> .~ =:; co_ '5ao>o .0. ~ ~ ~ 1:0> ~=B.Q:2 ~.g~co~ '0 .- 0 ~ 0> '5 > "" 0 0) .- '0 u... 0) C -g en Z.S: e? .- en U) - 0.Q&~~ ~coa:::ro:O co C - ~ .~ >-:: co '0 > Q)'3~~~ ~ en co ._ 0>~0).s~ ~ >-.s: '0 c. coQ)2cen >-~ co ~ co--- ~ '0 c. : C 'C Q) C II) 0 o .- c.t) ec( D.. C o ;:; u ~ o z ~ c .... 'C 0> co O>Q)E_:t: ~~:o~~ CI) q:: Q):S:: .c: l:-genQ) 0) .2> ~ ~ !2 .S: .c:.;g ~ 5 ~ ~~O>(,)CO ~ n g- CI) .S: '- o ... ca u :c .E ... ... ~ ~g s S S'5S-= c c cec~ .2 ~ .2 r- .2 c 1Q co 1Q-10'2 .S: a .S: '5 .S: ~ .5 ~ ~~~~~~~~ Q)CI)Q)'OQ)UQ)~ 'O.llC:'O~'O_'O,,:::: !Jo!J.c:J!}jgJ!}= o g (,)(j) 0 en (,):5 ~:r:~~~~~g WUW(f)WUwu... II) Q) ~ II) .!!! '- Q) .c: ... o ~ M - :E a S - 0_ c co o:t: ;;.0 co co .S: J: E~ Q)'- -u... Q)- '0 co en;; 'O~ ~~ ww ~, (,) ~ co >- Q) f!! Q) > '0 co .s >- Q) ~ '0 c o ~ co >- co ~ : o '2 0> ~Q) .sE CI) Q) 0.0 ~!2 0> ::J 5 ~ .S: en E ~ E~ Q) ..".. -.0 t 0 o (,) .c: .- CI) c Q) Q) (,) > en co . -cE !2 Q), ::J- o I ~g> Q).Q > ~ ;;Q) co > EO ~I ~~ c= o co .- ~ 00" <( ~ <( Z ~ ro ::J 0" o '2 Q) o CI) o en -Q) !J~ o (,) ~~ Wo >- ... ==N" ftS"lt ~- a. u= 'c ~ B- tIJ I "It - '0 -c ::J._ o Q) ~O)en encQ) Q)coc. E-fiB ~co~ (,) Q) c co .0 co a!2~ :0 ::J.~ ::J ~ co '0>> ~'O~ Q)~o ::J Q) E ~E-g cQ)co co_ U1len ~ 0)'0 Q) C C enOjg ::J -.J CI) c I c 0> '0 Q) Q)Q)c. ~:t:o ~~~ en 0 J!}.- E .~ ~ 0 c;: Q)_ c 8 ~ 8co~ eene? Q)COco -~.c: t::JO o g V50 Q) 0) c co .c: o o Z 'C 5 >-_ 'v ... ll) c..!"lt oca- ;:;CI)~ ftSu= ! == a u.D c. Q)~- ~D.. I ll) - en ~ (,) co M a:> (J) . ,< en ~ (,) co "It co C\I N Q) 0) c co .c: (,) o Z CI) ~ o co o f!! Q) en ::J c o ~ ~ (,) ~ .s ~ ffi co ~ co C '0 :r: 0> .... '0 .~ rd e 'OQ,)c ~ro~ co '0 0 0> Q) '='01:'0 CI) co Q) Q) ~e~1Q OcQ)Q) <(::Jo...= II) ftS ! .~ c( 0- E :ell) Q)Q)Q)"';" tIJ~-g= '-.- 0 a Q)E'-c. :5'E: 5- OD.._ . CD - ~ o C\I M I: CI) Q) :e 0> a. e c. o 'i:: .s en :r: o C : co Q) .00) .9~ '0 co Q)t .S: Q) E-g Q) ::J Q) '0 ~ co en Q) > ;; co E ~ ~ c o :0 or:( ... en Q) '- o LL '"C C ~ .c en c:( ~ u C .! 'en Q) 0:: ~ o M " , o '0 ~ Q) o Z N ~ ~ . = ~ o ~~ 'C - o'(i) $~ .c: ._ 00) _0 ~g Q).c: ~~ tI) tI) w 0:: C) o 0:: D. ~ ~ 0:: o 3: ~ LL c:( 0:: C II)~ Q)- Q)U~ -'-- WI ~_ .fIoa 'E: II) a. Q)Q)- :I:~ ~ - VJ W n; C u: l / CHAPTER III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENT ALCONSEQUENCES A. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL Added analysis of additional alternative Changes to Sensitive species list Changes to analysis of owl habitat - abiotic model, NSO recovery plan B. INTRODUCTION This Chapter describes environmental effects and consequences lipkedwith implementing the Proposed Action, the Community Alternative, or No-Action, cons!gered and analyzed in detail. The following Sections portray outconles for each altema~'iy.('in1erms of the first order fire effects, elements and indicators of Purpose and Need, al1~rpr.edicted physical, biological, economic, and social direct, indirect and cumulative e..ffe~ts{6n the human environment, in regard to the Significant Issues, and Other Issues identifie~iriChapter 1. In presenting consequence discussions, the following terms are used to de~B.nl?,e,Ielevant spatial and temporal effects: . :. '". ..:........ "." ..... ..... Short-term effects address environm.o/.'1ttqlqbnsequences, which could occur during hazardous fuels treatments or w,~ldla17~:Are events, and/or that arise within two-years of treatments. '. Long-term effects address, e11 vih3'hm en tal consequences, which are delayed, periodic, and/or arise more than fJVC(':"y:~ars after hazardous fuels treatm,ents or wildland fire event. Direct effects refe}~to E9nsequences caused by the activities or events themselves, occurring concurrently a hd; in {he same location. Indirect effe~.!~:"include consequences, occurring later in time or are farther removed in distal1E;!rOh,j the point of contact, but ar~ still reasonably foreseeable. CunfiIlatlve' effects address incremental environmental consequences resultant of lnultiple, past, pFesent, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of land ownership, or , "",,:'''~liich agency, or person initiated the action (40 CFR 1508.7). oN 'TIllis analysis of environnlental effects for each alternative is based on the recognition of Federal ~'::'::"~laws, National policies, regional Standards and Guidelines, and compliance with the Rogue River National Forest LRMP, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. The Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team has conducted analysis and has disclosed environmental consequences for all alternatives considered in detail. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency 1. Scales of Analysis The depiction of effects varies, based on the context in which they are analyzed. Therefore, if pertinent, environmental consequences are presented in context of multiple scales, over various timeframes. For the purpose of this Final EIS, t!ie analysis was focused at the scale of the Project Area, that is, where actions are proposed and direct consequences would occur. The Project Areas are unique to the Action Alternatives and vary according to the area where potential treatments would occur. It is generally assumed that the Proposed Action would occur on approximately 8,1~,O<;acfe's, within areas portrayed on Map 11-3, the Community Alternative would occur on :{i;;, .., approximately 8,990 acres within areas portrayed on Map 11-5, and the Preferr~~:"(:\':"':' Alternative would occur on approximately 7,600 acres within areas portraye~t'hu}::!\1ap 11-7. These Project Areas include areas affected by hazardous fuel reduction treatmeI?,ts and utilization or creation of helicopter landings (see Map II-I), and are not identical betweeihttre<Action Alternatives. '. . ".' . . . ,", - ~.'.. ,", Effects analysis can be performed at various scales. For potential efft.'tts.:.t'ti":'be measurable (especially cumulative effects), the sub-watershed scale was sele~\~d for analysis. Sub- watersheds are a subset of and smaller in area than waters~eds~n(Lgenerally referred to as "6th field". A sub-watershed, like a watershed, is an area of l,\~,c;l~:!haLall drains to a point on a stream. Generally the location for this point is at a confluence w.i~rh~bther stream. Watersheds are generally 40,000 to 250,000 acres in size and referreqt!6 ~c~~~"5th field". Sub-watersheds are usually 1 0,000 to 40,000 acres in size. ,.;., '., ',:,;",10':.- ";':', th '''''.''''. '::, The Bear Creek Watershed (a 5 field wa~,~rsl1~2).,oJ,()tals approximately 361 square miles (231,087 acres). This watershed lies apP~2xi&~"fely 127 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean at the extreme southeast comer of th~ UpR~t'reaches of the Rogue River Basin. The boundaries of the watershed are formed by a ri'dgeli:Q~5which travels along the Cascade Mountains on the north and east sides and the Si~,~iyb,11'2Slamath Mountains to the south and west. <:::,.~ ....~:.;::.. Ashland Forest Resiliency ~r.Qj,'e,.e:I:,!'areas are located within four separate sub-watersheds, described in this FEISi,an~l~si,~::":as the Ashland Creek sub-watershed, the Neil Creek s~b- watershed, the HalIlilton",~t~'ek sub-watershed and the Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed, all within the Bear Cr6eK:\\{.~tershed and the Rogue River Basin. The geographic extent of the sub- watersheds is pepiG.le4"on Map I-I, DEIS Appendix 1. '~lt(\'):~:ii:,:":',,,:'<:""; The Ashla~:~ Cr~~k:'sub-watershed is approximately 24.7 square miles (15,785 acres) in size and is one o~:llieq?,9rhary tributaries to Bear Creek. This area includes all of the hydrologic area associat~Q '"\yith the Ashland Municipal Watershed. This watershed extends from the summit of Mt!-,:::,A~hland on the south to the confluence of Ashland Creek and Bear Creek on the north. .;........:..;:-::::::;.;...?... f::::;;... .......<{.:. l?-~~:::Neil Creek sub-watershed also contributes flow to Bear Creek, and this 21.2 square mile ":,:,:,:: ,C.,13,563 acre) sub-watershed is located on the east side of the Analysis Area. The lower ":"::':::houndary of the Neil Creek Watershed is located at the confluence of Neil Creek and Bear Creek. Near the boundary of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, the slope of the valley, floor decreases dramatically. Downstream from the National Forest boundary is primarily pasture or rural developed lands. Several other small streams contribute to this sub-watershed. Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlI III - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed is located in a generally north facing basin that is 9.2 square Iniles in size (5,875 acres). The lower extent of the Upper Wagner Creek watershed the same as the Upper Bear Analysis Area boundary, at the confluence with Wagner Creek and Horn Gulch Creek, which is in proximity to the National Forest boundary. The sub-watershed is a mix of interspersed privately owned and Federally managed lands. Wagner Creek flows to the north and into Bear Creek near the City of Talent. The 6.5 square mile (4,127 acre) Hamilton Creek sub-watershed is a north facing drainage immediately to the south of the City of Ashland. The northern end of the Hamilton Creek Watershed is located at the confluence of Bear Creek and Hamilton Creek. The majority,ofthis'> sub-watershed is located on privately owned lands. C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - UPPER BEAR ANALYSIS AREA The Bear Watershed Analysis was completed in 1 995 by the Ashland RangerDi.~trict, RRNF. The 40,412 acre Bear Creek Watershed Analysis Area was oon1prised oftpeAshland, Neil, Clayton, Tolman, Hamilton, and Wrights Creek sub-watersheds. 1Jle.:~e3:LWatershed Analysis Area also includes about 4,672 acres in the headwaters of the Wagrl"el::Greek sub-watershed; all sub-watersheds are tributary to Bear Creek. The Watershed Analysis Area included Federally n1anaged and private lands, as well as forested lands managegby'the City of Ashland. None of the sub-watersheds analyzed within the Bear Watershed Analysis Area, including the Ashland Creek Watershed, are Federally designated as Key Water.she,~s'by the Northwest Forest Plan. A Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) was.'~o~'pleted in June 1996. The objectives for completing the assessment were to gain a better.:understanding of current conditions within the LSR, to determine how current conditipnsTylate to LSR function and meeting the objectives of the NWFP, and to provide a framework fo\the management of this LSR consistent with NWFP objectives. The 2003 Upper Bear Assessm~~t is<"ganalytical effort to validate and supplement the environmental condition informati:.2n for the ecosystem and landscape associated with the Ashland Watershed, and thy::Jar'~er:::Upper Bear Creek Analysis Area, to 2003 conditions. This includes updating the J9Q5~ear Watershed Analysis, and the 1996 Mt. Ashland Late- Successional Rese~e;;.t\:s~.essinent, under re~ommendation of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Vegetation and dis,tilrq.~nde factors were organized by Plant Association Groups (P AGs), and fonned the maj.,grityi.,gflhe Late-Successional Reserve Assessment update. This process also included an asSessment of fire management conditions, providing the basis for a Fire Manageml:~I;1t Plan for the Federally managed portions of this landscape (National Fire Plan 2000), ard:::~'\scientifically based site-specific Roads Analysis (per FSM 7712.1). A:~:pri~ary objective of this effort was the preparation of an integrated assessment of current co'hditipns and scientific and professional identification of opportunities and priorities for Federal actions regarding elements of the environment that ought to be actively managed if the .:.:..goal of resiliency to large-scale disturbance (such as wildland fire) is to be realistically achieved. The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, as well as the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis and 1996 Late- Successional Reserve Assessment are incorporated by reference to this EIS. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency An additional objective of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was to provide the background and current condition (Affected Environment) information for the forthcoming analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) process for Ashland Forest Resiliency (i.e., this Final EIS). This was done to minimize duplication of information, reduce the volume of documentation, and focus the NEP A analysis on relevant issues. The Analysis Area for the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment includes all lands within the Ashland Creek Watershed, and portions of the Neil Creek, Hamilton Creek, and Wagner Creek sub- watersheds. This is similar to, but not exactly the same area analyzed in the 1995 Bear . Watershed Analysis and the area analyzed in the J 996 Mt. Ashland Late-Successional ~eserye\: Assessment (see Component 1). This Analysis Area is a logical set of sub-watersheds Q{ sim.itar conditions, management objectives, human values, and is designed to include the fir~~inlluerice zone surrounding the Ashland Municipal Watershed. "''''1/ 1. Updates to 2003 Upper Bear Assessment The fonnat for Component I of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment ~;~s:\::to':"~Rproximately follow the outline associated with the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis, with\J~Hdation of information presented, as well as the information contained in the1996 Mt. ~~J11an(ftat~-Successional Reserve Assessment (North Zone). This format was desigI1esL~~ ::allow for the integration of vegetation data by Plant Association Groups, the update/q;.e'a{foil'.of a Fire Management Assessment, and the inclusion of a scientifically-based R9:~~~"'Analysis. In terms of current condition information, the stratygy;Jor the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was not to entirely replace the 1995/96 documents:Teth~ttthe strategy was to validate existing information and documentation, and updat~.apd4;8r'supplement where conditions have changed, or there is new infonnation. This then sug~es!,s:::that users of this document will retain the 1995/96 documents and utilize botl}.,Jo pfiItg~the 1995/96 assessments and the 2003 updates and assessment together. Landscape is,~ues,'.desired conditions, opportunities and recommendations for Federal actions were brougl:t! fd~.ard and validated from these earlier efforts and integrated into an assessment of opportun~:fie.e,/Component 5). '{;;:I~ "::;;:;:-;:}:~:: ..' The 2003 Upper Bear!~s~~s~went was completed in December 2003. Since that time (2004- 2008), there have Q:~e!l);'e;y~ral cOlTections, updates, and supplements to the information provided in the 2003 Upper ..:aieC!i':~'As'sessment. Updates are documented in the description of the current condition (Aff~.s,!~d:;:gn~'ironment) as needed, in support of analysis under Ashland Forest Resi Ii ency. \~: ::",;:., '::::{ Final EIS f1DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 4 Ashland Forest Resiliency D. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED As introduced in Chapter I, the key contents of the Purpose and Need statement are: The Need for Action is for urgent reduction of potential for large-scale, high-severity wildland fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The Purpose of the Action is to protect values at risk, reduce hazardous fuels, reduce crown fire potential, and obtain conditions that are lTIOre resilient to wildland fires. This Section is designed to take a closer look at attainn1ent of the Purpose and Need and establish indicators to compare the Action Alternatives in relation to the No-Action Altemative. While lTIany elen1ents of Purpose and Need are related, either directly or indirectly,to.the Significant Issues, this Section is not designed to assess consequences (effects) in tenns of Significant Issues. It is designed to assess the overall attainment of the stated Purpose and Need. Following a description of the modeling process and assumptions an.d'.a discussion of the strategic design of each alternative (sub-section 2), this Section is org~6ized by the key elen1ents of the Purpose and Need statement. The first element addresse~Lis"urgent reduction" (sub- section 3). This relates to the scheduling and implementati~n:R.fthe proposed treatments. The second element addressed is the "potential for la~ge~.'~:~a'l'e, high-severity wildland fire" (sub-section 4). Within this element, probability of,;l;:l~nds:cape-scale fire and fire suppression effectiveness are discussed.... The next element is "protect values at ~isk:'(~~.h~section 5), which addresses the four values identified in the 2003 Upper Bear Asses.~m~rttjncluding water quality, late-successional habitat, protection of human life and prop~rty, apd:ecological sustainabilityl, The next element discussed is't:.~:~d"ilce'hazardous fuels" (sub-section 6). Modification of hazardous fuels has implicat~~ne.TQr fire behavior and fire effects. Current conditions, as described by fuel models,.,ar~.:?ist~ussed and compared against the Action Alternatives. "Reduce crown fir~pqteri'tia)" (sub-section 7) is the next element of the Purpose and Need statement discusse~,~..::f\riactive crown fire is one in which the entire surface/canopy fuel complex becoine~::i.~volved, Active crown fires typically lead to high acreage burned and adverse eI1viroIin1ehtal effects, and offer the most challenge to fire managers (Scott and Reinhardt -20Pl). Th7:fipal"efement of Purpose and Need analyzed in this Section is related to the "obtain co~ditions more resilient to wildland fires" (sub-section 8) portion of the statement. Within thi~:eIement, surface fuel loading, horizontal and vertical fuel discontinuity, crown density, and . ./.yegetation composition (species and structure) are discussed. 1 Ecological sustainability as used here is defined in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment as '1he maintenance or restoration of the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems including diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capability of ecological systems." Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11I-5 Ashland Forest Resiliency 1. Modeling Process and Assumptions Predictions of fire behavior are important in making decisions about fire management. Results from any modeling process are only approximations of what to expect when any treatment is implemented. The objective of modeling is to aid in estimating likely future consequences of alternatives. A relative comparison of alternatives can be made even though the model may lack precision in describing specific attributes. Since simulation models are simplifications of reality and are based on numerous assumption~!- and variables, their results are often subject to debate. Models can serve as one sourceof .. information for decision making, but their primary usefulness is to gain understanding 9f ,'" complex systems. Simulations of fire processes are subject to limitations but are often tHe"'bnly way, short of actual tests on the ground, of analyzing proposed scenarios (Van W ~g!~ndonk 1996). .' While there is a good general understanding of the factors that govern fir:e:hehavior, the interactions among these factors and the way in which fire behaves.::::ol1::the:,lflndscape are highly complex. As a result, fire behavior and severity can be understood 'an.e:::predicted in general terms, but exact predictions are not possible. Different models h~ye be'en developed that are widely used and useful to assist in managing fires and dev:~Ic?'p.~l1g.::.fuel treatment plans. However, there are key uncertainties in how the simplifyil1g:~(lsStimptions of models affect their accuracy and as well as uncertainties that result from dif~:~ul~es of providing adequate input data to operate the models. The limitations to predictions1!:~irighnodels can be categorized as: .........:::~;::.. ....::~:.:.... · Model assumptions and limitations. Bec~Us:~:alt"fuodeis are abstractions of reality and not reality itself, there are many limitations to the'::P!ediclH~)Jis resulting from the models. By necessity, models simplify much of what really/h~pp~"Ds:::ln order to facilitate the user's understanding of the process. In addition, many mod~.Is ~te:~:~eveloped to reflect weather conditions that are "normal" and not extreme; therefore, thejrpretliciions do not reflect these types of events (Albini 1976, Van Wagner 1977, Rothermell?83:>:~.:drews 1986). . ..... . Unknowable fire environrne.rlf at the time wildfires encounter tr~tments. Even if models were nearly perfect, it.yi'opldnever be possible to predict the exact conditions of a wildfire that would encountera''ftleI",~eatment and serve as the performance measure. For example, the weather and wind conditJ:on~:at ~ particular time, the ignition location and direction of fire movement through the tr.~~,J~:q_area, and the degree of variability in the stage of treatment completion at the' time of the::;Yt~;are all elements that determine the performance of a fuel treatment in terms of the chav:g~s td~.~rlbehavior and effects. · C~.ar~e:::data descriptions of fuels and environmental conditions. The most detailed fuel maps .' .....are'typically resolved to about 30 meters, but this scale is still too coarse to reflect variability ':i:::.'.::::::;:::<V(ithin that area, such as heavy fuel concentrations or thickets of trees. Such fine-scale variability . '.'i::\::,) could be important and may have important consequences to fire growth over landscapes, but it is unknowable for fire modeling (Graham and others 2004). For Ashland Forest Resiliency, a resolution of 25 meters was used. Commonly, analysis of wildland fire employs the mean and variance of a probability distribution of mean fire size, mean area burned, etc. This was the basis of analysis for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (2001). However, extreme catastrophic events are not adequately addressed by standard statistics (Sandberg et al. 1998). Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII III - 6 Ashland Forest Resiliency Although historical fire occurrence was used for portions of this analysis~ there is no absolute assurance that future fires will occur in this area. While a pattern is often evident, denlographics, hU111an activities, and climatic conditions call change, therefore, predicting a specific location for a fire to start, predicting its size, or predicting area burned over tillle is often highly subjective. Therefore, these factors are not predicted for Ashland Forest Resiliency as an elenlent of attaiml1ent of Purpose and Need objectives. The discussions in this FEIS analysis are focused around the probability of a wildland fire event happening, and comparing the predicted fire behavior and effects, based on current conditions and those conditions resulting from implementation of any of the Action Alternatives. The following discussion identifies the models utilized and the assumptions used in the'analysis for this FEIS for the three main con1ponents of fire behavior; weather, fuels, and topography. 3. Fire Behavior Models For analysis in this FEIS, a nun1ber of fire behavior models were utibzed to assess the probability of a large wildland fire event, estimate potential fire behaviQLaild to assess the potential for high-severity fire effects. The models used in this F~ISanalysis include F ARSITE, FlamMap, FireFanlily Plus, BehavePlus, and NEXUS. These models are briefly described below. In addition to. t~esvmodels ArcInfo, a geographic information system (GIS), was used to prepare data f<?f t~'::,inodels and to map results. Mark FilU1ey (1994) developed a fire simula~:9r~~:!1~d FARSITE as a deterministic model for simulating the spatial and temporal spread,~n~'behavior of fires under conditions of heterogeneous terrain, fuels, and we'.!-~het.:~in'ce it also includes spotting and crowning potential, the F ARSITE simulator i~...~njdea] tool to use to evaluate fuel treatment effectiveness. The simulator hasbegn'venfied in the field, using prescribed natural fires in Yosemite and Glacier NationaL:Parks':(Finney and Ryan 1995). FlamMap (Finney in pre.par~t~on) is a spatial fire behavior mapping and analysis program that requires a F ARSIIH:.l..Ari"oscape file, as well as fuel moisture and weather data. However, unlike F ARSITE, Ftam1v.18.p assumes that every cell (an area 25 meters on each side) on the landscape burnsend.:!nakes fire behavi or ca1culati ons (e. g., fireline intensity, flame 1 ength) for each 10cati()Il:Xcell), independent of one another. That is, there is no predictor of fire movemenf=::acr-2~sthe landscape, and weather and wind information can be held constant. By so doi~'g, FlamMap output lends itself well to landscape comparisons (e.g., pre- and post- treatl"l}enteffectiveness) and for identifying hazardous fuel and topographic combinations, thus:e~ding in prioritization and assessments (Stratton 2004). :\Fir~Family Plus is a software system for summarizing and analyzing historical daily fire "weather observations and computing fire danger indices based on the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS). The BehavePlus fire modeling system is a computer program that is a collection of models that describe fire and the fire envirorunent. It is a flexible system that produces tables and graphs and can be used for a multitude of fire n1anagement applications. BehavePlus is the successor to the BEHAVE fire behavior prediction and Fuel Modeling system (Andrews 1986, Andrews and Chase 1989, Burgan and Rothermel 1984, Andrews and Bradshaw 1990). Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 7 Ashland Forest Resiliency NEXUS is crown fire hazard analysis software that links separate models of surface and crown fire behavior to compute indices of relative crown fire potential (Scott 1999). b. Weather Of the factors involved in modeling fire behavior, weather (i.e., climate) is probably the most variable and difficult to predict. Standard fire modeling practices use historical weather records and model weather over as long of period as there is data available. For this analysis, predicted fire weather was based on historical weather conditions taken from the Buckhorn Springs Remote Automated Weather Station (RA WS)2 that is typical for the lower elevations withirr':,Hle National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area where most of the proposed tr~atmehts would occur. The discussion in FEIS Chapter II states that the Proposed Action is designed toachleve a flame length of 4 to 6 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions. Fire behavior?n,!lysis within this FEIS was performed using these conditions (90th percentile weather) to m.~as.y:re:'\how well design objectives were met and the more extreme fire behavior conditions (92th \pe~~entile weather) to assess effects related to the time when most large fires occur (Augifst.,.)Sept'ember). The 90th and 95th percentile weather conditions used in this analysis are summcqize1:lrbelow in Table III-I. .... ".:t(~:.:-:->l Table 01-1. Weather and Fuel Moisture Information as R\~q{~ed.::,bY FireFamilyPlus .' ~';~::::... 95th Percentile "'=;""3.5% 4.3% 7.3% 8.8% 41.7% 66.8% 8.5m h 20m h 61 de rees F 95 de rees F 13% 47% Surface windspeed.::,i~::::.oft:en one of the most critical weather elements affecting fire behavior. RA WS windsp~~(tlPe-asurements are a 10 minute average windspeed that is measured hourly and then ayerag::~,d for the twenty four hour period. These measurements do not take into account changing.::~pe,~.ds' and direction, referred to as "gustiness". q':lJ~ti~ess is caused by mechanical (related to topography) and thermal (unequal surface heating) .; !}lrq:~re9ce. Peak windspeeds that persist for one minute can affect gross fire behavior, including tii'e",.rate;'''of spread and fire intensity (Crosby and Chandler 2004). 2 Data from Buckhorn Springs, located approximately 10 miles east of the Analysis Area: Calculated by Fire Family Plus, version 3.0.4. Data years 1996-2004; elevation 2,900 feet. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII 11I-8 Ashland Forest Resiliency Tables developed by Crosby and Chandler can be used as an aid in estinlating wind gusts. Using the average 90th percentile 20 foot wind speed (5.9 nlph) from Table III-I, wind gusts of 9 to 20 nliles per hour could be expected. To nlodel fire behavior in this analysis, a wind speed of 15 miles per hour was used to account for this factor. For the 95th percentile conditions (8.5 mph, expected gusts 12 to 24 nlph), a wind speed of 20 miles per hour was used in the analysis. Using the higher wind speeds, n10re accurately represents those conditions when wildland fires are to occur. Each year, the Oregon Department of Forestry's District Forester designates fire season based.oll the fire danger. In Southern Oregon, it typically begins in June although it has begun asearlya~ .... April. It generally lasts until the fire danger dinlinishes to a point that burning no long~r needs to . be regulated outside of rural fire districts. Fire season typically ends in October, but can end: in September or even Novenlber. For analysis purposes, the fire season is assumed tob~ May 1 through September 30. c. Fu els Fuels have been traditionally characterized as crown fuels (live andq~q.cijria.terial in the canopy of trees), surface fuels (grass, shrubs, litter, and wood in contact ~iththe ground surface), and ground fuels (organic soil horizons, or duff, and buried wood).. A;~ore refined classification separates fuelbeds into six strata, or layers: tree canopy; shrpbs/sniall trees; low vegetation; woody fuels; moss, lichens, and litter; and ground fuels (duff) (Peterson, et al. 2004). Figure III-I. Fuelbed Classification Combustion Environment Crown fire Fuelbed strata Canopy Shrub Low vegetation I Surface fire - , Vvoody fuel I Moss, lichen, litter ~smoldering, residual effects I G round fuel _ J Modification df:~!}y::ruel stratum has implications for fire behavior, fire suppression, and fire effects. Tpe trefc'anopy is the primary stratum involved in independent crown fires, and the spatial c~:~tiQuitf and density of tree canopies combine with fuel moisture and wind to determine rate of fire':::s.pread and severity. The shrub/small tree stratum is also involved in crown fires by increasing'.surface fireline intensity and serving as "ladder fuels" that provide continuity from the surface fuels to canopy fuels, thereby potentially facilitating active crown fires. , three fuelbed strata contribute to the initiation and spread of surface fires. Low vegetation, ....>:..consisting of grasses and herbs, can carry surface fires when that vegetation is dead or has low moisture content. Woody fuel is sound logs, rotten logs, stumps, and wood piles from either natural causes or management activities. Wood can greatly increase energy release from surface fires and can in some cases increase flame lengths sufficiently to ignite ladder fuels and canopy fuels. Moss, lichens, and litter on the forest floor can also increase energy release in surface fuels. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 9 Ashland Forest Resiliency 111--. Mathematical surface fire behavior and fire effects' models and prediction systems are driven in part by fuelbed inputs such as load (tons per acre), bulk density, fuel particle size, heat content, etc. To facilitate use in models and systems, fuel bed inputs have been fonnulated into Fuel Models. A Fuel Model is a set of fuel bed inputs needed by a particular fire behavior or fire effects model. The Fuel Models used in the Draft EIS for Ashland Forest Resiliency analysis are described in: Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 1982. For this FEIS, a new set of fuel models was utilized. These are described in Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's swfacefire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153, Joe Scott and Robert Burgan, 2005. ':'.., The original 13 fire behavior fuel models are "for the severe period of the fire season.w:h:en.:/ wildfires pose greater control problems..." (Anderson 1982). Those fuel models havy.:::;vorked well for predicting spread rate and intensity of active fires at peak of fire sea.~on,in:':partbecause the associated dry conditions lead to a more uniform fuel complex, an inlportal1,tassumption of the underlying fire spread model (Rothennel 1972). However, they have9,efjpidncies for other purposes, including prescribed fire, wildland fire use, simulating the.e.ffeq~'s,::offuel treatments on potential fire behavior, and simulating transition to crown fire using:yiown::"'fire initiation models (Scott and Burgan 2005).' As a result of having more fuel model choices under Scotr:Cl}.}d<Sprgan 2005, the ability to simulate changes in fire behavior as a result of fuel treat~:e~t:s;jn timber-dominated fuelbeds is improved. Predicted surface fire behavior drives cro"Yri::fir.i'~rnodels (Van Wagner 1977, Alexander 1988), therefore increased precision in ~urtaG,;~t:'fire intensity prediction leads to an increased precision in crown fire behavior prediqti2n::~d hazard assessment. ',~:..,. .::.: Documentation and naming of the new E:~€t:~Q:p~is refer to fuel or fuel types, not vegetation or vegetation types. For example, wha~ w~~:,::'rqi.!hei-Iy tenned a "Chaparral" Fuel Model might now be called a "heavy load, tall brush';:"mod~l;':~because one fuel model can be applied in many vegetation types. The Fuel Mqde1\~..~y go'es not refer to specific vegetation types except as necessary. to illustrate an examp'l~=" NIore infonnation on these Fuel Models and a description (including examples) is proviq:~q~:11'l FEIS Appendix L. ;(::' ";:';" .' . ...,(:-:. ....;..., .... Fuel Models in the new:.?et::;:~r~:'grouped by fire-carrying fuel type. The number of Fuel Models within each fuel type)yati:es'. Each fuel type has been assigned a two-letter code. Non-burnable fuel models, eyen tl1.9~gh not really a "fuel", were included in the set to facilitate consistent mapping ofthe'~'~:::q[~as on a Fuel Model map. ::.~:..:: ,:-/.- ':: Fuel tYP~.~::\\q?~e "brdered in a way similar to the original 13, with hybrid fuel types (such as Timber-'qp'qerstory) generally between the two types that comprise the hybrid. Fuel types are cla~.~ffiel<as follows: :(~ (NB) Non-burnable · (GR) Grass · (GS) Grass-shrub · (SH) Shrub · (TU) Timber-understory · (TL) Timber litter · (SB) Slash-blowdown Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK INPROGRESSI! III -10 Ashland Forest Resiliency The following table displays the fuel nlodels used in this FEIS analysis and compares them against the original 13 fuel models described by Anderson, and used in the DEIS. Table 111-2. Fuel Models Used in FEIS Analysis "Scott and Burgan" "Anderson" Fuel Model Fuel Model I: and (Used in Fire Behavior Relationship to reference DEIS) Description "Anderson" Fuel Model TU1 8 Low load, dry climate timber-grass-shrub Higher spread rate and flame length' (161) than 8 TU2 10 Moderate load, humid climate timber-grass-shrub Slightly higher spreadr~te and ( 162) sliqhtly lower flamelenqtnas 10 TU5 10 Very high load, dry climate timber-shrub Comparable' spreq~r,ate and slightly ( 165) higher flame length'than 10 TL1; 8 Low load, compact litter Lower spread rate and slightly lower (181) flame length than 8 TL2; 9 Low load, broad leaf litter LOVferspread rate and lower flame ( 182) lenqththan 9 TL3 Moderate load, conifer litter , gomparable spread rate and flame ( 183) 10 ..i.::,."".,.:. . lenqth as 8 TL5 .,,. Much higher spread rate and flame ( 185) 10 High load, conifer litter length than 8 TL8 8/10 Long-needle litter Slightly lower spread rate and (188) comparable flame length as 9 TL9 ':".. ..',.:....,,:......;:,.;.., Comparable spread rate and higher (189) 9 Very high load, broadleaf Iitte'r<..> . flame length than 9 t: .... "-';.;.. ''': . GR1 . '.: . " For low spread rate and flame 2 Short, sparse dry climate grass (101 ) ....:...<. ....., lenqth - very sparse GR2 ~. ,": .. Comparable spread rate and lower (102) 2 Low load, dry climate grass flame length than 2 SH4; ... ...... Slightly lower spread rate and . - . . . . . . . (144 ) 4 Low loa'd';::Qumid" climate timber-shrub comparable flame length as 6 SH7 ".:-. ......:.:.-;. Slightly lower spread rate and flame 5 V~fy.:~jgh load, dry climate shrub (147) . . length than 4 SH8 6.':""'\::::':':::'::;:: 'l:ligh load, humid climate shrub Slightly lower spread rate and higher (148) flame length than 7 93 . - "'::::::;:::;::::;~' :. Agricultural land Non-burnable 98 ':.,''';:98:"...';~' Water Non -burnable 99 '" .99 Bare Ground Non -burnable .... Note: Fuel.m-Od~!s noted with a" * " are not represented in the current condition but would be represented by conditions following;treatme'nts. They are listed here for information. Fi&ure::III-2 displays the distribution of the Fuel Models that are represented within the 41, 133 ac.f'~;:Upper Bear Analysis Area (except for non-burnable Fuel Models 93,98, and 99) along with the acres of each model. Final EIS !I DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III -11 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 1II-2. Distribution of Fuel Models - Current Condition 20,313 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ --- -- - -- -- --------- --- - - -- - -- ----- ---- ---- 15,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 181 4,-356 - - - - - - - Acres 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - . 5,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - . 3,281 1,457 1,273 222 o TU1 TU2 TU5 TL3 TL5 TL8 _:~.:-;.' Fuel rv'Iodel:~: Table III-3 below displays outputs of the anaIYei,s::{or.:.selected Fuel Models using the BehavePlus model. Fuel Models TU2 (222 acres) and;TLR:ll;~J) acres are not shown. Also not shown are those models that represent non-burnable:i'~r~:~s:::":?deneric assumptions included 500/0 slopes and a wind adjustment factor (to convert 20 f9qf:~!ilds to surface winds) of 0.3 within timbered stands and 0.5 within non-timbered areas;./'<<:::" \'\:.,.:'} . .... ";'f.:';;.. ." Models with a flame length gr~at.y'r"tliari four feet (TU5, TL9, GR2, SH7 and SH8) are of concern because of the difficulty to y'OQ~Q:Y:'the fire during initial attack even under 90th percentile weather conditions. qf p~1J!icBhrr concern is the location on the landscape of the areas where greater than four f~pt naw~:,:.lengths are predicted. This is discussed in greater detail later in this Section. "0'" .:..... .... ..;..... ".;,". ';..:.:.:.::::~;::~::. :.:- - In the DEI:S, th'~":in'.lj'6iity of the Fuel Model present was FM 10. Most of this has been' mapped as Fuel Mo.pel TU5 for the FEIS which has a comparable spread rate as FMIO but a slightly higher flall}:e\dength (Scott and Burgan 2005). Note that the outputs shown in Table III-3 differ from.those.shown in the DEIS. This is because different modeling assumptions (such as mid- f1.ftm~)vindspeed, slope, etc.) were used. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIJI -12 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table IlI-3. Fire Behavior Outputs for Selected Fuel Models within Analysis Area Selected Fuel Models (those that represent at least 3% of Analysis Area) TU1 TU5 TL3 TL5 TL9 GR2 SH7 SH8 Acres within 1 ,457 20,313 1,273 3,281 1,847 2,021 4,356 1,852 Analysis Area Rate of spread (chains per hour) 4.4 13.6 2.4 6.2 12.7 81.0 81.6 50.8 90lh percentile Rate of spread ...... (chains per hour) 7.1 20.4 3.7 9.6 19.3 168.7 135.2 82.6 ':, 95th percentile Fireline intensity .' ( BTU/foot/second) 33 666 9 4 253 370 3313.",.': d,' ;.2089 ". 90lh percentile Fireline intensity (BTU/foot/second) 57 1090 15 71 422 816 '6045 3597 951h percentile ',' , Flame length (feet) , "", 2.3 9.0 1.2 2.5 5.7 6.8 18.7 15.1 90lh percentile ". Flame length (feet) 2.9 11.2 1.6 3.2 7.3 , 9.8 24.7 19.5 951h percentile :, .', ,., IFire Behavior Modeling Assumption~ The following matrix (Table 1II-4) is used in the analysis of each Action Alternative. Each treatment results in a change in fire behavior characferistics, even though some treatments may result in only minor changes. The table summarizes the assumptions 4sedto detem1ine the resultant fuel model following a given treatment. Although n1any stte-specific and unique treatments are identified in the Proposed Action and the Cor11Jh:1~nitY'A1temative, they are aggregated into one of six major fuels treatment categories for fuelp1Qdeling and fire behavior analysis. Table IlI-4. Fuel Model Treatment Matrix Resulting Fuel Model By Proposed Treatment Surface fuel Current Prescribed Surface fuel treatments Thin from Thin from Thinning Condition Burning treatments' (HP (HP, burn& below to below to around Fuel Model only and burn) Pruning) 0.3-0.5 RSOI 0.4-0.6 RSOI legacy trees TUt TL1 TL1 TL 1 TL 1 TL1 TL1 'TU2 TU1 TL1 TL 1 TU1 TL1 TL1 ~' "::. "TU5 TL3 TL3 TL1 TU2 TU1 TU2 '<, ~ TL3 TL1 TL1 TL 1 TL1 TL1 TL1 :, TL5 TL3 TL3 TL 1 TU2 TU1 TL1 TL8 TL 1 TL 1 TL 1 TL 1 TL1 TL 1 TL9 TL8 TL2 TL2 TL2 TL2 TL 1 SH7 SH4 SH4 SH4 NA NA NA SH8 SH4 SH4 SH4 NA NA NA Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 13 Ashland Forest Resiliency ----..--..........---..- -------_._-_.._.._._._~._------_._-------- Note, in the above table, only the timbered and shrub fuel models that are represented in the Analysis Area are shown. The grass models were not shown because they would not be treated, other than some underbuming or broadcast burning where the resultant model would only be very briefly changed. There are three models (TLl, TL2 and SH4) that are currently not represented in the Analysis Area but they best reflect the condition following certain treatments. These models were included in Table 1II-2 for comparative purposes. d. Topography The most stable variable in the modeling of fire behavior is topography. Topography in,.c1ud.~s:\: such elements as slope, aspect, elevation, and configuration or "lay of the land." In rel~tion lo:" time, topography can be considered static, for the forces that change it generally wor~ v'er:y.,.... slowly. In horizontal space, however, topography can change quickly, particularly-:i!,'l::::. mountainous country. Variations can cause drastic changes in fire behavior as R>fireoprogresses over the terrain. Fires move faster uphill than downhill. Slope orientation a!sqinfluences fire behavior. Forests on southern or southwestern slopes generally have low~r4;nriidity and higher temperatures than those on north or northeast slopes because of the p<tlhQf the sun. Consequently, fire hazard is often higher on south and southwest fabiti:g::~J6pes. The topography of the National Forest portion of the Upper Be.ar.::~alysis Area is steep and highly dissected. The steeper slopes tend to allow fire to spr~a(t{aster. Winds in small, narrow drainages n1ay increase fire intensity near the heads of carry.?h~and some riparian areas may bum more intensely due to higher wind speeds in the~~:af-e~s':::as a result of the channeling effect caused by the narrow canyons. The topography ofth~'~:~.ational Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area is a constant under all analyses., . . e. Other Assumptions All analysis in this FEIS assumes ~hat aU..':!~dttments are completed. It also assumes that maintenance treatments (presc~bd!)ire}"':are conducted as planned and all activity fuels are treated in the same year they ary;,prditen. Staged treatments are also assumed to be completed. Resulting conditions are POrt,I~Y:~gtat the scale of the entire 41,133 acre Upper Bear Analysis Area except where no~ed.,:J.'r~:~tments under this FEIS are proposed exclusively on National Forest. :'. ". .. ..... .. ...:::... ::.. .::;.~::: '.::;;.:' No projects beyon~t;:tl~:e::"ten year planning frame of this FEIS, with the exception of some maintenance uhd~rp~ming) are or identified at this time. It is anticipated that future fuel managem~nt tr~~!ments would occur in order to continue the trend toward more natural conditiol}.~~\Qllt al this time there is no reasonable way to predict what methodology, extent, or ......:.\.'.. .,,;-:.... consequ~p~es"'those future actions would have. .... Tr~'atmynts (Action Alternatives) are intended to reduce hazardous fuels and the thus reduce the I1sg":Ofl1 large-scale high-severity fire and to facilitate future fire suppression actions. The .'.:< sumulative environmental effects of fire suppression activities within and adjacent to proposed treatment areas is addressed under individual resource sections later in Chapter III. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlIlII - 14 Ashland Forest Resiliency 2. Strategic Design of Alternatives Two basic strategies for landscape-level fuel managenlent are to contain fires (compartnlentalization) or to modify fire behavior with area-wide treatments (Finney 2000). These two strategies are generally reflected in the Action Alternatives (refer to FElS Chapter II for a detailed description of the function of each action alternative). Although the effectiveness of each of these two strategies individually is not a source of scientific debate, one strategy is not necessarily considered better than the other. The analysis contained within this FEIS is intended to compare the consequences of each alternativeagaiilst various criteria to assess the attainnlent of the Purpose and Need for this Analysis Ar.ea.p A prinlary function of the Proposed Action (P A) is to contain wildland fire~ within the compartnlent in which they start. A secondary function of the PAis to modifyfir~behavior within each compartment to reinforce the effectiveness of the Defensible ,Fuy! Profile Zones (DFPZs) that are aligned with the conlpartment boundaries. The DF]:~:?s.:are essentially a network of fuel breaks. Fuel breaks are intended to reinforce deferfsjple:19Cations and facilitate suppression action by indirect tactics and backfiring (Green 1977~.::Oriii..J 996, Agee et al. 1999). The DFPZs proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are design~skto: (1) reduce the extent of wildland fire severity by limiting the amount of area affecte;9'by,;wildland fire, (2) create areas where fire suppression efforts can be conducted more safelYp'and effectively, (3) break up continuity of fuels over a large landscape, and (4) seryeasm1chor points for further area-wide fuel treatments, such as prescribed burning. Underthisaiternative, most high severity fire effects would be linlited by a combination of re~ucing'fire size and reducing fire intensity. By contrast, the Community Alternativ.~{CA)isbased on a spatial arrangement of treatments (tenned a Fuel Discontinuity Network) th~tprirnarily modifies fire behavior in a dispersed pattern over a large area within theland~s~pe. This design suggests that fire effects and behaviors are modified wherever the fire encounters the treated areas. For this "fire behavior modification" strategy, treatment,unitswould achieve the greatest reduction in fire size and severity when they lin1it firespr~;~d in the heading direction. The heading portion of a fire (moving with the wing oLslbp~)has the fastest spread rate and highest intensity compared to flanking and backit;lg po~:ti6hs (Catchpole et al. 1982). The heading fire also holds the most potential for initiati:pI('Crown fire and spotting. These behaviors (crowning and spotting) a!so make suppress.ion 'more difficult (Finney 2000). The Prefet-red AJternative prin1arily utilizes the spatial arrangement of treatments described under the.:.:.~b1.}U11unity Alternative to limit fire spread and severity. To support this arrangement of "f~el'4t~ccintinuity" treatn1ents, strategic ridgeline areas are treated to reinforce the fuel disc,Pl'ltinuity treatments. This is, in essence, a combination of the two fundamental landscape . tre~qtrnept strategies. That is, this alternative conlbines area-wide treatments with compartmentalization and allows the Preferred Altenlative to treat fewer acres than either of the : .:.:.other two action alternatives while achieving similar fire behavior objectives. Figure 1II-3 summarizes the total amount of area and the area of strategic ridgeline treated by each of the Action Alternatives. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 15 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 111-3. Total Area and Strategic Ridgeline Area Treated by Action Alternative 111I Total Acres . Strategic Ridgeline Acres I 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 en Q) 5,000 t5 <( 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 ( . Proposed Action ';:":':"\:~" ..~~:-~~. :::: ~:~".. Community;;.~ite.r'hative Preferred Alternative '-:':::::" '~:::':. . 3. Urgent Reduction An urgent reduction3 in the potentia.!:fora:!'arge-scale high-severity fire is identified as a key element of the Purpose and Need ~iatemeni. The biggest factor in the need for an urgent reduction in hazardous fuels r~l~tes{tg~Jne strategic scheduling and implementation of proposed treatments under each of the altematives. :f::;}:::. ":..:t::;t;:j>~( All of the Action A1terraliV:~:s':~~f6pose to complete an array of treatments over an approximate ten year period. C9mplet!"6ti\ibf all treatments would result in a range of area treated (7,600 - 8,990 acres). Tho~gl{i.h.ari"y of the proposed prescriptions in each of the alternatives are generally simil~E' th~''J)~noritization, spatial arrangement, and strategic implementation of those prescriptiq,ps foi.;:ea.cn alternative differ. ~ . "~:::.:;:- N The prqpoie'p' Action would implement the DFPZs as the first priority. Completion of these treatJ;tlents:;:crlong strategic ridgelines would compartmentalize the Analysis Area, which would r<;puc.~;:,the risk and limit the extent of a large-scale wildland fire. By creating a network of fuel tt;~at!TI~nts throughout the Project Area, a higher level of protection to certain values at risk '" (Mnnicipal Watershed and late-successional habitat) would be achieved sooner than with the :"::::Community Alternative. The effectiveness of these DFPZs would be further enhanced as the remaining area-wide treatments are implemented. 3 For this analysis the following definitions are used: Webster's dictionary defines "urgent" as "compelling immediate action or attention; conveying a sense of pressing importance." Reduction is defined as "he amount by which something is reduced." Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 16 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Community Alternative proposes to treat the lower elevation interface area adjacent to the City of Ashland first and then move upward into the Municipal Watershed and surrounding sub- watersheds. This would be following a period of time (estiDlated to be two to three Dlonths) in which intensive data collection or inventory (vegetation, fuels, soils, etc.) would occur to further delineate or describe treatments. Although this strategy would offer protection to the immediate interface with structures and the City of Ashland, it would leave the Municipal Watershed vulnerable to a large fire starting within the Watershed. The Conln1unity Alternative proposes to stage the density management treatments with:severa.l entries in order to nlinimize the environnlental effects on stands as a result of changes iristand density. Though the initial treatments would provide some measure of protection, itcould also increase the time before the treatments become. fully effective. The Preferred Alternative would initiate treatments in the northern port.!cmQf the Project Area, closest to the City of Ashland, and work southward. The strategic r,idgeliri~.;.:s and fuel discontinuity treatn1ents areas would be the first areas to be impleriiented....This would provide an reduction of risk to the Municipal. Watershed and to the immediateinterface with the City of Ashland. To further compare the alternatives, an implementation s~en~no can be estimated. For an analysis examining scheduling and implementation, c()mwon assumptions need to be made in order to compare each of the alternatives. Funding, and the ability to treat a given number of acres per year are the two primary assumptions.usedin this analysis. Table 1II-5 displays a possible scenario of implementation. It must be noted that any.treatment 9f hazaidous fuels would improve the overall conditions in the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area over current conditions, regardless of timing. Assumptions: . Funding scenario iS~.lhesa~nefor each of the alternatives. Potential revenues from treatments are not assumed::clu~ 'to;:fheir highly variable nature. . Based on anticipcite.dle\Je!s of funding} approximately 1,000 acres of fuel treatments could be accomplishfC;~ each;year. . Stagin8pf {j'~atnleJits would occur \,vithin same time period. "" ". .. .... . . - . . The folhnx:ing..scenario is not to be considered an implementation schedule. It is used to delnonstr~te a potential scenario for comparison purposes. As such, it is highly simplified and doe~,.'~?t account for many possible variables that could affect implementation. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III -17 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table III-5. Implementation Scenario Comparison Time Period Pro osedAction 1 to 3 years DFPZs (2,800 ac) Communi Alternative Priorities 1. & 2 (3,070 ac) Preferred. Alternative Strategic ridge lines (2,000 ac). Fuel discontinuity treatments adjacent to the Forest bounda 1 ,200 ac . Completion of fuel discontinuity treatment areas and strategic rid elines (2,790 ac RNA area (1 ,280 ac) Roadside areas 330 ac 3 to 6 years 6 to 1 0 ears Interface Area (3,200 ac) Priorities 3, 4, & 5 (3,340 ac) Priorities 6 & 9 2,480 ac Note: Priorities 7 & 8 could occur in all time eriod A key element that is different between the Community Alternative and the o~l1e,r;;t'ro Action Alternatives has to due with the implementation strategy. The Community:A~fetj1~nive is based on the premise that survey and inventory is necessary before commencin,g':Weatments (see Section C, 6, Chapter II). .. In tem1S of the element of Purpose and Need addressed here (urg~nt reHuction), the alternative that provides a reduction in risk, over a shorter period of tim~'Wpuld be the most preferred. Implementation of the DFPZ's in the Proposed Action W:2lil~.'attain a higher degree of protection to the values at risk in years 1-3 that would il11pletpentation of priority settings 1 and 2 in the Community Alternative. By contrast, in years 1~f:3/~tl1e Preferred Alternative would treat each priority settings from the Community a1tematfVe;~.pased on the proximity to the Forest boundary, as well as the strategic ridgelines. T1tW:I{feferred Alternative would thus provide the highest reduction in risk in the shortest am~uQ:~'::qJ:tiine. }:;:':" '{::~... ::':;:..~/" 4. Potential for Large-Sc~le,:(~~:gh~Severity Wildland Fire ~:. For this analysis, two cOlnponelJ,ts are:used to address this element of Purpose and Need. The Probability of Fire Ignitioua~?';'::~ire Suppression Effectiveness are analyzed and discussed below. It is assumed that ~h(ag'eficy's fire suppression capabilities (the numbers and types of fire suppression resour~:~s)?d:9;:not change between the current condition, or under any hazardous fuel reduction treatI"Q,yrl!.::fire suppression effectiveness based on the treatments is variable between the a1tem~~!.,:y.~i;::and is included in the discussed below. .... 3. Prob~bj)it~::'o<f::Fire Ignition -..::.".:;.- "::::. The propah!lity of ignition of a wildland fire is strongly related to fine fuel moisture content, air temperature, the amount of shading of surface fuels, and the occurrence of an ignition source :' (l1}ilnal~ or lightning caused) (RothennelI983). Stand structure strongly influences all these fa.~tors~; There is generally a wanner, dryer microclimate in more open stands compared to .. denser stands (Countryman 1955, Weatherspoon 1996). Dense stands (canopy cover) tend to ':':::::::;::':provide more shading of fuels, keeping relative humidity higher and air and fuel temperature lower than in more open stands. Thus, dense stands tend to maintain higher surface fuel moisture contents compared to more open stands (Andrews 1986). More open stands also tend to allow higher wind speeds that tend to dry fuels compared to dense stands (Weatherspoon 1996). These factors may increase probability of ignition in some open canopy stands compared to dense canopy stands. Final EIS HDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIlIIJ -18 Ashland Forest Resiliency Under the No-Action Alternative there would be no change to the existing probability of fire ignition as a result of lightning. However, as stand density increases, moisture levels would increase which could reduce the chance of ignition. The Proposed Action would maintain a closed canopy along ridgelines where lightning ignitions most often occur. Renloval of surface and ladders fuels in these areas would further reduce the probability of an ignition. The chance of a human caused fire would renlain the salne. Under the Community Alternative, surface and ladder fuels would be reduced which would decrease the probability of an ignition from lightning. Under this alternative, canopy closure would be reduced on some of the south and west facing ridges. Because of drier site conditions, this may increase the probability of an ignition, though surface and ladder fuels would be reduced. The chance of hun1an caused fire would remain the sanle. The Preferred Alternative would maintain a closed canopy along the strategic ridges and with the renloval of surface and ladder fuels would decrease the probability of~njgnition from lightning. As with the other alternatives, there would be no reductionin tl1eprobability of a human caused fire. b. Fire Suppression Effectiveness Suppression by itself could not insure that a large wildlan.dfjrewould not occur within the Analysis Area. Due to the unpredictable change in anpua.l:funding levels, it is difficult to predict the number and type of suppression forces that wo~ldbe 'available for any given season. Based on past experience, these forces are often spreadthihby other local and regional incidents that require additional crews and equipment. l1? r6ce!it:tlre seasons, suppression actions within the Analysis Area have proven to be successfu}::q}lt='this can be attributed as much to other factors such as favorable weather conditiol'l$atthetime of ignition, and/or early detection. For this analysis, no change intpe 'availability of suppression resources is assumed under any of the alternatives. It is importanr'ih~t, in addition to Federal fire fighting resources, State and local resources for initial attack are't(ained, equipped and prepared to address fires in the wildland urban interface. Appropriated Federal funds for preparedness apply only to lands for which the Forest Service has .direFtfjre protection responsibilities. Because of this, most of the Upper Bear Analysis Area would';~.~::)fltinue to be covered by multi-agency mutual aid initial attack agreements. As noted abpve, ~this analysis of the effectiveness of fire suppression is related to the treatments proposecf'and:not to suppression resources. To compare the Action Alternatives with the No- Actio]} Alternative, the following indicators of fire suppression effectiveness for a wildland fire ar~(:Used : · potential flanle length · fire engine or personnel access · aerial retardant effectiveness · burnout opportunities · fireline construction rates · facilities that may be utilized for various suppression activities Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 19 Ashland Forest Resiliency IPotential Flame Lengthl Modification of the surface fuels results in a change in fireline intensity and flame length, which is directly related to the ability to suppress a wildland fire. Flame length is differentiated from flame height. Refer to the following definitions (from National Wildfire Coordinating Group - Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology 2005): Flame Height: The average maximum vertical extension of flames at the leading edge ofJhe ,fire front. Occasional flashes that rise above the general level of flames are not considered. {he flame height is less than the flame length if flames are tilted by winds or slope... Flame Length: The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flam~de.2!hat the base of the flame (generally the ground surface); flame length is an indicator of fiteint~n9ity. ..:. .... Fuel treatments under the Action Alternatives are designed to reduce hazardous fuels to a point where it would be expected that the flame length in treated areas wgulq b~:::Jess than 4 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions. The selection of a 4 foot flameTt!mgthis based on the relationship between flame length and suppression tactics. TableIII-6displays this relationship. Table III-6. Relationship of Flame Length and SuppressioI.1.T~'Ctics Flame lengths <4 feet Fires can generally be attacked at the h~~d:9tflariks by persons using hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire. /''''::::~;;:~::\::,::::.'':~~: Flame lengths 4 to 8 feet Fires are too intense for direcL?tt!ic.I,<\-QuJhe head by persons using fire engines; retardant aircraft can be effective. ..::.'~=<h<\ Flame lengths >8 feet Fires may present seri9us::.~?n\r.o!;,p'r6blemsJ such as torching, crowning, and/or spotting. ( "",:. .. - .'''~~' Control efforts at the firehead:::wbuld probably be ineffective. Fire behavior models BehavePlus~rd Fla:fuMap are used to predict the potential flanle length to Inake pre- and post-treatment tcnnp'ansons and contrasts across the landscape. This analysis uses both 90th and 95th percentile )Ye~t~er4 conditions to predict flanle lengths. BehavePlus is used to look at the individual char~6i~fi'~:Hcs of each fuel model and predict the potential flame length under a given set ofwe~th~r.:.d:ol)ditions (see Table III-3). FlanlMap is utilized because of its ability to spatially IQ:8~tt..tti-e predicted flan1e length across a landscape. This is useful in assessing the distripMJign:of treated areas where the resultant flame length is less than 4 feet. Because tbe abilityito suppress a fire is improved when flame lengths are low, one indicator used to comp~E~::;qJ.teriiatives is the alnount of area, by alternative, where flame lengths are reduced to an aveni~;~~:9f'1ess than 4 feet. : UlJ.:~l~~;ahe No-Action Alternative, there would be no change to the existing fuel loading and as~:~Ciated hazard with the exception of areas treated under A WPP. Though not all of the A WPP \: treatments have been completed (see Section C, 2, c), it is assumed, for No-Action analysis, that ....::;'::'they area completed because there is an existing decision to enact these treatments. 4 As mentioned earlier in this document, both 90th and 95lh percentile weather conditions are used for analysis. The 90lh percentile conditions are used to assess how well the design objectives were met for each alternative while the 951h percentile conditions are used to assess the effectiveness of fuel treatments during the conditions more typical of when wildland fires occur. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORKIN PROGRESS II III - 20 Ashland Forest Resiliency Since A WPP is planned to treat only 100/0 of the Analysis Area within the Ashland Municipal Watershed, the current overall hazard would renlain relatively high (2003 Upper Bear Assessment). Map III-] displays the areas where flame lengths of less than 4 feet would be expected, for No- Action, under 90th percentile weather conditions. Based on the sanle analysis using 95th percentile conditions, the area with flame lengths greater than four feet increases by approxinlately two percent. The reason for the sin1ilarity is due to the heavy fuel loads that currently exist (primarily Fuel Model TU5). This analysis suggests that because fuel loads are already high, wildland fires that would occur during more common weather conditions would:' exhibit similar effects as a fire burning during extreme weather conditions (95th percentile). Each of the Action Alternatives would reduce the amount of area where flame length~are expected to exceed four feet, roughly proportional to the amount of area treated. This 'would be accomplished by various surface fuels treatments such as prescribed underbuming;hand piling and burning, and ladder fuels reduction treatments such as pruning. Underst()rythinning would also accomplish the reduction of ladder fuels that keeping fires on the surface rather than allowing them into the crowns. Under the Action Alternatives, the area that would produc~ flame..J.~ngths greater than four feet would be reduced by approximately 19%, from current conditions for the Proposed Action and the Community Alternative, and 170/0 for the Preferre~rAUernative under 90th percentile conditions. A similar amount of reduction is expecteq::ul1~.er::the 95th percentile conditions. The Proposed Action and the Community AlterpativeAreatments obtain flame lengths less than four feet on similar anlounts of area, with .:~he::p.F:~ferred Alternatives obtaining four foot flame lengths on slightly fewer acres. This is a.~irefLrelationship to the total amount of area treated by each alternative. All three action alternatiyeswould achieve this objective on 20-280/0 of the Proj ect Area. The amount of area with less thaIl..four foot flame lengths does not noticeably differentiate the Action Alternatives. The sl?ati~L:afrangement across the landscape of those areas with less than four foot flame lengths isa,~Qre inlportant consideration in assessing the effectiveness of the treatments. The irr!p~[iaqceof spatial pattern is emphasized by findings that random fuel treatment arrangements (Fiill1ey 2003) are extremely inefficient in changing fire behavior (Figure 1II-4) requiringperhap's 50 to 60 percent of the area to be treated compared to 20 percent in a strategic fashion(Finney 2001). Based on.these findings, the arrangement of treatments has a stronger relationship to the effectiveness of treatments than the total number of acres treated. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 21 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 111-4. Comparison of Large Fire Growth Rate Among Different Spatial Fuel Patterns 0.9 , \ , \ , , , \ \ \ \ \ \ , , , , " .... .... Random Fuel Patterns (Finney 2003) 0.8 0.7 Q) - rtI ~ 0.6 rtI Q) c% 0.5 Q) > ~ 0.4 Q) c:c: .... .... ... ... ... 0.3 ...... Strategic Fuel Patterns (Finney 2001) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.2 -------- 0.1 o o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ":;;"::0:;6 ":':'. "':'. :: '-:~; 0.7 0.8 0.9 Fraction of Lan4sq~'p~ Treated Map III-l displays FlamMap outputs which S~:2={)h:~::distribution of areas where treatments would achieve a flame length less than 4:Je~r:~fider 90th percentile weather conditions. The areas ......;... ....:. ..:.......,,:; in white indicate where a flame length ~.f)e.~:s::~thim four feet is predicted. Areas in red indicate where a flame length greater than rightK{~:~l would be expected (yellow indicates a flame length of 4-8 feet). \: ......... Map III-I identifies areas w~<-~r~:.'sl~ppression action should be more effective due to the reduction in flame length. Where fl,e.~~:~l~lfgth is four feet or less, fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by persb~s':~sirlg hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire. Areas with larger blocks of white (are~~::~}tb'::Jlame length less than 4 feet) would be the most effective for suppression action~;,:'!i~sause fires would not be able to gain momentum before being contained. ';~~;~~:~::~;. "= ""'="::::.... Flame length alqne::aoes not determine whether a wildland fire may be suppressed unless it was to occur ?rt<~at ground. Topography plays a major role in the locations where a fire may be success~'lly~:ftacked. TQ.e:ne~work offuelbreaks (DFPZs) along strategic ridges is evident in the Proposed Action. T~:!'?::;.'suggests that fire suppression actions could effectively occur along these treated areas. \;''':':'The distribution of areas with less than four foot flame lengths under the Community Alternative suggests that areas immediately adjacent to the Forest boundary, near the City of Ashland, could be effective for suppressing'a fire. The Preferred Alternative combines the attributes of both Action Alternatives and provides more area where suppression actions could be effective in relation to the amount of area treated. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII III - 22 Ashland Forest Resiliency MAP III-I. Flame Length - 90th Percentile Weather Conditions For No-Action and the Action Alternatives Ashland Forest Resiliency FlamMap Predicted Flame Length National Forest Boundary Upper Bear Analysis Area No-Action Proposed Action 0- 4 foot flame length 4 - 8 foot flame length .. > 8 foot flame length o 0.5 1 Community Alternative 2 Miles Preferred Alternative Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 23 Ashland Forest Resiliency i MAP III-I. Flame Length - 90th Percentile Weather Conditions For No-Action and the Action Alternatives Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 23 Ashland Forest Resiliency IFire Engine or Personnel Acces~ Road access within the Analysis Area is related to the ability to provide initial attack to a new wildland fire start. The amount of road and the road condition can influence the time it takes from ignition of a fire to the first response by hand crews or fire engines. In addition to roads and trails, access to a new fire may be provided by helicopters. Helicopters are generally limited in how many fire fighting personnel may be carried in a single trip. Thi~ (:. method is also limited by the availability of helicopters as well as landing sites. There are v~ry;: few natural opening where helicopters could set down within the Analysis Area5. Thishnethodof access would have to rely primarily on constructed helicopter landings and thus would be dependent on the location of the fire in relation to these landings. Also see the fa<:;tritie.s element in this Section for more discussion on helicopter delivery of fire fighting persoI1l1eL Currently the primary access to the area for fire engines or vehicles carrYiI.1Rhand crews is provided by Forest Service Roads 2060 and 2080 and their associat:~dl~pury.' These main access roads require vehicles to travel through the City of Ashland to access.!he..Analysis Area. This presents potential traffic concerns depending on the time of day and day of the week. Also, in a situation where homes are being evacuated, access to the fire mayhe affected. .. The Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)ctiscusses evacuation procedures. More infonnation regarding road access and the currenfcpndition of roads within the Analysis Area may be found in the Roads Analysis section of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. Under the No-Action Alternative, there ~ol!}d'h~::ho change or improvement in the access for fire suppression. Current levels of road maint~p'a.!tce would continue. Over time, without maintenance, some of the helicoptecJandings within the Analysis Area would become unusable as vegetation (such as small trees),growsinto them. The Proposed Action would not :cpnstruct any roads or trails that would improve access by vehicles, either in location 9(tiQ1e~: However, the condition of the roads within the National Forest would be imprq~e~r:a~:)naintenance is performed for equipment access, concurrent with ongoing treatment~...::.A9attional helicopter landings would be constructed under this alternative, which would aid ir,LtH~::pJacen1ent of suppression forces (such as hand crews). Some road reconstruction~:\Y.2111q:~o-ccur that would improve the ability to deliver personnel and equipment in the event of a w.ilo1and fire. Under the:Community Alternative, no new road construction would occur that would improve acces~ b)?:vehic1es, either in location or time. . As with the Proposed Action, conditions of the rQa=tl\:within the Project Area would be improved. This would improve the ability to deliver Pe.['somlel and equipment in the event of a wildland fire. Landings used by helicopters would be improved or maintained which would aid in the delivery of crews and equipment. 5 Initial attack may be provided by smokejumpers or rappelers depending on availability. These firefighting resources do not require a cleared landing zone. The use of these resources would be affected by flight times and weather conditions and generally would only be able to provide a small number of personnel for initial attack. Flight times from home bases (rappellers _ Merlin, OR and smokejumpers - Redmond, OR) to the Watershed would likely be longer than driving time from Ashland. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 24 Ashland Forest Resiliency As with the other two Action Alternatives, the Preferred Alternative would improve access by reconstruction or maintenance of existing roads. This would improve the ability to deliver personnel and equipn1ent in the event of a wildland fire. Additional helicopter landings would be constructed under this alternative, which would aid in the placement of suppression forces (such as hand crews) or other firefighting equipment. IAerial Retardant Effectivenessl Fire retardant, wildland fire foam, and water can be dropped by firefighting aircraft. Chemical fire retardant remains effective for longer periods of time in direct attack where retardallLlin~'s:' are expected to hold for long periods. Wildland fire foam is effective for several hours::iand i"s best used in direct support of ground firefighters. . Water is least effective, but nlost readily available6. It can be used in direct support; especially if the supply is plentiful and ground firefighters are in close proximity for follow-up action. Use of chelnical fire retardant (only those approved for use in MunicipalWatersheds) within the Ashland Watershed is allowed under RRNF Forest Plan Standards'and.Guidelines. The decision to use chemical retardant within the Watershed requires notification Of the City of Ashland. There are two primary kinds of aerial firefighting aircraft thatarenom1ally available within Southwestern Oregon: multi-engine fixed wing aircraft, andh~licopters. Multi-engine airtankers are typically con1prised of ~x.:;ipilitary and retired commercial transport aircraft. Depending on size of the aircraft, they s~~~'arry from 800-3,600 gallons of retardant. These airtankers typically make retardant droppf[oma height of 150 to 200 feet above vegetation and terrain, at airspeeds from.12~ to150 knots. The nearest airtanker base is located in Medford, approximately 12-15 air mi!.~'sJrom the Analysis Area. Although there is an airtanker stationed at Medford during t4~]i.re season, it is often used to assist fire suppression efforts in other areas in Oregon and Northern California, and is not always available. Helicopters, depending on si~e"Gan carry from 1 00 to 3,000 gallons of water, foam, or retardant in either buckets slung be!leaflltlie aircraft, or in fixed-tanks. Helicopters provide a unique capability to urbani wilgla~qJire interface situations near water sources where they can utilize rapid revisit tin1es and:piecise retardant dropping accuracy. There are helicQPt~is':.of various water-carrying capacities located within the Rogue Valley. Availability depeil'ds on other, on-going fire activity or other use of the helicopters. Aerial fitefighting is usually conducted to assist firefighters on the ground in achieving fire suppression' objectives. Water and foam are best used in the direct attack of the fire perin1eter ap:.?:on troublesolne "hot spots". For water and foam to be effective, ground firefighters must be injjroximity to the drops. Long-term fire retardant is used for the direct attack as well as for indirect attack where airtankers lay a continuous line of retardant parallel to the edge (flank) of :.the fire. Retardant dropped on the head of an intense wildfire is rarely effective. The most effective use of aerial firefighting is during the initial attack of small wildfires, and to accomplish specific tactical suppression objectives on large wildfires, such as reinforcing fireline and dropping on "slop-overs" and spot fires outside the fireline. 6 There is an agreement in place with the City of Ashland to use water from Reeder Reservoir during a wildland fire. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III . 25 Ashland Forest Resiliency Of those factors that relate to the effectiveness of aerial retardant, changes in vegetation characteristics are assessed here. Changes in fuel characteristics that reduce the intensity of the fire would also increase the effectiveness of retardant use. Areas in which the canopy is reduced would increase the ability of the retardant to reach the ground and help slow the spread of a surface fire. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no actions that would change the current level of use or effectiveness of aerial retardant. The number of water sources or the availability of airtankers or helicopters would not cl).i;ll1ge:::<< under and of the Action Alternatives. Availability of aircraft is related to factors outsiq;e the~:'<H.. scope of this analysis. No new water sources are proposed to be developed under any -. '_;:>,,:::::::,H alternative. Though treatn1ents under the Proposed Action would reduce the intensity of a:,,tiry,by modifying the existing fuels (refer to the analysis under "Potential Flame Length"), t~e.::.e..~6sed canopy conditions in the DFPZs would likely reduce the effectiveness of re~m:~a~~.:..the exact tradeoff is not fully known nor can it be estimated due to the difficulty of predi<;;til1.gJlfe actual conditions during a wildland fir event. A portion of the Community Alternative proposes to trea.t.~~:.tan4s on the upper 2/3 of slopes on south and west facing aspects in the lower elevation P AQ:s~:: These generally are strategic areas for fire suppression activities such as retardant drops...,I~e'~:xesult of these treatments would be an open canopy (estimated at 400/0 crown closure). A1th9ugfi~:this would allow more retardant to reach the ground, there is a trade-off. It is anti~ipaJeQ:..that the areas where the canopy is opened might be dryer and regenerate with brush !ha~,..~b\!Ja result in a higher rate of spread that might offset the benefit of retardant reaching th~..'kr:~~pd. ::. :;.- -':::::;::-. ..::::.>.. As with the Proposed Action, the ffefer:!::~dAlternative would maintain a closed canopy in some of the strategic ridgeline;~rea$.\Ihough aerial retardant effectiveness is decreased in these areas, the need for application ?,f,r:etardant is reduced as a result of the fuel treatments. The Preferred Alternative woul~tr~at,fewer of the strategic ridgeline areas than the Proposed Action but would maintain mgre..ar2a,with a closed canopy than the Community Alternative. IBurnout Opportunitie~::' '. ,:;" ... "j -,;.:::.... During la~ge- fii~e.::'sbp:pression actions, a technique know as "burnout" is often used. Burnout is defined as:::~.~ttin'g fire inside a control line to widen it or consume fuel between the edge of the fire and j~he::~controlline. Control lines are often located along roads or strategic ridgelines. ..:;:..;......:5. .... VX;ithiil, the Analysis Area, there are approximately 9 miles of constructed shaded fuel breaks that, ..:, if,::!hain~ained, could be used for burnout operations. ':;:'::':':,;:;Roads in the Analysis Area currently have limited utility for burnout operations in their current condition due to the heavy fuel loading immediately adjacent to them. These fuel loads are a result of the current vegetation and of recent road maintenance brush cutting and danger tree felling. Because of the time involved to "ready" these areas for burnout operations, they would likely not be able to be utilized in the event of a large wildland fire. Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSrr III - 26 Ashland Forest Resiliency The indicator used to conlpare alternatives is the amount of area in which bUTIlout operations could occur with little to no additional work of clearing and/or removing hazardous fuels prior to igniting the burnout. The two strategic areas exanlined here are roadside areas and ridgetops. Under the No-Action Alternative, the only areas that could be effectively used for burnout operations without substantial clearing would be scattered portions of the existing road system within the Analysis Area. However, many areas along the roads would need additional work (surface fuel renloval, pruning) to be effective and safe to use. This could affect the ability to use these features because of the tinle involved to get thenl ready for bun10ut. Time is criticaLili most large-fire suppression situations. Portions of the existing shaded fuelbreaks located along ridgetops, where there are low ~mo1Jnts of shrubs and brush, may also be used. Also, some areas treated under A WPP co~}d.Q~ used to anchor burnout operations depending on the location and intensity of the fire. Unde{No-Action, no additional areas would be made available to utilize for burnout operations. The Action Alternatives would treat varying amounts of roadside areas that would create opportunities for burnout operations. In addition, many areas alongtheridgetops, primarily in lower elevations, would be treated under the Action Altell1atives. The Jollowing table compares the areas treated by alternative that would increase the current areas:where burnout operations could occur. Table llI-7. Strategic Areas Where Burnout OpportunitiesAfe Facilitated Proposed Action Communit Alternative Preferred Alternative Strate ic areas where burnout 0 ortunities would be facilitated Miles of roadside Miles of ridgetop treatments treatments 48.9"'26.2 47.8 19.3 48.5 25.1 Total 75.1 67.1 73.6 IFireline Construction Ratesl Areas where fuel redu~tioht,[eatments have occurred play an important role when suppressing a fire. The ability to".y,on:~trt!"C( fire control lines is affected by various factors. The primary factor related to fireline coris.tfuction that is discussed in this analysis is vegetation;" as described by Fuel Model. \::., . :'o<i,::....:.:. . The amouhtof surface fuel loading, small trees, and brush all have a large effect on the ability of a hand crew to construct fireline quickly and safely. Areas that are "pretreated" generally facilitate1ine construction (i.e. less fuels to remove), in the absence of natural features such as . ro.ck:-outcrops, landslide chutes, or large openings. ":q. The following table displays line construction rates by a hand crew based on several fuel models . :::::':'(Table adapted from the Wildland Fire Suppression Guide, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, April 1996, NFES 1256). Only those models represented within the Analysis Area are displayed. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 27 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table Ill-S. Hand Crew Production Rates Anderson Fire Behavior Fuel Model 2 0 en timber, rass GR1, GR2 24 16 4 Brush cha arral SH7 I SH8 5 3 8 Closed timber litter TL 1, TL3 7 5 9 Hardwood litter TL9 16 to 10 Closed Timber (litter and understo TU5 6 :: 4 A Type 1 hand crew is equivalent to a Hotshot crew while a Type II hand crew is a less experienced crew. These are averages ba~:~d dil:average conditions. Many factors can affect these rates, such as slope, rocky soil, etc. It Is important to note the relative difference inm~ 'lire building rates based on the fuel model. Where there is less surface fuel, the hi her the construction rate. '.n \:t:::: Description Comparable Scott and . Burgan Fuel Models Type I Crew Construction Rate (chains per hour) Type II Crew Construction Rate (chains:per hour) There would be no change in the ability to construct fireline more efficiently;:u"tnfeFthe No-Action Alternative. Dense stands, as represented by Fuel Model TU5, would hinder'the ability to quickly construct line and consequently control or suppress a wildl~dnfe. The Proposed Action improves line building rates by reducing ~qrface:and ladder fuels on many of the major ridgelines within the Project Area. Ridgeline$ art"'ortexof the most common features where firelines are constructed. An estimated 26.2 miles 8fri,~g:eline areas would be treated under this alternative. " ;;:.:.- .;;::: :( .~\;;:.~ . h..../.. Under the Community Alternative, some of the ai:j~swhere fireline construction rates can be increased do not align with topographic featur~s:;W~~fe firelines would likely be constructed. The Community Alternative treats appr~x.. j~.af~lx:\19.3 miles of ridge lines. . -'.".- -'<:::.". .;;~:~... The Preferred Alternative treats :.nan){:.'stnltegic ridgeline areas where firelines would likely be constructed. This alternative is sirUilar fO'the Proposed Action, though it treats approximately one less mile of ridgetop area.\~.owever, some of the ridgeline areas treated in the Proposed Action are at a higher elevati9n:~~:9 thus have less value in terms of strategic location. "-::... All of the Action AIternatiyes>would increase the ability to construct hand fireline in many areas of the Analysis Area,<by,reihoving the majority of the surface and ladder fuels (refer to Map JIl- 2). This would all~:~:"~reline production rates to increase and improve the ability to contain or control a wildlan~.Lfii-e. Since it is not possible to predict where firelines may need to be construct~.d, thetproportion of the landscape with a high fireline construction rate (> 10 chains/h?~'i9,.}nay be estimated for each alternative (Figure 1II-5). Thi~ 'fjgureshows that the Preferred Alternative reduces the amount of area where line :;: co.ps'ttU:ction is slowed be heavy surface fuel loadings (orange bar which represents less than 10 . ...\.... 2hi~risper hour). It also increases the amount of area where line building can be accomplished at t::~::.:... C}:!higher rate (blue bar, which represents 10-20 chains per hour). The area represented by the "::";:::;:=:yellow bar (greater than 20 chains per hour) represents the grass fuel models which would not change as a result of treatments under any of the Action Alternatives. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 28 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure III-5. Proportion of Area by Fireline Construction Rate I [) 0-10 chains per hour III 10-20 chains per hour 020+ chains per hour I 90% 0% 70% (t1 ~ 60% (f) "w ~ 50% c <( o c 40% o "-e o e 30% 0.... 20% 10% No-Action >'::Community Alternative Preferred Alternative IFacilitie~ For this analysis, the tern1 "facilities~' refers to an1enities constructed for specific needs such as helicopter landings or water sourcys. The use of helicopter landings to allow quick delivery of firefighting personnel and equipment, as well as evacuation opportunities, has been discussed previously in this Section. An9th~:r potential use of these landings is for staging of firefighting equipment or for use as "dip>sitet?;: Temporary fill sites:,G:'l:l.1;:b~established on the helicopter landing where water from fire engines is put into tanks in whi;6~:,helicopters can obtain water from using buckets. This usually shortens the amount ofti.!!le;'fQ':~:f1y to naturally occurring water sources, such as Reeder Reservoir or other lakes or ponds"'~here are no streams in the area large enough to take water with a helicopter. Other faCilitIes n1ight include areas where roads cross streams that have improved access for a fire eIlgine.to draw water from the stream. Currently, within the Analysis Area, there are 9 water sOl{fces identified for this use and available as needed. There would be no change in existing facilities under the No-Action Alternative. The Proposed Action would increase the number of facilities by developing more helicopter. landings and improving the existing landings. By having more landings available, it would increase the likelihood that there would be landing available near a wildland fire, thereby improving access and therefore suppression effectiveness. The development of new water sources where roads cross streams is not proposed under this alternative. Final EIS'I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 29 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Community Alternative would also increase the number of facilities as in the Proposed Action. No new water sources are proposed for development under this alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, the number of facilities (helicopter landings) would increase and thus provide more areas where access is improved. The additional number of facilities would be similar to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative. 5. Protect Values at Risk Specific "values at risk", as brought forward from the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, iny.1ude protection of threatened species and maintenance of late-successional habitat, humandif2:a.rid property associated with the wildland/urban interface; water quality including proJ~.?tion of the municipal water supply, and ecological sustainability including protection and rttainfenance of pine (see FEIS Chapter I and Component 5 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assess~en1:~:;:~::Protection of the values at risk in the context of this analysis refers to protection from a large-scale, high- severity wildland fire and occurs as a result of limiting fire size an~h.intensgy. Three of these four values are addressed within this FEIS analysis:as Significant or Other Issues. Late-successional habitat is discussed in sub-section 7, Sey.ti~Ir:D~r:,.phapter III, water quality in sub-sections 3 and 4, Section D, C~apter III; and ecologiG,~JJ~~<stainability in sub-sections 8 and 10, Section D, Chapter III and various sub-sections, Sec.tiQhJ~';:"Chapter III, this FEIS. These 1..- "I...... ~,V'. consequences, as discussed in this Chapter, are also ry.:!~~t~9tto attainment of Purpose and Need. Therefore, specific consequence discussions for till!~at~hed species and maintenance of late- successional habitat, water quality including p:rq!'edion of the municipal water supply, and ecological sustainability including protecti9n:::an.g';maintenance of ecosystems, are not included in this Section. .. ............ ~'. '-,;.: One of the values, protection of "h~mari\life and property", is integrated into this analysis in complex ways. The protection:.9f"'hqwan life" as related to fire management or fire suppression actions of people working in th:~:;:;D{:fltional Forest portion of the Analysis Area is applicable to analysis under Ashland For~:~h~esiIiency and is analyzed in this Section as "firefighter safety." Public safety is addressed':in:':~u&-section 15, Section E, Chapter III, this FEIS. Protection of"prop~rt>i:'.'j~:only indirectly applicable to Ashland Forest Resiliency because there is no private r~$i:2.eHtJ.a.lproperty located within the National Forest. Although there is some privately ownedtfO:rest land within the National Forest boundary, there are no residences within the Foresf::::[reatinents within the areas adjacent to the Forest boundary that remove hazardous fuels an9;'Ih~ke National Forest lands more resilient to wildland fire would indirectly provide 10werrisK"to adj acent privately-owned residential property. :i3~~ed on topographic and historical fire weather conditions within the Upper Bear Analysis :.;:: fliea, modeling (F ARSITE analysis) suggests that wildland fire would rarely progress at a high .'::::'rate of spread down-slope from the National Forest to private lands where private residential property is located. Both Action Alternatives would treat large areas adjacent to the Forest boundary next to the City of Ashland. Based on the treatments that would be implemented under either Action Alternative, the current risk would be further reduced. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSII III . 30 Ashland Forest Resiliency The City of Ashland has an official evacuation plan for residents in the WUI. This plan is contained within the Conlmunity Wildfire Protection Plan (2004) and addresses preparation and action items for residents during a wildfire. Ashland Fire and Rescue maintains an AM broadcast station that would be used for enlergencies. Located at 1700 on the AM dial, the message covers all of Ashland and can be updated remotely. The role of City departments and responsibilities are covered in this evacuation plan. Private residences adjacent to the National Forest on the east side of the Analysis Area are currently at the greatest risk of a wildland fire conling fron1 the Forest. This risk would be reduced under each of the Action Alternatives by treating areas within the Neil Creek drainage, IFirefighter Safet~ This analysis does not attel11pt to address the mental and physical aspects of,firefighter safety. In terms of this analysis, the primary indicator utilized is the change in areas where fire suppression and prescribed burning can be conducted 1110re safely. This is difficult to m~asure due to the nlany complex variables associated with wildland fire. Hazardous flJyl management offers increased safety to firefighters, particularly when related to fires bumingjnhigh hazardous fuel complexes and under severe conditions (Willian1s 1995). Treategareasprovide refugia froln dangerous burning conditions resulting from large blocks of conti~pous fuels. Another factor relating to firefighter safety is the availab~li!iand distribution of safety zones. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group defines a ~~fetx::ione as "a pre-planned area of sufficient size and suitable location that is expectedt9."~p[event injury to fire personnel from known hazards without using fire shelters" (USDAYUSDI 1995). There are several factors to consider wh~nd~si~ing and locating safety zones. Radiant energy travels in the same fonn as visible light,tha! is, in the line of sight. Therefore, locating safety zones in areas that minimize the firefighr~( s exposure to flames will reduce the required safety zone size. For example, topographical features that act as radiant shields are the lee side of rocky outcroppings, ridges andJpe iops of ridges, or peaks containing little or no flammable vegetation. Convective heatj~',!l~o an important consideration in safety zone size and placen1ent. In wildland fir~'s,:ponvective energy transport in the fonn of gusts, fire whirls, or turbulence could contfiQ,pt~::,significantly to the total energy received by a firefighter (Butler and Cohen 1998). In atld!tiqn; access to the safety zones is an important factor in their effectiveness. BehavePlus estill}e:tes safety zone size requirements based on the number of personnel and heavy equipmenr't,hat~ould occupy the zone. For analysis under Ashland Forest Resiliency, this was assumed,!9';;'Q,~50 firefighting personnel and 2 pieces of heavy equipment (e.g., fire engines). Necessary':safety zone size is relative to the Fuel Model and estimates ranged from % acre (Fuel MOpel Tf:1) to over an acre (Fuel Model TU5) in size. Safety zone size is proportional to flame height ,For radiant heat only, the distance separation between the firefighter and the flames is recommended to be at least four times the maxin1um flanle height. Therefore, any feature or , action that reduces flame height will have a corresponding effect on the required safety zone size , (Butler and Cohen 1998). Note that safety zone size is based on radiant heat calculations and represents the minimum size needed. Convective heat from wind and/or terrain influences will increase the size requirement. However, there are no current scientific studies to estimate safety zone size based on convective heat. Final EIS "DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 31 Ashland Forest Resiliency -nr-, The Preferred Alternative,would result in similar conditions in terms of firefighter safety as the other two Action Alternatives. Additional safety zones would be created as a result of helicopter landing construction. Access and egress would be improved as a result of roadside treatments. Further, fuel reduction treatments would provide more areas for crews to move into that are protected from extreme fire behavior. 6. Reduce Hazardous Fuels Fire hazard reflects the potential fire behavior and magnitude of effects as a function o(Juel\" ,.. conditions (as described by Fuel Models). Changes in hazardous fuels, as a result of preposed treatments, is compared against the current condition in this Section, There are two aspehts'to this analysis; one aspect has to do with the overall reduction of hazardous fuels aI12:th~ other aspect has is related to the distribution of treatments across the landscape. Changes to the fuels complex, referred to generally as fuel treatments, cap'help limit wildland fire sizes and severity directly by mitigating fire behavior, and indiIectlyl?XJJacilitating suppression (Finney 2000). Prescribed burning and mechanical methedscan lower fire spread rates and intensities within treated areas (Van Wagtendonk 1 996"W eatherspoon and Skinner 1996). Fuel management on a landscape scale tends to be limitegi-q.:Jhe amount of a given treatment, location of treatments, and the kinds of treatments pertriitf~d~ Priorities for treatments are often based on local hazards, ecological objectives, convtfii~hce, cost, land ownership, or accessibility. The benefits of fuel management would be seeil,:fht:(edUced fire damage to the forest and improved controllability of fire (i.e. grass ;fjre(,$::;:qre:::easier to control than crown fires in timber types because of lower intensity and redfici:d~,,~pdhing). . . . . ...... ~ ... , , , The primary considerations in loc~t:~ng tredtments are (Finney 2000): · Treatment areas need s<?ih~~::overlap in an anticipated heading spread direction. · The pattern should t~fg~~::'~fi'i-es burning under specific conditions (i.e. 90th percentile) because of their,~::cQ'~r~~Ctenstic sizes and spread rates. · The relationsl1iI?"'b.~'tWeen separation and overlap must consider the expected fire shape and relativ~':"~:pT:~ad rates in the treated areas. · Separat~qR,:.:r.n~st be small compared to the fire sizes. · Th~~e is\~fradeoff in the amount of treatment and the intensity of the treatment presc;pption. The EAASITE model (Finney 1998) was used to simulate fire growth for complex conditions of tel,fairi=:::fuels and weather for the No-Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. These siti.!hlations were simplified to maintain constant weather, fuel moistures, and wind direction ::. ':Yifh the only variation coming from fuel patterns and structure. Seven different ignition points \<::were used based on historical fire occurrence data (1960-2004), Four of these were located outside the National Forest and three were located within the Forest (see Map 1II-2). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 33 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table III-9. Recommended Safety Zone Size (Madden 2006) Distance separation Flame Height (firefighter to flame) Area in Acres 10 feet 40 feet 0.1 acre 20 feet 80 feet 0.5 acre 50 feet 200 feet 3 acres 100 feet 400 feet 12 acres 1 acre = 208 feet by 208 feet (or the approximate size of a football field) Under the No-Action Alternative, the only areas within the Analysis Area that could curren~ly serve as safety zones are the existing helicopter landings, though there are a few naturaLopening that could be utilized, depending on burning conditions and intensity of the fire. Most of the existing helicopter landings would be sufficient for safety zones with 111inor treatments to reduce surface and ladder fuels in the areas inl111ediately adjacent to the landings. Roads within the area would not be sufficient for safety zones and in somecase nlay not be suitable escape routes. Natural openings that could be used are wiciely spread and generally not strategically located so as to be near enough in relation to IllOst fire suppression actions. The existing shaded fuel breaks generally have too much brush in them to serve as a safety zone. Emergency evacuation along the roads within the Analysi~ A1:eawould depend on the location of the wildland fire and weather conditions. Heavy fuel loa<;iings:adjacent to roads would increase the risk of the road not being useable during a wildl~nd, fire'situation. In the event of a large- scale wildland fire situation, crews would be at risk due:to the lack of safety zones and sufficient escape routes. Though safety would be improved underavera.ge to high fire danger, wildland fires that occur in extreme weather conditions (97-1 oothpetcerttile) would not likely allow firefighters the ability to make a direct attack. The Proposed Action wouldgen-erally improve conditions in regard to firefighter safety. This is primarily due to the large arri,O'mifof area that is changed from Fuel Model TU5 to less hazardous fuel conditions. This ,wmildpbtentially provide more areas for crews to move into that are protected from extre1TI~"fire:behavior. The Proposed Action would provide a connection between potential safe area~,q'ueJo the network of treatments along the ridgelines. In addition, the Proposed Action;yould create additional safety zones as a result of constructing helicopter landing ar~as, 3:ponnected action to treatments. Hazardous fuel reduction treatments along roads would ai9:e~ergency evacuation by making the roads safer to travel, although this still would be unsafe uJ1der\~xtreme conditions. , Ul1der-the Community Alternative, areas of Fuel Model TU5 would be treated that would result Injrnprbved conditions in regard to firefighter safety. As with the Proposed Action, this would " provide more areas for crews to move into that are protected from extrenle fire behavior. As a P:P'result of constructing helicopter landing areas, additional safety zones would be created. Hazardous fuel reduction treatInents along roads would aid enlergency evacuation by nlaking the roads safer to travel, although this still would be unsafe under extrenle conditions. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 32 Ashland Forest Resiliency MAP IIl-2. Selected Ignition Points for FARSITE Modeling * FARSITE Ignition Points 'Ill.: I !SJ):\ h)rc:;l :-kr\'i,:,: IIses Ih.' Illost l'IUTenl .ullll:,))1)pll:ll' daw i1l'ailahk, L\islil1!-', reSl)lIrec daw ami L,\islill~, boundary alld facility 1\)('i1li'!I1s ar.:a "ppm"iJlJ:tk, G1S data alld pr,)duCl aL'GUra,'y may Vllr~', I j:;illg (tIS pf\)Jllcl~; flW rllfl1(}~l:'" l~lh.:r thall lor which they OU',' illll'l1ded m;ty yield illa':,'lIrah.' or mislcadin~', r,'sult!;, Ashland Forest Resiliency ~ational Forest Boundar)' /'../' Roads /"/Streams N A 9) 30(1 U 30060090U Feel r" -, " / ( Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 34 Ashland Forest Resiliency The No-Action Alternative was used to establish a baseline within the Analysis Area. Large areas would be burned with a high percentage (70-750/0) of the area having flame lengths greater than 4 feet. Crown fire would be present in the majority of the burned area, leading to the potential for large areas of high severity fire. A comparison of the data shows approximately a 79 percent reduction in the acres burned on Nati'onal Forest land for the Proposed Action, 82 percent reduction in the burned area for the Community Alternative, and approximately 82% reduction under the Preferred Alternative. Although there is a similar reduction in the total amount of area burned for the Action , Alternatives, there is a difference in the distribution of flame length categories. The Pr9})os~~\::' Action and Preferred Alternative allow slightly more area to bum, but the burned area genenites flame lengths of less than 4 feet over a majority of the area burned and less acres with ffame' lengths greater than 8 feet (see Figure III-6). Potential fire scenarios under the Pr2pos.:~d Action and Preferred Alternative would likely result in a higher percentage of area thatis6bmed in a low severity category as opposed to the Community Alternative. Figure 1II-6. FARSITE Modeling Area Burned on NFS Land by Flarne.Length I 0 0-4 feet [J 4-8 feet ~,>8 feet r: 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 en Q) U 2500 <!: 2000 1500 1000 500):( ,0":,:,,,.. No-Action Proposed Action Community Alternative Preferred Alternative ...::"" When looking at the change in the distribution of crown fire class and flame length categories on :\'\:.,,::::National Forest lands between the No-Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives, it is clear that there is a major change in potential fire severity. Based on the F ARSITE modeling, there is an increase of approximately 37-42% in the amount of area where surface fire would be expected (as opposed to crown fire) and a decrease in the amount of area where flame length greater than 4 feet would be expected (36-500/0). Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III .35 Ashland Forest Resiliency A further comparison of the distribution of the area burned by flame length (based on the F ARSITE nlodel runs) for each of the Action Alternatives is presented in Figure III - 7. Over 800/0 of the area treated under the Proposed Action would be predicted to produce flanle lengths of four feet or less. Under the Community Alternative, though fewer total acres would be burned, approximately 600/0 of the area would produce flanle lengths of four feet or less. Under the Preferred Alternative, that proportion of the area producing less than four foot flame lengths would be approximately 680/0. Figure III-7. F ARSITE Modeling: Percent Area Burned on NFS Land by Flame Length I@ Proposed Action II Community Alternative 0 Preferred Alternative I 90% 80% 70% "C Q.) C L- :J al ro 50% Q.) L- <t - 40% 0 'E Q.) u 30% L- Q.) a. 20% 10% 0% 0-4 feet 4-8 feet FARSITE Flame Length >8 feet The same F ARSITE'8.l)alysis summarized above in Table III-I 0 was performed using 95th percentile weather'cOnditions. A comparison of the total acres burned between 90th and 95th percentile"conditions is provided in Table III-II below. Table ITI'::lO::Area Burned - 90th "s. 95th Percentile Weather Conditions Total Area Burned on NFS Lands ""'..;:, 90th 95th. Percent : Alternative Percentile Percentile Difference .",. No-Action 1 0,861 13,793 27% Proposed Action 2,331 2,587 11% Community Alternative 1,916 2,280 19% Preferred Alternative 1,860 2;083 12% Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlI III - 36 Ashland Forest Resiliency Though the overall percent difference for the Action Alternatives is similar, the range of change in individual ignition points shows a difference between the alternatives. Using three ignition points on National Forest (that represent areas where fuel treatments would occur), the increase in area burned for the Proposed Action ranged from 6 to 37 percent, the Community Alternative ranged from 41 to 91 percent and the Preferred Alternative ranged from 9 to 36 percent. This indicates that the proposed treatments act similarly under 90th percentile conditions, but under 95th percentile conditions, the treatments under the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative reduce the spread of fire to a greater degree. 7. Reduce Crown Fire Potential Crown fires occur when surface fires create enough energy to preheat and combust live fuels well above the ground. There are two stages to the crown fire process: the initiatiqrt:pl' crown fire activity, known as "torching", and the process of active crown fire spread,:YJha~e fire moves from tree crown to tree crown (Van Wagner 1977; Agee et al. 2000). Torching occurs when the surface flame length exceeds a critical tmesholqJhat is defined by moisture content in the crown and the vertical distance to live crowl1}:pall~d canopy base height or height to live crown. Defined in terms of its consequences to crowiirfire initiation, canopy base height is the lowest height above the ground at which th7.reis, sufficient canopy fuel to propagate fire vertically through the canopy. Although e~~y,;todefine on an individual tree, it is more difficult to define in a stand. Although the canop~9astheight of an individual tree may be high, and as such, would not initiate crown fire, the pr~seijbe of continuous ladder fuels can have the same effect as a canopy base height of nearly z~f();"'In other words, canopy base height by itself is not an indicator of the potential for crchyh'fire; ladder fuels must be considered (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). ";"::~t:. ~\~~;:...... An active crown fire is one in which.Jht':eqlintsurface/canopy fuel complex becomes involved, but the crowning phase remains d~pendent:on heat from the surface fuels for continued spread. Active crown fires typically lea9. td\higli acreage burned and adverse environmental effects, and offer the most challenge to fire:,thcwagers (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). ,. ".: ;"0 ".~'." NEXUS is crown fire:4,~4arq",analysis software that links separate models of surface and crown fire behavior to cOU1p>>!e:,irtdices of relative crown fire potential. Computer analysis using NEXUS identifie~"sev:,irar outputs for selected forested Fuel Models within the Analysis Area, Fuel Models 'R,LI?,"Ty3': and TL 1. These Fuel Models represent of range of stand conditions both before and.;.,fri1l6wing treatments. They were analyzed under 90th and 95th percentile weather conditions>lable III-II displays the results of this analysis. Figur~ In~8'is a schematic description of the two-step process from a surface fire to an active CtPwIl:4ire, and the factors that control each step. NEXUS output characterizes the first step (tf.,dm a:;surface to a passive crown fire) with the Torching Index, and the second step (from a pa's'sive to an active crown fire) with the Crowning Index. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 37 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 111-8. Schematic of Crowning Index (Hall and Burke 2006) Step 1: TORCHING Depends upon: 1, surface fuels 2. canopy base heigllt 3, foliar moisture content Table llI-ll. Crown Fire Indices for Selected Fuel Models Within Analysis Area T pe of fire Crowning Index - 50% slope Crowning index - Flat Critical flame length for crown fire initiation Type of Fire .. The type of fire predicted to occur lor the given inputs: surface lire, passive crown fire (torching), active crown fire, or conditional crown fire (depends on fire initiation). Crowning Index -- The 20.ft windspeed c:lt:which active crown fire is possible. Crowning index is a function of canopy bulk density, slope steepness, a,l1d liye and dead surface fuel moisture, Critical Flame Length for crownfir'einitiation -- The minimum surface fire flame length required to initiation some kind 01 crown fire. ' 7.3 mph 5.5 mph 17.8 mph 11.8 mph 10.4 mph 16.qmph.. 14.6 mph 23.7 mph 21.7 mph 4.1 feet 4.1 feet 9.4 feet 9.4 feet The Crowning:lJ:1dic~s are relatively low (high crown fire potential) with Fuel Model TU5 under the currenLcondiH6n and indicate that fires are likely to get into the crowns of trees with a light wind. Thls'~s due to the amount of ladder fuels and the fact that they create a continuous fuel load fron1.'the:'ground to the crowns. Torching could occur with the presence of any surface fire. The CroWning Index of7.3 (90th percentile) indicates that the initiation of an active crown fire is li~ely,:under n10st summer conditions where Fuel Model TU5 is present. Average sun1mer winds would have the potential to initiate an active or runningcrown fire in Fuel Model TU5, and wOuld be sustained as long as the wind continues. Under the current condition, there are many areas of contiguous Fuel Model TU5 within the Upper Bear Analysis Area, thus making the potential for an active crown fire relatively high. Final Els !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 38 Ashland Forest Resiliency Fuel Model TL3 represents stands with a moderate load of downed fuels. The NEXUS model indicates that the type of fire would be a "conditional" crown fire. This indicates that it would take stronger winds to initiate crowning than are needed to sustain active crowning once started (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). The Crowning Index of] 2.8 (90th percentile) is slightly higher than the average summer 20 foot winds but is within the expected speed of gusts. This would indicate that in areas sheltered from the winds, that active crowing would not occur and in unsheltered areas, active crowning may not be sustained. However, under 95th percentile conditions, an increased chance of an active crown fire would be expected. Fuel Model TL 1 represents a stand where the surface and ladder fuels have been reduc~d40~lBw levels. Under 90th and 95th percentile conditions, this fuel model would be primarily a~::urfad:e' fire and would require a flame length of at least 9. 4 feet to initiate a crown fire, given a'\wind speed of over 20 miles per hour. Although this Fuel Model is not currently mapP~,~:':within the Analysis Area, it describes the desired condition and resultant conditions of mallyoflhe treatments. " ' FlamMap was used to further assess the crown fire potential for ea~h9f t4..,~:"alternatives, including No-Action (current condition). This model assumes that' e\,:;~ry:ceII (100 square meters) on the landscape burns and makes fire behavior calculatiops (e'lg., fireline intensity, flame length) for each location (cell), independent of one ~no~hei\:,:,::That is, there is no predictor of fire movement across the landscape, and weather and w~n(;r'information can be held constant. Vveather and fuel moisture con'ditions representing the 9Q~h:;'~1~d95th percentile were used. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change to the existing distribution of fuels or conditions that would lead to a crown fire.S~eTable III-12. This alternative is used as a baseline to estimate the changes as a resultp(fu#l:reduction treatments. The following table and figure presy'pt the:distfibution of each Crown Fire Class for the Analysis Area. The Action Alternatives haye a similar amount of area in each of the classes. As with other indicators used in this an~lys'is~"gny difference in the Action Alternatives would be related to the distribution of treatment~:'\;h.}. other words; where the treatments are located on the landscape is more an indicat.er~q'f>effectiveness than the amount of area treated. Table llI-12. Distripu.J!,6n,:~f>Crown Fire Class by Alternative (Analysis Area) Surface Fire Passive Crown Fire Active Crown Fire (:. 90lh 95th 90lh 951h 90th, , 95th Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile ,Percentile No- Action';,,':"",}/ 7,919 acres 7 ,030 acres 17,138 acres 11,794 acres 11,874 acres 18,107 acres ~roposed'" 14,519 acres 13,623 acres 13,232 acres 10,026 acres 9,177 acres 13,279 acres ';:'Abtioo ,:''Community 14,255 acres 13,373 acres 13,049 acres 9,895 acres 9,627 acres 13,663 acres :\\;::::;,;",-,:""",t ''\Alternative Preferred 15,222 acres 13,508 acres 13,131 acres 11,011 acres 8,578 acres 12,412 acres Alternative Final Els IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS" 1/1 .39 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 111-9. Relative Comparison of Crown Fire Class by Alternative (Project Area-90th Percentile) 10 Surface Fire 0 Passive Crown Fire. Active Crown Fire I 100% 90% 80% co a> L- <t 1:) 60% a> '0' L- 50% a. - 0 'E 40% a> (,) L- a> a. 30% 20% 10% 0% Baseline Proposed ActioQ,,'Community Alternative Preferred Alternaitve -0.- . .... Map 1II-3, derived fron1 FlamMap, displaystperesulting crown fire class for each of the alternatives. A surface fire is indic~tedbythelight green color, passive crown fire by orange, and active crown fire as red. Final Els !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 40 Ashland Forest Resiliency --ITr--,-- MAP 111-3. Crown Fire Class - 90th Percentile Weather Conditions for No-Action and the Action Alternatives Final Els IIDRAFTWORK IN PROGRESS 11 III - 41 Ashland Forest Resiliency MAP 111-3. Crown Fire Class - 90th Percentile Weather Conditions for No-Action and the Action Alternatives Ashland Forest Resiliency FlamMap Predicted Crown Fire Class "" ....., , ~ , ~ No-Action "" ~... ~ ' , , , 1 National Forest Boundary Upper Bear Analysis Area Proposed Action Su rface fire Passive crown fire .. Active crown fire o 0,5 1 Community Alternative 2 Miles , , ~ ... .. -- , " \ l " Preferred Alternative Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11I-41 Ashland Forest Resiliency ITrT ;' C Under the Proposed Action, the distributlon of areas where surface fire would be expected is consistent with the compartnlentalization strategy. Although crown fire would occur within compartments, it appears that the DFPZs would be effective in containing the fire within a conlpartnlent. Under the Community Alternative, the treated areas are distributed across the landscape. Though there are contiguous areas where crown fire is expected, there is some opportunity to connect the treated areas together to limit fire size. The ability to accomplish this would be based on other factors such as weather.conditions, topography, or availability of suppression resources. The Preferred Alternative achieves the results of both the Proposed Action and Community Altenlative by lilniting crown fire along strategic ridgelines and by treating acros~thelandscape between the strategic ridgelines. The area wide treatments would reduce the likelihood of a fire 111aking a run by interrupting the nlonlentum. The treatnlents on strategic ridge~would reinforce the area wide treatments. 8. Obtain Conditions More Resilient to Wildland Fires Forest "resiliency" as used in this analysis refers to the abjlity of the ecosystem to resist and recover from disturbances related to large-scale, high seve.ritywildland fire. Fire resilient forests have characteristics that allow them to:survive wildland fires. These characteristics include forest structures that limit the behavior of surface and crown fires and provide a fair degree of resistance to tree mortalUy{Agee 2002). Because crown fires have the largest imme9ia~eand long-term ecological effects and the greatest potential to threaten human life and,property:near wildland areas (USDA 2004), the potential for crown fire is useful in defining fire,resilient conditions (Agee and Skinner 200S). First, surface fire behavior must be managed,:::~o 'thattreatments should either reduce such potential behavior, or at least not contribute to incr'e'as~d fire behavior. Second, a reduction in:torch,pg potential requires a comparison of potential surface fire flanle length with a criticalf1C3.m~'length, which is a function of canopy base height. A reduction in potential surface firehehavior-plus an increase in canopy base height will minimize torching potential. Third, redi1c~ionin potential active crown fire spread can be accomplished by a reduction in canopy qulk density. Where thinning is followed by sufficient treatInent of surface fuels, the ove.rall reduction in expected fire behavior and fire severity usually outweigh the changes in fire :, weather factors such as wind speed and fuel moisture (Weatherspoon 1996). The foul1h principle in a fire resilient forest strategy for the short-ternl is to keep large trees in "'the stand if they are present. These are the nlost fire-resistant trees in the stand, as they have the tallest crowns and thickest bark (Peterson and Ryan 1986). The large tree component is analyzed here as a function of its contribution to fire behavior in relation to vegetation composition. Old and large trees are also analyzed in this FEIS as a Significant Issue relating to human social values. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 42 Ashland Forest Resiliency Historically, wildland fires in the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area were frequent, having primarily a low to moderate mixed severity with a low percentage of area in a high-severity condition (2003 Upper Bear Assessment). With existing fuelloadings caused by decades of fire exclusion (resulting in the potential for higher intensity fire), a wildland fire would typically have a larger amount of resulting area in a high-severity category. A high- severity fire creates adverse effects which makes it more difficult for the forest ecosystem to recover. {;;~;. To compare the Action Alternatives with the No-Action Alternative, the following indicator~:'bf,\q' current and resultant conditions are used:" o Moderate to High Severity Fire o Surface Fuel Loading o Horizontal and Vertical Fuel Discontinuity o Crown Densi ty o Vegetation Composition (size, structure, and species) IModerate to High Severity Fir~ Historically, 40 percent of the forests in the Northwestern.l!Eit~,~l'S:t:ates were burned by frequent (0- to 35-year intervals) low-severity fires) but only 15 p,~rc,,~nt,:are currently burned by these kinds of fires. Mixed fire regimes, characterized by 3$.,~t6(1'()O-year fire return intervals, and a mixture of low to moderate surface fires and higher.'B.~:Vyiny stand replacement fires, historically occurred on about 40 percent of forested areas'~:"Th~y"currently occur on about 3 5 percent of the forested areas (Schmidt and others 2002). ;As,,~~"te9,ult of these current conditions, more than 80 percent of the forest landscape in the inlaDd,t1Qithwestem United States contains lands with mixed to high severity fire regimes ,~,9uigl~y'ahd others 1996). Because ofrnultiple factors iny?lV~g:;~,~at could help predict how many acres of the various severity classes that would be ~xH~cfea following a large fire, comparisons are used to give a likely range of severity clas?:e~(":\:4H'e 1959 Ashland Creek Fire burned approximately 4,500 acres of land within the An~lysisi'fU'~'a. Based on current satellite imagery, approximately 50 percent of these acres are i~ a~\e~i-ly:i6r mid seral condition that would indicate moderate to high severity fire on these acres.":';''::"",''::::' :: ":"-:',- ":::;' . :.::. .>~. "."-;. ;-. .. P-,. The neare~;! latIleJire''ror which this information has been recorded is the Quartz Fire (2001) that burned approximately 4 - 6 miles to the west of the Analysis Area. Many of the same conditions (topogrqph,y}'\weather, and fuels) exist within the Upper Bear Analysis Area that may be found in the areabLthe Quartz Fire. Post-fire aerial photography and satellite imagery was used to map Iq)\r,:Jnoderate, and high severity burned areas. This n1apping indicates that approximately 45 p~rc.:ynt::ofthe bunl area was in a moderate to high severity category (2002 Quartz Fire Restoration Envirorunental Assesslnent). Figure III -10 displays the proportion of low severity, mixed severity, and high severity fires in the pre-l 900 period and in recent times in the inland Northwestern United States. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 43 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 111-10. Historical and Current Proportion of Low, Mixed, and High Severity Fire (adapted from Schmidt and others 2002) ~ ~ CJ) "'0 ~ 40 -.J ~ -.J (() "'0 ~ 30 U) li- e c .~ 20 o 0.. e 0.. 60 I · Historical o Current I Based on these previous examples and be9au~e,.thisanalysis of Ashland Forest Resiliency is focused on the effects of a high-severitywild!and fire, an assumption is made, that under the N 0- Action Alternative, a range of 40 t9.,50percent of the burn area would be predicted to have moderate to high severity fire, und:er 'a large-scale wildland fire scenario. 50 .. - -- . . ...-... Analysis of historical fires inthe:r,~gion of southern Oregon and northern California indicate that fires typically burned in a mos~ic.pattern with varying degrees of intensity (Taylor and Skinner 2002). 10 o Low Severity Mixed Severity, High Severity Because the Actio~:lA~ternatives would not return the Analysis Area to historical conditions, it is not believed:ll1at~t~e'historic distribution of moderate to high severity percentages could be obtained as a resu}t::of the proposed treatments. Although the amount of area in moderate to high severity wO,llld be reduced, it would not return to historic levels. It is predicted that moderate to high int~ns!fy',conditions would likely fall in the range of25-35% of the bum area under a large- scale,,:wildland fire scenario. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 44 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure III-II. Predicted Change in Amount of Area of Mixed-High Severity No-Action Alternative 40-500/0 Action Alternatives o 10 20 30 =,,:;40';'<:"': ';~:~:( "\:.: 50 60 PercerJt"9fArea ..... ISurface Fuel Loadingl The intensity and duration of surface fir~~,~:a~P~~d:~'~n the availability and condition of surface fuels. Woody fuel can greatly increase th~:::,~il'ergy released from surface fires and in some cases increase flame lengths sufficient1y:td"igQI~'~ i'~dder and/or canopy fuels, thus initiating crown fire. Fine fuels are fast-drying fuels"::~d 'getl'erallyare less than 1/4-inch in diameter. These fuels readily ignite and are rapidlX:::E6.ri~,llmed by fire when dry. Lighter fuels such as grasses, leaves, and needles quickly expe~Jnqislure, and therefore bum rapidly, quickly exhausting the fuel supply. Heavy Fuels ar~ ;fir~ls:"'of large diameter such as snags, logs, and large wood that ignite and are consumed fu8fe\~.1owly than fine fuels. Heavier fuels take longer to heat and ignite, but burn much hotter <mg';longer than lighter fuels. The most ,~ffeciive::~md appropriate sequence of fuel treatment depends on the amount of surface fuel pres,~~f;.:,:!he :~aensity of understory and mid-canopy trees; long-tenn potential effects of fuel treatme~l~o.n;::vegetation, soils, and wildlife; and short-term potential effects on smoke pr~s~u~tion(Huff et al. 1995). In forests that have not experienced fire for many decades, rrl~!l1JHe fuel treatments are often required to achieve the desired fuel conditions. Thinning folJ6\ved by prescribed burning reduces canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, thereby providing :":,;:,,,p1aximum protection from severe fires in the future (Peterson et al. 2003). Several indicators that may be used to compare this element of resiliency have been described in other sections of this analysis. The predicted flame length (related to surface fuel loading) as a result of treatments was discussed in sub-section 4, b, this Chapter. The distribution of hazardous fuels (including surface fuels) before and after treatments is discussed in sub-section 6, this Chapter. Final Els nDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 45 Ashland Forest Resiliency There would be no change in surface fuel loading under the No-Action Alternative. The only fuels treatnlents that would take place are those that would be accomplished under A VlPP. The potential for high-severity fire would remain the same. Under the Proposed Action, surface fuel loading would be reduced on approximately 8, ISO acres. The n1ajority of the area treated would reduce prinlarily the fine fuel loadings. Heavy fuel loadings would also be reduced in many areas, however large woody material would be left on site with more logs retained in riparian areas and on northerly aspects than on southerly slopes; Down logs are important for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem function. In addition, down"coa'rse woody material is particularly important to maintaining and holding soils in place throughoufthe National Forest portion of the Analysis Area. " The Community Alternative would also prin1arily treat the fine fuels and leave large wood (heavy fuels) unless they are surplus to ecosysten1 needs. The Community Alternative would treat surface fuels on approximately 8,990 acres. Where standing green trees.are felled to meet habitat objectives, felled trees will be left in place as needed to meet down log and/or soil objectives. The Preferred Alternative would treat fuels on approximately7,600 acres. As with the other two Action Alternatives, the fine fuels would be reduced anddonly some of the heavy fuel loading would be reduced. The heavy fuels are not consiper~da high risk because of the amount of heat it would take to ignite these pieces of wood. i\Hhc)ugh this alternative treats fewer acres than the other two Action Alternatives, it focuses treatments in strategic areas relative to the values at risk. IHorizontal and Vertical Fuel Continuit~ Continuous fuels readily support fire spread. The larger the discontinuity of fuels, the greater the fire intensity required for fire spread;:: There are two types of fuel continuity described when discussing fire behavior. Contiflui!y is described as either vertical or horizontal. Vertical continuity is usually just an.other'way to describe ladder fuels that allow a surface fire to spread into the crowns of trees. :HoDzontal continuity deals with the presence or absence of breaks in the fuelbed that aff~~t.the,fire's ability to spread across the ground. Disruptions to horizontal continuity act 1 ike'.,tsp y.?d bumps" on a road that slow a fire's spread, thus offering an opportunity to;iC:f~:~,~~Qlor suppress it. Thinning 6f,small material and pruning branches are precise methods for targeting ladder fuels and spe~ificfuel components (van Wagtendonk 1996, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996, Agee and ot.hefs'2000). The net effect of ren10ving ladder fuels is that surface fires burning through tr~ated:stands are less likely to ignite the overstory canopy fuels, thus creating vertical di?'continuity. ;;'Another aspect of horizontal fuel discontinuity is related to riparian networks. Although the Klamath Mountains of north em California and southwestern Oregon receive ample annual precipitation, there is a pronounced annual drought. This annual drought ensures that, even in years much wetter than average, the conditions for fire to easily spread once ignited are achieved in the dry season (Skinner 2000). Final Els IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11I-46 Ashland Forest Resiliency A study (Taylor and Skinner 1998) was conducted on Thompson Ridge in the Seiad Late- Successional Reserve adjacent to the Applegate Adaptive Management Area. Tree species composition, structure ( diameter, age), and fire scars from 75 upland plots distributed across approximately 4,000 acres were analyzed. Patterns of past fire severity, inferred from age- classes and patch size patterns, indicate that upper slopes, ridgetops, and south and west facing slopes experienced more severe fires than lower slopes or east and north facing slopes. The importance for riparian areas is that upper reaches of stream courses, especially where there is no pennanent water, are likely to have burned more severely than lower reaches within the local topography. The lower reach riparian areas would be similar to east and north fac!,ng ("':':""::; uplands, while the upper reach riparian areas would probably be more like that of soutl(and 'west facing slopes. Fires appear to have affected riparian areas of perennial streams less fTequently than in the adjacent uplands. In the upper reaches of watersheds where riparian area~,:,:~re associated with intermittent streams, fires appear to have burned with frequ~ncysifuilar to the surrounding uplands (Skinner 2000). Under the No-Action Alternative there would be no change in the v,,~[ti~a] or horizontal continuity of fuels across the landscape within the Analysis Area.' There is no standardized method to quantify how well the Acti9n::A!ternatives create discontinuity in the fuels across the landscape. Treated are~~::\V,bere the crown fire class is changed from an active or passive crown fire to a surface\fjf~\w6'uld be one way to identify areas where vertical discontinuity is created. Figure III-12 qjs:i?l~:ys the percent increase in surface fire that would be expected in relation to the amount of"Cl.(~C!,;,~:reated by each of the Action Alternatives. " .. The Proposed Action and Preferred Actipn:1Yop~d'increase the amount of area where surface fire would be expected in relation to the anl9,~htOCarea treated by approximately 18%. Under the Community Alternative, the result~'w04Ja:~pe similar, though slightly less, with an increase of approximately 17%. This reflects ;~.,chapge in the amount of area where crown fire would be expected and is an indicator of"g~\:~:g'e'tn the vertical continuity of the fuels. ..... (.;: Figure 111-12. Increase in Su~,!a~:~.:Fire by Action Alternative 5% 20% I,,::, :.::;~""::::l.P~,Yo f:"::" :.: 0% Proposed Action Community Alternative Preferred Alternaitve Final EIS rrDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 47 Ashland Forest Resiliency Horizontal discontinuity may also be compared by looking at Maps IIl-l and III-3. Each of the Action Alternatives would create breaks in contiguous surface fuels across the landscape to varying degrees. The Proposed Action would treat ladder fuels and spread the treatnlents across the landscape to create both horizontal and vertical discontinuity. Treatments within riparian areas would serve to fragment continuous areas with fuels that would tend to serve as a wick for a fire moving through the watershed between treated areas. This is particularly true in the drainages with intennittent streams, as described in the Thonlpson Ridge Study. The Proposed Action would, treat areas within the Riparian Reserves, but outside of the wetter riparian areas. No treatments are proposed under this alternative within 50 feet of a perennial stream. The treatmepts proposed within Riparian Reserves would consist prinlarily of surface and ladder fuel treatment~ that would not reduce the overstory. The Community Alternative would also treat ladder fuels and spread tre~tlT.l7nts' across the landscape that would result in both horizontal and vertical discontinuiJy.,T~ea'tments within riparian areas would serve to fragnlent continuous areas with fuelsthatwould tend to serve as a wick for a fire nloving through the watershed between treated areas. The Community Alternative would treat areas within the Riparian Reserves, butouts.ide of the wetter riparian areas. The treatments proposed within Riparian Reserves vy.otildconsist primarily of surface and ladder fuel treatments that would not reduce the oversto~Y. Treatments would be "lighter", or less intense, the closer they are to the stream course. 'No trea.tments are proposed under this alternative within SO feet of a perennial stream. " The treatments under the Preferred Alternath~e.v{ould be similar to those in the Community Alternative. Vertical and horizontal fuel continuity would be fragmented as a result of the surface and ladder fuel treatments. The.treatments proposed within Riparian Reserves would consist primarily of surface and ladder fUyl treatments that would not reduce the overstory and would be "feathered" away fr~}n the"riparian areas. In other words, the closer to the riparian area, the lighter the treatment wollldhe. These treatments would fragment continuous areas of fuels within the Riparian R~serves':that would be generally surrounded by treated areas. This would help eliminate !pe'~~jck" effect that can occur within watersheds that are treated, except for the riparian areas.' ICrown Densit~ . '".' Depending:on intensity, thinning fronl below can most effectively alter fire behavior by reducing crown bplk)iensity, increasing crown base height, and changing species conlposition to lighter crow,ned"and fire-adapted species (Grahanl et al. 1999). Canopy bulk density is the mass of '. ay..ail~1?le canopy fuel per unit canopy volume. It is a bulk property of the stand, not an iridiyidpal tree. Any density management stand treatments can substantially influence , subsequent fire behavior at the stand level by either increasing or decreasing fire intensity and "',,:associated severity of effects (Graham et al. 1999). Under the No-Action Alternative there would be no reduction in crown density. This alternative is used as a baseline to compare the Action Alternatives and the amount of change in canopy density. Because there would be no change, the potential for a high-severity wildland fire would remain the same as it currently exists. Final Els I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 48 Ashland Forest Resiliency Though all of the treatments proposed under the Action Alternatives would serve to reduce canopy bulk density to some degree, the degree the canopy is reduced relative to fire behavior is the most important factor. Crown fire potential is addressed in (sub-section 7, this Chapter) and is not addressed here. A concern with fuel treatments in the Analysis Area centers on shrub and small tree response following treatments that open the overstory canopy (this is defined here as a canopy closure less" than 607 percent). There is no empirical data for the Ashland Watershed to predict a response and although models are currently being developed, there is limited scientific research 9n,t~s'\,,: topic. However, there is anecdotal evidence within the Watershed, based on observatid,ps of the shaded fuel breaks constructed in the 1980's that would indicate prush response is a yorl'hern. Many of areas within the shaded fuel breaks currently have a large amount ofbru~~:;ill:them. This is in part due to the lack of maintenance since they were constructed (200J<lJpperBear Assessment). In contrast, there are some stands where density management was 'accomplished, that maintain a closed canopy and little to no brush. The brush primarily"pcGJ.}rs:along the edge of these stands, adjacent to the openings created by roads. '.. , Observations of the Sterling Wolf Timber Sale, in the Applegate.",\!:alle'y, were made by Bureau of Land Management employees following harvest activities. Post?harvest canopy closure remained at 60 percent and higher. The shrub (non-tree) f.~sIi~ns,e was minimal in the observed stands (Mason and Chandler 200S). ' ;, "'(. .. .. Higher levels of overstory cover, although associated::~ith:potential for independent crown fire, might also restrict the recovery of the manipulalpd,.pnderstory and allow lengthened nlaintenance intervals (Agee et al. 1999)." ,.. "':::;" -.::.: Under each of the Action Alternati~,~s, sOq1~,.areas would receive treatments that would reduce the canopy cover to approximatelx.:,40o/J.::::",:The following figure displays th~ amount of area where Density Management would r(1.guce\S:gp.opy density from at or above 60% to approximately 40%, by alternative. Density Managim~nt, sometimes described as a "low thin", as discussed in the scientific literature, is desc~i.peq,:,in'more detail in Chapter II, this FEIS. 7 Canopy closure is difficult to measure. Values obtained from on-the-ground measurements, depending on the method used, can easily be plus or minus ten percent. The value of 60 percent used here is based on data from satellite imagery and values less than 60% from the imagery tend to indicate areas where additional sunlight is reaching the forest floor. The values measured on the ground may not match exactly to those obtained from the satellite imagery. Final Els II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 49 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 111-13. Area \\'here Canopy Crown Closure Reduced To 401Yt, by Alter-native 3,000 2,500 500 - 2,000 - (/) ~ 1 ,500 --- <t: 1,000 -- o Proposed Action Community Alternative Preferred Alternaitve Under the Proposed Action, approximately 8~15'pacres would be treated, thus reducing the crown density to varying degrees. The areas treafed within the Interface and RNA Compartments would reduce crown den~itythegreatest, bringing these areas closest to past (historical) conditions. The treatments in these areas would be Density Management, or "thinning from below" until the de~iredfelative stand density is obtained. This would reduce the intensity and severity of fire bUlpinginthese areas. A design feature in the Prop6se~rAction is based on the assumption that DFPZs would maintain a mostly closed canopy(afl~ast 600/0 where it currently exists) in order to maintain higher fuel moistures and reduc~,b.r.usr:fmd reproduction growth. This would reduce the maintenance interval, and mainl~~p:future option-s for vegetation and fuels management. ',;-::;; Within the';;DFPZs:/crown density of individual large trees would not be substantially reduced except inii1~:;ect and disease pockets. However, the removal of surface and ladder fuels would reduce t~ie;;s:everity of a fire in these areas. Treatments in the Late-successional Compartments wo~ld employ a thin from below that would reduce crown density in the n1id-seral stands that do " nqf'currently provide suitable northern spotted owl habitat. The treated areas would be str~tegically located to provide a degree of protection for suitable habitat. ;:':''The Community Alternative would treat approximately 8,990 acres and, as under the Proposed Action, would reduce crown density in varying degrees on these acres. All areas proposed for treatment, with the exception of the areas within the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (1,481 acres), would reduce the canopy density as a result of Density Management treatments. Treatments within the Roadless Area would reduce surface and ladder fuels only, providing a minor reduction in canopy density. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 50 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Preferred Alternative combines aspects of the other two Action Alternatives. In the strategic ridgeline areas, a closed canopy would be maintained in order to preserve higher fuel moistures and reduce brush and reproduction growth. This would reduce the maintenance interval, and maintain future options for vegetation and fuels management. On some of the south and west facing slopes, with the exception of the strategic ridgelines, the canopy wou~d receive treatments that would reduce the cover to approximately 400/0. Although there exists the potential for the site to be dryer and have an increased amount of brush response following treatment, these areas would be monitored to determine how much brush response would actuall y occur. 3. Vegetation Composition In this discussion, fire resistance refers to the ability of a stand or individuaLspecies"Yo withstand the effects of a fire as opposed to fire resilience which is the ability of a stanqitQ':regenerate following a fire"q , Tree resistance to fire generally increases with age. Crowns becoITi:e\l~rger and for some species, the height to the base of the live crown increases, either from self:pruri1tig or renloval of basal branches by surface fires. Bark thickness and stem diameter",~crease. A suppressed tree may develop fire resistance characteristics at a much slower ra!.e4~ah:::.a vigorous tree of the same age and species resulting, for example, in a much thinner b~~,'(:~ade 1993). q, " Bark thickness plays an important role in the surviyal":?::f:t;~es. Larger trees, such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, develop a thick bark thaf:;:irfsu}ates the cambium from damaging heat. Even if the bark is considerably scorched, the c~QJ~::can remain undamaged. In addition, the crowns of larger trees are more elevated~:::tQ?s:f;pr6tecting the buds and foliage from heat scorch. Crown scorch and bud kill is consi9,~re~i':'a;;:pririciple cause of death from fire (Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42; USDA 2000). i~:, "'qq, '.:;;. The growth stage at which sele~teq.species of trees become fire resistant and the degree of resistance of mature trees ar.~:~"s~pnnarized in Table III-13 :;.;. ~~ ";.: Table III-I3. Sped~s E,esi,~tarice to Fire Rating "~:"" :. ..,~::::. - ".;::.", ..'::', '~:;:-. Size When Fire Fire Resistance Resistance Is Gained At Maturi Pole/mature Hi h Mature Medium Sa lin / ole Hi h Mature Medium \:,":'::::'Qre on white oak Root crown/stum s routs Pole Medium SJzes are defined as follows: seedlings, <1 inch DBH; saplings, 1 to 4 inch DBH; poles, 5 to 10 inch DBH; mature, > 11 inch DBH. b Size when medium or hi h fire resistance is ained One of the principles in regard to a fire resilient forest is, in the short-term, to keep the large trees in stands or landscapes if they are present. These are the most fire-resistant trees in the stand, as they have the tallest crowns and thickest bark (Peterson and Ryan 1986). The degree of damage to roots, stems, and the crown determines whether trees will survive a wildland fire. Final EIS II DRAFT WORKINPROGRESslIlII - 51 Ashland Forest Resiliency Fire resilience is increased by favoring those species likely to return quickly following a fire. Sprouting is a means by which many plants recover after fire. Shoots can originate from dormant buds located on plant parts above the ground surface or from various levels within the litter, duff, and nlineral soil layers. Species that do not resprout or lose their seed source are less fire resilient than species that do resprout and where the seed source remains. Species rooted primarily in the duff and litter layer tend to be less fire resilient than those that root in the soil. Most shrubs resprout, so they tend to be very resilient following a fire. Stands where the overstory remains following a fire also tend to be resilient because of the available seed source. Because surface fuel treatnlents often open the understory so that midflame windspeed will increase and fine fuel nloisture will decline (van Wagtendonk 1996, Weatherspoon 199(5), nlaintaining no change in surface fire behavior generally requires a reduction in surface :'fuels (Agee et al. 2002). Plant response to fire is a result of the interaction between severity of the fireand:characteristics of the plants in the fire, both their inherent resistance to injury and abilitytoJ,-ecover. Fuel quantity and arrangement, fuel moisture content, topography, wind~peed;",~nd structure of the plant comnlunity itself cause the lethal heat zone created by fire to vary substantially in time and space. Fire can cause dramatic and immediate changes in vegetation, eliminating some species or causing others to appear where they were not present be,fore'the,:,fire. No change in the current condition would be expected underthe No-Action Alternative. The risk of a high intensity fire would continue to exist, aq~t~.~refore the potential for adverse effects to vegetation from high severity fire would continue'." ":, The Proposed Action is designed to treatthe,sm.aller diameter trees in the stand first, and then move upward in size until the desired standdens'ity is obtained depending on the P AG and slope position. The Proposed Action would aCl1ievefire resiliency goals by creating a more natural landscape. The Proposed Action would he!p'T~store integrity and resilience of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems by promoting fuIiction'al ecosystenl processes that contribute to forest stand densities, structures, and species~onlppsifions that are sustainable over the long-term. This would be accomplished by fo~t~tingthe structural, compositional, and functional diversity present in the Analysis Area. ", As with the PropOsed Action, the Community Alternative is designed to treat the smaller diameter trees inthe stand first, and then move upward in size until the desired stand density is obtained depending on the P AG and slope position. Fire resiliency goals would be achieved by creatingcl'more natural landscape. The Community Alternative would promote ecosystem : p:r,p'C>esses that contribute to forest stand densities, structures, and species compositions that are sU,~tainable over the long-term. This would help restore integrity and resilience of terrestrial and \"" ~qliatic ecosystems and nlaintain the structural, compositional, and functional diversity present in : ',:: 'the Analysis Area. Late seral conditions would be retained where the site potential is high for sustaining them over the long term. In early and mid seral stands, management of species and structure would lead to the development of late seral conditions in a shifting pattern across the landscape, consistent with an active natural fire regime. Final Els !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 52 Ashland Forest Resiliency Because it employs design elements from the other two Action Alternatives, the Preferred Alternative would accomplish the same fire resiliency goals and would help restore integrity and resilience of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems by promoting functional ecosystem processes that contribute to forest stand densities, structures, and species compositions that are sustainable over the long-term. As with the Community Alternative, the Preferred Alternative would retain late seral conditions where the site potential is high for sustaining them over the long term. In early and mid seral stands, management of species and structure would lead to the development of late seral ,',',' ',. conditions in a shifting pattern across the landscape, consistent with an active natural fi.reTe&~:~e. E. ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Significant Issues were used to design specific elements of the alterg,~tiyes ,a:lld proposals, mitigation measures, and/or facilitate the display of important (and:::y'ag,(iBle) environmental consequences. NEP A requires Federal agencies to focus analysis,and;;;(f~:cum~ntation on the $ignificant Issues related to an action. These issues (presented)Q-::Cpapter I) have been determined to be significant because of the extent of their g~o&gpHic distribution, the context of associated consequences, the duration of the effects, or the,;:iiit~nsity of interest or resource conflict. Under the No-Action Alternative, there woulsl!~~'e:~:p'(j change from the current conditions (unless otherwise noted), however, the short- and lqn~:;'l~,hh effectsbfno (additional) hazardous fuels treatments are discussed in detail (here 8l1d:.i1}~~Ction D, this Chapter). Will activities associated with J~f'Zardl)..us fuel treatments (especially prescribed fire, tree renloval and connected act(qlls'~sl:1p"i1'" as landing or road construction) cause direct detrimental effect to soils al!''ll~~l~eproductivity by surface erosion, compaction, displacelnent, puddling, lfisi.'~ojJorganic matter and change in moisture regime? 1. Soil and Site Productivity Site productivity is,':;p~flh~~;:l'h this assessment as the ability of the land to sustain an inherent level of plant biom~'ss~:\Long-term site produc.tivity is the maintenance of an inherent level of plant biomass':Rxet:s~yeral forest rotations. For discussion purposes, site-productivity can be divided inJ.o inOrganic and organic components. ....... The inov-gaJ;1ib'component includes soil characteristics and properties such as soil depth, texture, mineraldgy; nutrients, porosity, water regime, slope gradient, and aspect. The inorganic c9.r1PQpent primarily governs water and nutrient storage and availability for plant use (see .,': A~hlan~ Watershed Protection Project FEIS, Chapter IV, Section 2). /The organic component includes duff and litter, soil organic matter, soil organisms, down woody material, snags and live vegetation. The organic component regulates nutrient cycling and availability of nutrients for plant growth. Site productivity may be changed when the organic component has been impacted. The importance and function of organic matter in maintaining long-term site productivity is discussed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. Final Els IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGREsslIlII - 53 Ashland Forest Resiliency a. Background Soils Soils of the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area have been mapped as part of the Rogue River National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Badura and Jahn 1977). Additional current soils information for this Analysis Area has been collected on a site-specific basis through randonl soil transects between years 2000 and 2002. The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (incorporated by reference) describes supplemental soils information (page 1- 47). The soils in the Project Areas associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency are derived from quartz diorite bedrock (generally referred to as granitic bedrock) that has weather~d to a sandy loam topsoil and a gravelly, sandy loam subsoil (ranging between) 5 and 60' percent gravels and cobbles). Topsoil varies by aspect, slope and topography but generally raflg~s ill depth fronl 5 to 10 inches. Depth to bedrock ranges from two to four feet but is oftenid~eper below rock outcrops and in colluvial deposits. Soils are well to moderateJy well drained. Duff and litter layers vary between 1.5 and 3.5 cm (0.6 and 1.4 inches) thick'al1d on most sites cover greater than 90 percent of the soil surface, leaving less than 10 percent exposed soil (see Ashland Watershed Protection Project FEIS, page III-7). There is a high potential for surface erosion wher(soils are disturbed through loss of soil cover, cOlnpaction, renloval of soil or loss'9f:sit~:9rganic matter. The most common historical disturbance mechanism in tl~e An~ly?is Area is wildland fire. High intensity fire consunle surface duff and litter layersan9 ~~pose bare soil to rainfall impact and sheet erosion. The potential for sheet ero,~iqh!rcreases with the reduction in effective soil cover. Table II-5 shows the relationship'betyJeen the percent bare soil exposure and the potential for sheet erosion. The greatest potentialfor...~rq~i,on is during the first year after disturbance. Erosion potential decreases rapidly afterJhe.:first year with the reinvasion of vegetation, the input of plant litter and needle cast. Ihare~~:6f previous disturbance, such as the 1959 wildland fire, units burned by the Sislciy{)uMountains Ranger District in the past two decades and thinning sites, have recovered,<,!protective soil cover of duff, litter and live ground vegetation. These areas have no visible. signs of surface erosion (see Ashland Watershed Protection Project FEIS, page IlI:-7). ' Slope gradient is another important factor for soil erosion in the Analysis Area. Soil erosion ,potential increases dramatically as slope gradients become steeper. All site factors being eqUal, the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) soil erosion model (Disturbed WEPP) COrl1puter model runs show that erosion rates can more than double as slope gradients increase frOln 25 percent gradients to 75 percent gradients (Figure III-14). Similar to the analysis done for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project FEIS (Page III-7 and III-8), erosion potential ratings for this project are based on slope gradients: 0- 30 percent slope gradient has a moderate erosion rating; 30 to 60 percent gradient has a severe rating, and slope gradients over 60 percent have a very severe erosion rating. Final Els !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 54 Ashland Forest Resiliency Snow cover can also reduce soil erosion by protecting the surface soil from rainfall impact during rain-on-snow events. Higher elevation sites have higher accumulations of snow and therefore should have less surface erosion than lower sites during winter and spring rainfall events. Coarse Woody Material Table III-14 shows the current levels of coarse wood in the Analysis Area (from 2003 Upper Bear Assessment). The distribution of coarse wood is clumpy over the landscape, as shown by the median position within the range. Most P AGs have coarse wood in the low end of t,he<~ range, and a few carry very high levels. In the Douglas-fir and Dry White Fir P AGs,.Jh~.:::;:':\ .'" highest levels of coarse wood are in the smallest diameter class. In the more moist ,P A Gs;:::the highest levels of coarse wood are in the 10 to 19.9 inch diameter class. In the Douglas:::fir P AGs, at least 50 percent of the plots had no large coarse wood. Plant Association Group Table III-14. Current Levels of Coarse Woody Material b. Direct Effects of Alternatives:,( 0" ::...-:.::::,::~~~::.. ..:\:.... Direct detrimental effects on spils an"Q:::siie productivity include surface erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, loss op::,prganic matter and change in moisture regime. The ,.... ".' . .... . .. -. indicators for these direct effe,c.ts'are contained in Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. For this analysis, these indi~,~tqrs:Jiave been re-organized by compiling direction from the Standards and GU~:2el~n:~:s\tTom the 1990 Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Pl~n,Jo(sbjl quality, and the 1998 Regional Supplement to the Forest Service Manual (FSM ~,5'4J::\J>26 Supplement 2500-98-1, Effective August 24, 1998), dealing with soil resours::~ prot~ction. Site-specific Standards and Guidelines relating to direct soil effects specifi"y to:tfi'i's::~alysis are presented in the Mitigation Measures (Section D, sub-section 6, Chapt~r:II) .,:<", Fpr gcti:vities to meet acceptable levels of soil loss and soil management objectives (based on ::iu.lplementation monitoring), the minimum-percent-effective ground cover following ",' :\9:es~ation of any soil-disturbing activity for this project is shown in Table III-IS. First year "::::implies after the ground disturbing event. Second year implies another year from the first year monitoring of the event. Effective ground cover is defined as any material (i.e. rock, litter, vegetation), which is attached to, or lying on the soil surface. These standards are based on predicted erosion rates from the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model (see Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS [August 2004] for description of model) for soil and site variables specific to the mid to lower elevations of the Analysis Area. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 55 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table llI-15. Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover b)' Erosion Class Erosion Hazard Class 1S1 Year 2nd Year Moderate (<35% gradient) >60% >70% Severe and Very Severe (>35 gradient) >70% >85% The most sensitive erosion parameters in the Analysis Area are effective ground cover and slope gradient. Figure III-] 4 (below) shows the relationship between slope gradient and percent effective ground cover using WEPP erosion model for three different slope gradients, and a range of percent effective ground covers. WEPP model used prescribed burn parameters, local weather station data and soils information from the Upper Bear Anfllysis Area. Figure 111-14. Predicted Erosion Rates Using \\'EPP % Effective ground cover after low intensity, prescribe burn For a:llslope gradients, rates of predicted sheet erosion increases after effective ground cover ,.:.'isreduced below 700/0. Predicted soil erosion rates on 500/0 and 75% slope gradients are .sin1ilar as conlpared to predicted erosion rates from 25% slope gradients. A nlidpoint of 35% slope gradient is established to differentiate minimum effective ground cover for moderate and severe erosion hazard classes. Sites above 35% slope gradient should have a minimum percent effective ground cover following cessation of any soil-disturbing activity disturbance of 700/0, and after one year of 850/0. Those sites with slope gradients below 350/0 should have a minimum percent ground cover of 60% following cessation of any soil-disturbing activity, and 700/0 after one year. Final EIS !IDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 111- 56 Ashland Forest Resiliency Organic material targets are levels of site organic matter that should be maintained for soil and long-term site productivity. Site organic matter can be grouped into two size fractions _ fine organic nlatter (litter, duff and woody material, less than 3 inches in diameter), and large coarse woody material (greater than 3 inches in diameter); each fraction playa role in nutri ent cycling. The fine organic matter fraction has higher nutrient concentrations than the large coarse woody fraction. Some nutrients in this fraction would be consumed during prescribed burns and wildland fires, while others remain in the ash and become more available for plant;: growth. High-intensity fires that consume all of the organic matter on the surface alJds~vedn' inches of the topsoil result in "detrimental burned soil" conditions. No more than 2.9 percent of the site is allowed in this condition (see above). Maintaining an effective groupcfibover should also be sufficient for maintain a minimum target for fine organic matter.: Conditions in the Analysis Area where detrimental burned soil and minill1urn.~ffective ground cover guidelines nlight not be sufficient for maintaining fine org,!nic:matter fractions for site productivity are sites with south facing slopes, steep slop~:gr~aieri'ts, and sites with low percentage of canopy cover. For this project, these sites are,~,dentlfied by having less than 90% organic ground cover and less than 0.6 inches of cO[1biiied duff and litter. For these sites, maintenance and improvement of existing fine org%nic matter should be achieved through appropriate fuels n1anagement. Minimum thr~~llolds for detrimental burned soil and effective ground cover should be higher than those p.Tey:~ously stated, and have been specifically designed for Ashland Forest Resiliensy~, ;?;: The coarse woody material fraction is imP8Ii.cWl.,fgr'long-term site productivity because it is a major source of long-term energy, nutrie~t~;':~9,:moisture for microbes, fungi, invertebrates, vertebrates and roots. Nitrogen-fixing"'orgc!Wsms may inhabit these structures and supply a substantial amount of this nitrogen ~QJhe':site. . ... . .: ......". A target range for number of pifcesOfcoarse woody material per acre was developed for each Plant Association Gray!? using current plot data presented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (see CompoIly,nt::;;~1Section VI). This analysis assumes that by maintaining the desired range of coars,~,::::W;Q'6dy material over all the sites, long-term site productivity would not be reduced. <,;, . .~;;:;".:-:. A key eleIpent(g;C:flesired conditions for P AGs is down dead woody material. Desired levels of coarse ~h9>(tY';n1aterial per acre are shown below for each P AG. These figures were deriveq"frorr1.,Ecology Plot data, adjusted by past conditions established by P AGs, with consi<l~ra~ion of the DecAID8 advisory system. 8 DecAID is a work in progress on a decayed wood advisory tool for Washington and Oregon forests (Marcot et aI., PNW Research Note2002). The title can be read as decayed wood advisor and management aid "decay-aid" or "decision-aid". Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSrr III - 57 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table IIl-16. Target Coarse \\loody Material Levels Plant Association Group . Diameter Class < 10" 10" . 19.9" >20" Dry Douglas-fir (1407) 54 - 93 0-7 0-9 Moist Douolas-fir (1408) 54 - 122 0-7 0-9 Dry White Fir (2004) 0-94 0-7 0-9 Moist White Fir (2003) 0-67 0-12 0- 11 Cool White Fir (2098) and Moist Mountain Hemlock (2301) 0-69 o - 11 0- 11 Cool Mountain Hemlock (2311) 0-35 10 - 33 o - 11.. No-Action Alternative If no wildland fire were to occur or if all fires were contained to small a small area burned (i.e. less than 10 acres), there would be mininlal effects on site productivity..$ur\'cys of the 6,OOO-acre Quartz Fire, which occurred immediately west of Ashland Cr.eeki112000, showed that 35.50/0 of the area burned in a moderate soil bunl severity category. and 41 % burned in a high bum severity category. The similarity of local weather congitioI1s between the Quartz Fire area and the lower portions of the Ashland W atershed suggest~Jhat a wildland fire in the Ashland Watershed could have a similar distribution of bum s.eventyas that of the Quartz Fire. The No-Action Alternative would have an increased po!~!}tial for a wildland fire that would result in a high percentage of high-severity bum, as compared to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative. A wildland fire would crea.t~,a mosaic, leaving some areas unburned, some in a low bum severity, but most il}a mpderate to high soil bum severity category. A wildland fire, similar to the Quartz Fire~p~:~~rri~g in the Analysis Area would likely result in an estimated 40-50% of the soils in"th~"'rpoderate or high severity categories. The minimum effective ground cover th~!<..:v..(){lld occur under the moderate and high severity categories the first year after t~e'\vilgl~nd fires would not meet the minimum effective ground cover identified for meqium:tO very high erosion hazard class soils and there would be a greater potential for 16s.~:ofsbil due to surface erosion in the first two years after the wildland fire. Soil in a hi&h,::.~:~verity bum category would also be considered detrimentally burned because the rni:Qer~l."'Soils would have oxidized in the top several inches of soil. Both soil conditions woul~'h%ve substantial long-term adverse effects on soil and site productivity. Under the No-A~JioI1Alternative, during wildland fire suppression operations, detrimental soil conlpactiQR:."and detrimental soil displacement would likely result from the construction of fire!~11es or, fUelbreaks created by ground-based equipment. Creating fuelbreaks during wildl)~pd::~re suppression involves removing vegetation with either a blade or a bucket. On steep.~(:sI6pes, the blade of a tractor is often used as a brake by the operator, in which case soil is.'often displaced for long distances. '.Sil1ce constructing firelines are often immediate and unsupervised by resource specialists, it nlust be assunled that wherever ground based equipment is used, there would be detrimental cOlnpaction and displacement. Most of this disturbance would occur on ridgetops and side ridges, at an extent that would likely exceed standards and guidelines. In many cases on past fires, the disturbance caused from building tractor firelines is greater than that caused by the fire. Firelines created by the use of hand tools also have the potential for causing detrimental effects by creating an avenue for water runoff and erosion to occur. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 58 Ashland Forest Resiliency Proposed Action The activities proposed in this alternative are designed to stay within the soil quality Standards and Guidelines discussed above. Prescribed burns would take place under high fuel and duff moisture conditions to reduce the potential for detrimentally burned soils and to maintain an effective ground cover. Soil compaction, displacement and soil erosion would occur on landings and these sites would be considered to be in a short- and long-term detrimental soil condition but would not exceed 20 percent of the area as defined in Chapter II, Section C, 6. Monitoring for implementation compliance would ensure levels of detrimental soils conditions would not exceed these thresholds. In addition to those areas treated with helicopter systems and areas used for helicopter landings (approximate!y,.9 {.::::: acres), total acres estimated to be in a detrimental condition is approximately 82 aci:~s (1:'0% of the Project Area for the Proposed Action. .'<,,,:,, ....~.~~ ., Under this alternative, the risk of wildland fires would still be present in Jhe/Aiialysis Area, but after implementation, resultant wildland fires would likely have few~r:a.p'res in a high bum severity category due to the reduction in surface fuels. The lon&:~ef!tl effects on soils and site productivity should therefore be much less under this alteQlatty.~ than the No-Action Alternative. . .,...'.".' Community Alternative This alternative is similar to the Proposed Action in the :y'.ffecJs would have on soils and site productivity. This alternative would not exceed soilquttJ.:lty Standards and Guidelines which are designed to maintain soil quality. The primar~::diffeience between the Proposed Action and the Community Alternative is: 1) the use ofgrpurid based yarding equipment, and 2) a greater reduction in relative stand density iqJheqower elevation P AGs (compared to the area of the DFPZs in the Proposed Action)\: .'q :,::\~.- .;\:::.. Under the Community Alternatiye,:dQ~rViill yarding using ground-based equipment on slope gradients less than 20 percent ylolild::::be allowed. Standards and Guidelines limit this activity to less than 20 percent of an ar~~.?~,::h:9wever there are potentially approximately 230 acres that meet these slope criteria wifhif: the Project Area for the Community Alternative and could be impacted by ground-ba~,~dt~qutpment. These impacts primarily include compaction and displacement. AS~PIl1.ing::::g.~trimental impacts on 100/0 of the ground to be treated with ground-based s..~st,:~~~:~;tins equates to 23 acres in a detrimental condition in addition to those areas treated w.i..Jh':;.Q'el,iCopter systems and areas u~ed for helicopter landings (approximately 9 acres). Tot,:e.l ac~e.9.';estimated to be in a detrimental condition is approximately 83 acres (O.90/o.:,pf th'~:;PtoJect Area for the Community Alternative. .~... :;...... Pref ~rr;:~d~:Alternative 'T.he 'hfftkts of the Preferred Alternative are similar to the other two Action Alternatives in ::....t~hPs of soil productivity. This alternative would not exceed soil quality Standards and ::.p."Qujpelines which are designed to maintain soil quality. As with the Community Alternative, \,.the Preferred Alternative proposes the use of ground based yarding equipment on slope gradients less than 20 percent. Final EIS IlDRAFTWORK IN PROGRESSII III - 59 Ashland Forest Resiliency Standards and Guidelines linlit this activity to less than 20 percent of an area; however there are potentially approxinlately 230 acres that meet these slope criteria within the Project Area for the Preferred Altenlative that could be impacted by ground-based equipment. These impacts primarily include conlpaction and displacement. Assuming detrimental impacts on 100/0 of the ground to be treated with ground-based systems, this equates to 23 acres in a detrimental condition in addition to those areas treated with helicopter systems and areas used for helicopter landings (approximately 7 acres). Total acres estimated to be in a detrinlental condition is approximately 74 acres (0.90/0 of the Project Area for the Preferred Alternative). The percentages of detrinlental disturbance are close between each of the Action AI~emafives for various conlpensating reasons associated with alternative design. While the Actlbn-- Altenlatives provide the opportunity for high rates ofbiOlnass removal, at the leveJ and intensity of this analysis, it is unlikely that there is a substantial difference betWeen the Action Alternatives on long-tenn organic matter maintenance, and site productivity. c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives In addition to the indirect effects of increased soil erosion, loss of duff and litter layer, increased compaction and puddling, and burned soils, is thep~tential for decreased water quality. These effects are discussed in this docunlent ~f~thin;several Significant and Other Issues, this. section. This project, along with the Ashland W atershed:erotection Project, the Mt. Ashland Ski Expansion and the recent helicopter thinniI!~"proj,~-ctin the lower sections of the watershed (on City of Ashland lands) constitute ~ pot~:~t.!,~l cumulative effect on the watershed. The cumulative effects of short-tenn disturbapqy-~associated with the implementations of these projects should be minimal because._)J'th~\activities are not concentrated in one area but spread across the affected wat~rshed~}'2) the activities are spread out over several years and 3) all activities individually' are::p'latyled to stay within soil quality Standards and Guidelines, therefore cumulatively they:::~,oulailot exceed these guidelines. Further, the only activities that would cumulatively o,~cHi>on the same acre are hazardous fuel reduction treatnlents, e.g., density managem~nt,ayti~ity fuels treatments and/or maintenance prescribed burning. 2. Slope Stab.!N!!:';- -"Vill activiti~~-::iissociated with hazardous fuel trel!-tl1lents (especially tree rel1loval and cOll1lect.l!.:~ actions such .as landing or road construction) affect geologic slope stability and cause direct or indirect mass wasting (landslides)? 'Yi1dlqnd fires, floods, landslides, and surface erosion are all comnlon natural disturbances and are ap'intrinsic part of the landscape associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency. These natural disturbances often have both short- and long-term detrimental effects that are not only important for .. >--landscape and stream development, but may adversely affect humans, buildings, roads, bridges, vegetation, and wildlife habitat (Benda et a1. 2000). Land nlanagement activities within the Analysis Area may accelerate erosion and mass wasting if implemented too intensely or in areas that are extrenlely sensitive to management activities. Many of these natural disturbances are interrelated and may react with each other in several different ways. These interactions are explored and analyzed in section. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 111- 60 Ashland Forest Resiliency a. Background The Upper Bear Analysis Area is located on the eastern edge of the Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province. A majority of the sub-watersheds are situated in highly dissected grani tic terrain. Igneous, sedimentary, and some metasedimentary rock types of the Western Paleozoic and Triassic Belts underlie the Analysis Area. The area is composed mainly of bands of granitic and minor amounts of metamorphic rocks that have been accreted to the continental.,q plate. This portion of the Klamath Mountains is made up of composite belts of rocks forn1~fly "... part of an oceanic environment. After these tectonic belts or slices were accreted to.the i"."'::",;<'..;: continental plate, the terrains were welded to the mainland by granitic intrusions, W;hich Occurred in several waves during late Mesozoic time (Orr & Orr 1999). . . The Upper Bear Analysis Area contains slopes that range in elevation fr?m ~ppr~3{jmately 2,300 feet above the City of Ashland, to 7,530 feet at Mt. Ashland. The area is)~tg'~J:Y located within the Low Granitics (LG), Mid Granitics (MG), and Middle to High GrapJXics:;l'(MHG) terrains. These three terrains are separated by elevation zones and are disS,\!ss~din-"detail in the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis. The upper-most terrain type is Glaciated.qr~tncs (GG) and ranges in elevation from approximately 5,800 to 7,500 feet. All ofthes~ gfaJtitic landforms are characterized by naturally high rates of erosion and often c9n:i~i9 unstable to potentially unstable slopes (USDA 1995). Slopes are highly dissected and:are:g@pUe to steep, ranging from 20 to 70 percent, for the majority of the Analysis Area. Fieldwq[Rsonducted reveals that there are also very steep slopes (greater than 70% to 1100/0), in ~Q~e;;portions of the canyons of Tolman, Neil, Reeder Gulch, and Hamilton Creeks. .. . A more detailed description of the geology"'a~:d\:~urrent condition of the majority of the Upper Bear Analysis Area is described in t~.~::~;~:ar;:\:Watershed Analysis (USDA 1995), supplemented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (p.~~e~}:42-46). Specific updates to the Landslide Hazard Zone mapping is also discusse?in U~,;~~tes to the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. b. Direct Effects of AJt~r:pa';tives .".-:", .:.:.. ,.. Landslide Hazard ZO~y.s;;~fe;iised as indicators for the slope stability effects analysis. The least stable terrain withjhth~'.:.:-Ai1alysis Area is Landslide Hazard Zone (LHZ) 1. LHZ 1 contains the landscape which:;:Q'as.;~ad past mass wasting occurrences and/or contains areas where potential landslides ;.maY.,fl~.~ur' in the future. This is the most sensitive hazard of the four hazard zones utilized to:~ef:l~:8t'-forest land stability, and is the primary indicator for slope stability of the amounr.(aci~.s) :'and types of land treatments proposed by each Action Alternative. Table III-17 belo\.VJ::~\v.sed to illustrate the number of a~res of LHZ 1 affected for, each of the alternatives consist~red in detail. ..;v,Th~, second most sensitive zone is LHZ 2, which often contains moderately steep areas above ""'::;;\:,:EHZ 1, and contains locations/sites where management may increase the potential for n1ass .' wasting. Treatments on LHZ 2 can trigger landslides by increasing the amount of groundwater available to marginally stable, to unstable slopes below. Table III-I8 below is used to illustrate the amount of acres of LHZ 2 affected for each of the alternatives considered in detail. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSfllII - 61 Ashland Forest Resiliency The other two Landslide Hazard Zones (LHZ 3 and LHZ 4) are classified as relatively stable. Hazardous fuels treatment in this terrain does not usually cause an increased risk for slope failures and therefore, these two hazard zones are not used as indicators for slope stability effects analysis. No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects associated with hazardous fuel reduction treatments. Under the No-Action scenario, there would be long-tenn effects on slope stability. This alternative presents the highest risk for impact to geologically sensitive areas (Tables 1II-20 & 2]). With a large-scale high-severity wildland fire, " vegetation would likely be removed over very large areas. Certain vegetation, especially:::' ' conifers, hardwoods, and brush species over 30 years of age, helps stabilize soils .and::.;;, ' geologically sensitive slopes. Large root systen1s provide more soil cohesion and use an abundant volum~of:groundwater, which would otherwise increase the saturation of soils and make slopesJTloie prone to landslides. Although fire models can be used to predict fire con~~guences, they cannot predict the location of these fires relative to geologically sensitrvy,ar~as(high risk landslide zones). However, it can be assumed that the larger the area b~med:by fire, especially during high and severe fire weather conditions, the greater the riskJor adverse effects to slope stability as a result of wildland fires. .., Under No-Action, if a large, high-severity wildland :ifir~:event occurs; medium to large landslides would likely be triggered. Mass wastirlg:\V6uld be increased due to high-severity wildland fires burning forests more thoroug?ly apd accelerating landslide movement in unstable and potentially unstable areas:. Thf'groundwater table would be brought closer to the ground surface, because little to n9' vyg~tation would be available to utilize it. As a result of these factors brought about by lar.g~'hj}~h-severity wildland fires, debris flow landslides would likely transport large vohlmes..of sediment and debris to area streams. Sediment transport volumes would be intreasedto the largest extent due to wildland fire occurrences located in and near steep canyon walls. Immediately folloyving,~~h~wildland fire, even though vegetation would be killed by the fire, the root structure would:,h~main largely intact and would remain so for many years. However, as th~::T:2'ot~"b'egan to decay, their ability to hold soil in place would decrease and there woul~ likely"'be an increase in the frequency, and possibly the size of landslides, and an increa~,~ in:\~edip1t:mt delivery to streanlS. This increase in mass wasting and sedinlent delive~y wo~ld probably lag several years behind the wildland fire event. The:a$~essment of relative risk for impacts to slope stability from wildland fire are based on , . ,th~ assumption that the greater the area burned at a high fire severity, the greater the potential ::;.::::t9r"Joss of vegetation, loss of root strength, and loss of large wood, all of which help stabilize ',::,slopes and soil. It can also be assumed that area burned by wildland fire would increase proportionately to increase in average fire size and increase in cumulative acres burned over longer periods of time. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 111- 62 Ashland Forest Resiliency It is difficult to estimate site-specific effects of fire suppression on geologic slope stability, since the exact locations of wildland fires and subsequent suppression actions that would occur cannot be predicted. Adverse impacts from wildland fire suppression can be discussed in general tenns based on average fire sizes and cumulative area burned over a long time frame. It can be assumed, the smaller the area burned by wildland fire, the lower the risk to slope stability from the fire itself or associated fire suppression tactics. In the event of a wildland fire, a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA) is conducted to establish objectives and constraints for the management of a wildland fire, Appropriate resource .. specialists are included in the process in order to adequately assess the effects of various firf\ management alternatives, relative to effects on resource values and land management ..; ."., .,_ objectives. Geologically sensitive areas would be considered during this process ail9 imp'atts from fire suppression activity minimized or avoided to the extent that it would not resulfin greater area burned at high severity. Usually, but not always, fire suppression.<~b,ti,yities are associated with ridgelines, which are usually charactelized as the most stable.:'terrain. '.;;::::~:.;) Proposed Action ,.,.;;,".";:<...,<".;; Under the Proposed Action, some treatments would occur in small: ar~a~:of LHZ 1 to create discontinuity of fuels and to reduce the potential for large wildlal1.ffAii.es"-wicking within the Riparian Reserves. These treatments would include density lpflna'g;ement, with some fuel reduction activity and surface fuel prescribed burning. '.'..:,,;,' '. The relative risk for accelerating landslide activity Upp~[;~he Proposed Action would be low. Since this alternative would affect vegetation witl:l:;de€~ify management and other hazardous fuel reduction treatments within LHZ I, this al(~m~tjv'e would have a slightly greater risk for the short-term for accelerating slope instabiUty;;pver the No-Action Alternative, but would contain a much lower risk than the NOrf.\q~~Q,~\A]ternative over the long-term. The Proposed Action would create a slightly highet'l,jsk;,,ferlandslide acceleration over the Community Alternative and Preferred AltefI!~ti\le;::{9r;....tl1e short-term. Over the long-term, direct effects of the Proposed Action would be{~ slightly higher risk than the other two Action Alternatives, because there would more~ea:\i:q~urface fuel treatments within Landslide Hazard Zone 1, however, mitigation measu[~s}yould be utilized to reduce risks that could initiate slope failures. . . ...... .:. ....... Community AI~~rl,!.~tiy;e":,,,;; The Communi!Y';l1..!t~mative would have the lowest relative landslide risk from management activities of the"'AcH6n Alternatives. This alternative would exclude treatments in Landslide Hazar9;,.zort~;::+\under all of the priority treatments, and LHZ 2 under all but Priority I areas. Steep:~1.?pes\(>650/0) would be excluded under all priority treatment settings except Priority 1 where.~~J6pes up to 750/0 may be treated. This alternative would treat more total overall acres C&,99o.,;acres) but would cut and/or remove fewer medium and large sized trees~ Short-term . \(/m~agement effects would be similar, but slightly lower than the Proposed Action as well. ;;\\,':'\::~i $..!i '.;';:'Naturally occurring landslides produced following large storms would be expected to be frequent, but would not increase as a result of hazardous fuel treatments under the Community Alternative. Proposed treatments would be of very low impact to geologic stability for the short term. For the longer term the remaining tress at managed sites would grow larger root systems, making treated sites more resistant to wildland fires and mass wasting over time. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 63 Ashland Forest Resiliency Preferred Alternative As with the Proposed Action, some treatnlents under the Preferred Alternative would occur in small areas of LHZ 1 to create discontinuity of fuels and to reduce the potential for large wildland fires wicking within the Riparian Reserves. These treatments would include some surface fuel reduction activity and surface fuel prescribed burning. The relative risk for accelerating landslide activity under the Preferred Alternative would be low. This alternative would have a slightly greater risk for the short-tenn for accelerating slope instability over the No-Action Alternative, but would contain a much lower risk than the No-Action Alternative over the long-term. Under the Preferred Alternative, naturally oecuning landslides produced followil}g large stornlS would be expected to be frequent, but would not increase as a result or.h~ardous fuel treatments. Proposed treatnlents would be of very low impact to geologic stability for the short term. For the longer ternl the remaining tress on managed sites would 'grow larger root systenls, making treated sites nlore resistant to wildland fires and massw~siirig over time. Summary\P..p Direct effects for the Proposed Action would be the highest of,allalternatives for the short- term. Long-term direct effects from the Proposed Action woulgbe much less than the No- Action Alternative and similar to, but slightly more thaqtheComrnunity Alternative and Preferred Alternative. Table III-I7 and III -18 below,. shows acres LHZ 1 and 2 affected by treatment type and method, and the long-term sceI1ari6Jor relative landslide risk. Table III-17. Acres of Landslide Hazard Zone 1, by Treatment Method and Alternative Alternative Prescribed Density Tractor Relative landslide Fire/Surface Fuels Management Risk No-Action 0 ':,,:0 0 Highest (assumin wildland fire) Proposed 585 350 0 Low Action Community 0 0 Lowest Alternative Preferred · ...394.< . 212 0 Low Alternative . '.. . - Table !!I-l8::~,::::';A.~res of Landslide Hazard Zone 2, by Treatment Method and Alternative Alternative Prescribed Density Tractor Relative landslide Fire/Surface Fuels Management Risk ,. .... Highest \,.,>,~o-Actio,n 0 0 0 (assuminQ wildland fire) , -"; <>:,: Proposed ''--''-'<:., Action 398 238 0 Low Community 250 572 0 Lowest Alternative Preferred 325 635 0 Low Alternative Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 64 Ashland Forest Resiliency c. Indirect Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative The greatest indirect effect of the No-Action Alternative would occur when large landscape scale wildland fires severely bum the forest and soils, and cause debris flow landslides to transport sediment to area streams and Reeder Reservoir. The increased volume of sediment would not only limit the amount of water storage capacity available for the City of Ashland's . Municipal water supply, but may also adversely affect water quality. In addition, the fine silt;..:.::. and medium sand material would be delivered to the larger creeks and may cover rearing beds for rainbow trout and salmon habitat below Reeder Reservoir. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative Potential indirect effects brought about by any of the Action Alternative are not:!~~pected to result in increased mass wasting or in increased sediment or decreased wate:r:::::guality off-site. The Community Alternative would have the least potential to cause increa,~:e(tj::ndirect effects from mass wasting of the Action Alternatives,.. d. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives Ashland Forest Resiliency was evaluated along with past, pre.seqt, ~~d reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Analysis Area to deterTih:e the potential for adverse cumulative effects to slope stability. Other actions in'lJ1e~shland Creek Watershed and adj acent sub-watersheds included in this analysis a.~~.:tQ.e:Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (Av('pP):. These projects are considered low potential cumulative impacts on slope staq:~litX.~lp:ge:::all management treatments and development areas avoided the highest La!l:a~Ji~e.:.Hazard Zone (LHZ 1). These projects are considered low impacts for landslide.::::~niliath;)ll.::~md/or reactivation. The remainder of this section of the document describes th~:':PQfeiifial adverse cumulative effects associated with these projects, in addition to potent~flr:%.shland Forest Resiliency treatment for accelerating landslide activity in the ~~alys!:~ Are:a:. Considering the implem~Q!~:ir9n of the Ashland Forest Resiliency project proposal together with past (as represent,t.d1;;gy}c"Urrent conditions), other present, or reasonably foreseeable proj ects described~:ae,o~~,::~there would be low risk for adverse cumulative effects to slope stability. Most)/.\.sh1?hd"Porest Resiliency actions are designed to avoid Landslide Hazard Zone (LH~) l.:,,:.~l;!~pw'ever, some treatments would be completed in small areas of LHZ 1 to reduce the:::p~J.Y:l.J.tial for large wildland fires wicking within the Riparian Reserves. Geologists \:V'~)\i"ld locate the most stable ground within LHZ 1,just prior to project implypll~l)tation where small areas may be thinned from below. This detailed mapping and/or landsJide modeling within LHZ 1 would ensure all management treatments would be pondlicted successfully and would be completed in areas found to contain a small risk for ::=::.,:.1artdslide .acceleration. Mitigation and project design for reducing potential for adverse direct and indirect impacts to slope stability would be accomplished by reducing the number and size of trees that are thinned in the least stable portions (i.e., steep headwalls, incised channels, wetlands, and potential landslide areas) of Riparian Reserves. Final EIS flDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 65 Ashland Forest Resiliency Understory vegetation clearing within LHZ 1 and LHZ 2 would be distributed across the landscape such that the effects of each action would be limited to small areas and would not collectively result in adverse cUlTIulative effects to slope stability. Treatment areas would not be concentrated in or near the least stable portions of LHZ 1. 3. Sediment Delivery 11lill activities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree renloval and connected actions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slash treatments) affect water quality via erosion and resultant sedi1llent delivery to streanls? Sedinlent delivery is the indirect result of the amount of sheet erosion and ravel moying into unstable zones, the percent of effective ground cover, the nunlber and size of langslides, root strength, and slope features. The actual amount of sediment delivered to a stq:~aIQ.,Fhannel or to Reeder Reservoir is related to all of these features and is dependent the ma.&t1ittide and timing of clin1atic events, which is the driving force. Standards which govern the proposed operations can control the an10unt of ground disturbance relative to the physical fe'!t~r~~,:::hut cannot control the weather. The LRMP Standards and Guidelines for the amount and IO=c~ti"on of ground disturbance are believed to be sufficient to control sediment deliv:#~;Y at a level that is below levels that would produce adverse resource damage. .':::"'.: a. Background Fire can adversely af~ect the physical and bi~lo~i~alcomposition of soil. Soil bum severity is a qualitative term that describes classesdf:.fire~caused changes to soil hydrologic function. The classes are identified by soil charac~enstics and surface fuel and duff consumption following fire and incorporate reside.~c~tirrie. The resultant classes are Unburned to Very Low soil bum severity, Low soil:bu:i1i.severity, Moderate soil bum severity, and High soil bum severity. In general terms, the higher the temperatures and the longer the residence time associated with the fire, the~re.aterthe effects. With increasing soil bum severities, soil erosion and resultant sedi.[.11~:ri~~tion will increase. Without vegetation and intact duff layers to nloderate condition~,:l1,ln9ff rates will increase. The presence of water repellent soils will further increase run9ffrates, which will facilitate increased erosion and sedimentation. .... ,'-.'. '.". . . .. -. . Once sediment,:"!'9:}lelivered to stream channels, it will become entrained in the system and move dov/h,,-:~l1.~nnel and into Reeder Reservoir in relation to stream flows. Sediment will hardly'move.afall during low flows and will move in great quantities during high flow or flood:,,~v~!lts: The streanl chatmels have a complex morphology. Generally, the channels have,,:s"teep'er gradients toward the upper ends of the drainages. The gradient becomes ,progres.sively gentler the lower one goes in the drainage. The effects of channel morphology :.oit'sediment lTIOVenlent have been described by Montgomery and Buffington (1993) in the :.~:general terms of source, transport, and response units. Within the Analysis Area, Reeder Reservoir, as a depository for sediment, replaces the response unit described by Montgomery and Buffington. For most of their length, stream channels in the Analysis Area will be transporters of sediment. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 11I-66 Ashland Forest Resiliency The channels are not smooth and sediment does not move in a uniform fashion through the system. Instead, there are numerous depositional areas within the channels where sediment accumulates for periods of time. These depositional areas are mostly the result of large woody material that has fallen into the channel. The length of time that sediment is stationary in the channel and the distance it will move when disturbed depends on the force of water and/or landslide movement. In low and moderate flow conditions, the sediment will move only short distances, or not at all. It is only during extreme events such as occurred in 1964, 1974, and 1997, that sediment within the channels as moved in any volume. A large percentage of the sediment produced from landslides and gully erosion near,a,str.etl.lTft channel is expected to reach the larger streams of the sub-watersheds. Debris flow i!ands'Ud'es . are the dominant natural process that transports eroded sediment from the smalle~ drainages to the larger creeks (Ashland and Bear Creeks) and eventually to the Rogue R!vel;.~,\ During peak flow stonn events, a large majority of the accumulated sediment deposi~ed::in small drainages from surface erosion, small slumps, and debris slides, will eveptu~lly:be picked up and incorporated into larger debris flows. These debris flow landslid~~~:nJey;bften transport this sediment a mile or more down stream before it is finally depo1)ite~:./ b. Direct Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative . ,. '^lith the current fuel loading conditions, a wildland .fire.would likely leave a large portion of the area in the moderate and high soil bum severi~:y.'c~t~gbries. When wildland fires bum, there is no control over bum severity. The Qu~rt~.:Ei,re', which burned over 6,000 acres immediately west of the Ashland Creek W''\tyr~p~d, had 41 % of the burned area in the severe soil'burn severity, and 35.5% in the m2d~r~i~~~:~:6il bum severity categories. Most of the vegetation in the moderate and high s.9il::~UiPiseverity categories was killed. A wildland fire in the Upper Bear Analysis AreaGoulq<b::~~\~expected to have around 500/0 in the moderate and high severity categories and w~fild hey:e 'significant effects on soils and watershed properties. ". ........ .". With wildland fires, there i~::QP cBi1trol over many of the factors that determine bum severity. Fuel moisture levels are like!x~;tb be low or very low. Residence time of the bum on the soil is likely to be lon&:'. c~u~iI1&':1nore of the surface and subsurface organic material to be consumed. Onfe t.hi~"h~ppens, a lot of the binding material for soil particles disappears leading to an in:tr.~as~d:risk of surface erosion. Wildland fires often bum in riparian areas; this is mo~e likcilY::;lohappen in periods when fuel moisture is very low. Lastly, wildland fires d? not:~lJa\(,e""any mitigating measures in place prior to ignition; therefore, adverse effects occur '~nabat;ed: .. Sedi'rQ.~ntyields have been predicted using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) ::..;;:tQ,~del (see discussion of model in Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS Appendix). The .::;'::\::::::!l1o:gel results are shown in Figure 111-15. Common variables used in all WEPP model runs ;:'::;.[()r:;'this graph are 1) extrapolated Medford Weather Station data, 2) 300 foot slope lengths and 3) slope gradients equaling 50%. When the WEPP model was run for 750/0 slope gradients, sediment yield values increased by 25 to 40%. WEPP model runs using 25% slope gradients decreased sediment rates by 40 to 60%. The predicted sediment yields on a per acre basis are all much higher for wildland fires than for either the current conditions, or for controlled bums. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIf III - 67 Ashland Forest Resiliency The elevated erosion and sediment yields from wildland fires would deposit soil in stream channels where the sediment can in the near term bury aquatic habitat and fill in-channel gravel spaces. In the longer timeframe, the sediment would move downstream where it would be deposited in Reeder Reservoir, decreasing its storage volume and lessen the amount of domestic water available from the reservoir. Figure III-IS. Fire Effects on Sediment Delivery (500/0 Slopes Gradients) 20 ----. _.--- ---. ------ --- .--- ---.... -- --- ------ ----- -----..- -.- . -... ---_.- - .. 01 ~ ... GI > .!!. 1 5 C" GI .~ Gi o C GI E ~ 10 (J) ... ~ GI >- ~ u ~ III ~ 5 >- u :0 ::s u o o --+- Moderate to High Severtiy Wildfire - 1\10 Buffer - . - Prescribe Burn or V. Low to Low Severity Wildfire - No Buffer Current Conditions - Unburned ".,.,.,..~...,.,.. Prescribe Burn with 100' buffer ----- Prescribe Burn with 200' buffer . .. .. ... ,;;'"..'.........'...+'.'....'.......;:..........,.,...,......'.".N.....~:......:..,..:......~......~.~.. .~. . .!'! . . 1'0-. . . _ ~ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100 80 % Cover Reeder Reservoir is currently listed as a water quality limited waterbody for sedimentation under Section 303( d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. Because Reeder Reservoir is listed, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required by the ODEQ to provide a strategy for reducing sedimentation to acceptable background levels. This Plan has been developed. The DEQ is also required to develop limits for how much of a pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. The limits are designed to restore the health of the watershed. Theselilnits are called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The 2007 Bear Creek Watershed TMDL has been approved and is now being implemented. The TMDL for the Ashland Creek Watershed sets the loading capacity to natural background levels (or an erosion rate of 3.62 cubic yards per day). No significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder Reservoir over that which occurs naturally is allowed (ODEQ 2007). Be.cause large-scale fire in the Analysis Area has been effectively excluded, allowing for an unnatural buildup of fuels, it would be reasonable to consider that the resultant sedimentation from wildland fire would be outside the natural range of variability. The greatest increase in sediment from surface erosion sources would occur during the first and second years after large-scale wildland fire. As soil cover increases through plant re-establishment, needle and leaf cast from standing dead or live trees, and armoring of the soil surface, erosion and sediment rates should decline. Figure III-I5 shows the relationship of soil cover to sedimentation and why it is important to maintain soil cover near stream channels. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 68 Ashland Forest Resiliency Proposed Action The activities proposed in this alternative are designed to lessen fire hazards by reducing the density of vegetation and surface fuels in selected areas. Each of the proposed treatment methods, whether prescribed fire or density management, would be appropriate for the land and conditions where applied. With each project type, land managers would have control over the exact area where the treatment would be applied, and the conditions under which the application would occur. For instance, in the case of prescribed fire, activities can happen at a time when fuel moisture is high. The prescribed bum areas would have fire lines surrounding them, and crews on-site to manage the fire. The resultant burn severity should:f::;~:\:;: be mostly in the low category. ",,; Each project would have mitigation measures prescribed in the form of Best Manag't~1U~nt Practices to protect water quality. Buffers of intact vegetation and duff layersw9pld separate the treatment areas from stream courses. These areas would trap erodedsoiL.:before it moved down slope into a stream channel. The resultant sediment yield would bernuc;h less than the yield following a wildland fire and would be just slightly more than u~d~Ethe current conditions. The sediment yields are shown in Figure III-15 wher~:.!e~~]~s of the WEPP model run are displayed. There should be no significant change::;ip;;~~Qifnent yields in the streams, or in Reeder Reservoir as a result of surface erosionJ()llowing implementation of activities associated with the Proposed Action. .. ... Community Alternative ::;,: .':\;: As in the case with the Proposed Action, there woqUr::b:~:considerable control of timing and location of treatments under the Community Ally_tll~tiv:e. Ground based equipment, with restrictions, is proposed under this alterna!.tY~;~::;::~~,~tiictions would mitigate potential effects. There is a prohibition in the Community ~lfev1aiive against the use of water bars as an erosion control measure on slopes le~~:;:;tqaq';';~O%. Water bars are one of the main tools used in controlling erosion on roads and ~r:?h~:.\:cfo prohibit their use could result in more erosion and sedimentation than would pthe~i's;e';be the case. Even with the prohibition against water bars, erosion rates from surface,::::~ou~~;;es are likely to be low and subsequent sediment delivery to streams insignifj~;~nt;;;':There should be no significant change in sediment yields in the streams, or in Reeder,J.3..e,~,~fvoir as a result of surface erosion following implementation of activities associ,ateg:::;~it~\ih~ Community Alternative. {.... /"~::::;:. ..~:.. .: -.;:."-;.". Preferred Alterl!:~t!;y.:e As with the oth~i;,;tWo.Action Alternatives, there would be considerable control of timing and locatio!! of\V~a:l!TI;~nts under the Preferred Alternative. This alternative also proposes the use of groqpd baeed equipment where slopes are less than 20 percent. All activities under this alterp~f:iv:~ would have mitigation measures prescribed in the form of Best Management Pract!,y'~s 'to protect water quality. Buffers of intact vegetation and duff layers would separate .;..:,4e.;~ treatment areas from stream courses. These areas would trap eroded soil before it moved i:,:::::::::;;p',6'~n slope into a stream channel. The resultant sediment yield would be much less than the '::"\:.Yidd following a wildland fire and would be just slightly more than under the current conditions. There should be no significant change in sediment yields in the streams, or in Reeder Reservoir as a result of surface erosion following implementation of activities associated with the Preferred Alternative. Final Els II DRAFT WORKIN PROGRESS II III - 69 Ashland Forest Resiliency c. Indirect Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative The greatest indirect effect of large-scale wildland fire in the Analysis Area would be on the domestic water availability for the City of Ashland, from storage at Reeder Reservoir. Ashland Creek, as the city's prinlary water source, would show a marked decline in water quality. Turbidity would increase until the time the watershed stabilized and vegetation became reestablished to a level to hold soil in place. Even then, sediment entrained in the channels would still be nloving through the system and would accumulate in Reeder Reservoir. Water treatnlent costs for the City would likely be higher than current, due to the need for extra treatment of the turbid water. Sediment delivery to Reeder Reservoir could be high enough that nornlal maintenance procedures might not "keep up" and sedirnentwould accunlulate to a level that would require the reservoir to be drained and sedil11~nt mechanically removed. The second indirect effect of a large wildland fire would be anj1J(~t~~sein water yield. This would be a result of lower infiltration rates on the burned-over lanq;'rrom decreased interception of precipitation on leaves and needles of veget~tfon, and from less transpiration. The increased runoff would partially be realized as increas~q summer flows and could be a benefit for the City of Ashland, which often has to reg~laty. water use during low flow periods. It isdoubtful that this benefit would offseJ,th~;;'other adverse effects and costs of having a large area of the watershed damaged by...~~~>;;;r' Proposed Action, Community Alternative, ~'ndP:pr:~terred Alternative There would be no indirect effects of the td:~qfiIients on sediment delivery beyond those described above for direct effects. .'.;::.:. : "-:. d. Cumulative Effects of Actioii'A.lternatives Within the Analysis Area, theenly major activity being planned is the expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. The .~ffe~ts of the proposed expansion are documented in the 2004 FEIS and Record of DecisiohJorthis proposal. The expansion of the ski area is not expected to produce measur:~blec~anges in sediment delivery to streams in the watershed, or to Reeder Reservoir. TheA.spland Watershed Protection Project is currently active. Erosion and sediment ch~l"lg'e~:from that project have been analyzed in the 2001 NEP A document pertaining to:iLChanges in sedimentation from this project were not believed to be significapt, and the project is being implemented. Increases in sedimentation following a large:.:::scale wildland fire would completely overwhelm the insignificant changes in erosion a~d sedilnent yield associated with the ski area expansion or A WPP. '1n the event of a large-scale wildland fire, there would be an increase in the amount of "'sedinlent entering Reeder Reservoir. Accumulated sediment in Reeder Reservoir could be removed by the traditional method of sluicing the deposits methods such as draining the reservoir and using ground based equipment or by dredging from a floating suction dredge. A recent study was performed to examine sedinlent in Reeder Reservoir. This study was completed in February 2008. This report examined water quality and sediment loading in the reservoir. The findings of this report resulted in several recommendations to improve water quality (Brown and Caldwell 2008). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 70 Ashland Forest Resiliency In either case, the sediment would enter Ashland Creek first, and then Bear Creek and the Rogue River. In each stream, the sediment would add to the amounts that originate elsewhere in the Bear Creek watershed or Rogue River Basin. Bear Creek is currently listed on the DEQ 303( d) list as impaired because of a variety of water quality problems. Sediment would addto these adverse conditions and could affect anadromous and inland fish habitat, irrigation diversions, and aesthetics. The activities under any of the Action Alternatives would have no, or minor adverse eff~cts on sedimentation affecting water quality in the Analysis Area streams. Controls on locatiolf'.:, and timing of activities, slope, size of riparian buffers, amount of disturbance, prescpbecr." bum intensities, etc. would mitigate the amount of erosion and sediment attributabl~ to th'e-' project. The minor change in erosion and sedimentation would not accumulate ~jth"effects fronl other activities to the point where cumulatively, there would be an adverse\t(f-[ect. 4. Hydrologic Function ...-=:"-..':,,:. 1.Vill activities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (espeSf'}ll)' cqu"ected actions such as landing or road cOllstruction, tree removal, and prescribed fire.<ifrwlash treatments) directly or indirectly affect streal1lS, wetlands, and hydrologicjunc1ion such as runoff, strealn flow; tel1lperature, and qualltity and quality of (/omesticAvater sources? Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Areas are located w,i~,~jD'four separate sub-watersheds, described in this FElS analysis as the Ashland Cree~.svblwatershed, the Neil Creek sub- watersh~d, the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed"and tp.e:.':tTpper Wagner Creek sub-watershed, all within the Bear Creek Watershed and the Ro~~e:,;FJv'er Basin. .,:~::;, t-.- ........ . ." . ".;:.:" At issue are the effects of hazardous fuertr~'~trri'6~ts (especially connected actions such as landing or road construction, tree ~emox~il;,ai1d prescribed fire or slash treatments) and their consequences in terms of domestiq,,:water::tluality associated with Reeder Reservoir and the City of Ashland. .... a. Background Flow ;.-=:::;.... .:;:::.:,:::.'" .,,\;.:.. The two- year Peak,:{lbws shown in Tables 1-7 and 1-8 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment are incorrec\~\;:.Tlie.':;:pombers presented in the tables below are the correct two-year annual high flows, whicl1'.,af'e::different from the instantaneous peak flows. The f~lIo,,~jng represents the estimated 2-year peak flows (CFS or cubic feet per second) for stn~anis:'in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The estimates were calculated using a program ,t6urid on the Oregon Water Resources Department interactive Internet page. .. East Fork Ashland Creek: West Fork Ashland Creek N eiJ Creek 72 CFS 74 CFS 70 CFS (Neil Creek is an estimate based on the gauged stations on the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek) Final Els !/DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS If III - 71 Ashland Forest Resiliency Ru noff The annual runoff pattenl follows the precipitation pattern. The chart below displays this relationship. Runoff generally peaks on an annual basis in late spring as the upper elevation snowpack nlelts off. As was noted in the] 995 Bear Watershed Analysis, the large peak flows, such as were seen in the 1964, 1974 (and] 997) floods, occur in Decenlber-January as a result of rain on snow events. Most sedinlent originates and moves in these events. In years without these large flood events, more sediment would tend to move during the annual peak flows in May and June. Figure 1II-16. Average Precipitation and Runoff in Ashland Creek Watershed 18% 16% 14% 12% Cii ::J C c 10% <( 0 c Q) 8% u Q; 0.... 6% 4% 2% 0% lop recipilation . Runoff I - - - --- - - - - - - r--- - - - - - - - - 0- r-- - - - - ---;:::= - - - ,.-- -c-:-' -- - 1- - 1- 1---'---- - - - - I.::-::\:~:'~ r--- - - - - ~ ,2 1- - - - - .. - : I~ r-- -1- - - \ - I- I- - I- I- - - -f--L- - '-- ~ '-- '- '-- - L- - ~ -,-- Jan Feb ,MaL.......:: Apr Nov Dee May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oet Month "'ater Quality Limit.alions Several wate.rbO'di'~s':'in the Upper Bear Analysis Area are considered water quality limited by the Oregon D:epartment of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Refer to Table III-19 for these waterbodies. Table\m~19. ODEQ Listed Waterbodies Waterbody Reeder Reservoir Neil Creek Neil Creek Wa ner Creek Ashland Creek River Mile 4.9-5.4 0-4.8 0-4.8 0-7.4 0- 2.8 Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 72 Ashland Forest Resiliency Except for Reeder Reservoir, the river mile limits for the listings are either below or on the lower edges of the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Activities associated with the Ashland Forest Resiliency are connected to the listings, but with careful planning, should not worsen conditions and in the longer time period, should improve ( conditions. Reeder Reservoir, being located at the drainage outlet for most of the area, is more likely to be affected by activities within the Analysis Area. The reservoir is the storage facility for the,:::::. City of Ashland's water supply. With increasing development within the City, the water "". supply system is often being used to its limits in the sumnler. In recent years, a progralTI:..of:':; water use restrictions has sometimes been employed to allow the water supply to stf:etch 10... meet demands. Because of the seasonal shortage, it is important that the volume .9tReeder Reservoir be maintained and that sediment input into the reservoir be held to l~Vyl~ within the natural range of variability. This issue was evaluated in the draft W ~ter Quality Management Plan written by the Forest Service and subnlitted to ODEQin:}999. b. Direct Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative The water quality issue of Inost concern is discussed abovein1he section on sedimentation. In addition to an increase in sediment, there could be ins[eas.~s'.in streanl temperature and in the concentration of Jnany chemicals that are presentiliallrunoff. :-;.. :. .~~ There are many chemicals naturally present in ~Qir:'lg(F~egetation in the forest environment. Transport of nutrients to streams occurs b~!?X:~~~~:::\!,~jing, and after wildland fires. The sources for this transport are direct leaching from ,Jqe<?9.il, diffusion of smoke and gases directly into streams, or deposition of ash into a s.t(~~:.(~~fter a fire, compounds containing, but not limited to nitrogen, phosphorus, or PQia~;~.~:um contained in soil and ash deposits can leach into streams following precipitatiori\~y.ents. Without live vegetation for uptake of the ::. ...~..:;.-.. nutrients and with decreased ao:j}}tY.for soils to retain water, streams are likely to show an increase in concentrations qL:..~ niiffiber of chemicals. These increases are usually short-lived, often lasting only a year:.p;::y~y,.6: The magnitude oflnEf~~s~a nutrient levels is dependent on the severity of the fire, and on the intensity of stom~!:'e~;~!1fs. The natural levels of cations and anions in local forested streams is low and, ~hile:JiQ~centrations are likely to increase following a wildland fire, the levels should.~ot\~,u.~~~.<'concems from a drinking water quality standpoint (Dissmeyer 2000). If wi,~.~'l~.~ fIres bum within riparian areas and consume the forest canopy which shade strear.ns.; then water temperatures would increase. Stream temperatures are a function of the .yoluri1:g(ofwater in the stream, the surface area exposed to the sun, and to the amount of ::::::..Htc()ming solar radiation. The latter is controlled by shading vegetation. Following fires, ::.,:..stre.~m temperature increases of up to 10 degrees F have been reported (Dissmeyer 2000). Increases of this magnitude would cause the streams in the Analysis Area to exceed the Oregon water quality standard of 640F. Also, the wann stream temperatures would adversely affect the drinking water quality, as warmer temperatures are less palatable to users. As streamside shading recovers along with vegetation recovery, the temperatures would begin to lower and would eventually return to pre- fire levels. This is a process that could take a decade or more to accomplish. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 73 Ashland Forest Resiliency Wildland fires that burn with a moderate or high soil bum severity on more that 250/0 of a drainage could produce increases in both peak and annual stream flows. The magnitude of such increases has been documented in the FEIS for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area, and FElS for the A WPP project. The greatest actual increase in flow would occur in the fall peak flows; the greatest percentage increase would likely be seen in summer low flows. Without evapotranspiration from live vegetation, soils would enter the fall season with more ground water storage than if the area was still completely vegetated. The early fall storms would filL,; up the available soil storage and fUnoffwould occur more quickly. Depending on the size the storm, there could be enough flow at peak to move large wood and sediment wit}1in ,he channel and possibly plug culverts, although there are not many of these structures.tThere, would be no change in situations of large flow events, as these happen in conjunc.Jioh;;;with saturated soil conditions and watershed response is no different, with or witho}lL:y~getation. The change in annual water yield would be slight, but measurable. This cQll1<:l;be a benefit to the City of Ashland because summer low flows would be greater at a tiuie when they are needed most. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative. Any changes in nutrient loading in streams following implementation of the Action Alternatives would be small. As was discussed in the sectiQl} cOvering sedimentation, there would be sufficient buffers left between treatment unit~ah9 streams to prevent virtually all soil movement into the channels. Likewise, remaipiHg;;;vegetation would be available for uptake of available nutrients, which would pre~;,etit<th"efr moving through the soil and into streams. .. ' .. :;::::::. ..::\:.;...... '- The buffers between any treatment area~;a~~~streams would continue to provide shade on the water surface and would prevent an:y.;.;.~h;flhg;es in the current stream temperature regime, which is currently well within !hew~U~!.quality standard. . . . . - v. ..... ','. . Stream flows should not chapge:;;as>a result of implementation of any of the Action Alternative~ There woul~np.t~;l?e enough alteration in the evapotranspiration or infiltration components of the hydroJ'dglc;;;cycle to cause changes in runoff.. . .. '".- :.- . .., .' - "...." c. Indirect Effects <of Alternatives N 0- Action';A,!Je'tq~tive The possible,;increase in stream temperatures from extensive high-severity wildland fires would;;T~sult'ii1 higher water treatment costs for the City. The higher temperature would allow'Tor;;a higher level of biologic activity such as increased algae growth, which could produce tastes and odors that would have to be mitigated at the treatment plant. \;\JJh~re could be some movement of large woody material into Reeder Reservoir as a result of -"higher peak flows. This would require some additional work by the City to keep the intakes to the water system pipelines clear, and to keep floating debris away from the gates on Hosler Dam. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!l1II - 74 Ashland Forest Resiliency Within the Bear Creek fifth-field watershed, many of the streams tributary to Bear Creek are considered water quality limited because of elevated stream temperatures, among other parameters. With the possibility that Ashland Creek and Tolman Creek would be added to this list and the listings for Neil Creek and Wagner Creek being extended, and because they are major tributaries to Bear Creek, progress toward improving temperatures in Bear Creek would be set back somewhat with extensive high-severity wildland fire in the Analysis Area. It is unknown what the magnitude of the effect of Ashland Creek would be on Bear Creek because the higher temperatures produced in the Ashland Creek watershed would be mitigated somewhat by Reeder Reservoir. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative c. There should be no adverse indirect effects from implementation of the projects ass6ciflted with the Action Alternatives. The activities would be implemented in a manneR:tp.~t controls the amount of disturbance. There would be an undisturbed buffer of live. veg~tatiph and ground cover between any activity and streams. Prescribed fires would ~e::,.~T8.nned to keep intensities low so that there would be minimal consumption of groun?C9:yer}::which would leave soils protected. The location of the activities would follo'Y:.,..:Srit~fi~. that would provide protection for both on- and off-site values. With these guidelin'~~;,}ttPJace, there would not be a significant increase in surface erosion or in sediment deliven~~d to::;streams. d. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives ~;'.':' '.:.". Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Pref~~r~a:,>~it'ernative Successful implementation of the actions propo.~~?\prider any of the Action Alternative would lead to improved water quality conq~t~:2p~::~ii1iin the Bear Creek watershed. By. lowering the fire severity potential in the !.1P~!ysis Area, the projects would lessen the probability and impact of large incre:~se~:bf~eaiment produced by a large-scale wildland fire. This would result in continued impr2ye~~rif in the overall water quality and fish habitat in Bear Creek. In the past, duringtim~~i~:uit Reeder Reservoir was cleaned of sediment, Ashland Creek was a major co~~ribqfBr of sediment to Bear Creek. Lower fire intensities, severities, and lessened acr~.gge.'6f:area burned would result in markedly less sediment entering Reeder Reservo!f:.,fqJ!J)wing a wildland fire, and would cumulatively result in less impact on Bear Cr.eek/:':::.::';::;:::,,:\:,:/,..... ':;':'.. f: ~'::~:' 5. Cumulative"YV~:te'fshed Effects .(" '. .--. Will activiti~s;:.p~f(J'ciated with hazardous fuel treatmellts, ill combination with past, other current;":"'9n i'n..!}flSOn ably foreseeable future actions result ill adverse cumulative watershed effect~:!lfi'~t,yd;'ologic function and water quality? .,;.::;:.:....~... A cumulative watershed effect is any response to multiple land-use activities that is caused by, or ..i:..;' results in, altered watershed function. The process generating a cumulative watershed effects ".. analysis is complicated by the variety of land-use activities that may cause effects, and by the :;\:~::\:~<::,multitude of philosophical and economic values affected. However, land-use activities can directly change only a few parameters that can affect water quality: vegetation, topography, soil properties, water distribution, erosion and mass wasting rates, and chemical inputs. Indirect cumulative watershed effects accrue if effects of proposed activities are transported through a basin. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 75 Ashland Forest Resiliency a. Background The Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Methodology was used to assess the cumulative watershed effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities for Ashland Forest Resiliency. The processes and findings fron1 this analysis are sumnlarized frOITI FEIS Appendix I, Cun1ulative Watershed Effects Analysis (incorporated by reference). It is recon1mended the reader refer to Appendix] to gain a better understanding of the somewhat complex and integrated analysis methodology used to determine relative risk of adverse cumulative watershed effects. The Analysis Area for cun1ulative effects is located within four separate sub-watersheds, described as the Ashland Creek sub-watershed, the Neil Creek sub-watershed, the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed and the Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed, all within the Bear Creek Watershed and the Rogue River Basin. The geographic extents of the sub-watersheds for this report are depicted on Map I-I, of FEIS Appendix 1. Sub-watersheds are described in Section B, 1, this Chapter. Equivalent Roaded Area Methodology The ERA Methodology utilizes GIS analysis of land use activities to convert road, timber harvest, fire, and other disturbances within each sub-watershed to equivalent roaded areas based on coefficients that are regionally specific. Tl~~:r~sulting equivalent roaded area within each sub-watershed is divided by the acres of eac~:,wate.rshed to calculate a relative disturbance rating, which is called the percent ERA. Then, the percent ERA is compared to the Threshold of Concern (TOC) for eachsllb-wqtershed. The TOC is developed specifically for each 'watershed and is based on ch~nnet:'segsitivity, beneficial uses, soil erodibility, hydrologic response, and slope stability;FJ.;:IS Appendix I contains a description of the methodology used to determine the Dume_ rical index for each of the factors listed above. Once the index values have be~ii"dete.dnined for each watershed, the Watershed Sensitivity Level (WSL) is calculated~.~, N6x:h.!pe WSL is converted to a watershed specific TOe value. Finally, the calculated TOC~::i~compared to the percent ERA for each watershed to determine a watershed Risk Ratio. "." . :.. A Risk Ratio aI?P~?ac?bJg or greater than 1.00 serves as a "yellow flag" indicator of increasing susc~pf.~bility for significant adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed..,.SuscepHbility of cumulative watershed effects generally increases from low to high a9.the.l~\tel.6fland disturbing activities increase toward a risk ratio value of 1.00 (USFS 1988t,.:::Watersheds with a "yellow flag" rating of 1.00 are not necessarily in eminent danger of unacCeptable cumulative watershed effects, but these watersheds contain enough disturbance to "warrant a closer look" (Beaver Creek Ecosystem Analysis 1996). It should "n ..by"poted that the ERA Methodology analyzes watershed conditions regardless of land ."qwp.ership. b. Current Conditions and Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives The ERA Methodology was used to assess the relative risk of adverse effects relating to sedimentation, physical integrity, and stability of stream channels, based on the current ( cumulative) conditions and the effects of each alternative considered in detail. The results of the cumulative watershed effects analysis are presented in Table 1II-20. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI! III - 76 Ashland Forest Resiliency --------rTrT The resultant indicators by alternative can be compared to the background levels, showing the degree of change. Table 1I1-20. Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA), Threshold of Concern (TOC), and Risk RMio for Sub-watershed Analysis Areas, by Alternative Sub-watershed Factors (Background) Proposed Community Preferred No-Action Action . Alternative Alternative ERA% 2.9% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% Ashland Creek TOC 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Risk Ratio 0.346 0.531 0.540 0.506 ERA% 8.0% 8.6% 8.9% 8.8% :: Neil Creek TOC 9.0 9.0 9:0 9.0 . Risk Ratio 0.894 0.957 0.989 0.978..:::.:;: ERA% 5.4% 7.1% 5.7% 5. 7:%~'.;:":\.;. - Upper Wagner Creek TOC 9.0 9.0 9.0 ;: 9.0 Risk Ratio 0.598 0.792 0.633 /. O;~:6_33. ERA% 30.3% 30.5% 30.6% ':":-1;:_-'-.-::<;;';:;:'30.60/0 Hamilton Creek TOC 11.0 11.0 11.0.;: \::1--_-...-: 11.0 Risk Ratio 2.751 2.770 2.781;::;.)'.. 2.781 "'=:;.:,., Current Conditions The most noticeable value in the above table is the hig;hJiackground percent ERA value for the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed (30.30/0). This is..Q:U~::,,~:(kthe amount of private land within the city limits of Ashland. Approximately 930/0 of;:th,~:~stib-watershed is offNFSL and has been highly developed and roaded. Not including:fniv'ate land, the percent ERA for the portion of the sub-watershed on National Fq[est;w.6uld be less than one percent. The land within the city limits, though develope,fI apQt~aded, is in a static condition with stonn drainage, etc. The ERA model was nq~'d~signed to evaluate these types of situations. ..:;, r "'~<:\'. '\. The risk ratios for the AshlandJ.t:::reek;:alld Upper Wagner sub-watersheds are at levels that do not warrant concern at this;:ilime;:,;;:Ihe value for the Neil Creek sub-watershed approaches the 1.0 threshold, but is currenVY:J?elow. 'l;":' .". ...:~. The Hamilton Cre~k ~ub~~,ilershed has a value that exceeds 1.0 and indicates a potential for adverse cumul'!tiv.::;~;ef.fedts. However, as noted, approximately 93% of this sub-watershed is offNFSL and 9.~:~\pe.en highly developed. Of the total area within this sub-watershed, only an estimaty:.g)5''Y.~\ls'in a forested condition. Considering only forested land within the sub- waters.hed, lr;~:::percent ERA would be 10.90/0. Based on that assumption, the current condition risk ratio would be 0.932. I>.ropo~ed Action, Communit)' Alternative, and Preferred Alternative .;;....-. .::ti2ne of the sub-watersheds show any substantial increase in the risk ratio associated with the ;\:':::;;'::\~c:t~on Alternatives for Ashland Forest Resiliency. This is primarily due to the type and :':'.;;;-intensity of the proposed treatments under each of the Action Alternatives. Treatments proposed are primarily "thinning from below" or prescribed burning, and are of low to moderate disturbance. Relatively few acres of ground based harvest systems are proposed under the Community Alternative and Preferred Alternative. Though the risk ratio for the Neil Creek sub-watershed is relatively high, it would remain less than 1.0 ("yellow flag" threshold) under the Action Alternatives. Final Els llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 77 Ashland Forest Resiliency Although the Hanlilton Creek sub-watershed has a high risk ratio, the reasons for this are discussed. If only forested lands were included, the baseline risk ration would be 0.932 and none of the Action Alten1atives would change it by more than 80/0, resulting in a ratio of less than 1.000. Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Modeling Assumptions Cunlulative effects analysis requires that future actions that are reasonably foreseeable be examined along with proposed actions. For this analysis, a tinle period of 10 years was selected to exanline future actions. This time period was selected because it is anticipated that this is the length of tinle that the Action Alternatives would take to fully in1plement. It is assumed that there are no other (reasonably foreseeable) fuels managenlent on N(;l!ional Forest lands, other than that being proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency, for the next ten (10) years. On National Forest lands, the only actions expected to occur already Have NEP A decision docunlents and as such, have been assumed for modellng purposes t~ already have been implemented. These include the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and various trail construction/reconstructiol1:projeds: During the lTIodeling of current condition, it was assumed that most of the lands outside the National Forest boundary have been subjected to recent disturbance and as such, it anticipates and models future activities. There are currentlyn()-known actions being scheduled off of the National Forest with the exception.5>fJhe City of Ashland owned land in section 32 (the "Winburn" parcel). This area has beehqJlanned for a hazardous fuels reduction treat111ent and is scheduled to be impleP1ented within the next 5 years. Other industrial forest lands within the sub-watershed.,!-p.alysis areas mayor may not be treated within the next 10 years. However, this hasbe.~n accounted for in the current condition n10deling, by applying a disturbance;c'6effic.ient that assumes treatment. Sensitivity analysis is a procedure t9 determine the sensitivity of the outcomes of a model to changes in its parameters. If asmall'cllange in a parameter results in relatively large changes in the outcomes, the outcomys are said to be sensitive to that parameter. The margin of error refers in this analysis to tl1e'f.eliability of the data. These factors are discussed in FEIS Appendix 1. 6. Northern Sp~tt.f]d Owls and Habitat >>Iill ac~!vitie~:associated with hazardous fuel treatl1tents (especially tree relit oval and connectt!d a.ctions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slash treat/~lel!is)directly or in.directly affect northern spotted owls and suitable or dispersal habitat? .." .....,. . . ...... ..........: Thi~.Slgnificant Issue is designed to focus on the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of hazardous fuel reduction treatments on the northern spotted owl and associated habitat. The > direct effects of primary concern are those associated with known or suspected spotted owl core areas (pair activity centers) that are potentially affected by treatments within the Project Areas associated with the Action Alternatives. See the Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation for n10re infornlation, contained in FEIS Appendix F. Final EIS ! !DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 78 Ashland Forest Resiliency a. Background Northern Spotted Owl - Federally Threatened, RRNF LRMP Management Indicator Species The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (55 FR 26194) on June 23) 1990 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service] 990). Northern spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. A definition of nesting and roosting northern spotted owl habitat in the Klamath Provil}ce difficult to identify because of the variety of ecological types and frequent fire histqry (USDA Forest Service 1996). The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA Forest ,.ServiGe ] 996) identified stands which supported northern spotted owl as stands with gre~t.~r than] 7 inch average diameter trees and greater than 600/0 canopy closure. The Rogu~:::R:iv.er/South Coast Province Biological Assessment defines Nesting/Roosting/Foragi~g~:(:N;B.F) habitat as greater than 21 inches average stand diameter and greater than 60% canqE..i-'closure (USDA Forest Service 2006). . Zabel et al. (2003) identified habitat models for northern spottyd in the Klamath Province of Northern California which correctly classified o'V.!.:J>ccupied sites with greater than 85% accuracy. Within Douglas-fir habitats belo~ .R.~0QQ ff. elevation in the Eastern Klamath Ecological zone, these sites were classified,...e~f..:.weater than 17 inch average stand dialneter and greater than 60% canopy closure. Zflber:.~f.al. (2003) concluded that their model perfonned best at the 200 hectare radius:CQ:'~\PiL). For this analysis, the Zabel et a1. (2003) definition ofNRF has been accepted,,,::al)d>Clnalysis was conducted using this habitat classification because of the proximity of the project area to Zabel's study are in the eastern Klamath Mountains...., The primary prey of northern ~p6tted.9wls in the Analysis Area are dusky-footed woodrats (Neotomafuscipes) and no;thefl}::g:ying squirrels (Glaucomy sabrinus) (USDA Forest Service 1996). Dusky-footed wooqra,!? are occasionally abundant in early mixed-conifer forests and present in late stages of[or.pst::development (Carey et al. 1999). Northern flying squirrels are generally associatx9 wilp.qloer forests. Zabel et al. (1995) verified a trend of negative, linear relationship be!:V~~h.PQme range size during the breeding season and the proportion of woodrats in the.diyfqfnorthem spotted owls. The proportion of northern flying squirrels in the diet wa,~positive]y correlated with home range size. Reduction in canopy closure and fuels tu~atm~ritsassociated with AFR has the potential to increase habitat for dusky-footed woodr~ls thiough regeneration of shrub habitats and young stands. Effects of these treat;m~.pt~on northern flying squirrel populations are unknown. -. .<Spptted owl habitat (greater than 17 inch average stand diameter and greater than 60% .\.'<"'\yanppy closure) is well distributed within the watershed, comprising approximately 70 "percent 0 f the watershed on Forest Servi ce lands. Dispersal-only habitat (11-21 inch average stand diameter and greater than 40 percent canopy closure) comprises approximately 10 percent ofNFS lands within the Analysis Area (Table III-21). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III . 79 Ashland Forest Resiliency Spotted owl protocol surveys from the early 1990's through 1995 showed that the Analysis Area supported up to fifteen owl pairs and resident singles. Recent (2001-2007) surveys however, have not detected as many pairs or singles in the Analysis Area. There have been many recent surveys for northern spotted owl in the A11alysis Area. Since 2001, full protocol surveys of all NRF habitat within the Analysis Area has been conducted with the exception of 2003. Spotted owl protocol surveys (FWS 1992) of all suitable NRF habitat within the watershed were conducted during 2001, 2002, and 2004 by district personnel and Galea Wildlife Consulting (Galea 2002). Protocol reproductive surveys were also conducted at six historical sites in the Analysis Area by Sn1eJtz Specialty Contracting in 2004. In 2005, protocol surveys of the entire Analysis Area were conducted by the Siskiyou Cooperative. Beginning in 2006, a spotted owl telemetry study was initiated by the Forest and Oregon State University (OSU) to investigate the response of spotted owl to the Action<Altematives. Eleven spotted owl have been radio collared and monitored beginning inthesuinmer of 2006 and will continue through the sumn1er of 2008 (Shilling 2007). These owlswill continue to be tracked for up to two years post-treatment in order to study how th~yrespond to treatn1ents within their respective home ranges. In conjunction with th~..telemetry study, OSU persOlmel have conducted protocol surveys in the entire Analysis Area for the last two years. The table below (Table 1II-23) identifies the locations..and reproductive status of all the owls potentially affected by the project. The most recent surveys of the Analysis Area were conducted in 2007; those surveys found up to nine spotted owl pairs or resident singles wi~hinthe Analysis Area. All of the current locations were at or near historical locations andtheidentification numbers for those owl sites are used here. Table llI-21. 2006/2007 Spotted Owl-L~ca~ions and Status in the Analysis Area S otted OwllD 20007 20019 20023 20024 20013 20013A 20043 20046 .,. 20049 20051 2007<1 -Location T39S, R01 W,Section 35 T 40S, ROtE, Section 10 T 40S, R01 E;'Section 13 T40S;, ROlE, Section 15 T398,R01 E, Section 31 .T398, R01 E, Section 31 .r 40S, R01 E, Section 5 .T39S, R01 E, Section 19 T 40S, R01 E, Section 6 T 40S, R01 E, Section 3 T39S, R01 E, Section 30 .:?potted owls were not detected at five historical sites; these sites were prin1arily lower in the . watershed. Three locations where spotted owls had previously been detected were in Clayton .''cre:ek and the lower reaches of Ashland Creek, one historical site in the RNA portion of the Analysis Area was also unoccupied. One historical site in the upper watershed had no response during surveys in 2005. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!l1II - 80 Ashland Forest Resiliency - - - ----nr T All current spotted owl sites have from 48 to 83% of their provincial home ranges (1.3 miles radius) currently in NRF habitat (nesting, roosting, foraging) and from 41 to 92% of a one half mile radius (core area) around the site in NRF spotted owl habitat. All of the spotted owl sites in the Analysis Area have over 40% (1,336 acres) of their respective home range currently in NRF habitat. b. Direct Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative Analyses of Plant Association Groups (P AGs) has identified that most stand types ~here northern spotted owls occur (PAGs ]407, ]408,2003,2004) within the National Forest .. portion of the Analysis Area were in a more open condition priorto effective fire,<exclusion. Historically, habitat for the northern spotted owl was fairly continuous, partic~la(lx in the wetter parts of its range in northern California and most of western Oregpn all"diWashington. Habitat for the owl in the drier portions of its range in parts of south em Qr~gonand northeJll Califonlia is not continuous, but occurred naturally in a mosaic pattern (lIS P'W S 1992). The mosaic pattern described was a direct result of natural fire regiIl}e~w~i~p are, in general, more frequent and low to mixed severity in SW Oregon within-lo,ty-JQ,.3tiid-elevation habitats compared to those in most areas west of the Cascades in Oreg8n and Washington. As a result of effective fire exclusion, many of these sf~HP-sare'-now in nlid or late-closed condition (US Forest Service 2003). It is unknown l}.ew.,._,~brthem spotted owls have responded to effective fire suppression over the 1~;?t'8::2}~_rOo years. All of the owls that currently inhabit the Analysis Area occur on the"l(>"weT"'slopes and on northerly aspects where ',". <,-;., it is likely that prior to fire suppression the&t.Far'~as}acted as refugia from frequent fire and nlay have been in a condition similar tp tod~iy;",__:. ';;"". .:::...... The 'majOJil:ydf4?eLSR in the Upper Bear Analysis Area has been identified as being high hazarctand risk~:relative to wildland fire (US Forest Service 2003). The Mt. Ashland LSR AssesslpentC.J 996) identified the maintenance of existing large blocks of late-successional habitahJhrough protection from large-scale high-intensity (stand replacement) wildland fire as a high priority. '-'- ',Large scale, stand-replacement fire would remove large blocks of late-and mid-successional -:.-habitat and likely reduce northern spotted owl presence and pair density within the northern portion of the LSR. Connectivity and dispersal within and between late-successional patches and the LSR network would likely be adversely affected, albeit to an unknown extent. Final EIS f1DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 81 Ashland Forest Resiliency Effect Mechanisms Common to Action Alternatives Opening a stand through tree removal can provide more light to the ground and increase understory trees and shrubs. The result of this treatn1ent on owl habitat and ecology depends on the current stand condition (and how close it approximates late-successional characteristics in1portant to owls), how many trees are ren10ved, the residual overstory, the time year the treatn1ent occurs, and the n1ethod of yarding/tree removal (USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS 2003). The following text defines effect mechanisnls for suitable habitat (nesting, roosting, and foraging), and for dispersal habitat. Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat (NRF) Within suitable NRF habitat, treatments that reduce the overstory canopy to less than 600/0 (relative stand density index of less than 0.4), but that would retain canopy closure above 400/0 would downgrade suitable NRF habitat to dispersal habitat. If-stands are reduced to less than 400/0 canopy closure (relative stand density index of less than 0.2), suitable NRF habitat would be removed. Within suitable NRF habitat, where the canopy cover is greater than:600/0 and understory treatments such as pruning, underburning, handpilelbum, arid.removal.of small diameter trees less than 8" dimneter occur, suitable NRF habitat would be IIlailltailled. Dispersal Habitat Stands not considered as suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat with canopies of greater than 40%, are considered to provide di~persarhabitat for northern spotted owls. Where understory treatments occur in thesestends, and canopy closure remains greater than 400/0, dispersal habitat would be m~;,~tail1ed. If stands are reduced to below 400/0 (relative stand density index of less thaqO)), dispersal habitat would be relnoved. Proposed Action- ..__ The Proposed Action would downgr~ge an estimated 1,035 acres (6.3 percent reduction) of NRF habitat. Treatments \\fould,:.,p~~ur within an additional 3,980 acres ofNRF where habitat would be maintained. This-aUemafive would also maintain approximately 1,080 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat;This would occur by either thinning of stands that would reduce canopy ans sinlIi.lif.Y':multiple storied stands or fuel reduction activities that would result in reductio~~'Qr sWiib and small tree layers as well as reductions in small woody material. ,-- - Treatl11.ents.int~e-:tnterface COlTIpartments would focus primarily on mid-closed and late- closed-~tand~.~ Interface compartments prescribe reducing stand density to 0.2 - 0.3. Where thes~tf.ea1n1ents are implemented, suitable habitat would be downgraded to dispersal habitat becau?_~-c'anopy closures would be less than 600/0. Where treatments occur within known Jlorthern spotted owl activity centers, habitat would be maintained, however prescriptions rei~ove understory structure though they would retain an overstory canopy of greater than 600/0. Within Late-Successional Habitat treatments, the focus is to treat mid-seral closed stands 'where average stand diameter is 5-17 inches. The obj ective is to reduce fire hazard, and to reduce competition within these stands and move them toward late-successional habitat sooner. No treatments would occur within suitable NRF habitat within the Late-Successional Habitat compartments. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 82 Ashland Forest Resiliency The proposed treatment within the Research Natural Area (RNA) area would remove competition for the existing large pines and Douglas-fir. Late-seral, closed conditions within northern spotted owl activity centers and Riparian Reserves would be maintained. Stand densities outside of pair activity centers would be reduced to a relative stand density index of 0.2 - 0.3. These treatments would reduce overstory canopy to less than 600/0 and would downgrade suitable NRF habitat to dispersal habitat outside of northern spotted owl activity centers. Small diameter trees would also be removed to allow regeneration of pine species. Underbuming is prescribed following treatment to nlaintain the stand in a nlore open and natural condition. Based on habitat analysis assumptions and effects by types of treatments discussed :~bove, .. Table 1II-22 provide a summary of direct effects to northern spotted owl habitat, for::known or suspected pair activity centers, within 200 meters, 0.5 miles, and 1.3 mile ~:fldilJs of core center, for the Proposed Action. Note that the 0.5 miles radius and 1.3 mile radius includes the acres within the 200 meter radius and that the 1.3 mile radius inc1udes,theacres within the 0.5 mile radius. Table lll-22. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects (acres) - Prop.?s~~:t:Action Post- Post- Post- Pre-treatment treatment Pre-treatment treatment Pre-treatment treatment NRFHabitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Ha~itat within 200 within 200 within 0.5 within 0.5 within 1.3 within 1;3 NSOSite meters meters miles miles miles miles 2007 19 19 392:.::::;:;-:::" '''::;,:", ...:;:;:: 392 2,290 2,239 2013 27 27 .:<;'4..1,2.:\;:::::.\::.:,..,:::..::: 412 2,777 2,552 2019 25 25 i'.~:. l:".:::3~6\ 396 2,639 2,623 2023 24 24 ,\ \..... ""=:.:,,:;::;:.. :395 395 2,418 2,407 2024 26 26.:. ~:.:....: \::'\.: ...330 330 2,316 2,310 2043 30 30 .,. 441 441 2,805 2,796 .: 2046 11 .i:\:\: 1 ft::;::::;::::.::.,::::'" 206 206 1,616 1,413 2049 26 '.::'26 420 420 2,610 2,609 .:.:.,. :\.;.. ..: ..:.:.:\:;:::H:..'-.. 2051 28 ...,.... :.::: "28 427 427 2,691 2,632 ... 2071 22..: "::: ..:,->.::::: 22 395 395 2,483 2,383 2013A '.2~ .;,... ...:.:::::. 29 460 460 2,762 2,710 Co mmll ni tY:!\lt.:~rn ative The CQmmupity Alternative would downgrade an estimated 920 acres (5.5 percent reduction) ofNR.fhgbitat. Treatments would occur within an additional 3,495 acres ofNRF where habit~l'~buld be maintained. This alternative would also maintain approximately 1,080 ..:~:e~es of spotted owl dispersal habitat. This would occur by either thinning of stands that '::<~oWd reduce canopy and simplify multiple storied stands or fuel reduction activities that ..would result in reductions of shrub and small tree layers as well as reductions in small woody material. Within the Ponderosa Pine P AG, overstory canopy would be reduced. to less than 40%. Up to 50/0 of the area within thisP AG may remain untreated if it does not compromise wildfire or prescribed fire management goals. Prescriptions within the Douglas-fir P AGs may reduce canopy closure to below 60% (0.4 relative stand density index) within some areas on south and west aspects. Final EIS If DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 83 Ashland Forest Resiliency Areas within northern and eastern aspects would retain greater than 600/0 canopy closure. Removal of overstory canopy to less than 600/0 on south and west aspects would downgrade suitable NRF habitat to dispersal habitat. Thinning of understory canopy through small dialneter tree and shrub renloval would degrade habitat on all aspects even if canopy closure renlains greater than 600/0. Prescriptions within the Dry and Moist White Fir P AGs are similar to Douglas-fir P AGs in regard to aspect, canopy closure, and removal of understory canopy. Canopy closure would be retained at greater than 600/0 on the Cool White Fir P AG. Renlo~al of understory would degrade suitable NRF habitat where it now occurs. Northerly aspects in this P AG would not be treated under the Community Alternative. Where undergrowth inhibits owls fronl accessing groUlid-dwelling prey species,gver 500;0 or more of any stand greater than 40 acres or nlore, the Community Altenlativeconsiders treatnlent within northenl spotted owl activity centers (Priority 9). To provid~habitat for prey species 25 - 350/0 of a treatment area would remain untreated. Witl1jn 0;25 miles of ,known nest sites, only ladder fuels would be treated. Other treatnlent options are possible between 0.25 and 0.5 nliles from a nest site. Characteristics of suitable NRF habitat would be retained and canopy reduction would be avoided. More specific prescriptions are described in theCprllil1unity Alternative section of Chapter II, and in FEIS Appendix C. Based on habitat analysis assumptions and effecJ~-l~xtypes of treatments discussed above, Table III-23 provide a sumnlary of direct y.ffliEt~.t9.northern spotted owl habitat, for known or suspected pair activity centers, within ~pO.~eiers, 0.5 miles, and 1.3 mile radius of core center, for the Proposed Action. Noteth.at :~DeO.5 n1iles radius and 1.3 mile radius includes the acres within the 200 meter radius and-that the 1.3 mile radius includes the acres within the 0.5 mile radius. Table III-23. Northern Spotted Owl'Habitat Effects (acres)- Community Action Post. Post. Post- Pre-treatment treatment Pre-treatment treatment Pre-treatment treatment NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRFHabitat NRF Habitat within 200 within 200 within 0.5 within 0.5 within 1.3 within1.3 NSO Site meters meters miles miles miles miles 2007 t.....\..._ '19 19 392 392 2,290 2,243 2013" 27 27 412 412 2,777 2,674 2019." - 25 25 396 396 2,639 2,605 --: 2023 24 24 395 395 2,418 2,215 2024 26 26 330 330 2,316 2,217 .....- ......--1.--- 2043 30 30 441 441 2,805 2,690 -.::: 2046 11 11 206 206 1,616 1,417 2049 26 26 420 420 2,610 2,595 2051 28 28 427 427 2,691 2,538 2071 22 22 395 395 2,483 2,359 2013A 29 29 460 460 2,762 2,741 Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 84 Ashland Forest Resiliency Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would downgrade an estimated 1,292 acres (7.8 percent reduction) ofNRF habitat. Treatments would occur within an additional 4,773 acres ofNRF where habitat would be maintained. This alternative would also maintain approximately 988 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat. This would occur by either thinning of stands that would reduce canopy and simplify multiple storied stands or fuel reduction activities that could result in reductions of shrub. and small tree layers as well as reductions in small woody material. Prescriptions within the Douglas-fir P AGs in the Fuel Discontinuity Treatment Areas,m~y\. reduce canopy closure to below 600/0 (0.4 relative stand density index) within some:::.areas'bn south and west aspects. Areas within northern and eastern aspects would retain greateLthan 60% canopy closure. Removal of overstory canopy to less than 600/0 on southanq,west aspects would downgrade suitable habitat to dispersal habitat. Thinningpfunderstory canopy through small diameter tree and shrub removal would degrade hClbit~hoh all aspects even if canopy closure renlains greater than 60%. Prescriptions withinth~ Dry and Moist White Fir P AGs are similar to Douglas-fir P AGs in regard to aspest,saJ1opy closure, and . removal of understory canopy. The proposed treatment within the Research Natural Area(~A) area would remove competition for the existing large pines and Douglas-fi.r~:\"1::ate-seral, closed conditions within 110lihenl spotted owl activity centers and Ripmian R:~.#~~~swould be nlaintained. Stand densities outside of pair activity centers would bei:{ddQ:yed to a relative stand density index of 0.2 - 0.3. These treatments would reduce over~.tory"canopy to less than 60% and would downgrade suitable habitat to dispersal habi,!~t;~utside of northern spotted owl activity centers. Small diameter trees would al~o ::py,(l~moved to allow regeneration of pine species. Underbuming is prescribed following\tieC!:finl~nt to maintain the stand in a more open and natural condition. ., :r Based on habitat analysis ,!~>?umB!iphs and effects by types of treatments discussed above, Table III-24 provide a sU~'ary of direct effects to northern spotted owl habitat, for known or suspected pair activit~}c~hters, within 200 meters, 0.5 miles, and 1.3 mile radius of core center, for the Propps~d.:::Action. Note that the 0.5 miles radius and 1.3 mile radius iricludes the acres within th....e'200::meter radius and that the 1.3 mile radius includes the acres within '-. -.. -. the 0.5 mile radiU~,~::~:~>l::.\': Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 85 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table III-24. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects (acres) - Preferred Alternative Post- Post- Post- Pre-treatment treatment Pre-treatment treatment Pre-treatment treatment NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat within 200 within 200 within 0.5 within 0.5 within 1.3 within 1.3 NSO Site meters meters miles miles miles miles 2007 19 19 392 392 2,290 2,276 2013 27 27 412 412 2,777 2,674 . 2019 25 25 396 396 2,639 2,554 ,. 2023 24 24 395 395 2,418 2,333 2024 26 26 330 330 2,316 2,306 2043 30 30 441 441 2,805 2,690 2046 11 11 206 206 1,616 I.. 1,417 2049 26 26 420 420 2,610 2,595 2051 28 28 427 427 2,691 2,466 2071 22 22 395 395 .. 2;483 2,359 2013A 29 29 460 460 . 2,762 2,741 c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives The No-Action Alternative would not directly affestal1XBpotted owl NRF or dispersal habitat through management action. No spotted 0'\\11 pairs would be affected by reductions in NRF habitat, and dispersal opportunities wouldnot'be. reduced within the Late-Successional Reserve and Critical Habitat Unit. An indirecteffect of No-Action is the continued risk of high-severity wildland fire. These cOflsequynces are discussed above and throughout this FEIS. Timber harvest within the AsWand Watershed and surrounding National Forest portion of the Analysis Area during the 1?60st!p-ough 1980s n10dified suitable NRF habitat for northern spotted owl, prior to portions of the area being designated as Late-Successional Reserve and Critical Habitat. The A~hland Watershed Protection Project removed 18 acres and degraded an additional 260 acresoTsuitable northern spotted owl habitat. Son1e of this effect is cumulative to ~fl;bit:~ceffect~ analyzed under Ashland Forest Resiliency. This effect has been accounted for urid~r'the assumptions for the current condition baseline (Tables 1II-24 through III-26 abo,,~). The MtAshland Ski Area Expansion would remove 44 acres of suitable habitat and remove 17 acrefof dispersal habitat. This effect is also accounted for in current condition baseline. Not .'aU...of this effect is cumulative to the same owl pairs with proposed treatments under ':A.~pland Forest Resiliency. . ..Cumulative effects of each Action Alternative considered under Ashland Forest Resiliency are similar, differing only in juxtaposition and extent. Under the Action Alternatives, proposed treatments of mid-seral stands are designed to optimize growth in order to develop them into late-seral stands earlier than would be expected under the No-Action Alternative. These stands are expected to develop into suitable NRF habitat for northern spotted owl within the next 3-5 decades. During the interim, these stands would continue to function as dispersal habitat. Final EIS I! DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 86 Ashland Forest Resiliency III .-- Fuels treatments that include understory thinning, underburning, and pile and bum would remove understory structure and simplify structure. It is unknown how northern spotted owl prey populations would respond to these treatments or what effect it may have on predators or competitors. Determination In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Forest Service conducted a Biological Evaluation for all Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife species. In regard to the northern spotted owl, conferencing with the USDI Fish and WildUfe\ Service (USFWS) was initiated in 2004 and has been ongoing. Cindy Donogan, Sectjorr7\ .' biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, is currently a member of the Interdisciplinary Team for Ashland Forest Resiliency. It has been determined, based on the analysis that the downgrading of~ h~bitar(a range of 920 acres to 1,290 acres for the Action Alternatives) would reduce nestipg,::xoosting, and foraging opportunities for spotted owls and would likely adversely af~ec:(.r~rthern spotted owls. However, northern spotted owls would likely continue to p::~rsi.$fip...'the Analysis Area given the remaining NRF habitat that would remain after any of:thef:\.'ctlon Alternatives are implemented. Treatments under the Action Alternatives that remove or.do)yngrade suitable NRF habitat due to reduction of canopy to less than 600/0, and mo,2ifip'ation of understory canopies in forested stands, result in a "May affect, likely to~dv.~r-sl~ly effect" (LAA) determination. Formal consultation has been initiated for the ASh.!ap,d'Forest Resiliency project, in association with the Final EIS, and will be:9()mpJ~ted prior to issuance of a Record of Decision. See the Terrestrial WildlifeBiolqgic:al Evaluation for more information, contained in FEIS Appendix F. .. , .' The recent Spotted Owl Recov:efy PleTI'(FWS 2008) was reviewed to determine if the Action Alternatives would be con~:istel1tw~.~h'the goal9 for SW Oregon. Any of the Action Alternatives are designed t'9}ruinimize impacts to spotted owls, owl habitat, and result in a more fire resilient lands~:al?~'::JYhile providing for the recovery of spotted owls. The Action Alternatives would be...:q:0l1s1stent with the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. The US Fish and Wildlife Servic~ h'~'Si::~e@:~::tlosely involved in the AFR project. The Forest will continue to involve the Fis~:;~pa\)vlldlife Service during implementation of this project in order to ensure that the re9~:>very::plans goals specific to SW Oregon are met. 7. Late;Suc.cessional Habitat -..--::::',- -'::'-.. W~ll aqt{viiies associated with hazardous fuel treatlnents (especially tree removal and .cOi~_:~lected actions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slash :..:'t~&a'~!"ellts) affect late-successionalltabitat characteristics, habitat cOllnectivity, and Yunctioll of the Late-Successional Reserve? This Significant Issue is designed to focus on the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of hazardous fuel reduction treatments on late-successional habitat. In order to analyze effects on function of this habitat, several scales of analyses are utilized. 9 Recovery Action #8 in the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan states: Manage the Klamath Provinces in Oregon and California to meet spotted owl recovery objectives while creating more fire-resilient and fire-resistant forests. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 87 Ashland Forest Resiliency The direct effects associated with known or suspected northern spotted owl core areas (pair activity centers) that are potentially affected by treatments within the Project Areas associated with the Proposed 'Action and Community Alternative are discussed in Significant Issue 6, above. The focus of that analysis is at various scales, as associated with the Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative. This Significant Issue addresses current conditions and consequences at the scale of the Late- Successional Reserve (LSR), and Critical Habitat Unit (CRU). The Mt. Ashland Late Successional Reserve, RO-248, was designated by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. Critical"::: Habitat Unit OR-76, was designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the recoverypf tl}e'<:, northern spotted owl (USDI 1992). ' On May 16, 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service released the Spotted Owl Recoy~ry Plan (FWS 2008). The plan describes four primary recovery criteria, 36 recovery actiqns:,and establishes a network of Mapped Owl Conservation Areas (MOCAs) totalin&:Q(Qt~ahan 6.4 million acres of federal land west of the Cascades' crest. It also describes r:~covery actions specific to SW Oregon and MOCA 19 (which covers the same area .~,~:.. CI;I1JOR-76). This Plan is specific to the need for the creation of more fire resilient forests in>$~:_:()regon and allows short-term impacts to provide for long-term benefits under an ad~ptive::management scenario. Information on historical and primary surveys and food hab~~s'(qrn6rthern spotted owl, prior to 1996, within the LSR portion of the Upper Bear Analysish~iea.can be found in the Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996). Additidri:aLitiformation is contained the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. Although overlapping in pl~c~~:~~:the LSR and CHU/MOCA do not occupy the same area; see Map III-4 for 10catiQns.p:f'tbese designated areas. a. Background \Late-Successional Reserve/FuncdOnl The objective of Late-Sucd;~s~ioriarReserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late- successional and 01d-gr()}V-:!h::!9:fest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth rel:atep::~py,cies including the northern spotted owl (Northwest Forest Plan 1994). All of area~:ptopbsed for treatments are within the northern portion of the Mt. Ashland Late S'liG:pes,:Blonal Reserve (LSR) RO-248, designated by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. h The Si~kiyoh-Crest also provides the boundary between the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger Distric'f:tRogue River National Forest, Region 6) and the Scott River Ranger District (~laIn'.lthNational Forest, Region 5). Throughout this analysis, the Siskiyou Mountains ,,':':E,:~pger District portion is referred to as the northern portion of the LSR, and the Scott River ,,::,::::~anger District portion is referred to as the southern portion. Approximately 21,341 acres "\:'within the Upper Bear Analysis Area are designated as LSR (USDA Forest Service 2003a). The Mt. Ashland LSR links the high elevation Siskiyou range of the Klamath Physiographic Geological Province with the Southern Oregon Cascades. This link is a critical node in the LSR network in the SW Oregon. It allows flow to and from all legs and arms of the LSR network in SW Oregon and NW California, a process important to the Region as a whole. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 88 Ashland Forest Resiliency MAP llI-4. LSR RO-248 and CHU OR-76/MOCA 19 ( Rogue ,River-Siskiyou National Forest Klamath Natiollal Forest National Forest Boundary .. Critical Habitat Unit OR-76 Mapped Owl Conservation Area 19 ~ Late-Successional Reserve RO-248 012 4 Miles ~ 0." . ~~.-...~~.;. ," .......... ". .:::.- .....;..: :. '-<\':,;:,:Th~:Mt. Ashland LSR consists entirely of National Forest lands. The majority of the LSR is coniferous forest. Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine communities dominate at the lower elevations. White fir communities dominate the middle elevations, with Shasta red fir dominating the higher elevations, and giving way to mountain hemlock at the highest elevations. Ninety-one percent of the lands are capable of growing spotted owl NRF or dispersal habitat. Currently, 64 percent of the capable lands are currently NRF habitat (see Table III-25). It presently supports 22 activity centers for the northern spotted owl (USFS ( 2008a and 2008b). Final EIS IIDRAFTWORKIN PROGRESS!! III - 89 Ashland Forest Resiliency ---nr-'T- Table 111-25. Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Current Condition Acres of Acres Capable of Being Suitable (NRF) Total Acres Suitable NRF Habitat Habitat 51,512 46,876 29,729 Along the environmental gradient represented by the range in elevation, vegetation will vary by P AG~ subsequent capable late-successional habitat conditions will vary as well. In other words, as late-seral conditions change by P AG, so will the vegetation's ability to support late-successional habitat for specific late-successional species. Habitat cannot be sqpported for all late-successional species across the entire environmental gradient within tl1e ESR. Each P AG will have the capability of providing some habitat for specific late-successional species. Habitat for various late-successional species will appear on the Jandscapeas a mosaic (US Forest Service 2003). ICritical Habitat Unit/ Mapped Owl Conservation Are~I... Critical Habitat Unit (COO) OR-76 was designated by U.S. F:i?h and Wildlife Service for the recovery of the northern spotted owl (USDI 1992). This entir~,:~HU was recently designated as MOCA 19 under the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan an'd,:;~he,environmental baseline for this Mapped Owl Conservation Area (MOCA 19) is the ~~rile':,a.s the CHU (FWS 2008). Critical Habitat Unit OR-76/MOCA 19 is designated to pr9vide,:,ihter- and intra-provincial linkage between the Klamath Mountains Province and th~,:VV:estern Cascades Province. It provides east-west distribution of northern spotted o:v:l:ha~itat in the Oregon portion of the Klamath Mountains Province. ' ,_,' 0.. f'.~\::. ...... . . There are 56,787 total acres in OR-?:~lMbCA 19, seventy-one percent of these acres (40,351) are in the Mt. Ashlan9'La{e::~uccessional Reserve. There are currently 22,570 acres of suitable NRF habitat in 9Rj?:~. This number has only changed by 72 acres since the 1996 baseline (USDA Forest Servi.~e;'tJSDI FWS 2003). There were 28 historical activity centers within OR-76 as of 1994.(P~J)l Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Table III-26. Mt. Ashlartd CHU OR-76/MOCA 19 - Current Condition '- Acres of Acres Capable of Being Suitable (NRF) Total Acres Suitable NRF Habitat Habitat 56,258 50,070 33,286 .~~iotic Modelind 'Abibtic Factors Related to Identification of Spotted Owl Nesting Areas The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Yreka, California and the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest collaborated on an analysis of potential abiotic factors that may contribute to identifying potential nest sites in Late-Successional Reserves in Northwest California and Southwest Oregon. Final EIS lIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! 111- 90 Ashland Forest Resiliency In association with a project on the Klamath National Forest, the FWS conducted an analysis of all known nest sites in LSRs (RO-248, RC-354, and RC-353) in order to determine if certain abiotic factors might aid in identifying specific areas on the landscape in which spotted owls are likely to nest. Abiotic variables examined in this analysis included distance to stream, distance to road, slope position, slope percent, 7th field watershed position, elevation, aspect, and curvature. A product of this analysis was a map that indicated areas where spotted owls were more likely to nest. Data on owl locations from the Upper Bear Analysis Area were added to the analysis to produce a map for the Analysis Area that identified the highest potential areas for n~st.sttes: based on abiotic factors. The map corresponds well with the historical nest sites as~;~eIl ':asq all of the latest spotted owl activity center locations from the 2006/2007 radio-tel~rri:etry" study.,,,_ Fine scale variables such as slope position, curvature, and distance to str~aQ1~'::W particular also con-espond well with known owl nest sites. Spotted owl nests withjp.th-e Analysis Area are closer to streams, lower on the slopes and in areas with a cO~9,,~ve,i.::urVature. These are likely areas with more stable microclimates, and larger trees wit~j118f~:;complex forest structure that spotted owls are selecting as nest sites. It may ~l~ob~"that these areas historically acted as refugia from stand replacement fire, dlJe\:l?:J)eing near the bottom of the canyons and on north tending slopes, maintained NRF;sJ.?,ottY:ff'owl habitat over time. The model categorized the abiotic variables into three c1as's~,,~';\Low Medium and High potential nesting areas. Table 1II-27 indicates that the relationship':::8,~t~~~~~~itable NRF and dispersal habitat (based on GRS satellite imagery) for northern. spot;!:eq:J)wls and Moderate and High potential nesting areas based on modeled abiotic factors'-TQr (he Analysis Area and LSR RO-248. "'-,- ".:. ..... ,: "';:.;:.- .::.::. Table llI-27. Relationship of Np()Ii~l>,:!tat to Moderate and High Potential Nesting Areas Anal. sis Area 13,109 acres 9,962 acresl76% 714 acres/5% LSR RO-248 28,501 acres 18,902 acres/66% 1,962 acresl7% !Habitat Contr~,~tiVityj , - .....'. . ........:..'..- ...... .- ...;........, '-', The e(f~cts -qfhabitat connectivity (fragmentation) vary by the species under consideration, and t.,h~~~txpeoftreatments involved. Species with good dispersal capabilities (i.e., capable of fligHtLr~ge and medium sized mammals) are not affected to the same extent by a particular ,:,~,~tiori':':'iis small cursorial species (i.e., small mammals, mollusks, and other invertebrates). :'"'h ::\,:?,Analyses on fragmentation must consider scale such as the normal home range or core area size of the species of interest. For a small cursorial species such as land snails or salamanders, thinning of the canopies in a stand may result in unsuitable conditions for movement or dispersal between suitable patches because increased solar radiation causes desiccation in the individual. Within this same habitat, there would be no effect on movement or dispersal of species such as northern spotted owl, fisher, or black-tailed deer. Final EISIIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS !I III - 91 Ashland Forest Resiliency b. Effects Mechanisms and Scales of Analysis ILate-Successional Reserve Functionl Each of the Action Alternatives utilizes sinlilar nlethods of hazardous fuel reduction treatments. Each proposes density management of small diameter material, and underbuming. The prinlary difference between the Action Alternatives lies in juxtaposition and extent. The Proposed Action includes only helicopter yarding. The COnl1TIUnity Alternative and Preferred Altenlative allows ground-based skidding on slopes equal to or)ess than 200/0. The Action Alternatives associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency would add to,existifig human generated habitat effects on late-successional habitat. Reduction of canqp'y:,closure to less than 600/0 in mid-seral stands adjacent to late-successional stands would,increase the edge-effect and effectively reduce interior patch size. Reduction in canopy<closure to less than 600/0 within late-successional stands would reduce available habitat for late-successional species. Fuel reduction treatments would remove some small dimTIeterstems and result in decreased stand conlplexity and potential loss of vertical structu're:Loss of understory structure (small diameter trees and shrubs) would reduce nesting habitat for sonle neotropical birds, and could potentially change micro-site characteri~lifs required for other species such as nlo11usks and salamanders. Objectives for snag anqcoarse woody material retention are described specifically in Chapter II, Section C, 6. Large trees felled during implementation ~ou.ld:'be left on-site until objectives for coarse woody material are met. Where standing sh~gs,are deficient, sufficient numbers of large trees would be left for recruitment into,:the:snJig' component. Underburning would consume small and some medium-sized woody'm'at~fial, large woody material generally remains after underburning treatments. Removal\Of:=forest litter and debris associated with broadcast and pile burning could reduce habit.at and':connectivity for small cursorial species. The requirenlents for dispersal for manysmall vertebrate and invertebrate species are not well understood. Underbull1ing also~as'the::potential to ignite and consume standing snags. Loss of snags reduces availably nystmg and roosting habitat of numerous species including, but not limited to northern spq~!#.,(Lpwl, fisher, bats, northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), and some neottopA~~Lbirds. Additional loss of snags may be expected during implementation if they are deemed hazardous to human operations. The primary indicator for effects on late-successional habitat is change of average forest stand conditions that are assumed to currently represent late seral conditions, i.e., stands that average 17 inches or larger in diameter, and have 600/0 or greater canopy closure. There are three scales utilized for analysis of late-successional habitat effects: the Project Areas for each Action Alternative, the scale of the northern portion ofthe"Mt. Ashland LSR, and the scale of the entire Mt. Ashland LSR. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 92 Ashland Forest Resiliency 'Critical Habitat Unit/ Mapped Owl Conservation Are~ Critical Habitat Units/Mapped Owl Conservation Areas are a designation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, primarily designed for the recovery of the northern spotted owl, in association with the Endangered Species Act. As such, the indicator for effects analysis is the change in northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat. Change in dispersal habitat is also considered. These effect mechanisms are discussed in greater detail under the northern spotted owl habitat Significant Issue (Section 6, above). The scale for analysis of effects is the Project Areas for each Action Alternative, and-at the'':: scale of entire CHU/M OCA. 'u<:_ /Abiotic Modelind The abiotic modeling was developed to aid in the identification of thos~ aiea,~'\with potential for nesting. In this analysis, the model was used to assess the affects':!9"nabitat within those potential nesting areas. As such, the indicator for effects analy~ts':::i,s the.'i,change in the amount of northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) hahir~t\vithin Moderate and High potential nesting areas. Change in dispersal habitat isa}so considered. The scale for analysis of effects is the Analysis Area'flpa'::';t'the scale of entire Late- Successional Reserve. IHabitat Connectivit~ Connectivity is a tenn for the extent Jd\y'hi:~h~'the large landscape pattern of the late- successional and old-growth ecosys!i.,~:provldes for biological and ecological flows that sustain late-successional anim~l'~md,,;plarlf species. Connectivity does not necessarily mean that late-successional areas ha~~ to b'e"::physically joined in space, because many late- successional species can mQX,~ (8r"oe carried) across areas that are not in late-successional ecosystem conditions. Le[gy',_]andscape features affecting connectivity are (1) distance between late-successi9!1al'uareas, and (2) forest conditions in areas between late-successional (USDA and USDr'L9,9~)/:" c. Direct and;:IntHrect Effects of Alternatives lLatejSucce'~~'i~na) Reserve Functionl N::o-Action Alternative , .,,:lrr~the absence of stand-replacement wildland fire or large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, :,:;:::::'4~~:';'rvrt. Ashland LSR would remain a critical node in the LSR network and would provide ','suii'able migration, travel, and dispersal corridors for multiple species between the Siskiyou and Cascade Ranges. The Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve and CHU would continue to provide high-quality habitat for northern spotted owl, fisher (Martes pennanti), and other late-successional species. Final EIS !IDRAFT WORK INPROGRESSl! III .93 Ashland Forest Resiliency Early and mid-seral stands would continue to develop into mature habitat. Ecosystem processes such as insect infestations and disease would continue to create decadence, nlortality, and defonnities in individual or groups of trees which provide diversity in stands and nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities for nlany late-successional species. Large-scale insect or disease outbreaks resulting in tree mortality over large areas could result in substantial loss of late-successional habitat and LSR function and connectivity. Historically, bark beetles (family Sco()}tidae) killed SOlne trees in the LSR. Frequent, low- intensity fires, which historically regulated stand densities, is thought to have prevented major beetle outbreaks (US Forest Service 1996). Fire exclusion over the last 8-9 deGades, has resulted in high stocking densities and increased ladder and ground fuels. Effeytive fire suppression and high stocking densities has resulted in the highest bark beetle mortalitysates ever recorded in western Oregon over the last 10 years (US Forest Service 1996)\ Large portions of the Analysis Area have missed one or more fire-retumipteryals resulting in over-stocked stands and high fuel loading. This conlbined with steep tqpography, high sunlmer temperatures, and the history of numerous fire starts in t~e area, creates the potential for large-scale high-severity wildland fire. This could involve ,s:uB~,taI1tial loss of late- successional habitat, and loss of LSR function and connectivity restlIting in potential tenlporary reduction or displacenlent of some late-successignal ~pecies. In the event of large-scale, high-severity wildland fire"th~,Nt:t. Ashland LSR would likely not support current densities of late-successional speciee;:Travel and dispersal corridors from the Siskiyou and Cascade Ranges could potentially be:,~everely disrupted depending on the juxtaposition of late-successional habitat r~m,a.iQil1g'after a fire, particularly when combined with the barrier imposed by the Interstate 5 'c6fridbr to the East. Proposed Action ',;d:, Treatments under the Proposed !\ctiol1,"a~e;identified by Components. For analyses of effects to LSR, the following discussi()iis refer' to the descriptions outlined in this FEIS, Chapter II and Appendix B: Backgroll:nd anct"prescriptionsfor the Forest Service Proposed Action. Treatnlents within Defe~sip'le.,::Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) would retain 60% canopy closure in stands currentlY:"at ~)l:,:"greater than this canopy closure. The majority of treatments within DFPZs would lte ~~r{~ci'Tuel reduction treatments. These include removal of small diameter trees and prunitil~}::p-,!"liinbs on large trees to raise live crown height to 20-25 feet. .,::.............. Relnoyal or:smCiIr diameter trees and the potential removal of nlistletoe brooms in the lower brancli~s of large trees would sinlplify the structure of the stand and may reduce its value for somel~te?':successional species by removing nesting or roosting habitat or habitat and security COVeL for prey species. Treatments within DFPZs would not measurably add to human g~perated habitat fragmentation because forested stands would remain at greater than 600/0 ~anppy closure. Treatments within the Interface Compartments are designed to reduce crown density and surface and ladder fuels. These treatments would reduce canopy closure to as low as 400/0 in some areas. Stands treated with this strategy would retain the largest trees after treatment. Late-successional species are generally associated with large trees, snags, and coarse woody material, dense canopy closures, and nlulti-storied stands. Reducing canopy to belo\v 600/0 is likely to reduce the stand's ability to provide nesting and roosting habitat for late- successional species, due to reduction of structure and loss of thermal and security cover. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 94 Ashland Forest Resiliency Reduction of canopy closure and removal of vertical and horizontal structure within a late- successional stand may allow access for species which are not normally associated with these forest types. Presumably, these actions could create an increase in the potential for predation on, and competition with, late-successional species. Currently, there is a paucity of information on the effects of thinning to late-successional habitats and associated species. Treatments within Interface Compartments would retain dispersal habitat for northern spotted owl and other species; it is unknown how these type treatments affect movement in species with poor dispersal capabilities. Late-Successional Habitat Compartment treatments are designed to thin mid-seral c!o&esr'::: stands where the average diameter is 5-17 inches. This treatment is designed to pnimote";',::" growth in the larger trees by reducing competing vegetation so that it develops inlo late-. successional habitat more quickly, and to reduce the risk of fire adversely affe~tiQg suitable northern spotted owl habitat. Canopy closure would be maintained at ~ 60%'iil'those areas that are adjacent to northern spotted owl habitat. Treatments that retain 2:: .600/0 canopy closure would not create a well-defined edge, and would not impede pov.yrri'ent or dispersal of late-successional species. Under the Proposed Action, no tre(ltQ]en<f~,,::would occur within a 0.5 mile radius of known northern spotted owl nest sites within"':dyfin~d:Late-Successional Compartments. Management within the Research Natural Area (RNAJ'i:A:'-de~!gned to reduce competition with large pines and Douglas-fir and provide favora~}e:;;:2611ditions for regeneration of these species. Within the Research Natural Area, varial;>Je(l~risity management would be used to thin stands to near 400/0 canopy closure. Thinn~ng:;b-f~tnall diameter stems and disposal of activity fuels would remove horizontal and::YieI"{ic.gJ structure and remove some multi-layered canopies where they now occur. Trea~:ITI~r-t~:''Y.jthin this strategy would have similar effects to late-successional species as InterfageGbwpartment treatments described above. The objectives of the Proposed.:. Actiqp. "::,are compatible with the Northwest Forest Plan objectives for the Late-Succes~tS?naLReserve System which is designed to protect and enhance conditions of late~'suFce'ssfonal and old-growth forest ecosystems, serving as habitat for late-successional an~/ql.?,:;:growth related species including the northern spotted owl. " , Treatments prescrih~~"p'p(l'er the Proposed Action are designed to protect the Late- Successional R'e&:ttY:;~~:arrd the Ashland Municipal Watershed in the event of large-scale high- severity wildla!t~L:!ire. In the long-term, treatments prescribed under the Proposed Action are expected to:~'t~&:MJt':in an increase in average stand diameters and the overall amount of late- succes:siona]:'pabi tat. Compi'un'ity Alternative :n.:eatrnents under the Community Alternative are identified by P AGs. For analyses of effects ::::::;'To;:::~SR, the following discussions refer to the descriptions outlined in FEIS Chapter II and /:':Appendix C: Background and Prescriptions for the Community Alternative. Within the 'Ponderosa Pine PAG, overstory canopy would be reduced 40%. Up to 5% of the area within this P AG may remain untreated if the areas do not compromise wildland fire or prescribed fire management goals. Reduction of canopy closure to less than 60% where it currently occurs would affect late-successional habitat. Removal of shrub species and small diarneter Douglas-fir (< 7" diameter) would remove vertical and horizontal structure. The effects to late-successional habitat would be similar to those described under the 'Interface Compartment treatments of the Proposed Action. Final EIS lIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlI III - 95 Ashland Forest Resiliency Prescriptions within the Douglas-fir P AGs nlay reduce canopy closure to below 600/0 (< 0.4 relative stand density) within some areas on south and west aspects. Areas within the northern and eastern aspects would retain greater than 600/0 canopy closure. Removal of overstory canopy to less than 600/0 would downgrade late-successional habitat to dispersal habitat. Thinning of understory canopy through small dianleter tree and shrub relnoval would have effects similar to those described under the Interface Compartment treatments of the Proposed Action. Prescriptions within the Dry and Moist White Fir P AGs are similar to Douglas-fir P AGs in regard to aspect, canopy closure, and removal of understory canopy. Effects to late- successional habitat are similar to those described under the Interface Compartment treatnlents of the Proposed Action. Canopy closure would be retained at greater than 60% on the Cool White Fir P AG. Removal of understory would have similar to those described under the Interface Compartment treatments of the Proposed Action. Northerly aspects in this P AG wouldpotbe treated under the Comnlunity Alternative. Preferred Alternative As with the other two Action Altenlatives, treatments under the"Preferred Alternative are identified by P AGs. Treatments within the Fuel DisconJinuity"Areas are designed to reduce crown density and surface and ladder fuels. These treatments would reduce canopy closure to as low as 40% in some areas. Stands treated w!,~h ~his':strategy would retain the largest trees after treatment. Late-successional species,ar~generally associated with large trees, snags, and coarse woody material, dense capopy"closures, and multi -storied stands. Reducing canopy to below 600/0 is lik~.1Y lo;f.educe the stand's ability to provide nesting and roosting habitat for late-successional';speC'ie~:~"due to reduction of structure and loss of thermal and security cover. Reduction of canopy closuf,..e ahg~~moval of vertical and horizontal structure within a late- ~.. -.........- successional stand may allq\;v,,;,~ccess for species which are not normally associated with these forest types. Presumably;=:::,t.~ese actions could create an increase in the potential for predation on, and cOlnpetitiqn witn;':,:!ate-successional species. Currently, there is a paucity of information onJh~:~effects of thinning to late-successional habitats and associated species. Treatments wit~il11nterface Compartments would retain dispersal habitat for northern spotted owl and oth,e.r spe9h~s; it is unknown how these type treatments affect nlovement in species with ppor dispersal capabilities. . - Treatmynts within the Strategic Ridgeline Areas would retain 600/0 canopy closure in stands currently at or greater than this canopy closure. The majority of treatments within these areas \.HwJ:?,uld be surface fuel reduction treatments. These include removal of small diameter trees "',andJpruning of lilnbs on large trees to raise live crown height to 20-25 feet. Removal of small diameter trees and the potential removal of mistletoe brooms in the lower branches of large trees would simplify the structure of the stand and nlay reduce its value for sonle late-successional species by removing nesting or roosting habitat or habitat and security cover for prey species. Treatments within the Strategic Ridgeline Areas would not nleasurably add to human generated habitat fragmentation because forested stands would remain at greater than 600/0 canopy closure. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 96 Ashland Forest Resiliency Management within the Research Natural Area (RNA) is designed to reduce competition with large pines and Douglas-fir and provide favorable conditions for regeneration of these species. Within the Research Natural Area, variable density management would be used to thin stands to near 40% canopy closure. Thinning of small diameter stems and disposal of activity fuels would remove horizontal and vertical structure and remove some multi-layered canopies where they now occur. Treatments within this strategy would have similar effects to late-successional species as Interface Compartment treatments described above. Summary of Late-Successional Reserve Effects The proposed alternatives could treat and maintain from 3,495 up to 4,773 acres and""::,, downgrade up to 918 up to 1,292 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat (Table 1II-28). ?,his would occur by either thinning of stands that would reduce canopy and simplify rruJtipJe storied stands or fuel reduction activities that could result in reductions of shrub::,md small tree layers as well as reductions in small woody material. - Table III-28. Effects to LSR RO 248 (acres) NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat Percent Change Treated & Alternative Baseline Removed Down raded in NRF Habitat Maintained Proposed 29,729 0 1,035 -3.5jo 3,978 Action Community 29,729 0 918 % 3,4958 Alternative Preferred 29,729 0 1,292 4,773 Alternative The downgrading ofNRF habitat wq,pl(t::?'~;'~pproximately 3 to 4 percent of the total NRF within the LSR and would occur ov~f'a,::r'\(e;:'to ten year time period in actual implementation. .... ...:t:.. .~::- The downgrading of up to 1,29? acre'Ef'hf spotted owl NRF habitat would reduce nesting, roosting, and foraging opp6!:!~nlties for spotted owls and would somewhat contribute to fragmentation ofNRF ha,J2,~te!.:,)Vithin the LSR. However, spotted owls would likely continue to persist in the LSR gj,yep'llie remaining NRF habitat that would remain after the project is implemented. '{: ,:~:::, .': :~'" .' ..... -......... ICritical Habil~lt:::~IJ'llit/ Mapped Owl Conservation Are~ ~. ':':':~::;';'" ~:: .....~:-::?::~;;::::.. No-AcfJ9n A;~lernative In th~~\::p'b~:,~nce of stand-replacement wildland fire or large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, CIITJ.!:JjR~:76IMOCA 19 would continue to provide high-quality habitat for northern spotted "A~\vl, fi'~her, and other late-successional species. Early and mid-seral stands would continue _ :{::::\:.!9'''tlevelop into mature habitat. Ecosystem processes such as insect infestations and disease "'::--would continue to create decadence, mortality, and deformities in individual or groups of trees which provide diversity in stands and nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities for many late-successional species. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III - 97 Ashland Forest Resiliency Large portions of the Analysis Area have missed one or nlore fire-return intervals resulting in over-stocked stands and high fuel loading. This combined with steep topography and high summer temperatures create the potential for large-scale, high-severity \vildland fire. This could involve substantial loss of late-successional habitat, and loss of LSR function and connectivity resulting in potential tenlporary reduction or displacelnent of some late- successional species. In the event of large-scale, high-severity wildland fire, travel and dispersal corridors fronl the' Siskiyou and Cascade Ranges could potentially be severely disrupted depending on the juxtaposition of suitable habitat remaining after a fire, particularly when combined with,!.he barrier imposed by the Interstate 5 corridor to the East.' Proposed Action,:: :.": The Proposed Action would downgrade or remove northern spotted owl_suitablehabitat in OR-76/MOCA 19 through removal and reduction of canopy closure andmq1tiple canopies in forested stands. Additional degrading would occur by understory treatmeJ:)ts'that include burning and understory thinning. The indicator for effects analysis for COO/MOCA is the change in northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat. Change in disp~rsal habitat is also considered. The scale for analysis of effects is the scale of entire Cffi]/MOCA. Downgrading suitable habitat reduces overstory canopy to less than 60 perc~nt~ut greater than 40 percent, and changes suitable habitat to dispersal-only habitat.T~_!lling that removes some overstory, but retains 60 percent canopy coverage or more is considered degraded, but remains suitable. Under the Proposed Action, approximately;:};035 acres of habitat would be removed or downgraded within OR-76/MOCA Y9,duting'landing construction and improvement, or treatments within the Interface ~pd ~N:.A. --However, these areas are widely dispersed which would minin1ize effects to cOIlflectivitY. Within the treatment-areas, forested habitats would remain and continue to proyide:f9Imovement and dispersal within and across the CHU/MOCA. Community Alter~,!ltire:\ . The Communi~x 1}"lte[Jiative would also downgrade or remove northern spotted owl suitable habitat (appro>;im~,tehT918 acres) in OR-76/MOCA 19 through landing construction and improvemyp'! 6r;.!.~ihoval and reduction of canopy closure and nlultiple canopies in forested stands!: AdqiHonill degrading would occur by understory treatments that include burning and underst~:y thinning. Undef:,the Community Alten1ative, OR-76/MOCA 19 would continue to provide east-west , '-:liriJ<ages for northern spotted owl in the Klalnath Mountains and across to the Cascades -"\l:>ecause a very snlall amount of habitat would be removed during landing construction and ""ilnprovement and these areas are widely dispersed. Within the treatment areas, forested habitats would remain and continue to provide for movement and dispersal within and across the CHU/MOCA. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 98 Ashland Forest Resiliency Preferred Alternative As with the other two Action Alternatives, the Preferred Alternative would also downgrade northern spotted owl suitable habitat (approximately 1,292 acres) in OR-76/MOCA 19 through landing construction and improvement or removal and reduction of canopy closure and multiple canopies in forested stands. Additional degrading would occur by understory treatments that include burning and understory thinning. Under the Preferred Alternative, OR-76/MOCA 19 would continue to provide east-west linkages for northern spotted owl in the Klamath Mountains and across to the Cascades because a very small amount of habitat would be removed during landing constructipn arid, improvement and these areas are widely dispersed. Within the treatment areas, for~,~ted "". habitats would remain and continue to provide for movement and dispersal withiQ ail'd:~across the CHU/MOCA. Summary of Critical Habitat/ Mapped Owl Conservation Area Effects .,:.: :<,::\;: The Proposed Action would reduce available NRF habitat within this:,:~~IMOCA by 1,035 acres (1.8 percent), and maintain 3,978 acres ofNRF habitat an,~':4p te:::..!,,078 acres of dispersal habitat. Dispersal}:labitat would decline within the CH1JIMOCA by approximately 3.9 percent under the Proposed Action. " The Community Alternative would reduce available NRt:"habitat within this CHU/MOCA by 918 acres (1.6 percent), and maintain 3,495 acres of,,~:habitat and up to 1,168 acres of dispersal habitat. Dispersal habitat would declineii;v'i~gin"'the CHU/MOCA by approximately 3.1 percent under the Community Alternative. .-:;:,\:, '" The Preferred Alternative would reduyp' aygf!,able NRF habitat within this CHU/MOCA by 1,292 acres (2.3 percent), and maintai~'4,Z:-3:':acres ofNRF habitat and up to 988 acres of dispersal habitat. Dispersal hab~.!at iWQ,uld':hot decline within the CHU/MOCA under the Preferred Alternative. ",' .......... Table 01-29. Effects to NRf.:~ll~bitat CHU OR-76/MOCA 19 (acres) CHUlMOCA CHUlMOCA CHUlMOCA CHUlMOCA Percent NRFHabitat Habitat NRF Habitat NRF Habitat Change. in Treated & Alternative Baseline . Remov'ed Down raded . NRF Habitat Maintained' .. Proposed ::)::::,:,::,,:,,56;'258 0 1,035 -1.8% 3,978 Action",:: Comm'Y,Q1.ty 56,258 0 918 -1.6% 3,495 Alternative,=:: Preferred 56,258 0 1,292 -2.3% 4,773 A/ternaYive Fin'al EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIlIII - 99 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table llI-30. Effects to Dispersal Habitat CHU OR-76/MOCA 19 (acres) CHUlMOCA CHU/MOCA CHUlMOCA CHUlMOCA Percent Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Change in Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Dispersal Treated & Alternative Baseline Removed Downgraded Habitat Maintained Proposed 2,862 0 0 0% 1,078 Action Community 2,862 0 0 0% 1,168 Alternative Preferred 2,862 0 0 0% 988 Alternative The downgrading of up to 1,292 acres of spotted owl habitat within the CHU/lv1~CA would reduce nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities for spotted owls, wou~d:coJJtribute to a reduction of suitable NRF habitat within this CHU, and would likely advers~]Y effect spotted owl critical habitat. However, the intended conservation function of this unit (intra- and inter-province connectivity by maintaining essential NRF and q~spersalhabitats) is still likely to be met given the remaining suitable NRF habitat that will rerriai,pp'after the project is implemented, and the habitat features retained in the treated stands as discussed above. Determination:; :":' Treatments under each of the Action Alternatives rempvy'or downgrade Critical Habitat due to reduction of canopy to less than 60% and modification to understory habitat elements in forested stands, results in an overall "May a ffe cf, Hkely to adversely effect" determination for Critical Habitat. /Abiotic Factorsl The downgrading ofNRF habi1at could reduce opportunities for spotted owl nesting in the Analysis Area, however the~:e are currently no known spotted owls using these areas proposed for treatment. Ih~r:e:,would be over 9,000 acres ofNRF habitat within Moderate to High potential nesting ar~:as:;:ilvailable post-treatment that should allow ample opportunities for any new or shifttp'g,[Sp'6tted to find suitable nest sites. ... ." .. '.-:;:.:.. :.:-;i-....;. ....;.... The Proposed:',~~~t~,9'fi' would downgrade approximately 646 acres (6.5 percent) ofNRF within Mode:r:e!~:::tOHigh potential nesting areas. The Community Alternative would down~ade'~ppr()ximately 532 acres (5.3 percent) ofNRF within Moderate to High potential areas:.,'/the Preferred Alternative would downgrade approxinlately 774 acres (7.0 percent) ofNBF'within Moderate to High potential nesting areas. p:::IIHlbitat Connectivit~ '.:.:::. ~: No-Action Alternative Under No-Action there would be no change in the current condition. The northern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR would continue to provide late-successional habitat. A large-scale high-severity fire would likely fragment the large blocks of late-successional habitat that currently exist in the northern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Although the habitat along the crest is currently fragmented by natural open meadows, it would still provide cormecting habitat. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!1I1 -100 Ashland Forest Resiliency Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative Under the three Action Alternatives, all of the treatments methods (density management, understory thinning, slash abatement) would have some effect on dispersal for some species. It is unknown how movement and dispersal would be affected for many species by the Action Alternatives. However, treatments proposed under both Action Alternatives would only affect about one third of the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area, the majority of the area would remain untreated, and within the treatment areas, there would be minimal to no effect on connectivity. There are no models identified to portray these effects that are sensi tive enough to the change the Action Alternatives would incur. The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996) identified loss of lflrge blocks of late-successional habitat as a key issue. The choices faced are to do no~hihg,:gnd risk large-scale fragmentation for all late-successional species associated with th~'>~nalysis Area, or attempt to modify the fire severity and create potential for fragtlJentafibn3h the short-term for some species. Interstate 5 exacerbates the issue of fragme~pt~~iqp' because it limits dispersal and n1igration eastward to the Cascade Range for all spe,s~es':;:with the possible exception of those which are capable of flight. "-'::: ":: d. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives Effects Common to Action Alternatives,:"., Cumulative effects are caused by the past, present, anci:leqeonably foreseeable future actions as the effects would change or alter aspects of spec,ies:~:Q:ehavior or alter habitat characteristics. . Cumulative effects are conside~yg';'r~~atdless of ownership. Aspects addressed when considering cumulative e~[ey!~::!pc]ude the total effect applicable to the scope of the project, and relative to spatial and ty~p?raj::accumulation of actions relative to the activity area of the project. ",," .. ,(:. ',:-:.'. The proposed Ashland Forest ~esili~ncy:;:activities would have cumulative effects with regard to Mt. Ashland Late Successional Re:s'erve, under the Action Alternatives due to the amount of habitat entered. Approxi,!Eate1y,:"r8 acres of late-successional habitat are removed under Ashland Watershed Prot~,,~tipfifProject. Though implementation of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area .-.-.'.;.-. .;............. Expansion would resuIt"'lQ,"ii::JO'ss of 44 acres of late-successional habitat, the Special Use Permit area is notw~,~ht~;:tjSR RO-248. Within the LSR, timber harvest during the 1960-90 time period affec,Jed,,:Ja{e~successional habitat. Salvage and roadside hazard operations within the Analysis Ar~,~:"reauced the large snag component. ~. '. .".. '.- "("':'~""'. ..:;....:.:::;7:... '"'.:.':" The 1\1t; A~hiitia Late-Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project on th~:'KJ.:,am~th National Forest will treat 4,468 acres in 247 stands in the southern portion of the ~:SR: (ROD May 2008). Treatments are designed to improve late-successional habitat. "J.bere':i:are no other Federal actions planned within the Mt. Ashland LSR which would further ::}::~':'-::teduce late-successional habitat. '.:.:.~: .:::" Harvest activities on state and private lands within the Analysis Area can be expected to impact late-successional species located within adjacent federal lands by removing and fragmenting habitat. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlllI1 - 101 Ashland Forest Resiliency 8. Insect Related Tree Mortality "Fill activities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially density managel1lent of vegetation) affect the risk of tree IIl0rtality due to pille bark beetles and flatheaded fir borer infestations? There are basically four groups of forest insects and pathogens that are considered as disturbance agents in and around the Ashland Watershed (i.e., the Upper Bear Analysis Area): white pine blister rust, bark beetles and woodborers, dwarf mistletoe, and laminated root rot. The most significant of these agents are those of insects. Based on recent evaluations of ecology plots and other insect and disease surveys, m,orhi.lity due to westenl and nlountain pine beetle in ponderosa and sugar pine in the Upper Be~r-Apalysis Area now varies between 1.0 and 3.0 percent of the pines annually. There is no information on levels of bark beetle caused pine mortality for 1850 or before, but there has beerlasubstantial increase since 1914. It seems certain that there have been increased inlp~<?tsJ?ybark beetles frOln historical to current times, and these were likely due to fire excl~:sio~,and the resultant increases in stand densities. Pine bark beetles infest stressed hosts'and,thisincludes those weakened as a result of competition for water and other resources in dense stands. Hosts growing at lower elevations and on drier exposures are especial~y:,:yulnerable. 3. Background The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (incorporatedl:j'y-reference) describes insect and disease information at pages 1-31-33. This infonnation~,~s;primarily related to pine bark beetles and flathead fir borer is summarized below. Several species of native bark beetle~Jf,pni1y Scolytidae) and flatheaded woodborers(fanlily Buprestidae) cause mortality ofcorij[~!S :in Southwest Oregon. The most prominent species in the Analysis Area include w~sternpinebeet1e (Dendroctonus brevicomis) on ponderosa pine, mountain pine beetle"(l? p'bhderosae) on ponderosa and sugar pine, and flatheaded fir borer (Melanophila drU7111.n01!di) on Douglas-fir. Pine bark beetles pr~ferorare most successful on hosts that are under some degree of physiological str.~ss,,'THey almost always infest host trees that are injured, diseased, or of low vigor because q[,:"torrlpetition w'ith other trees for limited water and/or other resources. In the Analysis Are~,,!hey are especially likely to infest hosts growing in overstocked stands (stands with p:!l?e cd~p'onents that have relative stand densities greater than 0.3 in the Dry Douglas- fir P ~,Q'9.r gi-eater than 0.4 in the Moist Douglas-fir or Dry White Fir P AGs). They tend to be in:X?lved in tree mortality during drier than nonnal years. :':':\:_:::::~~re,~tern pine beetles frequently infest the largest ponderosa pines in a stand and/or groups of _":.:...smaJI ponderosa pines in dense thickets. Mountain pine beetles often infest sIn all or intermediate-sized ponderosa pines in groups and scattered sugar pines of all sizes. Flatheaded fir borers prefer stressed hosts. They are especially active in dense Douglas-fir stands at low elevations, on drier aspects, and on harsh sites. Local experience indicates that Douglas firs in stands in the Dry Douglas-fir P AG with relative stand densities over 0.5 are particularly vulnerable. Final EIS lIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!1I1 . 102 Ashland Forest Resiliency Flatheaded fir borer activity is associated with drier than normal years and especially with several consecutive years of droughty conditions. Platheaded fir borers infest Douglas-fir of all sizes and frequently kill trees in groups. b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, stands in the Analysis Area would remain heavily stocked and continue to be vulnerable to pine bark beetle and flatheaded fir borer infestation. In faS;.f"::" in the absence of fire, stand densities over time would increase above the already highh:~vels-;:'-':' that now prevail and vulnerability would increase. Insect-caused mortality would cpntinhe<to -- occur or would increase in the Dry White Fir, Moist Douglas-fir, and Dry Dougla.s- finJ~AGs and would be particularly substantial in the latter. Some kinds of stands, stanq.cgrnponents, and trees would be especially hard hit including the densest stands with pin~,<i.O'h1ponents, dense Douglas- fir stands at the lowest elevations especially on ridgetops "al1fhs,nuth and west aspects, and large heritage pine and Douglas-fir surrounded by heavY,,!:ln4<~rstbries. Levels of mortality due to insects are projected to be 3 to 5 percent of the p.q~t {y'p,~s~'annually in the Analysis Area, if this alternative were selected. '-<;;;\:{:::::':'::"h':::>:~;':::':' Under the No-Action Alternative, if the Analysis Area is bUn1~.9jn:a large-scale high-- intensity wildland fire, there would also be insect rami:fiyatiqps":" Tree killing insects would not be present for nlany years in portions of the area~h~,f\V;ere bUDled at high severity and had all the large trees killed outright by the fire. I?-p\y.ey:ef, trees in less severely burned areas that were injured but not killed by the fire would:Uk~Jy:'become more susceptible to infestation by bark beetles and f1atheadedq9r~tS.,::,,:Substantial infestation of pines and Douglas- firs of this type would be exp;~ctrq~,;:::;{}.Jso, green trees in stands surrounding the area affected by the fire could experience,:::tp(n::~C\~,:~d insect infestation. It is hard to predict with precision whether or not this wOllldfh:~pp{.~h~ Based on evidence from past fires, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn 't.t""ItaPR<~:ais to be most likely to occur in an area where insect populations are already eleyate:q:,~:at !he' time that a large wildland fire burns. This would certainly be the case in the"'~~lysrs Area, depending on the particular year a wildland fire happens to burn. . Proposed Action '" '_', Under the Propb~~d\{\cfion, stands within the Project Area would be thinned to various levels. ThimliIjgJlas~been docunlented as an effective way to decrease risk of infestation by pine bark B'~~H~~s.()n a variety of pine species (Clements 1953, Cochran 1992, Cochran et al. 1994, {jddle{.ef al. 1989, Gibson 1988, Larsson et al. 1983, McCambridge et al. 1982, Mitch~!l:;r,,~ al. 1983, Oliver 1995, Pitman et al. 1982, Preisler and Mitchell 1993, Sartwell 19.7l.~/::~(lrlwell and Dolph 1976, Sartwell and Stevens 1975, Schmid et al. 1994) and is also A!ieliev'ed to reduce risk of flatheaded fir borer infestation. Thinning both increases host vigor r::;<::::e.:p:~::iadversely influences the abilities of insects to locate hosts and aggregate populations. The heaviest density management under the Proposed Action (Interface Compartment Treatments) would reduce relative densities to levels of 0.3 or lower on very dry sites (Dry Douglas-fir PAG) or 0.4 or lower on dry but slightly wetter sites (Moist Douglas-fir and Dry White Fir P AGs). At these densities, risk of pine bark beetle and/or flatheaded fir borer infestation become low. It is estimated that levels of mortality would be 0.5 percent or less annually in host types. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlllII - 103 Ashland Forest Resiliency Thinning in DFPZs would immediately reduce relative densities to about 0.5 or 0.6. This should reduce risk of flatheaded fir borer to low, but would leave pines at relatively high risk. Within these zones, options to thin to wider spacing around certain selected pines or groups of pines may partially anleliorate this concenl, but only in the cases of the individual pines or groups of pines so treated. Eventually (within the next 20 years), DFPZs would have stocking levels reduced to the same levels as in the Interface Conlpartments, and insect risk would drop to the same levels. Late-successional habitat would be retained at current high stocking levels (relative densities similar to those currently existing in closed stands averaging 0.7 to 1.0). Pines on aIL:sites, and/or Douglas-firs on lower elevation dry sites would be at high risk of insect infestatiohin conlpartments with these stocking levels. To have the greatest likelihood of being sustainable, these habitat retention blocks should be located in riparian areas or-:Q~:,north facing slopes, contain relatively small pine components if any, and, whenever'possible, be located in the nloister P AGs. Community Alternative ,<:.u. ' Like the Proposed Action, the COlnmunity Altenlative would alspjpy,olve thinning stands to lower densities. Where treatnlents would decrease relative de,psitie,sin pine stands or pine components to 0.3 on very dry sites (in the 'Dry Douglas- firP69) or 0.4 on dry but slightly wetter sites (in Moist Douglas-fir and Dry White Fir PAGs)",;-ri"sk of pine bark beetle infestation would be substantially lowered. The risk offlatheaded fir borer infestation would likewise be lowered where densities were reducedpeIow'O.6 in the Dry Douglas-fir P AG. The difference between the Proposed Acti()nqn4},he Community Altenlative would be 1) in the nUlnber of acres that would be treated,~:nderthe two proposals, 2) in the relative amount of density reduction that would be a~p<)ll}pI~:~hed under the two treatments, and perhaps 3) in the long term plans for additional t~!,~i~g::treatments in the future (beyond this proposal). It appears the Community Altern ati v-e: plans to treat a larger number of acres immediately over the Proposed Action. ':Iiowever, the Proposed Action might actually thin key areas in the Interface Compartmep,ts,t?)ower, more desirable residual densities, in terms of risk of insects. The 10ng-tel1l2 strategy under the Proposed Action acknowledges the need for more additional thinningj,~:thefuture, beyond this proposal. Preferred AJter~i~iye The Prefeired,ATiemative would be siInilar to the other two Action Alternatives in that stand densiqes would'be reduced. Where treatments would decrease relative densities in pine stand~';br.:pine cOlnponents to 0.3 on very dry sites (in the Dry Douglas-fir P AG) or 0.4 on dry ti:~t:''SiTght1y wetter sites (in Moist Douglas- fir and Dry White Fir P AGs), risk of pine bark :,:peetle::::iilfestation would be substantially lowered. The risk of flatheaded fir borer infestation _,__;would likewise be lowered where densities were reduced below 0.6 in the Dry Douglas-fir ','PAG. Thinning in the strategic ridgeline areas would immediately reduce relative densities to about 0.5 or 0.6. This should reduce risk of flatheaded fir borer to lo\\', but would leave pines at relatively high risk. Within these zones, options to thin to wider spacing around certain selected pines or groups of pines may partially ameliorate this concern, but only in the cases of the individual pines or groups of pines so treated. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlIlII - 104 Ashland Forest Resiliency As with the other two Action Alternatives, the Preferred Alternative would acknowledge the need for more additional thinning in the future, beyond this proposal. c. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives The long term consequences of the No-Action Alternative would be to: l) greatly reduce the pine components throughout the Project Area but especially in the Douglas-fir P AGs, 2) virtually eliminate the large heritage ponderosa and sugar pines, especially in the drier P AGs;,:;:",:: 3) allow extensive pulses of Douglas-fir mortality throughout the dry Douglas-fir P AG and~J~n\ drier locations (especially south and west aspects) in the wet Douglas- fir P AG, and _4}_crea.te'c: large anlounts of large fuel in the form of both standing and down dead trees. ' . The cumulative effect of this on other resources is both beneficial and adverse.,::It,~is consequence would clearly contribute to greater risk of high-severity staJ.1d ~,eplacement fire. These risks would be reduced under both Action Alternatives, because of h,~zm:dous fuel treatments that are designed to make the ecosystem more fire resilient. -, ....::./.;,-,...;- 9. Inventoried Roadless Area 1f1i/l activities associated with hazardous fuel treatlnen[s l}ffe'~t;;the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (some people may value thisia~eii:for its ultdisturbed or spiritual ~aroc~~~ ~ _~ ::::,.- :: -::-:,,- "~'''';:'' The McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Arya oc~urs'p'artially within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. This inventoried roadless area, in the v~::~i~rfY"::(n~ proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatments, currently possesses undevelqp.eq 6lj:aiacter values. A portion of the McDonald Peak >.. -.... ..0. Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) lies w~fhi!}:::t~;e:?Ashland Creek Watershed and Wagner Creek sub-watersheds. Controversy overJoaQ:!,es~ "areas has been in public debate for decades. ':":<;:~:::+: Inventoried Roadless areas, like,:::W'ildemess, are valued by many for their very existence in an undeveloped state. This valu,~ (~"::b*perienced practically by users of the area, and intrinsically by those who place value in sinipl~:'1mowing that undeveloped lands, perceived as "wild," still exist. 3. Backgroun:~::: The 2003 'URpef:~J.:3ear Assessment (incorporated by reference) describes supplemental roadle;ss area.:Tnformation at pages 1-12-14. This supplemental section briefly outlines the historY'i:pehirid roadless areas, and specifically for the McDonald Peak IRA, an area without roadf:tn~(hinventoried for its roadless characteristics and once considered for potential -wild:emess designation. The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment shows the IRA in relation to the '::Bpper Bear Analysis area at page 1-14. :;'The McDonald Peak IRA is located entirely on lands administered by the RR-SNF. The McDonald Peak IRA is not adjacent to, contiguous to or near any designated Wilderness area. It is not adjacent to, contiguous to or near any other area previously or currently inventoried as roadless. Approximately 7,380 acres of the 9,425 acre IRA is contained within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The McDonald Peak IRA was not considered suitable for Wilderness during analysis for inclusion in the 1984 Wilderness Act and was released for multiple use management with the decisions associated with the 1990 RRNF LRMP. Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlllII - 105 Ashland Forest Resiliency b. Direct Effects of Alternatives The modification of forest and evidence of human activity into this previously undeveloped area are a direct effect; and could also create indirect human social effects. While there is a measurable difference in acres affected, the most significant and measurable effect is the mere presence of modification of the natural landscape, thus the subsequent discussions of roadless and undeveloped character focus on the differences between No-Action and the Action Alternatives. No-Action Alternative." \' This alternative would maintain the current conditions with no effect on primitive r~creafion opportunities within the lRA and additional adjacent areas that currently possess }In'\ undeveloped character. Current opportunities in a primitive, natural setting with;ehigh degree of solitude would be maintained. ' The No-Action Alternative maintains the same potential for future Wild~[11ess designation of McDonald Peak as does the current condition. This potential is,C,\lrreptly perceived by many to be low because of the area's small size, and lack of adjacenr'lill~:ex~16ped areas available to substantially expand its size. '. Proposed Action . ,:::::, This alternative proposes hazardous fuel reduction treatjIiepts within portions of the IRA. Although no new roads or landings would be con~0i?t~'a:=\vithin the IRA, management actions such as density management, pruning, a,n4':pr,~:scribed fire are proposed. These actions would not be evident from a landsCepe))[,,9verhead view but would be visible to persons walking through areas where ~Eea:~:~~t'$ ~'ccurred. . ....::~. r:..:.~ '.:::.", . "::. :.: ". :.;.;. ".;.:-:.-. As much as 1,516 acres of the ~js:.prQJ>tjsed for some form of treatment under the Proposed Action. This is an upper fl1t~shold of extent, as not all of this acreage within the IRA may be identified for treat~~n~;during implementation. The proposed managem~nt'~~Ji6ns may affect the existing character for those who feel it should remain unq~velqpe9'and show no evidence of human disturbance. There would be no substantial cha~ge,:,tq}ate~successional habitat or late seral vegetation conditions. Some stumps may be::~~~deJ1t. The ecological effects of fragmentati?n and late-successional forest connectivi-tX woulp.rbe minimal with these types of treatments and the resulting reduction in fire ha:.?ard'~!idiJ:isk may further protect the integrity of the IRA. .;~. CommpDiJy Alternative ~aza.r,g6us fuel reduction treatments are also proposed within portions of the IRA, under the '",' ,,:G::9pm1unity Alternative. No new roads or landings would be constructed within the IRA, ,::":\::,::~,~p'~}:diameter limitations are part of the design criteria (see Section C, 5, c, Chapter II). "':Management actions such as small diameter density management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed. These actions would not be evident from a landscape view but would be visible to persons walking through areas where treatments occurred. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlllII - 106 Ashland Forest Resiliency Approximately 1,481 acres of the IRA is proposed for treatment under the Community Alternative. The proposed management actions may affect the existing character for those who feel it should remain undeveloped and show no evidence of human disturbance. There would be no substantial change to late-successional habitat or late sera] vegetation conditions. Some small diameter stumps may be evident. The ecological effects of fragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity would be minimal with these types of treatments and the resulting reduction in fire hazard, and risk may further protect the integrity of the IRA. Preferred Alternative ___ The Preferred Alternative proposes hazardous fuel reduction treatments within the .{RA."rhis alternative would treat fewer acres in the IRA than the other two Action Alternative's:L:>N'o new roads or landings would be constructed within the IRA. Approximately ],O~:? acres would be treated within the IRA under the Preferred Alternative. The proposed management actions may affect the existing character for:,lh~'sewho feel it should remain undeveloped and show no evidence of human dism[b~pct?:_.-:There would be no ", .... .. . substantial change to late-successional habitat or late seral vege~!ipg,;::c'Onditions. Some stumps may be evident. The ecological effects of fragmentat!::~:!l cil1d late-successional forest connectivity would be minimal with these types of treatmen,ts:;,~2d the resulting reduction in fire hazard and risk may further protect the integrity oftl~'e'::IlV\': \:.:.,. Summary " ,- :"""" The following table summarizes the direct effes.tq:~:'itl5~fms of acres potentially treated, expressed as a percentage of the IRA withiu ~b~~:::!Jpper Bear Analysis Area, and the entire IRA. "':~,-:. "':_ (y.:::-.>. ";'~';::;...,:-..: j;:~:. ";;..;.,. :.;. ,': Table ill 31. Effects to Inventoried l,lR~~~~:~$S Area, by Alternative .~:;~- ~~: Acr~_Treated ..... Percent of Area Percent of Total IRA WithlrilRA .... Treated Affected 000 1,516 20.5% 16.1% 1,481 20.1% 15.7% Preferred Altern~tiv~':i,+: 'h,,}:" 1,045 14.2% 11.1 % Note: Total McDo~,~ra~,~a~JRA is inventoried at 9,425 acres; total IRA area within Upper Bear Analysis Areas is 7,380 acres. , . \,.,,:,,:\:. }'--' ......,:-::... .;; ,'::::_'-- \,:'''. '? c. Indjrect",and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 1Jlete;Ji:~s been no management actions in this area since the Forest Service inventory \::/Q~furring in the 1980s (and the adjustment of area process in 1999) except for annual i:'..~:::'::::\:ma!:n. tenance of the Wagner Butte Trail and fire suppression activities (e.g., Horn Gap Fire, , ::"2'00:3, 15 acres). In addition to current and proposed ski area expansion activities, there is possible additional trail restoration and development work foreseeable (Grouse Gap Trail). This trail proposal is not likely to have adverse effects to character, and the adverse physical effects of development are likely to be offset by the restoration nature of the Action Alternatives on the current conditions. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIlIII -107 Ashland Forest Resiliency ( Ecosystenl function is not a product of specifically designated boundaries or land allocations. The McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area, and its natural habitat, is simply one component together with the Ashland Watershed, Late-Successional Reserve, and other lands whose management shapes the ecological function of the Siskiyou Mountains. Specific ecological effects of fragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity are discussed in Inore detail in Section D, 7, this Chapter. The ecosystem effects at the landscape scale of altering relatively natural forest in this area are also discussed in Section E, 16, of this Chapter (other non-inventoried senli-primitive unroaded areas). 10. Old and Large Trees -: ",Iill activities associated with hazardous fuel treatments affect late seral or old-;growth vegetative conditions and old or large trees? Ulill this cause a change in al1y!nitjfvalues for recreation use and/or existence values for those who believe such conditiqnsshould be preserved 011 public land? Whether or not to cut and/or remove old and large trees is one ofthe:g2t_t~sfissues in debate with projects that are designed to reduce fire hazard. Some people wallt phlicies that prohibit any renloval of trees over a specified dianleter. Scientists however, point out that such a blanket policy would have substantial consequences on attainment9rl'ir.~'hazard reduction. The old-growth and large-tree retention provisions of t,he{I:!FRA only apply to "covered" projects. Covered projects, as defined in Section 1 qt(~)(l)'(B), include all projects authorized under the HFRA on National Forest System ht,pd,gt_~~Ch'as Ashland Forest Resiliency. ,- ";." a. Background Old Growth . ' Section 1 02( e)(2) provides that:the USDA Forest Service, when carrying out covered projects using HFRA author.~ty,'areto "fully maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and compositi9D()f old-growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old- growth conditions char.acteristic of the forest type, taking into account the contribution of the stand to landscapefire"adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the large trees contributing to'oJd~groWth structure." Section 1 02(~)(3):'provides that old-growth direction in resource management plans established oii':'6r after December 15, 1993, (so-called "newer plan direction") is sufficient to meet th~,requirements of Section 102(e)(2) and will be used by agencies carrying out projects und~fthe'::;HFRA. For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Northwest Forest Plan provides this drreClion. The HFRA does not mandate particular definition of old-growth or the specific ):.,,'pro~ess to identify old-growth stands, nor does the HFRA require that old-growth stands be "\.,::"'mapped. For this analysis, old-growth is essentially defined as late-successional habitat, as .. described by the NWFP. Large-Tree Retention Section 102(f) governs vegetation treatments in covered projects outside of old-growth, and where the resource management plan does not contain old-growth management direction. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!II" -108 Ashland Forest Resiliency The section requires such treatments to be carried out in a manner that: · Will "modify fire behavior, as measured by the projected reduction of uncharacteristically severe wildland fire effects for the forest type (such as adverse soil impacts, tree mortality, or other impacts)." In achieving this objective, vegetation treatments are to focus "largely" on small-diameter trees, thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and prescribed fire; and will, · Maximize "the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the large trees promote fire resilient stands." The HFRA also states that the large-tree retention requirements of Section 1 02(f) mU,~t noh~. prevent agencies from reducing wildland fire risk to communities, municipal watefjs'~'pphe~', and at-risk Federal land. In areas where large-tree retention requirements apply, resb,q,q~e managers should design projects that retain large trees to the extent possible, wmJe they also apply treatments that are appropriate for the forest type, will reduce uncharact-erisHcally severe wildland fire effects within the treated area, and will meet the objectiV,e"".of reducing wildland fire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and at-risk:,<t:~d':e;;'lland. Specific vegetation treatment methods to be applied within these',,::~f.y.i#,'::should be guided by the key objectives described above. Treatment prescriptions ~houl<:Lbe designed for forest vegetation treatments that integrate fuel and other resource ,_obje<:;tives to meet the resource management plan direction. The prescriptions should p~e'sctihe'for retention of large, fire- resilient trees (generally intolerant tree species adaptetl-'Jo{ire processes) and retain large trees to the degree this practice is consistent with tbe"dl?jective of maintaining or restoring fire-resilient stands. However, large trees of selesteg"'species that are not adapted to fire processes may need to be removed to prorn2te.gl:;:yater fire resiliency. Similarly, the removal of small- to mid-sized trees will gener~llY,b.~:l~l~eded to reduce [uelladders within the treatment area, curtailing uncharacteQ,~ti~~t!;Y:severe wildland fire effects and enabling use of prescribed fire. "'<,"" Trees in a variety of size c~::~sse~~~.!?~y need to be removed in these areas to reduce wildland fire risk to communities, rri}l~piparwater supplies, and at-risk Federal land. These practices are allowed under the II.r'~,..,:::>:" ...... .... '," ~..:... \:.:: b. Direct Eff~c~f:o.f ~liernatives ,- Treatment?,,,=,!hat<directly affect old-growth are discussed under the late-successional habitat Signif!<9.ant\l.$'su,e"'tsub-section 7, Section D, Chapter III). Amenity values associated with old-gro,wth forest are tied to the discussion on Inventoried Roadless Area and unroaded (..",,:: char:act~r~:(sub-section 7, Section D, Chapter III, and sub-section 16, Section E, Chapter III). '.-.~:~:~.:.., .. :'ELQr discussion of effects for this issue (large trees) is focused on the quantities of large trees :'\::Q", '~ize class. A "large" tree is somewhat a value judgment and difficult to define. For this :':::~":'analysis, two size classes are used to identify large trees. These classes are 17 to 24 inches in diameter, and greater than 24 inches in diameter. Estimates for the number of trees cut per acre by size class are based on modeling satellite imagery and are intended to provide a rough indication of quantity for comparison purposes. The exact quantity of large trees to be cut under either of the Action Alternatives would ultimately be determined by field verification of the treatment criteria and tracked during implementation monitoring. Final EIS IIORAFT WORK INPROGRESSlllll-109 Ashland Forest Resiliency TTr . No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action alternative, there would be no hazardous fuel reduction treatments, therefore no large trees or old-growth forest would be affected. If no large-scale high- severity fire were to occur within the Analysis Area, the numbers of large trees would slowly increase to sonle point where mortality related to over-density would occur. In the event of a wildland fire, there is the potential to lose portions of the large tree component due to a high- severity fire. The actual extent of this loss is unknown and is not able to be predicted. Refer to the discussion in sub-section 3, Section C, Chapter III, regarding crown fire potential, and the discussion regarding fire behavior associated with the large tree component. Proposed Action ',. The cutting of large trees under the Proposed Action is dependent on the major treatment objectives for each of the components. In the DFPZs, it is estimated that trees laq~er than 15 inches in diameter would not need to be cut in order to achieve the desired starid-conditions, with the exception of insect or disease pockets. Over the 2,800 acres of DEPZJreatments, this exception is estimated to occur on 60 acres. These areas are defined~s "a portion of a stand where laminated root rot is detected, or where 10 percent Qf::p1ore ,()f the overstory Douglas- fir have detectable dwarf mistletoe infections, or wherepin.e.bark beetles or flathead fir borers are attacking trees. To achieve the desired conditio1)onlhese 60 acres, the treatments would call for thinning to a relative stand density 0[9.2. to 0.3. This would likely require that some trees larger than 17 inches in diamet. eI;:;would need to be cut. Based on satellite imagery, this is estimated to be approximat~lY<~,~7drees per acre, 17-24 inches in dianleter, and 0-2 trees per acre greater than 24 inghesin':diameter. Within the Interface, treatments would be f,?cused"on modifying the existing stand density and current/future surface fuel loads. Ire;at~ents in these areas would focus primarily on two seral stages; the mid-closed and'-l,!~e-::,eIQ'sed conditions, though other seral stages would receive some surface fuel reducti.on,tr~,~trii~nts. Although treatments would be focused on smaller diameter trees to meet ,these: objectives, larger trees would need to be cut to achieve the desired relative stand densitie:s. Density management tr~atQients would occur on approximately 1,600 acres, where large trees may be cut. Ba~edon satellite imagery, this is estimated to be approximately 7 -13 trees per acre, 17-24:::~ns~es,inaiameter, and 0-3 trees per acre greater than 24 inches in diameter. Treatment~,Y."ithiJl'the RNA would be similar to those in the Interface compartments in that larger Jrees~ould need to be cut in order to achieve the desired conditions. Based on satellit,~;,imagery, this is estiInated to be approximately 7-13 trees per acre, 17-24 inches in diaIl}et~r,:::and 0-3 trees per acre greater than 24 inches in diameter. ,:.::~i:~hin the areas of the Late-Successional treatments, no trees larger than 17 inches in . ":,diaJJleter would need to be cut in order to achieve the objectives. The following table displays an estimate of the number of large trees that would need to cut to achieve the objectives. A range is shown because an exact number is difficult to estimate. As mentioned previously, these estimates are based on modeling satellite imagery and are intended to provide a rough extent for comparison purposes. Once density targets, snag recruitment, down wood, and soil management objectives are satisfied, felled trees are considered excess to fuel hazard objectives, and are available for removal. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!III-110 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table lll-32. Estimate of Large Trees per Acre to be Cut - Proposed Action Component Estimated Trees per Acre to be Cut 17..24"DBH >24"DBH DFPZ 3-7 0-2 Interface 7-13 0-3 RNA 7-13 0-3 Late-Successional 0 0 Landinqs 2-4 0-2 Community Alternative .:':'. . Under the Community Alternative, specific justification would be required for felling and/or removal of trees in Cohort 1 (25 to 50+ inches DBH) and larger Cohort 2 (l0 to,25 inches DBH). Site-specific prescriptions would be developed during implementation\G,~der this alternative. In stands within priority areas identified for treatment where greater t~~h::::5D% of basal area is in trees between 25 to 50+ inches (Cohort 1), the Community A:J,tefTIaiiy'e requires site specific rationale for cutting trees or creating snags with trees ov:ef::':~Siinches. Cutting typically means trees are left on site to satisfy habitat or soil ebjectlves. Once density targets, snag recruitment, down wood, and soil management obje9!ives::::are satisfied, felled trees are considered excess to fuel hazard objectives, and are ay~ilClple for removal. A validation process (described in Chapter II) is required for reT:?~:~l\oftrees over 25 inches DBH. In stands where greater than 50% of basal "ar~,:~tfin:ttees 1 0-25 inches DBH (Cohort 2 dominated) the Community Alternative recfui[es:-site-specific rationale for cutting, and then removing trees over 17 inches, or cr~,~ti!2g'~~?g:s, when all other objectives are met. The validation process is required for cutfihg':~apH removal of trees. .{..,:-:~;::::;::: ..;~:. An estimate of the number of l~rge trees to be cut under the Community Alternative was estimated by using the satelU~e "imagery and shown in Table III-33. Table llI-33. EStimate.o(:p~!:g~TreeS per Acre to be Cut - Community Alternative Estimated'Trees er Acre to be Cut 17-24"DBH > 24" DBH '7-13 0-2 5-9 0-1 0-5 0 6-12 0-1 4-11 0-1 3-9 0 0-3 0 2-5 0 o 0 Landin s 2-4 0-2 Note: sellings within McDonald Peak IRA would not cut any trees > r DBH Final EIS llDRAFT WORK INPROGRESSlllll-111 Ashland Forest Resiliency Preferred Alternative Within the Fuel Discontinuity Treatment Areas, prescriptions would be focused on lTIodifying the existing stand density and current/future surface fuel loads. Although treatments would be focused on sn1aller diameter trees to meet these objectives, larger trees may need to be cut to achieve the desired relative stand densities. Density management treatments would occur on approximately 3,210 acres, where large trees could be cut. Based on satellite imagery, this is estimated to be approximately 6-12 trees per acre, 17-24 inches in diameter, and 0-2 trees per acre ilfeater than 24 inches in diameter. In the Strategic Ridgeline Areas, it is estimated that trees larger than 15-1 7 inches indiapieter, would not need to be cut in order to achieve the desired stand conditions, with the e~cepiion of insect or disease pockets. Based on satellite imagery, this is estimated to be approxin1ately 3-5 trees per acre, 17-24 inches in diameter, and 0-2 trees per acre greater than 24_jnches in diameter. Within the RNA, larger trees would need to be cut in order to achieve.thedesired conditions. Based on satellite imagery, this is estimated to be approximately,7'713,!~ees per acre, 17-24 inches in diameter, and 0-3 trees per acre greater than 24 inches'il1i'diairieter. The Roadside Treatment Areas would consist of primarily surface and ladder fuel treatments only. As a result, few large trees would be cut. It is estiJtiated to be approximately 0-2 trees per acre, 17-24 inches in diameter, and no trees great~'r"tpan 24 inches in diameter An estimate of the number of large trees to be cutJind'er the Preferred Alternative was estimated by using the satellite imagery and",shown in Table III-34. ..;.... .". .. ."-'. .. Table 111-34. Estimate of Large Trees 'per, Acre to be Cut - Preferred Alternative Treatment Area Estimated Trees 17.24" DBH - -,-:_.-6-12-::"':' - 3~5 7-13 0-2 2-4 er Acre to be Cut > 24" DBH 0-2 0-2 0-3 o 0-2 Su mmary\\:":.:;:,,,_ Figur~sIII-17:;:TII-18 and 1II-19 below, proportionally displays the size class distribution of trees expected to be cut, including the large tree classes, for each of the Action Alternatives. Final EIS I! DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlllI1 - 112 Ashland Forest Resiliency Figure 111-17. Distribution of Cut Trees by Size Class - Proposed Action 24+" 0-11" . . : . Figure 111-18. Distribution of Cut Trees by Size Class - CommunJ~,:Alternative .... Figure 111-19. Disfri,~ut:l,?n:':of Cut Trees by Size Class - Preferred Alternative 24+" Final EISIIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIlIII - 113 Ashland Forest Resiliency c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative As a result of not cutting any large trees, there would be no indirect adverse effect from hazardous fuel reduction treatments. The indirect effects on large trees from continued density and from potential large-scale high-severity wildland fire is discussed in other Significant Issues. If large trees were not cut, the ecological sustainability value (protection of legacy trees) would not be obtained. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative Under each of the Action Alternatives, the cutting of large trees would directly andtindirectly lead toward meeting the hazardous fuel reduction objectives. Large trees often p!ovidethe greatest conlpetition to conservation of legacy trees, and if large trees were no."t-cu1., the ecological sustainability value (protection of legacy trees) would not be ()btainedi The amenity values of old-growth forest would be changed to some degree a~ di~cussed in other Significant Issues." 11. Operational and Economic Feasibility The design of hazardous fuel treatnlellts mayor Inay l~ot,~~operationallJ' feasible (are they /lll1llanly possible?), and/or are mayor may not be ecollolnically feasible (is there a way to fund treatl1l ellts ?). Policynlakers, Agency personnel and private qus~I1~:ss:s'worry that the high cost of forest fuel reduction treatments will make community pr9t~E'tiofr and ecological restoration unattainable in this time of tight Federal budgets. Undert1t~:,~c!i6n Alternatives and with various treatment proposals and prescriptions, there is a pote:qfial'lhat trees to be cut have comrnercial product value. While not ignoring that aspect ortb~"proposal, it has not been the focus, i.e., neither the Forest Service or the City is speci~call:i"pt6posing a commercial timber sale, and are not analyzing the sale of commerciaJ products to finance the hazardous fuel reduction treatments. For the analysis of Ashlang":'F'orest Resiliency, the traditional discussion of timber goals, revenues, and/or profitqpil~ty,'is considered out of scope. This issue therefore focuses on the operational feasibility,':~l1d'lhe mechanisms to fund hazardous fuel treatments. Under the HFRA, to go forward with::h,~'~(lrdous fuel reduction treatments, financing and other opportunities would be developed sllb,~,~9uent to a decision under NEP A. a. B:~~~~_gro'und T'Yo ta:ndscape-scale studies show some of the differences among two different types of 'Tbr~sts and fuel reduction treatments related to economic feasibility. The Blue Mountains Demonstration Project analyzed forest~, fire threat, and fuel reduction treatments on a landscape level for the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon. In the Blue Mountains vegetation assessment, comnlercial potential on Federal forest lands was defined as more than 400 cubic feet per acre of trees larger than 7 inches diameter. The analysis also assumed that no trees larger than 21 inches diameter would be removed. Several management alternatives were studi ed. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI!III-114 Ashland Forest Resiliency In the Blue Mountains study, scientists found that the removal of only small trees would reduce fire hazard substantially. Merchantable trees did not have lobe cut and removed to reduce the crown bulk density (and increase the crowning index} to acceptable levels. The harvest of merchantable trees 'Yould pay for the treatment costs ,on only about40,OOO acres, or 3 percent, of the Federal forest acres. Ifrestrictions on harvesting trees greater than 21 inches diameter were removed, the acres that could be treated without a subsidy might increase to about 80,000, ,still only 6 percent of the total acres. IntheFIA BioSum pilot studyJor the southwestern Oregonsubr.egion,scientists found that;:';'':: the removal of only tree~lessthan 7. inches di ameterwoulilnotreducethecrown bulk " densityto an acceptable level. Forests in southwestern Ore,goh typi cally have morek: merchantable trees per acre than the BlueMountains forests. Forthe southwestern Oregon forests, removal of some trees greater than 7 inches diameter would be primarily a fuel load and fire hazard issue, not just an economic issue. This analysis is described in the case study contained in science update, PNW Issue 7 (2004). Another example is the work completed by the City of Ashlandonfo~~~te'd City lands within the Ashland Interface. Fuel reduction was accomplished here aloqg,::::wrth commercial removal of products that offset most of the costs associated wi~h tne"project. The timber sale component of the Ashland Forest Lands Restoration P~oj~ct.w~' completed in April 2004. A project financial summary is provided below (source:::Git~'btAshland website www.ashland.or.us): ..'~<:, Total net payment to City of Ashland from log ptryer Paynlent for helicopter services ' Project cost to City of Ashland $ 262,650.49 $-263.091.64 $ -441.15 .".;<. -'.;. The examples above are provid~2, t(?'i1lpstr'ate various scenarios of hazardous fuel reduction treatments and the relationship;[to reinoval of commercial products in order to help offset implementation costs. '. ,:<: '.'~ b. Direct, Indirect, an~Cpm'1Jlative Effects IORerational J;<'.e~~iIi~iif~ 0.:.:;.- _.0-:. ." Operation'lLfe~;ibiHty has been addressed during the design phase of the Action Altem;e.~ive:~<;::::}Itj's'assumed that all of the proposed treatments can be physically acconiIlJishe~j (humanly possible). All of the fuel reduction activities proposed have been sUCC;~s&ri1Jly accomplished either on other locations on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National F:,?rest:,or on other areas with similar attributes. {;::::;{hifi~re have been many examples of the successful use of helicopters (proposed under each of ""::';\)~the';'Action Alternatives) and ground-based systems (proposed under the Community , Alternative and Preferred Alternative). Helicopters and ground-based systems have been used in and adjacent to the Ashland Watershed in the past to remove biomass. Because there would be no activities associated with the No-Action Alternative, the discussion of operational feasibility for this alternative is not applicable. Final EIS rrDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSrr III - 115 Ashland Forest Resiliency ------rrr-. IEconomic Feasibility! No Action Under No-Action, there would be no costs associated with hazardous fuel reduction and no funding needs nor would there be any potential revenues generated to fund future fuel reduction treatments. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative Restoring biological and physical processes and functions to ensure the long-term ecological,: . sustainability of the public lands in the Analysis Area for this project is more import~J.1t to the Forest Service and Ashland Community than the output of forest products. As a re~ult, any comnlodity production derived from the implementation of this proposal is expectedit.g,::occur only as a by-product of hazardous fuel reduction treatments. A review of recent contracts for performing hazardous fuel reduction projyct9_'.,Rrovides a general per unit cost for completing this type of work. An approximat~,average ranges from slightly below $1,000 to over $1,200 per acre to complete unders!?ry thinning and activity fuel treatments such as hand piling and burning. The cost for pr~s~ribed fire (underburning) ranges from $80 to $350 per acre, depending on the complexity O'f!heactivity (amount of fuels, topography, etc.). If this average cost per acre is assumed, then it is estill),_ate,9 that the fuel reduction treatments within the Project Area for each Action Alternativ~ ~~o.yld:be c0l11pleted for approximately $7 -10 million dollars (this assumes approximatsIt::$l ~;OOO per acre, times the number of treated acres within each alternative: 8, 159 f~rtp'-e~:Pfoposed Action, 8,990 for the Con1D1unity Alternative, and 7,600 for the,pi,~fe?fi~d Alternative). If the total cost were spread over a ten year period, it would<v:or~<,pUt to a cost of one to two million dollars per year to accomplish the hazardous fu~lT~duction objectives. ....:.. .. ~. ". .. '. . - . , This estimated cost does not in.yludethe cutting of larger trees (greater than 11 inches in diameter) necessary to meet,~tahd"density objectives, nor the cost of removing excess biomass as a product wit~ C,?'fnplercial value. For example, the cost for helicopter operations may average $3-6,000,pe,r:'hptir of operation. - ., .. .... . .-. .. .. . .". . With stewardship;cghtracting authority the potential for economic return from the sale of products wouldH'elp"pay for the cost of implementing treatments. Under the Action Alternatives,_,:yarying amounts of biomass could be made available to the woods product indust~y. /'':;' A pr~Hmihary estimate was performed utilizing satellite inlagery to estimate numbers of trees yer acre' by size classes that would be cut (see large tree discussion; Significant Issues, "Section D, 10, this Chapter). These values were adjusted to allow for the retention of coarse <woody material to be left on site to meet P AG objectives or other resource issues. Of the material remaining, it is estimated that the Proposed Action would remove approximately 22,000 to 27,000 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of bionlass from trees greater than 11 inches in diameter. Using the same assumptions, the Community Alternative would potentially remove 16,000 to 21,000 CCF of biomass and the Preferred Alternative 18,000 to 25,000 CCF of biomass. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!l1ll -116 Ashland Forest Resiliency This could generate approximately from 5-9 million dollars for the Proposed Action, 4-7 million dollars for the Community Alternative, and 4-8 million dollars for the Preferred Alternative, depending on current market conditions which would determine the actual value of the biomass available for commercial removal. Although there are environmental benefits, the staging of various treatments could be an added cost. This would be due to treating the same area a second time with the associated costs of moving in equipment and personnel. A difference in the alternatives would be the costs associated with inventory prior to implementation. The Community Alternative proposes to conduct extensive inventories prior to and concurrent with implementation qf treatments. The Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative would not require furtn,~r inventory of conditions prior to implementation. Actual on-the-ground conditio~,~ thaL,,; trigger these criteria are to be identified and validated concurrent with imple~:~nt.~l!ion. Funding ~:'" "\:::. ~:'_ .. -';:;;. '.':.:.:,.~:::;..' Funding is a variable that is difficult to predict. In a study that looked Jl(the~:National Fire Plan for fiscal years 2001 through 2003, it was noted that expen~:t!ur~$:-for:::fire suppression and hazardous fuel reduction follow opposite trends. That is, fiii~:lRe.pression expenditures consistently exceed the appropriated amount, while fuel reduction:~:~:xpenditures are consistently less than the appropriated amount (McCarthy ~OQ4).. In other words, not all of the dollars appropriated for fuel reductions treatments,'~~:~~:sHtnr:each year. ;:;\~;-. '~\.;.... Several factors contribute to this situation. Some l:ey~:l:i1Pariagement units suspend mechanical and prescribed fire treatments during,:,til]1es:when there are drought conditions or high fire danger. As fire seasons intensify'~.:a~:r,~:~:1.~s}usually curtail non-essential expenditures and "borrow" fuel treatment:fd'i!,dsJ6 pay for fire suppression. Even when fuel treatment funds are restored, it is dir~cu!t'tp'(:aC'complished treatments in a timely manner because the funds are withdrawn dUQl1gthe'field season and restored when winter weather conditions can hamper field work. This situation can be addressed by looking at options for long-term stewardship contract~.: . ........;.;.:.. Stewardship .,:i: Ashland Forest Resili~:nGy~~as approved to use stewardship authorities (per Section 323 of Public Law 1 08-7}1?y,thyRegional Forester in April 2004. These authorities include: .. . ,- .... . ...... ...., Tra9irig;:~g:Qbds for services ;:!2,:si@~fion by description or prescription I{elenflon of receipts Best value contracting Multi-year contracting ,,:::r~ese authorities allow for the flexibility to generate funding for completion of the hazardous .'?::;:::\Jiiel; reduction treatments by allowing any revenue produced to be returned to the area for "':;':':\,:furlher treatments. "Best value" contracting, as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), could be used to award fuel reduction contracts. The best value form of contracting allows the government to take into account factors other than the lowest price. For example, contracts awarded as "best value" considers factors such as past performance, experience, and method along with price. This provides the decision-maker with more flexibility in utilizing the local workforce. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII . 117 Ashland Forest Resiliency F. ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER ISSUES Other Issues (also presented in Chapter I) were used to fonnulate design elements and/or nlitigation measures common to Action Alternatives (as effects are predicted to be minor and/or silnilar between Action Alternatives), providing nominal comparison of consequences to aid in later decision-making. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change from the current conditions (unless otherwise noted), however, the short- and long-tenn effects of no (additional) hazardous fuels treatments are discussed. 1. Water Chemistry Will fire hazard treatments affect water che111istry (pH, bacterial and/or petrocf'.l!nlical pollutants? Water quality in the State of Oregon is regulated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) under authority granted by the Clean Water Act (1948), and subsequent anlendnlents. Water quality attributes that are considered under the Clean Water Act include traditional physical and chenlical constituents such as pH, bacteria concentration, temperature, discharge, and chemical pollutants. The Forest Service is the responsible management agency for water quality on the lands it manages, as described in a memoranda of understanding (MOD) with ODEQ. This MOU requires the agency to meet water quality standards, monitor activities to assure they meet standards, report results to the state, and periodically re-certify Best Management Practices (BMPs). 3. Background The prinlary mechanisms for regulating and controlling non-point sources of pollution are (1) Best Management Practices (2) numeric and nanative water quality standards, and (3) the Antidegradation Policy (40 CFR 131). This Federal CFR is applicable to the states, for establishment of water quality standards. In Oregon, the ODEQ has policy, permitting and monitoring responsibility and requirements in place, in compliance with the Antidegradation Policy. Surface waters in portions of the affected sub-watersheds have been monitored for a variety of water quality parameters over the past several years. Turbidity, fecal coliform, and bacteria have been monitored in Ashland Creek, downstream of Reeder Reservoir. Comparatively little data has been collected on the Neil Creek sub-watershed. The water quality in Neil Creek is believed to be similar to Ashland Creek Watershed, as this watershed has similar soil and climate conditions and disturbance histories. Surface waters within affected sub-watersheds include a number of small streams, springs, and wetlands. In several locations, these snlall streams serve as the headwaters for larger streanlS including Neil, and Ashland Creeks. These waters are generally considered to be in Good condition; however there are elevated levels of suspended sediment in all streams during storm events, due in part to the highly erosive granitic soils of the area, and to historical disturbances such as timber harvest, grazing, and high road density, in all sub- watersheds except Ashland Creek. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI!l1I . 118 Ashland Forest Resiliency Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to oxygen that is dissolved in water. The amount of oxygen that can be held by the water depends on the water temperature, salinity, and pressure, which is dependent on elevation. Gas solubility increases with decreasing temperature (colder water holds more oxygen). Gas solubility increases with decreasing salinity (freshwater holds more oxygen than does saltwater). Both the partial pressure and the degree of saturation of oxygen will change with altitude. Finally, gas solubility decreases as pressure decreases. Thus, the amount of oxygen absorbed in water decreases as altitude increases, because of the decrease in relative pressure. pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. One of the most important environmental factors of pH is the affect that it has on the solubility and thus the bioavailability of other substances. This process is important in surface waters. Runoff from agricultural, domestic, and industrial areas may contain iron, lead, chromium, ammonia, mercury or other elements. The pH of water affects the toxicity of these substances. The presence of fecal coliforn1 bacteria in aquatic environments indicates that the water has been contaminated with the fecal material of humans or other animals. The fecal matter may also be carrying pathogens or disease producing bacteria or viruses that were present in the source water ingested by the human or animal. The presence of fecal contamination is an indicator that a potential health risk exists for individuals exposed to this water. Fecal colifonn bacteria may occur in ambient water as a result of the overflow of domestic sewage (drainfields), or non-point sources of human and animal waste. ":". l:O::;: ....... Fire retardants are largely composed of fertiliz~r'~d,,~i~er additives that aid in application mixed with water. Retardants that are used::i.r'::D)unicipal watersheds have been through extensive testing to make sure that che.Ini~~t'additives will not pose a threat to water supplies. Retardants that are applied solely to th:~::::la.;p~!~\vill mostly be incorporated into the soil and the nutrients contained within them >>,ill<:b.~:':::ay1iilable for uptake by plants as they recover and grow. However, some studiesi9nnlhoff following fires have shown elevated levels of phosphorus which can be at!riB'ht~Sl.:to the use of retardants in fire suppression (Ranalli 2004), ",:" '::.... "o{:". Retardants that are.:~ppli~,~::,directly to streams can be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms in the immediate yic!pit}',.::::This effect will dissipate as the retardant is washed downstream and is diluted with iricr?~es in stream flow. The introduction of fertilizer into a stream can produce afi:;iE,cre~sein algae which can in-turn affect both pH and dissolved oxygen conce~tratioii:A sufficient introduction of retardant into Reeder Reservoir could produce an algae Blpom:there. This would likely lead to increased treatment costs to remove any tastes, odo~s;::qr'other effects the bloom would trigger. \{:~'b~::::::Direct Effects of Alternatives ,.. .. ~. Y:No-Action Alternative A wildland fire which would bum a considerable portion of the Analysis Area would release chemicals which would show up in runoff. A number of nutrients incorporated in litter are volatilized during fires, while others are converted into oxides and accumulated in ash. Nutrients which are not volatilized during the fire, can show up as increases in background levels in streams. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSfllII - 119 Ashland Forest Resiliency Nitrogen is a highly mobile ion and is often leached from burned areas ending up in surface or groundwater. Numerous studies have shown elevated levels of nitrate nitrogen in streams following both wildland and prescribed fires (Ranalli 2004). In local streanls, the background nitrate levels in streams are very low, generally being below 0.1 mg/l (RRNF internal report). Following a wildland fire, concentration of nitrates would increase, but it is doubtful that the accumulations would reach a level where the drinking water quality standard (1 Omgll nitrate nitrogen) would be violated. The highest levels of nitrate concentrations would occur in runoff produced by storms immediately following a fire. Research studies have also shown increases in phosphorus following fires (Ranalli 2004)'.<; The size of the increase is dependent on fire size, bum severity, rainfall after the fin~, slop'e steepness, soil cation exchange capacity, and timing of regrowth of vegetation. ' Water percolating through ash layers into the soil can elevate pH levels due to the leaching of alkaline conlpounds such as calcium carbonate, magnesium oxide, calcium:pxide, and nlagnesium carbonate fronl the ash (Ranalli 2004). Since the background levels of most nutrients in streams is low~changes in their levels following a fire would be substantial, but would not necessarily produce a significant threat to water quality for the City of Ashland, as adverse wa!erqualiJY standard levels would not be reached. "'" Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Pre[erredAlternative The mechanisms of change which increase nutrienJ:levels in runoff following a prescribed fire, are the same as with wildland fires. Ho;~ever; because prescribed fire occurs under controlled conditions, the magnitude gt c~a;ul~~;:'in stream chemistries should be less, or even undetectable, over what would be exp~.cte.~L.t61l0wing a wildland fire (no chance of retardant intrusion). Fuel moisture levelspurin&";controlled bums are higher than in most wildland fires and there is less consumption of She duff layer. Less consumption means that there would be small quantities gf ash;;~l,~ments released by burning. Suspensions of ash elements and water soluble nutrients,w9~ld 'be filtered by the unburned litter and soil layers before entering the stream syst~m~>;;Additionally, the unburned strip of vegetation along streams would serve to fil~;tr qut",~lements before they can enter streams (Ranalli 2004). ,.... .........- '." c. Indirect an;()::;',Cufuulative Effects of Alternatives ..~;:;.~~:-;{:::.. No-Action Alt'er.~;'~tive Smok~;;f.lnd ash particulates move out of the immediate bum area and settle onto watersheds and :vat,erbodies away from the fire. This material contains nutrients volatilized by the fire. The nutrients can be dissolved in precipitation as it percolates through the deposits and into ',.., ;th~,soil. This can lead to an increase in nutrient levels in streanls, although the magnitude of , '::';:Ghapge would be less than what would be expected in streams within the fire perimeter. Following a wildland fire of sufficient size, enough nitrogen and phosphorus could move into streams and Reeder Reservoir to increase algae growth. If this happened, there could be a taste and odor problem imparted to the water and this would cause increased treatment costs for Ashland's water supply. Increased algae levels can also affect dissolved oxygen levels and pH in streams which can in-turn affect aquatic organisms. There is a low probability of this happening to a significant level. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!! III - 120 Ashland Forest Resiliency Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative There should be no or very low change in nutrient levels in streams or Reeder Reservoir following in1plementation of the Action Alternatives. However, with repeated burning of areas to keep fuel levels at low levels, there could be a reduction in site productivity as important nutrients are repeatedly volatilized with the fires. This effect is analyzed under Soils and Site Productivity, Section E, 1, this Chapter. 2. Aquatic Conservation Strategy .:-:.... ", Will fire hazard treatments and other connected actions affect attainment of NWFP 8.tanlfiiri!s;' and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves? ". ..' ....:,:::-;:::::... According to the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the Aquatic Con~ervation Strategy (ACS) was developed to improve and maintain the ecological heaIt~ o~,water:sheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. The four primary ,yori;monents of the ACS are designed to operate together to maintain and restore the productiv:.iJy:and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems; they include: 1) Riparian Reserves;",t) ~'eyW atersheds; 3) Watershed Analysis; and 4) Watershed Restoration. ".. ",," ' Riparian Reserves are established as a component of the Aquat~cCConservation Strategy, designed prilnarily to restore and maintain the health of aqu,~tic:,:;eys{ems and their dependent species. Riparian Reserves also help to maintain riparian1S,.!ruS,!uies and functions and conserve habitat for organis111s dependent on the transition zonelP'~~:een ripalian and upland areas. ;-;';'." ::. . a. Background "'":i:'. ...... ;",.:.::. '-:::~::.... ...~:;:i::y-......;:~t Riparian Reserves include lands aloI1,g::':~1g~;ft~.')rhs, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, and potentially unstable areas that are suBJ'e,Qt:,t,~"~special Standards and Guidelines designed to conserve aquatic and riparian-qepeI{pent"ispecies. Standards and Guidelines apply to activities in Riparian Reservesfi:lhat rp~ay otherwise retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (AC'~,J.. o'Bj'ecfives, as defined in the 1994 ROD. The 1990 LRMP included some areas assi~~~f,:t.9 Restricted Riparian. More lands are included under the Northwest Forest Pla~"jn;:1.bp1frian Reserves; total area of Riparian Reserves within the Federally managed~4?6~'~Qitofthe Upper Bear Analysis Area is 4,698 acres (2003 Upper Bear Assessment). ".< Widths for:::EjJ?:~rti~fl Reserves necessary to ensure ACS objectives for different waterbodies are establishedibased on ecological and geomorphic factors. Widths are typically one site potenthil,tree'height (150 feet for this portion of the Forest, see RRNF White Paper #36) alon:f"6~ch side of stream channels. Widths are twice this distance along fish bearing streamS':' These widths are designed to provide a high level of protection to fish and riparian liabjtats. ....::~. ;~:;'. '>Key Watershed designation is an additional 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. Although there are anadromous species within portions of the Analysis Area, none of the area has been designated as a Key Watershed. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -121 Ashland Forest Resiliency The analysis of the existing conditions of the five affected sub-watersheds relative to Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines is presented below for all alternatives considered in detail (1994 NWFP ROD, pages C-31 through C-39). These Standards and Guidelines were reviewed for applicability relative to the types of actions being proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency. The Timber Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-31) were determined to not be applicable because timber management is not the goal of hazardous fuel reduction treatnlents. While comnlercial by-product from density management treatment is foreseeaple" under Ashland Forest Resiliency, no commercial product would be removed from d~~ignated< Riparian Reserve. " The Roads Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-32) were detennirie'O to be partially applicable because of the maintenance and/or reconstruction of exi~!iri&roads for access and hauling needs (RF-2, RF-4, RF-6, and RF-7 are determined to 1?e.;~p'plicable). Existing roads cross stream courses and Riparian Reserves. Although ~h'ort':s.pUr roads are being proposed to access new helicopter landings, these new roads are:riat-being proposed within or adjacent to Riparian Reserves. The Grazing Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP :pageC-33) were detennined to not be applicable because grazing management is not t:he goal,Qf hazardous fuel reduction treatments (and is not allowed within the National ForestHPbrtion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area). The Recreation Management Standards and Guide,,IiI,l:es (NWFP page C-34) were determined to not be applicable because recreation maq~gYIt\ynt is not the goal of hazardous fuel reduction treatments. " . -. '.. The FireIFuels Management Standar~sar1dGuidelines (NWFP C-35) were determined to be applicable because fuels manageme~risthe goal of Ashland Forest Resiliency, and some hazardous fuel reduction treatri(.~nts 'are being proposed within Riparian Reserves. The Lands Standards and quiq~lines (NWFP page C-36) were determined to not be applicable because no as!io.ps;associated with these Standards and Guidelines are part of hazardous fuel reduct!bl1,:treatments. . .,.- The General R1par.iap;.';Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-37) were determine<;l to b.e.;~pplicable to all projects under the NWFP that include actions proposed wi thin;,;:Ripaga~.;:,R'eserves. The ~;:~t~rsh;~d and Habitat Restoration and Fish and Wildlife Management Standards and Guid~nnes (NWFP page C-37) were determined to not be applicable because no actions ,:,:~~sociated with these Standards and Guidelines are part of hazardous fuel reduction ..treatments. b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives The applicable NWFP Standards and Guidelines (1994 ROD, pages C-31 through C-39) for alternatives considered for hazardous fuel reduction activities under Ashland Forest Resiliency, and their consequences, are displayed in Table 1II-35. Final EIS !IDRAFT WORt< IN PROGRESS!!III -122 Ashland Forest Resiliency Table llI-35. Evaluation of Applicable NWFP Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines Standard and Guideline FM-1 and FM-4 FM-3 and FM-5 Fire/Fuels Management Other ",., 'RA"2 "':.:.::/ :..! RF-2 RF-4 RF-6 RF.7 FM-2 And RA-4 RA-1 RA-3 Under each Actio~.A.lternatives, incident bases, ca.mps, helibases, staging areas, helispots and otrer cel1ters for incident activities would continue to be located outside Rip~riartReserves. All Action Alternatives propose no new roads or landings located within Riparian Reserve. All design specifications for exisling and proposed roads and landings would minimize delivery of sediment 10 streams. Und~reach Action Alternalives, delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or additives IO;~,ur1ace waters would continue to be minimized in accordance with the Fire , Management Plan. The Action Alternatives would enact treatments to make the landscape more fire resilient, which would have the indirect effect of requiring less fire suppression (i.e., retardant) needing to be used. Emergency and rehabilitation teams would evaluate fire damaged Riparian Reserves, per Fire Mana ement Plan. Under current condition~an9all Action Alternatives, In Riparian Reserves, the goal of wildfire suppression is to limit the size of all fires. Becau~eo! existing conditions, Wildland Fire Use is not considered an appropriate response in the Upper Bear Analysis AreaJsee~S~Cli6n C, 1, Chapter II), As fuel reduction treatments are enacted and as monitoring is accomplished with ad9.iti~Dflrin!~rmation gathered, Wildland Fire Use could become one of the tools used by land managers in the future. Rapidly'exIfnguishing smoldering coarse woody material and duff is considered to preserve ecosystem elements. In Ripari~,ti.:;B~'serVes, water draft!ng sites are located and managed to minimize adverse effects on riparian habitat and water uali! ,"corisistent with ACSOs. Undef:'Current conditions, no change to i'h~stream flows would take place . (noi including ellects of a large high- Yseverity wildland fire). No-Action Alternative Existing roads and landings, 10 the extent possible, have minimized effects on Riparian Reserves. Existing stream crossings, to the extent possible, have been designed to accommodate a 100- ear flood, Existing stream crossings, to the extenl possible, have been designed to accommodate fish ass a e, Road Management Objectives are in place for all existing roads, Inspection and maintenance during and after slorm events is a reoccurring practice in this area of decom osin ranitic terrain. Current condition and past management has included fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and activities designed to meet ACSOs, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and ve elation. Under current conditions, incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots and other centers for incident activities are located outside Riparian Reserves, in accordance with Fire Mana ement Plan. Under current conditions, delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or additives to surface waters is minimized in accordance with the Fire Manag'ement , ~a~ ". Under the current condition, no trees would be felled near Riparian Reserves. Existing operations do not utilize herbicides, insecticides, toxicants, or other chemicals within or in roximit to Ri arian Reserves. Proposed Action, Community Alternative,and Preferred Alternative All Action Alternatives propose no new roads or landings located within Riparian Reserve, All design specifications for existing and proposed roads and landings would minimize delivery of sediment to streams. No wetlands are affected by exislin or ro osed new s ur roads. All Action Alternatives propose no new stream crossings. If road reconstructi9r1' involves stream crossings, culvert replacement would be designed, to the exle'rit ossible, to accommodate a 100- ear flood. All Action Alternatives propose no new stream crossings. If road reconstnJction involves stream crossings, culvert replacement would be designed to accommodate fish assa e, " .. Under each Action Alternatives, Road Management Objectiv.~~ would conlinue to be in place and inspection and maintenance during a~q,afleLstorm events would be a reoccurring practice in this area. ' , All Action Alternatives include fuellreatmenland fire suppression strategies, practices. and activities to allow all~ininentof ACSOs, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground covefardvegetation. Ashland Forest Resiliency recognizes the role 01 fire in ecosystem'function and has identified instances where fire suppression or fuels,management activities could be damaging to long-term ecosystem luncti9n; .. , Under all Action Alternatives, there would be no direct impacts to stream channels or aquatic habitat. There would be no measurable change to the timing, duration, or magnitude allow flow and peak flow conditions due to land cover alterations from any Action Alternative because of project design and employment of Mitigalion Measures, As part of project design and in accordance with Mitigation Measures for all of the Action Alternatives, some trees may be felled in Riparian Reserves; these trees would be lelt on-site unless they adversely contribute to fuel loading (see design elements, Cha ter II . All Action Alternatives include no use of and specifically prohibit use of herbicides, insecticides, toxicants, or other chemicals within or in proximity to Riparian Reserves, Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 123 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Research Standards and Guideline (NWFP page C-38) RS-l was determined to be applicable because research is a potential activity associated with hazardous fuel reduction treatments under AFR; there are no adverse effects from ongoing or proposed research activities. 3. Air Quality Will particulate matter produced during the implementation of prescribed fire adversely affe~t:", , air quality in the non-attainment area of the Rogue River Valley? """,<,:',.., ,~,";':-:"; -.;,.; -.:; '::' ~(:~'" ".. . ," . At issue is protection of air quality within the Medford Air Quality Management Area (t\QM1\), and nearby Class 1 Airsheds, and whether hazardous fuel reduction treatments (i.e., prescHO'ed burning) confonn to the Clean Air Act and to EP A and ODEQ regulations and guiQelines. Analysis pays particular attention to potential effects to visual quality since th~s;:~itt~]bute has been identified by ODEQ as being a primary concern and is believed to be the:::'rxiost sensitive air quality related attribute (Finneran 1999). Primary pollutants of concern w.fth:,r~s'pect to visual quality are inhalable particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. . National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were establi~4ed by the Clean Air Act (CAA) of1963 and subsequently amended (as amended, at. 4*,,~SGA 7401 to 7671(q)). Primary air quality standards were established under the act to prol~ctptiblic health; secondary standards were established to protect public welfare from any knO~Q':::(n>anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of ambient air pollutants:~~;~:,these standards and more detail on the air quality analysis conducted for Ashland Forest R:;'esili::ency are contained in FEIS Appendix J, incorporated by reference. ' :;:'::;;':: . 3. Background Air quality is a concern in the 0ppe~;B~ar Creek Valley (hereafter referred to as the Rogue Valley) where the surrounding rhountains tend to hold in pollutants produced by industrial plants, woodstoves, motor ieh~,des, and other sources. Consideration for potential air quality consequences resultinR,fi:ehi~'ifnplementation of the alternatives is important for the health of local residents and~:{()f ret~htion of visual values in southwest Oregon and northwest Cali f ami a.::~\::,. t:::;,:;:::':'::;:.::::"';' . ":;~::. '\",y :. ..:,:...... .;';.......-:~::7.::._ ':::~ The Analy~i~)€ea 'is located immediately adjacent to or within the non-attainment area of the s01i.t~em;p'ciftion of the Rogue River Valley. Non-attainment areas are identified through ambi~~~h;,~ir monitoring conducted by an air quality regulatory agency, and the Department of Env~?tyrt~ental Quality (ODEQ), that presently exceed national ambient air quality standards. >' ,:l;::i"Th:~, Medford area was designated a non-attainment area because air quality exceeded PM 10 /\~:~\::,:National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As a result, the Medford area became designated , as the "Medford-Ashland Air Quality Management Area" (AQMA). The non-attainment status of this AQMA is not attributable to prescribed burning. Major sources of particulate matter within the Medford! Ashland area are smoke from woodstoves (63 %), dust and industrial sources (18%). Prescribed burning contributes less than 40/0 of the annual total. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 124 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Oregon State Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-43-043) provides a specific franlework for the administration of the smoke Inanagement program as administered by the State Forester. The Snloke Management Plan (SMP) instructs the State Forester and each field adlninistrator to nlaintain a satisfactory atmospheric environment in designated areas and other areas sensitive to snloke consistent with the plan objectives and smoke drift restrictions. The SMP establishes a set of limitations applicable to specified burning and mixing . conditions. These linlitations relate to tonnage of fuel per 150,000 acres, which, ideally, m~y be burned under various sets of mixing conditions. Experience has shown that theseq:., ..., standards are adequate to protect designated areas only under ideal conditions. Frequently~/in order to meet air quality objectives, the State Forester must apply more specific restrictions through issuance of smoke management instructions. Additional detail on air quality conditions, atmospheric conditions influencing air quality and the SMP can be found in the Southwest Oregon Fire Management Pltln;,al1d'<in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (pages 3-36-38). b. Effects of No-Action Alternative Under No-Action, there would be no immediate impact ,td'air quality, as no prescribed burning would occur except for identified in the Rec9.tCl.o.LDecision for A WPP. There would be an increase in the potential for future wildland .fire:'events and the resultant impacts to air quality associated with large-scale wildland fires." c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Chemica] Pollutants -Action Alternatives .. ..-.. :. "." . ," Lead:,."'" . The principle source of lead emissio.!?s,is:the combustion of gasoline containing lead alkyl additives. Particles deposited 911 veg'etation over decades can become re-emitted if the vegetation is burned. How~)'er,'the"lead content of forest fuels is negligible and is not a concern as an air polluta1)~ifl,:prescribed burning. Sulfur Dioxide Hunlans react tQ<~uJful"dioxide exposure with an increase in ailWay resistance. Excess sulfur dioxide can als~;~,~al1se cellular injury to sensitive plant species. Most forest fuels contain less than 0.2 perCy:!:fsulfur; therefore, sulfur dioxides would be produced only in negligible quantities duriiig prescribed burning. Carbon,Monoxide C~rbon-'monoxide is a poisonous inhalant that deprives the body tissues of necessary oxygen. '::::" <ExJreme exposure (usually occurring in non-ventilated enclosures) to CO can cause death or ""'-.,.";'central nervous system reactions such as impairment of visual acuity, brightness "discrimination, and psychomotor functions. Large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO) can be produced from prescribed burning. Exposure to carbon nlonoxide nlay be high for fireline workers. However, carbon monoxide is quickly dissipated where emissions are irregular and there is no atmospheric confinement. Since carbon monoxide dilutes very rapidly in the atmosphere, it is not likely to be a concern to urban or rural areas even a short distance down wind from prescribed burning activities. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI!III - 125 Ashland Forest Resiliency Studies on the effects of smoke exposure on the respiratory systems of wildland firefighters indicate that long exposure to carbon monoxide during a fire season may result in small changes in lung function. The health implications of short-term exposure and potential long- term effects have not been quantified (Mangan 1994). Nitrogen Oxides The formations of oxides of nitrogen occur at temperatures not normally found in prescribed burning. Generally, wildland burning is considered an insignificant contributor of nitrogen oxide emissions. Ozone i Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed from the reaction of volatile organic compoUu,ds,with oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. Prescribed burning emits volati1y organTc compounds, which can react with urban sources of nitrogen to form ozone. !!ysuTficient quantities, ozone can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation in humans. d. Direct and Indirect Effects of Particulate Matter -Action,-}\lU~rnatives Particulate matter (PM) may cause a toxic effect on humans iJ? the=z{ol1owing ways: 1) the particulate may be intrinsically toxic because of its chemic~l ':~nq/oi physical characteristics, 2) the particle may interfere with one or more of the meyhati,!sni's which normally clear the respiratory tract, 3) the particle may act as a carrier fdr<~ir~bs'orbed toxic substance. Medical studies have shown a relationship between increasys"'~=particulate concentrations and rises in the number of clinic and hospital visits for upp~r"fe~ptfatory infections, cardiac diseases, bronchitis, asthma, pneumonia, and emphysema, '\ . ';'.- -:" '.;'. ....:.:. .......:;>.. --:".". .-.-" Particulate matter standards were ori,g,fh~PX:::p;:omulgated in 1971 and measured total suspended particulate matter (TSP),:,',kat~bstudies indicated that most of the adverse health effects caused by particulate l11,atter\~~=,~.re caused by the fine, inhalable particles, smaller than 10 microns in aerodynami~ diatpete,r, referred to as PM 10. Presently, standards are being developed for particulate ril.'atter'les's than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM1.5. These standards are expected to be finaliZ~t~":'~'d administratively implemented within the next several years. PMJO Conformity Cag~!ati'ons Applicability analysi.,~~;under 40 CFR (51.853) for annual rates of PM 10 particulates were completed,,[or ~ll~f.\dlon Alternatives and is summarized below (Table 1II-36). This table displa)'~ a r?9g~,:of estimated tons produced due to the variability of existing and created fuels tljiougq,Qut the areas to be treated. Tabfe.r:tI.:36. Estimated Tons of PMJO Produced by Alternative Proposed 183.7 - 486.5 254.8 - 628.8 228.1 - 535.6 182.8 . 445.1 894.4 . 2096.0 106.2 - 262.0 Action Community 128.1 -342.9 200.8 - 488.3 189.2 - 436.2 151.2 .360.2 669.2 - 1627.5 83.7 - 203.4 Alternative Preferred 171.3 - 453.7 237.6 - 586.4 212.7 - 499.5 170.5-415.1 834.0 - 1954.6 99.0 - 244.3 Alternative Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -126 Ashland Forest Resiliency PM2.S Conformity CaJculations An analysis ofPM2,5 using EP A approved emission factors was completed for all Action Alternatives and is summarized below (Table 1II-37). The table displays a range of estin1ated tons produced due to the variability of existing and created fuels throughout the areas to be treated. Table lll-37. Estimated Tons of PM2.S Produced by Alternative . Years Years Years Years' Total Annual 1.2 3.;4 5~6 7-8 . Average Proposed ":":'...', 173.3 . 459.1 240.5 - 593.4 215.2 - 505.4 172.6 - 420.1 849.4 - 2096.0 ' 100.2 - 247.3 Action . ::.,."...': Community 120.9 .323.6 189.5 . 460.8 178.5 - 411.6 142.7 - 339.9 631.5 -J535;9 78.9 - 192.0 Alternative .,...;: Preferred 161.6-428.1 224.3 - 553.4 200.7 - 471.3 161.0-391.7 792.1-1954.6 93.4 - 230.6 Alternative Practices that would be employed to reduce emissions include p:U:ining:::concentrations of fuel (jackpot-burning) rather that the entire areas, burning when the fue.I.mbistures are high (particularly in large fuels such as down logs), burning within'Jour -drying months of treatment when live fuel moisture is present in large fuel~,,;.bumihg when the duff is wet (during spring or within 5 days of measurable rain), u~lri'KEapid ignition to achieve a high intensity fire, and further utilization of material pri:?ttq':butning, i.e., firewood. .::.::.:.. -~;.:.:: ~:' The burning of piled fuels can further optimize{combustion, particularly when the amount of dirt in piles is minimized. The prompt "rn.'?pplhg'Up" of fires after the flames have diminished further reduces the amoupt9fp'~rtiCulate matter produced. Prescribed burning is a componehtof each of the Action Alternatives. Since all burning would be prescribed and :soI?t.r~Iled, there would be ample opportunity to schedule burning when the atmospheric~ol?ditions are optimal for smoke dispersal. Likewise, there would be an opportunity to liQ2it:,~~e:size of burning events to control emissions. It is expected that none of the Actiqr:~1tefnatives would result in a violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or ap,gppreciable reduction in air quality related values. Wildland fires are naturally occurring events, and can be responsible for emissions of subst.~ph~} amounts of pollutants, particularly CO and particulates. Management activities such::e~:::proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are attempting to minimize the risk of ,Jarge-s'cale fires. Minimizing this risk subsequently reduces the risk of large, uncontrolled air ,:::':: ,:,errhssions. Activities designed to minimize the risk of conflagrations through prescribed :; : Huihing and surface fuel/ladder fuel reduction may lead to temporary increases in air emissions. However, these emissions are smaller in volume than natural fires, and can be scheduled to take advantage of favorable meteorological conditions. Final EIS !IDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!1I1! -127 Ashland Forest Resiliency Current trends in human activity within the region are anticipated to continue over the life of the project. Population growth and an associated increase in vehicle miles driven are anticipated to continue. This could result in a marginal increase in vehicle air emissions. However, improvements in vehicle efficiency made over the last decade such as the phasing out of lead gasoline additives and the reduction in the volume of logging slash burned have contributed to improvements in air quality. Neither the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, nor the hazardous fuels reduction proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are considered 1ike1y!tp<::; lead to a violation ofNAAQS, either independently, or if implemented simultaneo~sly. (::":>:::":<::\;" . ..$:.:.:.,." Therefore, while controlled bums may increase the incidence of emissions, they ~e::'=unlikely to increase the incidence of violations of applicable air quality standards. The?e\~yents are considered to be independent of any action proposed under Ashland Foryst R~siliency and are therefore likely to proceed independent of this evaluation and appro~,~L:l?rodess. While the anticipated' effects disclosed under the direct and indirect effects diSclJ~sl'bn to air quality may result in a minor increase in air emissions, they are minor il)<yOrQ,p8;rison to the ongoing effects of human occupation within the region, and insignificarit::::yith~?li:lone, or when considered in the context of other past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable future actions. 4. Risk to Residual Trees ". b:. Ufill density managenlellt or other treatments change.,,'enilironmental conditions for residual trees causin.g shock (change in light conditions), tf.,tdlor lead to increased wind t!trow (trees broken off or uprooted by wind)? .. ,".-.'. :.:.. ,', This issue is based on the concern for resiq~at~rees remaining after treatments that reduce density, tree spacing and crown sp~sjng'th,~Lc6uld cause trees to experience a change in light conditions, causing shock (or deatB), anclJo'r break off or be uprooted by wind (termed windthrow). "\' a. Background Any treatments,::th}~J::qp~ii':up currently dense stands, could cause the residual trees in these stands to expeIj,eris:e~p:oor health, due to change in light conditions, for which these trees are not adapte~::~:::.. Th~~,:~2hange could cause shock or death to individual or groups of trees. ......;;....: The td:ppgr~p.hy of the Analysis Area (steep and highly divided) moderates the effects of nonv=al~:s-t~nn events. Incidents of toppled trees were observed across the entire Siskiyou :rvt,ouhtains Ranger District following the winter of 1995/96 as a result of heavy snowfall. In ::,,":::th~<:,Ashland Watershed, areas of toppled trees were observed along road cut banks and ::;:::,,~\:'::Qra1l,1ages where the ground was saturated and could not withstand the extra weight of heavy "":::Wet snow. The 1962 Columbus Day stonn resulted in massive wind damage across the inland valleys of western Oregon. Storms of this magnitude are unusual, but if they occurred again could result in large amounts of windthrow within the Analysis Area. Final EIS f1DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSfllII -128 Ashland Forest Resiliency b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, there would be no change from current conditions. The implementation of A WPP could enact density management treatments, however the level of thinning and the extent of treatments were not found to be substantial under the A WPP FEIS. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative Windthrow and effects from shock are an indirect effect of density management treatments.: The risk of windthrow increases as stands become more open, and are subj ected to \\.'indflowu conditions that are different than the current conditions. Common to the Action Alternatives and associated with density management an<:i relative stand density index is a design element that staggers or "stages" density man~gement treatnlents (see Chapter II, Section C, 3, b). This element is designed to al!ow.time for root development (wind firmness) in residual trees. This element would alsq facilitate a drastic change in light conditions that could cause tree shock. Quality an? vigor' of the trees to be retained would help determine the need for staging under densitynJ~:r1t:lgement to obtain desired relative densities. The Community Alternative would create more open stand~,o'ii:ridges, but the staging design element would allow residual trees to develop wind-firrrln~$s and resistance to shock before being opened up to the designed density levels. T~e~~:8posed Action and Preferred Alternative would not initially open up stands t9Sh~,s.ame degree on ridges. There are no real cumulative effects from fo~es~:eable actions, as treatments would only be associated with Ashland Forest ResiUerl~y.::"::\.Jritreated A wpp areas may be treated under Ashland Forest Resiliency; however:,lh,t.y:;::would not be treated under both projects. There is a cumulative, but insignificanteffeG[:ofmultiple treatments under Ashland Forest Resiliency, i.e., density management, follo,~ed by-activity fuel treatments, followed by maintenance broadcast burning. These c~nlulative effects do not create significant risk or threat of increased shock or windthrow. 5. Ashland Research 'Natural Area Will hazardous fu~:(::!re~tI11ents affect forest species conlpositioll and natural variability (ecological sustai"abilifJ~ ill the Ashland Research Natural Area? A vegeta~ion nlanagement recommendation identified in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment includes..enacting treatnlents that maintain and/or encourage natural species diversity. "ES:,ological sustainability" is a ternl developed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment as part of the : ~:,\lU~.$;At Risk analysis in reference to the ability to nlaintain past vegetative conditions tbi,plogical diversity) within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Loss of pine species is the element \::H qfbiological diversity of particular concern. The Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA) was ..":'established as a representative area for ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir plant communities, and is the focus of this reconunendation. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!/l1I -129 Ashland Forest Resiliency Ecological sustainability refers to the ability to maintain past vegetative conditions (biological diversity) within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The definition of Ecological Sustainability from the proposed Planning rule (USDA 2000) is "the maintenance or restoration of the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems including diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capability of ecological systems." An important element of this value in this Analysis Area is the conservation of large ponderosa pine, and pine species in general, as part of the species diversity. Although pine species generally occur throughout the Analysis Area, the Research Natural Area (RNA) was established as a representative area for ponderosa pine and Douglas- fir. a. Background According to the Establishment Report for this area (Establishment Report forth~.:.::Ashland Research Natural Area, Rogue River National Forest, 1970), the Ashlanq R~~,~iarcii'Natural Area contains 1,408 acres of predominantly ponderosa pine and mixed ppn,q:etO'sa pine _ Douglas- fir forest types. It is located in a steep mountain valley (low~p;.qt?-irrage of the East Fork of Ashland Creek). The purpose of setting aside this tract ,~,es ti?'rfo\lide an undisturbed example of Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir fdr,:,\~d:J::"sci:entific and educational study of ecological processes, successional trend,~~and:environmental relationships of these types; (2) a control site for compatiso:p.\~.iJh others influenced by humans and (3) a gene pool and preserve for plant anf:CW;1ma.1 species within the tract. The objective of management in the natural area is to m~.ip'i~i!1\natural conditions within the tract for scientific and educational study. :,:,: [<y,,"': The Rogue River National Forest Land an(l:~~e:~qyj:ce Management Plan, 1990 provides that maintenance of natural processes withl,:n the,:"a\~~ will be the prime consideration. The landscape will consist of naturally est~hl!:~~~tlpattems of vegetation and areas will be protected to preserve the naturalle4J:qie~,;f()r scientific purposes and natural processes allowed to dominate. The Dir7ctbr'q:(,the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Statio.n must approve management activities\~\"Wh,,:,:en conflicts exist between RNAs and other resources, the conflict will be resolved iri'''fayor'''o:fthe RNA. ~'-"'~;':-: ," "~'. ',3,' ::.- '~-::'~, ":~::~;.:.;,;;;: The 2003 Upper Bear~s~,~ssment identified that the RNA is experiencing a general decline in the ponderosa anq}q,ga:i pine component, especially in the larger tree size class. Large Douglas-fir trees;v'aY::~fexperienced heavy mortality also, especially on drier sites. The increase in,tree,::':w.artality is contributing to an increase in fire hazard. The fire risk and hazard}n tn~,::~tX is moderate to high. Approximately 770/0 of the RNA is in Plant Associ.~tion'vroups 1407 and 1408. These P AGs are rated at high risk for insect and disease infes,tat}bUs. They also have a very high probability of undergoing a stand replacement fire, a9d lq:y.reis a moderate to high risk for landslides and erosion. . 0". . .. !'::::{;"b~~:;:::f)irect Effects of Alternatives ':::::.y:~:: .:.;.:: No-Action Alternative The RNA was originally established in 1970 to represent "Pacific" ponderosa pine and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forests in a steep, granitic mountain valley of southwestern Oregon's Eastern Siskiyou Mountains. While the role of fire in maintaining most of the RNA stands in a seral or late-seral condition was recognized at the time of establishment, the truly dangerous and destructive effects of fire exclusion in the area were not completely understood. Final EIS t1DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -130 Ashland Forest Resiliency Fire exclusion over the last 100 years, especially the last 50, has clearly altered the stands in the RNA, resulting in an unnatural and dangerous build-up of standing and down fuels, a huge increase in the density of small and larger sized Douglas-fir and white fir, and serious increases in pine bark beetles, Douglas-fir mistletoe and flat-headed fir borer. Healthy older and larger trees are clearly at great risk of disappearing entirely from the RNA (Sarah Greene pers. com. 2004). Under this alternative, current conditions would continue. The RNA is in need of restoration. The 'Iarge, old healthy pine and Douglas-fir need protection from insects and crown fires. Stand density in most of the RNA needs to be reduced so that eventually, ground fires,can" bum through the area without leading to crown fires. The PNW Research Station supports the use of thilming and removal of wood, prescribed burning, and clearing around large; healthy pines and Douglas-firs. The ponderosa and sugar pines in the RNA h(:lve.~~pecially important ecological value (Sarah Greene pers. conl. 2004). q q Proposed Action The treatnlents for the RNA under the Proposed Action are desigIl~dto selectively renlove conlpetition to existing largeponderosa or sugar pine and Dougl~~ficfo create conditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Approxim'ately 1,300 acres are proposed for treatment. Variable density managementprescrip~d burning and other surface fuel reduction treatments are options that would encol1.rag'emore natural species diversity and a more fire resilient forest. Stands in these compartmen!~Uwould be thinned from below to a relative stand density of 0.2 - 0.3, followed by treCitmen(of all existing or activity created fuels. Treatments would be designed to achieve'aflame length of 4-6 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions. Prescribed underbuming is proposed~s:=r?u.tine maintenance after variable density management treatments, as a cOI?plel11'en.tifry method that would encourage more natural regeneration of pines and sust~irithe,::pine ecosystem. An underbum would occur approximately 10 years folJowll}g the thinning to maintain stand conditions. .. . n. ...... ................ . ...... The Proposed Action pr.9P9s~s:::to put a DFPZ through a small portion (approximately 30 acres) of the north~rn,:P9IiiOh of the RNA. If there is a need for this in the overall watershed strategy, and ifth~,DFB.zconcept is adopted, the effects are acceptable according to the PNW Research,:St.fltion. The station would work "hand in hand" with the District in developing!he:imph~mentation strategy (Sarah Greene pers. com. 2004). Commpnity~lternative Sonle:,:~re~s previously treated within the RNA need maintenance to remain effective. Under this aH~mative, areas that received fuel reduction treatment in the past were originally ,<gr.~:>uped within Category I, but after further consideration, it was determined at least some : woUld need to be treated because of their current or near-term future need for maintenance to '.retain conditions that support low crown fire potential, and satisfy other stated goals. Treatments may include follow-up understory slashing, prescribed burning or thinning. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!III - 131 Ashland Forest Resiliency Within the RNA, lower elevation southerly and westerly slopes on the upper two-thirds of hillsides and ridges, typically support open mixed stands of oaks and madrone, large Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and sugar pine often with a high abundance of seedlings, saplings, poles and younger, mature Douglas-fir and white fir. Such low elevation mixed conifer stands are a high priority for variable density management from below and around these legacy trees to restore their fire resiliency by improving the survivorship of the legacy trees (within the RNA) in a subsequent wildland fire. While the Community Alternative does not specifically address the RNA, fuels would be reduced and the density of the smaller trees would be thinned to re-establish more ~pen conditions that would have occurred, had fire suppression not affected stand structUre. Approximately 520 acres within the RNA would be treated under the Community. '~\''''';;;:'' Alternative. Historically these areas were prone to relatively frequent (yet vatj,.~bly) wildland fire of low and mixed fire intensity and severity that killed predominantly yo'Ung'tn~es, while larger trees more frequently survived. The intended manual treatments are;;4.:esj:gned to reestablish horizontal discontinuity in dead and live fuels, removing ~be\aQun;dance of young recruits that have established and grown in the long fire-free int,J~~aL:;':;) Preferred Alternative ;. ,; Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 1 ,290 ~cr~s\~Qpld be treated. This alternative would employ treatment prescriptions simi}~r",,:!b';ihe Community Alternative but would treat the majority of the RNA. :;\" " . h_ As described under the Community Alternativ~;lq;\Ver elevation southerly and westerly slopes on the upper two-thirds of hillsidesand'i)dges, typically support open mixed stands of oaks and madrone, large Douglas-fir, Ron,de[osa pine, and sugar pine often with a high abundance of seedlings, saplings, poh~~\aDd",,~ounger, mature Douglas-fir and white fir. Such low elevation mixed conifer sta!.!;?s ,are,::a"hTgh priority for variable density management from below and around these legacxftrees'-toTestore their fire resiliency by improving the survivorship of the legacy .t;ees\'G,~,i.thin the RNA) in a subsequent wildland fire. ....~. . A portion of the IRA is ;i..~e~1.tifled as a Strategic Ridgeline Area. Within this area, treatment would maintain a ~Jo~ecl::~~ir()py condition. This area (approximately 30 acres) is located in the northern po,r.ti qp':' Qf the RNA. The PNW Research Station would work "hand in hand" with the Distrif~:::,~~<~;?e~'~ioping the implementation strategy. ,.. - .-'..-..... ." c. Indirecl;Effects of Action Alternatives Und~t,;tp;e,'"Action Alternatives, the decline in large pine species and large Douglas-fir would decr6'ase and regeneration of pine would increase as competition for light and water is ."'re.qp.ced. Decreasing the density in stands would allow pine and fir to be more resistant to ;'{\"";::::ins~cts and disease, and density related mortality. The RNA would trend back toward the '\plant community for which it was established. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -132 Ashland Forest Resiliency The visitor that walks through the RNA would encounter a range of forest conditions from closed dense stands oftinlber to open park-like areas. Evidence ofnlanagement would be apparent from the stumps remaining and the signs of prescribed burning such as blackened areas of ground where piles were burned and broadcast burning was applied. These signs of burning would not be evident after 2-3 years as new litter covers the forest floor. Some scorched trees are expected to be evident. The average size of trees in the stand would be larger as many of the smaller trees would have been removed. The risk of large-scale, high- severity wildland fire potentially affecting the RNA would be reduced, and areas burned by wildland fire would likely be smaller. Wildland fires, if they occurred in the RNA, would.be less intense, as much of the fuel would have been removed. d. Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives Management in the RNA has included some prescribed burning, accOlnplished lrrthe 1980s. This treatment is not effective today, and fuel loading is once again high~Tl?ere is little obvious evidence of that treatment today. Each of the Action Alternatives would enact treatn1ents that would occur on the same area as these previousJreatm~,pts. A WPP does not propose treatments in the RNA, and would therefore not be currilll~tive. In some ways, what is proposed under Ashland Fire R~si!:i:~ncyjs driven by social values - what is it that "we" want for the Ashland Watershed? :Re~der Reservoir seems to be the one major feature that all agree must be protected at any,c:~?~;t,,:therefore it is clearly a social construct that is driving what is done biologically:i,~:th2 Ashland Watershed. People will likely differ considerably on how they think thaJshould be done and how it should look on the landscape, within the RNA. This philosophical debate also surfaces)i1Jight of whether human treatments are necessary in a "natural" area, designed for re.search-::and study, e.g., a Research Natural Area. To some, n1anagem~nt should not be part of tlie:'RNA; to others, management is clearly needed to maintain the conditions fOFyvhi'chJhe RNA was established. There is also debate as to how intensive treatments should,~~:~,:.>and with how much of the RNA area should be treated. 6. Other Insectlnfes,tations and Tree Diseases . .;;:: Y:"':::: ',. . . . . . Will activities asso..E!~t~awith hazardous fuel treatllleltts ({!specially density Illanagement of vegetation) affec{iJiii':risk of tree ,nortality due to other insects and diseases? In additioit::tp. pine bark beetles and flatheaded fir borers discussed above, a number of other insects ano:diseases affect the health of trees within the Upper Bear Analysis Area to lesser degre~s, "These include: · Four species of dwarf mistletoe, Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobiu171 douglash), western dwarf mistletoe (A. campylopodum), white fir dwarf mistletoe (A. abietinu171 f. sp. concoloris), and red fir dwarf mistletoe (A. abietinum f. sp. magnificae) · White pine blister rust (caused by the fungus Cronartium ribicola) · Laminated root rot (caused by the fungus Phellinus weirii) · Fir engraver beetle (Scolytus ventralis) · Douglas- fir beetle Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI!III - 133 Ashland Forest Resiliency a. Background The dwarf mistletoes occurring in the Analysis Area are very host specific: Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe only infects Douglas- fir, western dwarf mistletoe only infects ponderosa pine, white fir dwarf mistletoe only infects white fir, and red fir dwarf mistletoe only infects Shasta red fir. The dwarf mistletoes are higher plants that are obligate parasites, growing on and obtaining water and nutrients from their conifer hosts. Depending on how heavily a host tree is infected, dwarf mistletoes can cause growth loss, vigor decline, and even host death. Among the dwarf mistletoe species that occur iT! JheC'::\::: Analysis Area, Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe has the greatest impact on infected host~. It :"\:::' becomes systemic, induces fonnation of very large "witch's brooms," and is parti.:cularly debilitating to health of individual trees. " All dwarf mistletoes spread by forcibly discharged seeds. Spread and in~e:q~iijcation is greatest in muItistoried stands with major components of the particular.~bvarfmistletoe's host in both the understory and overstory. Dwarf mistletoes have pro.,2JlbIY::been favored by fire exclusion since it fosters stand conditions favorable for spread;" White pine blister rust is an introduced disease that affects?l~}iye-needle pines. It causes resinous cankers that girdle host stems, killing small hO~,ts'9)~ltnght and weakening larger hosts by killing tops and branches. The causal pathog~Ji"hijs Oil complex life cycle that involves five spore stages and requires two hosts f9r~':"9Q~iPpietion (an alternate host in the genus Ribes as well as a five-needle pine). SOl1)~;'~Rpre fonns are capable of spreading very long distances via wind and most spore fOf!!l~..~r.y.,greatly favored by moist conditions. The disease is most evident following year,? w,itp"'q;qist conditions in late summer and fall, and tends to be more severe on wet than.<.iiY:..p1i~ro~sites. Laminated root rot is a disease,of.thi~:s~,t:~. .' The causal pathogen survives for protracted tinle periods in infected roots in soil{,end ~nfects new hosts when their roots contact inoculum on old roots. The fungus then:'i.~,~teiisi4ely decays susceptible bost roots, causing the trees to be windthrown or killing thYrP;:;~~~::disrupting their ability to transport water and nutrients. Within the Analysis 1\tea~E?ouglas-fir and white fir are highly susceptible to the disease, readily infected by:tne .i?~tfiogen when growing in disease centers, and usually killed when infected. Pines}:s:ede~s;""and hardwoods are resistant or immune and can grow in root rot pockets wit~,lit!l~'?ikelihood of damage. Fir engr~ver<~eetle is the main bark beetle that affects true firs. In the Analysis Area, it prefer..~':::stressed hosts, especially those weakened by root disease or drought. Unlike the bark beetl:tr~'::'c)fpines and the flatbeaded fir borer, it is not influenced by stand density, and density reducii'6n treatments have little or no impact on its OCGurrence. \,:1Jouglas-fir beetle occurs in the Analysis Area, but plays a secondary role to flatheaded fir " borer in killing Douglas-fir there. Douglas-fir beetle prefers very weak hosts and is most successful in root-diseased, fire-injured, or windthrown trees. When large amounts of preferred host material suddenly become available (for example after a major windstorm or wildland fire), Douglas-fir beetle sometimes builds large populations and does infest green, vigorous trees. There are no records of large Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks occurring in the Analysis Area. Douglas-fir beetles are not greatly influenced by stand densities, and stand density reduction projects have little or no impact on them. Final EIS !IDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -134 Ashland Forest Resiliency b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives The diseases and insects mentioned in this section certainly affect trees, but their impacts, in most cases, would be similar between the No-Action Altenlative and the Action Alternatives. None are greatly influenced by stand densities. The Action Alternatives would provide limited opportunities to physically remove hosts of the various pathogens and insects and favor non-hosts in affected areas that are being thinned. This might be particularly valuable in stands with Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe or laminated root rot. Thinning could also influence stand structure in dwarfmistletoe infected stands and decrease spread by I]laki~Yg:,: stands less multi storied. , The Comnlunity Altenlative and Preferred Alternative places special emphasison",Douglas- fir dwarf mistletoe; see Chapter III, Section C, 5 , c). These altelllatives propose to discrinlinate against dwarf mistletoe-infected Douglas-fir in thinning exceptiu;cases where dwarf mistletoe-infected trees are providing important wildlife values. <Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe has substantial impacts on host vigor and survival and also may influence fire behavior by inducing large brooms low in the crowns of infected.hosts. 7. Terrestrial Wildlife - Forest Service Sen"sitive,Species Will hazardous fuel treatments affect Sensitive terrestr!~I:'!;iii1llal species listed by the Forest Service? ' .. In compliance with the Forest Service Biological Evaluation process for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) wildlife species, the list of species potentially occurring within the Upper Bear Analysis Area was reviewed. Lists for the RR-SNF and the Pacific Northwest Region (R6) were reviewed in regard to potential effects on any of these species by actions associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency. The January 31, 2008 Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List is used for this analysis. Pre-field and reconnaissance results are summarized in Table III-38. See the Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation for nlore information, contained in FEIS Appendix F. a. BackgrouQd.., Table III-38. Terr~~tdalWildlife Sensitive Habitat or Species Presence Pre-field Review Field Surveys Common name Scientific Name Existing Sighting Habitat or or Potential Species Habitat Present ;Bla~k Salamander Aneides fJavipunctatus Yes Yes , <Califprnia Slender Salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus No No ; Siskiyou Mountain Salamander Plethodon stormi No No Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylij No No Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa No No Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata marmorata Yes Yes Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes Yes American Peregrine Falcon Falco pereqrinus anatum Yes Yes Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus No No Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Yes Yes White-headed Woodpecker , Picoides albolarvatus Yes Yes Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!lIl1 - 135 Ashland Forest Resiliency Pre-field' Review FieldSurve~_s Common name Se ientifie'. Name Existing Sighting Habitat or or Potential Species Habitat Present Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis No No Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus Yes Yes Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Yes Yes Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes Yes Yes California Wolverine Gu/o gu/o /uteus No No Fisher Martes pennanti Yes Yes Western Ridged Mussel Gonidea angulata No No.,< ("'" 1':::" Evening Fieldslug Deroceras hesperium (*) No Nd ':\, Klamath Rim Pebblesnail Ff/uminicola sp. novo 3 (") No No"::;;.:". Oregon Shoulderband Helminthoglypta hert/eini Yes ,.:. Yes Highcap Lanx Lanx alta No ", >\N6 Scale Lanx Lanx k/amathensis No ':', \:': No Chase Sideband Monadenia chaceana Yes \::",,:::;:' Yes Green Sideband Monadenia fide/is beryllica No ::.,"'."::":::,,::,:,:,+ No '....:::.-. T raveling Sideband Monadenia fidelis ce/euthia ,,:,,:y~S\::,..) Yes Robust Walker Pomatiopsis binneyi ""\ N(}"':~:::'::::"", No Pacific Walker Pomatiopsis californica No: No Crater Lake Tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum crateris ....." \:.;:;,q./ No No Siskiyou Hesperian Vespericola sierranus '.'. t:,,::,:".:,.,, '. No No -, :. Johnson's Hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni r:,: 1",\., Yes Yes Hoary Elfin Callophrys po/ios maritima ,:."\:::::: No No Insular Blue Butterfly Plebejus saepiolus littoralis\, No No Mardon Skipper Polites mardon {,"':::::.:'" No No Franklin's Bumblebee Bombus franklirit\t .;:;;....;..;:-:::::.::.. Yes Yes Coronis Fritillary Speyeria co(onif:cQ{bnis No No Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper Chloealtis':aspasinl' No No '. :;/1-.::;:~;::~.., .....;:~:;._. " Habitat does not exist within t~e".A.rlalysis Area for the following Forest Service Sensitive species. These species are;:v.otlli~E}1ssed further within this FElS and include: California slender salamander, Siskiy(iu<~ountain salamander, Foothill yellow-legged frog, Oregon spotted frog, Northern ~,a:t~rthfush, Harlequin duck, Western ridged mussel, Evening fieldslug, Klamat4:}if[l"H~.bblesnail, Oregon shoulderband, Highcap lanx, Scale lame, Green sideband, Robqpt .>y'~Hfer::';Pacific walker, Crater Lake tightcoil, Siskiyou Hesperian, Hoary elfin, Insular blp'e,putterfly, and Coronis fritillary ';.:-:.;::}:;::::;:; KnowllSP~Gl~S:~o'ccurrence or suitable habitat may occur within the Analysis Area for the fOlloW'iq:p sp'ecies, and are sumnlarized in this FElS. ......._...:.:.;.. 0.:-:.. ~: ".;:;::" ~'" H,!acl(?Salamander, Northwestern pond turtle, Northern bald eagle, American peregrine h:t{fa1:~on, Lewis' woodpecker, White-headed woodpecker, Pacific fringe-tailed bat, Pacific /\:;:,:'\:::::p.all:id bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, California wolverine, Pacific fisher, Chace's sideband, "\"Traveling sideband, lohnson's hairstreak, Mardon skipper, Franklin's bumblebee, and Siskiyou short-homed grasshopper. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -136 Ashland Forest Resiliency b. Species Discussion Black Salamander The black salamander ranges from a linlited distribution in southern Oregon into Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties, California. In Oregon, the few records available indicate a small range in extreme southern Jackson and southeastern Josephine Counties (Leonard et al. 1993). Black salamanders are found in coniferous forests, n1ixed deciduous-coniferous forests, and open hillsides from sea level up to at least 1,700 n1eters in elevation (Nussbaum, et al. 1983). Black salamanders are most likely to be found in the n10ist crevices of decayiqg<' logs or stumps, within lnoist to wet talus slopes, or under surface objects during we!-wcqihei (Leonard et al. 1993). I ' Three specimens residing in the Southern Oregon College Reptile and Amphib.ian:.Follection were tentatively identified as black salamander by Dr. Stephen Cross. These specimens were taken in May 1971 from a mine shaft along the 'eastern border of the RNA:'(Cross 1973). Six individuals (1 adult male, 2 adult females, 1 sub-adult, 2 juveniles) were Jocated by Forest Service and FWS biologists conducting herpetological surveys forthef\FR project in April 2004. The adults and sub-adult were located under a large boulder and the juveniles were found under debris associated with a large downed log. All ofthe'individuals were found within a 10 meter radius within a dry, fairly open site. Northwestern Pond Turtle The northwestern pond turtle occurs in both perenJ1iatq~nd intermittent waters including marshes, sloughs, moderately deep ponds, and slow~moving portions of creeks and rivers (Brown et al. 1995, Nussbaum et al. 1983};H,Th~yJavor habitats with large amounts of emergent logs or boulders, where they aggregate to bask (Brown et al. 1995). Pond turtles are known to occurjn the::ponds at Lithia Park and potential habitat exists at Reeder Reservoir. . Northern Bald Eagle .... Information on the ecol()gxofthe northern bald eagle is contained within the Draft site- specific managem,~ntph:lnJ()r the Emigrant Lake bald eagle nest site (Popp and Isaacs 1995), the Working ~pl:y'in~ntc:Hion Plan for Bald Eagle Recovery in Oregon and Washington (OR- W A Interagen~,y'Wvildlife Committee 1989) and within the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USn I FV{~::,) 98,'?)/ An actiye bald eagle nest (Nest 1 034) is located east of the Analysis Area on BLM managed land~':'arotlnd Immigrant Lake. The nest is located in a dOlninant ponderosa pine within the Slide:Creek drainage (Y. Arthur, pers. comm.). A Bald Eagle Consideration Area (BECA) 'en.,9.ompasses a portion of Forest Service n1anaged lands within the Analysis Area within the ::Neil and Ashland Creek drainages (Popp and Isaacs 1995). A Bald Eagle Management Area "'(BEMA) is located on BLM and private ownerships (Popp and Isaacs 1995). An adult bald eagle was observed roosting in the Neil Creek drainage in 1994 and adult eagles were observ.ed flying toward the Neil Creek drainage several times during the evening. It is unknown whether eagles roost in the drainage, use it to access the nest stand, or both (Popp and Isaacs 1995). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI!1I1 .137 Ashland Forest Resiliency Bald eagles are fairly tolerant of human activity, but high level noise or disturbance can dissuade them from important breeding area or winter roost sites, particularly during the early nesting season. Individual pairs have widely variable responses to disturbance. Seasonal and distance protection are generally effective in reducing adverse impacts of human disturbance activity to bald eagles. Habitat protection is generally effective if large trees that support nesting and roosting are maintained within the nesting or wintering stand and any disruptive activity is scheduled outside of sensitive periods (USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS 2003). American Peregrine Falcon .,_ " The American peregrine falcon was identified as an endangered species in the 197q~ and,then de-listed in 1999. Peregrine falcons are typically associated with cliffs, which serve~as nesting and perching sites. Nest site criteria include ledges, potholes, and sm~:p::c.&yes that are near water, inaccessible to mamnlalian predators, and offer protectiop frp:pitain and snow, and heat and cold. Peregrine falcons feed almost exclusively on bj:!d~?::::;::{' " Cliffs with suitable ledges provide nesting habitat for peregrineJ~lpo~~:'i; P)~regrine habitat on the Siskiyou portion of the Forest is managed in accordance with{~~?e;):R;e'gional Forester's letter of July 19, 1999 (USDA 1999b). On 25 August 1999, !4:~ D'SI)I (1999) Fish and Wildlife Service removed (de-listed) the American per.~grin~\{9:Jcon throughout its range as a threatened species from the Federal List of Endanger~4,a,J,itl:;;;Threatened Wildlife, thereby removing all protections provided by the Act. A str~l#g~}or the 5-year monitoring plan that follows the delisting has been developed and in by!ng]rnplemented (FWS 2003). Evaluation of inlpacts of Proposed Actions on the peregIine'f~lcon should follow the process described irn FSM 2673.4 and be documented in the B,tplo~ical Evaluation. If a proposed project may potentially impact the species or its ha.l:)it~t;:#hrveys using the Regional protocol (Pagel 1988) should be conducted. "'.. There is one known cIiffwithiptl1eRrdject Area that might support nesting peregrines. Contractors reported hearil},g whelJhey suspected as a falcon near this cliff while conducting red tree vole surveys in June:::q[2007. Follow-up surveys were conducted in May and June of 2008. No evidence of p~fegnries were detected at the cliff. .. Lewis' Woodpesk~:(\:<,.. Lewis' woodpe,~k~rs;afe migratory in southwestern Oregon, with sporadically large population~,.in:the:\\iinter and scattered breeding pairs in the summer reported. Gilligan et al. (l994):).'epoijs:::;~h'at they are common breeders in summer in Jackson and Josephine Counties but inlbe la~t 10 years they have n.ot been documented (N. Barrett 2008, pers. com.) and thery":"ar::~\few recent breeding records (Janes et al. 2002). This species is closely tied to the p<?ndbrosa pine/oak savannah habitats of eastern and southwest Oregon. .. " i',:,~:~)s are often in the large ponderosa pine snags or mature oaks while the birds forage on ':\:::'insects and acorn meat. In winter they store acorn meat in crevices in trees and power poles. Because this woodpecker does not usually excavate its own cavity, they have a close tie to older snags within the forest that are likely to contain cavities and have crevices for food storage. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIIJ - 138 Ashland Forest Resiliency The population of Lewis' woodpeckers has fallen dramatically across Oregon as pine/oak woodlands are lost (Gilligan et a1. 1994, Galen 2003). 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, tilnber harvest of pine components in the oak forests, etc. White-Headed Woodpecker White-headed woodpeckers have been confirmed breeding on Mt. Ashland, Dead Indian Plateau, and along the California border into Josephine County. Primarily a ponderosa pine habitat breeder on the East side of the Cascades, they locally breed in the Shasta fiqzone"'in Jackson County (Marshall 2003) and in mixed conifer forest (R. Cooper 2008, pers.'Com.). This species is not migratory and can be found on the forest year round (Janeset~J. 2002). Thimled stands with large ren1nant trees area suitable habitat, as well as old ~gr6wth forests. On the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest any dry, open forest stand\Vith large trees may serve as suitable foraging breeding habitat for the species, though:breedtng is probably limited to ponderosa pine and true fir stands. . . ,. , Known breeding sites on the forest include the meadow comp'l~xes on the south side ofMt. Ashland and a treated Shasta Fir shelterwood stand (approximately. 6 trees/ac.) east of Howard Prairie. One Mt. Ashland nest was in a 5 foptt~ILstump within a campground. Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat Miller and Allen ( 1928) (as reported by V ertsandCarraway 1998) considered M. thysanodes a cave-dwelling bat, even though most,ofthespecimens they examined were from buildings. In SW Oregon, they are considered asriag obligate rooster (Cross 1996). It appears to be adapted to living in areas with diversev~getative substrate. Fringe-tailed n1yotis are la1pwihlR9ccur within the Analysis Area. Cross et a1. (1997) reported capturing two M. thy~anodes (1 male, 1 female) within the Ashland Watershed during August. ' Pacific Pallid B~t ,: ' Pallid bats are ~Qwn to occur throughout SW Oregon and NW California. Suitable roost, habitat typ'~s include buildings, bridges, rock outcrops, and large decadent snags. Pallid bats have b~en c~pmied from several sites on the RR-SNF, including some locations on the SiskiY9~ Mountains Ranger District. They have also been captured at a site just south of Pilot:Rockat 4,500 feet in elevation, southwest of the Analysis Area (Dave Clayton pers. oJJs.};::: ' 'H't~alJid bats are known to roost under loose bark of large snags and within rock crevices (D. ':::Clayton, pers. comm.). Dr. Stephen Cross sampled for bat species in 1973 near the Ashland Creek inlet of Reeder Reservoir using mist netting and shooting techniques (Cross 1973). Bat surveys were conducted again by Cross in 1997 in and around the Ashland RNA (Cross et a1. 1997). Pallid bats were not detected with either effort. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!I" - 139 Ashland Forest Resiliency Cross (1973) considered expected presence of pallid bats to be marginal or uncommon within the RNA. However, surveys conducted by Cross sampled only a small portion of the Analysis Area. Based on documented presence of pallid bats at both Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District and Pilot Rock, and the presence of large, decadent snags for roosting, pallid bats may occur within the Analysis Area. Townsend's Big-eared Bat Townsend's big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitats, its distribution tends to be geomorphically determined and is strongly correlated with the availability of caves or cave:;":';"';:;: like roosting habitat (e.g., old mines) (Pierson et al. 1999). The species may also us~;~hollow'.. trees for roosting. Suitable roosts sites and hibernacula fall within a specific range 2f ' temperature and moisture conditions. Moths make up the majority of the diet for,C"';\ ,;;;;. townsendii. Currently, there are two mines within the Analysis Area that could proviQe,potential roost/maten1ity sites for Townsend's big-eared bats. Lamb Mine is n,~;~r;;:~:\trail and is frequented by recreational users which may make it unavailable,;Jqr Q"..tgwnsendii because they are highly susceptible to disturbance. The Ashland LoopN1~ir!.e.;;;b.as' a gate on it which precludes human use, but that could be re-co~figured to allo\},\Fasr~r access and reduce the potential for predation. Cross et al. (1997) surveyed b?th ,m~h,~;~:iin 1997 and C. townsendii were not captured. '<';;\:,; California Wolverine ,;.;:' :,,:\; Marshall (1989) described wolverine habitat in8i:,egon as similar to what \vas described by HOIDocker and Hash (1981) in Montana. h1;:MQntana, wolverines selected alpine fir (Abies lasiocG1pa) forests over ponderosa pil1:t (fid;,~q;;:ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and spruce (Picea sp.), but.~hq~e.d: some preference for lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and western larch (Lal:i.x qcc,;t"driitalis). Wolverines tended to work large areas of scattered conifers but also poc~ets, rOGky, and ecotonal areas. Young, dense conifer stands were used least. W olverinys wer~ :rarely located in burned-over or wet areas, and crossed but did not linger in clear-cuts{He~'~:~ker and Hash 1981). ~.;.. -.::.:-::y Status of the wolv~riIle:irt:;,Oregon remains unknown. There are very few verifiable records for the State (V:~rt,~al}d;:Carraway 1998), none of which come from Jackson or Josephine Counties. Nun,i:~rq:~:~.,2arnivore surveys and a considerable amount of carnivore research have been:;SR.ndu~~ed in southern Oregon and northern California in the past decade. These includy, bu(:~re:;:riot limited to, over 150 baited camera stations on the High Cascades Ranger Dist~~t;(,?fthe RR-SNF, numerous baited stations on the Diamond Lake Ranger District. of the -ymp:qua National Forest, and surveys in the Ashland Watershed by agency biologists and p~vatejndividuals in cooperation with the BLM, Southern Oregon University, and Forest ::S~rvice. Radio-telemetry studies have been conducted on marten in northwestern California ;:\\ \$1~,;:on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, and radio-telemetry studies have been 'conducted on fisher in northwestern California and the Southern Oregon Cascades. All of these efforts have used carrion as bait, none have detected wolverine. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 140 Ashland Forest Resiliency In addition, the Fremont- Winenla, Unlpqua, and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests have been conducting helicopter surveys in the Sky Lakes and Thielsen Wilderness areas for the past 3 years, which provide the highest quality wolverine denning habitat in southern Oregon based on known den sites (Magoun and Copeland 1998) and a wolverine den habitat model (Hart et al. 1997). Wolverine dens or tracks have not been detected with this effort. Since virtually all studies of wolverines have shown their dependence on carrion as forage, and wolverines are known to den at high elevation at or above timberline, it appears highly unlikely that wolverines are resident in southern Oregon and northern California at the present time. Wolverines are known to make long distance movements and disperse across" large areas. A wolverine was photographed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Califonl(ain February 2008. Additional photographs and genetic sanlples were collected in March 20'08. Analysis of the genetic samples identified the individual as originating from the Rocky Mountains. Dispersing individuals from neighboring states have the ability to,<~nt,yr southenl Oregon, therefore, there is potential for wolverines to be located in southern, ()regon in the future. .., Pacific Fisher '. .' The Pacific fisher was petitioned for listing by the Center for Bio!ogicai Diversity and several other environmental organizations in November 200Q~< After a 12-month review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife-Service found Pacific fisher to be a disttnct population segment (DPS) and gave a "warranted but precluded" decision to the peJ~tion, designating the West Coast DPS a Federal Candidate species (USDI Fish and WjldlifeService 2004). The geographic distribution of fishers in Oregon :has:heen greatly reduced in extent from pre- settlement conditions. Prior to extensive Ellropean settlement, the fisher occupied most coniferous forest habitats in W ashingtpn,0regon, and California (Aubry and Lewis 2003). Currently, there are two documentedpopulafibns in southern Oregon which appear to be genetically isolated from each otherdll:eJdthe presence of potentially strong ecological and anthropogenic barriers which iricludeJhe white oak savanna habitat of the: Rogue Valley and Interstate 5 (Aubry et al. 2Q04)><:!I;dividuals in the southern Oregon Cascades appear to be descendents of animals re-irlt~9duced from British Columbia and Minnesota during the late 1970s and early 1980s qytpe::.()regon Department ofFish and Wildlife (Aubry et al. 2004). Animals in the nOllhernSiskiyou Mountains are genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California ,population, which is indigenous. Currently,:.tp'~rearetwo documented populations in southern Oregon which appear to be genetiqally~'s61ated from each other (Wisely et al. 2004). This is considered to be due to the preseriyt of potentially strong ecological and anthropogenic barriers including the white oak savann~'habitat of the Rogue Valley and Interstate 5 (Aubry et al. 2004). Based on DNA aJ?alyses, individuals in the southern Oregon Cascades appear to be descendents of animals ;' "'Te,;!ntroduced from British Columbia and Minnesota during the late 1970s and early 1980s by ""<the..;Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (Aubry et al. 2004). Anilnals in the eastern "'Siskiyou Mountai'ns of Oregon are genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California population, which is indigenous (Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Franklin 2005). Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!l1l1 - 141 Ashland Forest Resiliency Fishers have been documented in the Analysis Area (Weir 2003), and adjacent areas (Was 1995, Schroeder 2001, Stevens, unpublished data, Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Criss 2006). While there have been no telemetry studies of fishers in or immediately adjacent to the Analysis Area to determine home ranges of individuals, it is assumed that fishers are resident in the Analysis Area. Two recent surveys that have incorporated hair snaring and subsequent DNA analysis as a component have identified fishers near the Analysis Area as members of the indigenous population (Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Criss 2005). The fisher is one of the most habitat-specialized mamnlals in western North America (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Specialization appears to be tied primarily to denning (;lnd resting habitats. The varied diet of fishers suggests they forage in a variety of habite.ts. Fishers use landscapes at different spatial scales for different behaviors and activities;:(:Powell 1994, Weir and Harestad 2003). For example, fishers may establish their hoITle'rauges at the landscape scale, forage at the patch scale, and select habitat for resting Or denning at the patch scale as well as at a finer scale of habitat characteristics of elements'\\:,:jthin a patch (Powell 1994, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Weir and Harestad 2003). . .., ,": ':'.:: ._;::........ Several studies have shown that fishers appear to be highly selecti:ye,:o{resting structures. In California, Zielinski et al. (2004) found that resting structlfr~s vlere in the largest diameter trees available. Average diameter for live conifers wa~ 1 !7\,~inlor live conifers, 120 cnl diameter for conifer snags, and 69 em diameter for har.sI~:obds. In southwest Oregon, Aubry and Raley (2006) reported that the average diameter"J{r1t;y'etrees used by females for resting was slightly greater than those used by males: 88 :sp1 g}ameter versus 64 em diameter. "::<;~::.. '\:;':" In California, Zielinski et al. (2004) found!tl),at="nshers select rest sites with higher canopy closure inunediately adjacent to the reSlst.t~~~~~.3A%) when compared to random sites (88.80/0). In southern Oregon fishers':':s,~res!~(r'rest sites with canopy closure greater than 80% (Aubry and Raley 2006). ',: .., Trees are generally old enQ\t.gh''tq~:bave suffered the type of stresses that initiate cavities, and have been be subjected to ttfe\~~ological processes that form cavities of sufficient size for use by fisher (Zielinski et al\2Q'~4J:: Both conifers and hardwoods provide rest structures for fisher provided the~ af~:J:'~rge enough produce cavities sufficient to accommodate them. Large trees alsQ::pp;?viq'e'platform-type resting structures such as mistletoe, clumped branches which support rod~:~triests, or rust brooms which can support the weight of fishers. Once these large:::'tF~es?-;gie and fall, they are also the type of log that fishers have been known to use as rest"sites;\,]<emoval of understory and mid-story canopies around large structures n1ay also reduce\tpe effectiveness of the structure as a secure rest site because they contribute to the micr,oclirnate of the site. Understory and mid-story canopies probably also provide some prpte'Cti6n for female and juvenile fishers from predation or harassment by large raptors and \(,,;\ln~,bbing by corvids because sight distance is reduced in dense, multi-storied stands. . , \:;::::.~: ,::~. "';:"As with resting structures, both conifers and hardwoods provide habitat for fisher dens. Yeager (2005) categorized 18 fisher dens in the Hoopa and Shasta-Trinity study sites. Sixteen were located in hardwoods and 2 were located in conifers. Of these 18 dens, all but 3 were located in live trees. On both study areas, black oaks were used in 50% of all dens categorized. Other species used were tanoak, white oak, canyon live oak, chinquapin, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. In southern Oregon, Aubry and Raley (2006) located 13 natal and 18 maternal dens. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -142 Ashland Forest Resiliency For natal dens, fishers used both live trees and snags with openings that accessed hollows created by heartwood decay. The most commonly used tree species were incense cedar, true fir, and westenl white pine. Douglas-fir, incense cedar and true firs were used as maternal dens. Structures used for maternal dens were more variable than those used for natal dens, and included cavities in the bole or butt of large live trees and snags, and large hollow logs (Aubry and Raley (2006). Fishers appear to be a generalist predator and opportunistic in their foraging strategies, which is reflected in their diverse diet (Aubry and Raley 2006, Zielinski and Duncan 2004, Aubry:et al. 2002, Zielinski et al. ] 999, Powell] 993). There is some indication of seasonal variatiOn' in the fisher's diet (Zielinski et al. ] 999) which is likely linked to seasonal abundance ofjJrey and forage species. While fishers require structures provided by older aged or residual:stands for denning and resting, they appear to use a wider variety of stands for foraging. <.:W eir and Harestad (2003) found that fishers exhibited selectivity for stands and patches with high volumes of coarse woody nlaterial and specific closures of high and 10wshriIhlayers. However, they hypothesize that an overly complex forest floor may aJfectthe hunting success of fishers by reducing the likelihood of capturing prey. ..Fiehet:~!avoided stands with greater than 80 percent closure of the low shrub layer. Jones aiid.:~,~artOn (1994) found that fishers did not use non-forested sites while resting or hunting;:<put they did use pole-sapling forests for hunting significantly more than for resting. ': T~e'inGlusion of berries in the diet of fishers suggests that they do forage, at least occasionany::;:~r<seasonally, in more open stands where many fruit-bearing shrubs and forbs are found.. .. Chace Sideband and Traveling Sideband The Chace sideband may be found within 3Q':m."C98 f1.) of rocky areas, talus deposits and in associated riparian areas in the Klamat,p phys.iographic province and adjacent portions of the south-western Oregon Cascades. Are~sofherbaceous vegetation in these rocky landscapes adjacent to forested habitats arepreferied (Duncan et al. 2003). Two individual specilnens()f M.~J1aceanawere located by a contractor conducting herptile surveys for Ashland ForesLRe;~iliency in 2004. These individuals were positively identified by Nancy Duncan (Regipn:p'mollusk expert). Protocol surveys were conducted on approximately 1,5,qO ~c:t:~sOfthe Ashland Watershed Protection Project (A WPP) in 1999. The Rogue Riv!~r-.,~~s~~y6u National Forest contracted with Siskiyou Co-op Inc. to conduct protocol surveys"'\;yithih the Analysis Area. Surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007, and completed'iRX Ndyember, 2007. A total of 8,731 acres were surveyed. Five M. chaceana and 19 M. fidelis,eeleuthia were collected and identified within the surveyed area. Sislqyo~ Hesperian The Siskiyou Hesperian can be found in riparian and other perennially moist habitats, in deep ,..,lei!,[ litter and under debris and rocks. It has been collected from lower portions of slopes, but ';<:l1otjn areas subject to regular flooding. It may occur along running water, such as small- order streams, or around permanent ponds and springs. Vegetation at sites includes Rorippa and skunk cabbage. Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 143 Ashland Forest Resiliency Threats to the species include diversion or modification of springs for livestock watering, irrigation, and human use may result in loss or degradation of habitat. Removal of forest overstory and increased solar insulation can result in drying of important subterranean refugia sites, and loss of aestivating individuals. Concentrated use of riparian areas by livestock may also degrade available loose soil and litter habitat components used for foraging and breeding. Competition with exotic mollusk species introduced in agricultural areas may also be detrimental to continued occupation of small habitat areas. Franklin's Bumblebee Franklin's bumble bee is a typical primitively eusocial bumble bee. Females are geperallsl;; foragers for pollen, especially from lupine (Lupinus) and California poppy (Eschsc~olzia);'; " and for nectar, especially from horsemint (Agastache) and mountain penny-royal, " (Monardella). They may collect both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia) ang"T()l?:: nectar from it (P. Schroeder personal cOlnmunication). Its nesting biology is uqknp~il'~;;'but it probably nests in abandoned rodent burrows as is typical for other memQ,~r~::'b.fithe subgenus Bombus sensu stricto (Hobbs 1968). Its flight season is from mid-M~~;:'tq;~!heend of September (Thorp et al. 1983). ";,,,",;;;; ",;;;;".;:;;:' ' ....... Franklin's bumble bee has the most limited geographic distrihyti~i1}of any bumble bee in North America and possibly the World (Williams 199~). ~t;js:!g1own only froIl) southern Oregon and northern California between the Coast an9,S;!::erra-Cascade Ranges. Stephen (1957) recorded it from the Umpqua and Rogue Riv~fVe.Jleys of Oregon. Thorp et al. (1983) also recorded it from northern California apd~:B.ggested its restriction to the Klamath , Mountain region of southern Oregon and northym::,,(jallfomia. Its entire distribution, including recent range extensions (Thorp tinpu1?;lished), can be covered by an oval of about 190 miles north to south and 70 miles ;;,~,asttq';'west between 1220 to 1240 west longitude and 400 58' to 43030' north latitude. It is~:~rl(?~n;;from Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and Tri~;ity::cqi1h;tfes in California. Elevations of localities where it has been found range from 54Q'feee;~;l,62 m) in the north to above 7800 feet (2340 m) in the south of its historical range.,~,Th~[,;~js a known site located on the south side on Mt. Ashland. Recent surveys by Dr. ThoWe,;:;pave failed to detect any individuals at any historical sites except for one lone indi:y:idval/located at the Mt. Ashland site in 2006. .~..'~::' .., Threats includt1.;~::~~;~liS::..tl]s:eases introduced via trafficking in commercial bumble bee queens and nests for gr.,~eI1P;9U'se pollination of tomatoes (Thorp 2003, Thorp et al. 2003), habitat loss due to dest!1l~tl'(~!i.} "degradation, conversion; and pesticides and pollution. "". ....:.~;;.:.., . .... '. ....." Johns~;I!'s H~irstreak Thissll1'cillbrown butterfly occurs in isolated pockets in the western mountains of CalifoTI1ia up irito"British Columbia. On the RR-SNF, range maps indicate a population in the coastal \(;;:mQpntains of Coos, Curry and Josephine counties. A second population is in northern ;"\;>l;ac~son County around Crater Lake National Park. This butterfly is an old-growth obligate and spends much of its time in the tops of mature conifer forests, making survey efforts extremely difficult. They do nectar on some 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 pines and others conifers. It is also known to use coastal hemlock mistletoe. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII-144 Ashland Forest Resiliency Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper Chloealtis aspasma distribution is in two general areas, one from southern Oregon, near the California border and the other in Benton County. The type locality is in the Siskiyou Mountains of Jackson County, Oregon (T41S R1E Sec13) where specimens were collected on a ridge between 5,000 and 5,800 feet elevation in a treeless sumn1it bald covered with an almost impenetrable brushy scrub through which were scattered grassy areas (Rehn and Hebard 1919). This species occurs in grassland/herbaceous habitats. It appears to be associated with",'. elderberry plants. Females may lay their eggs in the pith of blue elderberry plants, SamlFitcus, caerulea Raf. (Foster 1974, BLM 1995). This plant is native from Alberta, Canada"to ":0 . Mexico. It grows in gravelly, rather dry soils on stream banks, margins of fields, woodlands. Blue elderberry is a deciduous plant with handsome showy clusters of white flow.yrs, and the attractive dark blue berries. Females lay eggs in the pith of elderberry sten1S in the summer (Fost~rl2? 4). The eggs hatch the following year. Juvenile stages forage in open meado'Ys,pea,rJheground. Juveniles look similar to the adults except the wings are much shorter and,~:,~:jn(fividuals are smaller. Mardon Skipper 'H">: Mardon skippers use a variety of early successional mea,90w,habitats which appear to vary by region (Kerwin et al. 2005). Populations in south~m<;Oregon occupy small (less than 0.5 to 10 acres), high-elevation (4,500 to 5,100 feet) gnis~yrheadows within mixed conifer forests (USFWS 2005). Seven or eight locations are known frqp1 ~h~,"Cascade Mountains in southwest Oregon, most bordering the Cascade-Siskiyou Natio~al}vId:nument, with populations ranging from a few to approximately 200 individuals (J.>.erwi,p'e.C'al. 2005). In 2005, searches and surveys of populations on BLM and Forest 'Service lands in southern Oregon discovered several new sites. There are now a total of23H;~nown sites in southern Oregon. One site is on the RR- SNF and is approximately ~':lqn north of the nearest site on BLM lands. Another locality is a complex of sites on botlliB:~M'and Forest Service lands north of Dead Indian Memorial Road. Several more sit~:s;'::w'ere located adjacent to known sites on BLM lands. One day counts at sites ~~n~~d:lrdrn one butterfly to over 70 butterflies (Kerwin et al. 2005). Surveys fOLVario1!s' alpine butterflies were conducted from May thru August 1996 along the Siskiypu Cr~sl;:;::irlcluding the Mt. Ashland area (Nice and VanBuskirk 1996). Mardon skippers were not detected along the Siskiyou Crest with this effort. c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives "'::,Por.=many R-6 Sensitive species, the effects between the Action Alternatives are similar and do not warrant individual discussion. The Action Alternatives would affect several of the R- 6 Sensitive species in a similar fashion. Each of the Action Alternatives prescribe density management, underburning and pile burning, and pruning in some areas. The primary difference between the Action Alternatives is in juxtaposition and extent. Final EIS I! DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!1I11 . 145 Ashland Forest Resiliency Black Salamander, Chace Sideband, Traveling Sideband, and Siskiyou Hesperian The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by black salamanders or Chace sideband snail. In the absence of large-scale wildfire, black salamander and Chace sideband densities would likely remain stable or increase in the Analysis because decadence and decay in timbered stands would increase structure on the forest floor. Under all Action Altern atives, the felling and leaving of large trees in areas deficient of coarse woody material could benefit black salamander and Chace's sideband by increasing,,""';; habitat and dispersal opportunities. Any removal of overstory canopy would increa~~.sqlat.':"q radiation in treated stands and create less desirable habitats than current conditions ~pue t.o, ., increased temperatures at ground level. q ..q Fire has proven to be detrimental for mollusks. The initial fire kills the ~low;:orhoyi'ng animals that are not deeply buried in the soil or large wood pieces. Fire removesfl!:~l~,:,that would serve as habitat or forage sites for mollusks. Some black salamanderslp..~Y he able to escape the initial effects of fire if they are in close proximity to undergr9Mnd,'esc~ipe routes that are deep enough to provide protection from the heat. Piling of surfaF~...fu~]s'would likely attract some species of mollusks .and salamanders because they provide suitable surrogate habitats over the short-term. Piles are generally left for at least onesei;s>n to dry and cure prior to burning. Some individuals would be lost when the pile~,.are..;pumed. Underbuming would have an adverse effect on both species due to loss of..~u;race fuels that are used as habitats and reduction of movement and dispersal opportu~ti.~,~};,petween suitable habitats. :...;: For black salamander, Chace sideband, Tr~Yxlt~~,."~ideband, and Siskiyou Hesperian, all Action Alternatives "may adversely imp;t..f.t;;:ip.~rviduals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (~ag.P;eJ;:~fver-Siskiyou NF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species y.1~bt!.itj7'.range wide (MIHH)" because removal of wood during implementation may ca!ls'e. I11prtality in some individuals and prescribed burning operations may cause mort~lit~\;~:I1 igd'l'viduals and would reduce movement and dispersal opportunities. ..q., Known salamander sit~.s:;1ibJ.ild be buffered by 75 meters, a canopy closure of 40 percent would be maintairfe9.;~::':9P:d.li seasonal operating restriction that limits activities between October 1 to May/3.Q.''!n.''order to reduce the potential for direct mortality from operations (D. C I a yton, p~::::.^ S~~'~;}~:; North~estef..p'.pKnd Turtle The No:',f.\cH6n Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by nortli-w~sfem pond turtles. Reeder Reservoir provides the only potential habitat within the ...A1!alysi's Area. Pond turtles were not observed in the Analysis Area during herptile surveys ,,:::.cbn,?ucted for this project, however, they were located below Hosler dam at Lithia Park ..,.:.eShafer 2004). <I The Action Alternatives would not modify aquatic habitats for the northwestern pond turtle. The reservoir has very few basking sites currently available. There is potential to increase basking sites by placing logs in the reservoir if they do not interfere with operations associated with the City of Ashland's water supply. There is an area on the southern side of the reservoir that is likely nesting habitat (open south facing hillside with pine/oak habitat that could benefit from thinning and burning proposed by the alternatives). These activities would benefit turtles by maintaining open habitat conducive for nesting. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI!III - 146 Ashland Forest Resiliency All Action Altenlatives would have "no impact" to northwestern pond turtle because of the important south facing open nesting habitat would not be affected. Northern Bald Eagle Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change in habitat characteristics for bald eagles. Stand-replacement wildland fire may effect eagle habitat through the destruction of the nest tree, or perch trees within and adjacent to the nest stand. All Action Alternatives would treat mid-seral stands within one mile of the active bald eagle nest site. These treatn1ents would provide some added protection from wildfire by redu~"ihg'.. ladder fuels under large legacy trees and snags which could be used as alternate nest trees'... and perches by the resident eagle pair. Removal of over-dense young and mid-agedtrees around legacy trees would also reduce competition for resources and should i~cree:.se survival. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained a.t cu.rrehtdevels unless their retention would create a wildfire management hazard. Som~ lai'ge:Bnags may be felled during implementation of the Action Alternatives if they are deemy~ hazardous to personnel or equipment. All Action Alternatives would have "no impact" to bald eagles gIven implementation of Mitigation Meqsures (PDCs). American Peregrine Falcon The No-Action Alternative would not remove or!llo~ify any habitats potentially used by these bat species. There are no confirmed peregri~efaJcon sites in the Analysis Area; however should a site be confirmed, it wiILJ?e.managed as per RRNF LRMP guidelines. In addition, the cliff site with the potentia} n~sJ..site will continue to have surveys conducted at the site. .. .. Because peregrine falco~s are poflCnQwn within the Analysis Area, all Action Alternatives would have "no impact" pery~~ne falcons. Lewis' Woodpecker... The No-Action AJ.tern~tiyewould not remove or modify any habitats potentially used by this species. ." .... . ';;:.:" -.":.: All three ~:~tion':A)ternatives would result in the loss of some large trees which may reduce nestingan&J6raging opportunities for woodpeckers. Treatments under the Action Altem~!ives.:ar~ designed to retain the largest trees. It is estimated that a maximum of 0-3 trees/aG.re;:greater than 24 inches in diameter and 0-13 trees/acre 17-24 inches in diameter would.Jj'e cut in any of the Action Alternatives. .';Be.guction of large snags can reduce opportunities for woodpecker nest and foraging sites. ..'..Snag retention in the Project Areas is a priority for woodpeckers and other species. Snag levels on lower slopes would be retained within the upper one third of the range for snags for that P AG as described in the 2003 Upper Bear Ecosystem Assessment. The largest diameter trees not selected for retention would be considered highest priority for snag creation/retention. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at current levels (i.e., no additional snags would be created) unless their retention would create a safety hazard. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSllIl1 .147 Ashland Forest Resiliency All Action Alternatives "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (Rogue River-Siskiyou NF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide (MIHH)" for Lewis' woodpecker because some large trees and snags would be removed during implementation. Pacific Fisher Habitat data for fisher analyses was derived from Geographic Infonnation System (GIS) mapping. For the purpose of this analysis, fisher denning/resting habitat is defined as coniferous forest greater than 600/0 canopy closure and greater than 24inch diameter trees.<~t::,,;;\. Fisher dispersal and foraging habitat is coniferous forest (sapling/pole or larger) gre.ater~flail\:(.q.' 600/0 canopy closure. In addition, for the purpose of analyzing effects to fisher pop~latioiis.'..as . a result of the proposed project, the local population is defined as those individu~Js residing within the entire Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve plus Federal lands wjthin 5 kilometers of the LSR, except on the eastern edge, where Interstate 5 defjnes.,tBe;';edge of the fisher analysis area due to it's potential to act as a barrier to movement aJ1d:~dispersal. "-":'~;.., .. This area is derived from reported dispersal distances for femal~,;fj~he.~sj~ the scientific literature and personal communications with researchers whichhe\re",;conducted fisher studies in southern Oregon and northern California. The total population "Is'defined as all individuals residing in the Klamath-Siskiyou and California Coast Region~~ . Within the mapped local population area, there are 1;6.,1,~19 acres. National Forest System lands comprise 105,402 acres of the local populatj,,?i1:~rea. Though there are 50,386 acres within the local population area that do not hav~~.'.oyerstory canopy (trees) with greater than 600/0 canopy closure, many of these areas d~vha...ye.,;shrub or sapling pole habitats that provide a greater than 60% canopy closure. F~~;~~r~;,J!~v.e been known to use these areas for traveling and foraging. ."::'\;\, {:,;,,/;,; The No-Action Alternative w19~Td 'ho.t"Temove or modify any habitats used by fishers. Based on analysis of the ef.;(~cts~:.qLjljhigh-severity wildland fire (Section D, 8 this Chapter), an assumption is made, thal:uU:ger the No-Action Alternative, a range of 40 to 50 percent of the bum area would be preqicted to have moderate to high severity fire, under a large-scale wildland fire scenwio{;";~~Bigi1 severity fire would likely adversely affect late-successional habitat and late;i::~~;f:~ei..si6nal species including fisher by removing down material, small trees that contribute; td'~'t€~'stand structure, and potentially killing large trees. ..;:::!:::~.~.:!:::.. :. Effect~..,.to A~ffer/from all Action Alternatives would be similar. Differences in effects to fisher;bytween the Action Alternatives would primarily be a result of variations in juxt~po.ihion and extent of the activities proposed. .'l.x::.... , '){.;;''In:::~tands where treatments reduce overall canopy closure to approximately 600/0, /;\:,;.,.:':::iopportunities for fishers to locate suitable areas for den and rest sites within the stand may be .~/reduced. However, due to variation in canopy closure at a fine-scale within an stand after treatment, and mitigation measures provided for fisher throughout the Project Areas, clumps of large trees with canopy closures greater than 80% would still remain within the stand. Therefore, stands that are reduced to approximately 60% canopy closure overall would retain patches of trees and snags that provide den and rest sites for fisher. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -148 Ashland Forest Resiliency In stands where treatments reduce overall canopy closure to between 400/0 and 600/0, opportunities for fishers to locate suitable areas for den and rest sites within the stand become more limited. Mitigation measures for fisher require retaining a nlinimu111 of one Y2-} acre untreated patch per 40 acre block of the largest diameter trees, snags, and coarse woody material where the overstory canopy closure is greater than 800/0. All three Action Alternatives would result in the loss of some large trees which may reduce resting and denning opportunities for fishers. Research has shown that fishers use the large~tq, trees available for both natal and maternal dens and rest sites (Aubry and Raley 2006, Y aeg~r. 2005). Treatments for all three Action Alternatives are designed to retain the largest.tree..s'.....,it. is estimated that a n1aximum of 0-3 trees/acre greater 24 inches in diameter andO-lp trees/acre 17-24 inches in diameter would be cut in any of the Action Alternatives. .;'.. Surface fuel treatments, particularly underbuming, pile burning, and the .associ.cited smoke could have adverse effects to fishers during the denning period. In southwe.~t;:@regon, the denning period is from approximately from late March when femalesgiv~birth to late July when juveniles are more nlobile and able to travel with their m9th~rs{A,.....;,.ubry and Raley 2006). Effects of smoke production on denning fishers and thelr:;xoung have not been described. However, it is assumed that heavy smoke concentrations could require females to move their kits or could cause mortality in the young ttlTOugh',~?Ccessive smoke inhalation or destruction of the den structure by the fire. Because b~rri.ing<restrictions would be required within ~ mile of nine spotted owl nest site, this wo~lqprpvide benefits for denning fishers in these areas. In addition, efforts would be made tq'Fed.pce impacts to the Y2-1 acre untreated patches during underburning operations. Effects of the Action Alternatives are summarized in Table III-39. Table nI-39. Environmental Baseline.~.nd.:~otential Habitat Changes to Fisher Habitat .".",,-:,.'.'...: Change (acres and percent) Baseline Proposed Community Preferred Habitat Type (No-Action) Action Alternative Alternative Resting/Denning Total NFS .:..~0,690 acres -1 ,223 -3.9% -1 ,449 -4.7% -904 -2.9% UBAA NFS ., ...: ....11 ,905 acres -10.3% -12.2% -7.6% Dispersal TotaINFS..) 37,665 acres -662 -1.9% -966 -2.6% -388 -1.0% UBM NFS 6,623 acres -10.0% -14.6% -5.6% Total ."'1.ptal..NFS 68,355 acres -1 ,885 -2.7% -2,415 -3.5% -1,292 -1.9% 0'; ....: UBAA NFS 18,528 acres -10.2% -13.0% -6.9% .Codes Jsed in table: NFS - National Forest System lands UBAA - Upper Bear Analysis Area 'White-Headed Woodpecker ..."TheNo-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats potentially used by this species. This species would benefit from a variety of active management practices designed to create or preserve large trees on an open stand. TreatInents that remove the large trees from stands would be detrimental to the species. The species is tolerant of human activity, often breeding or foraging within campgrounds, around parking lots, and along trails (N. Barrett 2008, pers. com.) Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS""I - 149 Ashland Forest Resiliency All of the Action Alternatives would have "no impact" as all treatments are generally below 5,000 in elevation and this species is not known to occur below that elevation. Fringe-tailed, Pallid, and Townsend's Big-eared Bats The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify some potential snag roost habitat used by fringe-tailed, pallid, or Townsend's big-eared bat. Snags that have exfoliating bark or crevices for roosting serve as important roost sites for both fringe-tailed and pallid bats. Under all Action Alternatives, snag levels on lower .....; slopes would be retained at the upper one-third of the range for that PAG. Along rig.ges(~n~..;\'::. upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at current levels unless their retention ~:~uld.'-l.\,;:<, . create a wildfire management hazard. All Action Alternatives would retain dowlJ lc)gs,~,within the upper one-third of the range for down logs for that P AG. SOlne snags could:::p~ felled during implementation of hazardous fuel reduction treatments if they repres~9f'a':hazard to personnel or equipment. Some snags may ignite and be lost during underb\!,fning. -.<t.:.-, ":-;';.. Mitigation measures include protection of Lamb Mine and Ash~.~,p' Lpqp Mine to provide roosting and refugia for Townsend's big-eared bats. Mine entr~h~~s~~would be gated to prevent entrance and disturbance from recreational users. Aqqitionally, a 250 ft. no treatment buffer would be implemented around the entrance tQ",,1he mine to protect micro-site conditions.: All Action Alternatives "may adversely impact i,pdirIduals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (Rogue<.Rtv~r~Siskiyou NF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viabilityrallgewide (MIHH)" for Fringe-tailed myotis and Pacific pallid bats because some spags~ould be lost during implementation if they present hazards during underburning"q~l~t:etiohs. California Wolverine i.. The No-Action Alternativ,,~ w&.\!l~t.not remove or modify any habitats potentially used by wolverines. There is no ha~it~~ wIthin the Analysis Area which is suitable for wolverine denning habitat. W olverin.~~:hare not known to occur in Southwestern Oregon. :~:::::'. ...~{::..:. . ~:\:;'" :~"':';~l\.:. .~~\:~:.. The Siskiyou cr~~.tPoIenhally does provide suitable dispersal habitat or the potential as a travel corridorfot,;::~oiverine. Treatments proposed under each of the Action Alternatives would not\~r~a:te;::.~vifriers that limit wolverine movement or dispersal. All Action Altern.f!tives.....wo.uld have "no impact" on wolverine. Fra'!kli,p;,~-Bumblebee and Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper 'f.pe NoiAction Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats potentially used by ,.;...,.,;;'tb~:~e two early seral associated species. ~::;~::. .....:. .,;,\::: ":~:?-::::: f.~~ .:.:\;';..None of the Action Alternatives would affect any of the early seral habitat that these species are associated with. All action alternatives would have "no impact" to Franklin's bumble bee or the Siskiyou short-homed grasshopper. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK INPROGRESSIIIII -150 Ashland Forest Resiliency III I Johnson's Hairstreak The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats used by Johnson's Hairstreak. This species is not known to occur in the Analysis Area. There is Douglas-fir nlistletoe present in the area. However it is unknown if this species uses that species of nlistletoe and the literature indicates that it more likely occurs in the coast range and Cascades associated with pine and henllock mistletoes. Because surveys have not conducted for this species in the Analysis Area, and potential habitat occurs within the areas proposed for treatment, the Action Alternatives "may adversely impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely result in a loss of yiabilit);.. . . within the planning area, (Rogue River-Siskiyou NF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viabilit)' range wide (MIHH)" dueto the potential removal of trees which may have mistletoe. While there may be some treatments within mistletoe infected stands, mistletoe would continue to persist within the Analysis Area. Mardon Skipper . ... The No-Action Alternative would not remove or nlodify any ha.2.itats::used by Mardon skippers. "......,.,,,.. Each of the Action Alternatives associated with the AshlancfForest Resiliency project are limited to timbered habitats and therefore would not affect.habitats known to be used by the Mardon skipper. If treatments in dense stands are in proximity to unknown or unmapped, small meadows, treatnlents would likely increase s?lar.tadiation and result in a short-term increase in fescue species if they are present. All 'Action Alternatives would have "no impact" on Mardon skipper. Summary ..... . .. The following table (Table III-40) pi6vides"a summary of effects for Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species, as discussed above...:..' Table ]]}-40. Summary of Effecls to Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species Common name Determination of Effects Black Salamander ,.'...",..........,. ..,. MIIH Northwestern Pond Turtle: ..; NI Northern Bald Eagle':'''' .\; NI PereQrine Falcon.,..;'\ . NI Lewis' Woodpecker NI White-Headed Woodpecker NI PaCific Pallid' Bat MIIH 16wnse'hd's BiQ-Eared Bat NI Pacific FrinQe-tailed Bat MIIH Pacific Shrew MIIH :.Wolverine NI Pacific Fisher MIIH Chace Sideband MIIH TravelinQ Sideband MIIH Johnson's Hairstreak MIIH Mardon Skipper NI Legend for codes used in above table: NI = No Impact MIIH = May adversely impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the planning area (Rogue River-Siskiyou NF) nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide. Final EIS "DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!1I11 - 151 Ashland Forest Resiliency c. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives Reasonably foreseeable activities and events that may cumulatively affect Sensitive species include Ashland Watershed Protection Project (A WPP), Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and actions associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency. Other projects outside the Analysis Area include the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project and the Wagner Gap Timber Sale. Though these projects would modify vegetation, they would only apply to those species that have large ranges (Pacific fisher, California wolverine): Other factors include ongoing fire suppression and burning activitief'.': :'.:"'::':~...., Timber harvest in the 1960-1980s likely decreased snag habitat in the harvest unit~'du~"~t~ loss from timber sale activities. However due to the lack of timber sales and effes;ti"\)e.i:fire suppression, snag levels have increased in the last decade. The Mt. Ashland S~i\~ea Expansion would reduce snag habitat on areas within new ski runs. Un~erb:ut.TIing'.'associated with Ashland Watershed Protection Project may reduce snag habitat "Yh~re"J.lnderburning treatments occur. The Action Alternatives would maintain snags at C~1Ty.BJ levels on upper slopes. Snag habitat is expected to be maintained or increased on;,~Jo~:~r.::,elevations during implementation. However, some snags may be felled during inipleIl1yn:lation due to the human safety hazard they represent. .. The Klalnath National Forest is implementing thinning ~}1d.;,~'""~j~:reduction treatments in the southern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR under the ~t.,:~.it~bland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project. Treatments are d~~jgfit;g':to promote the development of late- successional habitat and reduce the potential of..st~:n~F'feplacement fire. In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatn1ents as a.{~s~1t.sjf this project are expected to have benefits to late-successional species by increas~ngtq,e:,~mount and distribution of late-successional habitat and by reducing fuels to a lev~rlq~(:,)Vould result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. No adverse..,.pr,,,J,Ong term cumulative effects are anticipated. The proposed Mount Ashl,~nd\~ki.A...ea Expansion would expand the number of ski runs and ski lifts at the Mt. Ashl~d SRf'Area. This action would consist of the harvest of trees within and adjacent to d~sj~:.~ted ski runs, the construction of two new ski lifts adjacent to the proposed ski ~n,a<!:WQ:acre expansion of the existing parking lot, and the construction of a tubing facilit)'. N<t:ql!:rzacre tubing facility, three new guest services buildings, and yurt would be construs.~eQ::~;,;the proposed action would also include an access road for maintenan.~e o("th?;new runs and service buildings. No adverse or long term cumulative effect~.;;,~re .~~~?ti~jp.ated. ' \" ...:;..... The ~~gpe{ Gap Timber Sale is thinning 417 acres located on the Siskiyou Mountains Rangt:1.:':::pistrict. Because all of these acres will be maintained (greater than 60.% canopy .".closure.for NRF habitat, greater than 400/0 canopy closure for dispersal habitat) the Wagner .. ,....,..;.;... ., ;;; l:{\.,.Oap Timber Sale. is not expected to reduce late-successional or dispersal habitats. No .~~:\'..:::;'-:~dV~rse or long term cumulative effects are anticipated. ....,;"~';.:~Habitat for Sensitive species has not been comprehensively classified or surveys conducted on private lands. Most private holdings in the Analysis Area have been harvested within the last 50 years and are now either in woodland residential, agricultural, or as managed shrub, pole, or large pole condition classes. Mature stands provide limited amounts of late-successional habitat for forest species on private lands. No adverse or long term cumulative effects are anticipated from actions on private lands. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlIlII - 152 Ashland Forest Resiliency 8. Terrestrial Wildlife - Other Special Habitats and Species 'Fill hazardous fuel treatments affect other special or rare and uncommon terrestrial wildlife habitats and species? Several types of special terrestrial wildlife habitat exist within the Analysis Area, and may be affected by proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatments. Special habitats discussed in this sub- section include riparian habitat, sub-alpine meadows, abandoned mines (bat habitat), and habitat for neotropical migratory birds. a. Background Riparian zones provide a high diversity and abundance of invertebrate species, which is likely to be an inlportant factor influencing the mammal diversity in these areas, as riparian areas provide the Inajor food source for nlammalian species, when compared to upland habitats. Riparian zones provide habitat for more species of breeding birds (including neotropical species) than any other habitat type in the world. Alteration of the function and structure of riparian areas could affect riparian dependent individuals. Sub-alpine meadows near the summit of Mt. Ashland proyide.':amnique habitat in the overall forested condition of the Analysis Area. These areas proyiae high-quality seasonal forage both black-tailed deer and elk. Reeder Reservoir prp~~d~s;::a resting area for migrating waterfowl including bufflehead, and may inc1ude;ljO"med and red-necked grebes. , .. Mines provide inlportant habitat for bats, an~:rh~vesimilar internal structure and micro- habitats as natural caves. Two mine~ v(~thin,:Jhe Project and Analysis Areas may provide important habitats for local bat species.;\fhfch include three R-6 Sensitive species. .',.: . Ashland Loop Mine is 10catedOin the:East Fork of Ashland Creek at 4,100 ft. elevation. The opening of the mine is parti~lliblocked by an old wooden door. The mine extends approximately 100 m, then.~plits into three short shafts after a partial breakdown. The floor has some water on it (S:r9.ss.,Cral. 1997). Cross et al. (1997) captured 5 Myotis californicus and one M. thysal1Qges;atthis site in August. ..... ....-... -. Lamb Mine is l?.~at.ed at 3,450 ft. elevation in the East Fork of Ashland Creek. It is approximateJX,:~':meters in diameter and there is approximately 10 em of water standing on the flqor ofthe..;inine. Lamb Mine provides a unique habitat that is particularly important to bats. ...Gr.9.ss el al. (1997) determined this mine could be attractive to bats for breeding, drinlSing,>and foraging. Four species of Myotis bats were captured there in August of 1997, including one individual female of the R-6 Sensitive M. thysanodes (Cross et al. 1997). .'..:Lamb Mine provides the conditions which could make it suitable habitat for many of the life- history needs for the R-6 Sensitive Townsends big-eared bat. These include winter hibemacula and sunlmer maternity roosts. C. townsendii is a colonial species with relatively restrictive roost requirements. Unlike many species that seek refuge in crevices, C. townsendii forms highly visible clusters on open surfaces making them extremely vulnerable to disturbance (Pierson et al. 1999). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 153 Ashland Forest Resiliency Currently, Lamb Mine is accessible to the general public. In fact, there is a well-signed trail that leads to the entrance of the mine. During a site visit, Forest Service Biologists found that the mine is heavily used by the general public, and currently does not provide the necessary solitude required by C. townsendii for roosting habitat. Several species of neotropical migratory birds and resident birds are known to occur within the Analysis Area. The Forest Service contracted with Klamath Bird Observatory in 2004 to conduct bird censuses using standard survey methodologies within portions of the Upper . Bear Analysis Area. Surveys were designed to gather pre-treatment baseline data in order :t5":\",: track changes in species composition and abundance of bird populations between pre~..ar1(f\;",.'\'<; . post treatment. Nine survey routes were located in areas of proposed fuel reductior\; .'.'.,.;.... treatments within the Interface Compartments, and the Research Natural Area. B..~s~1ine.data was collected at a total of 109 census stations (Heinzelmann and Alexander 2q9~)~;~ The Klamath Bird Observatory is continuing with bird census in the 2005 ne~tin~:;s~ason. The five species detected at the largest number of stations were the h~ltm.t:;..w~arbler (Dendroica occidentalis), Oregon junco (Junco h. oregonus), hxl11}iftfupsh (Catharus guttutus), Stellar's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), and the winter wren~;~lroglodytes troglodytes). Hermit warblers were the most commonly detected species ocgum'frg at 66% of stations (Heinzelmann and Alexander 2004). Only the OregonjuI]co"ap,d Pacific-slope flycatcher were detected on all routes (Heinzelmann and Alexanecer;i;:2004). Abundance of species varied among the 9 routes. Thirteen species detecte~':i~i!5in the Ashland Watershed are Partners In Flight coniferous forest focal species QtOt~gon and Washington and/or continental stewardship species of the Pacific A:Vi{aunal Biome (Heinzelmann and Alexander 2004). .,.;;;1"'< . ".";..... ~:.~:: "(.' .." -.:.~" .:-:...." 0.;.:". . b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulati,ye,:::~:f.rects of Alternatives No-Action Alternative ::. The No-Action Alternativt:;,,;WoUl8.:.D:ot remove or modify any habitats currently used by those species which use riparian ?r'~'~pb~alpine meadow habitat. Under No Action, the Lamb Mine would continue to be viZ,jte"9,,,bY recreational users making it a less desirable roost site for bat species. No-Actiq:p ~o)q)tl;rtot affect any habitats associated with species ofneotropical migratory bird~al};9/or:re;sident birds known to occur within the Analysis Area. Proposed 4:t;tiouf'.Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative - Riparian Habitat There )~'ouI~:;h~",:s~6me treatments in riparian areas under the Action Alternatives. Under the Propo~:~,d Abtion, Riparian Reserve treatments would occur within strategic areas where large area?"ofcpntinuous fuels can be interrupted to reduce "wick-effect" conditions that would aJlo,*:tfite to travel unimpeded from low to higher elevations. An estimated 1,400 acres <..,...::wQuld be treated. .:..:.: ....:.:.. :':';".- .... }~~;::.. ..:~~~~::;"::::- it .."\i:The "wick-effect" refers to the ability of fire to spread through a drainage via the riparian vegetation. This observed effect is the result of treating all of the surrounding areas, thus the untreated contiguous fuels in the riparian areas could act as "wicks", allowing fire to spread. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIlIII -154 Ashland Forest Resiliency --nr-T. ~---._- Under the Con1munity Alternative and Preferred Alternative, treatments would also occur within strategic areas where large areas of continuous fuels can be interrupted to reduce "wick-effect" conditions. However, these alternatives prescribe no treatn1ent in riparian areas and an additional 50 ft. buffer. Within riparian areas, the Community Alternative and Preferred Alternative prescribe treatment only in those areas that have been previously entered and where natural recovery is not occurring, and proposes approximately 500 to 650 acres of treatments in riparian areas. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative - Mine Habitat ,:.. Under each of the Action Alternatives, no direct effects are anticipated from hazardqus fuel." reduction treatments. Abandoned mines pose hazards to people using public lands.; Abandoned mine hazards include falling into open shafts, trenches, or pits; radiatiori;;;falling rocks; rodent droppings with Hanta virus; and suffocation. Mitigation measur.es\y,pmmon to all of the Action Alternatives include provision for sites occupied by bat~, to.prohibit disturbance that could change cave (n1ine) temperatures within 250 ft. o(th~sites. As identified in FEIS Chapter II, an opportunity exists (as fundiqgperinits~) to construct a bat gate on the entrance of Lamb Mine and Ashland Loop Mine to'el"ii4tgate disturbance to roosting bats by recreational users of the mine. . Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred ,Alt.~rriative - Neotropical Species and Habitat;::,.".. The response of bird populations to land managem:~rit~ctivities varies by species and functional groups, and the type of treatments iI1?-R~e~erited. Janes (2003) studied responses of bird populations to commercial thinningil},.!'YO"'osfands in southwest Oregon. These include Swainson's (Catharus ustulatus) andhermit thrushes, towhees, Oregon Junco, winter wren, Wilson's (Wi/sonia pusilla) and orange-crowned (Vermivora celata) warblers, chipping (Spizella passerine) and song (Melospiza melodia) sparrows, and possibly willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) to name a few. Final EIS !IDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 155 Ashland Forest Resiliency Under the Action Alternatives, the goal is to maintain the understory in an open condition using prescribed fire to. retain fire resiliency, therefore ground nesting and fo.raging species would likely be maintained at lower levels than the existing condition. Species that inhabit mature conifer forests such as hermit and Townsend's (Dendroica townsendi) warblers, western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), pygmy owls (Glaucidium gnoma), and red-breasted nuthatches (Sitta canadensis) may be reduced initially. However, reducing suppressed and sub-dominant trees would increase growth and vigor of the dominant and co-dominant remnant trees and would result in younger stands developing' mature characteristics sooner, thereby benefiting these species in the long-term. Tqe . proposed treatment would preserve hardwoods and other less common species, incrt~~ing the bird species diversity within the stands. Burning operations proposed under the Action Alternatives would genera~li;;,~SFur prior to the nesting season for songbirds. These treatments should stimulate gre~:s.<;proauction and seeds for many seed eaters. Snags and coarse woody material wo~.ld ,?'e irtaintained at current levels or increase with implementation under each of the Action::.;;~:1t~t.?a:tives. Leaving large woody nlaterial in stands that currently lack this component woultl*provide drumming sites for ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbel/us), as well as covered ne~L~:it~s for ground nesting birds like Oregon junco, spotted towhee (Pipilo maculates), ';a~dd.:be'Untain quail (Oreortyx pictus). Increased abundance of snags would benefit the woodR.ec~.;~i..;.(Picinae) guild and cavity nesting species. .. .., ....\. .,.,; .......;.:.. -;:;;.:<.::' 9. Forest Plan Management Indic;~~"Q~f:;;~::~])~ecies ".-;:~;./ :r~;::. ......... Will hazardous fuel treatments affect Ya'.l.agi!lil~llt Indicator Species, as identified in the 1990 RRNF LRMP? .. .x, ""/ Five forest wildlife species and ont,grovlfwere selected as Management Indicator Species (MIS), as detailed in the 1990~p'glfe"iRiver Land and Resource ManagementPlan (USDA Forest Service 1990). Indicator spe~i~,~.\yere intended to serve as habitat surrogates used to suggest qualitatively the condition...,o(,.th~::'Jiabitat they represent. These species include: ~<:~. ..~:., .... .". ".... .:. Black-t~,il~21i~er"'. .:. Roosevelt",~~:~. . .:... Amy,r.jca~.::;riiarten .:. ..",Northernspotted owl .:.:;}:pileated woodpecker and other woodpeckers 3( :B:;~lckground .. "'",- Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -156 Ashland Forest Resiliency During winter, heavy canopy closure moderates temperatures and intercepts snowfall during winter storms. The reduction of snow depth under heavy canopy reduces energetic expenditure during movements of deer and provides areas of browse that would normally be under the snow surface. Areas with little or no overstory canopy cover are important for deer as forage areas. Forest gaps and natural openings provide optimal conditions for shrubs and forbs to grow, which deer depend on for forage. Quality deer ranges provide both forested conditions for thermal regulation and hiding/escape cover interspersed with open areas for optimal foraging conditions. Within die' Ashland Watershed, deer probably use all elevations during the snow-free period, bijL;arf': forced to use lower elevations during the winter where snow depths are dinlinishedpr absent. A nlature buck that was captured by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,{ODEW) near the summit of Mt. Ashland was fitted with a radio-collar and was found to'wipter just above Reeder Reservoir (V.Oredson, pers. com.). The ODFW conducts.an annual census of deer in the East Applegate Game Management Unit, but there are no cUI1entsurvey routes within the Ashland Watershed. Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elephus roosevelli)\....:.".... Currently, use of the watershed by elk is thought to be seasonal. Roosevelt elk herds have been infrequently reported crossing the Mt. Ashland accessf9ad (S. Johnson, pers. com.). It is assumed that a herd that winters in the Colestine areapf.{~,~iifomia typically will enter into the Ashland Watershed in mid-summer seeking the cOQler,;conifer stands above the 2060 Road and west of the 2080 Road. Elk typically pn::fefa:grass and forb diet during spring and early summer then include more browse species.:.c!!t<((herbaceous plants become senescent. Forage for these animals is probably provide,d .pyJhe meadows and glades above FS Road 2060. Elk requirements for thermal cove~,.~ndforage areas are similar to black-tailed deer. Elk herds in the Ashland area are increa$ing'and there is currently a large herd that resides in the Valley View area (M. Vargas, P~(#...~drri.). It is likely that elk will reside year-round or frequently in the Ashland Watyrshed."AB the near future. American Marten (MarIes d11J.r;ricdna) Hargis et al. (1999) states.tt~~!::jn North America, American martens are closely associated with mature conifer st~n(l~\v.ith complete canopy closure, and small (<100m), limited, and interspersed openii1gs.t~~fare used as forage areas. However, during helicopter surveys for wolverine in Sky,)L?J<e.s""and Thielsen Wildenless areas, marten tracks are frequently seen at and near timberlM1.e:,~nd in areas of more open (<600/0) canopy closure. In Oregon, martens are distribu~e~t':~.!1:the portions of the Coast Range and throughout the Cascade Range. A single::Jnartei} was detected near Rough and Ready Creek on the Illinois Valley Ranger Distr.iqf'Q[the RR-SNF in 2001 (Slauson and Zielinski 2001). Martens have been docu!p~nfed on numerous occasions in areas above 4,000 ft. elevation during forest carnivore /;.e~rveys on the Cascade Zone of the RR-SNF. Marten have been documented south of ;.}::.;...HTgpway 140 by USFS personnel and near Howard Prairie Lake during carnivore surveys .... .,.C'6nducted by the Medford District BLM (J. Stephens, pers. com.). In the western United States in winter, most prey are captured beneath the snow surface, but squirrels may be caught in trees (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Snags, downfall, and large woody material provide cover, denning sites, and access points to forage areas below the snow (subnivean habitat). Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!l1I1 -157 Ashland Forest Resiliency Diet of American marten is highly diverse. Zielinski and Duncan (2004) found that in the southern Sierra Nevada, diets of both marten and fisher were more diverse than previously reported for North America. Of the major taxonomic groups, mammals were most common followed by insects and plants (mostly fruits). There are no confirmed sightings of n1arten in the Ashland Watershed; there is one unconfinned sighting in the Red Buttes Wilderness from 1990 (D. Clayton, pers. com.). The Medford District BLM and the RR-SNF have conducted several remote camera surveys on Mt. Ashland in the past 3 years, but no marten have been detected. USFS biologists interviewed Ray Havera, a long-time employee ofMt. Ashland Ski Area, in February,20XYS: Ray had never seen marten in or around the ski area. There appears to be a gap in iQarteif!"'. distribution between the Illinois Valley Ranger District of the RR-SNF, and BLM lihds . approximately 10-15 miles northeast of Interstate 5, even though mature habite.ts:q~cur in that area. Northern Spotted Owl ........ Refer to Section E, 6, this Chapter for background discussion al}d.~ffes~s on habitat for northern spotted owls. . Pileated Woodpecker (D1YOCOpus pileatus) and Other Woodpec~,~rs All woodpeckers in the Analysis Area nest in snags or:H,yihg;Jr'e.es and feed on a variety of forest insect pests. The nest holes excavated by thes~,:.t~,9<bpp~ckers serve as future nest sites for a variety of other animals (Thomas et aI. 1 979),';lqchi8ing several other bird species found in the Analysis Area. Snag levels may be the besf<~;h~Bttat indicator for woodpeckers and other cavity nesting species. f::'\,,(;:"':\~":'\:""";..~: .. :..:;:::t;:.; ":~:~.~....,: Snags serve as an important compon~pr=,ip @I-fIlling the life history requirements of many species of birds, bats and other speci~,~:;;:Gfh-6~as et aI. 1979). They provide cavities for ". ~ '.:;:. '. (:.: nesting, protection from incleql'ent ~:K~ther, foraging perches, and insect food sources. From a forest health standpoint, i.t is 'itUpqrtimt to maintain high numbers and species of birds and bats since they are major pi:e(t~tors'on insects that can kill trees. Birds (as well as bats) consume large quantities'Q,f':tb&:;invertebrate biomass, thereby reducing potential outbreaks of insect pests. ..... .. The pileated woog.pe~ker is a Partners In Flight coniferous forest focal species of Oregon and WashingtqTI. Hileated woodpeckers are resident in the Ashland Watershed and were docu~~nt~'~~:;ah,~% of the point-count stations conducted by the Klamath Bird Observatory during,;~urveys completed for Ashland Forest Resiliency analysis (Heinzelmann and Alex.aIl,per.2004). Other woodpeckers documented by Heinzelmann and Alexander (2004) il}chld~.::the Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) and red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus lKy':!?er). White-headed woodpeckers are known to have nested near the summit ofMt. :.:,.:f.\sl1land and are suspected in the Analysis Area. For discussion of background and effects to <'';hi'ie-headed woodpecker, refer to the Sensitive Species section. Aubry and Raley (2002) proposed that the Pileated woodpecker is a keystone habitat modifier in the Pacific Northwest. Because pileateds are capable of creating large cavities in hard snags and decadent large trees, a wide array of species, including many that are of management concern ~n the Pacific Northwest (these include northern spotted owl and fisher), use old pileated nest and roost cavities. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -158 Ashland Forest Resiliency b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives For sonle RRNF MIS species, the effects between the action altenlatives are similar and do not warrant individual discussion. Each of the Action Alternatives would affect several of the MIS species in a silnilar fashion. The Action Alternatives prescribe overstory and understory renloval, under- and pile burning, and pruning in some areas. The prinlary difference between the Action Alternatives is in juxtaposition and extent. No-Action Alternative The No-Action Altemative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used .P'.y black-tailed deer and elk. There would be no adverse effects to black-tailed deer ,and elk populations under the No-Action Alternative. '.,_. ... The No-Action Alternative would not renlove or modify any habitats currently used by American marten. There will be no adverse effects to American marten under the No- Action alternative. The No-Action Alten1ative would not remove or modify any ha1?itet~~urrently used by pileated and other woodpeckers. There would be no adverse eff~cts to pileated and other woodpeckers under the No-Action alternative. The one exception i;s the white-headed woodpecker. For analyses of effects to white-headed wooql?e;ck.ers, please refer to the Sensitive species section... Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and p~.~f~rred Alternative Reduction of over- and understory canopies ~o~Taresult in increased solar radiation at the ground level. These treatments would increase'fhe shrub and forb component by reducing competition from overstory species. .U:Q.derbpr:hing regenerates browse species preferred by deer and elk. Work activities associa.ttd\With implementation of treatments would cause disturbance in deer and elk pOl?ulati.~hs .in the immediate area where they are occurring. However, the Project and Analysis areas are large and implementation is scheduled over a period of several years, so t~ere;::are opportunities for animals to move into more remote areas of the Analysis Area that,:ar,~.infrequently used by humans. The implenlentatio-Q. (jt~~hland Forest Resiliency under any of the Action Alternatives would have a "b,:en~.fi~ia] impact" on black-tailed deer and elk by increasing foraging habitat throughout the:..1o.w,~h.elevation portions of the Analysis Area. American .m:arten are associated with mature habitats that generally provide relatively high levels "O{cariopy closure, large snags, and downed wood. Currently, the Analysis Area contains high-quality late-successional habitat that appears to be suitable for marten. S~rveys. that are designed to detect forest carnivores have been conducted in the Mt. Ashland . ... ::are~ for the past 3 years. These surveys have successfully detected fisher, a close relative of ".'the,:,marten, and other forest carnivores, but martens have never been documented in the area. Ashland Forest Resiliency proposes to reduce overstory and understory canopy under various treatments throughout the Project Areas. Fragmentation of forested habitats significantly reduces the suitability of the habitat for marten (Hargis et al. 1999). However, studies that address the effects offragmentation on for~st associated species tend to focus on effects caused from clear cutting, and the spatial extent of non- forested patches within a forested landscape. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!I" -159 Ashland Forest Resiliency There is currently a paucity of information on the effects of large-scale thinning projects on late-successional species. With implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency, thinning would reduce canopy closure, but coarse woody material and large snags would be retained at current levels or increased throughout the Project Areas under each of the Action Alternatives. There is no evidence that marten occur in the Analysis Area. As described earlier, carnivore surveys have been conducted in and around the Watershed, and marten have not been documented even though fisher and other forest carnivores have. Therefore it is assumed that marten either occur at such low density they are undetectable with accepted survey methods (Zielinski and Kucera 1995), or they are not present. However, the area dq~s . provide late-successional habitat which is the preferred habitat of American marten,""and . marten populations are known to occupy areas both east and west of the Analysis.,l\rea. ... It must be assumed that if marten are not currently present, they have the~pq!.ential to colonize the area in the future. Therefore, Ashland Forest Resilienc)>,;;~nq~r;any of the Action Alternatives "may adversely impact individuals, but ~.iI\:;nQl:Jikely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (RRNF), or cause a tre'hd:'to;lederallisting or a loss of species viability range wide" for American marten. ..i;~\",. The Action Alternatives propose to maintain or increa,~,,~:&nags and downed wood across the treatment areas. These actions would increase nestip'&.:;.':'aQ,,~::foraging habitat for all woodpeckers known to occur within the AnaIY~ls;{tea. Larger and older trees with heartwood decay are preferred by pileated woo~lj"e,p}(ers for foraging and nesting (Aubry and Raley 2002). The largest live trees wouldjb.~,..n1~intained under the Action Alternatives. Some snags would be removed during'::!!llP~~ipentation if they pose a threat to operations. Overall, Ashland Forest Resiliency, UIlEn:n:".,~riY of the Action Alternatives, would result in "no impact" to pileated and other wq.9qpey"Ryrs. .,~'/ .. \~~:.:.:.......}~ i;: c. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives The potential for advers:,y~:.:b~!!tJiative effects to Management Indicator Species-was analyzed for this project togYo.th.~ht~ith other past, current, planned, and reasonably foreseeable actions. .....- ..". .?.... ...~:;.. ~: J.;.:.' .. ... ... Black-tailed D~er.;auJI".Elk Black-taile.~i:::,f!,?e~:~and elk rely upon a variety of vegetative conditions to meet their life needs. On a l~ndsc~p.~'~Tevel, vegetation conditions would be maintained as functional habitat for these s'p~cies'~. Some projects, such as A WPP, the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and AshUlrid .Fbrest Resiliency treatments may cumulatively increase disturbance in the short- ..,tepn:.\::;However, these projects would result in long-term beneficial effects by reducing dense ?C:::';ov'erstory conditions that inhibit the growth of herbaceous and shrubby vegetation that j"\;\...:\proVide quality forage. Work activities associated with these projects would contribute to occasional disturbance to these species. During winter, both elk and deer move to lower elevations to escape deep- snow conditions. Therefore, winter recreation on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area would have no effect to these species. Disturbance to these species during summer months is less critical than during the winter months, when the animals are under stress from reduced forage and cold weather conditions. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -160 Ashland Forest Resiliency III The Action Alternatives associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency would provide a beneficial effect to both black-tailed deer and elk by increasing forage in the lower elevation areas that are important for wintering herds. These projects would not result in adverse cumulative effects on black-tailed deer and elk. American Marten Activities and events that have and could cumulatively affect marten include historical tinlber harvest, A WPP, the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and Ashland Forest Resiliency treatments, burning projects, and ongoing fire suppression. Martens appear to need interio~.' forested habitats (Hargis et al. 1999). Large-scale thinning projects are a relatively pew,:;."".,." treatment, and are a response to HFRA. Because these type treatments have only ry~entry. been implemented, research is still on-going, and there is little information in pe~r-i~viewed journals on the effects of these type treatnlents on late-successional species. After inlplementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency, canopy closure in both.the':over- and understory would be reduced, however, habitats would still retain the)arg~sFtrees, snags, and downed wood which would result in late-successional, open condifio~,~:; These conditions nlay degrade habitat for marten, but they would not result in the'type.,of fragmentation that would preclude the area from use by the species. The majorityoflate-successional habitat would not be affected during implementation of Ashland Fore~lResiliency. Areas of treatments would still retain the condition and structu~es,jmportant to martens for their life- history requirements, therefore, no adverse cumulatiye'e.f.fects would be expected for this species under the Action Alternatives. Pileated and Other Woodpeckers .... .. Activities and events that have and cOHld ;oWnlllatively affect pileated and other woodpeckers include historical timber harvest, A W{>P,Jhe;'M t. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and the Ashland Forest Resiliency treatl1}.e~ts,,,bu,rriing projects, and ongoing fire suppression. Loss of snags associated with salvage.loggi.ng have reduced woodpecker habitat in the Analysis Area. Logging operations prior,J.~;NWFP Standards and Guidelines reduced woodpecker habitat in the Neil and Clayfol}...Creek drainages, through the removal of snags andCWM. Some snags would be lqst;:4urihg implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency project if they pose a threat Jp qp~ratrons, however, both Action Alternatives propose to maintain or increase snags~ng.l3~;: The single largest threat to CWM and snag habitat in the Analysis Area is large-ss~l~;"~i-gh-severity wildland fire. .........- ". .......... . 1 O. Bo~aniE~'I.}~<'.Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lidh,en/,'and Fungi ;.:.........:;.:::::: .t.:::" Willthe;Yiltplementatioll of fire hazard reduction treatl1lents affect vascular plants, b..fYop{lytes, lichens andfulfgi (associated with this locale) listed by the Forest Service as .<'Sellsitlve? a. Background Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered ladyslipper orchid): There are roughly 6 occurrences (13 small patches) of the clustered lady-slipper orchid known in the Analysis Area. They are in the Tolman, Neil, and Wagner Creek watersheds. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -161 Ashland Forest Resiliency There are over 100 stems in all these occurrences (number of actual individuals can not be determined without digging up [destroying] plants, but it is considerably less that the number of stems). The majority of the Analysis Area patches and individuals are in the Tolman Creek watershed in a relatively small portion ofT39S, RIE, sections 27,34, and 35. Project Area occurrences are in older Douglas-fir forest with madrone, and often white fir and dogwood. This orchid is rare throughout its range in several western states. It typically occurs in low- mid elevation late-successional conifer forest, though it is absent from most of the mesic ol~:r:'< forests of the Pacific Northwest. There are several hundred known sites in southwe~le:lll::..';:":~':.'\::'\ Oregon and northwestern California, mostly in the Klamath Mountains, where this taxoni::is. perhaps found more frequently than anywhere else in its range. .......;:~:';':7...'.:'. ." . .~:.::~:.;..: Occurrences are generally small. The majority of occurrences in this reg~on,have".6nly 1- several individuals. On Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, most occurrences of!ri~::"O(chid are in the Applegate watershed on Siskiyou Mountain Ranger District, and in the<t,eyror Creek watershed on the Wild Rivers Ranger District. q. ..,;;;.:;;:.../:::::::;:.:.:..... ." Cryptantha milobakeri (Milo Baker's cryptantha): This is .~;;~em'~llinconspicuous annual member of the borage family. It was tentatively identified froiU,ithe dry open slopes in the Ashland RNA near the end of the Lamb Mine Trail. ~:J,1,t::vis.it.."ln early summer 2005 will be needed to confirm if the species is indeed present. ~hth~~::;~re a small number of known occurrences of Milo Baker's cryptantha in southeQ1;J~:9kson and Josephine Counties, Oregon. It is more commonly found in northern CaliforI;lia~.;~'9nRogue River-Siskiyou NF, there are two other occurrences known, both in the (4,p.rh~rry Creek watershed on Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Habitat is dry openin~,~, iry::.[~d(y or gravelly soils. i:~;;\._ ';\~;~" \:::/.;;;.. Horkelia tridentata (three-tootb.ed,;hQ'r~~lia): This perennial forb in the rose family is known from about 60 patches Rfuihp:e.d:~lnto roughly 15 occurrences) across the Analysis Area. These occurrences '!:t,e co:qflp.ed to the few remaining openings left in the Project Area after many decades of fire y5b:;J,usi..on. The exposed south aspects along ridges, knolls, and upper slopes seems to bxtP{efeh-ed habitat. Many of these areas are now fuel breaks. The existing fuel breal\,{? cPJ1.t~ip ;the largest current populations of the horkelia. It is clear that past activities tg ~r.~:ai;~i;afid maintain the fuel breaks have maintained habitat for the horkelia. It can tolerate p.~ttA~lJ,shade on the edges of these openings, but it will clearly disappear as brush and lr~es<;\~:Jrtn. :'" ..:-;~~:;::. . '<~:,'" ~.i;;':: ':.;." A1tho~gh thfs. species does not particularly respond to disturbance, and plants can be lost to distl.!rb~n'~e, it appears to be able to slowly colonize areas that have experienced some distrtrbance in the past. Monitoring plots established in the Ashland Watershed in 1997, prior :::/.:::tQ::J?rescribed bums, are intended to test how this species responds to burning of individual i',,;,'.::;\\bor:~elia plants and habitat. Re-visits are planned for summer 2005 and may provide some .'\;;useful information that can be shared in the FEIS for this project. The Ashland, Tolman, Clayton, Neil, and Wagner Creek watersheds appear to have the only kTIown Oregon occurrences of this species. Almost all known Oregon occurrences are within the Analysis Area. This plant ranges throughout similar habitats in northern California and is secure in that state. There is a good chance that undiscovered populations of this horkelia occur on Jackson County lands in the Klamath River drainage. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII-162 Ashland Forest Resiliency Forest Service Sensitive Bryophytes None are known to occur in the Project Area. Forest Service Sensitive Lichens None are known to occur in the Project Area. Forest Service Sensitive Fungi None are known to occur in the Project Area. However, it is likely that some FS Sensitive fungi are present in the Project Area. See the Botanical Biological Evaluation in PElS Appendix G for more information. b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives A Biological Evaluation (BE) describing project effects to Sensitive vasyulaJ\planis, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi is included as Appendix G to this Pinal E~S'..")\ll'relevant findings from the BE, about species which actually occur in the Proje~t4re~s or which may be affected by project activities, are included below. The rationCll~us~d.jrithe BE to determine project effects is briefly summarized here. See the BEt:a~yVell as the botanical "background" section above for complete supporting inform':lJlon:.: . Forest Service Sensitive V.ascular Plants: Cypr;ped;um fasc{~ina(,!m (clustered JadysJipper orchid) The No-Action Alternative provides protection only ~s;l.9ng.as.wildland fires can be effectively suppressed in areas with orchid occurr~nc.es,~.''Presumably, wildland fires would eventually occur in some or all of these areas and.,wguld be severe enough to eliminate or reduce the orchid populations and their haQi.tat!<,::)"'herefore, compared to the Action Alternatives, the No-Action a1ternativ~ coula.:pe detrimental to the viability of local populations of the clustered lady-slipperershid. The Proposed Action is not expected.J9'have adverse effects on these orchids because of a mitigation measure protect!ng kppwn occurrences, and because the best occupied habitat (2 old-growth stands in the upP~r Tolman Creek watershed) is left untreated. Also, it is presumed that the Propose.2;:~.ction would provide a protective (beneficial) effect because it reduces the possibiility...tpatlady-slipper orchid occurrences and habitat would be lost to large- scale wildland ~re.:q'h~:,::untreated old-growth stands in the upper Tolman Creek watershed are expected to"'inEre&lse the local viability of this species because apparently optimum habitat would con~:~~ue..;tn;:be available, if the current population has the ability to expand.. .-" ".~';':.. . . The Cqp1munit), Alternative is not expected to have adverse effects on these orchids because of ami!igation measure protecting known occurrences. Also, it is presumed that the Gorrim!inity Alternative would provide a protective (beneficial) effect because it reduces the ::P.R~sibility that lady-slipper orchid occurrences and habitat would be lost to wildland fire. :'Aswith the COlrununity Alten1ative, the Preferred Alternative is not expected to have adverse effects on these orchids because of a mitigation measure protecting known occurrences. Also, it is presumed that the Community Alternative would provide a protective (beneficial) effect because it reduces the possibility that lady-slipper orchid occurrences and habitat would be lost to wildland fire. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!III-163 Ashland Forest Resiliency Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants: Crypta1ltlta milobakeri (l\1i1o Baker's cryptantha) This species has been reported but not yet confirmed to be present in the Project Area. The No-Action Alternative would have adverse effects on the cryptantha if large fires do not occur and the canopy closes over the open habitat needed by the cryptantha. On the other hand, if large fires do occur, a beneficial effect is likely as new habitat and improved habitat is created by fire. The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that protects the cryptantha during project activity. Another mitigation measure, if funding is available, would maintaiJl~anQ.""~':'t., improve habitat for the cryptantha. :;;.. .... o:.;{~~:;"~:;:;;::'~:' :~.: The Community Alternative and Preferred Alternative would have the same ,yffe"S,ts on the cryptantha as the Proposed Action, for the same reasons. ., ... Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants: Horkelia tride1ltata (three-toothed .h~r.~;ha) The No-Action Alternative has unpredictable effects on this speciy~. l?~pe:'absence of large wildland fires, the canopy would continue to close in around exi&lihg,,JiOrkelia occurrences and many would be lost over time. Under this scenario, give!l,;!ha:!:{.almost all known Oregon occurrences are in the Project Area, the No-Action Altem~ti..v~~.,):Yould definitely have an adverse effect on the viability of this species in Oregoii',!",.If'la.rge wildland fires occurred (more likely under the No-Action Alternative than U!!:a~r'.':~he Action Alternatives) and burned through a substantial number of Horkelia patches,;<JH~/~j:ability of this species in Oregon would be enhanced, because of all the newly ol?e4::,~(f:fnewly suitable habitat for this plant. :::" ....;.;.. - .~:: .....:.... .~-:..... .~.:.... '.-.' ."t., c. Cumut~tive'::Eff~cts of Action Alternatives t:....:~:. -. ," ...;(.;.... ': ..~..t.:-::::.:-:..... Some l1orkelia:tridentata occurrences are in areas being treated under the Ashland ......... ," Water.~}1eQProtection project that would also be treated under either Action Alternative. The t~.~atmihts under both alternatives are often neutral for the horkelia, but may be beneficial, ,./.q:~pending on how much the canopy around these occurrences is opened up, or at least ,;" .':i:..n:;;'d?reyented from closing. There is at least an opportunity for a beneficial cumulative effect "':"\:,.when a horkeliaoccurrence is treated under either Action Alternative. If Forest Service Sensitive fungi are present in areas being treated under the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, they could be experiencing adverse effects from changes to their habitat, substrate, and microclimate. The effects could be cumulative when the same areas are treated under the Ashland Forest Resiliency, either Action Alternative. I, . Final EIS llDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -164 Ashland Forest Resiliency 11. Uncommon and Locally Rare Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens and Fungi Hfill the implel11entatioll of hazardous fuel treatl11ellts affect.other botanical resources that are locally rare and/or species ofillterest to the Oregoll Natural Heritage Illformation Center? a. Background Vascular plants ..; Allium campanulatum (Sierra onion): This locally rare or UnCOmlTIOn onion is kno~n to"'. occur in 3 snlall patches in one specific part of the Analysis Area. They are about fmile north-northeast of Bull Gap, T40S, R 1 E, sec 11, NW ~. Project Area occurre.~~ce~"are in dry openings among brushfields and conifers, in decomposed granite soil, often:near;;boulders. More undetected patches may be present in the same vicinity. .. . Sierra onion is known from roughly 10 occurrences on the Fore.sL..Pop~latIons are mostly small with only a handful of individuals. This species is more cOrpmonly found east of the Cascades in Oregon, and occurs in many parts of California. .. Cypripedium montanum (mountainladyslipper orch,r~):t;":An occurrence with seven individuals was discovered in the upper Tolman Cre.yJF..watershed T39S, RIE, section 34 during 2004 botany field reconnaissance. No othyrppprilations of Cypripedium montanum are in the Project Area. Other occurrences are lmo.\vn.""outside the 'Analysis Area in the Applegate Watershed, and in the southern 'Qregbn, Cascades. Locally, suitable habitat for the mountain ladyslipper orchid is the saITl,e ~st?rJhe clustered ladyslipper orchid. . ~ . '". '--. .... '- . . '.' -... . ..' '-' There is some evidence that the~ount~ip.'lady-slipper orchid may be more able to survive habitat changes caused by disturbaric~sor fire than the clustered lady-slipper orchid. This species ranges from Santa~ruz,~.<?}.lllty California, to Vancouver Island west of the Cascades, and occurs also in:I;:astern Oregon and Washington, and several other western states and provinces. T~er,~'are about 40 occurrences on the Forest (mostly in the Siskiyou Mountains) and aQ;~ut..l:OOjh southwestern Oregon. Most occurrences have only a few individuals (l-~everal):;. ". '-'., '-" .. .. . Galium ortgan~~;{Oregon bedstraw): There are 7-10 known Analysis Area occurrences of this sh;edel:~etlahd forb in the Clayton and Neil Creek watersheds. Additional small wetlangs on "the east side of the Analysis Area could also harbor this forb. Oregon Bedstraw is co.rr0i'on throughout-much of westenl Oregon, including the northern part of the Forest in the Cascades, on High Cascades Ranger District. However it becomes increasingly "....:":ugpommon on the southern edge of its range. These Analysis Area occurrences plus one /".;:<:::.;;.::~ci4itional occurrence on Applegate Ranger District are the only occurrences known so far in . ...;.:;!;the Siskiyou Mountains. In California, this plant is under review for inclusion on California Native Plant Society rare plant lists. Gymnocarpium dl)Jopteris (oak fern): In 1969 Dr. Frank Lang reported a population of oak fern on Quartz Creek, a tributary of Neil Creek, in the Project Area. Field reconnaissance in 1995 and summer 2004 determined the population occupies roughly 1 mile of creek corridor from 3,630 ft. elevation up to 4,500 ft. The vast majority of plants are above 4,000 ft. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!III -165 Ashland Forest Resiliency Also in summer 2004 oak fern was found in a 1/3-mile-Iong reach of another (un-named) tributary of Neil Creek in T40S, R 1 E, section 13 NW ~ and section 14 NE Y4. This occurrence presumably extends upstream into section 11 SE ~. This fern is common in northern Oregon but disjunct in southwestern Oregon. The only southern Oregon occurrences besides the two Project Area occurrences are in Douglas County, in the Cow Creek watershed on Tiller Ranger District. It is absent from California. In the Analysis Area, oak fern is strictly riparian (and not associated with oaks). It is al~ays:<;.. within 100 ft. of these perennial streams and usually within 25 feet. The habitat is Floisfch<<".:<.: .. cool, shady or partly shady. \..,~;:,""<<"( Hieracium greenei (Greene's hawkweed): This is a perennial forb in the cl}i;~o&;tribe of the sunflower family which is locally rare or uncomnlon. There are seven ocS,~h:~9ces in the Analysis Area, all in the Ashland Creek Watershed. Across the Forestv!hereAire 22 known occurrences on High Cascades and Siskiyou Mountains Ranger I2}st~cts'.\''.This hawkweed is more comnlon and secure in California. In Oregon, it is undeLr~:~t~,~..fdr inclusion on the Oregon Natural Heritage Program's rare plant lists. Habitat in the Project Area is dry, often rocky, openingson,:~aITn aspects. There has been some encroachment into this habitat by trees and shrub:~"Oy..~r.many decades of fire exclusion. There may have been some decline in populatio1111,wnQ~rs'and occurrences during that peliod due to shading. .<:,.. . ;'" "*" Juniperus occidenta/is (western juniper)A~\;p,[~sent in the Analysis Area on the main ridge 0.6 miles north of the abandoned 100l.s:oufoP,,\VVagner Butte. There is one large tree only. Though it is a dominant feature of pli~t,;.2b~unities east of the Cascades, western juniper is uncommon west of the Cascad..e'tre~!,'.:'a.nd only about 4 sites are known to occur on the Forest. One of those sites is o~(,!he~ou'thwest slope of Wagner Butte and this Analysis Area tree probably shares its anc'~.S;lry<;wHh that stand. Other places west of the Cascades, off- Forest, western juniper oF~hri.':;(jn the south slopes of Anderson Butte (Little Applegate watershed), in the"Si~.~.i'Y2~ASummit" area near 1-5, BLM's Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, KlamaiI1Ri.yef" Canyon, as well as the Shasta Valley, Scott Valley and surrounding hills.~:elt{.typically grows in dry, open, rocky areas. ". .:.;...... ;'':':::i::;:?j.::~::.. ~'?' Lewisia cc/lY!:eqgn:ivar. howe/Iii (Howell's lewisia): This rock outcrop "succulent" is a wavy- leaved::lowet;etevation variety of the Siskiyou lewisia which more typically occurs at higher elev~tiohs...in the Siskiyous, and elsewhere in the Klamath Mountains. There are two AnaliMi!$ Area occurrences. One is on an outcrop above the East Fork Ashland Creek, in the . ARe.~earch Natural Area. The other is in a cliff area near an un-named tributary of the West .. ,~:,..M;::\F~otlc Ashland Creek, northwest of Win bum Ridge. There are 24 occurrences of Howell's ....\\;~:,J~~isia on the Forest. There are also at least this many occurrences on BLM land in Jackson and Josephine Counties. Howell's lewisia is uncommon in northwestern California but presumably more prevalent there, than in Oregon. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK INPROGRESSIIIII -166 Ashland Forest Resiliency Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce): An extensive population of Engelmann spruce occupies roughly 6 miles of riparian corridors in the East Fork Ashland Watershed. Its lowest point on the East fork is 4320 ft. elevation at section line 4/9 and it extends upward from there into various headwaters, most of which are outside the Project Area. One westenl aml of this dendritic-shaped occurrence slightly overlaps one of the DFPZs in T40S, R 1 E, section 9, NW ~ of the NW %. Also, about 0.4 miles of the spruce-occupied East Fork corridor, from Road 2060 down to section line 4/9, in the Ashland Research Natural Area, is part of the Proj ect Area. Englemann spruce is common in riparian and wetland habitats in the Cascades as far.south..as the Dead Indian Plateau located on the east side of the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger 'Pistri"ct. The East Fork Ashland Creek population is the only one known in the Siskiyou Mountains. A few slnaller occurrences are farther south in California, within the Russian Pea~. Wildenless, and a few other locations in Siskiyou, Trinity, and Shasta Coun~~es.The species is also found throughout the Rocky Mountains from British Columbia, souttrto Arizona and New Mexico. Silene lemmonii (Lemmon's catchfly): This woodland perenrilalforb.'is regularly encountered in the Analysis Area. At least 72 patches have heen found so far, fairly well distributed throughout the Analysis Area, mostly belo\y 5?-00o.::fti elevation. It is not strict about habitat, occupying a wide range of aspects, upl~ri.d:l6rest and forest openings, disturbed and undisturbed, various ages, from deep shade to p'a.gly.,,~i1nny. This plant is common and secure in northwesterrt:<;:alifomia. In Oregon, it is under review for inclusion on the Oregon Natural Heritag~Progiam's rare plant lists. It has been documented from Curry, Josephine, an9 Jac~son Counties. However, the vast majority of known Oregon occurrences are in the.;~a}ysis Area. Swertia radiata (Frasera speciosa).(~onument plant): This robust plant in the gentian family is striking in appear'!p.cewpen it bolts and flowers (and dies) after spending many years or decades as a rosett~:>'There are 10 occurrences known in the Analysis Area, having roughly 400 individuals;tbt~L.The largest of these has about 200 plants, on the main ridge about 1/3 mile nortp oft~e,abandoned lookout on Wagner Butte. The other Analysis Area occurrences areeu,.!hy,saine ridge, also on the divide between the East Fork and West Fork of Ashland Creek,.,.~nd on the East Fork Ashland Creek/Clayton Creek Divide in~luding the potential he1ifopIeilanding site #26. Project Area populations are found in open forest where:" fire has.'kept the trees spaced out and a rich herbaceous plant community on the forest floor, or..in manzanita brushfields or sagebrush patches. The monument plant is found throughout the ranges of the arid intennountain west, and the ~:.:..:tno.untains of northern California. There is one additional occurrence with 50 individuals in a .;'big;meadow in the Ashland Watershed outside of the Project Areas (T40S, Rl W, see 1, SW 'l4 of SE ~). A large intennittent population of monument plant is present on the Forest along the nlain ridge fronl McDonald Peak to Wagner Butte, in mostly sagebrush habitat, west aspects, containing several hundred and perhaps over 1,000 individuals. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!"I -167 Ashland Forest Resiliency Bryophytes Ptilidium californicum (Pacific fuzzwort (a liverwort)): There are 5 occurrences of this liverwort known in the Project Area, each on the boles of single fir trees. Another Ashland Watershed occurrence is outside the Project Area, near the ski area on 3 boulders in a Shasta fir forest. Although it is uncommon and hard to find, there are undoubtedly more occurrences of this liverwort on older white firs trunks and other substrates in the middle and portions of the Ashland Watershed. Botanical field reconnaissance for this project did not focus on finding this liverwort. This liverwort is relatively common and widespread in the Cascade Zone of the Rogue ~Tver,":; Siskiyou National Forest, and northward. It becomes only occasional south of HigfjyvaY..l40 and uncommon or rare farther south. It has a North Pacific distribution and is knowh',:from Japan, Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Northern Cali forni a;'\,,>.:...:., Vlota megalospora (a moss): One occurrence of this small epiphytic mq~s\is,khown in the Project Area, on old alders in a wetland in the Bull Gap Creek drainage~,.in tne Ashland Research Natural Area. It is a former Northwest Forest Plan Surv.yy;.~~g.. Manage species .. ".;: ........". which has turned out to be common in much of mesic western .O:q~~goti:::and Washington, but is mostly absent from the Eastern Siskiyous. '\~~/ Lichens .'. ,A,. Dendriscocaulon intricatulum (no common name):.Qfit,'O~currence of this small epiphytic lichen is known in the Project Area, on at least on;7;,bl}lck;'bak trunk, in the Neil Creek watershed, T40S, RIE, section 1, SW ~ of the ~.v;,4";'Thislichen hasn't otherwise been found on National Forest lands in the SiskiX9u<.MQuntains. Other FS occurrences of this lichen are found on High Cascades RaDg~r,,;Pi~!lict. Many occurrences are known on the Butte Falls Resource Area and Grants.:J?a~s(~;e~ource Area, Medford BLM, where it appears to be more common than anywhereel~:e:,hi;:;its range (northern California through southeastern Alaska). ".,,:,.,.,.d . .." . .-- ....-. These lichens find habitat ~h;;}he.;irunks of black oaks (Quercus kelloggii) that grow in or near conifer stands. Pre~criR.!.i,bns that maintain the long-term presence of black oaks in these stands are apt to by b~l1~~fi.e'hlf to this lichen. Lobaria scrobi2:ulfltq;,'prdLobaria hallii (no con1mon names): There is one occurrence of this lobaria kngwn::':ih;,JheProject Area, on a large old mock orange shrub in a semi-shaded opening ndt:.':'faI;;lr6m the sediment dam on the East Fork Ashland Creek above Reeder ReserY:gir. Rinal determination of exactly which of these two closely related taxa is present hereh~~\l1Pt been done. Lobaria scrobiculata is not otherwise known from the Forest but .': "':;:'" ~: I1lanY,,;Qccurrences are known from Medford BLM lands. ;..':::B~iqghly a dozen populations of Lobaria hallii are known to occur on the Forest. Many more ,,;:::occ^l.lrrences of Lobaria hallii are known on Medford BLM lands. These are former Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage species that eventually turned out to be too common within the NWFP area to merit protection as Survey and Manage species. The range of these lichens in North America is from northern California to Alaska and east to western Montana. Final Els If DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS II III -168 Ashland Forest Resiliency These lichens 1110St con1n10nly occur on oaks, nlaple, and other hardwoods. Silvicultural prescriptions or prescribed fire prescriptions that maintain the long-term presence of hardwoods in Project Area stands below 4000 ft. elevation are apt to be beneficial to these lichens. Fungi There are no uncon1mon and/or locally rare fungi known to occur in the Project Area. b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives Vascular Plants: Allium campallll/atllm (Sierra onion) , The No-Action Alternative would gradually allow canopy closures to shrink availabie,:habitat for this onion and local occurrences could be lost. However, just about any kind,pfwildland fire (nlore likely under this alternative than under the Action Altenlative~) would increase available habitat for this onion. A mitigation n1easure (cOlnmon to each of the Action Alternativ~~) would protect the onion frOln disturbance during project activity. Another mitigation me~SUfSqOf funding is available) creates canopy openings and gaps where needed, tq;,pla.intain habitat suitability and retain reproductive potential for the onion. Therefore, at a min~Jnum, the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on this species and, if the .~.ecolld...mitigation measure is implemented, would have a beneficial effect on this .~pe~ies. The Community Alternative and Preferred Altern~!i,\e''would have the same effects on the Sierra onion as the Proposed Action, for th~s~~,reasons. .. ." ',. ............ Vascular Plants: Cypr;ped;um mOlltanllm.(inoun.tai~ lad)'slipper orchid) The No-Action Alternative protects th.~;.si;~gle mountain lady-slipper occurrence from human disturbance and would continue.to PE?yide good habitat as long as high-severity wildland fires can be kept away. Presum..~bly'wildland fire would eventually occur here and could be severe enough to eliminate..or rechfce the orchid population and/or its habitat quality. This is the only known occurrenc~;iIJ'.all of the Analysis Area so local viability of the mountain lady- slipper orchid is d7pep9:enfbn the existence of this population. On the RR-SNF and in southwestern Oregb~;j~..l~eneral, there are enough occurrences that viability at those geographic scai~s.:~S':Bbt dependent on maintaining this one small occurrence. . ..... The P~opo~:~~.'''cd'on is not expected to have adverse effects on this patch of mountain lady- slippef;:orchids because the old-growth stand where it occurs in the upper Tolman Creek watersbeqis designed to be left untreated, to protect the orchid and provide what appears to be OphmU111 habitat if the current population has the ability to expand. Also, it is presumed . .th~t the Proposed Action would provide a protective (beneficial) effect because hazardous ,:'..fue~s treatments below the 2080 Road .and in adjacent areas should reduce the possibility that . '. this lady-slipper orchid occurrence and its habitat would be lost to wildland fire. Final EIS !lDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -169 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Community Alternative is not expected to have adverse effects on this patch of mountain lady-slipper orchids because it is in an old-growth area which would presumably not be treated, and because a mitigation measure protects known occurrences. The Community Alternative would provide some protective (beneficial) effect because its hazardous fuels treatments in some of the surrounding areas reduces the possibility that lady-slipper orchid occurrences and habitat would be lost to wildland fire. Since less of these surrounding acres are treated under this alternative, it will not provide as much protective (beneficial) effect as the Proposed Action. The Preferred Alternative is not expected to have adverse effects on this patch of m9unt~iil lady-slipper orchids because it is in an old-growth area which would presumably nql be . treated, and because a mitigation measure protects known occurrences. The Cornmtihity Alternative would provide some protective (beneficial) effect because its haz~E~r<,?y~ fuels treatments in some of the surrounding areas reduces the possibility that lady\:sllpper orchid o~currences and habitat would be lost to wildland fire. Since less of thes~;<sp.rr6unding acres are treated under this alternative, it will not provide as much protectiy~;:;(h~n~ficial) effect as the Proposed Action. .'q. Vascular Plants: Galilll1l oregan 11m (Oregon bedstraw) The No-Action Alternative, compared to the Action AIternative.~.,:. could allow wildland fire to . ':. ""'-;':':':'.' bum around more of the wetlands containing the gali':l!1.,::.hencereducing the shade on these wetlands and possibly adversely affecting some occl:Hfeeges. However, because these wetlands themselves are unlikely to be severely a{fecfed;..and crown fires around the wetlands are not expected to be universal, it is ~nlikyly that any wildland fire scenario \vould cause the extirpation of the galium from th~,:.~:~lysis Area. .::. .< ..):;.... .::::;::::;.:.- The Proposed Action includes a mitigC!"tioQ ni'easure common to both Action Alternatives which specifies that wetlands w~u,. Id."h~.'<rpanaged like perennial streams, hence left undisturbed with most of the sprr.c>1.lhd..1hg canopy left intact. This measure is adequate to maintain the viability of thy Ga1iJ!.!!1.}.jn the Analysis Area. . .... ............ '-''''.', .......... The Community AItern~,!h~;,~;'ClPd the Preferred Alternative have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for~hf;;sqihe reasons. '-.." ,.. .. .... ... .'.;. .-..... .....: .... .... '" Vascular Plants}'GiinldJcarpiulIl dryopteris (oak fern) The No-A~t~on',Altetnative leaves the riparian corridors where the oak fern grows in an undistu.rbecr9ol1dition. However, compared to the Action Alternatives, there is more risk that wildla~p fir~rcould burn these riparian corridors or the upland forest which provides shade for tpe""p* fern at streamside. Since both oak fern occurrences occupy long stream reaches, it."is "Unlikely that even a high-severity wildland fire could eliminate either population. .. .,;;:;:,;,:'.:;:;\;rJ:i"~:iProposed Action includes a mitigation measure common to both Action Alternatives ..>;'\.:.which leaves wide untreated riparian areas where the oak fern grows and allows treatment beginning 150 ft. away from these areas, this would reduce the overall risk of wildland fire without decreasing the shade or degrading the cool, moist environment at streamside where the oak fern grows. The Community Alternative and the Preferred Alternative have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the same reasons. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIfIll -170 Ashland Forest Resiliency Vascular Plants: Hieraciul1l greellei (Greene's hawkweed) The No-Action Alternative would allow the canopy to continue to close over some occurrences and available suitable habitat acres would continue to decline in the absence of wildland fires. Some Analysis Area occurrences would likely disappear. Conversely, large extensive wildland fires, more likely to occur under this alternative than under the Action Alternatives, would presumably open up substantial anlounts of newly suitable potential habitat, or improve existing occupied habitat by reducing canopy coverage. The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure (common to both Action Alternatives) which would protect this hawkweed from disturbance during project activity. Anot~~r TIlitigation measure (if funding is available) creates canopy openings and gaps wher;e needed to Inaintain habitat suitability and retain reproductive potential for this hawkweed. .'.. Therefore, at a minimum, the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on::!his species and, if the second 111itigation measure is implelnented, would have a beneficial effect on this speCIes. The Community Alternative and the Preferred Alternative have Proposed Action, for the same reasons. same effects as the Vascular Plants: Juniperus occidelltalis (western juniper) .. . The No-Action Alternative would leave the lone juniper trey..inthe Analysis Area undisturbed. This tree is not in immediate danger ofbei:r1g,overtopped or shaded out by taller conifers. It is in an area where it is not likely to b~,kill~a;by wildland fire, and if it were, recruitment of some new individuals might occqr..:fQ~lowing the wildland fire. The Proposed Action includes a mitigation:::~'~~~tife that prohibits cutting juniper trees. No adverse effects to the lone juniper tr~r:'~e,ex.p~cted. The Community Alternative angthe'rreferred Alternative have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the same,leasohs~ Vascular Plants: Lewisia coty!i/dl!.!' var. /towel/ii (Howell's lewisia) The No-Action Alternat~;veshould have little or no effect on this rock outcrop species. Both occurrences are in~reas5Yhere the amount of shade has probably reached its maximum possible in this.Eos~Y.J?abitat, and the populations appear to be fine. If the surrounding forest were to burn in,..a.:'\y'ildiand fire, the populations would do fine in more sun as well. The P~9Pos.etFAclion includes hazardous fuels treatments in the general area of both occurry!lces .but little activity would occur on these rock outcrops. Since disturbance is not an issu~:'a.nd the rocky habitat would change little, and canopy coverage changes are not likely.:to matter, no adverse or beneficial effects are expected. '\'..'Jhy Community Alternative includes hazardous fuels treatments in the general area of the ..RNA occurrence but it is not certain how close. Effects are the same as described for the Proposed Action, for the same reasons. The Preferred Alternative includes hazardous fuels treatments in the general area of both occurrences but little activity would occur on these rock outcrops. Since disturbance is not an issue, and the rocky habitat would change little, and canopy coverage changes are not likely to matter, no adverse or beneficial effects are expected. Final EIS !I DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!l1ll -171 Ashland Forest Resiliency Vascular Plants: Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce) The No-Action Alternative does nothing to reduce the threat of large scale wildland fire in the upper parts of the East Fork watershed where the spruce occurs. The spruce is thin-barked and easily killed by fire. Engelmann spruce does not rely on fire as part of its evolutionary strategy for recruitment of new individuals. Its habitat in riparian areas, around wetlands, or in cool concavities, is less likely to burn than upland areas and lower elevation areas. Nevertheless, there is a substantial risk that large portions of the Engelmann spruce population could eventually be lost to wildland fire under this scenario. The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure common to both Action Altern~tiv.e~.... which prohibits cutting spruce trees and maintains a suitable reproductive enviro~;tnt.'",;"H Most of the spruce population is in untreated riparian areas and/or where no treatmertts:are proposed. The fuels management activities of the Proposed Action between tge::spfUce population and the urban interface should substantially reduce the likeliho09.ofailarge scale wildland fire in the upper parts of the East Fork watershed, thereby adding safety for the spruce population. The Community Alternative and the Preferred Alternative have fH~L~;ame effects as the Proposed Action, for the same reasons. Vascular Plants: Silelle lemmonii (Lemmon's catchfly)" /\:;." The No-Action Alternative would maintain the curreIJt/"r~pge of habitats that are currently occupied by this catchfly. Possibly even more ar~.(ls;rY.ol.ild have a closed canopy in the future, but this catchfly seems to tolerate shade/'<~ildland fires could open up the habitat, possibly over large areas, but the catchflyaleo;(plefates sun fairly well, except where too hot and dry. No effects to viability ofthis/patchfly,.are expected under the No-Action Alternative. > The Proposed Action includes tfi~ardQJs fuels treatments over many of the known occurrences. Though som~.jndiYi~tuals and even small occurrences may be lost to disturbance, or under slash ;pjly~, 'the plant is common enough that local viability would not be threatened. In additi2fii,:~orire of the most robust populations are in existing shaded fuel breaks, indicatingJ.patth:e':;plant can tolerate some disturbance and that it does well in part sun/part shade';~9!~~<?~{hese conditions are expected under the Proposed Action. The Comnu~.niiy..Alfernative and the Preferred Alternative have the same effects as the Propo~,~d A.g'tlop, for the same reasons. .~..' . Vascul.~~r;'!?la~ts: Swertia radiata (Frasera speciosa) (monument plant) T~e ;~;g'~A.ction Alternative, in the absence of wildland fires, would allow the canopy to .,. ,..';S2,~tinue to encroach on the known Project Area occurrences. The deep shade, buildup of :;. .."H!::i;:;;~:hirf. and litter, and lack of development of a herbaceous plant layer, would cause most t..::;\:';\;,...~cctrrences to disappear. If low to moderate severity wildland fires eventually burn monument plant occurrences, new or improved habitat could be created. High-severity fires would probably be detrimental. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 172 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Proposed Action, compared to the No-Action Alten1ative, is nluch more likely to be beneficial to monmnent plant occurrences. A mitigation measure common to both Action Alternatives keeps slash off of monunlent plants and prevents other serious disturbance to individuals. Most of the hazardous fuels treatments of the Proposed Acti on would create more open forest conditions favored by the n10nument plant. Another mitigation measure, if funding were available, would create openings and gaps conducive to monument plant reproduction. Finally, large-scale, high-severity wildland fires are much less likely to occur under this alternative than under the No-Action Alternative. The Community Alternative and the Preferred Alternative have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the SaIne reasons. Bryophytes: Ptilidium califorlliclll11 (Pacific fuzz-wort) '<. The No-Action Alternative would leave Ptilidium occurrences undisturbed intheshort term. Conlpared to the Action Alternatives, the No-Action Alternative carries a substantially higher risk that large amounts of Ptilidium habitat and substrates could be lostlqwildland fire in the future. The Proposed Action includes hazardous fuels treatments thatare likely to change the microclimate and substrate (drier, more light, scorched tre.ebas~s) at four of the five known Project Area occurrences. Accordingly, these occurrericts>are likely to be lost. However, much greater amounts of the best Ptilidium habitat iI} th~ ..general area (older white fire forest on cool aspects at 4,200 to 5,800 ft.) will not be t~~at~:~uhder the Proposed Action. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the risk oJ losing large amounts of Ptilidiun1 habitat and substrate to wildland fire is substapti~lly"T.~duced under the Proposed Action. For this reason, it is estimated that the Propos~d.A.cti6n would have a beneficial effect on the viability of this uncommon liverwort within th~watersheds affected. .": ~'. :. .' .. : ..." ... .. ....... The Community Alternativ,e and:,Jhe.Preferred Alternative have the same effects as the .' ...... - .... .... ..... Proposed Action, for the sam~ reiisons. Bryophytes: Ulota '!.zegalq}pq/:a (a moss) The No-Action ~lt.~rn,~tJ.ve.would leave the single known Analysis Area occurrence undisturbed in !.h(.shpI1 term. In the long term, there is some risk that wildland fire could bum throug~ this,wetland killing the old alders that support this moss or killing the. conifer overstgry tiial'prdvides shade here. However, because of the concave landform, the wet cool habitatt,and the late-successional character of the surrounding forest, the risk of wildland fire in this;~h~.is considerably less than in the adjacent uplands. ((he Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that manages perennial wetlands the .'9.arite as perennial streanls, so the alder substrate for this moss would not be affected. There .... is a. slight risk that hazardous fuels treatments beyond 50 ft. from this wetland might contribute more light, or a drying of the microclimate in the wetland, that would be detrimental to the VIola. The Proposed Action decreases the risk of wildland fire to some degree, compared to the No-Action Alternative. It is uncertain if the net effect is positive or negative under this alternative. Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -173 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Community Alternative includes a mitigation measure that manages perennial wetlands the same as perennial streams, so the alder substrate for this moss would not be cut. The Community Alternative does not treat late-successional forest areas such as surrounds this wetland. The Community Alternative decreases tbe risk of wildland fire to some degree, compared to the No-Action Alternative. Accordingly, the net effect for the ulota occurrence is expected to be beneficial under this alternative. The Preferred Alternative includes a mitigation measure that manages perennial wetlands the..,::;.""", same as perennial streams, so the alder substrate for this moss would not be cut. The q. Community Alternative does not treat late-successional forest areas such as surroun.:.ds.tl\!:~::;'< wetland. The Community Alternative decreases the risk of wildland fire to some d~gree,;...:<':.' compared to the No-Action Alternative. Accordingly, the net effect for the ulota.occurrence is expected to be beneficial under this alternative. Lichens: Dendriscocau/oll illtricatulum ;:,. The No-Action Alternative would leave the black oak stand where this}iG::,~~n'i:occurs undisturbed. There is a risk that wildland fire could burn over t9.~t~it~::a:gd.'kill the lichens or the black oak stems on which the lichen resides. A wildland fitei':8~llEr';actually improve habitat for the dendriscocaulon at this site if it burned in a m'!!P.1er"'o/here competing conifers were killed, but not the black oak stems. In more general te.riU..~-,!wild]and fire is likely to . "'. '~h"'<!:'" encourage more black oaks in the Analysis Area and c6H!a"j~.crease the potential habitat and potential substrate for this lichen. However, since th~tq~ndriscocaulon appears to be n10stly absent from the area currently, it is not certain thah.r1~~,.Jiabitat or substrates could be colonized by this lichen. '" .~~:.:. .-:~;;:. ;)::::;~.;~ The Proposed Action includes a mitigaJi0I1.,qieqsure that would protect the specific black oak stand that harbors the dendriscocauloll.'.'fr:i?rlt;1Jeing affected during project activitie-s. In other forest stands, some hazardous fu~lsJry,~tgient prescriptions would encourage more black oak presence, providing potential I1.ew Haqjlat for this lichen if local occurrences have the ability to expand in the future. Iflfundi.!:!.gjs available, a second mitigation measure would create canopy openings designed.tcrqpaii1iain or improve suitable habitat for this lichen. Therefore, the Proposed Action is 9~R.~cted to be at least neutral for this species, and could be beneficial. . "'... . .. . . . . . . The Community Alt~lh~Jive and Preferred Alternative would have the same effects on the dendriscocaulo,~t.~:~\t.v.e.Proposed Action, for the same reasons. <~~;:~:~if::,;:.: "::~~~?' . Lichens: L;;ba.:r.;!,!~scrobiculata or Lobaria !lallii The N;9:'Actl~111Iternative would leave the site where this lichen grows undisturbed. HowxyfI;~.. in ithe absence of fire, the conifer canopy would eventually shade the mock orange shru~. .wpere this lichen occurs, to the point that it would no longer support the lichen. A .:;~ildland fire under this alternative could affect this site (the lichen, its substrate, and habitat) ':\{.,.:.:nl"bpmerous unpredictable ways. In more general terms, wildland fire in the area may '\,Yncrease habitat suitability for this lichen by enhancing the presence of shrubs and hardwoods. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 174 Ashland Forest Resiliency ~0Tr T- The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that would protect the specific mock orange that harbors the lobaria, as well as adjacent hardwoods and large shrubs, from being affected during project activities. If funding is available, a second mitigation measure would create canopy openings designed to maintain or improve occupied habitat for this lichen. In general terms, elsewhere in the Project Area, hazardous fuels treatments under the Proposed Action are likely to reduce the presence of shrubs that could harbor this lichen, encourage the hardwood trees that could harbor this lichen, and provide more part sun/part shade conditions which would be favored by this lichen. The net effect would probably be slightly beneficial. The Community Alternative and Preferred Alternative would have the same effects..ondhe lobaria as the Proposed Action, for the sanle reasons. c. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives Some Hieracium greenei occurrences are in areas being treated under the Ashland Watershed Protection Project that would also be treated under either of the ActioJ1Altematives. The treatments are often neutral for this hawkweed, but may be bensfi.c::ial,9,epending on how much the canopy around these occurrences is opened up, or at leastprevented from closing. There is at least an opportunity for a beneficial cumulative effect when a Hieracium greenei occurrence is treated by both projects. Some Engelmann spruce trees are planned to be rem.?vyd'as part of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area expansion. These are only a minor fraction of the.CiIrrenf population. However, if there is a risk to viability of Engelmann spruce in the EastrorkAshland Creek watershed due to wildland fire under the No-Action Alternatiye,}Q$ing some ski area trees could increase that risk slightly. 12. Non-Native Plant Speqies:\. J4Iill fire hazard reduction trelftlnel!tsJiltroduce or encourage exotic (non-native) and undesirable (noxious) plant sjJ"ec.iesf ".;"0 ..::;;.:;..... The majority of the P~,()ject;:.1\r:eais dominated by native vegetation. The overstory, understory, and shrub vegetatiqn !ay~rs."are almost entirely native. The herbaceous vegetation is predominately nat(ye.:.at.higher elevations and in forested areas. It is a mix of native and non- native species..~f;t low.er\elevations, in disturbed areas, and on hot dry slopes. a. B~i5kgrQund Som~.rioteworthy examples of non-native herbaceous plants that are common, and even ..q6mi;{'~nt in some parts of the Project Area are: ..,. Colonial bentgrass that was seeded along much of the 2060 Road · Cheatgrass on the steep southwest-facing open areas in the north 'l2 of the Research Natural Area; and · Dogtail grass in the lower elevation areas wherever there is enough light to support it. Non-native plants which occur in the Project Area and are officially designated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds are described below: Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!1II-175 Ashland Forest Resiliency Bull thistle is transitory in disturbed areas and regularly found in the Project Area. It is not as prevalent in the Project Area as it is on many other parts of the Forest. However, it has highly mobile wind-born seeds and the soil seedbank in the Project Area holds bull thistle seeds that germinate and grow when areas are disturbed. DalmatioD toadflax occurs in a large population (about 20 acres) on a dry sunny steep open slope in the Ashland Research Natural Area at the end of the Lamb Mine Trail. Its also been documented at the Forest boundary in T39S, RIE, sec 17, SE % ofNE l/.t. Himalaya blackberry is present at potential helicopter landings #52, 56, and 24. Itjs aJsb3h:;.: an old disturbed area on lower Neil Creek. It's at the FS boundary on Tolman Creef ne~:the: east ~-comer of section 27. Presumably it is also along a short segment of Ashl~nd.:Greek on FS land in T39S, RIE, section 17 (presumed because of the high frequency of:H4.Q1alaya Blackberry on City and private land in this vicinity). no 0 . Himalaya blackberry is undoubtedly present elsewhere in the Analysis.,~~a:,;at disturbed sites or low elevation riparian corridors. Off-forest, Himalaya bl:epklierry..Ts rampant around farms, homes, ditches, fencerows and low elevation riparian COrQgQI~.~.'::For example, the entire Bear Creek corridor from Emigrant lake to the Rogue ~vet:::is.occupied by Himalaya blackberry. . o. '.:.j:.:~.' Klamath weed is present along most of the roadsidesip:Oth.~nproject Area and is often found in low densities in other natural and human-made qpenjpgs. '~.' Scotch broom is known from 2 sites withj,;n t,.he::"fro]ect Area: A sharp bend on Road 2080 at T39S, RIE, sec 27, middle of SE~. It is Rre:~erir:on a ridge in T39, RIE, sec 21, NW %. It may also be present but undocument:td::i~(a.!:~5~W. other low elevation sites in the Project Area. Star-thistle is present in a private qil.:~~:~~nd at roadside at the Forest boundary in T39S, RIE, section 17, SE 1;4 ofNE ~t It is::::i;l]so present at potential helicopter landing #11. Another Project Area locatiQ:n is::at'the end of Road 2080-300 in T40S, RIE, sec 14, SE %. Another location, outsid~:~,.!hy'.':~roject Area in the upper Neil Creek watershed, but close enough that activitiess?i!lo\o'e staged there, is on Road 2080, north of Road 100 junction in T40S, RIE, sec 22}:::"t:.n~?:~:.":. ':. ...:. ",':' ........ ......... ...... The Forest tre~t~.:...pqxious weed infestations as described in the Decision Notice and Environment.?r:Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Management of the Rogue River Natio:qal For,esl~.1999, Normally, bull thistle and Klamath weed infestations are not treated, or sOrn'et,j,mes are treated with biological control organisms. Dalmation toadflax occurrences are to'ital1y treated with herbicides but the large population in the Research Natural Area is ...tr~atea:.6nly with biological control organisms (because its relatively close to the East Fork :ij:::;:;;.'.:;~hd;Reeder Reservoir, and because herbicide use may also conflict with RNA management ::::::::.':~bj-ectives). Hand-pulling dalmation toadflax at this location has proven to be ineffective. The 1999 Decision authorizes herbicide treatment of the star thistle. However, the star thistle occurrences are currently small because of past treatments; it is likely that only hand-pulling will be used on them in the future. The 1999 Decision doesn't specifically address these more-recently- found Himalaya blackberry infestations, but the Decision does contain a strategy for dealing with new occurrences and new species. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK INPROGRESSIIIII -176 Ashland Forest Resiliency Under that strategy it is likely that the Hin1ilaya blackberry infestations along waterways will not be treated and the infestations on potential helicopter landing sites will be treated with the herbicides glyphosate or picloram. b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives The No-Action Alternative carries a risk of introducing or spreading non-native species through current on-going activities in the Project Area, Hun1ans and machinery are vectors and any disturbance is an opportunity for establishment of these species. Current levels of risk of introduction or spread of non-native species would remain as is, under this alternative. . Wildland fire (more likely to cover substantial acreage under this alternative than under the Action Alternatives) is a disturbance event that could facilitate expansion of existing non- native plant populations, Wildland fire suppression activities (which could be nlore extensive under this alternative than under the Action Alternatives), could also lead to introductions or the spread of non-native plant species. The Proposed Action has more activity than the No-Action alternative and hence carries an increased risk of introductions and spread of non-native species through project activities. Mitigation measures to prevent and control the spread of invasive non-native plants would ameliorate but not eliminate this risk. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action carries less risk of introducing and spreading non-native species through wildland fire events, or wildland fire suppression activities. The Community Alternative would have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the same reasons. Assuming the mitigation measures are applied equally to each of the Action Alternatives, and assuming the risk of spreading non-native species through wildland fire or wildland fire suppression activities is equal, the degree of risk that each Action Alternative carries is roughly proportional to the amount of disturbance that would occur from project activities. The Preferred Alternative would have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the same reasons. Assuming the mitigation measures are applied equally to each of the Action Alternatives, and assuming the risk of spreading non-native species through wildland fire or wildland fire suppression activities is equal, the degree of risk that each Action Alternative carries is roughly proportional to the an10unt of disturbance that would occur from project activities. c. C-unlulative Effects of Alternatives . / The No-Action Alternative carries a risk of introducing or spreading non-native species :<.: through current on-going activities in the Project Area. Hunlans and machinery are vectors and any disturbance is an opportunity for establishnlent of these species. Current levels of risk of introduction or spread of non-native species would remain as is, under this alternative. Wildland fire and wildland fire suppression (more likely to cover substantial acreage under this alternative than under the Action Alternatives) is a disturbance event that could facilitate expansion of existing non-native plant populations. Final EIS I! DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!I11 - 177 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Proposed Action has more activity than the No-Action Alternative and hence carries an increased risk of introductions and spread of non-native species through project activities. Mitigation measures to prevent and control the spread of invasive non-native plants will ameliorate but not eliminate this risk. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action carries less risk of introducing and spreading non-native species through wildland fire events or wildland fire suppression activities. The Community Alternative would have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the same reasons. Assuming the mitigation measures are applied equally to each of the Actiol}.:{.:;::::: . Alternatives, and assuming the risk of spreading non-native species through wildland~Jir;e::bi:\. wildland fire suppression activities is equal, the degree of risk that each Action Alt~mati\je. ... carries is roughly proportional to the amount of disturbance that would occur frorp p'roj.ect activities. ., The Preferred Alternative would have the same effects as the Proposed 1\.cti:?u;=:::for the same reasons. Assuming the mitigation measures are applied equally to eas~\qf:tHe Action Alternatives, and assuming the risk of spreading non-native spesi~~ t@?pgh wildland fire or wildland fire suppression activities is equal, the degree of risk th~l:.;:e(.l,~JrAction Alternative carries is roughly proportional to the amount of disturbance tJvtt would occur from project activities.." . 13. Aquatic Habitat and Fish . :::::-: /;- :":: '-:":::;) H1iU fire hazard reduction treatments adversely aJ{eclthe downstream habitat (Ashland Creek below Reeder and Granite Street Reservoirs, .::a..~'llbwer To/man and Hamilton creeks) for resident and anadromous fish populatio,!.~.i,=!~(~dillg coho salmon, which are listed as Threatened, and steelhead trout, a Forest S"(~ivlce Sensitive species in Region 6? .:-~::;: ":::;:':.' 3. Background , ....... . ... ...... 0-,. ...... .. ..... .... For discussion purposes, the::,:eroJect Area refers to the immediate area involved in the action (land within the 8, 150-asr~,:.~b.r::8',990-acre boundaries), while the Action Area refers to all areas to be affecte2 dlr~?t1y7br indirectly by the Federal action (such as streams downstream of the Project 1!e:~):::~~q:;:not merely the immediate area involved in the action. ..,., ".. .... The three fish-bea~tlg streams in the Proj ect Area are Ashland Creek including its West and East fqIks::::~eil:;:.:Cfeek, and Horn Gulch. Fish-bearing streams outside of the Project Area that copld be/affected by actions inside the Project Area are Wagner, Clayton, Tolman, HamiIt.ph;.and Bear creeks. \~; ','Z';';-;',' .""QQality and Quantity of Fish Habitat ~: ,:,:1%::t:N~11 Creek provides about 44.9 miles of fish habitat; 18.5 miles (410/0) inside the Project '..\\,,)::'J\rek and 26.4 miles (59%) outside the Project Area. Although large wood frequency is relatively low and sand frequency relatively high, overall habitat quality in Neil Creek is moderate to high inside the Project Area and appears to be functioning properly (Ecosystems Northwest 2000). Fish habitat quality in Neil Creek downstream of the Project Area is low because of lack of side channels and large wood; warm, turbid water; reduced stream flow and shallow depth; abundance of fine sediment; and frequent artificial fish-passage barriers (Siskiyou Research Group 2002a). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -178 Ashland Forest Resiliency Ashland Creek provides about 27.2 nliles of fish habitat; 14.5 nliles (530/0) inside the Project Area and 12.7 miles (470/0) outside the Project Area. All anadromous fish passage is blocked from the Project Area by two large dams downstream (Granite Street and Hosler). Although large wood frequency is relatively low and sand frequency relatively high, overall habitat quality in Ashland Creek is high inside the Project Area, especially above Reeder Reservoir in the East and West forks (Abbas 1997; Siskiyou Research Group 2002b). Fish habitat quality in Ashland Creek downstream of the Project Area is low because of channelization; lack of side channels, large wood, and suitable spawning substrate; and wann water temperatures (Siskiyou Research Group 2001). The mainstem of Wagner Creek provides about 5.4 n1iles of fish habitat; alllocatedo~Jside the Project Area. Approximately 0.5 nliles of fish habitat occur inside, and 1.0Jlliles outside, the Project Area in Horn Gulch. Clayton Creek provides about 2,5 miles of fish habitat; all located outs.ide theProject Area. Habitat quality in the bottom 0.5 miles is poor due to channelization,~bankerosion and invasion by exotic plants, and lack of instream structure and sui(~q.l.,~spawning substrate (Siskiyou Research Group 2004). .. Tolman Creek provides about 1.3 miles of fish habitat;all:J?cated outside the Project Area. Hamilton Creek provides about 0.8 miles of fish habit(:lt;..aJI"located outside the Project Area. For a more complete description of fish habitat and us~.~n Tolman, Hamilton, and Clayton creeks see USDA FS 2001. . . - . . Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sen~it(\'e;Fish Species and Stream Amphibians Present Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, ()r~ensitfve (PETS) fishes potentially found inside the Project Area are: steelhead and coasta.L~llttfuoat trout. In addition to these two species, PETS fishes and amphibians found:inthe Action Area downstream of the Project Area are Chinook and coho salmon and;.foothiUyellow-legged frog. See USDA FS 1995 (pp. 50-53) for a cursory discussion ofcphdsalmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout life histories and distributions within the Bear.'Creek watershed. Coho Salmon (Threatened)" Coho saln10n in:~he"RQgue basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts (SONCC) Evolu~~q#arily Significant Unit (ESU), and were listed as Threatened under the Endangered"..~pec"iesAct on 6 May 1997. Critical habitat was delineated by NOAA Fisheries on 5 May 1999r..and includes all streams within the Project Area that are accessible to the speci~s;;.Abundance of the SONCC ESU has declined from an estimated 150,000 to 400,000 nati\f:~.1i.sh to about 10,000 wild fish (Federal Register 1999) because of overharvesting, ..hqbit~r.aegradation and loss, and hatchery interactions (Weitkamp et a1. 1995). Within the L".::'..R-ogue basin, recent population estimates of wild coho have ranged from 1 ,261 fish in 1993 ..'.,."'to 12,213 in 2001 (ODFW 2004a). The Bear Creek subpopulation of SONCC coho salmon , is severely depressed due to poor water quality, channelization, loss of off-channel habitat, and changes in flow regimes (USDA FS 1995). Few coho smolts were captured between 2001 and 2004 in Bear Creek during a juvenile outmigrant study (V ogt 2004). In contrast, Little Butte Creek is similar to Bear Creek with respect to watershed size and amount of fish habitat-but contains better habitat quality-and produced 10,000 to 68,000 coho smolts between 2001 and 2003. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!1I1 -179 Ashland Forest Resiliency Coho salmon have not been documented in the Project Area in Neil and Ashland Creeks. One juvenile was observed in the Analysis Area in lower Hamilton Creek by ODFW in April 1999 (GIS files), suggesting lower Hamilton Creek is potential winter rearing habitat. Coho salmon were not observed in recent August snorkel surveys of lower Ashland and Neil creeks (Siskiyou Research Group 2001, 2002a) suggesting that coho salmon summer rearing habitat in these streams may be limited, or that spawner escapement in the upper Bear Creek watershed is very low. No coho salmon or redds were detected in spawner surveys conducted in Ashland Creek in 2002 or 2003, even though 2002 was an above-average retq[TI\: year for the Rogue basin (ODFW 2003, 2004b). However, coho salmon spawning a9.tivity\:\ was observed in Ashland Creek near Lithia Park in January 2005 (pers. com. Jay Dpino,.::\:;:. ... Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife; Chris Volpe, Medford BLM). Current SoHb::salmon distribution and abundance in Wagner Creek is unknown although the recent rerngval of migration barriers could have increased coho use of this drainage. . Chinook Salmon (Sensitive) ....:.: Chinook salmon in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Or~.g2n ~oI1:hem California Coastal (SONCC) (ESU), and were not warranted for federal pfo,1,e:G.l!:pJI"'under the Endangered Species Act on 9 September 1999. Essential fisl1..,llabhat for SONCC Chinook salmon is identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Mos.t';l3:ggu~ basin Chinook salmon have a four to five year life cycle, spending three to fou~:i.yeats in the ocean and less than a year in freshwater (Groot and Margolis 1998; J acob~,:;~Q9:3), The Rogue basin contains both fall and spring Chinook salmon runs, and the Bear::.6r'e~J("''\vatershed currently contains primarily fall Chinook salmon, which spawn in:th.~:::(aYl, hatch in late winter, and enter the estuary by the following fall. Fall Chinook salmon is the most abUl1:~:al~J ~.~lmonid in the Rogue basin with recent estimates ranging from 150,000 to 291,000 wil(faQ..~1ts (Jacobs 2003). Vogt (2002) estimated the population size of juvenile Ch~rio;ok\~~lnion produced in the Bear Creek watershed was greater than 205,000 fish. f'Jo t~Eegt ~ecord exists of Chinook salmon using streams in the Project Area for spawning '.9rq:~anng. However, lower Ashland and Neil creeks contain potential spawning habilath~'Hl&ea on their gradient and substrate. While Chinook salmon usually spawn in lergyr/~h:.yains such as Bear Creek and the Rogue River, during large run years they dispxrs,~;,int.o.::smaller tributaries to spawn. ...... .... ..... .- Steelh ead rrout.:'fS~h~itive) Steelh~~d i~;::lh~;..R.ogue basin are part of the Klamath Mountains Province ESU, and were not warra~ied forfederallisting by NOAA Fisheries on 30 March 2001. Both sumn1er and winter.:.iti1Js of steelhead occur in the Rogue basin and Bear Creek watershed and are largely syparal~d.genetically by spawning timing and location (Everest 1971, 1973). Within the .d.\:9.;gue River, summer steelhead populations are considered depressed and winter steelhead ::.. .\ge~;!thy (Busby et al. 1994). In addition to habitat degradation and loss, Everest (1971) listed ..:::;::..angling pressure, and summer water quality and quantity as factors that adversely affect Rogue basin summer steelhead populations. Although habitat has been substantially altered, the Bear Creek watershed is still an important contributor to wild steelhead production in the Rogue basin. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 180 Ashland Forest Resiliency Recent estimates of Bear Creek steelhead production range from] 0,000 to alnlost 40,000 smolts, and average nearly 240 smolts per mile (V ogt 2001, 2002, 2003). Steelhead spawning has been documented in Ashland Creek below Granite Street Reservoir, and Wagner and Neil creeks downstream of the Analysis Area. It is unknown if steelhead spawning occurs in Tolnlan, Hamilton, and Clayton creeks, however small, sometimes intermittent, tributaries like these are preferred habitat for Rogue basin summer steelhead spawning (Everest 1973). Distribution of steelhead spawning and rearing in Wagner and Neil creeks is poorly understood because of the effects of passage barners and lack of survey effort. In 2002, steelhead spawning activity was observed in Neil Creek above the Interstate 5 culvyrt (thought to be a barrier), but not within the Analysis Area (Wier 2001). If they h~ve:access to the ocean, rainbow trout in the Rogue basin are generally assumed to be steell1yad unless they occur in isolated populations above barriers. However, snorkel surveysc<:mducted in Neil Creek within the project area did not find a dominant young-of-the-ye~r::class associated with high steelhead fecundity and suggested that observed trout in th~:Ap.~lysis Area were resident rainbow trout (Ecosystems Northwest 2000). In winter.2:QOQ,.:.Forest Service employees electroshocked a 0.5-mile long section of Neil Creek:::l)ear.:.the Project Area lower boundary and found only cutthroat trout suggesting absence 9.f.ste'elhead in the Project Area (Reid 2000). Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Sensitive) H." :...: . Coastal cutthroat trout in the Rogue basin are part:ofthe.''Southern Oregon California Coasts ESU, and the anadromous form (which does notc.~r.rently, and probably never occurred in the Bear Creek watershed) was found not warranted for federal listing by NOAA Fisheries on 5 April 1999. Coastal cutthroat trout i? t4e::~qst abundant salmonid in many Oregon headwater streams (Hooton 1995) and its.:pQ}Julations are often more genetically diverse and locally isolated than other Pacific salmbnpand trout (Williams and Reeves 2004). Ashland and Neil creeks are near the sotifhemJ~nge limits of coastal cutthroat trout distribution, and contain well-distributed, m?derq!~ly abundant populations, especially in their upper reaches within the Project Area (Abb~~ 1997; Siskiyou Research Group 2002a). Genetic isolation qccurfil1.1hese streanls, due to natural and artificial barners (waterfalls and dams). An ad~pvjaL.(lake~dwelling) population of SOCC cutthroat trout exists in Reeder Reservoir, aJthgu&H:'i,tsdynanlics and spawning behavior have not been studied. Small, often intermitteI1,,!? streanls draining into Reeder Reservoir (such as Reeder Gulch) may be iInport:ent sp~fw:ning habitat, while current research has docunlented lake shoal spawning in coasta~:::puttluoat trout (Saiget 2004). Little is known about the distribution and abundance of SOCG::chastal cutthroat trout in other streams draining the Analysis Area. . .' /:E,Q9thill yellow-legged frog (Sensitive) . .:..:~::<..:.:&~:910gy and distribution of foothill yellow-legged frog are poorly understood (Leonard et al. ...;:1993). Foothill yellow-legged frog was observed in lower Neil Creek (Siskiyou Research Group 2002a), but not lower Ashland Creek (Siskiyou Research Group 2001), and might occur in lower Hamilton, Clayton, Tolman, and Wagner creeks. The species inhabits streanlS with cobble, gravel, or sand bottoms and attaches its eggs on rocks underwater (Leonard et al. 1993). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORKIN PROGRESS!!I11 - 181 Ashland Forest Resiliency Effect Mechanisms While many uncertainties exist about effects of wildlife to fish (see Bisson et al. 2003), in general, direct or short-term physical effects from large scale wildland fire can include reduction in ground and canopy cover and an increase in water temperature, erosion and sedimentation rates, and changes in pH and chemical concentrations (Rieman and Clayton 1997; Benda et al. 2003). These physical effects can be manifested in fish individuals and populations by altered behavior, reduced fitness, and subsequent declines in population abundance and distribution. Conversely, wildland fires can improve fish habitat and increase.;:, fish production through increased input of large wood, gravels, and nutrients (Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Minshall 2003; Spencer et al. 2003). ./' In Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains, summer water temperature increased as much a~ f0~:",C>'in small streams that were intensely burned by the Silver Fire and lost canopy cover.: (Amaranthus 1990). However, Amaranthus (1990) found water tempera~~res:aid;n.ot increase at the mouth of large, fish-bearing streams downstream of the fire area, pos.~ibJY due to increased base flows or groundwater recharge. In Glade Creek, seven-da.x aVerage maximum temperatures increased 0.70 C the summer following the QuartzQulcHFire, while no increase was observed in an adjacent unburned watershed (Reid:::~n.P\lJY~data). In Glade Creek, SedeIl (2003) found an increase in large wood and ba~ instability, and a decrease in deep pool frequency the year following the Quartz Fire. . Effects of fire-caused physical changes to fish popul'.!:HQ.ps=;vary based on fire intensity; physical watershed parameters such as geology, drar~l:~~:::density, slope, land management, precipitation, and vegetation; and connectivity ~ng~::'a:ptl'ndance of fish sub-populations (Dunham et al. 2003; Rieman et al. 2003; ~<~rsQn~r et al. 2004). Fish population abundance and distribution can decrease in the fir;et 9r\~fq9hd year following a large .wildland fire, then increase to pre- fire levels or greater i:q,.th(fgllowing years because of improved spawning and rearing habitats (Howell 20Q3)..,.<:~p~&e:'responses were observed during recent large wildland fires in Oregon's Sis19you~'1Yl9untains with juvenile steelhead in Silver Creek (Haspiel 1990) and rainbo:y trdq:t::..~.9}Glade Creek (Chambers 2003; Reid and Chambers 2005). ..::' .... ". Many gaps exist il}ul}d~fs.tariding how wildland fires affect amphibian populations (see Pilliod et al. 20.p32.::"X.fq~nbe assumed that fires that negatively affect fish could also negatively affes.t\~.:tre,?m-dwelling amphibians, provided the amphibians and fishes share similar haq,!,!afrequirements. Wildland fires may have more adverse effects on amphibian populq!ionsJhap"fish because amphibians tend be less fecund and able to disperse efficiently. After fh.f Ql.iartz Fire, stream amphibian abundance in Glade Creek took longer to recover than:fis.p':;:(Reid and Chambers 2005). ib.;;::,Direct Effects of Alternatives .;~~.-/ -;~~; :):'.No-Action Alternative Physical scientists predict a wildland fire in the Analysis Area would have significant effects on soils and watershed properties (USDA FS 2005). Models predict a negative linear relationship between soil cover remaining after the fire and erosion. A large wildland fire in the Analysis Area that removes soil and canopy cover is likely to increase stream temperature and fine sediment production in upper Ashland, Neil, and Wagner creeks. Final EIS r IDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlIlII - 182 Ashland Forest Resiliency These physical changes would likely have negative effects on fish populations within the Project Area. There is the chance of direct mortality from excessive stream temperature caused by the ambient heat of the fire. If direct mortality is severe, sub-populations of cutthroat trout above barriers could be lost and would not be re-established. There is also the strong likelihood of reducing trout fitness in the Project Area because of reduced pool depths and degraded spawning habitat expected to occur the year following the fire, in addition to decreased macroinvertebrate production through clogging interstices with fine sediment. Tenlperature increases in some affected streams within the Project Area may be great enoug,~:_ to reduce trout fitness. Intense sediment delivery to Reeder Reservoir could greatly reduce.... spawning success of cutthroat trout, especially if shoal spawning occurs, jeopardizinR.thfs. . sub-population, Downstream of the Analysis Area, a large wildland fire-related increase in sedimentation in lower Neil, Wagner, Clayton, Hamilton, and Tolnlan creeks and Bear C~eekv';-ould adversely affect spawning and rearing habitats for coho and Chinook salmon and steeJhead. Increased sediment could negatively affect foothill yellow-legged frog breedinghaqitatby smothering egg attaclunent sites with fine sedilnent. ... .-- . Input of large wood after a wildland fire could improve trout !:.abltatln the Analysis Area, which has low abundance of instream large wood (Abbas 199Z:~.;Ecosystems Northwest 2000, Siskiyou Research Group 2002b). Because of nunlerou~ daWs.;.culverts, and bridges downstreanl of the Analysis Area, it is extremely unlik~ly.large wood would be recruited downstream into nlost habitats where anadromousfish,q{';.cur. Proposed Action ........_..._ Physical scientists predict the resulting seginlentyield would be much less than the yield following a large wildland fire, and ~.ou!d p7.:similar to baseline conditions (USDA FS 2005). The Proposed Action shoul~..;..potsignificantly change erosion and sedimentation as a result of surface erosion following tlt.~'.activities in streams draining the Proj ect Area or in Reeder Reservoir. Using mitig~tion.iiieasures in the form of Best Management Practices would protect water quality (e.g> sediment, nutrients, pH, temperature). These Best Management Practices wguld)nc1ude buffers of intact vegetation and duff layers that would separate the treatment~re~s,from streams and trap eroded soil before it moves down slope into a stream channel... . Because anlbie.hLJenlperature from prescribed bums would not significantly increase stream temperaturestg,the point of upper lethal temperature, direct mortality would not occur. Becau~e the\groposed Action would not significantly change water quality, no adverse effe~l~'to.fish in the Project Area should occur. Likewise, no effects to foothill yellow- legg~e.Jrogs or their habitat should occur from the Proposed Action, because there would be ..}:ib sigIiificant changes in water quality. -. .. ....Understory thiruling in some riparian zones could promote large wood recruitment in the Project Area by releasing conifers and reducing competition. This action could benefit trout habitat in the Project Area, but is unlikely to have any effect on downstream fish habitat because of barriers to wood migration. Final EIS !IDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 183 Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative This alternative is similar to the Proposed Action in the effects it would have on erosion and sedimentation. This alternative would stay within soil quality standards and guidelines which are designed to maintain soil quality. The primary difference between the Proposed Action and the Community Alternative is that the Community Alternative proposes 1) ground based yarding equipment, and 2) a greater reduction in relative stand density in the lower elevation P AGs (compared to the area of the DFPZs in the Proposed Action). Under the Community Alternative, downhill yarding using ground-based equipment on slope;" gradients less than 20 percent would be allowed. Mitigation measures would linlit t.his ("."".\ ." activity to less than 20 percent of an area; however there are potentially 230 acres t~,at mOeef these slope criteria in the Project Area and could be impacted by ground-based equipment. ... ..,:.~ .... While the Community. Alternative suggests slightly higher rates of erosiQn and"""\<:;. ... sedimentation, at the level and intensity of this analysis, it is unlikely that tQ:~re";is a detectable difference between the Community Alternative and Propo~~d4cfibn on levels of sedimentation that would reach streams. Preferred Alternative ..... This alternative is similar to the Proposed Action and the C()m.munity Alternative in the effects it would have on erosion and sedimentation. Thie..':alt~mative would stay within soil quality standards and guidelines which are designedo.lp+I12.~intain soil quality. The Preferred Alternative is similar to the Community Alternatix;e::.ip:<Jh'at it proposes 1) ground based yarding equipment and 2) a greater reduction iI?r~1atj.ve stand density in the lower elevation PAGs. .. Under the Preferred Altenlative, dow.~ili::::y:iFding using ground-based equipment on slope gradients less than 20 percent wqulc;l:.:h:#::''l.llbwed. Mitigation measures would limit this activity to less than 20 percent/6l.ari'::::area; however there are potentially 230 acres that meet these slope criteria in the ~roj~et::6rea and could be impacted by ground-based equipment. ... ".- ......;. ",-:::~;':" While the Preferred Altyrn~ti~.~; would have similar rates of erosion and sedimentation as the Community A1tel1Jatiy~~o.::atfhe level and intensity of this analysis, it is unlikely that there is a detectable diffeIeIJC"b~et\Veen this alternative and the other two Action Alternatives on levels ...'."'., ,:'.'.:..:.... .,,'.... ( of sedimentatiorithatwould reach stre.ams. .>.......{.:.;...., .... .*:.;.... "..- ",: b. Indire6l?Effects of Alternatives N 0- 4:'Cti~.~'AJternative ~direct)effects related to the No-Action Alternative include effects related to fire suppression -iarl'P sluicing Reeder Reservoir in the event of intense sedimentation. Suppression activities ,.:..:.."'<c;o"!.ld result in input of fire retardants and construction of fire lines that also contribute to erosion and sedimentation. Fire retardants are toxic to many salmonids and have caused fish kills when applied to streams (Norris et a1. 1991). Fire lines and other ground-disturbing suppression activities can have significant and long-lasting environmental effects, if not rehabilitated (Bisson et a1. 2003). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlfllI -184 Ashland Forest Resiliency -~-------rTr--'- Physical scientists predicted that an indirect effect of the No-Action Alternative could be severe sedinlentation in Reeder Reservoir and associated reduction in storage (USDA FS 2005). Reduced storage would likely result in mechanical sediment removal, which could potentially include sluicing. The sluicing of fine sediments and coarse sand from the reservoir bottom could severely degrade aquatic habitat in Ashland and Bear creeks, affecting fish behavior through turbidity and fitness through degradation of spawning and rearing habitats and reduction of macroinvertebrate production by clogging interstices and increasing elnbeddedness. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative Physical scientists predicted there would be no indirect effects of the treatnlents on :!~ediment delivery beyond those already described (USDA FS 2005). Subsequently, there ~ould,be no long tenn indirect effects on fish or stream amphibians from the Action Alternatiy~s, Locally, at the site scale there may be slight effects to cutthroat trout and yellow-legged frog habitat. Effects Determinations::,,: .'.. ............. Based on an extensive review of best available science, input ftorp:an-"il1terdisciplinary science team, and professional judgment, the effects from the.No-Action Alternative under the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project combined with a I arge ":.WUd I and fire would r~sult in conditions that may adversely affect SONCC coho salm:9ri~SONCC Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead, SOCC cutthroat trout, and foothill yellow~.!eg~'ed frog. The No-Action Alternative combined with a large and severe wildland fire w2uIQ.alS.o likely adversely affect SONCC coho salmon critical habitat and coho and Chinooltsalmon Essential Fish Habitat. -.--.' "." -".. Based on science review, input from ap iI?t~tdisciplinary science team, and professional judgnlent, the effects from treatments"phqer".any of the Action Alternatives under the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project would.resu1t:}n:iidetermination of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" (NLAA) for SON.CC coho salmon (Reid 2005). The sensitive species determination is "May Im:pactl~gividuals and/or Habitat" but not likely to cause a trend toward federallisting.::.or a loss of viability" (MIIH) for SONCC Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead, SOCC yut!hroat trout, and foothill yellow-legged frog. These effects are short-term. Because it redu..~.e~:h~iCof substantial short-term environmental degradation associated with a large wildl.epd ".fite,:::in the long term, any of the Action Altenlatives are likely to result in a benefiyial effect...to aquatic habitats and fauna by preventing habitat impacts associated with large wildland fire. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-267), amended the Magnuson-Stevens : -Fi~heries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require federal ....qge.ncies to consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA) on activities that may adversely affect "Essential Fish Habitat". The Act defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" and includes all freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish, marine waters, and intertidal habitats. Critical Habitat is identical to coho habitat protected under the Endangered Species Act and the determination of effect is the same. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!1I1 -185 Ashland Forest Resiliency c. Cumulative Effects Within the Analysis Area, a major activity being planned by the Forest Service is the expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. The effects of the expansion are documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for this action (USDA FS 2004). Cumulative effects in the Analysis Area could occur through increased human development, land management, and water allocation throughout the Bear Creek watershed. The increases in erosion and sedimentation associated with a large wildland fire would dilute':\:, the minor changes in erosion and sediment yield associated with the Mt. Ashland S~i";Ai~~~\ .\:" expansion to a degree that the expansion effects could not be measured (USDA FS ~004)'::5'.n Increased human development and resource management in the Bear Creek water~h€tl'~afe predicted to have adverse effects to fish and aquatic habitats within the Actiol1.:~,~e,,?-. Physical effects from a large-scale wildland fire could be acute to fish popul.~ti9rfs (primarily coho salmon and steelhead trout) in the Analysis Area when combined w~th:::effects from increased human development. . .. '..... . . ." -.....,: .... ." . o. ..,... Effects to fish and aquatic habitats from the Proposed Action, Cb11lmul1ity Alternative, or Preferred Alten1ative would be negligible compared to currellt/and"predicted future effects from human development in the downstream watersheps,.",:Inijilementing any of the Action Alternatives would reduce the risk of wildland fire, a gist~!bance that could combine with other factors to reduce fish production in the Bear CF~.~k.:,iatershed. The Bear Creek subpopulation of coho salmon is at remnant level&:t~n(rb'ould be near extinction (V ogt 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). A large wildland fire in the,('PrQ}ect Area coupled with specific environmental factors could adversely affectfcbpo.::salmon habitat quality throughout the Upper Bear Creek watershed. 14. Scenic Quality ::~~:" l. Is there concern for the resulti{tg visual character (evidence of management) and attainment o/visual quality objectives as 4..re:~ult of hazardous fuel treatments? y....;:.:.. ..:;;:......~.:-. The scenic resources ol}:,.N~tt9n;.1 Forest System lands associated with the Upper Bear Analysis Area were inventori~sL:~:hq:er the Forest Service's Visual Management System (VMS) system during the late 197;0s'ta,po'updated as specific projects were identified. Ashland Forest Resiliency will be analyz.e,q.::Jtfi'n.~ing the VMS in order to maintain the integrity of the original inventory and establishe?:Vis~.ar'(~uality Objectives (VQOs). ........ .. ,.:.:':Sc,~nic Management Guidelines .:.::\aa~ic inventories for developing the VQOs of an area include: Landscape Variety Class (A = Distinctive; B = Common; and C = Minimal) is a determination of the importance of the scenic quality of the natural landscape. Sensitivity Level (Levell = high; 2 = average; and 3 = low) is a measure of the people's concern for scenic quality. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -186 Ashland Forest Resiliency Distance Zones is a nleasurement of the landscape seen from the viewing point (foreground is up to one-half mile; nliddleground up to five miles; and background to the remaining seen area), Forested foreground scenery viewed from sensitivity level one roads and trails would be expected to exhibit a late seral character as well as a multi-storied stand of conifers. The imnlediate foreground should display a diversity of species and age groups including hardwoods and the shrub/groundcover layer. Attention to details, such as nlinimizing ground disturbance, reducing stump height~, and"> managing to view large trees is necessary to maintain the sense of a natural syste-r.n and::the traveling public's scenic expectations. Form, lines of individual trees, and color.:i~re the dominant characteristics of the seen landscape in foregrounds. .. Middleground and background areas should appear in a near natural s~at~..:with openings of sizes and shapes that would reflect natural processes. Texture aqqliries inthe landscape are important in these viewed areas. ' The Forest Resource and Land Management Plan (LRMP),<.l?90, assigned Visual Quality Objectives to each of the land allocations. As shown On,:;!.V1ap r~1 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (page 1-7), visual management al1ocati~nsj~clude Foreground Retention (282 acres) within the upper portions of Neil Creek, as~oci.ated with the Access Road (County Road 1151), and Foreground Partial Retention (1~.?4p.::acres), and Middleground Partial Retention (1,1 06 acres), as associated with:::!pe:,ro,gds, trails, and interface area next to the community of Ashland. The Northwe~t ForeS1,Plan (1994) replaced or modified the LRMP land allocations, including Late-Succ~ssi~I1~l'Reserve (LSR). The NWFP indicated that VQOs identified in current plans wouJ,d{emain (see FEMA T Appendix A, Social Assessment of Options). Sceni.c Analysis Area,....: The scenic Analysis Are~:i.s.:l?cated in the Eastern Siskiyou Mountains of the Klamath Mountains physiograpJl.iC..::province, known for its steep and dissected terrain. Green expanses of dense;C~.nif~r forests dominate the view from the upper Bear Creek valley. Natural breaks 'in:.,thj~.canopy occur at clear cuts (Neil Creek drainage), rocky outcrops, sparsely-spaceCl.::m'eadows, and ski runs. The National Weather Service radar station atop Mt. Ashland is':\:cl.eq:r-li visible. During the winter, the ski runs and meadows are more pron049ced'l)ecause of the contrast between snow and vegetation. Tourism officials in AshlCl.pd.promote the heavily forested backdrop to the City of Ashland in many of their pictllI:t~ and brochures. :<.::Pbrtions of the Analysis Area are visible from several viewpoints in and around the City of . Ashland, Interstate 5, Mt. Ashland, and adjacent to Forest Roads (primarily 2060 and 2080) and trails. The majority of visual lands are allocated in the Forest Plan to Foreground Partial Retention and Middleground Partial Retention. These areas, as seen from selected travel routes and use areas are to be managed so that, to the casual observer, results o[activities are evident but are visually subordinate to the landscape. A management system is adopted which introduces some alteration of standard vegetation treatments (LRMP 4-86 and 4-100). These lands were later allocated to Late-Successional Reserve in the Northwest Forest Plan. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 187 Ashland Forest Resiliency b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives The scenic quality of the Analysis Area can be changed by high intensity wildland fire and by management activities such as thinning that reduces stand densities, and other visually apparent management activity including burning landscapes, in both the short- and long- term. No-Action Alternative There would be no effect on current scenic quality of the Analysis Area as seen from ..any':,;,\:: location if no high severity wildland fires are assumed and no management activities-'~ou:ld: ':~" take place. However, if a large (500 acres or more) high-severity wildland fire wer~tt.R,.9ccur, there would be adverse impacts on scenic quality in both the immediate foregrq\!.P9 adjacent to roads/trails, and from more distant scenic viewpoints such as Interstate 5 5lQ:9.:;ilj~e.City of Ashland. Since the precise location of a potential wildland fire cannot be ~nQ~n, this analysis considers all viewpoints equally affected and that larger fires Yio'ufo\have more adverse effects on all viewpoints. The Proposed Action . Effects related to a large high intensity wildland fire wouldb~:the as for the No-Action Alternative. However, analysis under this alternative as~uru.~s;'that such a fire would be less likely as fuel reduction treatments would take place Oy:~tti.Dle, and would make the Analysis Area (especially areas allocated to visual Foregroup.d.'aBdiMiddleground Partial Retention), more fire resilient. '. .... Management activities associated with th~:..prgppsed Action would result in short-term effects to scenic quality within the Analysis.,,{-\n~:~, ip.flrfl"cularly from roads and trails. Proposed underburning and pile burning wou1.st?'!,y.eininor direct short-term effects on scenic quality resulting from the presence of!)lim~q'~re:es and vegetation. For most visitors, this impact, would be considered adverse. '::Qensify management would create more open forested stands. In the long-tenn, these effe:9t~,. ~dtiTd become less noticeable to the casual observer. A beneficial effect of unde~}:1~m1pg is that it often creates a mosaic of stand structures and small openings, a desira~le9h<a:r:~steristic that would meet scenic quality objectives. i:~:.;.. ~:'_ .::'-;;;::. . '~r" . '.r-, .....~ '.;:;:~..- " Over the long-reqii},~ih.~"':primary change to scenic quality would be a more open, park-like appearanct.to tnQ.:~:e<"I~eas adjacent to roads and trails. This would be a result of removing thick vegef?~.i~:,~:"st~mds by "thinning from below," pruning of limbs, and underbunling. It is anticiR~ted i~a('most people would welcome a more open forest with greater vistas and the OPpqJ.:l~TIilY to see more of what they are surrounded by. Others may prefer the more closed f::eli~:g:::~s'sociated with the current conditi<?n. ", :\:.f(:::~~iQV~r the short-term and long-term, helicopter landings would be visible from a number of .":\\:,Todltions within the Analysis Area. These landings would have both adverse and beneficial effects for the casual viewer of the surrounding landscape. Some individuals would feel that these small cleared areas (approximately 175 feet by 175 feet) would detract from the unaltered appearance of many locations within the Analysis Area.. For others, the landing sites would provide valued scenic points from which to view the surrounding landscape, both within and outside of the Analysis Area. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 188 Ashland Forest Resiliency Overall, scenic quality objectives and guidelines as viewed from within the Analysis Area or from scenic viewpoints outside of the Analysis Area, would be met. The heavily forested backdrop to the City of Ashland would appear to renlain unaltered from scenic viewpoints within Ashland and along the Interstate 5 corridor. Community Alternative Effects to scenic quality under the Comnlunity Alternative would be very sinli1ar to the Proposed Action. The prinlary difference would be that the Community Alternative would be spread over a slightly larger geographical area, thereby potentially affecting a greater I: number of scenic quality objectives. This difference in effect would be hard to mea~ure(ahd.:. not apparent to the casual observer. The Comnlunity Alternative proposes to enact treatnlents within the area allo~ate.ftas Foreground Retention (Category 2); the Proposed Action does not. Trea.,tments:proposed here would not appear noticeable and would meet the visual quality obje~tiye.:<.: Sinlilar to long-term effects associated with the Proposed Acti09:~fterEroject completion, the Comnlunity Alternative would also result in a change of character)alQng most roads and trails because of more open park-like stands of trees and other vegytatioh; This change would be spread across a larger geographical area than the Proposed .Ac.t},pn. Overall, the patchwork effect associated with the Fu~,r:I:?5scontinuity Network across a larger geographical area would result in a more varied l~p.. d~~.a.: pe relative to the Proposed Action. This' minor difference in landscape character betW.~ep'.<lhe two Action Alternatives would not be obvious to lnost persons viewing the sUl1;()uqding landscape. ':" .-:' "'}." ';;..-::: .... ... ,", Although as with the Proposed Action:;..'som.e::slnall openings may be created, all proposed fire hazard reduction treatments .~oul(t':'also be consistent with the visual quality obj ectives of Foreground and Middlegrounq<Partl.~LRetention. Preferred Alternative.,.. Effects to scenic quality...u:lld~inhe Preferred Alternative would be very similar to the other two Action Altem.etive~'..::.:~s with the other two Action Alternatives, treatments would occur within areas allocateQ:toJForeground Retention and Foreground Partial Retention. Similar to long-term effeS~.~::;~S.s9'ciated with the Proposed Action and Community Alternative after project cOlDp1etion;=:'the this alternative would also result in a change of character along most roads ~nd tr~ils;because of more open park-like stands of trees and other vegetation. This chang~::;::vould be spread across a smaller geographical area than the Proposed Action. Qverall~ the patchwork effect associated with the Fuel Discontinuity Treatment Areas would .i:::" .:t~~,~lt in a more varied landscape relative to the Proposed Action. This minor difference in ).~.'~:."::lan'~scape character between the Action Alternatives would not be obvious to n10st persons .'"viewing the surrounding landscape. Although as with the Proposed Action and Community Alternative, some small openings may be created, all proposed fire hazard reduction treatments would also be consistent with the visual quality objectives of Foreground and Midd1eground Partial Retention. Final EIS lIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!l1I - 189 Ashland Forest Resiliency Overall, scenic quality objectives and guidelines as viewed from within the Analysis Area or from scenic viewpoints outside of the Analysis Area, would be met. The heavily forested backdrop to the City of Ashland would appear to remain unaltered from scenic viewpoints within Ashland and along the lnterstate 5 corridor. 15. Recreation and Public Safety Will hazardous fuel treatment activities affect or change public use of recreation facilities and.:;,:;:" features (including illegal activities), and affect the safety of the recreating public? The Analysis Area within NFSL provides high quality dispersed recreation opportunities. The two primary uses are mountain biking and hiking, The Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) provides a major winter attraction within the upper reaches of the Analysis Area. Other recreation pursuits include hunting, fishing, horseback riding, Nordic skiing (including backcountry skiing), snowshoeing, running, dog walking, picnicking, and scenery and nature observation and photography. Camping is not allowed within the Ashland Watershed and portions of the Tolman and Clayton Creek drainages. Developed recreation sites are limited to rustic trailheads and the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. A number of recreation events are held each year, primarily running and mountain bike races. The most heavily used areas are close to the City of Ashland. One writer has characterized the area as "all the forest's a stage" for recreation activities (in reference to the Shakespearean theme of Ashland) (Hess 1986). 3. Background Historical Situation .'.': .:.;:. Recreation use in the Ashland ~gtetsh.#a'was first promoted by the City of Ashland in the early 1900s. The City helped fjnanc"e::a road several miles up Ashland Creek and touted the area as "Ashland's Grand G:enybn.;~:" Tourists and residents traveled by wagons (and later, automobiles) to a saddle ~n~':W4:pbum Ridge. From that point, some visitors followed a trail to Mt. Ashland (LaLand!;Cl~~.8()). Other recreation use in the area during this timeframe probably took plaG"ttofi"to:!her trails in the area that led from the upper Bear Creek V alley to the Siskiyou Cryst..~i:;;:l1liese trails included one in the Neil Creek area and one on the main ridge line that di'~iQ~;s<Ashland Creek from Neil, Clayton, and Tolman Creeks. Although not constructeq~{2i'~t~c;eation purposes, Forest users most likely used these trails for fishing, huntil1g-, and:~:sl~ghtseeing. \\( ~~.:.. '.' o)1:~::.. The :p;exf'Ihajor development that affected recreation use was the construction of the Ashland .Jj9op~<:Rbad by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1937. This road began above Lithia Park ,.:,. .}:~c:':::aha..passed through Four Comers, Bull Gap, and Mt. Ashland before continuing west along ,\:;;;\')hefSiskiyou Crest. It terminated near the mouth of Beaver Creek on the Applegate River. :;:..Although "built primarily for fire and timber harvest access, the 75-mile long road. . .provided some magnificent mountain scenery previously available to only a hardy few" (LaLande 1980). This road was no doubt popular with local residents and tourists. It also provided access to a small CCC-built ski shelter and ski run known as Trail Camp, located just outside the Ashland Watershed near the headwaters of Clayton Creek. Final EIS IIDRAFT'WORK IN PROGRESSIlIII -190 Ashland Forest Resiliency A less significant developnlent was the Bull Gap "Campground" or "Picnic Ground." CCC records indicate a start work date of July 1, 1936 for campground construction. However, 1937 and 1948 Forest maps do not show a campground at this location, According to long- time locals, there was an established picnic ground by the early 1950s. The picnic ground included five picnic sites, a fence, outhouses, a small water development (spring box and mortared stone fountain/hydrant. The site was dismantled in the early 1970s and currently serves as a trailhead for the Bull Gap Trail (Johnson 1993). In the late1950s and early 1960s, additional Forest Roads were constructed in the Ashland Watershed and the Neil Creek drainage for timber harvest and fire access purposes':dThe:.s.e\. roads (2060 and 2080 with their various spurs) provided vehicular access to areas t~at previously could only be reached by trails. From 1960 to the late 1980s, these roads.;:were used on an increasing basis by recreating public. Due to resource damage concerns, safety issues, and conflicts between mot<;>rized and n011- motorized users of these roads, the Forest Service has closed most of~06Q arid its spur roads to motorized use except for administrative purposes. Road 208p;:T~majns open to the public, except for a season closure in the winter months between the Z08Q/60(fjunction and the Mt. Ashland Access Road (County Road 1151). Current Situation Skiers, hikers, and mountain bikers dominate currentrea:eation uses within the Analysis Area. Skier visitation figures at MASA show an .avedigeof over 87, 000 visits per year with a record year of 104,000 in 1994/95 (MASA D:EI~<2003). ." .-:.' .~. ;.::;::-: - - .;.:. . '.' . ".-. ".... Recreational hikers have been using tl}.e An:~ly?is Area for over a hundred years and this activity remains popular today among~tl<;C~lTesidents and tourists. The areas closest to the City boundaries are the most heavily.~se9?Access to NFSL is within walking distance (under 2 miles) for many City residepls who use a number of City streets and trails located in Ashland's urban/wildland jnter{~c~. Many hikers use the 2060 Road, which is closed to vehicles throughout its length..except for the portion between Morton St. and the White Rabbit Trailhead. The ~:eayies;t use occurs on the lower reaches of Road 2060 (both ends) 'and on the following !r~ps~near or adjacent to the City: BTI, Alice in Wonderland, White Rabbit, ToothP.jG~?';;;a~d;,c:amb Mine. This use occurs on a year-round basis. Hiker use declines whereJr~ps,:.are located further away from the City due to longer access or snow cover. However;;::<during the summer months almost all trails (and roads closed to vehicle "0;.:.:.:... : traffic 1::see\lst~';on. a daily basis. Mount~ih<bikers began using the area in the early to mid 1980s. This relatively new recreation activity has grown extensively since the 1980s on both a local and national basis. :;:iR~lative to hikers, this use is more widespread throughout the Analysis Area. Popular routes ...\ipcJude the Lithia Loop, which starts and ends at Lithia Park by following Road 2060 for 'most its 28-mile length. Another route is the recently established Creek to Crest route from the Bear Creek Greenway to Mt. Ashland via a series of roads and single-track trails. Numerous other routes and loops are located throughout the Analysis Area (including Horn Gap, Eastview, and Bull Gap trails). Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!III - 191 Ashland Forest Res.ilien cy Unfortunately, a small percentage of mountain bike users have constructed a number of unauthorized trails within the Ashland Watershed. This activity has caused resource damage such as increased erosion and plant mortality. The 2000 Ashland Watershed Trails EA and Decision Notice discussed this issue in more detail. A number of component projects associated with that planning process has resulted in less illegal activity, but problems remain relative to the use of mountain bikes off of designated trails and roads. Of the remaining recreation activities, runners and those walking their dogs comprise the largest percentage of users. During the winter months, the Bull Gap Nordic Trail is a popur~r.: destination. Nordic skiers also ski to the City from Mt. Ashland after stonn events )Y.ith~fb:w.':\::::.:.: snow levels (2000-2500 feet in elevation). Equestrians also use the area on a regull[ ba~.rs';./. but not nearly to the same degree as other users. \;,.:::?;;::;..~- ";::'"':':;::-.:'. Approximately seven Special Use permits are issued each year for runnil1g ~9dJnountain bike events. Hunting and fishing use has decreased since the 1990s due td'::~ore difficult access caused by road closures. Scenic driving primarily occurs on ~9;ad~:g080 within the Tolman and Neil Creek drainages._. ',.. ... . 'Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) are prohibited within the AshllqJd~;rshed. OHV use is extrenlely low in other areas due to steep terrain and dynsevegytation. . . .....::..:... ". . Based on observations by Forest Service personnel ~~;';the;'use of trail counters, overall use was conservatively estimated at 16,000 visits per M=~.a\Jl1 2000 (Ashland Watershed Trails EA,2000). '.; ''';;:.. : . '~..' Recreation use has increased substanti~pxsi.E.eethat time and probably exceeds 40,000 visits per year within the NF boundary10. tJ~,~:'X.!!hin the urban/wildland interface on City and private lands is most likely eve~.;;gr~at~t'thie to its close proximity to homes and businesses. "The Forest at Ashland's DOOl;?tep";(.lless 1986) provides a high quality recreation experience to an increasing.::purl1Q,y:[:bfusers in a dispersed setting that is highly valued by local residents and visitors.(.-;:::"::; b. Direct, Indir.e,:E,t;'.'.'?=qJ1.Cumulative Effects of Alternatives -'::::'. .;.;,:.:( No Action Alternih\y:e It is expec\~:g.:..tlntJ.:;:durrent uses would increase in proportion to population and.tourism increases irt~#l~WRogue Valley and further honle construction in the urban/wildland interface. PotenthO cortflicts between users may increase (e.g., high speed mountain bikers encqpnt.Fring hikers on a leisurely walk). Higher visitation rates may also contribute to an in~rdts~d fire risk associated with illegal campfires, smoking, and fireworks. Since no t{'""'hazardous fuel treatments are proposed under this alternative, there is a greater likelihood of ..::;;'human-caused fires escaping the initial attack efforts of firefighters. 10 Beginning in 2001, trail counters have been placed on selected trails and roads closed to vehicle traffic. Three of these locations include Road 2060 above the Granite Street gate, Toothpick Trail, and Alice in Wonderland Trail. The combined yearly average count at these three sites was 37,550 visits, The counts were adjusted to include "out and back" visits as just one visitor. The counts do not include such popular trails and routes such as White Rabbit and Road 2060 from the "Four Corners" gate or less used trails such as Eastview and the Bull Gap Nordic Trail. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIHII -192 Ashland Forest Resiliency -----------rrr -T Proposed Action Two primary factors would affect recreation users within the Analysis Area, (]) actual project implementation and (2) actual post-project completion. It is realized that these two factors would often overlap and take place simultaneously throughout the projected] O-year implementation period. This overlap would occur on both a spatial and temporal basis. The primary effects to recreationists during the short-term implementation phase would involve road and trail closures (for safety reasons), noise (chain saws, heavy equipment, helicopters), smoke, and increased vehicle traffic. This direct effect would degrade the recreation experience for most users who have con1e to expect a quiet experience with fllllo:. access to authorized trails and roads within a relatively pristine environment. Sinc~. not a:ll. areas would be receiving treatments at the same time, many trails and roads would i'emain open while implementation activities occur. Visitor density would increase in thQ~e areas that remain open. Some helicopter landing sites are located on or adjacent to estabIisheqtr~Hs'.'and roads used as trails. These landing sites would preclude trail use during heliG9pf#fgp..erations. The greatest effect to users would be in the lower portions of the Ashl.~hd<:Watershed where the highest use occurs (landing sites I, 11, and 22-24; see Map n~,l, Chapter II). Each site would require a specific safety plan relative to trail use. For examply?,a trail might be open to the public after helicopter operations have ceased each day Qf'might be allowed to occur on weekends only. ' \:<:: .,. It is expected that most users would accept sho~.;;f?rm{T~conveniences to their accustomed habits. This would be especially true for A~.hlahd,residents who are familiar with the need to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in tQe {\~.~l<l.nd Watershed. .. . ....,.. For some users, the recreation e~pereB:c~"'\.V.ould be enhanced through viewing and observing project implementation. This yOITl1l1ept is based on conversations that Forest Service recreation personnel have gad wU.pusers during implementation of the Ashland Watershed Protection Project. Comm~nt~ such as "I really appreciate the work being done" and "now I understand what is mealjt':Q,}':Juel hazard reduction" are views commonly heard by Forest Service personnel(~o[kingjh the Ashland Watershed. ':,-.' .... ";".. A nun1ber of m.fb:ii~tio'h measures would be implemented to reduce the effects of implemenl.e.!~oIFol)-::fecreation users. These would include advanced notice of closures, signingat appropnate locations, alternate route suggestions, and notification of various user grouPS},t.see Mitigation Measures, Section C, 6, Chapter II). '.~ ":;" ;" The prirhary effect to recreationists in the long-term after project completion, would be a ..:cn?-nge in character along many roads and trail. Currently, many of these areas are border by .. _::..'\deijse tree stands and downed woody material that tend to enclose or envelop the trail or .''''road. Under the Proposed Action, these stands would be opened up through cutting and disposing of generally small diameter trees along with pruning and underbuming, resulting in a more open forest. Users reaction to this change in character is difficult to predict. Its anticipated that most would welcome a more open forest with greater vistas and the opportunity to see more of what they are surrounded by. Others may prefer the more closed feeling associated with the current condition. Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 193 Ashland Forest Resiliency A more open forest might increase the potential for a small portion of the mountain bike community to construct or establish illegal trails. Since there would be less fuel, both standing and down, trail construction would be easier to accomplish. Increased illegal trail construction (or simply riding off trail) would result in a similar increase to erosion and plant mortality. Mitigation measures to reduce this effect include increased patrol by law enforcement personnel and trained volunteers, continued cooperation with user groups to educate the public11, and signing placed at strategic locations (e.g., where DFPZs cross roads or trails). Due to funding shortages, increased patrol by Forest Service law enforcement officers may not be possible. There would be no change to existing trails within the Forest Boundary in terms oftrile~gl~. number oftrailheads. All current uses would remain as they are now. Future visitot!\~.,<..d/ increases would be similar to No-Action, but may increase slightly due to publicicyriosity about the project......." ,,~~ . Community Alternative ..... The primary effects to recreationists during the short-term impl~m~nl~t~pn phase would be very similar to the Proposed Action. The primary difference W&4!~;Jle;;'fhat the Community Alternative would be spread over a larger geographical area, Jijere~:y potentially affecting a greater number of users. This difference in effect wou~d be.hqrsl to measure and is difficult to predict, but is expected to be Ininimal. ;;;. '.<c<\\ Similar to long-term effects associated with the P~gpq:~.fd'Action after project completion, the Community Alternative would also result in a qharfg~.';of character along most roads and trails. However, this change would be spre~s}:':,\~ro~~s a larger geographical area and would include a small portion of the Mt. Ashl~n~:::~R)(i}.Area Special Use Permit (SUP) area adjacent to the geographic feature known as th~:':t~'~Q1i" (40S, RIE, Section 15). Fuel treatments within the SUP would require c?5)r4in~ti9ir with ski area management. Currently, section 15 receives very low use by backq6unt'Jy~.::..skiers both within and outside the SUP (estimated at less than 50 visits per year): Fu~l...!reatments in this area would enhance the backcountry ski experience by providing m9.'r~.:loom for skiers to navigate through dense stands. Overall, the patchwork\~ffect associated with the Fuel Discontinuity Network across a larger geographical a~.ya~.~o~ld(fesult in a more varied landscape relative to the Proposed Action. This difference.jh.fandscape character between the two Action Alternatives is not expected to change recx~atlon:'patterns on NFSL within the Analysis Area. "', ..!o:.;..;....... ":~/ Prefet~~d Alternative The prQPq.ry effects to recreationists during the short-term implementation phase would be v.~ri;sirrtilar to the other two Action Alternatives. Similar long-term effects associated with \..,....:4b:~:.Preferred Alternative would also result in a change of character along most roads and ~':\\:tpall.s . 11 Forinstance, the Southern Oregon Mountain Bike Association (SaMBA) is a highly respected local organization that has actively participated in educating mountain bikers about responsible trail use in both the Analysis Area and other areas in Southern Oregon, Members have regularly donated their time in decommissioning illegal trails as well as in construction and design of trails approved by the Forest Service. Final EIS IIDRAFTWORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -194 Ashland Forest Resiliency Overall, the patchwork effect associated with the Fuel Discontinuity Treatment Areas would result in a more varied landscape relative to the other two Action Alternatives. This difference in landscape character between the Action Alternatives is not expected to change recreation patterns on NFSL within the Analysis Area. There would be no change to existing trails within the Forest Boundary in terms of mileage number of trailheads. All current uses would remain as they are now. Future visitor increases would be similar to No-Action, but may increase slightly due to public curiosity about the project. 16. Other Semi-Primitive (unroaded) Areas J-Vill activities associated with hazardous fuel treatments affect other (non-iltvenqjried) "roadless" or semi-primitive areas that are currently ullroaded? Roadless area nlanagement became a national issue in 1972 when the Fo.r~st.=Bervice initiated a review of National Forest System Lands (NFSL) greater than 5,009racres:;:lpidetermine their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation Sysle!;i1::::"The second and final review process, the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II), resulted in a nation wide inventory of roadless areas. There are two areas on NFSL within the Upper Bear Ana{ysi.s\l\rea that were not identified in the RARE II inventory, but currently have few or no class,i:ped::toads. These other "unroaded areas" contain roadless characteristics similar to inveptori~"d':'foadless areas. There is an opportunity and obligation under NEP A to respond to the public~::J~?p;iit::received during scoping for this project. a. Background The Upper Bear Analysis f\rea.,cont'ains areas that possess some semi-primitive unroaded character and values, not inyelito.r.i~d under RARE II. This sub-section documents the criteria used to identify se~i::;;R.Dmitive unroaded areas for these values. The term "semi- prinlitive umoaded area;::~:.~~~developed solely for the Ashland Forest Resiliency process. This process was u~e(r:a~.:..pai1 of a project-level NEP A analysis and does not claim to be in accordance witl). Iwfiopa. l"roadless policy. ...- ..- -,~; '. .... It does atte~prlq:..ref1ect the concerns and values expressed during scoping; furthermore, it is not meant to~;s:atisfy anyone particular set of values as received from anyone person or organ~,z~;~ion.::q For the Upper Bear Analysis Area, those criteria include: SIZE -:.Criteria for size of area incorporates similar parameters as the national roadless policy, namely: · 1,000 acres or larger for .any one individual area, non-contiguous to any other area · Any reasonable size when contiguous to existing Appendix C inventoried roadless areas Final EIS II DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!lIII-195 Ashland Forest Resiliency "Reasonable" is further defined as having habitat value and character; a criterion of 500 feet was used to define any area in width at its narrowest point. This figure is derived from an assumption that a viable habitat "conidor" could be 300 feet with an additional 100 feet as an ecotone on either edge (300 ft. plus 200 ft.). ROADS and DISTANCE FROM ROADS Each area shall not include any managed or unmanaged, "classified" or "system" road currently on the Forest Transportation system. A "road" is defined as a motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide. A "classified" road is a road within NFSL planned or managed for motor vehicle\;,.; access including State roads, County roads, private roads, permitted roads, and Forest ~er<Vi~.e::\::: "\< Roads (36CFR212.l). (: ... .~::. ~.(!t~.~ /. An area could be adjacent to a Maintenance Level I system road; it should be no clq~.~r than one tree height from Maintenance Level 2, 3, 4 or 5 roads (as road maintenance inc,l~aesiJ~l1ing hazard/danger trees). <: VEGETATION CONDITION Based on~~verage natural stand conditions, stands should be at o;.rl~gt:to""1ate seral or late- successional stage conditions for the sub-watershed (i.e., for a!gjven ..site). ":{.:.::;.~;::: F or the Upper Bear Analysis Area, this has been detennip:#d-to b~ stands ages of approximately 120 - 140 years or more. Approximate tree diameter.~)l\}H~se seral classes range from around 17 - 25 inches. Forest structure (if present) should ins]ti'4e~~~:6me multi-layering. Densities should be at or greater than 100 square feet of basal area a,n~:ll?ye::approximately 50% in overstory crown . ~-.. ,.,.... closure. Vegetative areas can also inc1ud~t~qQ!1:g~9us natural, non-forested or sparse vegetation .... .. . "}:. '~~J;....>" types and plant communities, e.g., meado~~{;< .') - ;~;.' (: ':::;:;" '.:::;::=.-. :::::.- ....:;::\~:.. '\::: t....:~:.:{:/ DEGREE OF PAST MANAGE~~:~t\!~~~{: ":{~;. "{.:.. Areas should be relatively unt~nte;~d~::dnd un-managed; minimal past salvage activity would be acceptable. Areas would.:::t:ot ThGlycle any areas that were managed as regeneration is the last 100 years (e.g., clear-cut or s~Elt.~;;vood silvicultural treatments). . f~\::<.. ~~:\?:~:::{ ,". :~::::~ '"::~''' b. Direct and In(lire~l;~E'iIects of Alternatives . ".~: ~::::~. .-, ... . This sub-secti9.n\df.:~s-u:sses the effects to identified semi-primitive areas identified under Ashland F<?r;~.st;:~:~siliency. Direct effects include hazardous fuel treatments (density managemen.!.?surface and ladder fuel treatments, prescribed burning, etc.), occurring in areas identifiy;p through GIS analysis utilizing the above described process. Map III-# portrays the semi.::prjmitive areas. The following discussion includes the extent or area of effect (change) to these'areas. :':':'." ....;. ;\~::;;:::\:A.s ~shown on the map, there are two areas of contiguous forest that met the criteria for semi \:'.primitive areas. They include an area within the West Fork of Ashland Creek (approximately 1,739 acres), and an area in the East Fork of Ashland Creek (approximately 1,348 acres). The "West Fork" area has experienced some previous management, in the form of helicopter salvage. The "East Fork" area is essentially the RNA, and has experienced some management in the form of prescribed burning in the past (see RNA Other Issue, Section F, 5, this Chapter). Final EIS lIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 196 Ashland Forest Resiliency Note that these areas are in proximity of the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area, but are not the same and are not contiguous. They are separated by the presence of FS Road 2060, and the associated "roaded" or managed character adjacent to this road, they possess. Map IlI-5 also highlights the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (see IRA Significant Issue, Section E, 9, this Chapter). The modification of forest and evidence of human activity into these largely undeveloped areas are a direct effect; and could also create indirect human social effects. While there is a measurable difference in acres affected, the most significant and measurable effect is the mere presence of modification of the natural landscape, thus the subsequent discussions of roadless and undeveloped character focus on the differences between No-Action and the Action Alternatives. MAP 111-5. Semi-primitive Unroaded Areas (and McDonald Peak IRA) ., _'W_ _, _ ,- ;-;---: - .. , . , ". , ,_ .....-;. -, I , , . ... --. ,.., , '';;';~- , (:'-" ,r \.____. "~'"~?>iw~~r1rl;tl~{..i~~~'~ ~\.\ ,.c., , ;~, l- ~.........., r,) ,. ~.~ c.' (-j..__...; \." \.. f .-.~"i r~ if /1 \, )1 .... ' :; , ( , ..'-, , ~.. ' , -~ ; '~~'\~-r\) ..~~ } C .Lj ~..~__..~~ / ,Klalll~.th . :.. .') 'National ':. :r~ <' ~?~esJ~.~S \~ /..~-;.~'~-~(". ~""," \ \ / ~_...' r;-"t";' }t" ~. ....-... ;. .=;;~~-~ .~r?;~::~~ Ashland Forest Resiliency ,Ji~.,:.f7' I ~ National Forest Boundary McDonald Peak Roadless Area ~ Semi-primitive unroaded area o 0.5 2 Miles Final EIS !!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS!!III - 197 Ashland Forest Resiliency No-Action Alternative This alternative would maintain the current conditions with no effect on primitive recreation opportunities within the areas that currently possess an undeveloped character. Current opportunities in a primitive, natural setting with some degree of solitude, would be maintained. Proposed Action Ashland Forest Resiliency proposes hazardous fuel reduction treatments within portions of these two semi-primitive areas. These areas have no formal protection status and are allocated under the LRMP to LSR and RNA. t , Although no new roads or landings would be constructed within the RNA, managemynt",! actions such as density management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed~..:{..!pese actions would not be overly evident from a landscape or overhead view but YY,9ul~r:be visible to persons walking through areas where treatments occurred. ., ..... One short spur roads and helicopter landing may be constructed "Yithindi'e'West Fork area (candidate landing site # 13). Other management actions such as:;:~.~.n~~.ty management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed throughout the W est Fdr~..Area. As much as 2,264 acres of semi-primitive umoaded are~s:::'Rt.9posed for some form of treatment under the Proposed Action. This is an upper(:!firt~Hold of extent, as not all of this acreage within these areas may require treatment d(pting:.~iniplementation. .:. :.~.;.; ...,.... ."....:.;.. The proposed management actions may affec~, tfi~'.~Xisting character for those who feel it should remain undeveloped and show no e.'vi~e~.C'e:":of human disturbance. There would be no change to late-successional habitat or l~~:~;~'e~~l"vegetation conditions. Some stumps and evidence of management may be evideQf>,,\:':':} .- .:-:.: The ecological effects of fragrrl.7ntati''ori and late-successional forest connectivity would be minimal with these types of"Jreii'tments and the resulting reduction in fire hazard and risk may further protect the integri.!Y~~el(!pese semi-primitive areas. . ~""';;~::;.,. .:::::;.~~::;::.; :-;.: '.:.~: ~:o(:;;. "'~::" Community Alterna!_~~~\';::i:::~::'..? Hazardous fuehT~~;dli:~t\:i:rn treatments are also proposed within portions of these semi- primitive umo~~..~tt<~.i1teas under the Community Alternative. ., .~::::;~::.:.....:<::. ," ~:::::~:;.;.., ....:;.::.... Altho\lgh nq.::iiew roads or landings would be constructed within the RNA, management action~!:.~p'ch :Cas density management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed. These actiqliS\~buld not be overly evident from a landscape or overhead view but would be visible ..J6:::pers6'ns walking through areas where treatments occurred. :":\:'.1\s :.with the Proposed Action, one short spur roads and helicopter landing may be constructed : within the West Fork area (candidate landing site #13). Other management actions such as density management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed throughout the West Fork Area. Final EIS IlDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSIIIII -198 Ashland Forest Resiliency As much as 983 acres of semi-primitive unroaded areas proposed for some fonn of treatment under the Community Alternative. This is an upper threshold of extent, as not all of this acreage within these areas may require treatment during implementation. The proposed managenlent actions may affect the existing character for those who feel it should remain undeveloped and show no evidence of human disturbance. The overall effect and evidence of management would be less than half of that compared t the Proposed Action. The ecological effects of fragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity would be minimal with these types of treatments and the resulting reduction in fire hazard and risk m?":y further protect the integrity of the IRA. .. Preferred Alternative As with the other two Action Alternatives, hazardous fuel reduction treatments~l~ proposed within portions of these semi-primitive unroaded areas under the Preferred Alternative. Although no new roads or landings would be constructed within the RljA,'management actions such as density management, pruning, and prescribed fire.:.are,pro'pOsed. These actions would not be overly evident from a landscape or overhe~:9::~!;~.\V:::but would be visible to persons walking through areas where treatments occurred. '. .... As much as 1,875 acres of semi-primitive unroaded areas.;p[9IJO'sed for some form of treatment under the Preferred Alternative. This is an lJpp~Lthreshold of extent, as not all of this acreage within these areas may require treatm~.qr::q:~rin:g implementation. }.:~.: .. The proposed management actions may af!e~.~tge::'.~.xisting character for those who feel it should remain undeveloped and show no evi~re:r1"c=e.ofhuman disturbance. The overall effect and evidence of management would .;~e:!.es.s;:;;tJiah half of that cOlllpared t the Proposed Action. The ecological effects of fragmentatiol1.;anp:;'late-successional forest connectivity would be minimal with these types oftreatm~lils.;ahd the resulting reduction in fire hazard and risk may further protect the integrity of the :I:J{A;:.. Summary ;::."";;.;:.. The following table su~a,~zes the direct effects in terms of acres potentially treated, expressed as a perc.~nnig~.ofthe semi-primitive areas within the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear::'Nl~lYe}s'. Area. Table nI-4,1~ Effects to Other Semi-primitive Unroaded Areas, b)' Alternative ." ........:.. ';:~..' Acres Treated Acres Treated Within "West. Within "East Fork" Area . Fork" .Area . o 0 1 ,OSSA 1 ,2098 447 536 830 1 ,345 "West Fork" area is 1,739 acres "East Fork" area is 1,348 acres A Treatments include DFPZ, Interface, and Late-successional Habitat B Treatments include ANA only c Treatments include Priorily 1.9 T otalAcres Treated Within Semi-primitive Areas o 2,264 983c 2,175 Percent of Area Affected o 73% 32% 70% Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSlIlI1 - 199 Ashland Forest Resiliency c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives As with the IRA, ecosystem function is not a product of specifically designated boundaries. Areas identified herein, and their natural habitat, is simply one component together with the Ashland Watershed, Late-Successional Reserve, RNA and other lands whose management shapes the ecological function of the Siskiyou Mountains. Specific ecological effects of fragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity are discussed in more detail in Section E, 7, this Chapter. The ecosystem effects at the landscape scale of altering relatively. "<' natural forest in this area are also discussed in Section F, 16, of this Chapter (other non- .<.~<,<,,-'. inventoried semi-primitive umoaded areas. .~:<:'i;:. 17. Heritage (Cultural) Resources '-::;" " .;. ~~:'::~:ri:.::: Will hazardous fuel treatments may affect archaeological or historical site..~ a,ufl;J~1.currellt Native Anlerican values? a. Background Past Uses of the Area -Native Uses Based on archaeological evidence from the wider region, n9-t(\/e (or American Indian) groups almost certainly inhabited southwestern Oregon for much:qftlfe'past 10,000 years. Some of them would have occupied the upper Bear Creek val1e.~,;~t~:;.:'(including the lowest reaches of Ashland Creek), and these people would have asc~pp:~g):nio the hills and higher mountains of the Ashland vicinity on seasonal hunting and".:.g~therihg expeditions f .-:.:::~;;~: .~-:~):... If:::.. .~:~~{.:.:_..~;'~\:.....~.} By the time that Euroamerican explorers p~.S$:~d::fhrough the valley during the 1820s-1840s, the native peoples that liv~d in the vSlJn~XicQ!1sTsted of two groups: Upland Taklema (a.k.a. "Latgawa") and Shasta. These two ~.i.1.h\fti;:groups spoke distinctively different languages but they shared a very similar way!of..lit;":a~ "11unters/gatherers/fishers. During the 1840s-50s a Shasta village was situated on i2:we~!:"Ashland Creek (within the present city limits of Ashland, apparently near tfl:~,,>pregeiit Plaza); however, it is likely that both Shasta and Upland Takelma bands seasonally:::j)%:~~ed through and regularly used the mid-elevation forests that are included withi~ w.h.e.t\::i:~:~n()"w the proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Area. ~(~~~~~~;:;:. t. .t::~t;{~;:J: :~. ". '.~~<;:: ..:~~:r:t Early-summer fb\~'ar:ly;:'fall hunting of large mammals (deer and elk, primarily) accounted for much of this st{:~~.Qhal use. Cooperative game drives that employed extensive ground-fires to .,.... .. \: herd anim~ls~~;ulls16pe"to a chosen killing ground may have occurred in the foothills of the .. .", .~. 'W Projeot"Are~?-(this activity is known to have occurred elsewhere locally, based on the direct testi91:RPYt<,Pf"Takelma and Shasta elders who were interviewed by anthropologists around 1900.):.~..)-ligher-elevation forests (such as upper Neil Creek and near Horn Gap) probably saw . A~~J.TIe';;hat more limited amounts of hunting (and this by smaller groups or even solitary i.,h;:\h'i!nters), as well as late-summer harvesting of various edible berries and roots. Fires were . '.:\::\:;:~:is~:' frequently set on the area's lower slopes in order to help maintain a more open oak/pine- dominated ~oodland (and hence more productive in terms of its important edible plants) than might have- otherwise been the case with only lightning-caused fires. Sugar-pine nuts, acorns from California black oak, serviceberries, bulbs of various members of the Lily family --- all of these would have been important food sources available in relatively plentiful from the slopes of the Project Area prior to the recent era of fire-suppression (and that era's resulting increase in forest-stand density and change in species composition). Final EIS IIDRAFT WORKIN PROGRESSIIIII - 200 Ashland Forest Resiliency Past Uses of the Area -Historic-Period Uses The earliest Euroamericans to actually see the hills of the Project Area were fast-moving brigades of fur trappers who passed through the vicinity in the 1820s-40s. Beaver trapping within the steep-gradient streams of the Project Area would have been unproductive; however, these parties may have hunted the foothills for deer and elk as they traveled through the valley. The first permanent settlement by Euroamerican farmers in the Ashland area began in the early 1850s, in association with simultaneous gold discoveries nearby in the Rogue and Klamath basins. Hunting of large game definitely brought farmers, miners, and others into the higher hills, as did the very labor-intensive, horse-fox en-powered logging 0(. selected ponderosa and sugar pines on the lowest slopes for dimension lumber and 91iniIj'.g::"".:. flumes. . <:,.::. ., '-:.;;.::.:~;...:-:.:.::...- As the communities of Ashland and Wagner Creek (later Talent) began to thriv.e_:<:e_~ring the late 1850s through the 1870s, local residents diverted the waters of Ashl?nd.Cfeek;:Tolman Creek, Wagner Creek, and other lower-reach streams into irrigation ditche~ aqq into flumes that powered sawmills, flouring mills, and a woolen mill. (Within theP~9ject Area itself, mining remained only a relatively small-scale activity.) With th~.xai1fo~d;.s arrival in the Rogue River valley during the 1880s local products such as whe~t,::lY.irlber, wool, and (after 1900) orchard fruit could now be shipped to far-distant mark~:t? Woolgrowers grazed herds of sheep in upper Neil Creek and in the headwaters of Ashlan.2.freek, leading to protests from water-quality-conscious townsfolk. This situatioh::lect,::jn"i893, to a presidential proclamation creating the Ashland Forest Reserve -~.:_:fr~T:which sheep were to be excluded. Starting in the 1890s and increasing through thy.:.<-l:~~.Q's., local lumbermen (now assisted by steam-powered skidders that accelerated PtP9\!:~tt2,n .:and enabled logging on much steeper slopes) ventured higher into the hills to l~g.}ht:.J)ig old pines. Such operations included small-capacity rough-cut sawmills su~h:~~tv.ose that operated on the middle section of Neil Creek, near the present site of Ashl~qp.:.C(.r.eek's Hosler Dam, and near Wagner Gap. National Forest land in these and other cofuply':!.~ly reforested areas still are marked by rotted pine stumps and by the now barelY-\f:~i?le'.-'log-skid trails gouged into the granitic soils by steam donkeys ,"..". The USDA ForestSerxi.by-;.assumed responsibility for the Forest Reserve in 1905, soon expanded and renahl~dl!.pe:Crater (now Rogue River -Siskiyou) National Forest. The early Forest Service bqJ1h:!fails and fought fires (including a sizable Ashland Creek bum in 1910 that required eQ!~rgency reinforcements of US Army troops to suppress). In the 1920s the agency bui,1t::::fJ,r~.'16okouts on the summits ofMt. Ashland and Wagner Butte, stringing miles oftelephone)irie to connect these remote stations to the ranger's office below. The City of Ash~~rl:a.::::~..c:lstly improved its domestic water supply and storage capacity during the 1920s with::,y.:2pslruction of Hosler Dam, impounding a stretch of Ashland Creek into Reeder . Reser\i.oir . ;'\::\:~:::Buting the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the most famous and effective - employment/conservation program of the New Deal, brought hundreds of young men to work in the National Forest. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSI!l1I - 201 Ashland Forest Resiliency The Forest Service employed C.C.C. crews on a variety of projects in the Project Area, but the most important of them was construction of the "Ashland-to-Beaver Creek" loop road (portions of present FS roads 2060 and 20). This route linked the town of Ashland directly to the highest slopes ofMt. Ashland. Meant to provide for (among other purposes) faster fire suppression, the "Loop Road" increased public travel through the Project Area. It even accessed a very small and primitive ski-area, "Trail Camp," developed by the C.C.C. and used by local residents on through the 1950s and early 1960s. Ashland Creek and adjacent drainages have experienced a number of major flood events f',;,-:........,'. since the first recorded severe flood of 1855. (Subsequent notably destructive Ashl~n9 <kfe~k\;: floods occurred in 1892, 1927, 1955, 1964, and 1974, with the 1997 New Year's f1~pd b'~ing ::' the most recent.) Fire suppression became increasingly effective in the Project A[ecF!.after 1910. Soon, partly as a result of the near-absence of fire, major vegetational c.pan.~es began to occur, particularly in the lower and middle elevations. During the early 1:9J):Os:~tthe Forest Service logged a number of scattered clear cut units in the Ashland Wate..rsQfd~lmainly in the northwestern section, with the associated new roads providing better~~h,tsle:::faccess in case of fire. Also during the early 1960s came development of the Mt. ~&hl~na:BRi Area, as well as weather-radar and television-transmitting facilities on the mount,!j~::~:::;'stiinmit. Over the past three decades, municipal water concerns have\d~~in~ted the management and the kinds of activities occurring within most of the PrpJ,y,st"1\rea. Unauthorized camping and campfires have proven to be a difficult activity to copttql>;::.Recreational use on National . /.~ ~ Forest land has increased exponentially, with baclseolihtry skiing, a proliferation of hiking/mountain biking trails, speciallong-dist~n~,f+pi-rll1ing events, expensive homes built on nearby private land, and other factors co'Utriputihg to this pattern. Tribal Consultation .".\.,. '.:<. As part of its government-to-gov,errpn.@nt:)~bnsultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes, the Forest Service formally contaq!"ea- ah~:tJnvited consultation on Ashland Forest Resiliency with the three federally recogni4.ed fitipe&}that include descendants of the original Upland Takelma and Shasta inhabitants of t~~\lt'pp~r~Bear Creek valley: Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confede~~t~p"Xnbes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, and the Quartz Valley lnd!,~n;.R~s'ep'ation (Ft. Jones, CA). . .<:\\~::::' {:;,:::t"; b. Direct, In41t:i:bi:+and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives \:~':<l" . \:,:,~~t}.> . , BegiDWng 'ip:::U~e "late 1970s, the Forest Service has conducted a number of cultural resource surve)t~~{yvitHjn most portions of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Area. These past sear~he.~::1:or archaeological and historic sites have included most of the acreage of what is cl~ss~HiJd as "high-probability ground" within the area (i.e., land-types considered to have a ,}(...:,:hi'gp probability for containing significant cultural resources). These surveys resulted in . i\;;',::.\\d.oG~mentation of a number of previously unknown resources, ranging from isolated chipped- .\).stone artifacts (such as arrow-points) to historic-period sites and features that resulted from past mining, homesteading, or logging. Many of these sites, although they have been adequately recorded for posterity, are evaluated as not significant cultural resources. Other sites found during these past surveys do meet the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESSflIlI - 202 Ashland Forest Resiliency No-Action Alternative The No Action Alternative, would have no direct impacts to any heritage, or cultural, resources. Because of the nature of this alternative, no cultural resource sites would be affected, either negatively (e.g., potential damage) or positively (possible site enhancement or public interpretation), by project or project follow-up activities. A longer-term effect of this alternative likely would include high-severity fires that could: (a) incinerate the combustible portions of cultural resources (including any as-yet undiscovered historic cultural resources); and/or (b) reveal currently unknown prehistoric or historic resources that are obscured beneath organic litter and duff. Proposed Action, Community Alternative, and Preferred Alternative \ The Action Alternatives entail various amounts of ground-disturbing activities ofthe::type that can potentially affect cultural resources. These differences are insignificant:petween the Action Altenlatives. Under all of the Action Alternatives, sites found d~Ting::past surveys that meet the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Placc:s:::~~)::,&ignificant resources, are excluded from Ashland Forest Resiliency's Project's ar.ea8.::.5>fpotential effect. Mitigation measures would be required to notify the Forest Arch.e~016gisfif any sites are discovered during project implenlentation. .... ";'-. Ashland Forest Resiliency is determined to be a "no historic:.e.~:operties" undertaking. This detennination was made by the Forest Archaeologist U'nf!ef-::tpe-tenns of the 2003 Programmatic Agreement between ACHP, Oregon ~~;Ofand USFS R6. See FEIS Appendix K for more information on this determinali:~:~'-.: G. OTHER EFFECTS The following is a summary of effects tpatwere considered during the analysis process, not necessarily as issues, and not always totally quantifiable. All effects analyzed for all Action Alternatives were detennined tg,::;:?e.consistent with goals, objectives and Standards and Guidelines identified in the ~O&,ie,:River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the North'YestFor:est Plan. .... .... 1. Public and V'(pr~er:Safety "':~'" "=:;;: .;:.......;.;.::~.::... ; There may be-.:a:::~:Qa~.~m for increased risk of accidental injury to members of the public who recreate ir(:.~he Pt9ject Areas during implementation activities. The application of mitigation measure~,:;:2:e~i.gn.ed for the protection of forest visitors would minimize this risk. Mitigation measure~:,:~ould include: restricted operations during specific industrial implementation actions; infQrningnlorest visitors of altenlative use areas through signing of the Project Areas; and partial 8,f..:::S.~~m:?lete closure of SOlne areas during implementation activities. '\::.,,;.:,All project activities (Forest Service actions and actions under Forest Service contract ... authorities) 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). Final EIS I!DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS I"" - 203 Ashland Forest Resiliency 2. Relationships Between Local and Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and Maintenance or Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Analysis indicates that long-term production and quality of water, maintenance and development of late-successional habitat, and protection of Late-Successional Reserve values would be enhanced by the implementation of fire hazard reduction activities. Both Action Alternatives would help to protect long-term productivity by reducing the risk of large-scale high-severity wildland fire. With full implementation of the mitigation measures and management .,. requirements and constraints developed for the Action Alternatives, soil productivity would be<:.:"'<::::. maintained over the long-term. ..""::...,. ...:- .k. Under the No-Action Alternative fire hazard would continue to increase. The risk ofJaige-"scale high-severity wildland fire would be higher than with implementation of any of t~:~<::~qtion Alternatives. The potential effects of large-scale high-severity wildland fire",unq~rJlie No-Action Alternative are discussed in various section of this chapter. \~:::,{(:{ 3. Environmental Justice Environmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicabl~ and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before ge~is.i9ns are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from,.j.fl.2'::are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner, by govern~.n~ht,programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. (::, C::ri::' ... One goal of Executive Order 12898 is to provfd,t';:<tq:::th(:~ greatest extent practicable, the opportunity for minority and low-income H9npJ~tions to participate in planning, analysis, and decision-making that affect their health 6r\?hX..1..!6iunent, including identification of program needs and designs. '.-.. '.. This public involvement proc~es fd'r\lh,y)Proposed Action has been conducted under Departmental regulation 5600-~~\pec.ember 15, 1997, including the Environmental Justice Flowchart (Appendix E). 1]~e:::rroposed Action, its Purpose and Need, and area of potential effect have been clearly. q,eA.p~.d::'. Scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act has utilized extensive qP~::5:~:re,~tiv'(~ ways to communicate. '\~;:..t .-:~:::.: "~y'" ,-;.':;. "::::'. f" This Proposedfl~.cfi.0n::abes not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority 0.1. 10W:;Jnq:ome populations. Extensive scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns associated~}.}Vith t,he principles of Environmental Justice. No mitigation measures to offset or ameliorc,tte"\~~yerse affects to these populations have been identified. All interested and affected partixs ~ilrcontinue to be involved with the public involvement and decision process. ". ".:;~<"'-"'.; .::...~~ 4:{\~'AdYerse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided -':-." .... ';';'." ~..; .,::\:(::~~:,,::the implementation of either Action Alternatives would result in some adverse impacts to the physical, biological, and human environments. Many of these impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels using the Mitigation Measures specified by resource topic and alternative (see FEIS Chapter II). The unavoidable adverse impacts summarized below are those that are expected to occur after the application of mitigation measures, or cannot be mitigated to a level approaching existing conditions. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK INPROGRESSIIIII - 204 Ashland Forest Resiliency lncreased sediment delivery and water qualit)': Although mitigation measures (Best Management Practices) are expected to reduce the potential for accelerating sediment production to near baseline levels, there is a minimal risk for short-term indirect impacts to water quality as a result of implementing any of the Action Alternatives. The risk for short- tenn impacts is lower than the potential adverse impacts that could result from large-scale high-severity wildland fire associated with the No-Action Alternative, Soils/site productivity: Under the Action Alternatives, some detrimental soil impacts wouJd". occur as a result of the use of heavy equipment to remove trees for fire hazard reduction,."'and'< fonn prescribed burning. Mitigation measures would limit the detrimental areas to ~p1eet ":R6 and Forest Standards and Guidelines for soil protection. .-:""":,,,;.;,,'-' . Air quality: Project design and nlitigation nleasures are expected to reduce"the'.potential for air quality degradation. The potential exists for changes in atmospheric cOI1:gitions that would allow smoke and particulate matter to drift down slope into re~idenJial areas and the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Managenlent Area, causing min~ps~ort:Jenn impacts on air quality and residents sensitive to smoke. All prescribed bumirig'qperations would be conducted in compliance of Oregon Smoke Management Guid..eliri.es administered by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. .... Late-successional habitat: Under the Action Altel}l~ti~~:s, 918 to 1,270 acres of late successional habitat would be treated, modifying ~,~hi:~;of the late-successional structure such as reducing some large woody material, multi-9an<?,p\y layering, etc. These impacts are considered minor in context of the Mt. Ashl~hd::Late-Successional Reserve, especially when considering that fire hazard reduction t;eqtm,~!lts would reduce the risk for large-scale losses of late-successional habitat that couldresllltJrom large-scale high-severity wildland fire associated with the No-Action J.\ltemative~ -.. Wildlife: As a result of th~,rerhqyal and or modification of various vegetation structures that serve as habitat for a varietY::'ofwildlife species, some wildlife species may be adversely impacted with individua...!.s.'l?~ing displaced from their current locations, direct mortality, etc. Mitigation measur.~;~ ~rid.,:pr6ject design criteria are expected to minimize these impacts, however, they G.erm~~>t,;,S~:)1npletely alleviate all impacts. Impacts specific to the species considered is qisbl.l~.sed in detail in this Chapter. ~--.......~:.:;:=~~.:. - .~ N oise:""Undel>the Action Alternatives, noise from connected actions, e.g., chainsaws and helicopt.~rs Q'perating in the Project Area are likely to be heard in residential areas located in the t:6bthills of south Ashland, near the Project Area. The noise from operations throughout mosf'ofthe Project Area would be buffered (reduced) as a result of topographic breaks. ,....:'No\se would be the most noticeable during periods when helicopters would be operating in .."the,.:north end of the Project Area, near the Forest Boundary. Recreation: Recreation use within the Project Area would be impacted to some degree under any of the Action Alternatives. Actions would displace some recreation use where partial closures would be needed for visitor safety. There would be some disturbance above nomlal conditions from increased activities associated with underbuming and/or chainsaw use. Although mitigation measures are designed to minimize the impacts on recreation use, the impacts would not be completely alleviated. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS I! III - 205 Ashland Forest Resiliency 5. Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains Wetlands assaciated with Executive Order 11990, are likely to exist within the Praject Area but da nat exist within areas prapased far management treatments. If any wetlands were to be lacated during praject layaut, apprapriate buffers wauld be pravided in compliance with the Aquatic Canservation Strategy .of the Narthwest Farest Plan. There would be no effects an flaadplains associated with Executive Order 11988 as a result implementing this fire hazard reductian prapasal, as nane exist .or wauld be affected. 6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects .......:,;; ":'~::~~'" \. ......:;.::.;: Irreversible cammitment .of resaurces refers to a loss of non-renewable resourcem;;;s:l1'8has mineral extraction, heritage (cultural) resources, or to those factors, which ar~;~T~~'ewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity. Under No-Action, there}youlQ He no irreversible or irretrievable commitment .of resaurces. .. ..z.... Under the Actian Alternatives, additianal area wauld be irreversi~ly cOmmitted fram the cannected actions assaciated with landing canstructian ang rgads\;;;;;;;;J'hese impacts are cansidered necessary ta implelnent and maintain the efficacy of haza~;~Q~~;:;'fuel treatments over time. ":'-\';" .-::\.;.......;..:- Irretrievable cammitment applies ta lasses that are teI,:Qpbr~ry, such as use of renewable natural resaurces. The production last wauld be irretrievaqT"(::~h:but the actian would nat be irreversible. Vegetation remaved as commadity byproducts\~'d~r::the Action Alternatives, is considered an irretrievable impact. Forest conditions wo:q1cth~,fyrri, but it would take many decades for them ta .obtain the current conditians. .... The vegetation that wauld be remqyed ~nd;er the Action Alternatives would also have value as late-successional wildlife habit~:~, ahdLor human value for recreation or aesthetics, and would be irretrievably last. However, thrs<<;hDpact is in accordance with the management goals and .objectives afhazardous fu~hffeqpc"tion treatments. 7. Recreation QPR~r;h:inity Spectrum :.:.:;~~".:. t: l\:~. : ..:-~:.;.., The area .of cdnsj:2.~tafi~n is cantained within a range of Recreation Oppartunity Spectrum classifica~ion iri~luaing "Roaded Natural, to Semi-Primitive Non-Matarized". The existing classificad6'us would not be changed with the implementatian of either Actian Alternative, and wauld bfih: d'Ompliance with Forest Plan management direction. "::::~.;......"., .., . ,. ,,<: ~l;;.'::::~ff~cts on Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land f '~\~'. ':~.~;l xf ... $li alternatives are in keeping with the intent .of Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 far ";.'.:.";.prime farmland. The Upper Bear Analysis Area daes not contain any prime farmlands or rangelands. Prime forest land is nat applicable ta lands within the National Forest System. In bath Action Alternatives, Forest system lands would be managed with coordinatian and sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands. Final EIS IIDRAFTWORK IN PROGRESSIIIII - 206 Ashland Forest Resiliency 9. Energy Requirements of Alternatives Under the Action Alternative, variaus amaunts .of fassil fuels, and human labar wauld be expended. Fossil fuel energy wauld not be retrievable. Hawever, they are not in short supply and their use would nat have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. 10. Effects of Alternatives on Minorities and Women Prior to the public-scaping pracess far Ashland Farest resiliency, in order to seek current trigel.:;:... ... views on the proposed prajects and the question .of possible angaing traditional uses orpther..;'..;'... cancerns about the area, the Parest Service fonnally contacted and invited cansultation:;:..on Ashland Farest Resiliency with the three federally recognized tribes that include descendants .of the original Upland Takelma and Shasta inhabitants of the upper Bear Creek valley:;:;.'<; Canfederated Tribes .of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Canfederated Tribes afthe..Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, and the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation (Ft. JaneS,.C1\}::uNa interest from these Tribes was expressed. Therewauld be no discernable differences among alternatives regardiijg'.effects an Native An1ericans, women, other minorities, .or the Civil Rights .of any {merican Citizen. Final EIS IIDRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS I! III - 207 Ashland Forest Resiliency r ti ,, I �. ___..-- -___ - -- - �T c ( ( (-) , ....../ ( ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCY SISKIYOU MOUNTAINS RANGER DISTRICT FEIS APPENDIX F TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION June 17; 2008 ..-....: ,'. .... -:: - :': -;. ". .: . - . - ~ '-.;" . -:..' . - '-'.. - " ..... ....- ".-.; ....... PreparedBy: JeffY~ienast;~:..... .. . Cascade Zarie\W.ildlife Bialogist Rogue River-Sistqypu National Forest Reviewed By: 'Davii{ Crayton Farest Wildlife Biologist Rogue River-Siskiyou National Farest . - -ITI-T- Executive Summary This Wildlife Bialagical Evaluatian evaluates the patential impacts of Ashland Forest (') Resiliency within Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) OR-76 in the Ashland Creek, Neil Creek, Upper Wagner Creek, and Hamilton Creek sub-watersheds of the Bear Creek fifth-field watershed on Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive species listed on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Siskiyou Zone. Conferencing with the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been on-going. CansuItation will be initiated after the Preferred Alternative is identified (likely between Draft and Final EIS). Ashland Forest Resiliency falls within the Mt. Ashland LSR RO-248 and CHU OR-76. Late- and mid-successional habitat occurs within and adjacent to the praposed project on National Forest lands. Eleven northern spotted owl (NSO) activity centers occur within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat far spotted owls would be removed, downgraded, and maintained by the praposed project. Mitigation measures will meet the Project Design Criteria found in the 2004-08 Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion (USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS 2003). The following table provides a Summary .of ConcIusions.and Effects for Threatened and Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species, known ta be within and/or affected by the project. Table F-l. Summary of Effects to Tbreatell.ed and Sensitive Animal Species MIIH NI MIIH MIIH NI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH NI Legend for codes used In above table: NI = No Effect or Impact APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 1 () LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect MIIH = May adversely Impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the planning area (Rogue River NF) nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide BI = Beneficial Effect or Impact I. Introduction Hazardous fuel treatments and connected activities cansidered under Ashland Forest Resiliency require a Biological Evaluation to be campleted (FSM 2672.4). It is Forest Service palicy ta pratect the habitat of listed threatened or endangered species from adverse madification .or destruction, as well as to protect individual .organisms from harm .or harassment as appropriate (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670.3). This Biological Evaluation was prepared for the propqsed Ashland Forest Resiliency Project,which will be authorized, funded, and conducted on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (ROR-SIS NF). The purpase of this evaluation is to determine and document the possible effects that the propased activity and alternatives would have on anyE;ndangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Sensitive wildlife species (FSM 2672.4). A second objective of this evaluation is t<fensure these species receive full consideratian in the decision-making process, ta maintain species viability and meet defined recovery goals. The Biological EV(lluation process (FSM 2672.43) pravides a description of office analysis/field wark dane, andl11itigation activities necessary to ensure proposed management actions willriotlike~y jeopardize the:continued viability of: . . ',' . . . .. . . -., .'. A. Species listed .or proposed to be listed as endangeted:<~} of threatened (T) by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.. ",- ,'. ... . B. Species listed as se.1.1sitive:($):py the USDA. Forest Service Region 6 (USDA FS 2008, FSM 2670.44)... d,.. , "', ....'... .' .' '.' .... -,'. ,-..-- -. . . . ... ... .. '" '- "',-' The Biological Evaluatioh.is;.Cl5~~teppr~cess. Eac11Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive specie.~.(PEJS) potehti.~l1y occurririg jn the prapased Ashland Farest Resiliency ,-. . . Praject Are~iwas eVall1at~~ based: on these steps, (evaluation of impacts an a given species may be camplete at the end of~tep #1 dr:rnay extend thraugh step #5). ( Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) In campliance with Section 7 .of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(1973 et seq.) and the Forest Service Biological Evaluation process far Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) wildlife species, the list of species potentially occurring within the Upper Bear Analysis Area was reviewed. Lists for the RR-SIS NF and the Pacific Narthwest Regian (R6) were reviewed in regard to potential effects on any of these species by actians associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency. Pre-field and recannaissance results are summarized belaw. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 2 (C. ...\ ,'s,1 ...-.,..,' Table F-2. Terrestrial Wildlife TES Species Presence Wildlife Species Pre-field Review Field Surveys Scientific Name Existing Sighting or Habitat or (Common name) Potential Habitat Species Present Threatened Species Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Yes Yes Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmara/us No No Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis No No Sensitive Species Black Salamander Aneides f1avipunctatus Yes Yes California Slender Batrachoseps attenuatus No No Salamander . Siskiyou Mtn. Salamander P/ethodon stormi No No Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boy/ii No No Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa : No No .cc Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata marmorata . Yes Yes Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us :; Yes Yes American Peregrine Falcon Fa/co peregrinus anatum .:c... Yes Yes: Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus :.. No No Lewis' Woodpecker Me/anerpes /ewis c :c ccc Yes Yes White-headed Woodpecker Picoides a/bo/arvatus Yes Yes Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis . No No Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus : :.;;;; cOco Yesc; ..:cc .. Yes ; :..; Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii.. . Yes C". Yes .... . Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes .Hi :.... /. Yes .. Yes Wolverine Gu/o gu/o /uteus .:...:> ... c.. .....:..... No No Fisher Mart~s pennanti .Jcc:.:, Yes Yes Western Ridged Mussel . Gonidea angu/ata .,. No No ..., Evening Fieldslug .Deroceras hesperium (*) . No No . .. .. ":': Klamath Rim Pebbles nail ..0 . Fflu.minico/,fsp. novo 3 (*) : c. .... No No Oregon Shoulderband Helminthoglvpta hert/eini ... Yes Yes ," Highcap Lanx Lanka/la: .... :....c ,.c......:. c..:.: No No c...:.' .Cc:.:... ,.... .. ;..;:.:;: :.." Scale Lanx:: .. ..:.. .:..c.. ....:. >t .c Lanx k/amathensis .:" No No Chase Sideband .: Monadeni,ichaceana Yes Yes Green Sideband Monadenia fidelisb~fYllica No No TravelingSid~band Mori~cI~nia fide/is. ce/euthia Yes Yes Robust Walker:": :.. Pom~tiopsis biilneyi No No Pacific Walker .;.;...':'..' Pomatiopsis californica No No Crater Lake TightcoU... Pristi/oma arcticum crateris No No Siskiyou Hesperian . . Vesperico/a sierranus No No Johnson's Hairstreak .. : Callophrys JQ!7nsoni Yes Yes Hoary Elfin , Callophrys polios maritima No No Insular Blue Butterfly P/ebejus saepio/us Iittoralis No No Mardon Skipper Polites mardon No No Franklin's Bumblebee Bombus frank/ini Yes Yes Coronis Fritillary Speyeria coronis coronis No No Siskiyou Short-horned No No Grasshopper Ch/oea/tis aspasma APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 3 II. Description of the Proposed Actions (~) Ashland Forest Resiliency project is designed to reduce the potential for large-scale, high intensity fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The Forest Service is analyzing Ashland Forest Resiliency as an authorized hazardous fuels project under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. There are three action alternatives identified in the Final Enviranmental Impact Statement for the Ashland Forest Resiliency project, the Propased Action, the Community Alternative, and the Preferred Alternative. All action alternatives provide proposals and prescriptians that would reduce hazardous fuels. Other treatments include surface fuel treatments, activity fuels treatments, and prescribed fire. Yarding systems are limited to helicopter in the Proposed Action. The Community Alternative and Preferred Alternativeincarporate ground-based skidding where slopes are :S 200/0. Prescriptions under each alternative are varied and site- specific. Please see the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for sitespecific details of proposed treatments. III. Description of the Action Area Under Ashland Forest Resiliency, only Nati()nal Farest Systel11pands would be treated. The legal description of the area being consideredisT. 39 S., R. 1 E., in sections 17, 19,20,21,25, 27,28,29, 30, 31, 32,33,34 and 35; T. 40 S.,R/LB:~,in sections 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13,14, 15 and 17; T. 39 S., R 1 W., in sectians 24;25~.2~, 34, 35 and 36; and T. 40 S., R. 1 W., section 1 and 2, W. Jacksqrl County, Oregor. IV. Description oft~e Specle~, Listed Under ESA .,' .' Infarrnation an the ecalag)rpf.theiii()t1lJ.~rtl spattedpwl is contained within, Endangered and threatened wil~1.ife.'alld.. plantsf.qetennihatiol1.()f:threatened status far the northern spotted awl: final rule. (LJSDI Ffsh'a~,dWildHf~;~~rvice. 1990), Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;4etermination of=c~tical habit~tfor the northern spotted owl; Final rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992), S:Ciehtificev~Hu.ation of the status of the northern spotted owl and the draft Spatted Owl RecoverylHan (Courtney et al. 2004and 2008), and Status and trends in demography afIlorthern spotte~ owls (Anthany et al. 2004). Spotted Owl E nVlf9nl!'en tal Baseline ( The Upper Bear water~hed is approximately 231,000 acres in size; abaut 210,000 acres of the watershed is in private, state, or other gavernment; the forest manages approximately 21,657 acres of the watershed. Natural plant community types within the watershed are diverse. In the lower elevations Oregon white oak woodlands and grasslands, chaparral, Douglas-Fir, and panderosa pine .occurs up to about 2,500 feet. Above this is a mixed conifer zone dominated by Douglas-fir, incense cedar, ponderosa and Sugar pine, and white fir in more mesic sites. Above 4,000 feet is the white fir-Shasta red-fir zone with mountain hemlack and small amounts of white bark pine that can be found up to open racky herbaceous grasslands on the highest peaks above timberline. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 4 :~~~I;~;!~!~~[~~~t;~~~:~~X~~r~~'0~)~i:~';,:!;;~i';;'i\ ",~~~~~;:i:l~;it~;i~'~~l,j.q::;~;'J~r:.ri~B;~(;~\;!t!~,i;Yi!,(,;ri[\!;itg~11tii!r~~~~*J~'r:~~t!1'~ill ( ) Section 7 TOTAL FS ACRES CAPABLE DISPERSAL ONLY *(%PROTECTED) NRF *(%PROTECTED) TOTAL SPOTTED OWL PAIRS Bear 21,657 19,275 2,309 (100 14,281 (l00 11 "'Protected = "large"land allocations with no programmed timber harvest (Wilderness, LSR, Riparian Reserves except intermittent, etc. I. Data from Geographic Resource Solutions Landsat Dataset (GRS) LSR Baseline Mt. Ashland LSR - RO 248 All of areas proposed far treatments are within the northern portion oftheMtAshland Late Successional Reserve (LSR) RO-248, designated by the Northwest Forest Phulin 1994. The Mt. Ashland LSR links the high elevation Siskiyou range of the Klamath PhysiOgraphic Geological Pravince with the Sauthern Oregon Cascades~< Thi.s link is a critical node in the LSR network in the SW Oregon. It allows flow to and from all legs and arms of the LSR network in SW Oregon and NW California, a process.important to the Region as a whole. The Mt. Ashland LSR consists entirely .of Natianal Forest laI1d~."The majarity ofth,eLSR. is coniferous forest. Douglas- fir and ponderosa pine communitiesdofninateat the loweielevations. White fir cammunities daminate the middle elevatians'iwith Shasta.xed fir dominating the higher elevations, and giving way t().I?auntain hemlock ~t;the highestelevatians. Ninety-one percent of the lands are capable of growiIl~spotted owl NRFor dispersalhabitat. Currently, 64 percent of the capable lands are currently ~ habitat. It presently supports 22 activity centers for the northern spatted owl (USFS 2008ii.and 2008b). . Table 4. LSRBaseliiie<". .. ~. .,..,' ;,.!' ::( ,) .: ~~\l;il ~1~iI~'tl~.f,~ti ~~~I~.~J~ :; ':'.'F :L ~i~ ~C,i ,..;Ej if!' .., ."... 248 ,.., 5 1 5 1 2 46,876 29,729 ... ..,. , ::1, Data from Geographic Resource Solutions Landsat Dataset (GRS) .. ". ... . ", -.. .....'... ... ...." . . .. . ..... - . .... . . ....... '-. . '. . - ". . : . . - . . ".. . ....... .-" Spotted Owl CriticaI=:Hilbitat Baseline CHU OR-76/Managed Owl Conservation Area (MOCA) 19 The entire Analysis Area is lacated within Critical Habitat unit (CH) OR-76 designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service far the recovery of the northern spotted owl (USDI 1992). ( OR-76 is located on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Sixty-three percent of the unit is lacated within the Mt. Ashland LSR. This unit provides inter- and intra-provincial linkage between the Klamath Mountains Physiagraphic Pravince and the Western Cascades Physiagraphic Pravince (NWFP ROD 1994). It is also the main link to the Ashland Area .of Cancern and pravides east-west distributian of spatted awl habitat in the Oregan partian .of the Klamath Mountains Province. Unit OR-76 was established ta provide essential nesting, raasting, APPENDIX F Page 5 Wildlife BE (~) faraging, and dispersal habitat in this zone of inter- and intra-provincial linkage. Of the 30,553 Federal acres 3 percent is managed by the BLM and 97 percent is Forest Service-managed. This entire CHU was recently designated as MOCA 19 under the new final Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and the environmental baseline far this MOCA is the same as the CHU (FWS 2008). Table 5: CHU/MOCA Baseline ~1~i~lfJii~~ ff~~),~"~ ~~~~!ri~~:~M~111!~.il ~~~Illili OR-76 56,258 50,070 33,286 2,862 I. Data from Geographic Resource Solutions Landsat Dataset (GRS) NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL - Threatened A detailed account of the taxonamy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the spotted owl is faund in the 1987 and 1990 l].S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status ReviewsL{tJSDI FWS 1987, 1989, 1990a); the Inter-Agency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et aL1990); and the final rule designating the spotted owl as a threatenedspec;ies (USDI Fish and Wild1.ife Service 1990b). Demographic analysis completed in 1999 indicates that the northern spotted owl population (range wide) is declining by approximately 4 percent per year, although reproducing age females appear to not exhibit a negative trend (Forsman afidAnthony 1999, Franklin et al. 1999). The NWFP was expected to limit theex:tentof this trend.hy~rat.ecting all spotted owl sites within LSRs and by providing spotted()wl dispersal habitat through the matrix and AMA. " -. - . ._-"-,.'.....,, -' ". '- .....:.....- . :." :",'.: . . , :';::: :..<....::. ,':.: . Conservation of the species \\,:a~ alsa to be provide4by allowing currently unsuitable habitat to develap within the LSRs. ,.Active:rnanagement designed to advance forest canditions in LSRs includes density man~gement, prec()mmercial thirining, and fertilizatian. As habitat develaps within the LSRs, spottedbwl papulations are expected to stabilize across its range. The range expansion of barred awl into spattedqwl territories isa camplicating factor. The ultimate autcame .of barredpwl/spottecl .0\\11. interactions is uncertain. Outside the LSR system, spatted owl sites)moWri as of Jap.uary 1994 have been designated as Known Spotted Owl Activity Centers.:~rid are alsa managed as LSlt A reportsu~arizing the niei~-analysis of demography of the spotted awls throughout its range was released.irf~;eptember offP04 (Anthony et al. 2004). The report showed a decline of approximately3~..7:percent acrpss the range of the owl and showed significant declines of populations in some:areas, iIl.particular Washington State and northern Oregon. Only four study areas within the range.qftne spotted owl did nat show evidence of spotted owl declines. In southern Oregon, thre~study areas did not show declines and appeared ta have relatively stable or increasing populations based on the 95 percent confidence intervals. More recently Anthony (2006) found that the spotted owl population in the south Cascades demagraphic study area continues ta be statianary. ( The Service also conducted a status review in 2004 of the spotted owl across its range, in a document known as the Sustainable Ecosystem Institute Report, or SEI, which summarized the biology, ecology, habitat associations and trends, as well as current and patential threats to the species (Courtney et al. 2004). The three major aperatianal threats they identified were timber APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 6 harvest, large-scale stand replacement wildfire, and barred owls. Patential threats included effects associated with West Nile Virus, and Sudden Oak Death. (') , .....0/ Courtney et al. (2004) found that habitat lass, the primary reason for listing of the spotted owl, had declined significantly acrass the range. However, there was also some concern as to the potential lag effects to spotted owl populations from past timber harvest. The greatest amount of habitat loss due to timber harvest had occurred in the Oregon Klamath and west Cascade provInces. In a review of the draft spotted owl recovery plan (DRP), Courtney et al.(2008) opined that the threat from wildfire was underestimated in the DRP for the dry farestprovinces, and is inadequately addressed. They said that this threat is likely to increase given both current forest canditions, and future climatic change. The Courtney Team also discussed what they thought was an underestimate of the threat .of habitat loss from fire and the harvest or 'salvage' of large and very large trees. The DRP threat assessment assumed that there would be no majar loss .of habitat currently conserved under the Northwest Farest Plan (NWFP). However. they thought that this assumption may be incorrect because neither .of the options proposed in theDRP either reference nor require continuation of the Late Successional Reserves under the NWF'P~ which contain much of the remaining NRF owl habitat. They foulld it difficult to determitie the degree to which the DRP Options reduced protection of habitat aridst~ted that conservation of habitat remained essential to Spotted Owl recovery. The Courtney Tealllalsorecornmended:te9ucing surface fuels, increase the height ta live crowns, decrease crown del1sitit;~~,.and to favar latg~.fife tolerant trees in dry farest types such as sauthern and eastern Oregon andW ~~hingtan. . Specific to SW Oregon Klamath Province, they recommended that all.largeaIld.oldtf~es,either living or dead, are impartant wherever they occut/alld suggested landscape designs that pramate the increased abundance of large trees. of firetol~rant species using ecalagically saund landscape design criteria. Courtney etal.(?,008) als6suggested that~xisting plantations are one major source of risk of high severity fires. and that the fire tolerance of existing plantations can be increased by manipulating species camposition,reducing d~nsity, promoting spatial heterogeneity in forest structure (avpidinglitrF~areasbf.p.pmageneOtlsplantations), treating surface fuels, and favaring the development of large,~re taleianttrees. They suggested that this cauld be accomplished thraugliJarge scale thinriing.operations(that include treatment of activity fuels and increasing spatial vatiaqility)in plantatiohs outside .of awl habitat (where plantatians are generally concentrated),.pr using a larg~(regioriallandscape strategy that prioritizes the risk of high severity fire ol1tsig,e of owl habitat. They also recommended that the establishment of new plantations shouHi'Il,9t be favored, but rather activities in dry forest settings that improve .overall fire tolerance of thel~~scape and decrease the likelihood that a few large fires will destroy a significant number .of owl territories. The subsequent final Recovery Plan included these recommendations in large part for SW Oregon forests (FWS 2008) There have been recent large fires in SW Oregan, in particular the Biscuit and the Timbered Rack fires, which reduced spotted owl NRF habitat within the Klamath province. There is uncertainty as ta haw spotted awls respond to fire in southwest Oregon and research was conducted in the Timbered Rock Fire area in an attempt to answer that question. Of the 15 spotted owl pairs affected by the Timbered Rock Fire, initially, 11 of those pairs continued to occupy their historic activity centers immediately after the fire even though their ( habitat was subjected to varying degrees .of fire severity. Hawever, a severe decline .of owl pairs APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 7 from the fire area was seen from 2004 to 2006. Survival and productivity also decreased greatly in birds fram within the fire area. (Clark 2007) (--~') .. ",,"",,:,7 Barred awls have increased in southwest Oregan but not ta the extent of other areas within the range of the spotted owl (Caurtney et al 2003, Anthony et al. 2004, 2005, and 2006). In the South Cascades demographic study area, there has been an increase of barred owls and they occupy up to 20 percent of historic or known spotted owl sites within that study area. However, there are far less barred owls known for southwest Oregon than other areas in the northern partion of the range and the spotted owl survival is stable in that study area as well as in the Klamath demographic study area (Anthony et al. 2004). In the Ashland watershed, barred owl detectians are known from four locatians. The other new threats of Sudden Oak Death and West Nile virus ate thought to be potential stressors to the northern spatted owl population. Sudden OakDeath orPhytopthora canker disease kills .or injures many species of trees and shrubs, and may affect habitat components important to spotted awls and their prey. However, SOD is only known for the coastal region of NW California and SW Oregan. West Nile virus infects birds, althaugh as of April, 2005,ho wildHspotted owl infections have been documented; West Nile virus has been detected in Jack~oh County. It is unknown when and to what extent this threat may become a risk for the spottegowl. The new infarmation provided above and surtnnarized by Caurtneyetal. (2004 and 2008) and the final Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (FWS 2008) does,l1o.t alter our=analysis or change our effects determinatians for the preferred alternative inthisBA..The cancerns for spotted owls related to a population de~linea.nd the increase in barred owls are less in southwest Oregon than in other areas within thetange of the spotted owlbecause the papulatian in South Cascades is stable and the barre~Lowlpopulatiorl is nat as robust as in the northern partians of the range .of the spotted awl (Courtne)'et.al. 20Q4, 2008, Antha?y2005 and 2006). 2008 SpoUed.OWIR-ecoveryPlaJl Recovery Action 8: Manage tlte Klamatlt Provinces in Oregoll and California to meet spotted owl recovery objectives while creating more fire-resilient and fire-resistant forests. An interagency work group will be needed ta develop a strategy to achieve an ecolagically sustainable landscape that supports spotted owl recovery (see Recovery Action 9 and Appendix E for further information). ( The proposed praject does just what is proposed under Recovery Action 8; it minimizes effects ta awls by using PDC ta limit activities within the pravincial hame ranges .of all spatted awl APPENDIX F Page 8 Wildlife BE sites, will result in a more fire-resilient landscape as a result .of graund and ladder fuel and crown density reductians, the retention of large (>20 inches DBH) fire adapted trees, and will, over the long-term, cantribute to the recovery of spotted owls within the watershed and the recently ( ) described M OCA. Spotted Owls and NRF Habitat within the Analysis Area Based an previous surveys, fifteen spotted owl pair activity centers are historically known to be located within the Analysis Area baundary (USFS DEIS 2005). Many .of these sites have habitat that would be potentially affected by hazardous fuel treatments proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency because their provincial home ranges overlap proposed treatments and those treatments may affect NRF habitat. Narthern spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting,foniging, and dispersal. A definitian ofNRF nesting and roosting northern spotted owl habitat in the Klamath Province is difficult to identify because of the variety of ecalogic'al types and frequent fire history (USD1\..Forest Service 1996). The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USPA Forest Service 1996) identified stands which supported northern spotted owl as > 17" averagediametefand >600/0 canapyclosure (CC). The Rogue River/South Coast Biolagical Assessment defines.Nesting/RaostinglForaging (NRF) habitat as >21" average diameter and >60% CC (USDA ForesfService 2003b). Zabel et al. (2003) identified habitat modelsJorriorthern spotted owls in the Klamath Province of northern California which correctly classifiedowl-:Qccupied. sites with >85% accuracy. Within Douglas-fir habitats below 6,000 ft. elevationin th(;tEastefuJ~J~ath Ecological zone, these sites were classified as > 17" average diameter and >60% CC. ZabeFet al. (2003) concluded that their model performed bestatthe 200 hectare radius (0.5 mi.). For this analysis, the Zabel et al. (2003) definition afNRFl1as been accepted, and analy~is was conducted using this habitat classification because .of the proximity of the projectarea to Zabel's study are in the eastern Klamath Mtns. ':'." .... "'.., ," -.' :........, '-".: : .. .. The primary prey of northern spotted owls in the action area are dusky..Jooted waodrats (Neo{()rtJafuscipes) and nriIth~rn flyit1~ ~qtiirrels (Glaucomy sabrinus) (USDA Forest Service 1996). Du~}(y-footed woodrat~ are occasionally abundant in early mixed-conifer forests and present in late.stages .of farestqevelopment (Carey et al. 1999). Narthem flying squirrels are generally associated with oldt;:fforests. Zabel et al. (1995) verified a trend of negative, linear relatianship between.home raIlge size during the breeding season and the proportion ofwaadrats in the diet .of narthem spotted owls. The proportion of narthern flying squirrels in the diet was positively correlated with home range size. Reduction in canopy closure and fuels treatments associated with AFR has the potential to increase habitat for dusky-footed woodrats through regeneration .of shrub habitats and young stands. Effects .of these treatments on northern flying squirrel populations are unknown. Spotted awl habitat (17+ in. dbh) is well distributed within the watershed, comprising approximately 70 percent of the watershed an Farest Service lands. Dispersal-anly habitat (11- 20.9in.dbh) camprises approximately 10 percent of FS lands within the watershed (Table 4). ( Analyses of Plant Associatian Groups (P AGs) has identified that most stand types where narthern spatted owls occur (P AGs 1407, 1408, 2003, 2004) within the National For~st partion APPENDIX F Page 9 Wildlife BE (~) ~" ,~ of the Analysis Area were in a more open condition prior ta effective fire exclusion. Historically, habitat for the northern spotted owl was fairly continuaus, particularly in the wetter parts of its range in narthern Califarnia and most .of western Oregan and Washington. Habitat for the owl in the drier portions of its range in parts of southern Oregon and northern California is not continuous, but .occurred naturally in a mosaic pattern (USFWS 1992). The mosaic pattern described was a direct result of natural fire regimes which are, in general, more frequent and low to mixed severity in SW Oregon within low to mid-elevation habitats compared to those in most areas west of the Cascades in Oregon and Washingtan. As a result of effective fire exclusion, many of these stands are now in mid or late-closed condition. It is unknown how northern spotted owls have responded t6effective fire suppression over the last 8.0 -1.0.0 years. All of the owls that currently inhabit the Analysis Area occur on the lower slopes and on northerly aspects where it is likely that prior to' fire suppression these areas acted as refugia from frequent fire and may have been in a condition similar to today (see also abiotic factors discussion in this document). Spotted owl protocol surveys from the early 199D'sthrough 1995 shawed thafthe analysis area supported up to fifteen awl pairs and resident singles. Recent (2.0.01-2.0.07) surveys however, have not detected as many pairs or singles in the analysis area. There have been many recent surveys far northern spotted owl in the Watershed. Since 2.0.01, full pratocol surveys of all NRF habitat within the projectarea have been canducted within the. project area with the exceptian of 2003;. Spatted owl pratocolsurveys (FWS 1992) of all suitable NRF habitat within the watershed were coriduct~dduring 20b!, 2002, and 2.004 by district personnel and Galea Wildlife Consulting (qalea 2dD2);gro'tocol reproductive surveys were also conducted at sixhisto.rical sites in the.Project Areaby Smeltz Specialty Contracting in 2.0.04. In 2005, protoc91s11rveys9f:the entire project area were conducted by the Siskiyou Cooperative (Siskiyou Coop 20D5).:Beginning in20D6, a spotted owl telemetry study was initiated by the Forest arid Oregan State University (QSU) to investigate the respanse .of spotted owl ta the preferred altemative..dElevertspotted ()wlhave been radioed and monitored beginning in the summe:r:oJ:4QD6and willcantinue thfough the summer of 2.008 (Shilling 2007). These owls will~ontinued f():hetracked fqr.up to two years post-treatment in order ta study how they respon.dto treatments withi~their resp~9t.~ve hame ranges. In conjunctian with the telemetry study, asp personnel havecol1ducte~.pfotocol surveys in the entire project area for the last two ye~rs. The T~ble below (Table?) shows the locations and reproductive status of all the owls potentially affec!~~ by the proj~ct. The most recent surveys of the analysis area were conducted in 20.07; those surveys found up to nine spotted owl pairs.Hrtesident singles within the analysis area (Table 7). All of the current locations were at or near historic locatians and the identification numbers for thase historic owl sites are used here. Table 6. 2.006/20.07 Spotted Owl Locations and Status in the Analysis Area ( , S ott~d Owl,ID #; 20007 20019 20023 20024 20013 Location::,: T39S, ROI W, Section 35 T40S, ROlE, Section 10 T40S, ROlE, Section 13 T40S, ROlE, Section 15 T39S, ROlE, Section 31 APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 10 " .~'''' (..j} 20013A T39S, ROlE, Section 31 All. nest site found in 2005 20043 T40S, ROlE, Section 5 Pair 20046 T39S, ROlE, Section 19 Recent Historic 20049 T40S, ROlE, Section 6 Sin1:!;le Male 200500 T40S, ROlE, Section 3 Sin1:!;le Unknown 20071 T39S, ROlE, Section 30 Single Female Spotted owls were not detected at five historic sites; these sites were primarily lower in the watershed. Three lacations where spatted owls had previously been detected were in Clayton Creek and the lower reaches .of Ashland Creek, one historic site in the RNA portion of the analysis area was also unoccupied. One historic site in the upper watershed (#052) had no response to surveys in 2005. All current spotted owl sites have from 48 to 83 percent of their provincial home ranges (1.3 miles radius) currently in NRF habitat (nesting, roasting, foraging) al1dJrom 41 to 92 percent of a one half mile radius (core area) around the site in NRF spotted awl habitat (Table 12). All of the spotted owl sites in the analysis area have far above the recognized minimums (1,336 acres .or a minimum of 40 percent of their respective home rartge currently in NRF habitat) afNRF habitat within their respective provincial home ranges. fable 12). Barred Owls in the Action Area. Barred owls (Strix varia) have increased in SW Oregon but noito the extent of other areas within the range of the spatted owl. Barred owlsha~e byen detected in the AFR Analysis Area. Galea Wildlife Consulting lacated Barred owls nearQuaft~.Creek and EastFork Ashland Creek in 2002. USFS biologists located Barred awls hear EastFbrkAshland Creek in 2004. Oregon State University surveyors have alsa detected barrdtow.1sin the watershed in 2006 and 2007. Barred owls were also detected.duringthe.2007 surveys.:i,n the vicinity of the Pair #20071 and on the east side .of the RNAjustnorth of Pair #20019. 1112001, a pair afbarred owls was detected in the northeast portion .of the analysis area near hist6ric~patted owl site # 20050. Abiotic FactorsC.ontributingto Spotted,Q:wLNesting Habitat ..... '.', -. :'., " .... '... . . ......... ',,' .-'. . .'-. '-. - .. , .....,... '.-"'.. -,. --:',- -, -.",:.",.',. .. . -. ..... .... ". ' , . ~<' '. '. '. . ... :.' "":.-' ',.:'. ":' : .: - - , . '.' . In addi!i9fito spottedh&r~~bitatiiha.l)'~isfor the project area, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS}inY reka and the Fo!e~t collabQtated on an analysis of potential abiotic factors that may cantributeJ.opotential nest sites in three. LSRs in NW California and SW Oregon (Appendix D and Figure 3).ln assaciation with a proposed project on the Klamath National Forest, The FWS had canductedananalysis afa.H known nest sites in LSRs (R0248, RC354, and RC353) in .order ta determine if certain abiaticTactors might cantribute to the patential far spotted owl ta select specific areas an thelari~~cape in which to nest. The compiled 8 abiatic variables at three spatial scales centered an 36 known nest sites and 56 unused sites (random sites) within the LSRs in California. The eight abiotic variables examined in this analysis included distance to stream, distance to road, slope position, slape percent, th field watershed pasitian, elevation, aspect, and curvature. They found that in the Califarnia partions .of the LSRs, the analysis .of abiatic variables indicated significant differences between known nest sites and random sites for 6 variables; elevation, curvature, distance to raad, distance to stream, slope position, and 7th field watershed pasitian. The FWS then produced a map that involved calculating the values for the 50th percentile araund the mean .of all significant variables at the 500 acre scale. This map shawed where spotted owl were mare likely to nest based on thase significant abiotic factars and APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 11 it was used ta prioritize those areas with young conifer stands for treatment in order to speed the development of those stands into future NRF spotted owl habitat. The Forest canducted a similar analysis using additional known spotted owl nest sites (n= 15) from the northern portion .of the Mt Ashland LSR (RO 248). The result was slightly different, si~ificant variables also included curvature, elevation, slope position, distance to streams, and i field watershed position but did not include distance to roads. A map was produced for the praject area that shows the highest potential areas for nest sites based on those abiotic factors. The map corresponds well with the historic nest sites (n=14/15) as well as all of the latest spotted owl activity center lacatians from the 2006/2007 radio-telemetry study (n= 13). While elevation and watershed position are somewhat general variables with rather large means, finer scale variables like slope position, curvature, and distance: to streams in particular correspond well with known awl nest sites. Spotted owl nests within the project area are closer to streams, lower on the slopes and in areas with a concave curvature. These are likely areas with more stable microclimates, and larger trees with more complex forest structure that spotted owls are selecting as nest sites. It may also be that these same areas historically acted as refugia from stand replacement fire, due to being near the bottom of the canyons and on north tending slopes, maintained NRF spotted owl habitat over time.>The abiotic model modeled the potential abiotic variables into three classes, law medium and high. Low potential shows only one to two variables fitting on the landscape, medium three, and high potential habitat shows all variables fitting that partion of the landscape. The For~st.considered only tnedium and high patential abiatic habitat scares far this ,analysis (App~ndix:J:.l9Jthe BialogiCaJ4ssessment) The abiatic table (Table 7) shaws that there art},Curr~rit1yappt9"itl1ately 9,962 acres of moderate to high potential areas that areals() NRF habitat-for spotted owl nest sites within the proj ect area and 18,902 acres of m()derate t6high potential areas that area currently NRF habitat for spotted owl nest sites within the entire LSR (Table 8). Table 7. Abiotic Baseline (Abi()tic M6deLplusex.istlng NRF habitat) for the Ashland Watershed and LSR R0248 Action Area RO 248 NRF...... .> 9,962 18,902 . .... Dispef$al 714 1,962 Canada Lynx ...... .... In late February of 2000, agreement was reached between the Forest Service (Regional Office in Partland) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding presence of lynx on the ROR SIS NF. The results of that agreement are based on the positian of the USDA Forest Service that the ROR SIS NF is nat considered to have suitable lynx habitat. The ROR SIS NF was therefore not included in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000), and is not subj ect to consultationlconferencing for this species under the ESA. 1. Dat~Jrom Geographic Resource SolutIOns Landsat Dataset (GRS) ( The reasons far not including the ROR SIS NF with the canservatian strategy are; I) A paucity of information, derived from histarical records, concerning lynx an the west slope .of the Cascade Mountains in sauthem Oregan, 2) The extremely limited amaunt .of habitat identified by the lynx habitat model, 3) the lack of habitats knawn ta be used by lynx, and 4) The geagraphic locatian APPENDIX F Page 12 Wildlife BE /--""'t (..;,;.1 of the ROR SIS NFin the overall range .of lynx. Histaric and current recards of lynx .occurrence in Oregan, and specifically the ROR SIS NF, is very limited with na verified records .of occurrence on the Forest (McKelvey et al. 2000). Canada lynx is nat discussed further in this BE. v. Effects to Species Listed Under ESA and CUU OR-76 Northern spotted owl No-Action Alternative Analyses .of Plant Association Groups (P AGs) has identified that m()st stand types where narthern spotted owls occur (PAGs 1407, 1408,2003,2004) within the National forest portion of the Analysis Area were in a more open condition prior to effective fire exclusion. Historically, habitat for the northern spotted owl was fairly continuous, particularly inthe wetter parts of its range in narthern California and most of western Oregon and Washington. Habitat for the owl in the drier portions of its range in parts of southern Oregon and northern California is not continuous, but occurred naturally in a mosaic patte.m (USFWS 1992). The mosaic pattern described was a direct result .of natural fire regimes whiSh are, irige.neral, more frequent and low to mixed severity in SW Oregon within low to mid-elevatioIll1abitats campared tothose in most areas west of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. .. . As a result of effective fire exclusion, many ()fthese stands are how in f9.id or late-clased canditian. It is unknown how northern spatted6WIshave respandedtoeffective fire suppression aver the last 80 -100 years. Mast .of the owls,.!hat curreritlyinhabit.the Analysis Area occur an the lawer slopes and an northerly aspects. . . . . (?~ ..-,,? The No-Action Alternative waulcf:hat remave ortnodify any. narthern spotted awl nesting, roasting, and foraginghalJitat. No~patted awl pairs would be affected by reductions in habitat and dispersal oppaitunities.would not be reduced front current canditions. In the absence of large-scale disturbance (wildfire, irisects,..an.pd~sease) the densities of northern spotted owls would likelyrertiairist.able, notwithstanding other threats identified by the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute report (Courlrle.y et al. 2004) which include barred owls and West Nile Virus. ',.:'. . ..:.'<..:.'. ", ..','. . '. :. . . . . . . ' ." . . . . - . ,. . . The majoritYpfthe LSR in tli~:Uppet:Bear Analysis Area has been identified as being high hazard and riskre,lative to wilqland fire (USDA Forest Service 2003). The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (1996J.~4entified..the maintenance of existing large blacks .of late-successianal habitat thraugh pr()tectip~fr()m large-scale high-intensity (stand replacement) wildland fire as a high priority. . Large scale, stand-replacement fire would remove large blocks of late-and mid-successional habitat and likely reduce narthern spotted awl presence and pair density within the northern portion .of the LSR. Cannectivity and dispersal within and between late-successianal patches and the LSR network wauld likely be adversely affected, albeit ta an unknown extent. ( Effect Mechanisms Common to Action Alternatives Opening a stand thraugh tree removal can pravide mare light ta the graund and increase understary trees and shrubs. The result of this treatment an awl habitat and ecalagy depends an the current stand condition (and haw clase it approximates late-successianal characteristics APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 13 important ta awls), how many trees are removed, the residual overstary, the time year the treatment occurs, and the method .of yarding/tree removal (USDA Farest Service; USDI FWS 2003). The following text defines effect mechanisms for suitable habitat (nesting, roosting, and ( faraging), and far dispersal habitat. Within suitable habitat, treatments that reduce the overstory canopy to less than 600/0 (relative stand density index of less than 0.4), but that would retain canopy closure above 400/0 would downgrade suitable /labitat to dispersal habitat. If stands are reduced to less than 40% canopy closure (relative stand density index of less than 0.2), suitable habitat would be removed. Within suitable habitat, where the canopy cover is greater than 60% and understory treatments such as pruning, underburning, handpile/burn, and removal .of small diameter trees < 8" diameter occur, suitable habitat would remain due to loss of structure. Stands nat considered as suitable nesting, roosting, and -faraging habitat with canapies of greater than 400/0, are considered to provide dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls. Where understory treatments occur in these stands, and canopy closure remains~. 40%, dispersal habitat would be maintained. If stands. are reducedto below 400/0 (relative stand density index of less than 0.2), dispersal habitat would be removed. Spotted Owl Effects The preferred alternative could treat and maintain up. to 4,773 acres;and downgrade up to 1,292 acres (7.8 percent) .of spotted owl NRF habitat and tteatand maintain up to 988 acres .of spotted awl dispersal/forage habitat. This would occtirbyeither thinning .of stands that would reduce canopy and simplify multiple.stpried stands or 'fuel' reduction. activities that could result in reductions of shrub and small tree layers as well as reductions in small woady material (Table 8). . . - - - '.. . . . . -.. . , ."-' . . The proposed action couldt~~~t aI1~:.rn~intain up ta3,978 acres and dawngrade up to 1,035 acres (6.3 percent reduction) of spottedOwINRF.:I1Cibitatand treat and maintain up ta 1,078 acres .of spatted owldispefsall{orage habi~at. This WQuid' occur by either thinning of stands that would reduce canopy and simplify multiple storied stands or fuel reduction activities that could result in reducti()n~ .of shrub and sl11'.llltree layers..as well as reductians in small woody material (Table 8). :"'.:.- -",:,-,,-". ,. ... . . . " .:.- -'.:-: ."-.' ',",' ....:. ".',...... ... . . . -. . The Commut)ity Alternative.99"li1d treat and maintain up to 3,495 acres and downgrade up to 918 acres (5.5 percel1treduction) g.fspotted owl NRF habitat and treat and maintain up to 1,078 acres of spotted owl dispersal/forage habitat. This would occur by either thinning of stands that wauld reduce canopy and simplify multiple storied stands or fi)el reduction activities that could result in reductians of shrub andsmall tree layers as well as r~ductions in small woady material (Table 8). The Forest has determined that the downgrading of918 acres to 1,292 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat will reduce nesting, raasting, and foraging appartunities for spotted awls, will contribute somewhat to fragmentation ofNRF habitat within the watershed, and is likely to adversely affect spatted owls. However, spotted owls will likely cantinue to persist in the watershed given the remaining NRF habitat that will remain after the project is implemented. ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 14 (~'~ "',,"--p' Sec. 7 Dispersal Sec. 7 N RF N RF N RF N RF N RF Removed Dispersal Dispersal Alternative baseline Remove Dow ngrade maintai ned Percent (dispersal maintained Percent cha nge only- cha nge removed) Pre ferred 1 6, 5 83 0 1 ,292 4 ,77 3 7 .8 0 9 8 8 0 Proposed 1 6, 5 83 0 1 ,03 5 3 ,978 6.3 0 1 ,078 0 Communi ty 1 6, 5 83 0 9 1 8 3,495 5.5 0 1 ,1 68 0 The Farest has determined that the proposed activities that maintain frari13,495 ta 4,773 acres of NRF habitat will have an insignificant effect ta spotted awl habitat and is notJikely to adversely affect spatted owl habitat because: 1. Canopy cover within treated NRF stands will be retained at .or above 60 percent. 2. Decadent woody material in the treatment are~1 such as large snags and down wood, will remain post-treatment. 3. Multi-canopy, uneven-aged tre~ structure that was present prior to treatment will remain post-treatment. 4. No spotted awl nest trees will be removed.. . . . . - -' ... , . . , . . .. . . ...' .. ". .- - .-...... The following beneficial effects may be realized asaresulfofimplementation .of the preferred alternative: 1. Fuels/vegetation management treatmellts are designed to reduce the intensity and rate of spreadoflar?e, standreplacement fires I10w cammon to the actian area. 2. The treatments.will result in an appraximately 40 percent reduction in the patential far stal1~ replacemen~:firevYithiI1J4e ",atershed and it will provide long term re.siHertC'e.::'ftom staridr~placeme=ilffires within the watershed, thereby maintaining > high qualitfNRF and<dispersal habitat and knawn spatted owl sites. ...3; Treated stands..ate.likelytO:Q~more ecalogically sustainable because residual stands 'w.ill be les.s susce}Jt~ble to suppression and stocking martality and active crown fire. Effects to LSR.RO 248 NRF NRF NRF NRF AIt NRF baseline Remove Downgrade maintained Percent change Preferred 29,729 0 1,292 4,773 4.3 Proposed 29,729 0 1,035 3,978 3.5 ( Community 29,729 0 918 3,495 3.1 APPENDIX F Page 15 Wildlife BE ( The prapased alternatives could treat and maintain from 3,495 up to 4,773 acres and downgrade up to 918 up to 1,292 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat (Table 9). This would occur by either thinning of stands that would reduce canapy and simplify multiple storied stands .or fuel reduction activities that could result in reductians of shrub and small tree layers as well as reductians in small woady material. The downgrading ofNRF habitat would be approximately 3 to 4 percent of the total NRF within the LSR and will occur over a five to ten year time period in actual implementation. The Forest has determined that the dawngrading of up to 1,292 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat will reduce nesting, roosting, and foraging oppartunities for spotted owls, could contribute somewhat ta fragmentation ofNRF habitat within the LSR. HoWever, spotted owls will likely continue to persist in the LSR given the remaining NRF habitafthat will remain after the project is implemented. The Forest has determined that the proposed activities that maintain 3,495 to 4,773 acres ofNRF habitat will have an insignificant effect to spotted owlhabitat within the LSR and1sndt likely to adversely affect spotted owl habitat because:. . 1. Canopy cover within treated NRF stands will beretained at or above 60 percent. 2. Decadent woody material in the treatment area, such as large snags and down woad, will remain post-treatment. 3. Multi-canopy, uneven-aged tree structure that was present priar to treatment will remain post-treatment. 4. No spotted owlI1e~ttrtees will be removed. ....... . . "..- . -'. ." . - .-. ."- . . . '. . . . . . . .. ' '.. ... . . . . . .. . The following beneficial.effects m~x be realized asa result of implementation of the preferred alternative:. . . 1. 1'reatedsti:lncis arelik~ly to be more ecologically sustainable because residual stands :.will be lesssus~eptibleJ()suppression mortality. 2i. Fuels/vegetatiO~..Il1anagefuen.ttreatments are designed to reduce the intensity and rate Of spread of large; stand repHlcement fires common to the action area. 3. .. Fu,els/vegetation ilJanagenient treatments are designed to reduce the intensity and rate ofspI'~~d of large,iMand replacement fires cammon to the actian area. 4. Treatttiepts will q6ntribute to the long term fire resilience of the LSR and maintain functian aitd qu~1ity .of the LSR far late-successional forest values. Effects to Abiotic Modeled Habitat ( The preferred alternative would downgrade appraximately 774 acres (7 percent) within in the project area (Table 10). These acres are currently suitable NRF that was determined to be within areas of moderate or high potential for spotted awl nest sites based on the abiotic model. The downgrading ofNRF habitat could reduce oppartunities far spotted owl nesting in the project area, however there are currently na known spatted owls using these areas proposed for treatment. There will be over 9,000 acres ofNRF habitat within maderate to high patential nesting areas available post-treatment that shauld allaw ample .opportunities for any new .or shifting spatted ta find suitable nest sites based an the abiotic madel and NRF habitat. APPENDIX F Page 16 Wildlife BE (--~'\ if .~.~ The proposed actian would downgrade approximately 646 acres (6.5 percent) within in the project area. These acres are currently suitable NRF that was determined to be within areas of moderate or high potential for spotted awl nest sites based on the abiotic model. The downgrading ofNRF habitat could reduce opportunities far spotted owl nesting in the project area, however there are currently no known spotted owls using these areas proposed for treatment. There will be over 9,000 acres ofNRF habitat within moderate to high potential nesting areas available post-treatment that should allow ample opportunities for any new or shifting spotted ta find suitable nest sites based on the abiotic model and NRF habitat. The community alternative would downgrade approximately 532 acreS (5.3 percent) within in the project area (Table 10). These acres are currently suitable NRFthat was determined to be within areas of moderate or high potential for spotted owl nest sites based on the abiotic model. The downgrading afNRF habitat could reduce opportunities for spotted()wl nesting in the project area, however there are currently no known spatted owls using these areas proposed for treatment. There will be over 9,000 acres ofNRF habitat within moderate to high potential nesting areas available post-treatment that should allow ample opportunities for any new or shifting spotted to find suitable nest sites based on the abiotic model and NRF habitat AIt 'NRF baseline NRF Remove. 646 remaining NRF Percent within Abiotic change Model 9,218 7 9,316 6.5 9,430 5.3 o 744 532 1. Abiotic Baseli~e(Abiotic MOdel plus existing NRF habitat) APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 17 Effects to CHU Dispersal CMU Removed CHU CHU CMU (NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal ALT NRF Dispersal removed baseline Remove Downgrade maintained Percent baseline +dispersal Maintained Percent change only- change removed) Preferred 56,258 0 1 ,292 4,773 2 .3 2,862 0 988 0 Proposed 56,258 0 1 035 3,978 1 .8 2,862 0 1 ,078 0 . Community 56,258 0 9 1 8 3,495 1 .6 2,862 0 1 ,1 68 0 . The preferred alternative would reduce available NRf habitat within this CHUIMOCA by 1,292 acres (2.3 percent), and maintain 4,773 acres ofNRfhabitat and up to 988 acres of dispersal habitat (Table 11). Dispersal habitat would not decline within theCHU/MOCA under the preferred alternati ve. . , The proposed action would reduce available.NRF habitat withifttqis CHU/MOCA by 1,035 acres (1.8 percent), and maintain 3,978 actesbfNR,f habitat and up to 1,078 acres of dispersal habitat (Table 11). Dispersal habitat wauld decline wjthirthe CHU/MOCA by approximately 3.9 percent under the proposed action. . . . .. . . The proposed action wouldiedu4e.~vailable NRP habitat within this CHU/MOCA by 918 acres (1.6 percent), and maint~jn 3,495 acres ofNRF habitat and up to 1,168 acres .of dispersal habitat (Table 11). Dispersal habit~t wauJ4decline withinthe.CHU/MOCA by appraximately 3.1 percent under the propaseda~ti()n~/ ,." '. :. ,'- - .. ,', ;. . -. . . ... . '. ." ," " . . -' ',' .... - . ..... . . The Foresthasdeteirilitied that the,gowngrading of up to 1,292 acres spotted owl habitat within critica~l1abitat will reduce#esting,roosting, and foraging .opportunities for spotted owls, will contribute to a reduction of"suitable NRFhabitat within this CHU, and is likely to adversely effect spottedowl critical habUat. However, the intended canservation function of this unit (intra- and inteftp,rovince coniie.ctivity by maintaining essential NRF and dispersal habitats) is still likely to bemet.g;iven th~::remaining suitable NRF habitat that will remain after the project is implemented, and tHe,...habi,tc:iffeatures retained in the treated stands as discussed above. The Farest has determined that the proposed project that maintains up to 4,773 acres ofNRF habitat within critical habitat will have an insignificant effect to spotted owl critical habitat and is not likely ta adversely effects critical habitat because: ( 1. Canopy cover within treated NRF stands will be retained at .or above 60 percent. 2. Decadent woody material in the treatment area, such as large snags and down wood, will remain post-treatment and cantinue to pravide key NRF habitat features and primary canstituent elements in the CHU. 3. Any multi-canapy, uneven-aged tree structure that was present prior to treatment will remain post-treatment. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 18 4. Na spotted owl nest trees will be relnaved. The following beneficial effects may be realized as a result of implementation of the project: 1. The primary constituent elements of critical habitat associated with NRF habitat will be maintained due to the reduction in stand replacement fire potential post-treatment. 2. Treated stands are likely to be more ecalagically sustainable because residual stands will be less susceptible to suppression mortality. 3. Fuels/vegetation management treatments are designed to reduce the intensity and rate of spread .of large, stand replacement fires cornman to the action area. 4. The treatments will result in an appraximately 40 percent reduction in the potential for stand replacement fire within the watershed and it will help provide long term resilience from stand replacement fires within the CHU~thereby maintaining high quality NRF and dispersal habitat and known spotted owl sites. The Farest has determined that the effects of treating and maintaining up to 1,168 acres of spotted owl dispersal-only habitat within the affected CHU will be insignificantbecause: 1. Canopy cover within affected stands will be maintained at 40 perceritor greater post-treatment. 2. Decadent waady material, such as large snags and down waod, will be retained in the same conditian as prior ta the treatment ahd:continue to pravide key NRF habitat features and primary constituent elementsin the CHU. 3. The proposed treatments will be dispersed in relativelY small patches within the CHU to further minimize the potentialfQr~dverselyaffecting stand characteristics far dispersal habitat. The follawing beneficialeffects'fuay be realized as a result of implementation .of the project: . . 1. Very dense stands willb.~ .opened by thihrling, thereby improving the ability for sP9tted owlstoqisperse'within these stands. Thinning stands that cutrently 'pto\Tip~l?oor qtial1t~ dispersal habitat will improve the dispersal function far spotterlo",lsby proVid.~ng more "flying space," and encouraging residual trees to , develap iribte,size and<~tfljctural diversity. 2~ .tiThe quality .of spott.ed owl,.foraging habitat in treated stands may imprave in response .. ...... .to the relativelY:p1are open structure .of the treated stands. 3. Thiithing treatments: are likely to contribute to reducing the rate .of spread and iIitell.~jty of'vYHclland fires camman ta the actian area. The Forest has determined that the effects of treating and maintaining up to 1,168 acres of spotted dispersal-only habitat will be insignificant and not likely to adversely affect the spotted awl because: 2. Canopy cover within affected stands will be maintained at 40 percent or greater post- treatment and spotted owls should be able ta cantinue ta disperse thraughaut these stands. ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 19 () .~---,,'" 3. Decadent woody material, such as large snags and dawn waod, will be retained in the same condition as prior to the treatment, there by continuing to pravide habitat and benefits for spotted owls. 4. The prapased treatments will be dispersed in patches throughout the Section Seven watershed to further minimize affects to stand characteristics for dispersal habitat. The following beneficial effects may be realized as a result of implementation of the preferred alternative: 1. Very dense stands will be opened by thinning, thereby improying the ability for spotted owls to disperse and forage within these stands. ThiI1fiing stands that currently pravide poor quality dispersal habitat will improve the dispersal function for spotted owls by providing more "flying space," and encouraging residual trees to develap more size and structural diversity. 2. The quality of spotted owl foraging habitat intreated stands niayimprove in response to the relatively more .open structure .of thetteated stands. 3. Thinning treatments are likely ta contribute ta reducing the rate .of spfe~d and intensity of wildland fires common to the action area. Effects to Spotted Owl Recovery The forest believes that the preferred alternative is consistent withthe new Spotted Owl Recovery Plan goals far SW Oregan (FWS 2008)''fh.epreferred alt~rfiative will minimize impacts to spotted awls, owl habitat, and result in arhor.~.fire resilient landscape while at the same time minimizing impacts to owls and proyiding'fof thet~sovery of spotted owls. While there is currently na warkgrotip:.cJ.etailed for RecQvery Actiol1.8: the Service and others experts in spatted owl biolagy have been cios~ly involved inthe AFR project. The farest will cantinue to involve the ServiceasW.ell as othegentities thraugh?ut this project in order to ensure that the recavery plans gaals specific to SW,Oregon are meturider the preferred alternative. The followJngbeneficial effect$J9the MOCAmay be realized as a result .of implementation .of the praj~9t; . ...., ,,' .," .. ,'. ,..-:".: ,.; . :;-.: ">: . ", : L.. .Treated stands ar~Jikely tobe more ecologically sustainable because residual stands willbe less suscepfiple to suppression mortality. 2. Fuels/yegetation rIianagement treatments are designed to reduce the intensity and rate of sprea4pf large{.stand replacement fires common to the action area. 3. Thinningtt~atments are likely to contribute to reducing the rate of spread and intensity of wildland fires common ta the actian area. 4. The treatments will result in an appraximately 40 percent reductian in the potential for stand replacement fire within the watershed and it will pravide long term resilience fram stand replacement fires within MOCA 19, t~ereby maintaining high quality NRF and dispersal habitat and known spotted owl sites. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ( Cumulative effects under ESA are those effects of future tribal, county, state or private activities, nat invalving a Federal nexus, that are reasanable certain ta .occur within the Actian Area of the APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 20 ('~') '_./ federal actian subject ta cansultatian (50 CFR 402.2). The effects of future federal actions will be evaluated during future Sectian 7 cansultations and are not included in cumulative effects under ESA. Cumulative effects analysis .of fareseeable state and private actians pravide the Service and the Forest an accurate environmental baseline ta assess impacts of federal actions. The amount ofNRF habitat for spotted owls on private land is unknown, though it is likely to be relatively low. Although private lands may provide some dispersal habitat for spatted owls due ta the selective harvest regimes typically carried out in the Rogue Valley and surrounding area, under the typical rotation age .of 40 to 60 years, the amount .of dispersal habitat for spotted owls on private land would be expected to decline. The Service cancluded in the Biological Opinion far the NWFP (p. 44-45, Appendix G in USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994): A Non-federal landowner compliance with the take prohibition of the [Endangered Species} Act does not assure the maintenance of spotted owl dispersal habitat within Areas of Concern and checkerboard ownership11or provide for improvement of existing populations. Consequently, it is likely that a reduction in dispersal habitatwould occur on nonjederallands in certain areas. . Habitat for the northern spotted owl has not been compreh~ns'vely classified or surveys conducted an state and private lands. State and private timber.pompany holdings cover many thousand acres within the Action Area. Moststate and private holqings have been harvested within the last 50 years and are now either ip woodlCll}d residential; agricultural, or as managed shrub, pole, or large pole condition classes. Some matlire:.f()restedstands exist an county, state, .or private land, but these stands represent a small proportioh:Qfprivate land ownership. The mature stands provide limitedamounts of suitable habitat for:iisted forest species. Mature and large pole stands were recently being logged at ahaccelerated rate due to economic/market canditians. Haweverolnarket canditions have slowed inthe last twa years and timber harvest rates on non-Federallandsinay not be as high as iuJherecent past. However Oregon Department of Forestry data shaws littledo:\Vn turn inh arv est rates in Jacksan Caunty. As an example, harvest data provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry shows that in 2006, shows that 88 million board feet oftifuber had been harvested from non-federal lands in Jackson County, up from 99~POO,000 baard feetin 2005 ahdllp fram 80 miUian in 2004. (htto:llego-y..aregan.gav/ODF/ST ATE FORESTS/FRP/annual reports.shtn1l.) The majority6f~tate and priv~te forests in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California are managed for timberproductiorl (Thamas et al. 1990, USDA Farest Service/USDA Bureau .of Lan~ Management.1994a);)Historically, non-federal landowners practiced even-aged management (clear cutting) of timber over extensive acreages. The Forest assumes that these past management practices will continue and reduce the amount ofNRF habitat for spotted owl on non-federal lands over time. Harvest activities on state and private lands can be expected to impact spotted owls lacated within adjacent federal lands by removing and fragmenting habitat and thraugh disturbance activities adjacent to .occupied sites during sensitive periods. ( Federal lands will make significant contributians ta the recovery .of spotted owls through the implementatian .of the NWFP. However, non-federal lands are important where federal lands are absent or where NRF habitat on federal lands is believed insufficient to maintain local papulatians. In the case .of the spotted owl, nan-federal lands are not expected to provide demagraphic suppart across and between physiagraphic provinces (Thamas et al. 1990, USDA APPENDIX F Page 21 Wildlife BE Forest Service 1990b, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a, USDA Forest ServicelUSDI Bureau .of Land Management1994a). Contributions in certain regions (including the Ashland 1-5 corridar) may provide impartant habitat ta LSRs with paar repraductive patential or with paor connection to adj acent LSRs. (.. ............. ,~) ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 22 VI. Description of the Species Listed as Forest Service Sensitive ( ) Habitat daes nat exist within the Analysis Area faT the fallawing Forest Service Sensitive species. These species are not discussed further within this Wildlife Biological Evaluation. Batrachoseps attenuatus Plethodon stormi Rana boylii Rana pretiosa Seiurus noveboracensis Histrionicus histrionicus Gonidea angulata Deroceras hesperium Fluminicola sp. novo 3 Helminthoglypta hertleini Lanx alta Lanx klamathensis Monadenia fidelis beryllica Pomatiopsis binneyi Pomatiopsis californica Pristiloma arcticum crateris Vespericola sierranus Callophrys polios maritime Plebejus saepiolus littora/is Speyeria coronis coronis California slender salamander Siskiyou Mountain salamander Foothill yellow-legged frog Oregon spotted frog Northern waterthrush Harlequin duck Western ridged mussel Evening fieldslug Klamath rim pebblesriail Oregon shoulderband Highcap lanx . Scale lanx Green sideband Robust walker Pacific walker Crater Lake tight~oi1 Siskiyou hespeHail '. . Jloary elfin>u:<' . "msular blue butterfly..:- . . ... CorollisfritH lary Knawn species occurrence .or suitable habitafmay .occur withiItthe Analysis Area for the follawing species, and is summarized in this WiJdlife Bialagical Evaluatian. Aneides flavipunctatus . Clemmys marmdrata marmorata Haliaeetus leucocephalus Falco peregrinus{lfliltu.m Melanerpeslewis Picoidesalbolarvatus. .,....... MyotisthysClnodes vespertirlu~. A ntrozouspallidus pacifi cus Corynorhinushtw!,-sendii . Gulo gulo luteus . Martes pennanti Monadenia chaceana Monadenia fidelis celeuthia Callophrys johnsoni Polites mardon Bombus franklini Chloealtis aspasma ( Black Salamander Northwestern pond turtle . Northern bald eagle AIl'ierican peregrine falcon Lewis' woodpecker White-headed woodpecker Pacific fringe-tailed bat Pacific pallid bat Townsend's big-eared bat California wolverine Pacific fisher Chace's sideband Traveling sideband Johnson's hairstreak Mardon skipper Franklin's bumblebee Siskiyou short-homed grasshopper APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 23 Species Discussion -~"' Black Salamander C.__) The black salamander ranges from a limited distribution in southern Oregon into Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties, California. In Oregon, the few records available indicate a small range in extreme southern Jackson and sautheastern Josephine Caunties (Leonard et al. 1993). Black salamanders are found in coniferous forests, mixed deciduous-coniferous forests, and open hillsides from sea level up to at least 1,700 meters in elevation (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Black salamanders are most likely to be found in the moist crevices of decaying logs or stumps, within moist to wet talus slopes, or under surface objects during wet weather (Leonard et al. 1993). Three specimens residing in the Southern Oregon College Reptile and Amphibian collection were tentatively identified as black salamander by Dr. Stephen Cross..These specimens were taken in May 1971 from a mine shaft alang the eastern bardetofthe RN:i\(Crass 1973). Six individuals (1 adult male, 2 adult females, 1 subadult, 2 juveniles) were located by Forest Service and FWS biologists conducting herpetological surveysfor theAFR praject In April 2004. The adults and sub-adult were located under a large bOl1.ltl~r and the juveniles were fdung llnder debris associated with a large downed log. All ofthe.mdividualswere found withitLal 0 meter radius within a dry, fairly open site. Northwestern Pond Turtle The northwestern pand turtle .occurs in both perennial and intertllittent ~aters including marshes, sloughs, maderately deep p01?ds, and slow-movingpartians of creeks and rivers (Brawn et al. 1995, Nussbaum et al. 1983). They favar habitats wit.h."1.ar~e amounts .of emergent logs or baulders, where they aggregate ta bask (Brownet aL 1995)~:H.' Pond turtles are known to occur ih.t,he pands at Lithia Park and potential habitat exists at Reeder Reservoir. . Northern Bal~Eagle .. . .. Informationoritheec()lo&y ofth~.:Horthernbald.eagle is cantained within the Draft site-specific managelllent plan for tn~:Ernigranhpake bald eagle nest site (Popp and Isaacs 1995), the Worlcifig.;Ip1plementatiaIi}>lan far Balq.Ea.gle Recovery in Oregan and Washingtan (OR-W A Interagency ")Vildlife ComrriU!~e 198?}and within the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 1986)..: ... . . . .. . . n.-':'.. ". .... . . . An active bald eagle pest (Nest 1034) is lacated east .of the Analysis Area on BLM managed lands around Immigfa#t~ake. The nest is located in a dominant ponderosa pine within the Slide Creek drainage (V. Arthur, pers. comm.). A Bald Eagle Cansideratian Area (BECA) encamp asses a portion of Forest Service managed lands within the Analysis Area within the Neil and Ashland Creek drainages (Papp and Isaacs 1995). A Bald Eagle Management Area (BEMA) is lacated on BLM and private ownerships (Popp and Isaacs 1995). An adult bald eagle was observed roosting in the Neil Creek drainage in 1994 and adult eagles were observed flying taward the Neil Creek drainage several times during the evening. It is unknown whether eagles roast in the drainage, use it to access the nest stand, or both (Popp and Isaacs 1995). Bald eagles are fairly tolerant of human activity, but high level noise or disturbance can dissuade them from impartant breeding area .or winter raast sites, particularly during the early nesting season. Individual pairs have widely variable respanses to disturbance. Seasonal and distance APPENDIX F Page 24 Wildlife BE III C~) protection are generally effective in reducing adverse impacts of human disturbance activity to bald eagles. Habitat protection is generally effective if large trees that support nesting and roosting are maintained within the nesting .or wintering stand and any disruptive activity is scheduled outside .of sensitive periods (USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS 2003). American Peregrine Falcon The American peregrine falcon was identified as an endangered species in the 1970s and then delisted in 1999. Peregrine falcons are typically associated with cliffs, which serve as nesting and perching sites. Nest site criteria include ledges, pothales, and small caves that are near water, inaccessible ta mammalian predators, and offer pratection fram rain and snow, and heat and cold. Peregrine falcons feed almost exclusively on birds. Cliffs with suitable ledges provide nesting habitat for peregrine falcons. Peregrine habitat on the Siskiyau portion of the Forest is managed in accordance with the Regional Forester's letter of July 19,1999 (USDA 1999b). On 25 August 1999, the USDI (1999) Fish and Wildlife Service removed (delisted) the American peregrine falcan throughaut its range as a threatened species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened, Wildlife, thereby removing.ap protections pravided by the Act. A strategy far the 5-year monitoring plan that follows the deli~ting has been developed and in being implemented (FWS 2003). Evaluation.of impacts afPropased Actions on the peregrine falcon should follow the process described in FSM 2673.4 and be documented in the Biological Evaluation. If a proposed projectmay patentially impact the species or its habitat, surveys using the Regi()nal protocol (PageL1988) shauld be canducted. There is one knawn cliff within the Praject~ea thatn'light suppartnesting peregrines. Contractors reported hearing what they suspected as: a falcol1near this cliff while canducting red tree vole sUl:'V;eY8.,in June af2007..Follaw-ulr~tlrveys were conducted in May and June of 2008... No.peregrtIles were detected at the cliff. . . ".' ". ,-,... . ~ . .... .. ' ,... Lewis' Woodpecker ... ............. ....:i:,/ Lewis' waadpeckers are niigra~QrYdri:s()pt~'r\'est~t;n.Oregan, with sparadically large populations in the winter andsca.ttered breedillg pairsTrt: thestlmmer reported. Gilligan et al. (1994) reports that they are commdrib~~eders ihs\1p:nner in Jacksan and Josephine Caunties but in the last 10 yearsthey have not been d6~llmented.;(N. Barrett 2008, pers. cam.) and there are few recent breeditig.~ecords (Janes et at.,g002).tl1is species is closely tied ta the ponderasa pine/oak savannah habita.ts .of eastem3iid sauthwest Oregon. . . . -- . . . " . . ,. .' . Nests are .often ihthelarge Pqrlderosa Pine snags .or mature oaks while the birds farage an insects and acorn fi1e~!.~., In. winter they store acarn meat in crevices in trees and power pales. Because this waodpeck.erdoes not usually excavate its awn cavity, they have a clase tie ta older snags within the foresfthat are likely to cantain cavities and have crevices for faad starage. The papulation of Lewis' waodpeckers has fallen dramatically across Oregan as pine - oak woodlands are lost (Gilligan et al. 1994, Galen 2003). A contributing factor in the decline has been the spread of the European Starling, which aggressively outcompetes this species for available cavities. Habitat lass is due ta a wide variety .of cancems that include urbanization of valley floars, fire suppressian and encraachment of canifer farests, timber harvest .of pine campanents in the .oak forests, etc. ( White-Headed Woodpecker APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 25 White-headed woodpeckers have been confirmed breeding on Mount Ashland, Dead Indian Plateau, and along the California border into Josephine County. Primarily a Ponderosa Pine habitat breeder on the East side of the Cascades, they locally breed in the Shasta fir zone in Jackson County (Marshall 2003) and in mixed conifer forest (R. Cooper 2008, pers. com.). This species is not migratory and can be found on the forest year round (Janes et aI. 2002). Thinned stands with large remnant trees area suitable habitat, as well as old growth forests. On the Rogue River -Siskiyou National Forest any dry, open forest stand with large trees may serve as suitable foraging breeding habitat for the species, though breeding is probably limited to Ponderosa pine and true fir stands. Known breeding sites on the forest include the meadow complexes on the south side of Mt. Ashland and a Shasta Fir shelterwood (appx. 6 trees/ac.) east of Howard Prairie. One Mt. Ashland nest was in a 5 foot tall stump within a campground; . - - ".. ~ The declining population is eastern Oregon appears to be tied to intensive harvest of mature ponderosa pine forests. Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat Miller and Allen (1928) (as reported by Verts and Carraway 1998) considered M. thysanodes a cave-dwelling bat, even though most of the specimens theyexarIlined were from buildings. In SW Oregon, they are considered a snag obliga~e rooster (Crossl996). It appears to be adapted to living in areas with diverse vegetative substtate,;' Fringe-tailed myotis are known to occur withih. theAnalysis1\r'7a. . Cross et aI. (1997) reported capturing two M. thysanodes (1. male, 1 female),::o/ithin the Ashland Watershed during August. Pacific Pallid Bat .'. h<. . >. Pallid bats are known to6cyur throughout SW Orego.lland NW California. Suitable roost habitat types include buildings, bridges, r()C~:O\l1;cr9pS, an~:large decadent snags. Pallid bats have been captured fro~sever~L~ites ohtl1~RORStSNJi'~.jncluding some locations on the Applegate RD. They have also beeiLcaptured afasit~ just south of Pilot Rock at 4,500 feet in elevation, southwest of the Analysis Area (DayeClayton pers. obs.). . '. . Pallid batshareknown to roos!,:tlnder loose bark of large snags and within rock crevices (D. Clayton, persifomm.). Dr. S~ephen Cross sampled for bat species in 1973 near the Ashland Creek inlet of Reecier Reservoir using mist netting and shooting techniques (Cross 1973). Bat surveys were conduct~.d agaihby Cross in 1997 in and around the RNA (Cross et aI. 1997). Pallid bats were not 'detected with either effort. Cross (1973) considered expected presence of pallid bats to be marginal or uncommon within the RNA. However, surveys conducted by Cross sampled only a small portion of the Analysis Area. Based on documented presence of pallid bats at both Applegate R.D. and Pilot Rock, and the presence of large, decadent snags for roosting, pallid bats may occur within the Analysis Area. (. Townsend's Big-eared Bat Townsend's big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitats, its distribution tends to be geomorphically determined and is strongly correlated with the availability of caves or cave-like roosting habitat (e.g., old mines) (Pierson et al. 1999). The species may also use hollow trees for APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 26 C"'-") ,~..~.;l (~) roosting. Suitable roosts sites and hibernacula fall within a specific range of temperature and moisture conditions. Moths make up the majority of the diet for C. townsendii. Currently, there are two mines within the Analysis Area that could provide potential roost/maternity sites for Townsend's big-eared bats. Lamb Mine is near a trail and is frequented by recreational users which may make it unavailable for C. townsendii because they are highly susceptible to disturbance. The Ashland Loop Mine has a gate on it which precludes human use, but that could be re-configured to allow easier access and reduce the potential for predation. Cross et al. (1997) surveyed both mines in 1997 and C. townsendii were not captured. California Wolverine Marshall (1989) described wolverine habitat in Oregon as similar to what was described by Hornocker and Hash (1981) in Montana. In Montana, wolverines'selected alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) forests over ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and spnlce (Picea sp.), but showed some preference for 10<igep6le pine (Pinus contorta) and western larch (Larix occidentalis). Wolverines tended t6Work large areas of scattered conifers but also pockets, rocky, and ecotonal areas. Y oung,dense conifer stands were used least. Wolverines were rarely located in burned-over or wet areas, and crossed but did notlinger in clear-cuts (Hornocker and Hash 1981). Status of the wolverine in Oregon remain~ unknown. Thereat~:y'ery few verifiable records for the State (Verts and Carraway 1998), nori~'ofwhich come frortiJa~kson or Josephine Counties. . . ',', .,' Numerous carnivore surveys and a considetable':am()unt of carnivoh~research have been conducted in southern Oregon and northernCalif6rfiia.:~nJl1e past dedlde. These include, but are not limited to, over 150 baited camera stations ,on the'Casca.de,.,Z.Qne of the ROR SIS NF, .. . .-. ,".. . . . ~ . . .. ".. numerous baited stations onthe<Diamond Laket~Jj. of the Umpqua N.F., and surveys in the Ashland Watershed by agency biologists and priY(ite individuals in cooperation with the BLM, Southern Oregon University, and F~rest Service.~~dio-telemetry studies have been conducted on marten in northwestettfC~lifornia and on the Winema National Forest, and radio-telemetry studies have been conductedoJ:lfisher innortl1:"Y~stern California and the southern Oregon Cascades. Alloftl1~~~,.C?ffortSh.~y~ usedcarri6n'as bait, none have detected wolveriJ;1e. ,'.. . '.. ....." ", .- .... .', ". " ,..... ' '," ~', .: . .. c.: :. " : . '. '. . . . . In additio~, the Winema,lJtnpqua,an<.lRogue River-Siskiyou National Forests have been conductin~helicopter surve~~jn the S.1W'Lakes and Thielsen Wilderness areas for the past 3 years, which,J)J:'ovide the highest quality wolverine denning habitat in southern Oregon based on known den sites (Magoun and Copeland 1998) and a wolverine den habitat model (Hart et aI. 1997). Wolverine dens or tr~cks have not been detected with this effort. Since virtually all studies ofwolverines,hflveshown their dependence on carrion as forage, and wolverines are known to den at high elevation at or above timberline, it appears highly unlikely that wolverines are resident in southern Oregon and northern California at the present time. Wolverines are known to make long distance movements and disperse across large areas. A wolverine was photographed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California in February, 2008. Additional photographs and genetic samples were collected in March, 2008. Analysis of the genetic samples identified the individual as originating from the Rocky Mountains. Dispersing individuals from neighboring states have the ability to enter SW Oregon, therefore, there is potential for wolverines to be located in SW Oregon in the future. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 27 Pacific Fisher (-'~) .............;;::; MANAGEMENT STATUS The Pacific fisher was petitioned for listing by the Center for Biological Diversity and several other environmental organizations in November 2000. After a 12-month review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found Pacific fisher to be a distinct population segment (DPS) and gave a "warranted but precluded" decision to the petition, designating the West Coast DPS a Federal Candidate species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Other rankings include: U.S.D.A Forest Service, Region 6 - Sensitive, Region 5 - Sensitive; U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon - Sensitive, California - Sensitive; Oregon State Sensitive - Critical species, California State - Species of Special Concern; The NaturalHeritage Program ranks this species as Globally demonstrably widespread (G5), Oregon State (S2) imperiled because of rarity or other factors, and ORNHIC List 2. RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION According to reviews, the fisher occurs from southern Yukon and southwestemNorthwest Territories southeast through British Columbia and possibly extreme southeasfem:Alaska, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, southemQuebec, atidNew BrunswicktoNova Scotia. Its distribution extends south through several forested areas of the northeastern United States including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, northemNew York, Pennsylvania, western Massachusetts, the upper peninsula of Michigan, and northemWisconsin and Minnesota. There is also a population in West Virginia. In the western United States, fisher populations are known to occur in western Montana, the Idaho parthahdl~;,th~southern Sierra Nevada of California, the Klamath and Siskiyou mountains of northwestern Ca!i,forpia and extreme southwestern Oregon, and the southern Cascade Range of southweste:t"ll Qregori.:Th.~::fj.sher may be extirpated from Washington (Meyer 200?)~,,'>':':i'" . ." '. . .. ", ..... .. .. - , ," " -.... :.:...;. ,.:;. The geographic distribution of fishers in the PacifiqCoast states has been greatly reduced in extent from pre-sett1emehtconditi6~s~ Prior to extensive European settlement, the fisher occupied mostc?niferous f6re,~t.:l.iabitatsinw;.~~~gton, Oregon, and California (Aubry and Lewis 2003).>dPersist~l1ce of fishe.r.s in Washitigton is questionable. Lewis and Stinson (1998) reported that the fisheri$very rare:;.ll1:Washington. Extensive surveys by the Washington Dept. of Fishahd Wildlife andthe,.U.S. F6res~~ervice have failed to locate a fisher population, or confirm .th, epresence of a fi$li~r in are~s where recent reports are concentrated (Lewis and Stinson 1998){,:One telemetryi.study and several surveys conducted by various agencies and individuals have;dqcumented:if}shers in the southern Oregon Cascades and Siskiyou Mountains (Aubry et al. 19'97,'Slauson and Zielinski 2001, Aubry et al. 2002, E. Weir 2003, Aubry et aI. 2005, Farber and Criss:.20P6). The presence of fishers in California is well-documented (Zielinski et al. 1995, Farber and Franklin 2005, Farber and Criss 2006). POPULATIONS The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that fishers in the Cascade Mountains 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 Mountains and south through the Sierra Nevada Mountains 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 (Wisely et at 2004). This is considered to be due to the APPENDIX F Page 28 Wildlife BE III ---y-------- (~~) presence of potentially strong ecological and anthropogenic barriers including the white oak savanna habitat of the Rogue Valley and Interstate 5 (Aubry et al. 2004). 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 ofFish and Wildlife (Aubry et aI. 2004). Animals in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of Or~gon are genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California population, which is indigenous (Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Franklin 2005). Fishers have been documented in the AFR Analysis Area (Weir 2003), and adjacent areas (Was 1995, Schroeder 2001, Stevens, unpublished data, Aubry et aI. 2005, Farber and Criss 2006). While there have been no telemetry studies of fishers in or immediatelyadjacent to the Analysis Area to determine home ranges of individuals, it is assumed that fishers are resident in the Ashland Watershed. Two recent surveys that have incorporated hair snaring and subsequent DNA analysis as a component have identified fishers near the AFR Analysis Area as members Of the indigenous population (Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Criss 2005): Carlos Carroll estimated the northern California-southWestern Oregon (total) fisherpopulation as 1,000-2,000 individuals (Center for Biological Diversity 2000). Estimates of fisher population size in this document are also based on 1) the cumulative mean home range size of female fishers (10 km2) reported in 7 studies,jn porthern Califomia(Yaeger 2007), and 2) generally, fisher home range sizes increaseitfsizefrom south to north; REPRODUCTION , ' , Fishers exhibit intrasexual territoriality, where individuals defend a home range against members of the same sex, but-there is considerable overlap between sexes (Johnson et al. 2000). These territories are maintained yew-rouIld.except during the breeding season when males trespass on each other's territories whi1e'~h~ysearchJorreceptive females (Powell 1993). In Oreg911~'breedingseas()Hbegariln:e~rly February when adult males became more active and starteqt6.>l110ve longer distatwes. Malesso"tnetimes moved well beyond their non-breeding season hom~ranges presuniaJJ.ly to fill.d'feproductive females (Aubry and Raley 2006). Mating occurs shortl).f.,~fter partuitioi);::(~lthough the fertilized eggs do not implant for approximately 10 months. Active:~r.~gnancy tYI>lcaIly begins in February and lasts until March or early April, when fishers givel?iry,p to aniiverage of 2 to 3 kits (Meyer 2007). In southwest Oregon, adult females gave birth toJots, from about 1 7 March to 5 April, and the natal-denning period lasted until late-Mayor the beginning of June (Aubry and Raley 2006). ( HOME RANGE, MOVEMENT, AND DISPERSAL Fisher home range sizes exhibit substantial variation throughout their range and within habitat types, although male home ranges are generally larger than those of females. Home range size for fishers is likely related to availability of resources including abundance and diversity of prey and suitable habitats for den and rest sites. Male home range sizes may be influenced by availability of females. Mean home range sizes of males in the southern Cascades of Oregon was 147 km2 during the breeding season and 62 km2 during the non-breeding season compared to female home ranges of 25 km2 (Aubry and Raley 2006). Male home ranges in a California north coast study area averaged 58 km2 compared to 15km2 for females (Zielinski et aI. 2004). APPENDIX F Page 29 Wildlife BE C"') ". _";',i',j' Seasonal movements are generally related to the breeding period for males. In southwest Oregon male home ranges were twice as large during the breeding season compared to the non-breeding season (Aubry and Raley 2006). One adult male who resided on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains during the non-breeding season traveled approximately 30 km across the Cascade crest to the west slope during 3 successive breeding seasons (Aubry and Raley 2006). Aubry and Raley (2006) used fixed-wing aircraft to monitor two adult males during the breeding season and reported that a 3 year old male covered a 226 km2 area and a 6 year old male covered a 100 km2 area. The younger male made excursions far to the south of his non-breeding season territory, and the older male moved primarily within his non-breeding territory with some excursions beyond his usual activity area. During the denning season, females on the Hoopa Reservation used and average of 3.1 dens/season and moved kits a cumulative average distance of 871 m with a range of 85 to 2228 m. Dens were located and average of 414m apart. Despite the distance between den structures, dens used within a season were located within a small, concentrated area of each females home range (Mathews 2006); In southwest Oregon, when females moved their kits from the natal den, subsequent Use of maternal dens was variable. Females that only had 1 kit were relatively mobile and few maternal dens werefound. In contrast, when females had ~2 kits, maternal densWetefound regularly and at leastsome of the dens were used for >2 weeks(Aubry and Raley 2006). At two to three months of age, juveniles'begin foraging for themselves, though they remain on their mother's home range until they dispets~w~en they are betwe~n 6 and 12 months of age (Powell 1993). Riparian corridors (Heine111~yerand.Jgnes 1994) angJorested saddles between major drainages (Buck 1983) may provide it1lPortatifdl~p~r.~al habitat or landscape linkages for the species. Reported dispersal distances forfisher.~,haveva.i:i~d,jn the literature. In a study in Maine, dispersal distance~r,arig~4lrom 4 to 19 kID'and there ,Was no significant difference in dispersal distances between male~)~d females (Arthur et at 1993). Arthur believed that these were short dispersaldislaq.ces (reIflttve to the sizeQ{ an, adult home range) and were probably due to the fact that the stud)ipbpulatioil"was trapped, lea.dillg to more territorial vacancies. However, these dispersal distances are:n()t great1Y,~i:~~relJJfrom those reported in Oregon and California. In the south(Jascaq~~.,,~tpdy area':<:>.f:Oregon,Atibry and Raley (2006) documented 7 juvenile dispersals{4 females,3fn~les).B:Y}lpproximately the end of May, most l-year-old fishers had settledipt? the area where they eveflfqally:established a home range. Males dispersed an average of 29 km~:,myan dispersal dislapce offemales was 6 km. Two of the 4 females did not disperse from theirnat~!,areas; these f~~ales appeared to establish home ranges adjacent to and slightly overlapping tneit;:::t;p.other's hdrl}e range (Aubry and Raley 2006). On the Hoopa Reservation in northern CaliforriHt,>l, female'dispersed 1-2 Ion from natal den and set up a home range. Another female moved up tolQlau.ftom natal den and was determined to be moving back towards her mothers home range wh.en it was found dead. One male dispersed 3-4 km from natal den and set up a home range. There has been high turnover in female populations in recent years on the Hoopa Reservation and therefore, there is a potential that there are a larger number of vacant home ranges that could be occupied by dispersing animals (M. Higley 2007, pers. comm.). FOOD HABITS Powell (1993) reported the primary prey of fishers throughout most of their range are snowshoe hares '(Lepus americanus) and porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum). Although the fisher is reported to be a specialist in late seral mixed conifer-hardwood forests, recent analysis of the diet of fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada portray an opportunistic predator with a diverse diet. Zielinski et at (1999) characterized fisher diets by analyzing 201 fisher scats and found that APPENDIX F Page 30 Wildlife BE (/t.,.:' " '. ,j /-~ c.);) ( mammals were the most frequent food item. Reptiles (20.4%) and insects (55.7%) were also major components in the diet (Zielinski et aI. 1999). In southwest Oregon Aubry and Raley (2006) analyzed 303 scats from 11 female and 84 scats from 8 male fishers. Food items from 5 major taxa groups were identified; Mammalia (female 85%, male 76(Yo), Aves (female 280/0, male 27%), Reptilia (females 7%, males 50/0), Insecta females (25%, males 27%), and Planta (females 140tlo, males 13%). Their results suggested that female fishers were capturing smaller-bodied prey more frequently than larger-bodied prey, and males were capturing larger-bodied prey more frequently. Aubry and Raley (2006) also found evidence that males, but not females were preying upon porcupines. These findings suggest that fishers, at least in the western states, are a generalist predator. HABITAT The fisher is one of the most habitat-specialized mammals in westerrlNorth America (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Speciaiization appears to be tied primarily to denning and resting habitats. The varied diet of fishers suggests they forage in a variety Of habitats. ' Fishers use landscapes at different spatial scales for different behaviors and activiti~s (Rowell 1994, Weir and Harestad 2003). For example, fishers may establish their home ninges at the landscape scale, forage at the patch scale, and select habitat forresting or denningat the patch scale as well as at a finer scale of habitat characteristics ofelernents within a patch (Powell 1994, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Weir and Harestad 2003). Rest Structures Several studies have shown that fishers appear to be highly selective of resting structures. In California, Zielinski et aI. (2004) found that-resting strUctures,were in the largest diameter trees available. Average dbJiforJive conifers was'}17 cm fOI'Iive conifers, 120 em dbh for conifer snags, and 69 cni dbh for hardwoods. Orithe Hoopa,' and Shasta-Trinity study areas, Yeager (2005) determ.ift~dthat resttrees used by fisper had a significantly larger dbh than the average dbh of the four larg~st trees()n the rest site plots. In the Hoopa study area, the rest tree was one ofthefotl~largest tre~soh 91%2ftpe r~sesite plots measured, and was the single, largest tree,.()tii46%'o.ftqe rest 'sit..~plots. In southwest Oregon, Aubry and Raley (2006) reported that the ~verage dianie16rof livette,~s used by females for resting was slightly greater than those used l:>y'm,ales: 88 em dbhyersus 64dlldbh. ,', ..... ,..... ';-. '"-.; . .... . - .. ,',-,' .... . , ,", ..',",' " ',- ....... ,",",,'. . . .. .. . . . ~ .", . In Califoniia;'Zielinski et aL(~004) found that fishers select rest sites with significantly higher canopy closuteirtlIpediately adjacent to the rest site (93.40/0) when compared to random sites (88.80/0). Yeaget{2005) repqrted that on the Hoopa study area, 86.80/0 of all rest sites had more than 50% canopy c6Vet:~1,1d59.7% had greater than 75% canopy cover. At Shasta-Trinity 97.6% of all rest sites had motethan 500/0 canopy cover and 87.50tlo had greater than 75% canopy cover. In SW Oregon fishers selected rest sites with canopy closure greater than 80% (Aubry and Raley 2006). In the southern Oregon Cascades, Aubry and Raley (2006) located and typed 641 different resting structures. Fourteen percent of the rest structures were reused by the same animal on more than 1 occasion, 3 percent were used by another radio collared fisher at some time during the study. Both male and felnale fishers primarily used live trees for resting. Use of logs and cull piles by females and males was similar. Females used a greater proportion of snags for resting than males. Both male and female fishers used mistletoe brooms in live trees more than any other micro-site (females 31 %, males 21 (Yo). Mistletoe brooms in live trees were the suspected rest site APPENDIX F Page 31 Wildlife BE of females for an additional 44% of live trees, and 33% of live trees for males. Rodent nests were used in 240/0 of the trees used by male fishers. ( -''1 ,--",7 Trees must be old enough to have suffered the type of stresses that initiate cavities, and must be subjected to the ecological processes that form cavities of sufficient size for use by fisher (Zielinski et al. 2004). Both conifers and hardwoods provide rest structures for fisher provided they are large enough produce cavities sufficient to accommodate them. Large trees also provide platform-type resting structures such as mistletoe, clumped branches which support rodent nests, or rust brooms which can support the weight of fishers. Once these large trees die and fall, they are also the type of log that fishers have been known to use as rest sites.., Removal of understory and mid-story canopies around large structures may also 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 distatlce is reduced in dense, multi-storied stands. Den Structures As with resting structures, both conifers and hardwo()clsprovidehabitat for fisher<i~hs. Yeager (2005) categorized 18 fisher dens in the Hoopa and Shasta~TrinitY study sites. Sixteen were located in hardwoods and 2 were located in conifers. Of these 18 dens, all but 3 were located in live trees. On both study areas, black oaks were used in 50%6fall dens categorized. Other species used were Tanoak, White oak, CahY()111~ve oak, Chinquapin, Douglas-fir, and Ponderosa pine. In southwest Oregon, Aubry and Raley (2006).located 13 n~italal1d 18 maternal dens. For natal dens, fishers used both live trees and snags withbpenings that accessed hollows created by heartwood decay. The most commonly used tt~e sp~ciesweteincense cedar, true fir, and western white pine. Doughts..fir,=Incense cedar and true firs ~ere used as maternal dens. Structures used for maternal dens Were more variable than those used for natal dens, and included cavities in,theQ()}e or buttt?f large live tie~,s 'l.nd snags, and large hollow logs (Aubry and Raley (2006). Nataldentrees.ri~ed to be fairIy'~afge to accommodate a cavity large enough for an adult female fisher and'kits(Aubry.andRaley 2006). In the south Cascades of Oregon, the average db~l::arid:h.eigpt,pf liveh~eys used fof'nataJ dens was 92 em and 40 m respectively. The averageqbli and heightofsnags Was 89 cm and 26 m respectively (Aubry and Raley 2006). ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 32 II ('h) ,__,...I' Chace Sideband and Traveling Sideband The chace sideband may be found within 30 m (98 ft.) of rocky areas, talus deposits and in associated riparian areas in the Klamath physiographic province and adjC:lcent portions of the . south-western Oregon Cascades. Areas of herbaceous vegetation in these rocky landscapes adjacent to forested habitats are preferred (Duncan et al. 2003). Two individual specimens of M. chaceana were located by a contractor conducting herptiIe surveys for Ashland Forest Resiliency in 2004. These individuals were positively identified by Nancy Duncan (Region 6 mollusk expert). Protocol surveys were conducted on approximately 1,500 acres of the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (AWPP) in.1999~No Survey and Manage mollusks were identified during that effort. The Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F. contracted with Siskiyou Co-op Inc. to conduct protocol surveys within the AFRanalysis area. Surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007, and completed by November, 2001. A total of8,731 acres were surveyed. Five M. chaceana and 19M. fidelis celeuthia were collected and identified within the surveyed area. Siskiyou Hesperian .. . The Siskiyou Hesperian can be found in riparian and other perenl1iallymoist habita.ts, in deep leaf litter and under debris and rocks. It has been collectedf):'oin lower portions of slopes, but not in areas subject to regular flooding. It may occur along runrting:water, such as small-order streams, or around permanent ponds andsP..tlngs. Vegetation at sit~..s... includes Rorippa and skunk . . - , - ..",-. . .. - - ...... . . ,"" . cabbage. Threats to the species include diversion or modi'ficatioriofsprings for livestock watering, irrigation, and human usemayresult in loss ordegtadation of habitat. Removal of forest overstory and increased solar insulation can result in drying of important subterranean refugia sites, and loss of aestiva.'.J.in. . g individlials. Concentrated use of riparian areas by livestock may also - . .. degrade available loose'soil:~nd litter habitat compotients used for foraging and breeding. Competition with exotic m.6119slc'species'iptr()QByed in agricultural areas may also be detrimental to continueq..9ccripa~i()l}of smalll1abitat areas;::: .... .- . . Frankli*'s Bumblebee' .....:. Franklirt's.I3!lmble Bee is a'tyPical primitively eusocial bumble bee. Females are generalist t6f~&~rs for polIeIife,speciaJly from lupine (L up in us ) and California poppy (Eschscholzia);..~d for nectar~'especially from horsemint (Agastache) and mountain penny-royal (Mdjf(ir4ella). They may collect both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia) and rob nectar fronl if{P:~chroeder personal communication). Its nesting biology is unknown, but it probably:nests in abandoned rodent burrows as is typical for other members of the subgenus Bombus sensu stricto (Hobbs 1968). Its flight season is from mid-May to the end of September (Thorp et aI. 1983). ( Franklin's Bumble Bee has the most limited geographic distribution of any bumble bee in North America and possibly the World (Williams 1998). It is known only from southern Oregon and northern California between the Coast and Sierra-Cascade Ranges. Stephen (1957) recorded it from the Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys of Oregon. Thorp et aI. (1983) also recorded it from northern California and suggested its restriction to the Klamath Mountain region of southern Oregon and northern California. Its entire distribution, including recent range extensions (Thorp unpublished), can be covered by an APPENDIX F Page 33 Wildlife BE (-J ..... _.~,;>i' oval of about 190 miles north to south and 70 miles east to west between 1220 to 124 0 west longitude and 40058' to 43030' north latitude. It is known from Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and Trinity counties in California. Elevations of localities where it has been found range from 540 feet (162 m) in the north to above 7800 feet (2340 m) in the south of its historic range. There is a known site located on the south side on Mt. Ashland. Recent surveys by Dr. Thorpe have failed to detect any individuals at any historic sites except for one lone individual located at the Mt. Ashland site in 2006. Threats include exotic diseases introduced via trafficking in commercial bumble bee queens and nests for greenhouse pollination of tomatoes (Thorp 2003,:Thorp et a1. 2003), habitat loss due to destruction, degradation, conversion; and pesticid~s and pollution. Johnson's Hairstreak This small brown butterfly occurs in isolated pockets in the western mountairisof California up into British Columbia. On the ROR SIS NF, rangeIl1a.ps indicate a populationin,th.e c()astal 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 much ofit8 time in the tops of mature conifer forests, making survey efforts extremely dj{ficu,, It. They do nect~ron, som. e plants, like Oregon . . .., - grape and males come into damp earth sites,sucha.sseeps and springs; 'Caterpillars feed on Pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) which grows on pities and others conifers. It is also known to use coastal hemlock mistletoe.'; '. ,. '" " , . ... '. ....' ,. Timber harvest of mat~e forests'trl,ay be a potential threat to this species. Other threats include spraying BT for tussock'moth ancl()ther pests. , Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper> Chloealtis~spa$ma4i,~ttjbutioh,is,:in two general areas, one from southern Oregon, near the California'border and the.pther iri'I3~~ton County. The type locality is in the Siskiyou Mountains of Jac~s()l). County, Oregoil:(I41S Rl~SecI3) where specimens were collected on a ridge bet*eenS,;qq.o and 5,800 feet:~levati~ri'ih a treeless summit bald covered with an almost impenetrabltf9r.pshy scrub thr,qygh which were scattered grassy areas (Rehn and Hebard 1919). This species oC6tifs,::i.9 Grassl~t1d/herbaceous habitats. It appears to be associated with elderberry plants. Females maY::Ja:y~~4eir eggs in the pith of blue elderberry plants, Sambucus caerulea Raf. (Foster 1974, BLM 1995). This plant is native from Alberta, Canada to Mexico. It grows in gravelly, rather dry soils on stream banks, margins of fields, woodlands. Blue elderberry is a deciduous plant with handsome showy clusters of white flowers, and the attractive dark blue berries. Females lay eggs in the pith of elderberry stems in the summer (Foster 1974). The eggs hatch the following year. Juvenile stages forage in open meadows near the ground. Juveniles look similar to the adults except the wings are much shorter and the individuals are smaller. ( Mardon Skipper APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 34 Mardon skippers use a variety of early successional meadow habitats which appear to vary by region (Kerwin et al. 2005). Populations in southern Oregon occupy small (less than 0.25 to 4 ha (0.5 to 10 ac )), high-elevation (1,372 to 1,555 m (4,500 to 5,100 ft)) grassy meadows within (~~~) mixed conifer forests. (USFWS, Candidate notice of review 2005). Seven or eight locations are known from the Cascade Mountains in Southwest Oregon, most bordering the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, with populations ranging from a few to approximately 200 individuals (Kerwin et al. 2005). In 2005, searches and surveys of populations on BLM and Forest Service lands in southern Oregon discovered several new sites. There are now a total of23 known sites in southern Oregon. One site is on the RRSIS NF and is approximately 8 km north of the nearest site on BLM lands. Another loCality is a complex of sites on both BLM and Forest Service lands north of Dead Indian road. Several more sites were located adjacent to known sites on BLM lands. One day counts at sit~sranged from one butterfly to over 70 butterflies (Kerwin et al. 2005). \ Surveys for various alpine butterflies were conducted froin May thru August 1996 along the Siskiyou Crest, including the Mt. Ashland area (Nice and VanBuskirk 1996). Mardon skippers were not detected along the Siskiyou Crest with this effort. VII. Effects to Species Listed as Forest Service Sensitive For many R-6 Sensitive species, the effectsp~tween the two ActiohAlternatives are similar and do not warrant individual discussion. Both Action..AJteJ:11atives woqldaffect several of the R-6 Sensitive species in a similar fashion. Both Action ~lteffiJltiv~s pfescribe overstory and understory removal, under- and pile burning, and pruningiW:s,pme areas. The primary differences between the t.woActi~n Alternatives are in juxtaposition and extent. Black Salamander; Cbace Sideb~nd, Traveling Sideband, and Siskiyou Hesperian The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by black salamanders 9r,Chagesidebartdsnail Inth~a~sence of large-scale wildfire, black salamander and chace sideba:riddensities would likely remain stable or increase in the Analysis and Project Areas 9~.cause decadence(ind decay in timbered stands would increase structure on the forest floor.:P , ' Under all Actio)) Alternatives/the felling and leaving of large trees in areas deficient of coarse woody materialC()uld benefitblack salamander and Chace's sideband by increasing habitat and dispersal opportui1iti~~~ Removal of overstory canopy would increase solar radiation in treated stands and create lessdesiIible habitats than current conditions due to increased temperatures at ground level. ( Fire has proven to be detrimental for mollusks. The initial fire kills the slow-moving animals that are not deeply buried in the soil or large wood pieces. Fire removes fuels that would serve as habitat or forage sites for mollusks. Some black salamanders may be able to escape the initial effects of fire if they are in close proximity to underground escape routes that are deep enough to provide protection from the heat. Piling of surface fuels would likely attract some species of mollusks and salamanders because they provide suitable surrogate habitats over the short-term. Piles are generally left for at least one season to dry and cure prior to burning. Some individuals would be lost when the piles are burned. Underburning would have an adverse effect on both APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 35 ("~ ,.,") species due to loss of surface fuels that are used as habitats and reduction of movement and dispersal opportunities between suitable habitats. For black salamander, Chace sideband, Traveling sideband, and Siskiyou Hesperian, all Action Alternatives "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (Rogue River-Siskiyou NF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide" because removal of wood during implementation may cause mortality in some individuals and prescribed burning operations may cause mortality in individuals and would reduce movement and dispersal opportunities. However all known sites for mollusks located through surveys will be managed as per National Fire Plan recommendations.( htto:/ /www.bIIn.gov/01"/0Ians/survevandmanageIMR/Fire-2nd- RTV Moll Amph/iIn-or-2003-045.htm) It is recommend that forth~ salamander that the known site be buffered by 75 meters, a minimum of 40 percent canopy closure be maintained in order to maintain conducive micro-habitat conditions, and a seasonalrestrictiorrfor all activities be implemented from October 1 to May 30 in order to reduce the potential for direct mortality from operations (D. Clayton, Personal Communication). Cumulative Effects The AFR, Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and FtielsReduction project, and A Wpp projects all focus on reducing the effects of wildfire and ret~ntion of, or maintenance of late- successional habitats within the Mt. Ashland LSR. These projects are expected to maintain and enhance the function of the LSR and CHlJforNSO, fisher, and other late-successional species. Implementation of these projects will actualIyinc~~ase the averagedppbf existing stands over the next several decades because thinning siI!all dia~et~rtrees will .Increase growth and vigor of the remaining stands by reducing competition;Th~iritehfofjth~~e projects is to retain late- successional conditions for fisher, and other late-successionaLspecies. It is expected that these projects will uItimatelx.providelatger trees for late-successional species, maintain connectivity throughout the Action"'1\1'ya, and m~intain the viability and resiliency of late-successional forests within the Action Area in::the eventc;>fwildfires. ... . ,_.. . . . . . . . '. . . . . -". ~. - -' Mt. Ashla.n.... d. .... .,.,LSR....... .:u........a. .b....... it...at Rest...o,.,....r... a.,. tion and. Fuels Reduction project The Klamath NatiorialFore,st is 'plalll1ing thinning and fuel reduction treatments in the southern portiol1:.of the Mt. Ashland:LSR. TreatJJ;l. erits are designed to promote the development of late- . succe's'slon~lhabitat and red~c~ the pq~ehtial of stand-replacement fire. . ,', ........ ....,.. ...... , '. Thinning de~f~fi~~.l" to promotcithe development of late-successional habitat will not remove important structur~l9omponepts of late-successional habitat such as large-diameter trees, snags, and DWD. Trees itl.f~9t~<l,with mistletoe may be removed but siIvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this habitat component will remain well distributed across the landscape. SilvicuItunil prescriptions have also been designed to retain 60 percent canopy cover in suitable spotted owl habitat. Prescriptions for underburning have been designed to imitate low-intensity fire, thus, underburning is not expected to significantly impact the amount and distribution of large snags and DWD. Other fuel reduction treatments such as hand piling and burning of fuels and mastication will retain Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment recommendations for snags and DWD. Because the structural elements of late-successional habitat will be retained, thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat and fuels reduction treatments are not expected to remove late-successional habitat. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 36 (, Because the only proposed silvicultural prescription is thinning, stands will be thinned to a variable density -including 15 percent of each stand to remain unthinned, an average of 60 percent canopy closure will be retained in true fir stands and the lower half of north and east facing slopes, an average of 40 to 60 percent canopy closure will be retained on south and west facing slopes, and 60 percent canopy cover will be retained in suitable late-successional habitat, thinning prescriptions designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not create large openings or significantly reduce forest cover and will retain a high level of habitat connectivity. Additionally, actions within one site potential tree of riparian reserves are limited to pre-commercial thinning which is not expected to affect the connectivity function of these areas. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap QFPZ would remove approximately 4 acres of late-successional habitat in stand 339 by reducing canopy cover to 40 percent. While thinning in DFPZs may remove discrete structll~al corhp()~ents of late- successional habitat outside of stand 339, silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to retain late-successional habitat where it occurs within DFPZs,' ensuring that these activities will not remove any additional late-successional habitat. Additionally, the removal of large sna.gs or groups of snags within DFPZs will be limited to sifuatipIls where. they pose a hazafdtb operations. In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant benefits to late-successional species by increasingth~,am!Junt and distrib4tion of late-successional habitat and by reducing fuels to a level that wouldresult.'~Jlll acceptablefiiebehavior and post fire stand condition. FVS modeling indicates that50 ye~fr~:P9~t thinning,the average tree diameter within a stand would increase to between 24 ah~ 27"'and ''1410 15 trees per acre> 30" would be expected. More large stems pef acre would alsdirtcrease recruitment of large snags and DWD. Stands with this type of structural complexity contain the specific habitat requirements for this species. FFE modeling indicates tha.t thinning ands.ubs.equent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire'type and significantly reduce predicted stand mortalityin}he eventof(J.fifestart'Jl1~se,factors indicate that stands will be more resistant to large-sca,le::fitesJ>,ul,~ill bliri1\~rjth sufflCienfihtensity to create small openings within forested habitat.'Ihis type ofpatt~~,woulci!:yr~ate a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be con., sist~nt with pattemsu.' ,I1.der histo]jcJlte regimes. This pattern of successional stages would --: .... :,' likely beri~fjJ late-successio~al species by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape." .. . .. ..' . . . . . :~ '. :, ,.". -. .: . . . . . ._, , , , Between 0.2 to O';~I11iles of temporary road construction is proposed in late-successional habitat. Because constructiori,ofteIrlporary roads would remove large diameter trees and create approximately a thirty foot gap in the canopy, it is expected that this activity would remove between 0.7 and 1.1 acres of late-successional habitat. To ensure that impacts to late- successional habitat are minimized, all trees >24" that need to be felled during temporary road construction will be left on site. One landing is proposed to be constructed in late-successional habitat, resulting in the removal of 0.5 acre of late-successional habitat. Road-related activities, including maintenance, closures, and decommissioning is not expected to remove any important structural components of habitat. ( Combined, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ and construction of temporary roads and landings would be expected to remove between 0.7 and 5.5 acres or 0.05 to 0.43 percent of the APPENDIX F Page 37 Wildlife BE extant late-successional habitat in the Project area. Proposed actions are not expected to affect habitat connectivity. ( -'\ Ashland Watershed Protection Project .......~~;;l The Ashland Watershed Protection Project has, or will implement 1,549 acres of surface fuel treatments. None of these treatments will remove or degrade late-successional habitat. Wagner Gap Timber Sale The Wagner Gap Timber Sale is thinning 417 acres located on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Of the 417 acres, 324 acres are nesting, roosting, foraging, and 93 acres are dispersal for northern spotted owl. Because all of these acres will be maintained (2:60%CC for NRF, 2:40 CC for dispersal) the Wagner Gap T .S. is not expected to reduce late-successional or dispersal habitats. Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion .' . ...... '.. The proposed action would expand the number of skinlns and ski lifts at the1\1t. Ashland Ski Area. This action will consist of the harvest of trees )Vi thin and adjacent to designated ski runs, the construction of two new ski lifts adjacent to thepf()posed skiJ:'Un, a two-acre expansion of the existing parking lot, and the construction of a tubing fadiit.y. ]Wochair lifts and two surface lifts would be constructed, as would 71 acres of ski runs. H: FPW acres would be cleared for lifts and staging areas. A four-acre tubing facility, three new guest services buildings, and yurt would be constructed. The proposed action would'~ls9.include an acd~s~i.road for maintenance of the new runs and service buildings. ., . ...... . . . . . . . , . . ..." ... . . .,.....' ..........,' . .. . ,.. '.' . ... ,"... . .. . .. '., . . . -. .. ,.. ... .. . .. .' '. .... -- . .- The proposed Mount Ashland ~ki Area Expati~jo~<rVi11 femq~7.44 acres of late-successional habitat. Fishers have avoiqedOpen areas 25 m4.Qross and les...~'in the Midwest (Powell 1977). Implementation of this proj ectwillHj;reate openirlg~ that aver~ge 125 ft. wide on the proposed ski runs. .. .. . Private Timber lands.......: H, L...'.<>..' ......,. The amouIlt6fla.te~~119sessiona[h.abitat ortprivate land is unknown, though it is likely to be relativelylow. The selective harVest regimes typically carried out in the Rogue Valley and surro\lJ:i<:li)1g area, under thetypicalrotation age of 40 to 60 years. ( ( ~) ......./' The majority of state and private forests in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California are managed for timber production (Thomas et' aI. 1990, USDA Forest Service/USDA Bureau of Land Management 1994a). Historically, non-federal landowners practiced even-aged management (clear cutting) of timber over extensive acreages. The Forest assumes that these past management practices will continue and reduce the amount of late-successional habitat on non-federal lands over time. Harvest activities on state and private lands can be expected to impact late-successional species located within adjacent federal lands by removing and fragmenting habitat. Northwestern Pond Turtle The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by northwestern pond turtles. Reeder Reservoir provides the only potential habitat within the Analysis Ate'.l. Pond turtles were not observed in the Analysis Area during herptile surveys conducted for this project, however, they were located below Hosler dam at Lithia Park(Shafer 2004). The Action Alternatives would not modify basking ofaql:iatic,:habitats for the northwestern pond turtle. The reservoir has very few basking sites curre.ntlyavailable. There is potential to increase basking sites by placing logs inJ~e reservoir if theY 4.0, not interfere with operations associated with the City of Ashland's watet<supply. There is ariarea on the SE side of the reservoir that is likely nesting habitat (opeo:$Lfa9inghillside w/pine/QCik habitat that could benefit from thinning and burning proposed,:by the actions. These activities benefit turtles by maintaining open habitat conducive for nesting. AU Action Altematives will have "a beneficial impact" to northwestern pond turtle because ofJl1e'j)otentia.ltO"inaintain south facing open nesting habitat. ' , 'HH ' Northern Bald Eagle Under the No-Action Alterna~ive,there ,W()~I~l?~ri6 proposed change in habitat characteristics for bald ea~~es~St~d~Ieplad:~m~~~ wildfire:nUi}ieffect eagle habitat through the destruction of the nest tree, or perch trees withir{atld adjacent to the nest stand. ..- . . ;': -. ;". :.::' ." . " ."..:-... ..... -,,:.- . ". '-' ,'.:' All Actioni\.lternatives prescribe treatfl'I(~ht of mid-seral stands within 1 mile of the active bald eagle nestsite.. These treatnie~~s would provide some added protection from wildfire by reducing ladder:[.~els under large legacy trees and snags which could be used as alternate nest trees and perchdibythe residJ~ht eagle pair. Removal of over-dense young and mid-aged trees around legacy trees/\Y9p.ld,~lso reduce competition for resources and should increase survival. Along ridges and upper~16pes, snag levels would be retained at current levels unless their retention would create a wildfire management hazard. Snags would be retained as high as possible on slopes. Snags that extend above the primary canopy, but do not extend above the level of the ridgeline would be priority for retention. Some large snags may be removed during implementation of the Action Alternatives if they are deemed hazardous to personnel or equipment. ( Under the Proposed Action, all areas within 1 mile of the active nest site are within the late- successional compartments. Treatments within these compartments are designed to convert mid- seral closed stands to mid-seral open stands. These treatments would have "no effect" to bald APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 39 eagles given implementation of Mitigation Measures (Project Design Criteria -PDCs found within Biological Opinion FWS log# 1-15-03-F-511). (--) .i.,.:;""" Areas within 1 mile of the active bald eagle nest under the Community and Preferred Alternatives fall under Priorities 2, 4, 5, and 9. Priorities 2, 4, and 5 prescribe treating ladder and ground fuels to reduce competition for large legacy pines and oaks. Priority 9 treatments are treatments within northern spotted owl activity centers and are described in Chapter II, Section 5. In general, these treatments would reduce some small diameter material, but retain 2: 60% canopy closure where it occurs now within suitable owl habitat. The Community and Preferred Alternatives would have "no impact" to bald eagles given implementation of Mitigation Measures (PDCs) what are these? American Peregrine Falcon . . .... The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats :potentially used by these bat species. There are no confirmed peregrine falcons in the action area, however should a sitepe confirmed it will be managed as per RRSNF LRMP guidelines/:In additioll,the cliff site with the potential nest site will continue to have surveys conducted' at the site. As peregrine falcons are not known for the action area, all proposed alternatives would have "IlQirnpact" to peregrine falcons. Lewis' Woodpecker . ' . .,' . .......~.. . . ..- ,.. . . .....". ... . - . ......" .,' .......:. ..." . The ~o-Action Alternative would not remoye ormodifY.(lJ1Y habitats potentially used by this speCIes. .. . " -, .' '..- ... " ... ," , . o. . .. ...... .. This species would benefit frorff'a\y~riety of active management practices designed to enhance large ponderosa pine sn~g~ in an open stand conditi.pn., This includes wide spaced thinning of Ponderosa pine, and corhtfier~ial tp!IlDing of young pine stands. Snag creation within pine stands . . . . . . . . . would also be~efitthe species.'. Treatlliei1t~t,l1~tr~triove the large trees and older snags from stands woulgbe dettjmeptal tOtlJ.~.spedes. "'::".:::'" ",.-. ...:.:,.....:;....-. ,..-.;..:.:..... :':.;,," '::: "" \",. ":':-:.; ': -:: ,-;"::.::< All thr.......ee.Action Altemativ~$".will i~s~!ljlrthe loss of some large trees which may reduce nesting . .".' . .' . .... ..... ......,. andtoragi.ngopportunities f6r.woodpe...:'6kers. SilvicuItural prescriptions for all 3 action """" ...... ....... alternatives6ftpe AFR projecfare designed to retain the largest trees. It is estimated that a maximum ofO}Bt~ees/acre >f~" dbh and 0-13 trees/acre 17-24" dbh would be cut in any of the Action Alternatives (Tables .:2~4). ( .- ."-.. ."" '.- ... Reduction of large snags can reduce opportunities for woodpecker nest and foraging sites. Snag retention in the AFR project area is a priority for woodpeckers and other species. Snag levels on lower slopes would be retained within the upper one third of the range for snags for that P AG as described in the 2003 Upper Bear Ecosystem Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2003a). The largest diameter trees not selected for retention would be considered highest priority for snag creation/retention. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at current levels (i.e., no additional snags would be created) unless their retention would create a wildfire management hazard. Snags that increase fire hazard would be felled and left on site unless that, in turn, increases wildfire hazard. Snags would be retained as high as possible on slopes. Snags that extend above the primary canopy, but do not extend above the level of the ridgeline would be priority for retention. APPENDIX F Page 40 Wildlife BE II (/-"",,~ ) All Action Alternatives "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (RRNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability ,range wide" for Lewis' woodpecker because some large trees and snags would be removed during implementation. Cumulative Effects The AFR, Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction project, and A WPP projects all focus on reducing the effects of wildfire and retention of, or maintenance of late- successional habitats within the Mt. Ashland LSR. These projects are expected to maintain and enhance the function of the LSR and CHU for NSO, fisher, and otherlatei.successional species. Implementation of these projects will actually increase the averagedbh of existing stands over the next several decades because thinning small diameter trees will increase growth and vigor of the remaining stands by reducing competition. The intent of these projects is to retain late- successional conditions for fisher and other late-successi()nal species. It is expected that these projects will ultimately provide larger trees for late-successional species, maintain connectivity throughout the Action Area, and maintain the viabiHtyand resiJiency of late-succ~ssional forests within the Action Area in the event of wildfires. ' ' .". ...... c. '" . . . . . . . , . .. .. .'. . ... .. Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels RedUc~i.ob project The Klamath National Forest is planning thinning and fuel reduction treatments in the southern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Treatmehtsare designed to promote the development of late- successional habitat and reduce the potential ofst~d7replacementfire~' ,"" ',.- ...... ". . ...... . -", . . , -. . ... . Thinning designed to promote the developmeti~ ofla.te-succ~s.$i,o,.""nal habitat will not remove , . : important structural comp9neritsof late-successi.pfi'al habitat~tich as large-diameter trees, snags, and DWD. Trees infe,cted withrrijstIetoe may be,:xemoved but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensur~:thClt this li~9itat component"w~!l remain well distributed across the landscape. Silvicultural pf.e~criptiQii~<~ave also beep..:'designed to retain 60 percent canopy cover in suitable spott~<i?'N1 habitat~'riescnpt.~PI1~J()r,yrlderbuming have been designed to imitate 10w-intensi!y:\fire,:t~~~'J1nderbtifl1iI1g is nofexpeCted to significantly impact the amount and distribution of large sriag$~nd DWD.Other fuel reduction treatments such as hand piling and burning Of fuels and masfi(j~tion wi1l:r~t~irt Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment recommetgl~tions for snags::~J'l,g DWDo' Because the structural elements of late-successional habitat wilI:b'e.,~etained, thinni~g designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat and fuels,):'~duction tre'~tments are not expected to remove late-successional habitat. ..... ..... ,','." Because the only pr()pb~ed'siIvicuItural prescription is thinning, stands will be thinned to a variable density including '15 percent of each stand to remain unthinned, an average of 60 percent canopy closure will be retained in true fir stands and the lower half of north and east facing slopes, an average of 40 to 60 percent canopy closure will be retained on south and west facing slopes, and 60 percent canopy cover will be retained in suitable late-successional habitat, thinning prescriptions designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not create large openings or significantly reduce forest cover and will retain a high level of habitat connectivity. Additionally, actions within one site potential tree of riparian reserves are limited to pre-commercial thinning which is not expected to affect the connectivity function of these areas. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 41 Under Alternatives 2 and 4, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ would remove approximately 4 acres of late-successional habitat in stand 339 by reducing canopy cover to 40 percent. While thinning in DFPZs may remove discrete structural components of late- successional habitat outside of stand 339, silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to retain late-successional habitat where it occurs within DFPZs, ensuring that these activities will not remove any additional late-successional habitat. Additionally, the removal of large snags or groups of snags within DFPZs will be limited to situations where they pose a hazard to operations. In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant benefits to late-successional species by increasing the amount and distribution of late-successional habitat and by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. FVS modeling indicates that 50 years post thinning the average tree diameter within a stand would increase to between 24 and 27" and 14 to15 trees per acre >30" would be expected. More large stems per acre would also increase recruitment of large snags and DWD. Stands with this type of structural complexity contain thtfspecific habitat requirements for this species. FFE modeling indicates that thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fitetype and significantly reduceptedicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. These factorsdndicate that stands will be more resistant to large-scale fires but will burn with sufficient intensity tocre~te small openings within forested habitat. This type of pattern, would creat~a mosaic of stands iIl.,<iifferent successional stages, and be consistent with patterns under historicfiteregimes. This pattemof successional stages would likely benefit late-successional species bycreaHnghopzontal diversity of habitat across the landscape. Between 0.2 to 0.3 miles of temporary road construction is proposed in late-successional habitat. Because construction oftemporat)iroads would temove large diameter trees and create approximately a thirtyfoot gap in'the canopy, it is' expected that this activity would remove between 0.7 and 1.1 acres,()flate-~~9c7ssional habitat To ensure that impacts to late- successional habit~~are mil1ittM3ed;'anJf~~~.>24.'':that need to be felled during temporary road constructiogwillp~'M~fl~n site"::;:<Rp.e landirig'is:proposed to be constructed in late-successional habitat, re.sulting in thete1110val o(().5 acre of late-successional habitat. ...., - . . .;' ":: '". ...... "',.":':.-.-',' . ..... . - .,' . -'- . ...... ......-.:......... ':.... ".:.", : '. _H. .. ... , . .,. '. ..... . ...... '.'.,' . '.' ..-.... - . ... -. . . . . . ... --........'. ...... .... '-.." . " -. ' ... ... '. ....:... .'.,',-",'.". :'. -.....;'. '; 'C. . ' ". .... Road-n.Hategactivities, incliiding mai6tenance, closures, and decommissioning is not expected to remove anyirilportant structural components of habitat. " " . .... :;'.;-::::,"'::::,. ;::" '::" .', ',' .. . '. .. . . '.........' ",' Combined, thinnihg to create'the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ and construction of temporary roads and landings would be exp,ec~~dlo remove between 0.7 and'5.5 acres or 0.05 to 0.43 percent of the extant late-successional.habitat in the Project area. Proposed actions are not expected to affect habitat connectivity. Ashland Watershed Protection Project The Ashland Watershed Protection Project has, or will implement 1,549 acres of surface fuel treatments. None of these treatments will remove or degrade late-successional habitat. Wagner Gap Timber Sale The Wagner Gap Timber Sale is thinning 417 acres located on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Of the 417 acres, 324 acres are nesting, roosting, foraging, and 93 acres are dispersal for northern spotted owl. Because all of these acres will be maintained (~60% CC for NRF, ~40 CC APPENDIX F Page 42 Wildlife BE for dispersal) the Wagner Gap T.S. is not expected to reduce late-successional or dispersal habitats. Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion The proposed action would expand the number of ski runs and ski lifts at the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. This action will consist of the harvest of trees within and adjacent to designated ski runs, the construction of two new ski lifts adjacent to the proposed ski run, a two-acre expansion of the existing parking lot, and the construction of a tubing facility. Two chair lifts and two surface lifts would be constructed, as would 71 acres of ski runs. Four acres would be cleared for lifts and staging areas. A four-acre tubing facility, three new guest services buildings, and yurt would be constructed. The proposed action would also include an access road for maintenance of the new runs and service buildings. The proposed Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion will remove. 44 acresbf late-successional habitat. Fishers have avoided open areas 25 m across andJess in the MidW~~t, (Powell 1977). Implementation of this project will create openings that average 125 ft. wideqn the proposed ski runs. Private Timber lands The amount of late-successional habitat on private land is upknown, though it is likely to be relatively low. The selective harvest regimes typically carried. put in the Rogue Valley and surrounding area, under the typical rotation~ge of 40 to 60 yeats. . ... . - . . .' .. .- . .. Habitat has not been comprehensively classified or sufv.e. Y. s conducted on state and private lands. State and private timber company holdings cover ll1any thousand'acres within the Action Area. Most state and private holdirigshave been harvested within the last 50 years and are now either in woodland residentialragriculttit'~l, or as managed shrub, pole, or large pole condition classes. Some mature forest.~dstaRds exist'q.:n county, state~or private land, but these stands represent a small proportion of privateihlpd o'Yhership. .' The mature stands provideliJpif.~d'arruj"Ul)tsofl~te~successional habitat for forest species. Mature anqJarge p()lc.~~ands w~relecently being logged at an accelyrated rate due to economig/market condition~. Howey~r market conditions have slowed in the last two years and timbe.rh~t"est rates on nori'-r.~derarl~l1ds;may not be as high as in the recent past. However Oregon De...'.p.......a.....rt....ment ofFore~.t......f.y...,.... data s....,P..\)WS little down turn in harvest rates in Jacks.o..n C. ounty. As an exaITip.l~,harvest datap~pvided by the Oregon Department of Forestry shows tnat in 2006, shows that 88:tfi~1l.i~n board f.~~t of timber had been harvested from non-federal lands in Jackson County, up from69.~QOO,OOqHbard feet in 2005 and up from 80 million in 2004. (http://egov.oregonJ!ov/ODF/STATE FORESTS/FRP/annual reports.shtml.) The majority of state and private forests in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California are managed for timber production (Thomas et aI. 1990, USDA Forest ServicelUSDA Bureau of Land Management 1994a). Historically, non-federal landowners practiced even-aged management (clear cutting) of timber over extensive acreages. The Forest assumes that these past management practices will continue and reduce the amount of late-successional habitat on non- federal lands over time. Harvest activities on state and private lands can be expected to impact late-successional species located within adjacent federal lands by removing and fragmenting habitat. White-Headed Woodpecker APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 43 :;'!!- (' j _~.l' This species would benefit from a variety of active management practices designed to create or preserve large trees on an open stand. This includes shelterwood or open spaced thinning of Shasta fir, wide spaced thinning of Ponderosa pine, and commercial thinning of young pine stands. Treatments that remove the large trees from stands would be detrimental to the species. The species is tolerant of human activity, often breeding or foraging within campgrounds, around parking lots, and along trails (N. Barrett 2008, pers. com.) All proposed alternatives should have "no impact" as all treatments are generally below 5,000 in elevation and this species is not known to occur below that elevation. Fringe-tailed, Pallid, and Townsend's Big-eared Bats The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify some potential snag roost habitat used by fringe-tailed, pallid, or Townsend's big-eared bat. Snags that have exfoliating bark or crevices for roosting serve as important roost sites for both fringe-tailed and pallid bats. Under all Action Alternatives, all snag levels on lower slopes would be retained at the upper one-third of the range (or that PAG. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at current levels unless their retention would create a wildfire management hazard. All Action Alternatives would retain down logs within the upper one-third of the range for down logs for that PAG. Some snags might be felled during implementation of hazardous fuel reduction treatments if they represent a hazard to personnel or equipment. Some snags may ignite and be lost during underbuming. ( Mitigation measures include protection of Lamb Mine and Ashland Loop Mine to provide roosting and refugia for Townsend's big-eared bats. Mine entrances will be gated to prevent entrance and disturbance from recreational users. Additionally, a 250 ft. no treatment buffer will be implemented around the entrance to the mine to protect micro-site conditions. All Action Alternatives "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (RRNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide" for Fringe-tailed myotis and Pacific pallid bats because some snags would be lost during implementation if they present hazards during underbuming operations. Cumulative Effects The AFR, Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction proj ect, and A WPP projects all focus on reducing the effects of wildfire and retention of, or maintenance of late- successional habitats within the Mt. Ashland LSR. These projects are expected to maintain and enhance the function of the LSR and CHU for NSO, fisher, and other late-successional species. Implementation of these proj ects will actually increase the average dbh of existing stands over the next several decades because thinning small diameter trees will increase growth and vigor of the remaining stands by reducing competition. The intent of these proj ects is to retain late- successional conditions for fisher and other late-successional species. It is expected that these projects will ultimately provide larger trees for late-successional species, maintain connectivity throughout the Action Area, and maintain the viability and resiliency of late-successional forests within the Action Area in the event of wildfires. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Pa ge 44 ( Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction project The Klamath National Forest is planning thinning and fuel reduction treatments in the southern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Treatments are designed to promote the development of late- successional habitat and reduce the potential of stand-replacement fire. Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not remove important structural components of late-successional habitat such as large-diameter trees, snags, and DWD. Trees infected with mistletoe may be removed but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this habitat component will remain well distributed across the landscape. Silvicultural prescriptions have also been designed to retain 60 percent canopy cover in suitable spotted owl habitat. Prescriptions for underburning have been designed to imitate low-intensity fire, thus, underburning is not expected to significantly impact the amount and distribution of large snags and DWD. Other fuel reduction treatments such as hand piling and burning of fuels and mastication will retain Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment recommendations for snags and DWD. Because the structural elements of late-successional habitat will be retained, thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat and fuels reduction treatments are not expected to remove late-successional habitat. Because the only proposed silvicultural prescription is thinning, stands will be thinned to a variable density including 15 percent of each stand to remain unthinned, an average of 60 percent canopy closure will be retained in true fir stands and the lower half of north and east facing slopes, an average of 40 to 60 percent canopy closure will be retained on south and west facing slopes, and 60 percent canopy cover will be retained in suitable late-successional habitat, thinning prescriptions designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not create large openings or significantly reduce forest cover and will retain a high level of habitat ( connectivity. Additionally, actions within one site potential tree of riparian reserves are limited to pre-commercial thinning which is not expected to affect the connectivity function of these areas. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ would remove approximately 4 acres of late-successional habitat in stand 339 by reducing canopy cover to 40 percent. While thinning in DFPZs may remove discrete structural components of late- successional habitat outside of stand 339, silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to retain late-successional habitat where it occurs within DFPZs, ensuring that these activities will not remove any additional late-successional habitat. Additionally, the removal of large snags or groups of snags within DFPZs will be limited to situations where they pose a hazard to operations. In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant benefits to late-successional species by increasing the amount and distribution of late-successional habitat and by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. FVS modeling indicates that 50 years post thinning the average tree diameter within a stand would increase to between 24 and 27" and 14 to 15 trees per acre> 30" would be expected. More large stems per acre would also increase recruitment of large snags and DWD. Stands with this type of structural complexity contain the specific habitat requirements for this species. FFE modeling indicates that thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and significantly reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. These factors indicate that stands will be more resistant APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 45 to large-scale fires but will bum with sufficient intensity to create small openings within forested habitat. This type of pattern, would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. This pattern of successional stages would likely benefit late-successional species by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape. Between 0.2 to 0.3 miles of temporary road construction is proposed in late-successional habitat. Because construction of temporary roads would remove large diameter trees and create approximately a thirty foot gap in the canopy, it is expected that this activity would remove between 0.7 and 1.1 acres of late-successional habitat. To ensure that impacts to late- successional habitat are minimized, all trees >24" that need to be felled during temporary road construction will be left on site. One landing is proposed to be constructed in late-successional habitat, resulting in the removal of 0.5 acre of late-successional habitat. Road-related activities, including maintenance, closures, and decommissioning is not expected to remove any important structural components of habitat. Combined, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ and construction of temporary roads and landings would be expected to remove between 0.7 and 5.5 acres or 0.05 to 0.43 percent of the extant late-successional habitat in the Project area. Proposed actions are not expected to affect habitat connectivity. Ashland Watershed Protection Project The Ashland Watershed Protection Project has, or will implement 1,549 acres of surface fuel treatments. None of these treatments will remove or degrade late-successional habitat. Wagner Gap Timber Sale The Wagner Gap Timber Sale is thinning 417 acres located on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Of the 417 acres, 324 acres are nesting, roosting, foraging, and 93 acres are dispersal for northern spotted owl. Because all of these acres will be maintained (~60% CC for NRF, ~40 CC for dispersal) the Wagner Gap T.S. is not expected to reduce late-successional or dispersal habitats. Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion The proposed action would expand the number of ski runs and ski lifts at the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. This action will consist of the harvest of trees within and adjacent to designated ski runs, the construction of two new ski lifts adjacent to the proposed ski run, a two-acre expansion of the existing parking lot, and the construction of a tubing facility. Two chair lifts and two surface lifts would be constructed, as would 71 acres of ski runs. Four acres would be cleared for lifts and staging areas. A four-acre tubing facility, three new guest services buildings, and yurt would be constructed. The proposed action would also include an access road for maintenance of the new runs and service buildings. The proposed Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion will remove 44 acres of late-successional habitat. Fishers have avoided open areas 25 m across and less in the Midwest (Powell 1977). Implementation of this project will create openings that average 125 ft. wide on the proposed ski runs. ;' \ \ ) APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 46 ( Private Timber lands The amount of late-successional habitat on private land is unknown, though it is likely to be relatively low. The selective harvest regimes typically carried out in the Rogue Valley and surrounding area, under the typical rotation age of 40 to 60 years. Habitat has not been comprehensively classified or surveys conducted on state and private lands. State and private timber company holdings cover many thousand acres within the Action Area. Most state and private holdings have been harvested within the last 50 years and are now either in woodland residential, agricultural, or as managed shrub, pole, or large pole condition classes. Some mature forested stands exist on county, state, or private land, but these stands represent a small proportion of private land ownership. The mature stands provide limited amounts of late-successional habitat for forest species. Mature and large pole stands were recently being logged at an accelerated rate due to economic/market conditions. However market conditions have slowed in the last two years and timber harvest rates on non-Federal lands may not be as high as in the recent past. However Oregon Department of Forestry data shows little down turn in harvest rates in Jackson County. As an example, harvest data provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry shows that in 2006, shows that 88 million board feet of timber had been harvested from non-federal lands in Jackson County, up from 69,000,000 board feet in 2005 and up from 80 million in 2004. (http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE FORESTS/FRP/annual reports.shtml.) The majority of state and private forests in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California are managed for timber production (Thomas et al. 1990, USDA Forest Service/USDA Bureau of Land Management 1994a). Historically, non-federal landowners practiced even-aged management (clear cutting) of timber over extensive acreages. The Forest assumes that these past management practices will continue and reduce the amount of late-successional habitat on non-federal lands over time. Harvest activities on state and private lands can be expected to impact late-successional species located within adjacent federal lands by removing and fragmenting habitat. California Wolverine The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats potentially used by wolverines. There is no habitat within the Analysis Area which is suitable for wolverine denning habitat. Wolverines are not known to occur in SW Oregon. The Siskiyou crest potentially does provide suitable dispersal habitat or the potential as a travel corridor for wolverine. Treatments proposed under both Action Alternatives would not create forest fragmentation of the type considered to be a barrier to wolverine movement or dispersal. All Action Alternatives would have "no impact" on wolverine. Pacific Fisher Habitat data for fisher analyses was derived from Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages. Geographic Resource Systems (GRS) coverages were used for the local population within the Upper Bear Analysis Area and'Mt. Ashland LSR. For the purpose of this analysis, we define fisher denning/resting habitat as coniferous forest 2:600/0 overstory canopy closure and 2:24" dbh. Fisher dispersal and foraging habitat is coniferous forest (sapling/pole or larger) 2:600/0 canopy closure (Table 1). Within the local APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 47 population area, there are 161,349 acres. National Forest System lands comprise 105,402 acres of the local population area. There are 50,386 acres within the local population area that do not have overstory canopy (trees) with 2:600/0 canopy closure. However, some of these areas do have shrub or sapling pole habitats that provide approximately 60% canopy closure, and fishers will use them for traveling and foraging. In addition, For the purpose of analyzing affects to fisher populations as a result of the proposed AFR project, we define the local population as those individuals residing within the entire Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve and Federal lands within 5 km of the proposed AFR Analysis Area boundary, except on the eastern edge, where Interstate 5 defines the edge of the fisher analysis area due to it's potential to act as a barrier to movement and dispersal (see also cumulative effects). This buffer is derived from reported dispersal distances for female fishers in the scientific literature and personal communications with researchers which have conducted fisher studies in southern Oregon and northern California. We define the total population as all individuals residing in the Klamath-Siskiyou and California Coast Regions. Fishers in these two areas have been shown to be closely related through genetic analyses (Drew et al. 2003). Fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range are introduced and not considered to be part of the total population. Estimates of fisher population size are based on 1) the cumulative mean home range size of female fishers (10 km2) reported in 7 studies in northern California, and 2) generally, fisher home range sizes increase in size from south to north. We analyze female dispersal distances because dispersal distances for juvenile male fishers are widely variable, are likely influenced by intra-specific competition with resident males, and males in some populations have been shown to have non-breeding season home ranges separate from the general population (Aubry and Raley 2006). Because the local population we are analyzing is at the northern extreme of the California population, we expect female fisher home ranges to be approximately between 10-20 km2 and male home ranges to be approximately between 25-45 km2. The local population area we have defined is 653 km2. This equates to approximately 33-65 female home ranges and 15-26 male home ranges. Assuming the habitat is fully occupied and there is no overlap between territories, the local population estimate is 48-91 individuals. Carlos Carroll estimated the entire northern California-southwestern Oregon (total) fisher population as 1,000- 2,000 individuals (Center for Biological Diversity 2000). EFFECTS Table 12. Environmental Baseline and Potential Habitat Changes to Fisher Habitat on National Forest System (NFS) lands within local fisher population area (total) and the Upper Bear Assessment Area (UBAA). Chanae (acres and percent) Baseline Community Preferred Habitat Type (No-Action) Proposed Action Alternative Alternative Resting/Denning Total NFS 30,690 acres -1 ,223 -3.9% -1 ,449 -4.7% -904 -2.9% UBAA NFS 11,905 acres -10.3% -12.2% -7.6% Dispersal Total NFS 37,665 acres -662 -1.9% -966 -2.6% -388 -1.0% UBAA NFS 6,623 acres -10.0% -14.6% -5.6% Total Total NFS 68,355 acres -1,885 -2.7% -2,415 -3.5% -1,292 -1.9% UBAA NFS 18,528 acres -10.2% -13.0% -6.9% ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 48 ..-,"- ( Treatments and natural events that have the greatest potential of affecting fishers negatively are those that reduce canopy closure below approximately 60%, remove standing, large, decadent trees that have the potential of forming cavities, large standing snags, trees that provide complex limb structures and mistletoe brooms for rest sites, large woody debris, and removal/reduction of understory structure. Effects of the No Action Alternative Active crown fires typically lead to high acreage burned and adverse environmental effects, and offer the most challenge to fire managers (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). An active crown fire is one in which the entire surface/canopy fuel complex becomes involved. Late-successional habitat is often adversely affected or removed as a result of an active crown fire. To predict the amount of active crown fire that could occur, a combination of historical evidence and fire behavior modeling was used. F ARSITE (Finney 1998), a fire behavior model, was used to predict the consequences of a no treatment scenario for the Analysis Area in terms of wildland fire. The primary usefulness of the fire behavior models is to gain understanding of complex systems. Simulations offire processes are subject to limitations but are often the only way, short of actual tests on the ground, of analyzing proposed scenarios (Van Wagt€ndonk 1996). It is never possible to predict the exact conditions of a wildfire. For example, the weather and wind conditions at a particular time, the ignition location and direction of fire movement through the treated area, and the degree of variability in the stage of treatment completion at the time of the fire are all elements that determine the performance of a fuel treatment in terms of the changes to fire behavior and effects. An assessment of past large fires was used to determine a likely range of severity classes. The 1959 Ashland Creek Fire burned approximately 4,500 acres of land within the Analysis Area. Based on current satellite imagery, approximately 50 percent of these acres are in an early or mid seral condition that would indicate moderate to high severity fire on these acres. The nearest recent large fire for which this information has been recorded is the Quartz Fire (2001), that burned approximately 4 - 6 miles to the west of the Analysis Area. Many of the same conditions (topography, weather, and fuels) exist within the Upper Bear Analysis Area that may be found in the area of the Quartz Fire. Post-fire aerial photography and satellite imagery was used to map low, moderate, and high severity burned areas. This mapping indicates that approximately 45 percent of the burn area was in a moderate to high severity category (2002 Quartz Fire Restoration Environmental Assessment). Analysis of historical fires in the region of southern Oregon and northern California indicate that fires typically burned in a mosaic pattern with varying degrees of intensity (Taylor and Skinner 2002). Seven different ignition points were used to model fire behavior using F ARSITE. These points were based on historical fire occurrence data (1960-2004). Four of these were located outside the National Forest and three were located within the Forest. Based on the F ARSITE analysis, it would appear that large areas would be burned with a high percentage (70-750/0) of the area having flame lengths greater than 4 feet. (see Table 1) Crown fire would be present in the majority of the burned area, leading to the potential for large areas of high severity fire. ( Table 13. F ARSITE Outputs for 90th Percentile Conditions APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 49 Ignition No-Action Point Fire Behavior Outputs Total NF only Fire Size. (acres) 3,134 2,261 1 Mean rate of spread (feeVminute) 3.51 3.57 Wagner Percent of burn area with flame 68.3% 71.2% Creek lenath areater than 4 feet drainage Percent of burn area with surface 15.3% 9.9% fire Fire Size. (acres) 5,414 1,387 2 Mean rate of spread (feeVminute) 7.96 5.01 Near Percent of burn area with flame 75.3% Lithia lenath areater than 4 feet 83.1% Park Percent of burn area with surface fire 47.0% 15.2% 3 Fire Size. (acres) 5,293 1.031 Mean rate of spread (feeVminute) 10.16 4.27 Lower Percent of burn area with flame Tolman 72.9% 82.3% Creek lenath areater than 4 feet drainage Percent of burn area with surface 48.5% 7.5% fire 4 Fire Size. (acres) 2,486 645 Mean rate of spread (feeVminute) 5.07 5.09 Lower Percent of burn area with flame Neil 70.4% 84.5% Creek lenoth oreater than 4 feet drainage Percent of burn area with surface 39.5% 7.0% fire Fire Size. (acres) 2,773 2,659 5 Mean rate of spread (feeVminute) 4.70 4.70 West side Percent of burn area with flame 83.5% 83.8% Reeder lenoth oreater than 4 feet Reservior Percent of burn area with surface fire 9.7% 9.4% 6 Fire Size. (acres) 1,316 Ridgetop Mean rate of spread (feeVminute) 3.22 Total in West Percent of burn area with flame 73.3% acres Fork length areater than 4 feet Ashland occur on Percent of burn area with surface NF Creek fire 7.1% drainage 7 Fire Size. (acres) 1,502 Mid-slope Mean rate of spread lfeeVminute) 2.70 Total in East 'Percent of burn area with flame Fork 70.1% acres lenath areater than 4 feet Ashland occur on Percent of burn area with surface NF Creek fire 12.4% drainaae ( Based on the previous examples and because this analysis of Ashland Forest Resiliency is focused on the effects of a high-severity wildland fire, an assumption is made, that under the No- Action Alternative, a range of 40 to 50 percent of the burn area would be predicted to have moderate to high severity fire, under a large-scale wildland fire scenario. High severity fire would likely adversely affect late-successional habitat and late successional species including APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 50 fisher by removing down material, small trees that contribute to the stand structure, and potentially killing large trees. ( INSERT NO ACTION AL TERNA TIVE MAP ( ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 51 (-~t "..,) Effects common to all Action Alternatives Effects to fisher from all action alternatives will be similar. Differences in effects to fisher between the action alternatives are primarily a result of variations in juxtaposition and extent of the activities proposed. See Figures X-X (Alternative Maps), Table 12. Direct Effects Canopy Reduction Moderate to high canopy closure (defined as ~60 0/0) has been shown to be important for all aspects of fisher biology and ecology. Fisher home ranges are relatively large and may have inclusions of non- forested habitats or low canopy closure. High canopy closures have been shown to be important to fishers for resting and den sites in northern California and Southern Oregon. Research that has quantified canopy closure at rest and den sites in Oregon and northern California has focused on a very fine scale, generally 1 acre or less (Aubry and Raley 2006, Yeager 2005, and Zielinski 2004). Retention of large live trees and snags that are clumped and large logs where there is a multi-storied stand component and ~800/0 overall canopy closure at a fine scale (<1 acre) provides opportunities for fishers to locate suitable den and rest sites. Since fishers use the largest live and dead trees for den and resting habitats, loss of these structures reduces habitat quality for resident animals. Older trees must have the types of structures that provide for den and rest sites such as cavities, rust and mistletoe brooms, and large, clumped branches. Large decadent trees, large snags, and areas of high canopy closure are widely available in the Analysis Area. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest recognizes the need to maintain these late-successional characteristics in the Project Area for both fisher and northern spotted owl. Careful consideration has been given to these and other late-successional species during proj ect design. In stands where treatments reduce overall canopy closure to approximately 60%, opportunities for fishers to locat~ suitable areas for den and rest sites within the stand may be reduced. However, due to variation in canopy closure at a fine-scale within an stand after treatment, and mitigation measures provided for fisher throughout the Project Area, clumps of large trees with canopy closures >80% will still remain within the stand. Therefore, stands that are reduced to approximately 600/0 canopy closure overall will retain patches of trees and snags that provide den and rest sites for fisher. In stands where treatments reduce overall canopy closure to between 40% and 60%, opportunities for fishers to locate suitable areas for den and rest sites within the stand become more limited. Mitigation measures for fisher will require retaining a minimum of one Y2 to 1 acre untreated patch per 40 acre block of the largest diameter trees, snags, and CWM where overstory canopy closure is ~800/0. Even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, we do not known how fishers will react to stands that have overstory canopies reduced to below 60% overall. Movement and dispersal by fishers through stands that are reduced to between 40- 600/0 is likely because scheduled treatments are not homogeneous and they will still provide travel corridors that are at or above 60% (Figures XXX). Use of these stands by fishers will likely depend on the overall canopy closure (including understory canopy closure above breast height (104m)), CWM and shrublhardwood structure remaining after treatments. Based on the requirement of moderate to high canopy closure, we can expect that at least some of the areas that are reduced to below 600/0 overstory canopy closure may reduce use of that stand for foraging and den sites. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 52 ( Large Tree, Snag, and CWD Reduction All three Action Alternatives will result in the loss of some large trees which may reduce resting and denning opportunities for fishers. Research has shown that fishers use the largest trees available for both natal and maternal dens and rest sites (Aubry and Raley 2006, Yaeger 2005). Silvicultural prescriptions for all 3 action alternatives of the AFR project are designed to retain the largest trees. It is estimated that a maximum of 0-3 trees/acre >24" dbh and 0-13 trees/acre 1 7..24" dbh would be cut in any of the Action Alternatives (Tables 14-16). Table 14. Estimate of Large Trees per Acre to be Cut - Proposed Action Component Estimated Trees per Acre to be Cut 17.24" DBH > 24" DBH DFPZ 3-7 ' 0-2 Interface 7-13 0-3 RNA 7-13 0-3 Late-Successional 0 0 Landings 2-4 0-2 Table 15. Estimate of Large Trees per Acre to be Cut - Community Alternative Treatment Estimated Trees er Acre to be Cut Area 17.24" DBH > 24" DBH Priori 1 7-13 0-2 Priori 2 5-9 0-1 P~ri 3 ~5 0 Priori 4 6-12 0-1 Priori 5 4-11 0-1 Priori 6 3-9 0 P~ri 7 ~3 0 P~ri 8 ~5 0 Priori 9 0 0 Landin s 2-4 0-2 Note: settings within McDonald Peak IRA would not cut any trees > 7" DBH Table 16. Estimate of Large Trees per Acre to be Cut - Preferred Alternative ( Treatment Estimated Trees per Acre to be Cut Area 17-24" DBH > 24" DBH DFPZ 3-7 0-2 RNA 7-13 0-3 Priority 1 7-13 0-2 Priority 2 5-9 0-1 Priority 3 0-5 0 Priority 4 6-12 0-1 Priority 5 4-11 0-1 Priority 6 3-9 0 Priority 7 0-3 0 Priority 8 2-5 0 APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 53 (~') . --.. ~;# Priorit 9 0 0 Landin 5 2-4 0-2 Note: settings within McDonald Peak IRA would not cut any trees> 7" DBH Reduction of large snags can reduce opportunities for fisher den sites. Aubry and Raley (2006) located both natal and maternal den sites in large snags. Snag retention in the AFR project area is a priority for fisher and other species. Snag levels on lower slopes would be retained within the upper one third of the range for snags for that P AG as described in the 2003 Upper Bear Ecosystem Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2003a). The largest diameter trees not selected for retention would be considered highest priority for snag creation/retention. Along ridges and upper slopes, snaR levels would be retained at current levels (i.e., no additional snags would be created) unless their retention would create a wildfire management hazard. Snags that increase fire hazard would be felled and left on site unless that, in turn, increases wildfire hazard. Snags would be retained as high as possible on slopes. Snags that extend above the primary canopy, but do not extend above the level of the ridgeline would be priority for retention. Down logs are impot1ant for fishers and their prey. Under all action alternatives, course woody material would be retained within the upper one-third of the range for down logs for that P AG (generally ?7 pieces/acre), with more logs retained in the riparian areas and on northerly aspects than on southerly slopes. Surface fuel treatments, particularly underbuming, pile burning, and the associated smoke could have negative affects to fishers during the denning period. In southwest Oregon, the denning period is from approximately from late March when females give birth to late July when juveniles are more mobile and able to travel with their mothers (Aubry and Raley 2006). Burning can potentially remove natal den structures (large trees and snags) and maternal den structures (large down wood). Effects of smoke production on denning fishers and their young have not been described. However, it is assumed that heavy smoke concentrations could require females to move their kits if they are still altricial or could cause mortality in the young through excessive smoke inhalation or destruction of the den structure by the fire. When possible, it is preferred to bum later in the denning period when juveniles are more mobile or during the fall period. Where possible, suppression of large snags, trees, and down logs is recommended. Burning restrictions will be required within ~ mile of the nest site for 9 northern spotted owl pairs. These restrictions will provide benefits for denning fishers in these areas. In addition, efforts will be made to reduce impacts to fisher mitigation areas during underburning operations. Maintenance of habitat at multiple spatial scales is important for fishers. Spatial (habitat) scales are defined as 1) landscape scale, 2) home range scale 3) stand scale, 4) site scale, and 5) structure scale. The AFR project is designed to reduce the effects of large-scale wildfire on habitat at all scales important to fisher, northern spotted owl, and other late-successional species. The local population area has been defined and, for this analysis, is considered to be the landscape scale. After implementation of the AFR project, remaining habitats will continue to allow fishers to emigrate and immigrate from north to south to interact with and exchange genetic material with animals in northern California (Figure X Insert map with travel corridors). The area surrounding the summit of Mt. Ashland is a natural opening and fishers tend to avoid non-forested areas. However, there are opportunities both east and west of the summit for fishers to move and disperse through forested habitats. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Pa ge 54 ( '. At the home range scale, the majority of the National Forest System lands within the Upper Bear Analysis Area will not be treated. We expect some shifting or expansion of fisher home ranges due to treatments; particularly in the northern (nearest the city of Ashland) and RNA portions of the proj ect area. This is due to higher reduction of canopy closures and understory treatments which may have some effect on fisher prey species, the potential reduction of forage areas, and the potential of increased competition from other carnivores. However, all of the habitat components that are important to fishers at the home range scale (i.e., vegetative composition, habitat patches) will remain after treatment. The stand scale is defined as a distinct area composed of relatively homogeneous vegetative characteristics. This is the scale at which implementation of AFR is likely to have the greatest affect to fishers. Bec~use timber stand composition is highly influenced by aspect, elevation, and moisture, they have a direct relationship to Plant Association Groups (P AG's). Silvicultural prescriptions for all 3 action alternatives are based on P AG' s because all 3 prescriptions focus on returning P AG's to Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) I. FRCC I represents ecosystems with low (<33 %) departure and that are still with the estimated historical range of variability during a specifically defined reference period. Many of the proposed treatment areas, (particularly at lower elevations, south and west slopes, and pine dominated stands), have experienced substantial in-growth of coniferous species due to fire suppression. Some of stands in these areas will be reduced to between 40-60% canopy closure which may reduce the quality of these stands for fisher life-history requirements (dens, resting structures, and foraging habitats). The site scale is the immediate vicinity surrounding specific locations used by fishers (dens, rest structures, foraging sites). For the majority of habitat studies, this has been at a scale of 1 acre or less, and generally focuses on the immediate patch of habitat where the fisher was located. The structure scale is the smallest scale at which we considered impacts to fishers. It is defined as the type of structures used by fishers for resting and denning (i.e., individual tree or log) as well as the associated microstructures (i.e., mistletoe broom, cavities). We have designed a mitigation measure specifically for fisher to retain resting and den habitat well dispersed across all treatment areas. Mitigation measures for fisher will require retaining a minimum of one Y2 to 1 acre untreated patch per 40 acre block of the largest diameter trees, snags, and CWM where overstory canopy closure is 2:80%. We believe this mitigation measure will reduce impacts to fisher at the stand, site, and structure scale. Disturbance effects to fishers from anthropogenic activities are not well documented. However, it can be expected that fishers, as with most wild animals, would exhibit aversive reactions to direct human contact or unnaturally loud noises. It can also be expected that avoidance reactions to human-caused disturbance would be elevated for females in dens or accompanied by young kits. Aubry and Raley (2006) identified the seasonal activity patterns for fishers in the Southern Oregon Cascades. Females give birth in late March and generally move kits from the natal den to maternal dens at about8-1 0 weeks. Near the end of July when kits are approximately 4 months old, they are more mobile and able to travel with their mothers. Activities associated with project implementation such as felling, skidding, hauling, piling of fuels, and burning are likely to have the greatest negative affects on reproductive females during the denning and early kit rearing periods. We have instituted a seasonal restriction from March 1 thru June 30 for nine northern spotted owl pairs. This will provide a secondary benefit to reproductive fishers. ( The AFR project proposes to reduce fisher habitat (2:600/0 canopy closure) by 1,292 - 2,415 acres (5-10 km2). These acres are widely dispersed across 7,600-8,990 acres of project area depending on which action alternative is selected. Late-successional habitats on south and west APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 55 facing slopes in the RNA and northernmost portions of the project area will be most affected due to reduction of canopy closure and fuels projects. Within these areas, there may be some shifting or expansion home ranges due to reduction in habitat quality. This could potentially influence 2- 3 female home ranges and 1-2 male home ranges. This approximates 5-100/0 of the estimated local population, and 0.25-0.5% of the estimated total population. Indirect Effects Effects on prey species from thinning harvests are variable. Because fishers are known to prey upon a wide variety of small mammal species, it is difficult to quantify how thinning projects may affect their prey base. The effects of thinning projects on small mammal populations are dependent on numerous factors which include amount of remaining canopy closure, course woody debris, shrub and forb layers, and fungi. Small mammals occupy a wide variety of habitat types. Some species are considered to be associated with late-successional or closed canopy habitats, while others are generally associated with early successional habitats. Other species are considered habitat generalists. Gitzen et al. (in press) studied responses of small mammals to thinning in mature forests in Washington and Oregon. Treatments varied in basal area retention and retention patterns. Gitzen et al. (in press) expected closed canopy species to decrease as retention decreased, early successional species to increase as retention decreased and generalist species to show weak or no response to harvest. They found that only 3 of 12 species' showed the expected response, and 1 showed an unexpected decrease. They did not detect differences in responses of small mammals between aggregated (clumped) and dispersed retention blocks. Gitzen et al (in press) concluded that in the Washington Cascades 15-40% retention may be sufficient to benefit small rodents and insectivores, but that in the Southern Oregon Cascades, managers may need to retain higher amounts of trees to achieve similar benefits. In general, the AFR project will retain a minimum of 40% or greater canopy closure throughout the treated areas. Base on Gitzen et al. (in press) and other studies, it is expected that species diversity will remain similar and species richness may experience some change after treatments occur. We do not expect the overall biomass of small mammal populations in the AFR treatment areas to experience significant change. Therefore, affects of the project on the small mammal prey base of fishers will be negligible. . Similar to small mammals, effects of thinning projects on bird communities is variable based on the habitat associations of a particular avian species. Some species are expected to show no response to tr~at.ments while others are expected to increase or decrease. For specific information on effects of the project on avian communities, please refer to neo-tropical migratory bird section of this Biological Evaluation. It is not expected that the overall biomass of neo- tropical migratory birds will experience significant change. Therefore, affects of the project on the avian prey base of fishers will be negligible. ( Reduction of overstory canopy closure and fuels projects is likely to increase sunlight to the forest floor. It is expected that the shrub and forb component within treated stands will increase or be invigorated by over and understory treatments such as commercial thinning, brush removal, and underburning. These treatments are likely to improve forage for both elk and black-tailed deer. This, in turn, could potentially increase the presence of, or populations of their predators such as cougars, bobcats, black bears, and coyotes. It is possible that competition for prey resources may increase between fishers and other predators or that direct mortality could occur on fishers from predation or inter-specific competition by larger predators. Predation on fishers by cougars, bobcats, and coyotes has been reported (Weir and Corbould 2008, Buck et al. 1983, Truex et al. 1998, Higley and Matthews 2006). APPENDIX F Wildlife BE ( \ Effects from the Proposed Action Direct The Proposed Action reduces fisher denning/resting habitat by 1,223 acres. This represents a reduction of resting/denning habitat by 3.90/0 within the local population area, and a 10.3% reduction within the Upper Bear Assessment Area on National Forest System lands. Dispersal habitat is reduced by 662 acres this is a reduction of 1.9% within the local population area, and 10.0% in the Upper Bear Assessment Area on National Forest System lands. Indirect- See Effects common to all Action Alternatives INSERT PROPOSED ACTION MAP ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 57 Effects from the Community Alternative Direct The Community Alternative reduces fisher denning/resting habitat by 1,449 acres. This represents a reduction of resting/denning habitat by 4.7% within the local population area, and a 12.20/0 reduction within the Upper Bear Assessment Area on National Forest System lands. Dispersal habitat is reduced by 966 acres this is a reduction of 2.6% within the l,ocal population area, and 14.6% in the Upper Bear Assessment Area on National Forest System lands. Indirect Effects - See Effects common to all Action Alternatives INSERT COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE MAP APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 58 ( Effects from the Preferred Alternative Direct The Preferred Alternative reduces fisher denning/resting habitat by 904 acres. This represents a reduction ofresting/denning habitat by 2.9% within the local population area, and a 7.6% reduction within the Upper Bear Assessment Area on National Forest System lands. Dispersal habitat is reduced by 388 acres this is a reduction of 1.00/0 within the local population area, and 5.6% in the Upper Bear Assessment Area on National Forest System lands. Indirect Effects - See Effects common to all Action Alternatives INSERT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MAP Cumulative Effects Interstate 5 Traffic has a considerable effect on population and community dynamics through the disruption and fragmentation of habitat and traffic mortality (van Langevelde and Jaarsma 2004). There are at least 4 negative effects of traffic on animals; 1) destruction or alteration of habitat due to construction, 2) disturbance of habitat along the road or railway (noise, vibrations, car visibility, etc.), 3) barriers created by the road or railway (increased resistance for movements), and 4) barriers by traffic (collision risk during crossing) van Langevelde and J aarsma (1997). Generally, as traffic volume increases, mortality increases roughly proportionally until the intimidation factor causes animals to cease attempting to cross, whereupon mortality decreases with an associated increase in the barrier effect (Jacobson 2007). ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 59 Figure 5 ( \ ,. ./ Limited prob Ie m Dead Iy trap Total barrier O'l 100 ..g 90 a. E ... 80 (lJ.~ t:: t 70 fOru ~~ 60 ru""C E ru 50 .- 0 ~ ~ 40 '0 ~ 30 o ~b 20 ~ $ 10 (lJ u .... (lJ Cl.. , ""'\ .///";;:;;:~"" , , ".,-- - --... '-- /' killed '"" / i'~\ ?\ /' '-'. ....", ... ........" "" , "\, ..... "- ,I ...................~........ successful -........,__ / ..... .. .. .....~.... .... ..... .. o o I I 2500 500 I I I 7500 10000 12500 15000 r'v1ean traffic (vehicles per average day) Figure 3.6 - At low traffic intensity (<2500) the small proportion of fauna casualties and animals repelled causes limited impact on the proportion of animals successfully crossing a road barrier. At medium traffic intensity (2500-10000) casualties are high, the number of animals repelled by the infrastructure increases and the proportion of successful crossings decreases. At high traffic intensity (> 1 0000) a large proportion of animals are repelled and despite a lower proportion of fauna casualties there is only a small proportion of successful crossings. (Graph by Andreas Seiler, unpublished) Aubry and Raley (2006) identified the seasonal activity of fishers in the Southern Oregon Cascade Range. These observations show that fisher activity increases during the months of February thru April. During this period males become more active and start to move beyond their non-breeding season home ranges and juveniles begin to disperse. Average Daily Traffic on Interstate 5, three miles south of Ashland, OR, ranges from 13,000 - 16,000 vehicles/day between February and April (www.oregon.gov/ODOT).This presents a formidable challenge if not a complete barrier to movement across the Interstate for nearly all cursorial species including fishers. Fishers have been documented within 2 miles west of Interstate 5 near the Siskiyou Summit (J. Stephens, pers. comm.). There is a very limited potential for fishers to cross 1-5 at 3 underpasses south of the town of Ashland. Microsatellite DNA evidence indicates that fishers in the Siskiyou Mountains and those in the Cascade Mountains are distinct populations and are genetically isolated from each other (Aubry and Lewis 2003, Drew et al. 2003). Jeff Stephens of the Medford BLM obtained photographic evidence of fishers on the Dead Indian Memorial Plateau, east of Interstate 5 in 2006. The RRSIS National Forest is currently conducting hair- snaring surveys in this area in an attempt to obtain DNA to identify which population the fisher(s) are from. ( The AFR, Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction proj ect, and A WPP proj ects all focus on reducing the effects of wildfire and retention of, or maintenance of late- APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 60 rr-T---- l, successional habitats within the Mt. Ashland LSR. These projects are expected to maintain and enhance the function of the LSR and CHU for NSO, fisher, and other late-successional species. Implementation of these projects will actually increase the average dbh of existing stands over the next several decades because thinning small diameter trees will increase growth and vigor of the remaining stands by reducing competition. The intent of these proj ects is to retain late- successional conditions for fisher and other late-successional species. It is expected that these projects will ultimately provide larger trees for fisher den and rest sites, maintain connectivity for fishers throughout the local and total population area, and maintain the viability and resiliency of late-successional forests within the local population area in the event of wildfires. Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction project The Klamath National Forest is planning thinning and fuel reduction treatments in the southern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Treatments are designed to promote the development of late- successional habitat and reduce the potential of stand-replacement fire. Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not remove important structural components of fisher denning or resting habitat such as large-diameter trees, snags, and DWD. Trees infected with mistletoe may be removed but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this habitat component will remain well distributed across the landscape. Silvicultural prescriptions have also been designed to retain 60 percent canopy cover in suitable NSO habitat. Because denning and resting habitat for fisher is a smaller subset of suitable NSO habitat, these prescriptions will not significantly reduce canopy cover in these fisher habitats. Prescriptions for underbuming have been designed to imitate low-intensity fire, thus, underbuming is not expected to significantly impact the amount and distribution of large snags and DWD. Other fuel reduction treatments such as hand piling and burning of fuels and mastication will retain MLSRA recommendations for snags and DWD. Because the structural elements of fisher habitat will be retained, thinning designed to promote the development of late- successional habitat and fuels reduction treatments are not expected to remove denning and resting habitat. It is expected that fishers will avoid areas with little or no forest cover but will likely use patches of habitat if they are connected by forested stands. Because the only proposed silvicultural prescription is thinning, stands will be thinned to a variable density including 15 percent of each stand to remain unthinned, an average of 60 percent canopy closure will be retained in true fir stands and the lower half of north and east facing slopes, an average of 40 to 60 percent canopy closure will be retained on south and west facing slopes, and 60 percent canopy cover will be retained in suitable NSO habitat, thinning prescriptions designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not create large openings or significantly reduce forest cover and will retain a high level of habitat connectivity. Additionally, actions within one site potential tree of riparian reserves are limited to pre-commercial thinning which is not expected to affect the connectivity function of these areas. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ would remove approximately 4 acres of denning and resting habitat in stand 339 by reducing canopy cover to 40 percent. While thinning in DFPZs may remove discrete structural components of fisher habitat outside of stand 339, silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to retain suitable NSO habitat where it occurs within DFPZs, ensuring that these activities will not remove any additional denning and resting habitat. Additionally, the removal of large snags or groups of ( snags within DFPZs will be limited to situations where they pose a hazard to operations. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE . Page 61 Thinning and fuel reduction treatments also have the potential to impact some fisher prey species by removing or reducing the availability of important habitat components. However, where thinning treatments similar to those proposed in this proj ect have been applied, effects to small mammal species commonly found in fisher diets have been shown to be insignificant or of short duration (Carey and Wilson 2001; Suzuki and Hayes 2003). Chang's (1996) summary of the response of small mammals to fire in the Sierra Nevada's indicates that many species commonly found in fisher diets may be killed in large, rapid moving wildfires. However, less intense fires, such as the underburns prescribed for this project, had less detrimental effects. Because fisher's have a diverse diet and may switch prey in response to changing density (Zielinski et al. 1999), they would likely find abundant prey in the event of a short-term reduction in some prey species following a prescribed fire. In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant benefits to fisher by increasing the amount and distribution of denning and r~sting habitat and by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. FVS modeling indicates that 50 years post thinning the average tree diameter within a stand would increase to between 24 and 27" and 14 to 15 trees per acre> 30" would be expected. More large stems per acre would also increase recruitment of large snags and DWD. Stands with this type of structural complexity contain the specific habitat requirements for this species. FFE modeling indicates that thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and significantly reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. These factors indicate that stands will be more resistant to large-scale fires but will burn with sufficient intensity to create small openings within forested habitat. This type of pattern, would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. This pattern of successional stages would likely benefit fisher by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape. Between 0.2 to 0.3 miles of temporary road construction is proposed in fisher denning and resting habitat. Because construction of temporary roads would remove large diameter trees and create approximately a thirty foot gap in the canopy, it is expected that this activity would remove between 0.7 and 1.1 acres of denning and resting habitat and 8 to 24 acres of foraging habitat. While the construction of temporary roads will create linear openings in forested stands, research suggests that narrow roads with low traffic volume, such as logging roads, do not influence home range establishnlent, daily movement patterns, or use of otherwise suitable habitat (Dark 1997; Aubry and Raley 2006). Therefore, the construction and subsequent decommissioning of temporary roads is not expected to create barriers to fisher movements or measurably affect habitat connectivity. To ensure that impacts to fisher habitat are minimized, all trees >24" that need to be felled during temporary road construction will be left on site. One landing is proposed to be constructed in fisher denning and resting habitat, resulting in the removal of 0.5 acre of fisher habitat. (- Road-related activities, including maintenance, closures, and decommissioning is not expected to remove any important structural components of fisher habitat. The implementation of the proposed treatments will result in an increase of vehicular traffic within the Project area, increasing the possibility that a fisher will be killed or injured in a vehicular collision. However, due to the inherent low density of fisher, the low rate of speed traveled by vehicles within the Project area, and because the majority of activities will occur during times of the day when fisher are less active, it is highly unlikely that fisher(s) will be killed or injured in a vehicular collision. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 62 ( Combined, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ and construction of temporary roads and landings would be expected to remove between 0.7 and 5.5 acres or 0.05 to 0.43 percent of the extant denning and resting habitat in the Project area. Proposed actions are not expected to affect habitat connectivity. Because fishers have large home ranges, this level of habitat removal would be negligible and not expected to affect the viability of fishers in the Project area. ~ Ashland Watershed Protection Project The Ashland Watershed Protection Project has, or will implement 1,549 acres of surface fuel treatments. None of these treatments will remove or degrade denning, resting, or foraging habitat for fisher. Surface fuel treatments can have direct effects to fisher through the presence of personnel implementing the project. For discussion on the direct to fisher from fuels projects, please see the direct effects section under Effects common to all Action Alternatives. These treatments can also have effects to fisher prey species and increase the potential for competition from other carnivores. For discussion on these potential effects, please see the indirect effects section under Effects common to all Action Alternatives. Wagner Gap Timber Sale The Wagner Gap Timber Sale is thinning 417 acres located on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Of the 417 acres, 324 acres are nesting, roosting, foraging, and 93 acres are dispersal for northern spotted owl. Because all of these acres will be maintained (2:60% CC for NRF, 2:40 CC for dispersal) the Wagner Gap T.S. is not expected to reduce den, resting, or foraging habitat for fisher. Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion The proposed action would expand the number of ski runs and ski lifts at the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. This action will consist of the harvest of trees within and adjacent to designated ski runs, the construction of two new ski lifts adjacent to the proposed ski run, a two-acre expansion of the existing parking lot, and the construction of a tubing facility. Two chair lifts and two surface lifts would be constructed, as would 71 acres of ski runs. Four acres would be cleared for lifts and staging areas. A four-acre tubing facility, three new guest services buildings, and yurt would be constructed. The proposed action would also include an access road for maintenance of the new runs and service buildings. The proposed Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion will remove 44 acres of suitable denning and resting habitat and an additional 17 acres of foraging habitat. Fishers have avoided open areas 25 m across and less in the Midwest (Powell 1977). In southwest Oregon, the main stem of the Rogue River and Highway 62 appeared to influence spatial use by fishers, and individuals in that portion of the study area primarily maintained home ranges on one side or the other of that corridor, crossing it occasionally and during the breeding season (males). Smaller rivers, creeks, and paved county roads did not appear to influence where fishers established their home ranges (Aubry and Raley 2006). For fisher, the total area impacted by the ski area expansion is 220 acres because runs 12, 15, 18 and surface lift 15 fragment this area from the remaining habitats within the local population area due to removal of timber on the runs. Implementation of this proj ect will create openings that average 125 ft. wide on the proposed ski runs. It is expected that these runs are likely to create barriers to fisher movement. Therefore, the entire 220 acres is unlikely to function as fisher habitat or be included in an individual's home range. Within the 220 acre area, approximately 66 acres are currently non-habitat (<400/0 canopy closure), 66 acres ( are foraging habitat, and 88 acres are resting/denning habitat. Implementation of the ski area APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 63 expansion is not expected to prevent movement and dispersal of fishers within the local or total population area because the summit of Mt. Ashland is already a natural opening and is not likely providing connectivity for fishers traveling north and south due to their avoidance of non- forested habitats. Currently, emigration, immigration, and movement by fishers north to south is likely through the use forested areas both east and west of the summit (Figure XX), and these habitats will remain untreated for the foreseeable future. In the MASA expansion area approximately 220 acres of habitat will be removed from the local population area. This represents 0.9 km2 or approximately one-tenth of a female's home range. Within the expansion area, approximately 400/0 (88 acres) is resting/denning habitat, 30% (66 acres) is foraging habitat, and 300/0 is <60% canopy closure. Removal of this habitat is likely to cause a shift in home range of the residerit animal(s). Private Timber lands Private timber company lands (Timber Products, Fruitgrowers Supply Company, Green Diamond) and tribal lands (Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation) in northern California currently contribute habitat to fisher populations within the local and total population areas. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that private and tribal lands will contribute to fisher habitat and populations in the near future. However, it is unknown as to what extent these lands will contribute to fisher habitat in the long term due to changes in management practices, ownership, and retention of late successional structure over time. Conclusion and determination of Effects of AFR The AFR project proposes to reduce fisher habitat (2:60% canopy closure) by 1,292 - 2,415 acres (5-10 km2). These acres are widely dispersed across 7,600-8,990 acres of project area depending on which action alternative is selected. Late-successional habitats on south and west facing slopes in the RNA and northernmost portions of the project area will be most affected due to reduction of canopy closure and fuels projects. Within these areas, there may be some shifting or expansion home ranges due to reduction in habitat quality. This is likely to influence 2-3 female home ranges and 1-2 male home ranges. This could potentially influence 2-3 female home ranges and 1-2 male home ranges. This approximates 5-10% of the estimated local population, and 0.25-0.5% of the estimated total population. Due to reduction in denning/resting and foraging habitats within the local population area the AFR project "may adversely impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely result in a loss of viability within the planning area, (RRSISNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide" for Pacific fisher. Franklin's Bumblebee and Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats potentially used by these two early seral associated species. None. of the proposed alternatives would affect any of the early seral habitat that these species are associated with. All action alternatives would have "no impact" to Franklin's bumblebee or the Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper. ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 64 II r---- Johnson's Hairstreak The no-action alternative would not remove or modify any habitats used by Johnson's Hairstreak. There will be "no impact" to Johnson's Hairstreak under the no-action alternative. () This species is not known for the action area. However, there is Douglas fir mistletoe present in the area; it is unknown if this species uses that species of mistletoe and the literature indicates that it more likely occurs in the coast range and Cascades and is associated with pine and hemlock mistletoes. Because we have not conducted survey for this species in the Project Area, and potential habitat occurs within the areas we will be implementing fuel reduction projects, the AFR project "may adversely impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely result in a loss of viability within the planning area, (RRSISNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide" due to the potential removal of 0-3 overstory trees/acre some of which may have mistletoe. Management of dwarf mistletoe-infected trees can be avoided at lower slope positions where reduced spread rates and high quality habitat occurs. While there may be some treatments within mistletoe infected stands, mistletoe will continue to persist within the Watershed as should this species if it does occur. There will be no removal of late-successional habitats that this species is associated with. Cumulative Effects The AFR, Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction project, and A WPP proj ects all focus on reducing the effects of wildfire and retention of, or maintenance of late- successional habitats within the Mt. Ashland LSR. These projects are expected to maintain and enhance the function of the LSR and CHU for NSq, fisher, and other late-successional species. Implementation of these projects will actually increase the average dbh of existing stands over the next several decades because thinning small diameter trees will increase growth and vigor of the remaining stands by reducing competition. The intent of these projects is to retain late- successional conditions for fisher and other late-successional species. It is expected that these projects will ultimately provide larger trees for late-successional species, maintain connectivity throughout the Action Area, and maintain the viability and resiliency of late-successional forests within the Action Area in the event of wildfires. Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction project The Klamath National Forest is planning thinning and fuel reduction treatments in the southern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Treatments are designed to promote the development of late- successional habitat and reduce the potential of stand-replacement fire. ( Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not remove important structural components of late-successional habitat such as large-diameter trees, snags, and DWD. Trees infected with mistletoe may be removed but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this habitat component will remain well distributed across the landscape. Silvicultural prescriptions have also been designed to retain 60 percent canopy cover in suitable spotted owl habitat. Prescriptions for underbuming have been designed to imitate low-intensity fire, thus, underburning is not expected to significantly impact the amount and distribution of large snags and DWD. Other fuel reduction treatments such as hand piling and burning of fuels and mastication will retain Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment . recommendations for snags and DWD. Because the structural elements of late-successional habitat will be retained, thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat and fuels reduction treatments are not expected to remove late-successional habitat. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 65 Because the only proposed silvicultural prescription is thinning, stands will be thinned to a variable density including 15 percent of each stand to remain unthinned, an average of 60 percent canopy closure will be retained in true fir stands and the lower half of north and east facing slopes, an average of 40 to 60 percent canopy closure will be retained on south and west facing slopes, and 60 percent canopy cover will be retained in suitable late-successional habitat, thinning prescriptions designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not create large openings or significantly reduce forest cover and will retain a high level of habitat connectivity. Additionally, actions within one site potential tree of riparian reserves are limited to pre-commercial thinning which is not expected to affect the connectivity function of these areas. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ would remove approximately 4 acres of late-successional habitat in stand 339 by reducing canopy cover to 40 percent. While thinning in DFPZs may remove discrete structural components of late- successional habitat outside of stand 339, silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to retain late-successional habitat where it occurs within DFPZs, ensuring that these activities will not remove any additional late-successional habitat. Additionally, the removal of large snags or groups of snags within DFPZs will be limited to situations where they pose a hazard to operations. In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant benefits to late-successional species by increasing the amount and distribution of late-successional habitat and by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. FVS modeling indicates that 50 years post thinning the average tree diameter within a stand would increase to between 24 and 27" and 14 to 15 trees per acre> 30" would be expected. More large stems per acre would also increase recruitment of large snags and DWD. Stands with this type of structural complexity contain the specific habitat requirements for this species. FFE modeling indicates that thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and significantly reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. These factors indicate that stands will be more resistant to large-scale fires but will burn with sufficient intensity to create small openings within forested habitat. This type of pattern, would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. This pattern of successional stages would likely benefit late-successional species by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape. Between 0.2 to 0.3 miles of temporary road construction is proposed in late-successional habitat. Because construction of temporary roads would remove large diameter trees and create approximately a thirty foot gap in the canopy, it is expected that this activity would remove between 0.7 and 1.1 acres of late-successional habitat. To ensure that impacts to late- successional habitat are minimized, all trees >24" that need to be felled during temporary road construction will be left on site. One landing is proposed to be constructed in late-successional habitat, resulting in the removal of 0.5 acre of late-successional habitat. Road-related activities, including maintenance, closures, and decommissioning is not expected to remove any important structural components of habitat. ( Combined, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap DFPZ and construction of temporary roads and landings would be expected to remove between 0.7 and 5.5 acres or 0.05 to 0.43 percent of the APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 66 extant late-successional habitat in the Project area. Proposed actions are not expected to affect habitat connectivity. C.="1 Ashland Watershed Protection Project The Ashland Watershed Protection Project has, or will implement 1 ,549 acres of surface fuel treatments. None of these treatments will remove or degrade late-successional habitat. Wagner Gap Timber Sale The Wagner Gap Timber Sale is thinning 417 acres located on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Of the 417 acres, 324 acres are nesting, roosting, foraging, and 93 acres are dispersal for northern spotted owl. Because all of these acres will be maintained (~60% CC for NRF, ~40 CC for dispersal) the Wagner Gap T.S. is not expected to reduce late-successional or dispersal habitats. Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion The proposed action would expand the number of ski runs and ski lifts at the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. This action will consist of the harvest of trees within and adj acent to designated ski runs, the construction of two new ski lifts adjacent to the proposed ski run, a two-acre expansion of the existing parking lot, and the construction of a tubing facility. Two chair lifts and two surface lifts would be constructed, as would 71 acres of ski runs. Four acres would be cleared for lifts and staging areas. A four-acre tubing facility, three new guest services buildings, and yurt would be constructed. The proposed action would also include an access road for maintenance of the new runs and service buildings. (>~{; r'};, \....:J$' The proposed Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion will remove 44 acres of late-successional habitat. Fishers have avoided open areas 25 m across and less in the Midwest (Powell 1977). Implementation of this project will create openings that average 125 ft. wide on the proposed ski runs. Private Timber lands The amount of late-successional habitat on private land is unknown, though it is likely to be relatively low. The selective harvest regimes typically carried out in the Rogue Valley and surrounding area, under the typical rotation age of 40 to 60 years. Habitat has not been comprehensively classified or surveys conducted on state and private lands. State and private timber company holdings cover many thousand acres within the Action Area. Most state and private holdings have been harvested within the last 50 years and are now either in woodland residential, agricultural, or as managed shrub, pole, or large pole condition classes. Some mature forested stands exist on county, state, or private land, but these stands represent a small proportion of private land ownership. The mature stands provide limited amounts of late-successional habitat for forest species. Mature and large pole stands were recently being logged at an accelerated rate due to economic/market conditions. However market conditions have slowed in the last two years and timber harvest rates on non-Federal lands may not be as high as in the recent past. However Oregon Department of Forestry data shows little down turn in harvest rates in Jackson County. As an example, harvest data provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry shows that in 2006, shows that 88 million board feet of timber had been harvested from non-federal lands in Jackson ( County, up from 69,000,000 board feet in 2005 and up from 80 million in 2004. (htto://egov.oregol1.gov/ODF/ST ATE FORESTS/FRP/annual reports.shtn11.) APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 67 ( n'i) .;...;~.;1 The majority of state and private forests in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California are managed for timber production (Thomas et al. 1990, USDA Forest Service/USDA Bureau of Land Management 1994a). Historically, non-federal landowners practiced even-aged management (clear cutting) of timber over extensive acreages. The Forest assumes that these past management practices will continue and reduce the amount of late-successional habitat on non-federal lands over time. Harvest activities on state and private lands can be expected to impact late-successional species located within adjacent federal lands by removing and fragmenting habitat. Mardon Skipper . The no-action alternative would not remove or modify any habitats used by Mardon skippers. There will be "no impact" to Mardon skippers under the no-action alternative. Actions associated with the proposed AFR project are limited to timbered habitats and therefore do not affect habitats known to be used by the Mardon skipper. If treatments in timbered stands are in close proximity to unknown or unmapped, small, dispersed meadows, these treatments would likely increase solar radiation and result in a short-term increase in fescue species if they are present. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 68 (~=) VIII. Literature Cited Anthony, R.G. 2006. Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidenta/is caurina) in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished. Oregon State University. Anthony, R.G. 2005. Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidenta/is caurina) in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished. Oregon State University. Anthony, R.G., E.n. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, CJ. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, RJ. Gutierrez, PJ. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, and S.G. Sovern. 2004. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Final Report to the Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 179pp. Anthony, R.G., Franklin A, Burnham K.P., White G.C. , Forsman E., Schwarz C, Nichols J.D., and Hines J. 1999. RANGE-WIDE STATUS AND TRENDS IN NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL POPULATIONS. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research, United States Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, 201 Wagar Building. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. United States Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division. Department ofFish and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-3803 Arthur, V. 2004. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land Management, Medford, OR. Personal communications. Aubry, K.B. and C. Raley. 2006. Ecological characteristics of fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service. Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Olympia, W A. Aubry, K.B., J. von Kienast, and D. Clayton. 2005. Remote camera surveys and non-invasive genetic sampling of fishers in the northern Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon. Final report. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, High Cascades Ranger District. Aubry, K.B., S.M. Wisely, C.M. Raley, and S.W. Buskirk. 2004. Zoogeography, spacing patterns, and dispersal in fishers: insights gained from combining field and genetic data. Pages 201-220 in DJ. Harrison, A.K. Fuller, and G. Proulx, eds. Marten and fishers'(Martes) in human-altered environments: and international perspective. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY. 279pp. Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (1):79-90. ( Aubry, K.B., and C.M. Raley. 2002. The pileated woodpecker as a keystone habitat modifier in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PSW -GTR-181. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 69 ("') Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, TJ. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June, 2002. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, W A. Aubry, K.B., F.E. Wahl, J. von Kienast, TJ. Catton, and S.G. Armentrout. 1997. Use of remote video cameras for detecting forest carnivores and in radio-telemetry studies of fishers. In: Proulx, G., H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, (Eds.), Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and Management. Provincial Museum of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 350-361. Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna, 55:1-416. Barrett, N.M. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. Rogue River National Forest, Prospect, OR. Personal communications. Brown, H.A., R.B. Bury, D.M. Darda, L.V. Diller, C.R. Peterson, and R.M. Storm. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, W A. Buck, S.G., C. Mullis, and A.S. Mossman. 1983. Corral Bottom-Hayfork Bally fisher study: Final report. Humboldt State University, USDA Forest Service, Arcata, California, USA. Buskirk, S. W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 283-296. Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994 American marten. Pages 38 -73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, LJ. Lyon, and WJ. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores; American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Carey, A.B., C.C. Maguire, B.L. Biswell, and T.M. Wilson. 1999. Distribution and abundance of Neotoma in western Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science, Vol. 73, No.2. Center for Biological Diversity. 2000. Petition to list the fisher (Martes pennanti) as and endangered species in its west coast range. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Clayton, D. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg, OR. Personal communications. Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Courtney,SP, Carey, AB, Cody, ML, Engel, K, Fehring, KE, Franklin, JF, Fuller, MR, Gutierrez,RJ, Lehmkuhl,JF, Hemstrom,MA, Hessburg, PF, Stephens,SL, Sztukowski, LA, Young, L. 2008. Scientific Review of the Draft Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and ( Reviewer Comments. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 70 (-') ,,-~y Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, IF. Franklin, RJ. Gutierrez, lM. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004. Cross, S.P., H. Lauchstedt, and M. Blankenship. 1997. Bat studies in the Ashland and Applegate Districts of the Rogue River National Forest. Final Report. Southern Oregon University. Cross, S.P. 1973. Preliminary vertebrate faunal survey of the Ashland Research Natural Area. Unpublished Report. Southern Oregon College. Drew, R.E., J.G. Hallett, K.B. Aubry, K.W. Cullings, S.M. Koepf, and WJ. Zielinski. 2003. Conservation genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology 8, 1351-1362. Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR. Farber, S. and S. Criss. 2006. Cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the upper and west fork of Beaver Creek watersheds in interior Northern California. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka Field Office. Yreka, California. Farber, S. and T. Franklin. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) in the eastern Klamath Province of interior northern California. Timber Products Company. Timberlands Office. Yreka, California. Forsman, E. and R. Anthony. 1999. Analysis of demographic rates of the northern spotted owl: Executive Summary. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Corvallis, Oregon. Foster, D.E 1974. Ovipositional behavior of Chloealtis aspasma (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Pan Pacific Entomologist 50(2):207-208. Franklin, A.B., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, R.B. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, C. Schwarz, J.D. Nichols, and J. Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern spotted owl populations. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado. Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). In The birds of North America, No 252 (A. Poole and F. Gill eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologist' Union, Washington, DC. Galea, F. 2002. Northern spotted owl surveys for the Ashland Watershed Project Area, 2002. Final Report. Galea Wildlife Consulting. Crescent City, CA. ( Gauthier, G. 1993. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeala). In The Birds of North America, No. 67 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.' APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 71 ( -~>) ,.~$' Gitzen, R.A., S.D. West, C.C. Maguire, T. Manning, and C.B. Halpern. In press. Response of terrestrial small mammals to varying amounts and patterns of green-tree retention in Pacific Northwest forest. Forest Ecology and Management (2007). Goggans, R. 1986. Habitat use by Flammulated Owls in northeastern Oregon. Masters thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette, andD.L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36. p.157-172. Hart, M.M., J.P. Copeland, and R.L. Redmond. 1997. Mapping wolverine habitat in the northern Rockies using a GIS. A poster presented at the Wildlife Society's 4th Annual Conference. Snowmass Village, CO. Heinzelmann, J.L., and J.D. Alexander. 2004. Bird abundance in the Ashland Watershed: results from 2004 bird monitoring. Unpublished Report. Klamath Bird Observatory. Ashland, OR. Higley, J.M. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. Hoopa Valley Tribe. Hoopa, CA. Personal communications. Higley, lM., and S. Matthews. 2006. Cemographic rates and denning ecology of female Pacific fishers (Martes pennanti) in northwestern California: Preliminary report October 2004-July 2006. Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa. Hobbs, G. A. 1968. Ecology of species of Bombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in southern Alberta. VII. Subgenus Bombus. Canadian Entomol. 100(2):156-164. Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301. Jacobson, S.L. 2007. Traffic volume effects to wildlife on the Lava Butte US 97 construction project. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station. Janes, Stewart, John Kemper, Norman Barrett, Richard Cronberg, Jim Livaudias, Marjorie Moore, Thomas Phillips, Howard Sands, Gary Shaffer, Joseph Shelton, and Pepper Trail. 2002. The birds of Jackson County, Oregon - Distribution and Abundance. 28 pp. Johnson, S. 2005. Recreation manager. U.S. Forest Service. Ashland, OR. Personal communications. Jones, J.L. and E.O. Garton. 1994.. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central Idaho. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 377-387. Kerwin, A.E. 2007. Conservation assessment for the Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon). USDA Forest Service Region 6, California, Oregon and Washington. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington (' APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 72 -----~.--.r..T Lewis, J.C., and D.W. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status report for the fisher. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington, USA. ~U_U~.,." ('-..1>') Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, W A. Magoun, AJ., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1313-1320. Marshall, D.B. 1989. Status of the wolverine in Oregon. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report, PNW-133:1-496. Mathews, S. 2006. Hoopa Valley Pacific fisher ecology and conservation project; August 2006 update. Hoopa Tribal Forestry. Hoopa, CA. McCallum, D. A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otusflammeolus). In The Birds of North America, No. 93 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union. McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Chapter 8 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and lR. Squires. eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, CO. Meyer, R. 2007. Martes pennanti. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2007, December 11]. Nice, C. and R. VanBuskirk. 1996. The butterflies of Mt. Ashland: community surveys along the Siskiyou Crest. Unpublished report. Section of Evolution and Ecology. Division of Biological Sciences. University of California. Davis, CA. Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ill. Oakley, C. Wildlife Biologist. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka, CA. Personal communication. OR-W A Interagency Wildlife Committee 1989. Working Implementation Plan for Bald Eagle Recovery in Oregon and Washington. Oredson, V. 2005. Habitat Biologist. Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife. White City, OR. Personal communications. ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 73 (.=) Pierson, E.D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D.L. Genter, C.E. Harris, B.L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K.W. Navo, J.M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Popp, D. and F.B. Isaacs. 1995. Draft site-specific management plan for the Emigrant Lake bald eagle nest site. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Klamath Falls, OR. Powell, R.A. 1977. Hunting behavior, ecological en-ergetics and predator-prey community stability of the fisher (Martes pennanti). Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago. Ph.D. thesis. 132 pp. Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Powell, R.A. 1994. Effects of scale on habitat selection and foraging behavior of fishers in winter. Journal ofMammology 75 (2):349-356. Powell, R.A. and WJ. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, and WJ. Zielinski, editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Pyle, Robert Michael. 2002. The butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society. 420 pp. Raley, C. 2005. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Olympia, W A. Personal communication. Rehn, lA.G. and M. Hebard. 1919. A new species of grasshopper of the genus Chloealtis (Acridinae) from the Pacific Coast. Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 45:81-87. Rible, G. 2005. Research Assistant. Oregon State University. Ashland, OR. Personal communication. Reid, Ian. Fisheries Biologist. U.S. Forest Service. Ashland Ranger District. Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. Personal communications. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandahey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #Rl-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142pp. , Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, LJ. Lyon, WJ. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp. ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 74 Schafer, C. 2004. A reptile and amphibian survey of the Ashland Watershed. Unpublished report. (~~) Schroeder, B. 2001. Winter carnivore visitations to bait stations in the Applegate River Basin: target species, fisher (Martes pennanti). Unpublished report. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Applegate Ranger District. Shilling, Jason. 2007. Annual report on Spotted Owl Radio-Telemetry Monitoring in the Ashland Watershed. Annual Report submitted to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Slauson, K. and WJ. Zielinski. 2001. Distribution and habitat ecology of American martens and Pacific fishers in southwestern Oregon. Unpublished Progress Report I, July 1 - November 15, 2001. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station and Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 17p. Stephen W. P. 1957. Bumble bees of western America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Oregon State College Agr. Exp. Sta.: Tech. Bull. No. 40. 163pp. Stephens, J. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land Management, Medford, OR. Personal communications. Spencer, K. 2003. Chapter 3, species accounts in Birds of Oregon; a general reference. Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, editors. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR Thomas, J.W., E.D., Forsman, lB. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and 1. Verner. April 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: A report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 427 pp. Thomas, J.W., R.G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E.L. Bull. 1979. Chapter 5; Snags in Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. l.W. Thomas, J.L. Parker, R.A. Mowrey, G.M. Hansen, and BJ. Bell editors. USDA Forest Service. Agricultural Handbook No. 553. pp 60-77. Thorp, R. W. 2003. Bumble bees (Hymenoptea: Apidae): commercial use and environmental concerns. Pp. 21-40. In: K. Strickler and J. H. Cane (eds.). For nonnative crops, whence pollinators of the future? Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Proceedings. Entomological Society of Amererica, Lanham, MD. (204pp.) Thorp, R. W., P. C. Schroeder, and C. S. Ferguson. 2003. Bumble bees: Boisterous pollinators of native California flowers. Fremontia 30(3-4):26-31 [JuVOct 2002distributed May 2003]. Thorp, R. W., D. S. Horning, Jr., and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: 1-79. Truex, R.L., WJ. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.H. Barrett, and S.M. Wisely. 1998. A meta- ( analysis of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habiat ecology in APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 75 California. Draft report submitted to California Department ofFish and Game. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California, USA. (~) USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Regional Forester's sensitive species list. USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Final EIS for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Final Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Wildlife Species that May be Affected by the Mount Ashland Late- successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project. Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National forest USDA Forest Service. 2004. Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 2003a. 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Rogue River/South Coast Biological Assessmentand Biological Opinion. FY 04-08 for activities that may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for Medford District BLM, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR. USDA Forest Service. 1996. The Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Rogue River National Forest. Ashland Ranger District. Ashland, OR. . USDA Forest Service. 1995. Bear Watershed Analysis. Rogue River National Forest. Ashland Ranger District. Ashland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Rogue River National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan. United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest Region. Medford, OR. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. Includes standards and guidelines for management of late-successional - old-growth dependent species within the range of the northern spotted owl. US Government Printing Office, Portland, OR. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, May 2008. Portland, Oregon. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for petition to list the West Coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:69. p.18,769-18,792. ( APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 76 .~, (J USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Formal and informal consultation and informal conferencing on habitat modification and noise disturbance timber harvest activities for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; Final rule. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. 1990 status review of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl: final rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:26,114-26,194. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. The northern spotted owl: a status review. Portland, Oregon. USDI. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 160 pp. USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision to remove or modify the survey and manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines in the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, (> Portland, OR. USDlIUSDA. 1999. Draft Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 92 pp. van Langevelde, F. and C.F. Jaarsma. 2004. Using traffic flow theory to model traffic mortality in mammals. Landscape Ecology. 19:895-907. van Langevelde, F. and C.F. Jaarsma. 1997. Habitat fragmentation, the role of minor rural roads and their traversability. In: Kanters, K.J., Piepers, A. and Hendriks-Heersma, D. (eds), Habitat fragmentation and infrastructure. Proceedings of the International Conference on Habitat Fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering. Maastricht/The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 171-182. Vargas, M. 2005. District Wildlife Biologist. Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife. White City, OR. Personal communications. Verts, BJ., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Was, N.W. 1995. Furbearer study. A joint study. conducted for the Applegate and Ashland Ranger Districts. Rogue River National Forest. Supervisors Office. Medford, Oregon. ( Weir, E. 2003. Ashland and Applegate Ranger District forest carnivore survey; summary of results for photographic bait station and snow tracking surveys conducted on the Ashland and APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 77 Applegate Ranger Districts of the Rogue River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR. ('?'~) Weir, R.D. and A.S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selectivity by fishers in south- .~)i central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(1):73-82. Weir, R.D., and F.B. Corbould. 2008. Ecology of fishers in sub-boreal forests of north-central British Columbia. Peace Williiston fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Final Report No 315, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada. Williams, P. H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bull. Natur. Hist. Mus. London (Ent.) 67(1 ):79-152. Wisely, S.M, S.W. Buskirk, G.A. Russell, K.B. Aubry, and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic diversity and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral metapopulation. Journal of Mammology 85(4):640-648. www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATAJtsm/trendspage. shtml#2007 _Monthly_Trends Yaeger. J.S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA. Zabel, C.J., J.R. Dunk, H.B. Stauffer, L.M. Roberts, B.S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). Ecological Applications 13(4):1027-1040. Zabel, C.J., K. McKelvey, and J.P. Ward Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73:433-439. Zielinski, William J., R.L. Truex, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, K.N. Schn1idt, R.H. Barrett, and T.J. O'Shea. 2004. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mamma logy. 85(4): 649-657. Zielinski, W.J. and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammology, 85(3):xxx-xxx. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truax, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(3);475-492. Zielinski, W.J., and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157. ( Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truax, A.P. Clevenger, and R.H. Barrett. 1999. Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammology,80(3):961-971. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 78 (~) ~ Zielinski, W.J., T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of fisher (Martes pennanti) in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):104-112. APPENDIX F Wildlife BE Page 79 ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCY PROJECT PREFERRED AL TERNA TIVE July 8, 2008 1. Silvicultural Treatments within the Research Natural Area Description: The Research Natural Area (RNA) within the Ashland Watershed was created on May 4, 1970, to provide examples of the Pacific Ponderosa Pine and the ponderosa pine / Douglas Fir forest found west of the Cascade Range in southern Oregon. The "Community Alternative" (CA), proposes to treat 520 acres (370/0) within the RNA, and the Preferred Alternate (PA) proposes to treat 1280 acres (910/0). The difference in total acres comes from three locations: 1) The CA has no prescriptions for lower two-thirds slope positions on north and east aspects, while the PA suggests treating almost all of the RNA. This distinction probably accounts for most of the acreage differences between the two alternatives, 2) The CA requires no treatments on unstable Landslide Hazard Zone 1 (LHZ1) and on slopes greater than 650/0, while the PA allows treatments in these locations, although they tend to be light in LHZ1, 3) the CA shows no acres being treated in the owl core (approximately 125 acres) while the PA treats this entire acreage. AFLC Recommendation: Treatment Settings: Use the treatment settings as outlined in the CA, accepting the P A proposed treatment in the lower 1/3 slope positions on south and west aspects focused around thinning around Cohort 1 legacy pines; Reject the PA inclusion lower 2/3 slope positions on north and east aspects in the moist white fir PAG; Reject PA proposed inclusion od LHZI and slopes> 65%; Reject PA inclusion of treatment in owl core (unless there are no owls surveyed currently, thereby allowing the CA treatment for owl cores). Prescriptions: Utilize CA prescriptions in all settings. Note: USFS prescriptions had not been received and are yet to be reviewed. 2. Addition of Roadside Treatments Adjacent To US Forest Road 2060 Description: The PA includes 330 acres of roadside fuel treatments adjacent to US Forest Road 2060. These treatments will extend from 200 linear feet below the road to 50 to 75 feet above the road. The CA also provides for roadside treatments spanning 100 linear feet below the road to 100 feet above the road. However, the CA roadside treatments are less contiguous than those provided for in the PA as a result of two factors: 1) the CA avoids treatments on slopes of 650/0 and greater, 2) the CA has stretches of the road that were not in close proximity to other treatment areas, and thus were not treated under the mapping rules developed in the CA. AFLC Recommendation: Accept PA expansion of roadside treatments, but including a requirement for an inventory of road conditions by an engineering CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Discussion on Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative Meeting Date: August 4, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Keith E. Woodley Department: Fire & Rescue E-Mail: woodleyk@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Study Session Question: Does the Council wish to endorse the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative? Staff Recommendation: This is a study session for discussion purpose only. Background: The purpose of the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project is to protect forest ecosystem values at risk, reduce crown fire potential, and establish forest ecosystem conditions that are more resilient to wildland fire events. The AFR project was granted status in 2004 as a project under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). Under HFRA, the USFS was required to evaluate three alternatives, (1) no action alternative, (2) a USFS preferred alternative, and (3) a community alternative submitted as a "Community Wildfire Protection Plan". The Ashland Forest Lands Commission, in cooperation with local environmental stewardship groups, submitted a "Community Wildfire Protection Plan", or "CWPP", in 2004 to be evaluated as the third alternative. The US Forest Service has completed its evaluation of the three alternatives, and the selected or proposed action. It will be releasing to the public in July 2008, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed action in the AFR project. The US Forest Service is extending a 30-day review and comment period for the City of Ashland, as a special "government to government" opportunity for comment on the FEIS. This special review period expires on July 20,2008. Following this special comment period, the general public will be given a 30-day period to submit written comments on the document. Discussion: Representatives from the Ashland Forest Lands Commission and the Ashlanti For~st Resilienc)[ Community Alternativ~Technical Gr():':!P will be present at the study session to provide their recommendations following their analysis of the Preferred Alternative. Ms. Linda Duffy of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest will be present to answer questions. Attachments: Draft FEIS is available on-line Page 1 r.l' geologist to assess potential for existing road conditions to aggravate LHZ1 and/or other areas of potential slope failure associated with the road itself. In such situations, modify treatments and/or address road engineering/maintenance deficiencies. 3. Removal of Diameter Limits In The Roadless Area Description: The CA provides for a seven inch diameter at breast height (DBH) for understory treatments in the roadless area portion of the project. The PA does not accept the imposition of diameter limits as per US Forest Service policy. AFLC Recommendation: Accept the elimination of the 7 inch diameter limit in the roadless area within the treatment settings agreed to in point 4 below. Forest Service policy is to avoid setting diameter limits so this is merely an acceptance of policy. 4. Locations and Types of Treatments in Roadless Area Description: There are three major distinctions between the CA and the PA. These are as follows: 1) The PA eliminates all treatments above US Forest Road 2060 (except in the Panther Gap/Horn Gulch area- see below); 2) the CA utilizes non-commercial understory treatments only in the roadless area (including the Horn GulchlTalent WUI area), utilizing (as mentioned above) a 7 inch diameter limit, while the PA utilizes standard prescribed treatments for CA priority settings, but only in the Horn GulchlTalent WUI area); 3) the PA proposes an additional strategic ridgeline treatment at the top of Horn Gulch that was not part of the CA, although the CA does include treatment in some of the settings within the Horn Gulch strategic ridgeline. AFLC Recommendation: Reject the PA's elimination of all treatments above the 2060 Road and instead restrict treatments to maintaining/promoting Cohort 1 pines and larger hardwoods within CA treatment settings in this area. Accept the PA's utilization of standard prescribed treatments for CA priority settings in the Horn GulchlTalent WUI without a 7" diameter limit. Accept the PA's proposal for an additional strategic ridgeline treatment at the top of Horn Gulch. 5. Addition of Strategic Ridgeline Treatments & Canopy Closure Description: The CA differs from the PA in that it proposes a more dispersed, area-wide treatment strategy in comparison to the more aggressive strategic ridgeline treatments of the PA intended to "compartmentalize" the landscape. The PA accepts the prescriptions in treatment settings proposed by the CA in what the PA labels "Fuel Discontinuity Areas", while retaining strategic ridgeline treatments that overlay the CA in those areas. Within the strategic ridgeline treatments, the PA prescribes maintaining a somewhat more uniform 600/0 canopy closure throughout (in an effort to maintain higher fuel moistures of remaining fuels, reducing understory vegetation and thereby reducing maintenance costs), while the CA prescribes a greater diversity of treatments depending on priority setting. - m r----- AFLC Recommendation: CA prescriptions should be retained throughout the strategic ridgelines in identified CA treatment settings. Accept the PA proposal to include additional settings to create a more consisten~ treatment area. Maintain an average 60% canopy closure but encourage variability in canopy closure to meet individual site conditions, such as by using the CA prescription for Cohort 1 pines and larger hardwoods (FEIS pg 11-76) throughout strategic ridgeline settings. 6. Sedimentation Issue and DEQ TMDL Standards Description: Neither the CA or the PA addressed recent regulatory standards instituted by the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of sedimentation loading capacity which "is set to natural background or an erosion rate of 3.62 cubic yards per day total for the watershed. No significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder Reservoir over that which would occur naturally is allowed." In addition, the DEQ standards require "Long-term monitoring and the adaptive management nature of this TMDL will be used to evaluate this goal over time. It is recommended that in addition to monitoring sedimentation in East and West Forks of Ashland Creek, the Reeder Reservoir catchment basins be monitored to determine trends in sediment delivery and to determine potential sediment sources. Monitoring of stream cobble embeddedness or percent fines (through Wolman pebble count method) and monitoring that continues to incorporate macroinvertebrates as trend indicators for sedimentation in the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek is requested." The USFS analysis of potential sediment delivery in the 3 action alternatives suggests that "no significant change in sediment yields in the streams, or in Reeder Reservoir as a result of surface erosion following implementation of activities associated with the PA, CA, or Proposed Action" (page 111-69). In addition, the "Reeder Reservoir Study" produced by Brown and Caldwell for the City of Ashland made several recommendations that support the DEQ's request for additional monitoring, specifically: 5) Monitor the nutrients in tributaries; 8) Monitor sedimentation rate, and; 9) Monitor flood driven sediment. AFLC Recommendation: Comply with DEQ TMDL standards. Assess and monitor on-site soil and hydrological impacts as described in CA, including roads and landings. Develop monitoring and implementation methodology such as requested by USFS and presented by City in October 2007 letter. *This document with its recommendation was developed without updated prescriptions for the three alternatives. In addition, a "replacement" Chapter 3- Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences" was received one day prior to the AFLC meeting and had not been fully reviewed. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication -Information Only Reeder Reservoir Algae Treatment Plan - Information Only Meeting Date: August 4, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: N one Secondary Contact: Pieter Smeenk Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 15 Minutes The City's primary raw water source, Reeder Reservoir, experienced an algae bloom in the summer of 2007 which lead to serious taste and odor problems. The City hired Brown and Caldwell to study water quality and sediment in Reeder Reservoir. The scope of work included an evaluation and proposed solutions to the algae problem. / On March 31, 2008, Bob Willis, Brown and Caldwell's lead engineer on the Reeder Reservoir project, presented the results of the Reservoir study to the City Council. As to the algae problem, Mr. Willis indicated that the installation of aerators in the reservoir would help control algae growth by mixing the lower and upper water levels. To that end, the City installed two aerators (solar bees) in Reeder Reservoir in May 2008. Following the aerator installation staff then inspected the reservoir daily for signs of algae growth. Friday July 25, 2008 staff discovered an algae growth in the reservoir. Staff immediately contacted Jacob Kann, PH.D., Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences LLC, Ashland, Oregon to sample the algae and recommend a course of action. (Dr. Kann is one of the Sub-Consultants that prepared the Reeder Reservoir Water Quality and Sediment Assessment for Brown and Caldwell.) Dr. Kann indicated that it is possible that the aerators will not be able to fully control algae growth in the reservoir for a few years due to the large algae growth in 2007. Therefore, the City will likely have to control the algae with either algaecides (sodium carbonate and hydrogen peroxide) or copper sulfate when algae is detected. The City will first attempt to treat algae growth with an environmentally friendly algaecide; however, if the algaecide is not effective staffwill use copper sulfate. Dr. Kann will attend the City Council Study Session Monday August 4,2008 to further brief the Council on the Reeder Reservoir algae issue. Page 1 of 1 080408 Reeder Reservoir.CC ,.,