ashland forest resiliency - Southern Oregon Digital Archives ...

United StatesDepartment ofAgricultureForest ServicePacific NorthwestRegionJUNE 2005DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT STATEMENTASHLAND FORESTRESILIENCYAshland Ranger DistrictRogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

W~ United States Forest Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's OfficeiW~ Department of Service 333 W. 8th StreetAgriculture P.O. Box 520Medfor OR 97501-0209File Code: 1920-1-5Date: June 20, 2005Dear Reviewer,Enclosed for your review is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for AshlandForest Resiliency. Resiliency for this project is defined as the ability of the ecosystem to recoverfrom large-scale high-severity wild land fire. We have an urgent need to reduce this potential inthe Ashland Watershed, and surrounding Upper Bear Analysis Area.The DEIS was prepared within the guidelines of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA)which provides for analysis of an additional alternative if one exits, and if its treatmentsproposed are different from the agency's proposed treatments. The City of Ashland developed aproposal to that of the Forest Service, and through HFRA's provision for Community WildfireProtection Plan collaboration, it was analyzed as a separate and different action alternative. Theenclosed DEIS contains three alternatives: No Action, the Forest Service Proposed Action, andthe City of Ashland's Community Alternative.The next steps of the process for you, the reviewer, is to:1) offer back to the Forest Service, Ashland District Ranger, your comments of substanceabout any or all of the three alternatives within the forty five day review period. I preferthese in writing if that is possible for you;2) all comments received by the end of the Comment Period will be carefully read andanalyzed for how they influence the Final EIS, and ultimately the Record of Decision foraction (scheduled for completion in September 2005).As the Forest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, I am the ResponsibleOfficial (the Decision Maker) for this forthcoming decision. The Ashland District Ranger hasled the analysis and coordinated the public involvement process. At this time, a decision has notbeen made; the Final EIS will identify a Preferred Alternative for a course of action. Yourcomments to the DEIS will also be very important to the design and selection of a final decision.This DEIS is made available for a 45-day Comment Period, under the provisions of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.10). The Forest Service will accept written, electronicand oral comments beginning on the day following date of publication of the notice ofavailability (NOA) in the Federal Register. This day is scheduled to be June 24, 2005. TheForest Service will respond to substantive comments received in an appendix to the Final EIS.Commentors must submit substantive comments in order to have standing to file an objection tothe forthcoming Final EIS (36 CFR 218).~ Caring for the Land and Serving PeoplePrinted on Recyded Paper 0

Comments received will be reviewed and sorted into two categories: substantive and nonsubstantive.Emphasis will be placed on the content of comments, not on the number of times acomment was received (or the number of signatures on petition or form letter response).A substantive comment is defined as: "A review comment made by a respondent with a validsignature that offers a concern with factual basis that may have bearing on the decision beingmade" (USFS Public Participation Handbook). Substantive comments are more valuable to meand the Forest Service because they act to:-Provide new information pertaining to any alternative-Identify a new relevant issue or expand upon an existing issue-Identify a different way (alternative) and/or modify existing alternatives considered-Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously considered to meet the underlying need-Identify a specific flaw in the analysis to assist us in making factual corrections, and/orsupplement, improve or modify our analysis-Ask a specific relevant question that can be meaningfully answered or referenced-Identify an additional source of credible research, which if utilized, could result in improvedanalysisAgain, your comments to this DEIS will be very important to preparation of the Final EIS andthe design and selection of a final decision, thank you for your time and participation.Sincerely,~J)~/i~:~u~~::OY I

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCYAshland Ranger DistrictRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestJackson County, OregonJune 2005Lead Agency:Responsible Official:For Further InformationContact:USDA Forest ServiceRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestScott ConroyForest SupervisorRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestLinda Duffy, District Ranger, orDon Boucher, Project LeadAshland Ranger District645 Washington St.Ashland, OR 97520-1402Phone: (541) 552-2900Abstract:Pursuant to Sections 103 and 104 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), the Ashland Ranger District of the Rogue River-SiskiyouNational Forest has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The purpose of the DEIS is to analyze and disclose theenvironmental effects associated with a Proposed Action that includes a suite of site specific proposals for implementing several types ofhazardous fuel treatment actions designed to restore more fire resilient forests for the federally managed lands within the Upper Bear AnalysisArea. The Proposed Action is on Federal Lands, partially within the wildland-urban interface, includes portions of the Ashland MunicipalWatershed, involves habitat for threatened species and contains hazardous fuels that places valuable resources at high risk for large-scale, highintensity fire. As such, this Proposed Action falls under several provisions of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 and the ObjectionProcess pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218, Subpart A. For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Proposed Action is based on a strategy resulting from the2003 Upper Bear Assessment.Under Ashland Forest Resiliency, only National Forest System Lands would be treated. The legal description of the area being considered is T.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. 1 E., 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 sections 24, 25, 26, 34, 35 and 36; and T. 40 S., R. 1 W., section 1 and 2, W. Jackson County,Oregon.One of the primary goals for the Ashland Watershed is to “provide water for domestic supply” for the City of Ashland (Rogue River NationalForest Land and Resource Management Plan [RRNF LRMP] page 4-265). Additional primary goals for the Watershed and the associatedUpper Bear Analysis Area are “to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve ashabitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl” (Northwest Forest Plan page C-11).The Need for action is urgent reduction of the potential for large-scale, high severity wildland fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Onehundred years of fire exclusion and fuel accumulations in this forest’s wildland/urban interface now presents high potential for large-scale,high severity wildland fire that could significantly interrupt the supply of clean water and late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystemsin this Analysis Area. The Purpose of the action is to protect Values At Risk, reduce hazardous fuels, reduce crown fire potential, andobtain conditions that are more resilient to wildland fires.The Significant Issues studied in the Draft EIS include: Soil and Site Productivity, Slope Stability, Sediment Delivery, Hydrologic Function,Cumulative Watershed Effects, Northern Spotted Owl Habitat, Late-Successional Habitat, Insect Related Tree Mortality, Inventoried RoadlessAreas, Old and Large Trees, and Operational and Economic Feasibility. These Significant Issues serve as the basis for analyzing andcomparing alternatives. While the Draft EIS focuses on the Significant Issues, all issues identified through scoping are considered anddocumented in the various resource analyses.The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with the Proposed Action include those that would modify fire behavior during awildland fire event. Although stand treatments cannot alter all variables that influence fire behavior, they can directly or indirectly influence size,distribution and species composition, availability of fuel, fuel arrangement, fuel moisture, and surface winds. Reasons to enact treatments(vegetation management and fuels treatments) that affect fire behavior can be categorized into two broad groups: 1) Treatments that modify firebehavior facilitating effective fire suppression, and 2) Treatments that modify fire behavior to reduce potential and/or subsequent adverseeffects. Under the Forest Service Proposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency, a total of approximately 8,150 acres would be treated.

The primary recommendation for vegetation management is “variable density management”. Density management involves the selectiveremoval of some trees within a forested stand to increase spacing and accelerate growth in the crowns and root systems of the remaining trees.A complementary treatment to variable density management includes the application of controlled (or prescribed) fire, termed underburning.Prescribed fire would be allowed to regulate the existing fuel profile and to create more of a mosaic of fuel loadings and canopy closures.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 ForestService shall facilitate collaboration when they are preparing authorized hazardous fuel-reduction projects.The City of Ashland’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was the result of community-wide fire protection planning and the compilationof project documents developed by the staff and citizens of the City of Ashland and interested organizations relative to managing private andpublic land in and adjacent to the Ashland Creek Watershed. This plan was compiled in the summer of 2004 in response to the HFRA and theForest Service Proposed Action. Under the HFRA, if the at-risk community has adopted a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and theProposed Action does not implement the recommendations in the plan regarding the general location and basic method of treatments, agenciesare required to analyze the recommendations in the plan as an alternative to the Proposed Action (Sections 104(d)(2) and (3)). This alternativeis termed the “Community Alternative” and is fully analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS.The No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline against which to compare alternatives. Persons may bring a civil action challenging anauthorized hazardous-fuel-reduction project in a Federal District Court only if they raised the issue during the administrative review process andthey have exhausted the administrative review process established by the Secretary of Agriculture. Section 106 of the HFRA establishesdirection governing judicial review of lawsuits challenging hazardous-fuel-reduction projects authorized under the Act.Comments:This DEIS is made available for a 45-day Comment Period, under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.10).The Forest Service will accept written, electronic and oral comments beginning on the day following date of publication of the notice ofavailability (NOA) in the Federal Register. This day is scheduled to be June 24, 2005. The Forest Service will respond to substantivecomments received in an appendix to the Final EIS. Commentors must submit substantive comments in order to have standing to file anobjection to the forthcoming Final EIS (36 CFR 218). Send responses to:Linda Duffy, District RangerAshland Ranger District645 Washington St.Ashland, OR 97520-1402FAX: (541) 552-2922Email responses to:comments-pacificnorthwest-rogueriver-ashland@fs.fed.usImportant Notice:Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public recordon this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, thosewho only submit anonymous comments will not have standing to object to the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 218. Additionally, pursuant to 7CFR 1.27 (d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in onlyvery limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets.Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the DEIS. This will enable the Forest Service to analyzeand respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the Final EIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmakingprocess. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningfuland alerts the agency to the reviewer’s position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978).Environmental objections that could have been raised at the DEIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the Final EIS may be waived ordismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9 th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338(E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the DEIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternativesdiscussed (40 CFR 1503.3).

READER’S GUIDEThis Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS or DEIS) contains informationabout proposed activities and resulting environmental effects associated with AshlandForest Resiliency, an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project under the HealthyForests Restoration Act of 2003. The purpose of the DEIS is to analyze and disclosethe environmental effects associated with a Proposed Action and a CommunityAlternative that includes a suite of site specific proposals for implementing several typesof hazardous fuel reduction actions designed to restore more fire resilient forests for thefederally managed lands within the Upper Bear Analysis Area.Understanding the structure of this DEIS document is important to an overallunderstanding of the information required in an EIS. The following provides anoverview of the components of this document.Summary: The summary included in this Draft EIS provides a concise overview of theanalysis process, information, and consequence analyses presented in the completetext the document. The format for this Summary is adapted from “Eight NEPAQuestions” (8 questions any EA or EIS should readily answer), developed by Owen L.Schmidt, Attorney USDA, OGC Portland OR.Table of Contents: A table of contents is presented at the beginning of the document.It includes specific page reference to the primary Chapters of the DEIS and to threelevels into the outline structure of these Chapters. Lists of maps, figures, tables and thecontents of the appendices are also included in the Table of Contents.Chapter I - Purpose and Need: Chapter I provides a background to the proposal andthe Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), describes the Purpose and Need for theproposal, and the scope of analysis. It briefly describes the Proposed Action andidentifies the decision framework. A summary of applicable management direction isalso provided. The final sections describe scoping and other public involvementactivities, identification of issues, including Significant, Other, and Out of Scope Issues.Chapter II - Alternatives: Chapter II includes a description of the alternativedevelopment process under HFRA, discusses alternatives and actions considered buteliminated from detailed analysis, and describes Alternatives Considered in Detail,including No- Action, the Forest Service Proposed Action, and the City of Ashland’sCommunity Alternative. Each alternative considered in detail is presented, including itsfunction and description. Sections on Specific Actions Common to the Proposed Actionand Community Alternative, and Mitigation Measures Common to the Proposed Actionand Community Alternative are also included. The final section presents a comparisonof alternatives, in a table format, of the components contained within alternatives, thealternatives response to Purpose and Need, the alternatives response to the SignificantIssues (e. g., environmental consequences), and the alternatives response to OtherIssues.

Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Chapter IIIdescribes the current physical, biological, and human social, and economic conditionswithin the area of influence of the Alternatives Considered in Detail (organized by andreferred to in terms of the various Significant and Other Issues, as described in ChapterI). Also described are the environmental consequences in terms of attainment ofPurpose and Need. This information provides the baseline for assessing andcomparing the potential consequences of the Action Alternatives, and No-Action.Chapter IV - References: This chapter of the document provides a list of sources ofinformation, literature and data used to prepare this Draft EIS.Chapter V - List of Preparers and Contributors: Chapter V provides a summary ofthe responsibilities for project leadership, and resource specialists with input into thepreparation of this Draft EIS, the collaborators to this process, and/or others whoprovided data, review, and/or information.Chapter VI - List of Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the StatementAre Sent: Chapter VI contains the names of the agencies, organizations, andindividuals who were provided copies of the Draft EIS.Glossary: Definitions of key or technical words used in the Draft EIS are included in asection that follows Chapter VI.Appendices: Eleven appendices are included with the Draft EIS. They containtechnical and support information that is important to understanding the analysis:APPENDIX A contains relevant documents to the Process Record; APPENDIX B containsBackground and Prescriptions for the Forest Service Proposed Action, APPENDIX Ccontains Background and Prescriptions for the City of Ashland’s Community Alternative,APPENDIX D contains Updates to the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, APPENDIX Econtains information on the Historical Background - Forest Conditions, APPENDIX Fcontains the Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation, APPENDIX G contains theBotanical Biological Evaluation, APPENDIX H contains the Aquatic Biological Evaluation,APPENDIX I contains a Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis, APPENDIX J containsan Air Quality Analysis, and APPENDIX K contains information on Cultural Resources.List of Frequently Used Acronyms and Abbreviations: follow, as part of thisReader’s Guide.

Frequently Used Acronyms and AbbreviationsACSAFRAFRCAAQMAATVAWPPBEBLMBMPsBOcaCACAACEQCFRcfsCHCHUCWMCWADBHDFPZDNEAEFHEOEISEPAERAESAESUFFEISFRFSFSHFSMFDNFWSGISGPSHFIHFRAIDTIRAKMPKNFLandsatLCASLHZLRMPLSRLSRAMAMBTAMISMLmmMSAquatic Conservation StrategyAshland Forest ResiliencyAshland Forest Resiliency Community AlternativeAir Quality Management AreaAll Terrain VehicleAshland Watershed Protection ProjectBiological EvaluationBureau of Land ManagementBest Management PracticesBiological OpinionCircaCaliforniaClean Air ActCouncil on Environmental QualityCode of Federal RegulationsCubic Feet per secondCritical habitatCritical Habitat UnitCoarse Woody MaterialClean Water ActDiameter at Breast HeightDefensible Fuel Profile ZonesDecision NoticeEnvironmental AssessmentEssential Fish HabitatExecutive OrderEnvironmental Impact StatementEnvironmental Protection AgencyEquivalent Roaded Area MethodologyEndangered Species ActEvolutionary Significant UnitFahrenheit (temperature)Final Environmental Impact StatementFederal RegisterForest ServiceForest Service HandbookForest Service ManualFuel Discontinuity NetworkFish and Wildlife ServiceGeographic Information SystemsGlobal Positioning SystemsHealthy Forest InitiativeHealthy Forests Restoration ActInterdisciplinary TeamInventoried Roadless AreaKlamath Mountain ProvinceKlamath National ForestLand Remote Sensing Satellite ProgramLynx Conservation Assessment and StrategyLandslide Hazard ZonationLand and Resource Management PlanLate-Successional ReserveLate-Successional Reserve AssessmentManagement AreaMigratory Bird Treaty ActManagement Indicator SpeciesMaintenance LevelmillimeterManagement StrategyNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNF National ForestNFMA National Forest Management ActNFSL National Forest System LandsNLAA Not Likely to Adversely AffectNMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOI Notice of IntentNRCS Natural Resource Conservation ServiceNRF Nesting, Roosting, Foraging (owl habitat)NSO Northern Spotted OwlNWFP Northwest Forest PlanNWS National Weather ServiceODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental QualityODFW Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeONHP Oregon Natural Heritage programOR OregonOSHA Occupational Safety and HealthPAC Pair Activity Center (owl)PM Particulate MatterPNW Pacific Northwestppm Parts per millionR. RangeRARE Roadless Area Review and EvaluationRD Ranger DistrictREO Regional Ecosystem OfficeRMO Road Management ObjectivesRNA Research Natural AreaROD Record of DecisionRRNF Rogue River National ForestRR-SNF Rogue River-Siskiyou National ForestS. SouthSHPO State Historic Preservation OfficeSOCC Southern Oregon California CoastalSONC Southern Oregon Northern CaliforniaSRI Soil Resource InventorySW SouthwestT. TownshipTES Threatened, Endangered, SensitiveTMDL Total Maximum Daily LoadTOC Threshold of ConcernTSP Total Suspended ParticulatesUS United StatesUSC United States CodeUSDA United States Department of AgricultureUSDI United States Department of InteriorUSFS United States Forest ServiceUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceUTM Universal Transverse MercatorVQO Visual Quality ObjectiveW.M. Willamette MeridianWEPP Water Erosion Prediction ProjectWO Washington Office (Forest Service)WQL Water Quality LimitedWQMP Water Quality Management Plan

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCYTABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER I - PURPOSE AND NEEDA. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................I-1B. BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................................I-31. Healthy Forests Restoration Act ...............................................................................................................I-42. Determination of Significant Risk..............................................................................................................I-5C. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION.........................................................................................................I-5D. THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................................................................................I-6E. DECISION FRAMEWORK ...........................................................................................................................I-7F. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.......................................................................................................................I-71. Northwest Forest Plan................................................................................................................................I-82. RRNF Land and Resource Management Plan ..........................................................................................I-93. Amendments to the Northwest Forest Plan - 2004 ..................................................................................I-104. Healthy Forests Restoration Act ...............................................................................................................I-115. Roadless Area Conservation Rule ............................................................................................................I-126. Forest Service Policy on Transportation Analysis ..................................................................................I-127. Region 6 EIS for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation ........................................................I-13G. OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES AND AGREEMENTS.................................................................................I-141. Watershed Analysis and Late-Successional Reserve Assessment ......................................................I-142. 2003 Upper Bear Assessment....................................................................................................................I-143. Agreements Between the Forest Service and the City of Ashland ........................................................I-14H. SCOPING AND ISSUES..............................................................................................................................I-151. Scoping Process.........................................................................................................................................I-152. Significant Issues .......................................................................................................................................I-173. Other Issues ................................................................................................................................................I-194. Out of Scope Issues ...................................................................................................................................I-21I. PERMITS.......................................................................................................................................................I-23i

CHAPTER II - ALTERNATIVESA. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................II-11. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan ................................................................................................II-22. Developing the Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................II-3a. Number of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ............................................................................................II-3b. Identification of the Preferred Alternative ..............................................................................................II-4B. ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ............II-41. Different Overall Strategies........................................................................................................................II-42. Deletions or Limitations Relative to Proposed Action or Community Alternative................................II-73. Alternative Implementation Methodology.................................................................................................II-94. Other Non-Connected Actions...................................................................................................................II-10C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ..............................................................................................II-111. The No-Action Alternative..........................................................................................................................II-11a. Function of the No-Action Alternative ....................................................................................................II-11b. Description of the No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................II-122. Goals, Objectives, and Assumptions Common to the Proposed Actionand Community Alternative .....................................................................................................................II-15a. Confidence of Planning Level Data........................................................................................................II-17b. Assumptions About Implementation ......................................................................................................II-18c. AWPP Assumptions...............................................................................................................................II-19d. Prioritizing and Scheduling Treatment...................................................................................................II-193. Specific Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative..................................II-20a. Methodology of Application of Treatments ............................................................................................II-20b. Treatment Elements .............................................................................................................................II-23Density Management ..........................................................................................................................II-23Surface Fuel Treatments .....................................................................................................................II-24Activity Fuels Treatment ......................................................................................................................II-26Prescribed Fire ....................................................................................................................................II-26c. Design Elements....................................................................................................................................II-27Coarse Woody Material (Snags and Down Wood) .............................................................................II-27Hardwoods .........................................................................................................................................II-30Botanical Resources ...........................................................................................................................II-30Invasive Non-native Species ..............................................................................................................II-32d. Connected Actions.................................................................................................................................II-33Helicopter Landings and Access .........................................................................................................II-33Road Improvements and Use..............................................................................................................II-374. The Proposed Action..................................................................................................................................II-38a. Function of the Proposed Action............................................................................................................II-38b. Description of the Proposed Action........................................................................................................II-39Defensible Fuel Profile Zones..............................................................................................................II-40Interface Compartment Treatments.....................................................................................................II-43Late-Successional Habitat Treatments................................................................................................II-46Research Natural Area Treatments .....................................................................................................II-47Summary of Treatments ......................................................................................................................II-48c. Specific Design Elements and Specific Mitigation Measures.................................................................II-50ii

5. The Community Alternative .......................................................................................................................II-51a. Function of the Community Alternative..................................................................................................II-52b. Description of the Community Alternative..............................................................................................II-53Category 1. Features that are Currently Fire Resilient .......................................................................II-53Category 2. Features that are “Readily” Made Fire Resilient..............................................................II-55Category 3. Strategic Connections (geographic, ecological, logistical, and social) ............................II-57Stand Density ......................................................................................................................................II-58Stand Structure....................................................................................................................................II-59Species Composition...........................................................................................................................II-60Summary .............................................................................................................................................II-61c. Specific Design Elements and Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................II-656. Mitigation Measures Common to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative...........................II-70a. Standard Operating Procedures ............................................................................................................II-71b. Hydrology, Soils and Site Productivity ...................................................................................................II-72c. Geology..................................................................................................................................................II-76d. Fuels and Air Quality .............................................................................................................................II-77e. Botanical Resources..............................................................................................................................II-77f. Invasive Non-native Plants ....................................................................................................................II-78g. Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitat .................................................................................................II-79h. Aquatic Wildlife Species and Habitat .....................................................................................................II-81i. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................II-82j. Recreation and Public Safety.................................................................................................................II-827. Monitoring Common to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative...........................................II-83a. Introduction............................................................................................................................................II-84b. Monitoring Framework ...........................................................................................................................II-85D. COMPARISION OF ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................................II-89a. Description of the Alternatives Considered in Detail..............................................................................II-90No-Action Alternative...........................................................................................................................II-90Components of Proposed Action.........................................................................................................II-90Elements of Community Alternative.....................................................................................................II-91b. Comparison of Action Alternatives by Plant Association Group.............................................................II-91c. Comparison of Alternatives Considered In Detail In Terms Of Attainment of Purpose and Need..........II-93CHAPTER III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESA. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................III-11. Scales of Analysis .....................................................................................................................................III-1B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - UPPER BEAR ANALYSIS AREA..............................................................III-31. Updates to 2003 Upper Bear Assessment................................................................................................III-4C. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED..................................................................................................III-41. Modeling Process ......................................................................................................................................III-62. Potential for Large-Scale, High-Severity Wildland Fire ..........................................................................III-7a. Consequences of Alternatives - Probability of Ignition and Fire Suppression Effectiveness ................III-7b. Consequences of Alternatives - Fuel hazard Condition ........................................................................III-103. Fire Resilient Forests ................................................................................................................................III-12a. Consequences of Alternatives - Surface Fuels .....................................................................................III-13b. Consequences of Alternatives Crown Fire Potential .............................................................................III-16c. Consequences of Alternatives - Crown Density ....................................................................................III-18d. Consequences of Alternatives - Large Tree Component ......................................................................III-194. Firefighter Safety .......................................................................................................................................III-195. Temporal Scheduling ................................................................................................................................III-21iii

D. ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ..........................III-211. Soil and Site Productivity ..........................................................................................................................III-21a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-22b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-23c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives ..........................................................................III-282. Slope Stability ............................................................................................................................................III-28a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-28b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-29c. Indirect Effects of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................III-32d. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives .............................................................................................III-323. Sediment Delivery ......................................................................................................................................III-33a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-33b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-34c. Indirect Effects of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................III-36d. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives .............................................................................................III-374. Hydrologic Function ..................................................................................................................................III-38a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-38b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-40c. Indirect Effects of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................III-41d. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives .............................................................................................III-425. Cumulative Watershed Effects .................................................................................................................III-42a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-42b. Current Conditions and Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives .......................................................III-436. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat ...................................................................................................................III-45a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-45b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-47c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives .....................................................................................III-527. Late-Successional Habitat ........................................................................................................................III-53a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-53b. Effects Mechanisms and Analysis Scales .............................................................................................III-56c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................................................III-57Late-Successional Reserve Function .................................................................................................III-57Critical Habitat Unit .............................................................................................................................III-61Habitat Connectivity ............................................................................................................................III-62d. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................................................III-638. Insect Related Tree Mortality ....................................................................................................................III-64a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-64b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................................................III-65c. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................................................III-669. Inventoried Roadless Area ........................................................................................................................III-67a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-67b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-67c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives .....................................................................................III-6910. Old and Large Trees ................................................................................................................................III-69a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-70b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-71c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives .....................................................................................III-7411. Operational and Economic Feasibility ...................................................................................................III-74a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-75b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................III-76Operational Feasibility .........................................................................................................................III-76Economic Feasibility............................................................................................................................III-76iv

E. ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER ISSUES.....................................III-791. Water Chemistry .........................................................................................................................................III-79a. Background............................................................................................................................................III-79b. Direct Effects of Alternatives..................................................................................................................III-80c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives......................................................................................III-812. Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines ...........................................................................................III-82a. Background............................................................................................................................................III-82b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ...............................................................................III-833. Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................III-85a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-85b. Effects of No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................................III-86c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Chemical Pollutants –Action Alternatives ................................................III-86d. Direct and Indirect Effects of Particulate Matter –Action Alternatives ...................................................III-87e. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ....................................................................................III-884. Windthrow ..................................................................................................................................................III-89a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-89b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................III-895. Ashland Research Natural Area ...............................................................................................................III-90a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-91b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-91c. Indirect Effects of Action Alternatives ....................................................................................................III-93d. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................................................III-936. Other Insect Infestations and Tree Diseases ..........................................................................................III-94a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-94b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................III-957. Terrestrial Wildlife - ESA Listed, Forest Service Sensitive and NWFP Species ...................................III-96a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-96b. Species Discussion ...............................................................................................................................III-98ESA Listed Species ............................................................................................................................III-98Forest Service Sensitive Species .......................................................................................................III-99Northwest Forest Plan Species ..........................................................................................................III-103c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................................................III-104ESA Listed Species ............................................................................................................................III-104Forest Service Sensitive Species .......................................................................................................III-105Northwest Forest Plan Species ..........................................................................................................III-108c. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................................................III-1098. Terrestrial Wildlife - Other Special Habitats and Species ......................................................................III-110a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-110b. Direct , Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives .......................................................................III-1119. Forest Plan Management Indicator Species ............................................................................................III-113a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-114b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................................................III-116c. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................................................III-11710. Botanical - Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichen, and Fungi ....................III-119a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-119b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................................................III-120c. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives .............................................................................................III-12111. Uncommon and Locally Rare Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens and Fungi ...............................III-122a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-122b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................................................III-126c. Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives .............................................................................................III-131v

12. Non-Native Plant Species ........................................................................................................................III-132a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-132b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................................................III-133c. Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................................................III-13413. Aquatic Habitat and Fish .........................................................................................................................III-134a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-134b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-139b. Indirect Effects of Alternatives ..............................................................................................................III-140c. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................III-14114. Scenic Quality ..........................................................................................................................................III-142a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-142b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................III-14315. Recreation and Public Safety .................................................................................................................III-145a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-145b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................III-14816. Other Semi-Primitive (unroaded) Areas .................................................................................................III-150a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-150b. Direct Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................................III-151c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives .....................................................................................III-15417. Heritage (Cultural) Resources ................................................................................................................III-154a. Background ...........................................................................................................................................III-154b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................III-157F. OTHER EFFECTS........................................................................................................................................III-1581. Public and Worker Safety ..........................................................................................................................III-1582. Relationships Between Local and Short-term Uses of the Human Environment andMaintenance or Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ......................................................................III-1583. Environmental Justice ...............................................................................................................................III-1584. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided ..................................................................III-1595. Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains ......................................................................................................III-1606. Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects ........................................................................................................III-1607. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...........................................................................................................III-1618. Effects on Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land ......................................................................III-1619. Energy Requirements of Alternatives ......................................................................................................III-16110. Effects of Alternatives on Minorities and Women .................................................................................III-161IV. REFERENCESV. LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORSVI. LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENTGLOSSARYvi

APPENDICESAPPENDIX A - Process RecordAPPENDIX B -Background and Prescriptions for Forest Service Proposed ActionAPPENDIX C - Background and Prescriptions for Community AlternativeAPPENDIX D - Updates to 2003 Upper Bear AssessmentAPPENDIX E - Historical Background - Forest ConditionsAPPENDIX F - Terrestrial Wildlife Biological EvaluationAPPENDIX G - Botanical Biological EvaluationAPPENDIX H - Aquatic Biological EvaluationAPPENDIX I - Cumulative Watershed Effects AnalysisAPPENDIX J - Air Quality AnalysisAPPENDIX K - Cultural ResourcesCHAPTER ILIST OF MAPSMAP I-1. Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................I - 2CHAPTER IIMAP II-1. Potential Helicopter Landings and Access .......................................................................II - 36MAP II-2. Compartmentalization Strategy Under the Proposed Action ............................................II - 39MAP II-3. Proposed Action Treatment Areas ...................................................................................II - 49MAP II-4. Community Alternative - Category 1 Areas ......................................................................II - 54MAP II-5. Community Alternative Treatment Areas .........................................................................II - 64CHAPTER IIIMAP III-1. Flame Length >8 feet (95 th percentile weather conditions) - Current Condition ..............III - 15MAP III-2. Flame Length > 8 feet (95 th percentile weather conditions) - Proposed Action andCommunity Alternative ...................................................................................................III - 15MAP III-3. Fuel Model 10 Distribution – Current Condition ..............................................................III - 17MAP III-4. Fuel Model 10 Distribution – Proposed Action and Community Alternative ....................III - 18MAP III-5. LSR RO-248 and CHU OR-76 .........................................................................................III - 54MAP III-6. Semi-primitive Unroaded Areas (and McDonald Peak IRA) ...........................................III - 152vii

LIST OF TABLESCHAPTER I NONECHAPTER IITable II-1. Target Coarse Woody Material Levels ............................................................................II - 29Table II-2. Candidate Helicopter Landings .......................................................................................II - 35Table II-3. Proposed Action - Summary of Treatments by PAGs .....................................................II - 50Table II-4. Community Alternative - Summary of Treatments by PAGs ...........................................II - 63Table II-5. Effectiveness and Feasibility of Mitigation Measures ......................................................II - 71Table II-6. Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover by Erosion Class ..........................................II - 75Table II-7. Northern Spotted Owl Restrictions ..................................................................................II - 79Table II-8. Summary of Alternative by PAGs ....................................................................................II - 91Table II-9. Attainment of Purpose and Need ....................................................................................II - 92Table II-10. Comparison of Alternatives – Significant Issues ...........................................................II - 93Table II-11. Comparison of Alternatives – Other Issues ...................................................................II - 94CHAPTER IIITable III-1. Fire Behavior Outputs for Fuel Models 4, 6, 8, 10 .........................................................III - 11Table III-2. Relationship of Flame Length and Suppression Tactics ................................................III - 14Table III-3. Acres by Flame Length Category by Alternative ............................................................III - 16Table III-4. Crown Fire Indices .........................................................................................................III - 17Table III-5. Current Levels of Coarse Woody Material .....................................................................III - 23Table III-6. Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover by Erosion Class .........................................III - 24Table III-7. Target Coarse Woody Material Levels ...........................................................................III - 26Table III-8. Acres of Landslide Hazard Zone 1, by Treatment Method and Alternative ...................III - 32Table III-9. Acres of Landslide Hazard Zone 2, by Treatment Method and Alternative ...................III - 32Table III-10. ODEQ Listed Waterbodies ............................................................................................III - 39Table III-11. Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA), Threshold of Concern (TOC), and Risk Ratiofor Sub-watershed Analysis Areas by Alternative ........................................................III - 43Table III-12. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 0.5 Mi. Radius - Proposed Action ..........III - 49Table III-13. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 1.3 Mi. Radius - Proposed Action ..........III - 50Table III-14. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 0.5 Mi. Radius - Community Alternative III - 51Table III-15. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 1.3 Mi. Radius - Community Alternative III - 51Table III-16. Late-Successional Habitat Effects - Proposed Action ..................................................III - 59Table III-17 Late-Successional Habitat Effects - Community Alternative .........................................III - 60Table III-18. CHU Habitat Effects - Proposed Action .......................................................................III - 61Table III-19. CHU Habitat Effects - Community Alternative ..............................................................III - 62Table III-20. Effects to Inventoried Roadless Area, by Alternative ...................................................III - 69Table III-21. Estimate of Large Trees To Be Cut – Proposed Action ...............................................III - 72Table III-22. Estimate of Large Trees To Be Cut – Community Alternative .....................................III - 73Table III-23. Evaluation of Applicable NWFP Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines ............III - 84Table III-24. Estimated Tons of PM 10 Produced by Alternative ........................................................III - 87Table III-25. Estimated Tons of PM 2.5 Produced by Alternative .......................................................III - 88Table III-26. Terrestrial Wildlife TES Species Presence ..................................................................III - 96Table III-27. Terrestrial Wildlife NWFP Species Presence ...............................................................III - 97Table III-28. Summary of Effects to Threatened, Sensitive, and NWFP Terrestrial Wildlife .............III - 109Table III-29. Effects to Other Semi-primitive Unroaded Areas, by Alternative .................................III - 154viii

LIST OF FIGURESCHAPTER I NONECHAPTER IIFigure II-1. Profile View: Defensible Fuel Profile Zone .....................................................................II -42Figure II-2. Landscape Arrangement of Treated Areas ....................................................................II -45CHAPTER IIIFigure III-1. 95 th Percentile Weather Condition Assumptions for Fire Behavior Analysis ................III - 7Figure III-2. Distribution of Fuel Models – Current Condition ...........................................................III - 10Figure III-3. Distribution of Fuel Models by Alternative .....................................................................III - 11Figure III-4. Predicted Erosion Rates Using WEPP .........................................................................III - 24Figure III-5. Fire Effects on Sediment Delivery (50% Slopes Gradients) .........................................III - 35Figure III-6. Average Precipitation and Runoff in Ashland Creek Watershed ..................................III - 39Figure III-7. Distribution of Cut Trees by Size Class – Proposed Action ..........................................III - 73Figure III-8. Distribution of Cut Trees by Size Class – Community Alternative ................................III - 74ix

CHAPTER I - PURPOSE AND NEEDA. INTRODUCTIONPursuant 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 Resiliencyas an authorized hazardous fuels project under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.Pursuant to Sections 103 and 104 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the Ashland RangerDistrict of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has prepared an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). The purpose of this Draft EIS (DEIS) is to analyze and disclose theenvironmental effects associated with a Proposed Action that includes a suite of site specificproposals for implementing several types of hazardous fuel treatment actions designed to restoremore fire resilient forests for the Federally managed lands within the Upper Bear Analysis Area.The Proposed Action is on National Forest System Lands (NFSL), partially within the wildlandurbaninterface, includes portions of the Ashland Municipal Watershed, involves habitat forthreatened species and contains hazardous fuels that places valuable resources at high risk forlarge-scale, high-severity fire. As such, this Proposed Action falls under several provisions ofthe Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 and the Objection Process pursuant to 36 CFR Part218, Subpart A.For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Proposed Action is based on a strategy resulting from the2003 Upper Bear Assessment. It is an integrated package of connected actions designed to attainthe stated Purpose and Need, while meeting Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.According to Franklin (1997), ecosystem stability can be divided into two separate butinterrelated properties: (1) resistance, or the ability of a system to absorb small perturbations(disturbances) and prevent them from amplifying into large disturbances, and (2) resilience orability to recover, which is the capacity to return to some given system state (defined by structureand processes) following disturbance.Forest “Resiliency” as used in this analysis refers to the ability of the ecosystem to recover fromdisturbances related to large-scale, high-severity wildland fire.Under Ashland Forest Resiliency, only National Forest System Lands would be treated. Thelegal description of the area being considered (herein referred to as the Project Area for theProposed Action) is T. 39 S., R. 1 E., in sections 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34and 35; T. 40 S., R. 1 E., in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17; T. 39S., R 1 W., in sections 24, 25, 26, 34, 35 and 36; and T. 40 S., R. 1 W., section 1 and 2, W.Jackson County, Oregon.Draft EIS I - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP I-1. Vicinity MapDraft EIS I - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency

B. BACKGROUNDResource conservation is the fundamental job of the Forest Service. The perpetuation of healthyand resilient fire-adapted ecosystems is emerging as one of the biggest conservation challengesof the day. In order to conserve or promote resiliency in ecosystems, the Ashland RangerDistrict and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest identified opportunities in the Upper BearAnalysis Area to achieve the restoration of physical and biological processes and patterns thatcreate and maintain diverse networks of habitats and populations while also recognizing the needfor protection of socio-economic values.An integrated, objective-driven assessment process was used to identify land managementdesired conditions to obtain ecosystem resilience for vegetation and infrastructures, over a predeterminedarea of land and period of time. Findings and recommendations are documented inthe 2003 Upper Bear Assessment 1 . This document was utilized for the analysis under this DraftEIS and is incorporated by reference (specific references and summaries of content aredocumented throughout this EIS).The analysis associated with the Upper Bear Assessment was not strictly a technical process, norwas it merely an artistic exercise. In essence, it was an attempt to blend what the land “wants tobe,” given its own self-organizing capabilities and tendencies, with what the human communitywants it to be given our economic, aesthetic, and ecological needs and wants. Thisunderstanding then led to a synthesis, expressed as an “integrated strategy for action” coupledwith specific ground-based recommendations. This analysis provided a point of reference forfuture land management.At the core of this analysis was assessment and formulation of Plant Association Groups (PAGs).A qualitative evaluation of past conditions was overlain with assumed “sustainable” disturbanceregimes and current vegetative conditions to determine future desired conditions for the PAGs,further refined by seral stage and percents of area. An update to the PAG analysis wasconducted by a collaborative team and is documented as a portion of Draft EIS Appendix D.The driving factors of this analysis were based on ecological and social issues surrounding highoccurrence of human-caused fire ignition and high natural 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 includingprotection of the municipal water supply, and protection of threatened species and maintenanceof late-successional habitat (see Component 5 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment).The aim of evaluating ecosystem components at a large-scale (the entire approximate 41,000acre area referred to as the Upper Bear Analysis Area) was to display the extent and locationswhere multiple, overlapping concerns exist today. The process of integrating fire and fuelsmanagement with ecosystem conservation to restore resiliency was conducted with knowledgethat terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are linked and dynamic, and fire should play a critical rolein maintaining diversity.1 The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (December 2003) is available on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Internet website, at requeston a compact disc or hard copy document from the Ashland Ranger District. This analysis under NEPA includes updates andsupplements the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, contained as Appendices to this DEIS.Draft EIS I - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency

1. Healthy Forests Restoration ActOver the past 2 years, administrative procedures and processes governing preparation of projectsto reduce hazardous fuel and restore healthy ecological conditions on Federal land haveundergone many changes. These changes have resulted from the Healthy Forests Initiative(HFI), launched in 2002 to reduce administrative process delays to implementation of suchprojects, and from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), passed in December 2003. TheHFRA provides improved statutory processes for hazardous fuel treatment projects on certaintypes of at-risk National Forest System Lands and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands,and also provides other authorities and direction to help reduce hazardous fuel and restorehealthy forest and rangeland conditions on lands of all ownerships.The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) contains a variety of provisions toexpedite hazardous fuel treatment and forest-restoration projects on specific types of Federalland that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The Act helps ruralcommunities, States, Tribes, and landowners restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions onState, Tribal, and private lands.Title I provides authorities for expedited vegetation treatments on certain types of NationalForest System lands (and BLM lands) that are at risk of wildland fire; have experienced windthrow, blowdown, or ice storm damage; are currently experiencing disease or insect epidemics;or are at imminent risk of such epidemics because of conditions on adjacent land. The types oflands identified above define where the authorities of the HFRA can be used to expeditevegetation treatment, such as mechanical thinning or prescribed fire, on NFSL and BLM lands.The HFRA requires authorized projects to be planned and conducted consistent with resourcemanagement plans and other relevant administrative policies and decisions that apply to theFederal lands covered by the project (Section 102(b)). The HFRA also prohibits authorizedprojects in Wilderness areas, formal wilderness study areas, and Federal lands where an act ofCongress or Presidential proclamation prohibits or restricts removal of vegetation (Section102(d)). This title:‣ Provides expedited environmental analysis of HFRA projects;‣ Provides administrative review before decisions are issued on proposed HFRA projectson National Forest System lands (36 CFR 218);‣ Contains requirements governing the maintenance and restoration of old-growth foreststands when the USDA Forest Service carries out HFRA projects in such stands;‣ Requires HFRA projects on NFSL to maximize retention of larger trees in areas otherthan old-growth stands, consistent with the objective of restoring fire-resilient stands andprotecting at-risk communities and Federal lands;‣ Requires collaboration between Federal agencies and local communities, particularlywhen Community Wildfire Protection Plans are prepared;‣ Requires using at least 50 percent of the dollars allocated to HFRA projects to protectcommunities at risk of wildland fire;‣ Requires performance to be monitored when agencies conduct hazardous fuel treatmentprojects and encourages multiparty monitoring that includes communities and otherdiverse stakeholders (including interested citizens and Tribes);‣ Encourages courts to expedite judicial review of legal challenges to HFRA projects; and‣ Directs courts that consider a request for an injunction on an HFRA-authorized project tobalance the short- and long-term environmental effects of undertaking the project againstthe effects of taking no action.Draft EIS I - 4 Ashland Forest Resiliency

2. Determination of Significant RiskThe HFRA requires an evaluation that a significant risk exists that a wildland fire would haveadverse effects on the quality of the municipal water supply or on maintenance of the system.This determination of adverse effects is the responsibility of the land-management agency andshould be based on an examination of the relevant information (USDA FS-799 HFI & HFRAField Guide). This determination of adverse effects of wildland fire is documented in the 2003Upper Bear Assessment (incorporated by reference). This assessment identifies and maps themunicipal watershed, identifies and maps the fire regimes and fire regime condition classes inand adjacent to the watershed, and assesses the likely effects on water quality, sediment delivery,and water supply system infrastructure if a wildland fire occurs in or adjacent to the watershed.From the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, page 5-6, “The forest/urban interface located along thenorthern boundary of the Upper Bear Analysis Area and Municipal Watershed generates acomplexity of resource issues. A special emphasis for the protection of human life andproperty combined with Municipal Watershed and Late-Successional Reserve significantlyincreases the Values At Risk to stand replacing wildland fire.”The determination of “significant risk” referred to in the HFRA Sections 102(a)(2) and (3)should not be confused with NEPA requirements to determine whether a Federal action willcreate a “significant impact” on the environment.C. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTIONOne of the primary goals for the Ashland Watershed is to “provide water for domestic supply”for the City of Ashland (Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan[RRNF LRMP] page 4-265). Additional primary goals for the Watershed and the associatedUpper Bear Analysis Area are “to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and oldgrowthforest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth relatedspecies including the northern spotted owl” (Northwest Forest Plan page C-11).The Need for action is urgent reduction of the potential for large-scale, high-severity 2 wildlandfire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. One hundred years of fire exclusion and fuelaccumulations in this forest’s wildland/urban interface now presents high potential for largescale,high-severity wildland fire that could significantly interrupt the supply of clean waterand late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems in this Analysis Area. The Purpose ofthe action is to protect Values At Risk, reduce hazardous fuels, reduce crown fire potential, andobtain conditions that are more resilient to wildland fires.2 Fire Severity – A measure of the heat transmitted into litter, duff, and soil layers, and the plant structures within them(Modifying Wildland fire Behavior, The Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments, 2003). In this document, the term fire severity isutilized in reference to the degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire, which is a product of fire intensity (theheat output of fire, its rate of spread and its residence time (McPherson et al. 1990, Agee 1994, Rowe 1983, Rothermel 1983).Draft EIS I - 5 Ashland Forest Resiliency

D. THE PROPOSED ACTIONThe Forest Service has a Proposed Action when the agency agrees to move forward with theproposal to authorize, recommend, or implement an action (CFR 1508.23). The Proposed Actionis presented in detail in DEIS Chapter II.The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with the Proposed Actioninclude those that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Although standtreatments cannot alter all variables that influence fire behavior, they can directly or indirectlyinfluence size, distribution and species composition, availability of fuel, fuel arrangement, fuelmoisture, and surface winds. Reasons to enact treatments (vegetation management and fuelstreatments) that affect fire behavior can be categorized into two broad groups: 1) Treatments thatmodify fire behavior facilitating effective fire suppression, and 2) Treatments that modify firebehavior to reduce potential and/or subsequent adverse effects. Under the Forest ServiceProposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency, a total of approximately 8,150 acres wouldbe treated.The primary recommendation for vegetation management is “variable density management”.Density management involves the selective removal of some trees within a forested stand toincrease spacing and accelerate growth in the crowns and root systems of the remaining trees.The Proposed Action would primarily involve smaller diameter trees in overly-dense stands.Density management is used to improve forest health of stands, to open the forest canopy forselected trees, to accelerate growth to maintain desired seral conditions, or to attain latesuccessionalcharacteristics for biological diversity. Stands proposed to receive this treatmentare generally over-dense, with high crown density and ladder fuels. Variable densitymanagement would occur in all size and age classes and would result in a non-uniform patternfor residual trees, which would emulate more natural conditions, as opposed to more uniformresidual stocking or a specified basal area or number of trees per acre traditionally utilized ingrowth and yield silviculture on lands allocated to timber production.A complementary treatment to variable density management includes the application ofcontrolled (or prescribed) fire, termed underburning. Prescribed fire would be allowed toregulate the existing fuel profile and to create more of a mosaic of fuel loadings and canopyclosures. This is an ongoing process in that follow-up treatments are necessary (typically 5-8years in low elevation PAGs) and thereafter, to approach a more natural fire return interval.Prescribed burning can result in a range of effects given a diversity of site conditions influencingfire intensity. Flame lengths, fire residence time, age of vegetation, species, ladder fuels andcondition of overstory vegetation would all help determine the degree of overstory mortality.Vegetation modification (for fuels treatment) includes various methods such as slashing, orlopping and scattering of slash material, hand piling of down material (and subsequent burningof pile), pruning of trees along high risk areas to reduce ladder fuels, and jackpot, hand pile andburn or chipping of resultant slash material. These methods are applicable to small areas withhigh risk and appropriate stocking conditions. Prescribed fire and vegetation modificationmethods can be used in combination and/or in conjunction with variable density management.All additional fuels created by hazardous fuel reduction treatments (activity fuels) would also betreated. These methods can be used as slash disposal treatments for other methods (activity fuelstreatment), or as initial treatments on current stand conditions.Draft EIS I - 6 Ashland Forest Resiliency

An additional vegetation management element of the Proposed Action includes treatments thatmaintain and/or encourage natural species diversity. “Ecological sustainability” is a termdeveloped in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment as part of the Values At Risk analysis in referenceto the ability to maintain past vegetative conditions (biological diversity) within the Upper BearAnalysis Area. Loss of pine species is one element of biological diversity of particular concern.The Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA) was established as a representative area forponderosa pine and Douglas-fir plant communities and is a focus of this recommendation.Objectives for a given area of land often overlap each other. This leads to the establishment of ahierarchy of objectives relative to the Values At Risk, and Forest Plan objectives. Within theUpper Bear Analysis Area, the Values At Risk includes water quality (Municipal Watershed),late-successional habitat (Late-Successional Reserve), protection of life and property (Wildand-Urban Interface), and ecological sustainability, or the ability to restore or maintain pastconditions. An integrated approach to meeting these objectives for the Analysis Area beganwith the recommendations in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment; the Forest ServiceProposed Action is designed as an overall strategy to result in protection of these values.E. DECISION FRAMEWORKThis EIS is not a decision document. Its main purpose is to disclose and allow public commenton the consequences that could result from implementation of the Proposed Action oralternatives to that action. Should an action alternative be selected, certain decisions will bedocumented in a forthcoming Record of Decision (ROD). Accordingly, the EIS focuses onproviding analysis sufficient to ultimately make the following Federal decisions:• What hazardous fuels project will the Forest Service authorize, and under what conditions?• What mitigation and monitoring measures will be required if an action alternative isselected?The Responsible Official (the Decision Maker) for this analysis and forthcoming decision is theForest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Ashland District Rangerhas led the analysis, guided the interdisciplinary team and coordinated the public involvementprocess.Important factors in consideration of this decision will be the response between and attainment ofalternatives to the overall Purpose and Need. In addition to and concurrent with attainment ofPurpose and Need, the response of alternatives in relation to the identified Significant Issues willbe used as important decision factors. No one element of Purpose and Need or Significant Issuewill be used to make the decision, rather, they will be reviewed together with an assessment oftradeoffs to make the final decision.F. MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONLand management direction is contained in the Rogue River National Forest Land and ResourceManagement Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994).Draft EIS I - 7 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land ManagementPlanning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, is now commonly known asthe Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). This ROD, jointly signed by the Secretaries ofAgriculture and Interior, amended the Rogue River National Forest Land and ResourceManagement Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) and other existing plans within the range of thenorthern spotted owl. This amendment, which became effective on May 20, 1994, provided newgoals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for resource management. It added several new landallocations, each with its own set of Standards and Guidelines. These land allocations overlayand merge with the allocations from the 1990 RRNF LRMP.Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this EIS is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement andRecord of Decision (ROD) for the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource ManagementPlan (USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments toForest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of theNorthern Spotted Owl. The Proposed Action described in this analysis occurs within thefollowing land allocations.As discussed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (incorporated by reference), the direction inthe Northwest Forest Plan supersedes the RRNF LRMP allocations where it is more restrictive orprovides greater benefits to late-successional ecosystems. Direction from the RRNF Forest Planis retained where it is more restrictive or is unaffected by the Northwest Forest Plan.In some cases, concurrent direction applies, e.g., portions of the Upper Bear Analysis Area wereallocated to visual management (Foreground and Middleground, Partial Retention) ManagementAreas by the 1990 LRMP, and to Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan.Further, Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserve “overlay all land allocations”. Current(and supplemental) Forest Plan Management Areas and allocations for all Federally-managedForest Service lands within the Upper Bear Analysis Area are delineated in the 2003 Upper BearAssessment, Table 1-1, and depicted in Map 1-2.1. Northwest Forest PlanNWFP allocations within the Federally-managed portions of the Upper Bear Analysis Areainclude:Administratively Withdrawn: areas associated with the RRNF LRMP that emphasizerecreation, scenery, botanical or other resources. Within the Upper Bear Analysis Area, theallocations include Management Strategy 5 - Special Interest Area (SIA), Management Strategy12 - Botanical Area, and Management Strategy 25 – Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA).Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs): areas to be managed to protect and enhance latesuccessionaland old-growth forest ecosystems. LSRs are intended to provide habitat for speciessuch as the northern spotted owl, which live in late-successional forests. Several allocationsfrom the 1990 LRMP previously included scheduled timber harvest (e.g., Timber Suitable 1 and2, and Managed Watershed). The portion of the LSR within the Ashland Creek Watershed isalso managed as Restricted Watershed, and Research Natural Area under the RRNF LRMP.Total area of LSR within the Upper Bear Analysis Area is 21,343 acres.Draft EIS I - 8 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Riparian Reserves: lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, andpotentially unstable areas that are subject to special Standards and Guidelines designed toconserve aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Standards and Guidelines apply to activities inRiparian Reserves that may otherwise retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic ConservationStrategy (ACS) objectives, as defined in the 1994 ROD. The 1990 LRMP included some areasassigned to Restricted Riparian. Rationale for widths for Riparian Reserves necessary to ensureACS objectives for different water bodies are documented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment(see pages 1-53 through 1-55, including a Riparian Reserve map). Although there areanadromous species within portions of the Upper Bear Analysis Area, none of the area has beendesignated as a Key Watershed.2. RRNF Land and Resource Management PlanAlthough the NWFP Standards and Guidelines supplement the 1990 RRNF LRMP, the standardsand guidelines in the 1990 RRNF LRMP apply where they are more restrictive or provide greaterbenefits to late-successional forest related species than provisions of the NWFP Standards andGuidelines. LRMP allocations that contain Standards and Guidelines more restrictive or uniquefrom allocations under the NWFP (with their stated goals from the Forest Plan) include thefollowing:Special Interest Area: The goal of Special Interest Areas is to manage and interpret specialgeological, botanical, zoological, cultural and scenic areas for educational, scientific and publicenjoyment purposes. In this Analysis Area, the Siskiyou Crest area is designated for its scenicvalues.Restricted Watershed: The goal of Restricted Watershed is to provide water for domesticsupply. Land management activities will be largely restricted to watershed maintenance andprotection. The landscape will achieve a near natural condition over time, with the exception ofroads, fuelbreaks and developments required to manage the watershed.Research Natural Area: The goal of Research Natural Areas is to provide areas for research,observation and study of undisturbed ecosystems. Maintenance of natural processes within eacharea will be the prime consideration. The landscape will consist of naturally established patternsof vegetation. Areas will be protected to preserve the natural features for scientific purposes andnatural processes allowed to dominate. Management activities must be approved by theappropriate Director of the Forest and Range Experiment Stations.Restricted Riparian: The goal of Restricted Riparian is to protect the unique riparian habitatsassociated with perennial streams for wildlife, fishery and other beneficial uses.Foreground and Middleground Partial Retention: The goal of Partial Retention is to managethe landscapes seen from selected travel routes and use areas are managed so that, to the casualobserver, results of activities may be evident but are visually subordinate to the naturallandscape.Draft EIS I - 9 Ashland Forest Resiliency

3. Amendments to the Northwest Forest Plan - 2004Aquatic Conservation StrategyThe Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is an integral part of the Northwest Forest Plan andwas developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquaticecosystems on public lands. Since 1994, Northwest Forest Plan timber harvest and restorationprojects have been delayed or stopped due to court interpretations of certain passages in theACS. The ACS has been interpreted to mean that every project must achieve all ACS objectivesat all spatial and temporal scales (site or project, watershed, province, region). Thisinterpretation suggests land managers must demonstrate that a project will maintain existingconditions (or lead to improved conditions) at every spatial and temporal scale. Any project thatmay result in site-level disturbance to aquatic or riparian habitat, no matter how localized orshort-term, could be precluded under this interpretation.The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior proposed limited changes to language about howto implement the ACS. These changes were designed to amend Forest Service and Bureau ofLand Management plans throughout the Northwest Forest Plan area.USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management jointly prepared a FinalSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Clarification of Language in the 1994 Recordof Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan “Proposal To Amend Wording About The AquaticConservation Strategy.” This FSEIS was completed in October 2003. A Record of Decisionwas signed by Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, USDA;and Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, USDI, on March22, 2004.These limited changes clarify that the proper scale for Federal land managers to evaluateprogress toward achievement of the ACS objectives is the fifth-field watershed and broaderscales. These changes also clarify documentation requirements for land managers todemonstrate that projects follow the ACS. It removes the expectation that all projects mustachieve all ACS objectives, but reinforces the role of watershed analysis in providing context forproject planning.The decision clarifies that the nine ACS objectives are to be attained at the fifth-field watershedscale and not at the project or site level. All site-scale projects would continue to meet theprotective measures in the Standards and Guidelines such as Riparian Reserve widths.Survey and ManageThe Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines were originally added to agency land andresource management plans as part of the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to ForestService and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the NorthernSpotted Owl (the Northwest Forest Plan). The Survey and Manage mitigation measure wasadded to the basic elements of the Northwest Forest Plan to provide benefits for rare and littleknown species. In January 2001, the Agencies modified the Survey and Manage Standards andGuidelines by identifying needed management, clarifying language, eliminating inconsistent andredundant practices, and establishing an annual species review process. Those modificationswere embodied in the January 2001 Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey andManage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.Draft EIS I - 10 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Agency managers and the public have raised concerns that the Survey and Manage Standardsand Guidelines are frustrating the Agencies’ ability to meet the resource management goals andobjectives as set forth in the Northwest Forest Plan. They assert that the costs of the Survey andManage mitigation measure, both in dollars and time, are excessive.The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior proposed to remove the Survey and ManageStandards and Guidelines by amending 28 land and resource management plans within the rangeof the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Managementjointly prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify theSurvey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. This FSEIS was completedin January 2004. A Record of Decision was signed by Mark Rey, Under Secretary for NaturalResources and the Environment, USDA; and Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary for Land andMinerals Management, USDI, on March 22, 2004.The Record of Decision for the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards andGuidelines results in continued species diversity and conservation while at the same timereducing costs and facilitating the agencies’ ability to implement the forest management goals ofthe Northwest Forest Plan. None of the species that were covered by the Survey and ManageMitigation Measure standards and guidelines are listed as Threatened or Endangered under theEndangered Species Act, nor are any proposed for listing. All of the Survey and Manage specieswere evaluated for inclusion in the agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. For those thatqualify, agencies must ensure that actions are consistent with the conservation needs of thosespecies and that the actions do not cause the species to be listed under the Endangered SpeciesAct.4. Healthy Forests Restoration ActThis bill was enacted to improve the capacity of the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of LandManagement to conduct hazardous fuels treatment projects aimed at protecting communities,watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts toprotect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophicwildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes. As a key component for Ashland ForestResiliency, its content and provisions were introduced in the Background section of this DraftEIS, on page I-4.Additional and noteworthy management direction under this bill includes direction forauthorized projects regarding old growth stands, large tree retention, and monitoring. It alsoprovides specific direction regarding environmental analysis that limits the number ofalternatives to be considered. Regulations have been developed under this Act to establish a predecisionaladministrative review process referred to as the objection process (36 CFR 218).Under these regulations, individuals and organizations who have submitted specific writtencomments related to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel treatment project during theopportunity for scoping and public comment provided during preparation of the environmentalimpact statement for the proposed authorized hazardous fuel treatment project may file anobjection. Objections must be filed within 30 days following the publication date of a legalnotice of the Final EIS in the newspaper of record.Draft EIS I - 11 Ashland Forest Resiliency

5. Roadless Area Conservation RuleA Roadless Area Conservation Rule was published in Federal Register January 12, 2001. TheU.S. District Court in Wyoming enjoined from implementation this Rule that provided directionto the National Forests for management of Inventory Roadless Areas. Ann M. Veneman, formerSecretary of Agriculture, responding to concerns raised by local communities, tribes, and Statesimpacted by the 2001 roadless rule, announced a proposal on July 12, 2004 to establish a statepetitioning process for inventoried roadless area management. After receiving and evaluatingpublic comments on this proposal, USDA is adopting the final rule (May 2005). This final StatePetitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management rule establishes a petitioning process thatallows Governors to propose adjustments to the management requirements for National ForestSystem inventoried roadless area lands within their states.The Secretary’s consideration of a state petition follows principles USDA announced on May 4,2001. These principles guide roadless area conservation: (1) protecting and preserving roadlessarea values and characteristics; (2) informed decision making; (3) working together in a mannerthat fosters collaboration; (4) protecting forests; (5) protecting communities, homes, andproperty; and (6) protecting access to private property.This state petitioning process replaces the January 12, 2001, roadless rule which was set aside bya Federal District Court order in July of 2003. At the same time the proposed rule was publishedon July 16, 2004, the Forest Service reinstated the interim directive for the management ofinventoried roadless areas. Under this interim directive, management of Inventoried RoadlessAreas is primarily that found in the National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Theagency believes that because of the continuing legal uncertainty of implementing the roadlessrule, and because of the substantial public interest concerning the management and protection ofinventoried roadless areas, it is still appropriate for this interim directive to remain in effect.Inventoried roadless areas are currently being protected under this Forest Service interimdirective that essentially reserves most decisions on timber harvesting and road-building projectsin these areas to the Chief of the Forest Service and Regional Foresters. This administrativedirection to Forest Service managers was issued in July 2004 and is in effect for 18 months. TheForest Service may elect to extend the temporary protection for an additional 18 months.For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the project meets exception situations specified in the interimdirective. Although hazardous fuel reduction treatments may occur within the McDonald PeakInventoried Roadless Area, any commodity by-product is incidental to the objectives of reducinghazardous fuels and is not otherwise prohibited in this area under the Forest Plan. No roading ofany kind is being proposed within the Roadless Area. Therefore, delegation of authority toapprove or disapprove hazardous fuel reduction treatments remains unchanged by the mostrecent and interim roadless directives.6. Forest Service Policy on Transportation AnalysisForest Service Manual Chapter 7710 provides direction to conduct transportation systemplanning and analysis using the best available science at the appropriate scale and in conjunctionwith other analyses to inform transportation management decisions. Ensure that roadconstruction, reconstruction, and maintenance standards or criteria are guided by Roads Analysisand documented through the use of road management objectives.Draft EIS I - 12 Ashland Forest Resiliency

When proposed road management activities (road construction, reconstruction, anddecommissioning) would result in changes in access, such as changes in current use, trafficpatterns, and road standards, or where there may be adverse effects on soil and water resources,ecological processes, or biological communities, those decisions must be informed by RoadsAnalysis.Current policy requires the Forest Service to undertake a “scientifically-based” Road Analysisprocedure, at appropriate scales and coordinated with other ecosystem analyses, in order to makebetter decisions regarding road management. Roads Analysis at the forest-scale will generallyprovide a broad context for informing road management decisions. Site-specific projects may beinformed by a project-scale Roads Analysis.A site-specific Roads Analysis was conducted as part of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment.Component 4 of this 2003 Upper Bear Assessment includes documentation that describes theprocess that was used to evaluate the current road system for current and future needs associatedwith Upper Bear Analysis Area (see Map 4-1). Roads included in this analysis are those roadsegments managed by the USDA Forest Service within the 2003 Upper Bear Analysis Areaboundary and those major routes that access this area.7. Region 6 EIS for Prevention and Managing Invasive SpeciesThis Draft EIS document incorporates by reference the Region 6 FEIS for Managing Competingand Unwanted Vegetation (December 1988), its Record of Decision and the terms of a MediatedAgreement (March 1989), which resolved litigation following publication of the FEIS. Thisanalysis emphasized managing competing and unwanted vegetation; and is a basis for the RogueRiver National Forest’s Integrated Noxious Weed Management EA (1999).This Draft EIS also incorporates by reference the Decision Notice signed by J. Michael Lunn,Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor on September 1, 1999 for the EnvironmentalAssessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan (Weed Plan) on the Rogue RiverNational Forest. Under this decision, a list of all Forest infestations and locations are maintainedin the Weed Plan. Under the terms of this plan, projects and operations are required to helpprevent new infestations, limit the expansion of existing populations, and report new sites.Currently, a new FEIS is being developed for Prevention and Managing Invasive Species in thePacific Northwest Region. This Draft EIS incorporates by reference the FEIS and forthcomingRecord of Decision, the existing Region 6 EIS for Prevention and Managing Invasive Species, aswell as the RRNF Environmental Assessment mentioned above.Draft EIS I - 13 Ashland Forest Resiliency

G. OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES AND AGREEMENTSThis Section describes documented studies, analyses, assessments, or agreements that are relatedto, or pertinent to the Proposed Action or alternatives being analyzed in this Draft EIS.1. Watershed Analysis and Late-Successional Reserve AssessmentThe Bear Watershed Analysis was completed in 1995 by the Ashland Ranger District, RRNF.The Watershed Analysis Area included Federally managed and private lands, as well as forestedlands managed by the City of Ashland. A Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) wascompleted in June 1996. The objectives for completing the assessment were to gain a betterunderstanding of current conditions within the LSR, to determine how current conditions relateto LSR function and meeting the objectives of the NWFP, and to provide a framework for themanagement of this LSR consistent with NWFP objectives. The 1995 Bear Watershed Analysisand the 1996 Late-Successional Reserve Assessment are incorporated into this analysis byreference.2. 2003 Upper Bear AssessmentThe 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (USDA Forest Service, December 2003) was an analyticaleffort to validate and supplement the environmental condition information for the ecosystem andlandscape associated with the Ashland Watershed and the larger Upper Bear Creek AnalysisArea to conditions as of 2003. A primary objective of this effort was to prepare an integratedassessment of current conditions and scientific and professional identification of opportunitiesand priorities for Federal actions regarding elements of the environment that ought to be activelymanaged if the goal of resiliency to large-scale disturbance (such as wildland fire) is to berealistically achieved.This assessment updates the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis and the 1996 Mt. Ashland LateSuccessional Reserve Assessment. The assessment also organizes vegetation and disturbancefactors by Plant Association Groups (PAGs), contains a fire management assessment and ascientifically based site-specific Roads Analysis (per FSM 7712.1). Finally, it contains anIntegrated Management Strategy with recommendations and opportunities for future actions.The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment is incorporated into this analysis by reference and provides thebasis of the Proposed Action.The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was completed in December 2003. Since that time (2004-2005), there have been several corrections, updates, and supplements to the information providedin the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. These updates are documented in Appendix D to thisDEIS, to provide a most accurate assessment of the current condition (Affected Environment) aspossible, in support of analysis under Ashland Forest Resiliency.3. Agreements Between the Forest Service and the City of AshlandSince before the turn of the century, the Forest Service has been involved with the protection ofthe Ashland Creek Watershed. In 1899, the first Forest Ranger was hired to oversee theprotection of the Ashland Forest Reserve. In 1907, the Ashland National Forest was created, andthen almost immediately included under the creation of Crater National Forest.Draft EIS I - 14 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In 1913, Crater National Forest employee, Martin Erickson, stated “…it is important to give theAshland Watershed special fire protection...campers are quite numerous in the headwaters”. Firerelated concerns lead to increased fire patrols and the establishment of the Wagner Butte and Mt.Ashland Fire lookouts by 1923. As the town of Ashland grew, its domestic water supply needsincreased. In 1928, Hosler dam was completed, impounding the waters of Ashland Creek inReeder Reservoir.A Cooperative Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Forest Service for themanagement of the Ashland Watershed was originally created and approved in 1929. An InterimWatershed Management Plan drafted in 1979, providing direction for the protection of theAshland Municipal Watershed, which was replaced by the Rogue River National Forest Landand Resource Management Plan in 1990. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was draftedin 1985, and updated in 1996 and 1999. This MOU defines the roles and responsibilities of boththe City of Ashland and the Forest Service in the management of the Watershed.Under these agreements, the Forest Service has the responsibility to administer the AshlandWatershed consistent with conserving and protecting the City’s water supply, and to coordinateand communicate watershed management activities with the City of Ashland. This includes:• Assessing fire danger levels during fire season;• Administering, under the authority of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), appropriatewatershed closures (i.e., prohibiting camping in the watershed, prohibiting off-road vehicles,prohibiting open fires, implementing road closures, and during extreme fire danger -complete watershed closure);• Annually providing literature and training to City employees and volunteers concerning fireprevention and watershed policies and procedures;• Involving the City in planning and implementation of projects in the Ashland Watershed; and• Providing resource specialists on a contractual basis to the City for projects influencing theAshland Watershed.The City of Ashland agrees to make staff available to provide input to the Forest Service duringproject planning, implementation, and management review; to make staff and personnelavailable to work in coordination on projects that achieve mutual objectives (such as prescribedunderburning and fuel hazard treatment); to make personnel and volunteers available forwatershed fire prevention, patrol activities and associated training; and to keep a log ofwatershed patrol activities.H. SCOPING AND ISSUES1. Scoping ProcessScoping is the name for the process used to determine the extent of the environmental analysis tobe conducted. It is used early in the NEPA process to identify (1) the issues to be addressed, (2)the depth of analysis required, (3) alternatives to the Proposed Action, and (4) potentialenvironmental effects of the Proposed Action. This Draft EIS has been developed with extensivepublic participation. The public involvement requirements of NEPA (40 CFR 1501.7) have beenemployed in order to develop and publish a Draft EIS for release to an informed public.Draft EIS I - 15 Ashland Forest Resiliency

As mentioned in the Introduction of this Chapter, the official scoping process was preceded withan assessment documented as the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. This document maderecommendations for fuels reductions in and adjacent to the Ashland Municipal Watershed. Thisassessment itself was a collaboration that included Marty Main (City of Ashland), HowardHeiner (Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance), Jerry Franklin (University of Washington),Sarah Greene (Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station), Louisa Evers (BLMState Office and Forest Service Fire Ecologist), and many Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forestemployees.Preceding the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was the Ashland Watershed Protection Project thatextensively involved the Ashland community. The collaboration between the Ashland RangerDistrict employees and the City of Ashland’s community on this project provided a solid base inunderstanding community issues and a launching pad for Ashland Forest Resiliency, the nextstep in providing hazardous fuels treatments in the Ashland Watershed.Acting District Ranger, John Schuler, made presentations about the results of the 2003 UpperBear Assessment to community groups including League of Women Voters, the AmericanAssociation of University Women, Ashland Forest Lands Commission, Headwaters, the AshlandWildfire Issues Coordination Group, and formal presentation at the Disturbance EcologySeminar, hosted by the City of Ashland. These presentations were done in the fall of 2003.Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Chuck Anderson, and Analyst Don Boucher made presentationsto the Forest Service Region 6 Late-Successional Reserve Working Group and to FS/BLM StateOffice Fire Ecologist, Louisa Evers, and Forest Service Region 6 Fuels Management Specialist,Tim Rich, and PNW Experiment Station RNA Coordinator Sarah Greene. Briefings with the USFish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries were provided as well as briefings ofcongressional and county elected officials.Upon her return and prior to official Scoping under NEPA, District Ranger, Linda Duffy, metwith Congressmen Walden’s and Smith’s staff, Headwaters, World Wildlife Fund, KlamathSiskiyou Wildland Center, Ashland Forest Commission, Ashland Fire Chief Keith Woodley,Marty Main, Southern Oregon University Public Administration students, Howard Heiner, JeffHanson (Mt. Ashland Ski Area), Greg Chandler (BLM), and several interested individualcitizens to discuss the Ashland Forest Resiliency proposal.The scoping process for this project officially began with the issuance of a Notice of Intent toprepare an Environmental Impact Statement published in the Federal Register on February 25,2004 (FR page 8617-8620). Government-to-Government consultation letters were mailed onFebruary 19, 2004 to Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Confederated Tribes of the GrandRonde Community, and to the Quartz Valley Indian Tribe. A Scoping Letter was sent toapproximately 200 individuals, businesses, and organizations on February 27, 2004. The projectwas listed beginning in the January-March 2004 edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions forthe Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.On May 12, 2004, the Responsible Official (Forest Supervisor) met to discuss the City’sresponse to the Forest Service’s proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency project being planed underthe guidelines of the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The City of Ashland hadresponded to the Proposed Action with Phase I of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan(CWPP), an element of HFRA that can be prepared by a community at-risk to wildfire, adefinition met by the City of Ashland.Draft EIS I - 16 Ashland Forest Resiliency

2. Significant IssuesIssues are defined in this environmental analysis as points of discussion, debate, or dispute aboutthe environmental effects of a Proposed Action or alternatives. Significant Issues as used in thisenvironmental analysis are those that are used to evaluate alternatives, affect the design ofcomponent proposals, prescribe mitigation measures, and/or describe important and variableenvironmental effects. They are significant because of the extent of their geographicconsequence, the duration of the effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict.NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on the Significant Issuesrelated to proposed actions. The interdisciplinary team (IDT), with Responsible Officialinvolvement and approval, has identified the following as Significant Issues associated with thehazardous fuel treatments presented in this analysis. This list is presented in a format thatintends to answer the question “what action may have what effect, on what resource or value?”Each Significant Issue statement contains a reference (Chapter and Section of this document, inparenthesis) for where in the document a description or discussion of the effects of eachalternative considered in detail is located, relevant to the stated issue. Indicators are developedin Chapter III of this DEIS, as well as current condition background and consequences of eachalternative analyzed in detail. A summary of the consequences of each alternative considered indetail in relation to these issues is contained at the end of Chapter II, Alternatives (Tables II-8-10).Soil and Site ProductivityActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially prescribed fire, treeremoval and connected actions such as landing or road construction) may cause directdetrimental effect to soils and site productivity by surface erosion, compaction,displacement, puddling, loss of organic matter and change in moisture regime. (III, D, 1)Slope StabilityActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal andconnected actions such as landing or road construction) may affect geologic slopestability and cause direct or indirect mass wasting (landslides). (III, D, 2)Sediment DeliveryActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal andconnected actions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slashtreatments) may affect water quality via erosion and resultant sediment delivery tostreams. (III, D, 3)Hydrologic FunctionActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially connected actions such aslanding or road construction, tree removal, and prescribed fire or slash treatments) maydirectly or indirectly affect streams, wetlands, and hydrologic function such as runoff,stream flow, temperature, and quantity and quality of domestic water sources. (III, D, 4)Draft EIS I - 17 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Cumulative Watershed EffectsActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments, in combination with past, othercurrent, and reasonably foreseeable future actions may result in adverse cumulativewatershed effects to hydrologic function and water quality. (III, D, 5)Northern Spotted Owl HabitatActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal andconnected actions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slashtreatments) may directly or indirectly affect suitable or dispersal habitat associated withcore areas used by northern spotted owls. (III, D, 6)Late-Successional HabitatActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal andconnected actions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slashtreatments) may affect late-successional habitat characteristics, habitat connectivity, andfunction of the Late-Successional Reserve. (III, D, 7)Insect Related Tree MortalityActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially density management ofvegetation) may affect the risk of tree mortality due to pine bark beetles and flatheadedfir borer infestations. (III, D, 8)Inventoried Roadless AreaActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments may affect the McDonald PeakInventoried Roadless Area; some people may value this area for its undisturbed (orspiritual) character. (III, D, 9)Old and Large TreesActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments may affect late seral or old-growthvegetative conditions and old or large trees; this may cause a change in amenity valuesfor recreation use and/or existence values for those who believe such conditions shouldbe preserved on public lands. (III, D, 10)Operational and Economic FeasibilityThe design of hazardous fuel treatments may or may not be operationally feasible (arethey humanly possible?), and/or may or may not be economically feasible (is there a wayto fund treatments?). (III, D, 11)Draft EIS I - 18 Ashland Forest Resiliency

3. Other IssuesOther Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that have been determined to berelevant, are used to disclose consequences, may affect design of component actions, prescribemitigation measures, or whose disclosure of environmental effects are required by law or policy.Other Issues as used in this environmental analysis differ from Significant Issues in that theyoften describe minor and/or non-variable consequences.This list is limited to those issues that specifically identify potential effects resulting fromimplementation of the hazardous fuel treatments, and their corresponding effects are documentedin this Draft EIS. Issues that are related to satisfying Federal, State, and local requirements andstandards (e.g., Threatened and Endangered species or air quality) are also included.This list is also presented in a format that intends to answer the question “what action may havewhat effect, on what resource or value?” Each Other Issue statement also contains a reference(Chapter and Section of this document, in parenthesis) for where in the document a descriptionor discussion of the effects of each alternative considered in detail is located, relevant to thestated issue. The consequences of each alternative considered in detail, in relation to these issuesis also summarized at the end of Chapter II, Alternatives (Tables II-8-10).Water ChemistryHazardous fuel treatments could affect water chemistry (pH, temperature, bacterial and/orpetrochemical pollutants). (III, E, 1)Riparian Reserve Standards and GuidelinesHazardous fuel treatments and other connected actions could affect attainment of NWFPStandards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves. (III, E, 2)Air QualityParticulate matter produced during the implementation of prescribed fire has the potentialto adversely affect air quality in the non-attainment area of the Rogue River Valley.(III, E, 3)WindthrowDensity management or other treatments could change environmental conditions forresidual trees causing shock (change in light conditions), and/or lead to increased windthrow (trees broken off or uprooted by wind). (III, E, 4)Ashland Research Natural AreaHazardous fuel treatments may affect the Ashland Research Natural Area; some peoplemay value this area for undisturbed and unique or scientific character. Treatments couldalso affect forest species composition and natural variability (ecological sustainability) inthe Research Natural Area. (III, E, 5)Draft EIS I - 19 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Other Insect Infestations and Tree DiseasesActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially density management ofvegetation) may affect the risk of tree mortality due to other insects and diseases.(III, E, 6)Terrestrial Wildlife - ESA Listed, Forest Service Sensitive and NWFP SpeciesHazardous fuel treatments could affect terrestrial species listed or proposed under theEndangered Species Act, and could affect Sensitive terrestrial animal species listed by theForest Service, or certain cavity nesting birds associated with the Northwest Forest Plan.(III, E, 7)Terrestrial Wildlife - Other Special Habitats and SpeciesHazardous fuel treatments could affect other special terrestrial wildlife habitats andspecies. (III, E, 8)Forest Plan Management Indicator SpeciesHazardous fuel treatments could affect Management Indicator Species, as identified in the1990 RRNF LRMP. (III, E, 9)Botanical - Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichen, & FungiThe implementation of fire hazard reduction treatments could affect vascular plants,bryophytes, lichens and fungi (associated with this locale) listed by the Forest Service asSensitive. (III, E, 10)Uncommon and Locally Rare Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens and FungiThe implementation of hazardous fuel treatments could affect other botanical resourcesthat are locally rare and/or species of interest to the Oregon Natural Heritage InformationCenter. (III, E, 11)Non-Native Plant SpeciesHazardous fuel treatments may introduce or encourage exotic (non-native) andundesirable (noxious) plant species, or affect existing populations. (III, E, 12)Aquatic Habitat and FishHazardous fuel treatments could adversely affect the downstream habitat (Ashland Creekbelow Reeder and Granite Street Reservoirs, and lower Tolman and Hamilton creeks) forresident and anadromous fish populations including coho salmon, which are listed asThreatened, and steelhead trout, a candidate species for listing under the ESA. (III, E, 13)Scenic QualityThere is concern for the resulting visual character (evidence of management) andattainment of visual quality objectives for scenic quality, as a result of hazardous fueltreatments. (III, E, 14)Draft EIS I - 20 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Recreation and Public SafetyHazardous fuel treatment activities may affect or change public use of recreation facilitiesand features (including illegal activities), and may affect the safety of the recreatingpublic. (III, E, 15)Other Semi-Primitive (unroaded) AreasActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments may affect other (non-inventoried)“roadless” or semi-primitive areas that are currently unroaded; some people may valuethem for their undeveloped (or spiritual) character. (III, E, 16)Heritage (Cultural) ResourcesHazardous fuel treatments may affect archaeological or historical sites and/or currentNative American values. (III, E, 17)4. Out of Scope IssuesThere are several issues identified during scoping as being non-significant and “out of the scope”of this environmental analysis. These issues include those that cannot be addressed or solved ina project level analysis, issues already decided by law, regulation, or other higher level decisions,issues irrelevant to the decision to be made, and/or issues that are conjectural or not supported byscientific evidence. These issues are listed along with a rationale for their being determined “outof scope”, as follows.FS should reduce or remove livestock grazingThis issue statement was determined to be out of scope because grazing on NFSL within theUpper Bear Analysis Area is currently not allowed. There is authorized grazing to the south ofMt. Ashland on the Klamath National Forest and to the west on the RR-SNF in the LittleApplegate drainage. Historically and recently, some unauthorized cattle use has occurred in theMt. Ashland vicinity and within the Ashland Watershed. This has been the result of livestockdrift and inadequate management and administration of the authorized range allotments. Thisunauthorized use has been very minor in the last few years (only a few cows have beenobserved) and is being monitored and administered by both National Forests. This unauthorizeduse is being addressed through ongoing Federal allotment administration and permittee stockmanagement.Global warmingThe USDA Forest Service position on “global warming” is that it is an issue that cannot be dealtwith at the scale of NEPA analysis for a project at one site. The Forest Service hasacknowledged that climatic change may be a factor in precipitation (snowfall) predictions, andtherefore on long-term economic viability of the Mt. Ashland ski area. It should also be notedthat climatologists describe this issue as “climatic change” and not “global warming”. This isbecause while it is acknowledged that climate is changing, it is not changing everywhere(globally) and it is not necessarily or exclusively “warming”.Draft EIS I - 21 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In response to comments received on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion EIS, the ForestService contracted the services of Dr. Gregory V. Jones, Associate Professor, Southern OregonUniversity, Ashland OR. Dr. Jones was asked to research the references mentioned in publiccomment and provide the Forest Service with an assessment of the validity and relevancy of thesources and the content comment. His findings are documented in a paper UnderstandingClimate Variability and Change in the Pacific Northwest (March 2004), which is incorporated byreference.Inherent inability of Forest Service to conduct research or administrative studies (lack ofmonitoring and use or organized monitoring protocol (e.g., RRNF Ecosystem MonitoringFramework)These statements have no direct application to the NEPA process being conducted for hazardousfuel reduction treatments. The Forest Service is a credible, public service land managementagency. There is never an attempt to violate laws or to not implement actions as described indecisions made. A general viewpoint that the Forest Service cannot be trusted is not relevant tothis environmental analysis under NEPA.Like Biscuit Fire, timber goals and revenues need to be disclosedRestoring biological, and physical processes and functions to ensure the long-term ecologicalsustainability of the public lands in the Analysis Area for this project is more important to theForest Service and this community than the output of forest products. As a result, anycommodity production derived from the implementation of this proposal is expected to occuronly as a by-product of management.Under the Proposed Action, in various treatment proposals and prescriptions, there is a potentialto generate material with commercial product value. While not ignoring that aspect of theproposal, it has not been the focus, i.e., neither the Forest Service or the City is specificallyproposing a commercial timber sale, and are not proposing the sale of commercial products tofinance the hazardous fuel reduction treatments. Under the HFRA, financing and otheropportunities would be developed subsequent to a decision under NEPA, to go forward withtreatments. Analysis of timber goals and revenues is therefore considered out of scope.Action should treat ignition zones around residential areas (on private lands)The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) contains a variety of provisions toexpedite hazardous fuel treatment and forest-restoration projects on specific types of Federalland that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. Title I provides authoritiesfor expedited vegetation treatments on certain types of National Forest System lands (and BLMlands). Ashland Forest Resiliency is not proposing, nor does the Federal government haveauthority under HFRA to authorize actions on private lands, therefore this issue statement isconsidered out of scopeCriticism of HFI and HFRAThe implication is this statement has no direct application to the NEPA process being conductedfor hazardous fuel reduction treatments under Ashland Forest Resiliency. The Forest Service hasresponsibility to enact actions under public law (in this case, HFRA) and does not take a positionon the appropriateness of the laws themselves. While all citizens are entitled to their opinion,criticism of the laws is not germane to this analysis.Draft EIS I - 22 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Strategy of fire exclusion will lead to increased conifer mortality and large-scale stand-replacingfireThis issue statement seems to suggest that actions to reduce hazardous fuels or reduce densitiesof stands would be done without the use of fire, or that continued fire suppression would excludefire. While active wildland fire suppression will continue, the use of prescribed fire is proposedunder the Proposed Action and Community Alternative. Further, a return to more natural fireregimes and eventual wildland fire use is a goal of all strategies. Therefore, this issue statementis considered out of scope because it is not an accurate statement of the proposed strategies.Removal and use of commercially valuable intermediate, co-dominant and dominant trees candetermine a projects financial efficiencyBroadly, this statement is potentially valid, if the revenues generated from treatments were thesole source of project funding. As noted above, any commodity production derived from theimplementation of this proposal is expected to occur only as a by-product of management.Under the HFRA, financing and other opportunities would be developed subsequent to a decisionunder NEPA, to go forward with treatments. Discussion of timber goals, revenues, and/orprofitability is therefore considered out of scope.I. PERMITSIn accordance with 40 CFR 1502.25 (b), the Environmental Impact Statement is to list allFederal permits, licenses, or other entitlements that must be obtained in implementing theproposal. Throughout the planning process, no additional Federal, State or County permits,licenses, or other entitlements were identified as requirements for implementation of theProposed Action or alternatives.In conjunction with potential helicopter landings and access, and the connected actionsassociated with equipment access and potential commercial products haul to and from potentialhelicopter landings, permit requirements are considered.Sorting and removing materials removed from the site to commercial vendors off-Forest mayinvolve some form of permits for road use, right-of-way, or use of private lands for landings.Potential permits required to facilitate the Action Alternatives may include the City of Ashland,or private timber land owners (e.g., Swanson Group Inc.).Draft EIS I - 23 Ashland Forest Resiliency

CHAPTER II - ALTERNATIVESA. INTRODUCTIONThis Chapter identifies and compares in detail three alternatives; the Forest Service ProposedAction, the Community Alternative and the No-Action Alternative, for conducting managementactivities 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 projectunder the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. It discusses goals, objectives andphilosophies that are common to the Proposed Action and Community Alternative, as well ascommon specific design elements, treatments, and connected actions.This Chapter also discusses actions and alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailedstudy, as well as the City of Ashland’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) andbackground to the detailed proposal developed by community members as an alternative (theCommunity Alternative) 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 theHealthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). Under HFRA, authorized hazardous fuel treatmentprojects cannot take place in any of the following: Wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, orareas where the removal of vegetation is prohibited by an act of Congress or Presidentialproclamation (including prohibitions in the area’s implementation plan). Ashland ForestResiliency contains no such areas.All proposed HFRA actions must be consistent with the applicable resource management plansand they must be on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (or USDI BLM). This meansthat any proposed action that would not be consistent with a resource management plan must be:modified to make it consistent with the plan, or be covered by a plan amendment or projectspecificamendment.Ashland Forest Resiliency is authorized under several provisions of Title I of HFRA. TheProposed Action includes areas within the wildland-urban interface, as well as areas beyond 11/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community. For areas within the wildland-urbaninterface, but farther than 1 1/2 miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, the USDAForest Service is not required to analyze more than the proposed agency action and oneadditional action alternative (Section 104(d)(1)).Ashland Forest Resiliency is also authorized under the municipal watershed provisions of Title Iof HFRA (Sections 102 (a)(2) and (3). Ashland Forest Resiliency is additionally authorizedunder Section 102 (a)(5); projects that will enhance protection from catastrophic 1 wildland firefor threatened and endangered species or their habitats and that maintain and restore suchhabitats.1 A wildland fire starting in the forest interface portion of this area during extreme fire weather conditions would likely result in alarge percentage of the area burning at a high fire severity. A large-scale, high-severity wildland fire would remove vegetationfrom large areas exposing highly erosive granitic soils, threatening quality and quantity of Ashland’s municipal water supply, andimpairing the condition and function of the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve and therefore could be considered“catastrophic”.Draft EIS II - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Under HFRA, Agencies are expected to analyze the effects of failing to take action; underAshland Forest Resiliency, the No-Action Alternative is analyzed in detail in accordance withHFRA and the NEPA process.1. The Community Wildfire Protection PlanThe City of Ashland’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is the result of communitywidefire protection planning and the compilation of project documents developed by the staffand citizens of the City of Ashland and interested organizations relative to managing private andpublic land in and adjacent to the Ashland Creek Watershed. This plan was compiled in thesummer of 2004 in response to the Federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) andthe Forest Service Proposed Action.The City of Ashland Forest Lands Commission, in conjunction with local conservation groups,individual citizens, and city staff worked for over five months on the details and organization ofthis plan. Weekly sub-committee meetings, email communications, a public forum, and apresentation to the Ashland City Council all took place between May and October of 2004. Thegoals of the CWPP are as follows:‣ Summarize and review regulations, past plans, community values, and actions as theyrelate to wildfire and forest management in the Ashland community and watershed;‣ Present a community vision and plan for restoring resiliency to the forests of thewatershed as allowed under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003;‣ Analyze issues of community wildfire safety and make recommendations for increasingcommunity wildfire preparedness; and‣ Identify actions to decrease community wildfire hazards.The CWPP is designed as a living document meant for review and revision as the needs of thecommunity change over time. Chapter 1 is a description of the Community Setting. Chapter 2 isa history of Wildfire and Community Involvement. Chapter 3 is a Community Wildfire HazardAssessment. Information on Ashland's Wildfire Fuels Reduction Program is contained inChapter 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 actionscan be tracked. The action items include who is accountable, a timeline, and identification offunding.Chapter 8 of the CWPP contains details of a proposal developed by community members as analternative to the Forest Service Proposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency. Thisalternative, crafted by volunteer professional forest and ecology scientists within the Ashlandcommunity, outlines a strategy addressing the risk of large-scale, stand replacing fire in thewatershed. The alternative plan is referred to as the Ashland Forest Resiliency CommunityAlternative (AFRCA). The AFRCA is specifically designed to address the Purpose and Needstatement established by the Forest Service as well as the requirements for an alternative asdefined in the HFRA.Draft EIS II - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency

According to the CWPP Executive summary, the community believes that “The wildfire threat tothe City of Ashland and the surrounding watershed is manageable if we work together to addressthe issues. Local fire agencies are excellent resources for wildfire information and assistance. Itis only through the combination of homeowner actions, community awareness, and firefightingcapabilities that the community can reduce wildfire hazard. All of these elements areincorporated into the Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan.”2. Developing the Proposed Action and AlternativesSection 104 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes special procedures when agenciesprepare Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements for authorizedhazardous fuel reduction projects. Categorical exclusions cannot be used for the act’sauthorization to analyze fewer NEPA alternatives (Sections104(c) and (d)), however, most of therequirements of Section 104 are consistent with normal NEPA practices.Section 104(e) of the HFRA requires agencies to provide notice of the project when preparingauthorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. Section 104(f) encourages meaningful publicparticipation during preparation of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. The ForestService shall facilitate collaboration when they are preparing authorized hazardous fuel reductionprojects. As appropriate, collaboration should include representatives from Tribes, localrepresentatives from Federal and State agencies, local governments, landowners, other interestedpersons, community-based groups, and other nongovernmental organizations. Localinvolvement is critical when planning projects, setting project priorities, and allocating resourcesat the local level.In conjunction with the development of the Forest Service Proposed Action, a collaborativeprocess was enacted. This collaborative process evolved with meetings in November andDecember 2004, and on into May 2005 with representatives of the Ashland Forest ResiliencyCommunity Alternative Technical Team and the Forest Service NEPA planning team. TheTechnical Team provided details governing the strategy of the Community Alternative but didnot participate in the analysis of consequences (a Federal Agency responsibility under NEPA)a. Number of Alternatives Analyzed In DetailUnder the HFRA, if the at-risk community has adopted a Community Wildfire ProtectionPlan and the agency proposed action does not implement the recommendations in the planregarding the general location and basic method of treatments, agencies are required toanalyze the recommendations in the plan as an alternative to the Proposed Action (Sections104(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. Thisinformation will be useful if courts consider requests for an injunction and must balance theshort- and long-term effects of taking or failing to take an action. See the Judicial Reviewsection of the Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim FieldGuide for more detailed information.Draft EIS II - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency

For areas within the wildland urban interface, but farther than 1 1/2 miles from the boundaryof an at-risk community, the Forest Service is not required to analyze more than the proposedagency action and one additional action alternative (Section 104(d)(1)). Agencies areexpected to analyze the effects of failing to take action.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 scopingor the collaborative process. If more than one additional alternative is proposed, the agencywill select one and provide a written record describing the reasons for its selection (Section104(c)).Ashland Forest Resiliency includes proposed fuel reduction treatments that occurunder all of these criteria established by the HFRA. Therefore, a No-ActionAlternative, the agencies Proposed Action and one additional alternative, theCommunity Alternative developed and offered by the City of Ashland, are analyzed indetail. There were no other formal alternatives proposed during scoping, however there areseveral strategies and other component actions that were considered but eliminated, asdocumented in Section B, below.b. Identification of the Preferred AlternativeNEPA requires that this Draft EIS identify the agency’s Preferred Alternative or alternatives,if one, or more than one exists. The Forest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou NationalForest has identified that some form of action is the preferred course. The Final EIS willidentify a Preferred Alternative for a course of action. Comments to the Draft EIS under the45-day Comment Period (40 CFR 1606.10) will also be very important to the design andselection of a final decision.B. ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATEDFROM DETAILED STUDYNEPA requires that Federal agencies explore all reasonable alternatives and briefly discuss thereasons for eliminating any alternatives that were explored but not developed in detail (40 CFR1502.14 (a)). The following alternatives or actions within potential alternatives have beeneliminated from detailed study for the reasons stated and/or because of their contribution to thestated Purpose and Need for this project.1. Different Overall StrategiesExpanded Suppression Forces Without Fuel Reduction TreatmentsThe Purpose and Need for this project calls for the urgent reduction of the potential for largescale,high-severity wildland fire. The overall strategy to accomplish this is the reduction ofhazardous fuels that are the basis for the large fire potential. A different overall strategyconsidered but eliminated would expand the ability to effectively suppress potential wildland firerather than reduce the fuels that would likely reduce the effects of large-scale fire.Draft EIS II - 4 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Rationale for elimination: This alternative would likely cost as much as any landscape hazardousfuel reduction treatment and would not reduce the potential for high-severity fire effects, whenwildland fire occurred. This alternative would not be in accordance with the HFRA, could not belogically funded (Federal fire-suppression funding would not likely increase to support anincreased workforce level) and would not address the stated Purpose and Need. It was thereforeeliminated from detailed study by the Responsible Official.Continued Use and Development of Shaded FuelbreaksAnother overall strategy for meeting the Purpose and Need would be to continue the use anddevelopment of additional shaded fuelbreaks. For example, additional construction of a shadedfuel break could occur on the ridge upslope of Reeder Gulch, and management of a 300-footflank area on the north side of this fuel break. This action was considered during the original1997 HazRed Environmental Assessment.Rationale for elimination: Although shaded fuelbreaks were recommended in the 1995 BearWatershed Analysis and 1996 Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, actual on-the-groundimplementation has not met with overall acceptance and support from this community, primarilybecause of their appearance and physical environmental effects. Further, the Forest Service hasnot been able to maintain the effectiveness of shaded fuelbreaks created in the past throughrequired and routine maintenance. Community support for continued use of this strategy wouldnot likely increase and was not recommended in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. In theexample area suggested for additional shaded fuelbreaks, findings of geological fieldinvestigations resulted in this action being eliminated from further consideration under theAWPP EIS, to avoid any additional impacts on geologically unstable areas. Therefore,continuation of the shaded fuelbreak strategy was not considered for detailed study under thisDraft EIS by the Responsible Official.Wildland Fire Use for Resource BenefitsThe use of wildland fire for resource benefits is the method of allowing naturally ignited(lightning-caused) fire to burn, assisted by fire management response, in order to meet prescribedresource objectives for an area. Forest Service policy allows the use of wildland fire where acompleted and approved Fire Management Plan is in place that has assessed the use of naturallyignited fires to meet resource objectives. Fire Management Plans must contain adequateprescription elements that are measurable and would guide the selection of appropriatemanagement responses to wildland fire. The plan can be used to help guide decisions duringinitial attack on wildfires, and to describe when fire can be used to achieve natural resourcebenefits. The Community Alternative as presented included a strong desire to allow and includewildland fire.Rationale for elimination: A Fire Management Plan was completed specifically for the Mt.Ashland Late-Successional Reserve, including the Ashland Watershed, for the 1996 the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) process in accordance with direction of the NorthwestForest Plan. An alternative to use wildland fire for resource benefits was examined during theLSRA process and was not determined to be viable. The 1996 LSRA Fire Management Plan didnot recommend the use of wildland fire for resource benefits, for the following reasons:• Lightning usually results in fire ignitions during the period of late spring through fall whensoil and fuel moistures are dropping to levels where soil conditions cannot be maintainedwithin Standards and Guidelines and protective duff layers and coarse wood are adverselyaffected;Draft EIS II - 5 Ashland Forest Resiliency

• Seasonal low fuel moistures, combined with 40 to 90 years of live and dead vegetation buildup (due to missed fire cycles and fire suppression activity) has created a situation with a highprobability of a wildfire escaping management suppression capabilities, which would likelyresult in stand replacing wildfire;• Wildland Fire Use under current conditions, with the high probability of high-severitywildland fire, would be inconsistent with Late-Successional Reserve objectives of theNorthwest Forest Plan, and with the Cooperative Agreement between the Forest Service andthe City of Ashland for the protection of water quality; and• The use of wildland fire would be inconsistent with Standards and Guidelines for Protectionin the Restricted Watershed Management Area under the current Rogue River NationalForest Land and Resource Management Plan.The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment reiterates those findings and also did not recommendWildland Fire Use at this time. Therefore, because of existing conditions, Wildland Fire Use isnot considered an appropriate response in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. For these reasons, theResponsible Official does not consider Wildland Fire Use a viable management tool that isavailable for use at this time, and was eliminated from detailed study. As fuel reductiontreatments 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 theAnalysis Area.Use of Prescribed Fire ExclusivelyAs received during scoping on this project, some people suggested the exclusive use ofprescribed fire as a method to reduce buildup of hazardous fuel. The basis of this is a return tothe more natural (historical) conditions that would occur under a natural fire regime. Note thatthe 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 theProposed Action and Community Alternative.Rationale for elimination: Although not the same as Wildland Fire Use, the exclusive use ofprescribed fire was not considered in detail because of similar reasons: the ecosystem is so farfrom natural (and desired) conditions that the use of fire exclusively would likely involve effectsto human values that would be unacceptable. This is due to the potential severity ofenvironmental effects during burning. Existing fuel loading is considered too high to allowprescribed fire to occur with conditions remaining within the LRMP Standards and Guidelines,over much of the Analysis Area. The overall Draft EIS strategy being proposed is to treathazardous fuels primarily with methods other than burning, with follow-up to these treatmentswith prescribed burning as activity fuels or maintenance treatments. Limited prescribed burningis being proposed were current fuel loadings and conditions would allow, but exclusive use as anoverall strategy was eliminated by the Responsible Official at this time.Treatments to Obtain Desired Conditions by PAGs or Condition Classes Exclusively At One TimeAnother overall strategy considered was fuel treatments to obtain desired (or natural) conditionsexclusively by Plant Association Group (PAG) or to obtain Condition Class 1 over the entireUpper Bear Analysis Area at one time. This would suggest nearly every PAG would be treated(except the high-elevation Hemlock PAGs), since most are not currently in their natural fireregimes and are in Condition Class 2 or 3.Draft EIS II - 6 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Under this strategy, there would be no phasing, i.e., all areas would be fully treated within thenext 8-10 years. Neither the Proposed Action nor Community Alternative are proposing thisextent at this time. The definition of Condition Class 1 is where fire regimes are within or near anatural range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Fire frequencies havedeparted from natural frequencies (either increased or decreased) by no more than one returninterval. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioningwithin a range of natural variability.Both Action Alternatives include objectives that would result in an overall trend towardCondition Class 1. Areas currently in Condition Class 3 would treated to result in ConditionClass 2 and Condition Class 2 areas would be treated to result in Condition Class 1.Rationale for elimination: This strategy was eliminated on a similar basis as the exclusive use ofprescribed fire. Analysis shows that the ecosystem is too far from natural (or desired) conditionsand treatment of all PAGs (over approximately 15,000 acres) would likely involve effects tohuman 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 thisamount of acreage, some of which would not meet the criteria for planning or funding under theHFRA. Treating all PAGs as an overall strategy was eliminated by the Responsible Official forthese reasons. The highest priority areas (PAGs) are being proposed for treatment under theProposed Action and Community Alternative.2. Deletions or Limitations Relative to Proposed Action orCommunity AlternativeTreatments Within Ashland Municipal Watershed OnlyConsideration was given to treatments exclusively within the Ashland Municipal Watershed.This has been the focus of previous watershed projects. The Upper Bear Analysis Area includesthree sub-watersheds, Neil Creek, Hamilton Creek, and Upper Wagner Creek, in addition to theAshland Creek Municipal Watershed.Rationale for elimination: While it is clear that the priority area for hazardous fuel treatments isthe wildland urban interface and municipal watershed associated with Ashland Creek, there isalso the threat to the Watershed from wildland fire originating within the other sub-watersheds.Not to propose treatment in the entire interface area and in areas that are also in highly un-naturalfire regimes and condition classes that could adversely affect the Municipal Watershed would beirresponsible for a landscape proposal and would not be in accordance with the HFRA. For thesereasons, the Responsible Official eliminated this from detailed consideration.No Treatments in RNAConsideration was given to exclusion of treatments within the Ashland Creek Research NaturalArea (RNA). Established in 1970, the Ashland Research Natural Area lies within the UpperBear Analysis Area and within the Ashland Municipal Watershed. A description of this area isincluded in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. Research Natural Areas on National ForestSystem Lands are administered by the Forest Service and are located within Ranger Districtswith normal management and protective activities the responsibility of District Rangers andForest Supervisors. However, scientific and educational uses made of these tracts are aresponsibility of the Director of the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Stations.Draft EIS II - 7 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Rationale for elimination: The current conditions of the Ashland RNA do not currently trendtoward the conditions for which this specific RNA was established and is it considered at risk inreference to the ability to maintain natural vegetative conditions (biological diversity) within theUpper Bear Analysis Area. Loss of pine species is one element of biological diversity ofparticular concern. The RNA was established as a representative area for ponderosa pine andDouglas-fir plant communities and is a focus of both the Proposed Action and CommunityAlternative. The overall recommended strategy for this area is to utilize silvicultural principalsto selectively remove competition to existing large pine and Douglas-fir and/or create conditionsthat would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Prescribed underburning is also acomplimentary proposed treatment method that would encourage more natural species diversity.In consultation with the Forest and Range Experiment Station, proposed treatments within theRNA are supported and encouraged (see DEIS Appendix A). Not to propose treatment in theentire RNA and in adjacent areas that are also in highly un-natural fire regimes and conditionclasses 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 andRange Experiment Station. For these reasons, the Responsible Official eliminated this fromdetailed consideration.No Treatments in Inventoried Roadless AreaConsideration was given to exclusion of treatments within the McDonald Peak InventoriedRoadless Area (IRA). The McDonald Peak IRA is located entirely on lands administered by theRR-SNF. The McDonald Peak IRA is not adjacent to, contiguous to or near any designatedWilderness area. It is not adjacent to or contiguous to any other area previously or currentlyinventoried as roadless. Approximately 7,380 acres of the 9,425 acre IRA is contained withinthe Upper Bear Analysis Area. The IRA includes PAGs that are not in natural (desired) fireregimes or condition classes and actually overlaps a portion of the wildland urban interface(2003 Upper Bear Assessment).Rationale for elimination: The location and current conditions of the IRA suggest that portions,especially the lower elevation portions are in need of hazardous fuel reduction treatments toprotect the Values At Risk. The highest priority areas are being proposed for treatment under theProposed Action and Community Alternative. Not to propose treatment in the entire IRA that isin highly un-natural fire regimes and condition classes that could adversely affect the municipalwatershed would be irresponsible for a landscape proposal and would not be in accordance withthe HFRA. For these reasons, the Responsible Official eliminated this consideration fromdetailed consideration.Overall Limitations on Tree Diameters or Tree AgeConsideration was given to overall limitations on diameters or age of standing trees treated aspart of density management or other hazardous fuel reduction prescriptions. This idea wasreceived during scoping and is viewed by many people as “control” of Federal operations basedon a lack of trust.Rationale for elimination: Assessment of current conditions and proposed treatments to reducehazardous fuels suggests that many age classes and all diameters of trees are part of neededtreatments. To place limits on age or diameters would hamper attainment of the Purpose andNeed and may in some cases, limit attainment of resiliency goals. Overall limitations would alsoadversely affect the potential health of forests in terms of density, disease mitigation andpromotion of older forests and stands.Draft EIS II - 8 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Both Action Alternatives utilize, where ecologically appropriate, treatments that meet thefollowing goals: reducing primarily small-diameter fuels, and reducing the density of understoryseedlings, saplings and poles to reduce ladder fuels. Neither Action Alternative includes overalllimitations on diameters of trees involved with proposed treatments. For these reasons theResponsible Official is not considering in detail the application of overall limits on tree age ordiameters.The focus of treatments is on maintaining the largest and healthiest trees, however there aresituations where larger diameter trees may need to be cut and in some cases, removed. Forexample, larger diameter trees would be removed where they are suppressed under moredesirable dominant and vigorous overstory trees, and dead or dying (within 1–2 years) trees thatcreate a hazard for human safety, would need to be felled (e.g., helicopter landings or helicopterflight paths).Both Action Alternatives include some prescriptive designation of trees by diameter based onspecific objectives in specific areas, for example, under the Proposed Action, to accomplish latesuccessionalhabitat objectives, the focus is on strategic treatment of mid-seral closed standswhere the average stand diameter is 5 - 17 inches. Within these stands, trees less than 17 inchesin diameter at breast height (DBH) would be removed to provide for horizontal discontinuity infuels.3. Alternative Implementation MethodologyThis sub-section includes considerations for alternative component actions primarily associatedwith implementation methodology.Commercial Timber Sales ExclusivelyRestoring biological, and physical processes and functions to ensure the long-term ecologicalsustainability of the public lands in the Analysis Area for this project is more important to theForest Service and this community than the output of forest products. As a result, anycommodity production derived from the implementation of this proposal is expected to occuronly as a by-product of management. The Proposed Action and Community Alternative arebased on authorities that involve Stewardship contracting.Rationale for elimination: The Forest Service is proposing hazardous fuel reduction treatmentsunder the HFRA. Commercial timber sales is not the goal, nor it is the sole expectedmethodology to finance hazardous fuel reduction treatments. While commercial products maybe generated by fuel reduction treatments, sole use of or reliance on commercial timber sales waseliminated by the Responsible Official.More Efficient Yarding SystemsThe Proposed Action and Community Alternative are primarily based on helicopter systems tomove or remove tree material, sometimes as a commercial product. Increased utilization of otherground-based systems (e.g., tractor or skyline systems) would change and likely improve theeconomics of implementation. This option would have also increased the possibility additionalroads being necessary.Draft EIS II - 9 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Rationale for elimination: This consideration was eliminated from detailed study because itwould 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 sedimentproduction. The Analysis Area is composed of highly erosive soils especially sensitive todisturbance. The overall goal is to accomplish hazardous fuel reduction treatments withacceptable and minimal environmental effects.Helicopter systems are proposed because they include the least detrimental soils effects whileeffectively (and feasibly) accomplishing implementation of the project. Maximizing economicfeasibility is not a goal of this project. These reasons are the basis for the Responsible Officialnot considering in detail any system that improves economic profitability with increased physicalresource impacts.Additional Landings and/or RoadsThe Proposed Action and Community Alternative are primarily based on helicopter systems tomove or remove tree material as needed. The Action Alternatives are based on a field-validatedscenario of existing landings, roads and new additional landings and roads that are designed tominimize environmental effects. In helicopter operations, costs are proportional to the distanceof flight to landings (i.e., shorter flight times and more landings make the operation moreoperationally and economically efficient). An option considered would include the constructionand use of additional landings and access roads over that associated with the Action Alternatives.Rationale for elimination: As above, this consideration was eliminated by the ResponsibleOfficial from detailed study because it would have resulted in additional ground disturbancefrom additional landings and additional roads (over the proposed scenario) that may haveincreased the chance for accelerating erosion and sediment production within the Analysis Area.The overall goal is to accomplish hazardous fuel reduction treatments with acceptable andminimal environmental effects. Maximizing economic feasibility is not a goal of this project.See discussion in Section C, 3, d, this Chapter, regarding the selection criteria and use of selectedhelicopter landings.4. Other Non-Connected ActionsConnected actions discussed in this Draft EIS are those that are directly related to hazardousfuels reduction treatments and vegetation management. Under HFRA, there is no authority topropose or analyze actions that are not related to the Purpose and Need for action. These wereconsidered but eliminated by the Responsible Official as non-connected actions.RestorationOpportunities that were considered but eliminated for this reason include watershed restorationprojects, road restoration and improvements, wildlife and fisheries enhancement projects, andrecreational facilities improvements. These identified opportunities would not have been inproximity to hazardous fuel reduction treatments or related to the Purpose and Need.Englemann Spruce ProtectionAnother non-connected action considered but eliminated would involve hazardous fuel reductiontreatments in and around the Englemann spruce grove, located at higher elevations above the2060 Road in the Cool White Fir and Mountain Hemlock PAGs. The Forest Botanistrecommended treatments here to reduce the potential for severe effects to the spruce, should awildland fire pass through.Draft EIS II - 10 Ashland Forest Resiliency

This alternative was dropped from detailed consideration by the Responsible Official because theEnglemann spruce grove is not within or adjacent to any areas (PAG) that have been identified asbeing in need of immediate hazardous fuel reduction treatments, based on fire regime or firecondition class. Also see discussion under sub-section 1, this Chapter.C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAILThis Section of this Chapter identifies and compares in detail three alternatives; the No-ActionAlternative, the Forest Service Proposed Action, and the City of Ashland’s CommunityAlternative 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 asan authorized hazardous fuels project under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.1. The No-Action AlternativeAs required by NEPA and the HFRA, a No-Action Alternative is included and analyzed in thisDraft 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 implementationof currently proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatments. This alternative represents thecurrent level of management within the Analysis Area with no additional hazardous fuelreduction activities.The No-Action Alternative under this EIS would have some very specific consequences ifselected, because of the current vegetation conditions, and the potential effects to human valuesat risk. No-Action would also not be in concert with the existing Cooperative Agreement andMemorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the City of Ashland.a. Function of the No-Action AlternativeThe No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline against which to compare other alternatives.The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter (III) identifies anddescribes in detail the baseline conditions of the physical, biological, and social environmentswithin the Upper Bear Analysis Area.Under HFRA, the No-Action Alternative also has a special function. Persons may bring acivil action challenging an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project in a Federal DistrictCourt only if they raised the issue during the administrative review process and they haveexhausted the administrative review process (36 CFR 218) established by the Secretary ofAgriculture. Section 106 of the HFRA establishes direction governing judicial review oflawsuits challenging hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the Act.This section requires lawsuits to be filed in the U.S. District Court where the project islocated (Section 106(a)), encourages expeditious judicial review of authorized hazardous fuelreduction projects (Section 106(b)), and limits preliminary injunctions and stays to 60 days,subject to renewal. At each renewal, parties to the action shall provide the court withupdated information on the project (Sections 106(c)(1) and (2)).Draft EIS II - 11 Ashland Forest Resiliency

HFRA also directs courts to balance the impact of the short- and long-term effects ofundertaking or not undertaking the project when weighing the equities of any request for aninjunction of an authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction project (Section106(c)(3)).The agencies’ analyses and documentation of the short- and long-term effects of action ortaking no action will be important to the court’s evaluation of any request for injunctiverelief. It is important that the NEPA analysis documents the anticipated short- and long-termeffects of proposed HFRA treatments. The analysis and documentation for the short- andlong-term effects of action or taking no action under HFRA are intended to be integratedwith the analysis and documentation done under current NEPA guidance and other relevantguidance.b. Description of the No-Action AlternativeFire PreventionWildland fire prevention activities would continue to occur under the No-Action Alternative.Wildland fire prevention is the informing, educating, and regulating of human behavior oractivities that influence the various types of potential ignition sources within flammablevegetation. Analysis of human-caused fire indicates that these fires are most likely to occurnear 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 suppressionresponse and have generally been suppressed at less than 0.1 acres per incident. Efforts toeducate the public on safe fire use would continue through personal contacts, interpretiveprograms, interagency fire prevention cooperatives, the use of posters and signs, radio andpress releases.Cooperative fire prevention with the City of Ashland, Oregon Department of Forestry, andJackson County fire agencies would continue to maintain a proactive effort in preventinghuman-caused fires. Such cooperative fire prevention efforts as the volunteer mobile fireprevention patrol, the volunteer mountain bike patrol and Forest Service patrol wouldcontinue and be coordinated. Continuation of public neighborhood fire prevention meetings,discussions of defensible space, fire apparatus access, education about home constructionmaterials (flammability) design, etc., would continue to take place periodically.Under No-Action, certain high-risk areas would continue to be closed to public use duringhigh to extreme periods of fire danger. These closures (Public Use Restrictions) arerecommended by the District Fire Management Officer in consultation with the DistrictRanger and RR-SNF Fire Staff, and approved by the Forest Supervisor. Any closures wouldcontinue to be coordinated with neighboring agencies (State, local, and other FederalAgencies) to be sure the prevention message is consistent throughout the fire managementunit.Pre-suppression ActionsUnder No-Action, no management activities for the purpose of fire hazard reduction wouldoccur. Agreements with the City of Ashland (as outlined in the Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the Ashland Ranger District and the City of Ashland) to conductfuels management for the protection of the Municipal Watershed may need to be renegotiated.Draft EIS II - 12 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Previous management actions have occurred within the Analysis Area to aid in firesuppression activities. The primary activities were the construction of shaded fuel breaks andprescribed underburning to reduce fuel loadings. Although no hazardous fuel reductionactivities would occur under this alternative (other than that identified in the Record ofDecision for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (AWPP), actions would continue tooccur to prevent and suppress wildland fire ignitionsThe management of fuels along strategic ridgelines has been the strategy in the AshlandWatershed for the past 20 to 25 years. Over this time, approximately 9.5 miles of shadedfuelbreaks have been constructed. The shaded fuelbreak strategy employed in the AshlandWatershed focused on treating ridgelines more intensively and utilizing those ridglines toimplement prescribed underburning to improve the effectiveness of the shaded fuelbreaks forsuppression tactics. Prescribed underburning, anchored to existing roads and fuelbreaks hasbeen implemented on many acres in the Ashland Watershed since 1983. These treatments onthe landscape were designed to reduce the fuel loadings in strategic areas, breaking up largerareas of heavier fuel loading into smaller, more manageable “compartments”.The efficacy of the previously created shaded fuelbreaks has been largely lost because ofinadequate or no maintenance. Without maintenance, woody vegetation will encroach, fuelloads 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 presentbefore they were treated. Follow-up treatments to some of these areas would occur underAWPP.The actions authorized under AWPP are scheduled to implement approximately 1,500 acresof mechanical tree removal, manual fuel reduction treatments, and/or prescribedunderburning. No additional shaded fuelbreak construction or maintenance of existingfuelbreaks is planned to occur. The actions to be implemented under AWPP are deemed tobe pre-suppression actions designed to aid in suppression, with some benefit to reducingeffects.Fire SuppressionWithin the Upper Bear Analysis Area, the appropriate response for a wildland fire onNational Forest System Lands would continue to be suppression (RRNF Fire ManagementPlan, Section 2). The Forest Service policy for fire suppression is to conduct fire suppressionin a timely, effective, and efficient manner with a high regard for public and firefightersafety. It is the objective of the Forest Service to respond to each wildland fire ignition in atimely manner with appropriate forces, based upon established fire management direction asdocumented in the RRNF Land and Resource Management Plan and Fire ManagementPlans.It is important that, in addition to Federal fire fighting resources, State and local resources forinitial attack are trained, equipped and prepared to address fires in the wildland urbaninterface. Appropriated Federal funds for preparedness apply only to lands for which theForest Service has direct fire protection responsibilities. Because of this, most of the UpperBear Analysis Area would continue to be covered by multi-agency mutual aid initial attackagreements. These mutual aid agreements would be reviewed and updated periodically bythe various cooperative agencies. Updates and review would entail looking at the mostefficient manner to help prevent or reduce effects to the Values At Risk.Draft EIS II - 13 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In Southwestern Oregon, annual coordination meetings occur in the spring. Agencies discussthe qualifications of personnel, anticipated availability or resources, funding opportunities,interagency support for fire and fuels management programs, as well as a critique of theprevious operating season (Section 4 of the RR-SNF Fire Management Plan).Suppression by itself would not ensure that a large wildland fire would not occur within theAnalysis Area. Due to the constant change in annual Federal funding levels, it is difficult topredict the number and type of suppression forces that would be available for any givenseason. Based on past experience, these forces are often spread thin by other local andregional incidents that require additional crews and equipment. In recent seasons,suppression actions have proven to be successful, and this can be attributed as well to otherfactors such as favorable weather conditions at the time of ignition, or early detection.In the last few years and typically, the fire season will generally last from June 1 throughOctober 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 orshorten the season. An early start to the fire season usually means fuels are drier for a longerperiod of time, which relates to the potential for a more severe wildland fire later in theseason.Under the No-Action Alternative, the risk of a large-scale high-severity wildland fire wouldnot change and would likely increase due to the growth and increase in vegetation that wouldoccur, adding to the existing fire hazard.The main factors involved when assessing the risk of a large-scale high-severity wildland fireinclude the likelihood of ignition, the current fire hazard conditions as well as the agency’sfire suppression capabilities of the time. The probability of a fire burning over a landscape isbased on factors such as the chance of ignition, potential rate of spread, historical andpredicted weather conditions, topography, and length of the fire season (Miller 2003).Consequences regarding these factors are analyzed and based on fire computer modeling, andare discussed for the No-Action Alternative, as well as the Action Alternatives, in Draft EISChapter III.Since no activity is proposed under this alternative, no additional mitigation measures ormanagement requirements and constraints would be necessary, and therefore not displayed.Draft EIS II - 14 Ashland Forest Resiliency

2. Goals, Objectives, and Assumptions Common to the ProposedAction and Community AlternativeAs previously noted, in conjunction with the development of the Forest Service Proposed Actionand the City of Ashland’s Community Alternative, a collaborative process was enacted. Thiscollaborative process evolved with meetings in November and December 2004, and on into May2005 with representatives of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative TechnicalTeam and the Forest Service NEPA planning team.One objective of this collaboration process was to identify commonalities as well as differencesin order to define and analyze the two Action Alternatives. During the course of this process,many goals, objectives and overall assumptions were identified as being common to both ActionAlternatives. This Section serves to identify these commonalities so they are not unnecessarilyduplicated as further detail is presented for the Action Alternatives in this Chapter.The Forest Service Proposed Action and the Community Alternative both proposetreatment of National Forest System lands within the Upper Bear Analysis Area to developa resilient ecosystem (see definition of resiliency in Chapter I).The stated Purpose is “to protect Values At Risk, reduce hazardous fuels, reduce crown firepotential and obtain conditions that are more resilient to wildland fires”. The stated Need is “forurgent reduction of the potential for large-scale, high-severity wildland fire in the Upper BearAnalysis Area”. Both Action Alternatives are responsive to this Purpose and Need.Both Action Alternatives are based on the Purpose and Need and propose management in theform of hazardous fuel reduction treatments, implemented at an appropriate scale overapproximately the next 10 years to reduce the potential for large-scale, high-severity wildlandfire events while maintaining other resource values. These values include water supply andquality and late-successional species habitat in forests that are influenced by fire over the longterm.Both Action Alternatives propose to make substantial progress toward attainment of Purposeand Need by making reasoned, prudent and professionally credible alterations to andmanipulations of existing vegetation and fuels in order to promote restoration of long-termecosystem function while simultaneously reducing short-term, immediate threats to importantValues At Risk.Both Action Alternatives utilize the following strategies, where ecologically appropriate, tomeet 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 standconditions;‣ Proposing treatment prescriptions based on Plant Association Groups, plant associations,and site-specific conditions, such as aspect, slope, soils, geologic hazard, active nest sitesfor northern spotted owl, etc.; and‣ Using prescribed fire where appropriate and feasible to reduce existing fuels.Draft EIS II - 15 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Both Action Alternatives would achieve goals beyond fire resiliency by creating a morenatural landscape. Both Action Alternatives seek to:‣ Restore integrity and resilience of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems by promotingfunctional ecosystem processes that contribute to forest stand densities, structures, andspecies compositions that are sustainable over the long-term. This approach recognizesthat a range of seral conditions is appropriate at any one time in the Analysis Area andthat the potential for development and long-term expression of late seral conditions variesacross the landscape.‣ Design treatment strategies for the Analysis Area supporting ecological processes thatfoster the structural, compositional, and functional diversity at all spatial scales inherentin this portion of the eastern Siskiyou Mountains.‣ Retain late seral condition forests where the site potential is high for sustaining them overthe long term. In early and mid seral stands, actively manage where necessary to restoreecological processes that would lead to the development of late seral conditions in ashifting pattern across the landscape, consistent with an active natural fire regime.‣ Manage to maintain and restore habitat connectivity for late-successional species in thosesites that best support this kind of habitat.‣ Restore stands of open canopied pine and Douglas-fir with abundant legacy trees wherethe site potential is high for sustaining such systems over the long term.‣ Manage the Analysis Area to protect the municipal watershed including protection andrestoration of aquatic and riparian conditions, to support and allow for continuedproduction of high quality drinking water for the City of Ashland.‣ Reduce the potential for large-scale high-severity disturbance events, particularlywildland fire events.Ashland Forest Resiliency is intended to meet the restoration goals and objectives listedabove. Stand treatments and other vegetation manipulations would be implemented only whereneeded to facilitate restoration of ecosystem processes, or to reduce immediate threats to ValuesAt Risk.Restoring biological, physical and chemical processes and functions to ensure the long-termecological sustainability of the public lands in the Analysis Area is more important to the ForestService and the Ashland Community than the output of forest products. As a result, anycommodity production derived from the implementation of this proposal would occur onlyas a by-product of management and only when such activities do not impair efforts torestore the ecological integrity of the Analysis Area.While this project primarily focuses on initiation of planned disturbances and structuralmanipulation of existing hazardous fuels and vegetation, the long-term goal is to use these effortsto facilitate the return of a more dynamic range of natural functional processes, particularly fire.Where possible and appropriate, prescribed fire should be introduced immediately to help returnfire as a functional process in the Analysis Area.Draft EIS II - 16 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In the long-term, however, it is anticipated and hoped, that the actions proposed herein willfacilitate a return to conditions where natural disturbance processes, including prescribedfire and Wildland Fire Use, can play a more natural role as a basic functional processwithin the ecosystem.a. Confidence of Planning Level DataAs noted in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment and in this Draft EIS, development and designof proposals (vegetation analysis) is based on satellite imagery and organized by PAGs.Satellite imagery is utilized instead of extensive ground-based inventories. Given theurgency and need for hazardous fuel reduction treatments, the best and most readily availabledata was utilized. Data accuracy for planning purposes and analysis under NEPA is deemedto 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 been several corrections, updates, and supplements to the informationprovided in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. These updates are documented in Appendix Dto this Draft EIS, to provide a most accurate assessment of the current condition (AffectedEnvironment) as possible, in support of analysis under Ashland Forest Resiliency. An updateto the PAG analysis was conducted by a collaborative team and is also documented inAppendix D.Satellite Imagery AccuracyThe use of satellite imagery allows large areas to be assessed on a consistent basis and isconsidered the “best available” data that maps and provides consistent vegetationcharacteristics throughout the Analysis Area regardless of ownership. Other vegetation mapseither stopped at the National Forest boundary or consisted of interpreted data (assumptionsof conditions made from aerial photos).Satellite imagery utilized for Ashland Forest Resiliency was developed by GeographicResource Solutions in 1994 in conjunction with the Applegate Adaptive Management Area,designated under the Northwest Forest Plan. The area covered by this imagery includes thearea within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. An accuracy assessment for this imagery wasperformed in the Applegate Watershed (immediately west of the Analysis Area) anddetermined the imagery to be 86+% accurate (Hill 1996).When used at the watershed and sub-watershed scales, local Forest Service experience hasshown the reliability of the imagery to be relatively high (Boucher pers. obs. 2005).Accuracy for satellite imagery utilized for both Action Alternatives for Ashland ForestResiliency 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 notexactly 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 andplanning. The overriding assumption for the Proposed Action and Community Alternative isthat actions would be performed only after field verification of specific treatment criteria (seesub-section b, below).Draft EIS II - 17 Ashland Forest Resiliency

PAG Map AccuracyPlant Association Group (PAG) mapping is based on statistical analysis of ecoplot data andadjusted based on field review. In development of the latest and revised map, the PAG mapwas compared against ecoplots, stand exams, and PAG plots. Sampling of plots found to becorrectly identified by the PAG model map identified an 87% accuracy rate.Fuel Model AccuracyFuel models characterize major physical properties of vegetation and how they react to fire,including expected flame length and rate of spread. These fuel models are described in: Aidsto Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, National WildfireCoordinating Group, 1982. Fuel model mapping was updated from the map contained in2003 Upper Bear Assessment based on additional information gathered in the field by fuelsspecialists. Various vegetation characteristics (using vegetation mapping derived fromLandsatTM satellite imagery) were correlated to the 13 standard fuel models described by theNational Wildfire Coordinating Group. The accuracy of this mapping, based on field reviewand validation, suggests that Fuel Model map accuracy is 95+%.Other InventoriesData associated with certain other resource areas has been inventoried and ground validatedin conjunction with the need or ability to accomplish inventory. Many resource planninginventories are primarily related to consequences analysis, and as such, are further discussedin Draft EIS Chapter III. Detailed resource inventories have been conducted within theUpper Bear Analysis Area, and especially the Ashland Watershed for many years. Due tonumerous previous management activities and the importance of the Values At Risk, theAnalysis Area has a very high level of inventory and resource knowledge; much higher thanmost landscapes located on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.Examples of resource data inventories that are related to design and development ofalternative proposals that has been field validated to a high level of accuracy include rare andSensitive plants and plant communities including non-native species (approximately 95%accuracy), and nest sites for northern spotted owls (approximately 90% accuracy). Aquaticinventories are 95+% accurate. Insect and disease surveys are at 09+5 accuracy.Site-specific soils and geologic stability mapping for planning inventory purposes isapproximately 90+% accuracy. Heritage surveys are 90% at the time of the Draft EIS.Critical to a number of physical and biological resources are the site-specific inventory oflocations and conditions of existing and potential helicopter landing sites (field inventoried toapproximately 85% accuracy). Additional planning inventories for conditions that areimportant to design elements and analysis for the Final EIS will be conducted in 2005.b. Assumptions About ImplementationA key assumption common to both Action Alternatives is the basis of implementation. BothAction Alternatives utilize a concept that treatments would be located and conducted asspecified in design elements and/or specific mitigation measures. These criteria are specificto each Action Alternative and are discussed in the following sub-sections of this Chapter.Draft EIS II - 18 Ashland Forest Resiliency

As seen in both Action Alternatives, certain amounts of treatments are proposed associatedwith certain design criteria or limitations. The on-the-ground conditions that trigger thesecriteria are to be identified and validated at the time of or concurrent with implementation.Concurrent monitoring would ensure that the effects of any decision are equal to or lesserthan those documented in NEPA planning analysis and decision.Under NEPA, there is a need to accurately estimate the extent of treatments, their locations,and the degree of environmental effect. At a landscape scale, this NEPA process predictsthis extent in order to predict consequences. These predictions are used to set limits or“thresholds” on this extent. With extensive active and concurrent monitoring, thesethresholds would allow the implementation of the decision under NEPA and ensure that thedecision would not exceed the established thresholds and therefore the predicted effects.c. AWPP AssumptionsThe Community Alternative Technical Team analysis and design presumed that the AshlandWatershed Protection Project (AWPP) would be completed in its entirety (Record ofDecision May 2001). Completion of the planned AWPP was identified as a “top priority”,integral to the fuel discontinuity network of the Community Alternative.At the time of this Draft EIS, approximately 45% of the manual treatments under AWPPhave been accomplished. None of the mechanical treatments have been accomplished.Federal funding and the economic feasibility of treatments under the AWPP decision remainuncertain. Depending on the final decision for Ashland Forest Resiliency, the decisionsunder AWPP may or may not be compatible (for example, maintenance of shaded fuelbreaksunder AWPP calls for removal of large snags; creation of Defensible Fuel Profile Zonesunder the Proposed Action does not).Under collaborative discussions, the Forest Service and City have agreed that the ForestService should plan the entire landscape based on its current condition at the time ofimplementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency, and not defer treatments until after AWPPtreatments are completed. It is possible that implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliencycould combine with portions of uncompleted AWPP treatment areas, where logical andfeasible.d. Prioritizing and Scheduling TreatmentCommon to both Action Alternatives, the overall recommended strategy for action is todevelop and implement AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, an integrated package of connected actionsdesigned to obtain (to a high degree), the stated Purpose and Need, while meeting Forest PlanStandards and Guidelines. Both Action Alternatives involve a landscape-based strategy forapproximately the next 10 years.The following Sections of this Chapter are designed to categorize and organize proposedactions designed to obtain the stated objectives. Each Action Alternative identifies potentialtreatments and delineates priorities. They suggest an approximate temporal schedulingscenario, including follow-up and maintenance treatments.Draft EIS II - 19 Ashland Forest Resiliency

When priorities are identified, they identify what type of treatment should occur first (andwhere), compared to other priorities. This does not imply that priorities cannot beimplemented concurrently or that the initial priorities must be completed prior toenactment of the next priority; priorities only suggest a logical order and sequencing oftreatments. The range of scheduling is dependent on funding and available workforce,however, should funding be available, the authorized actions (treatments) could beaccomplished in less than 10 years.The need for additional treatments for beyond 10 years should follow the same logic andcriteria. For example, the wildland urban interface and Municipal Watershed will likelyalways be the highest priority for treatment. Not including the need for continuedmaintenance of treated areas, the next highest priority for treatment would be areas within thewildland urban interface that have not already been treated.The overall objective for the majority of the area is ecosystem resiliency, as defined bydesired conditions and processes associated with PAGs. Similar logic should be applied toother areas where treatments are recommended, i.e., after priority areas have been treatedwithin the first 10 years, continue treatments in untreated areas during the next 10-yearperiod. Proposed treatments described herein do not imply actions or decisions for the nextphase. The need for additional treatments in the next phase would be re-assessed underNEPA and a new analysis and decision-making process.The overall strategy of both Action Alternatives is to return conditions to a morenatural state; therefore the closer the current condition is (whenever that may be) to amore natural state, the less need there is for active/intensive management. It has takennearly 100 years for conditions to develop into the non-natural conditions seen today; itwould likely take several decades of intensive management to return to more natural anddesired conditions.3. Specific Actions and Elements Common to the Proposed Actionand Community AlternativeAs noted above, the Forest Service Proposed Action and the City of Ashland’s CommunityAlternative was finalized under a collaborative process with representatives of the AshlandForest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical Team and the Forest Service NEPAplanning team. During the course of this process, many elements of proposed hazardous fuelreduction treatment action were identified as being common to both Action Alternatives. ThisSection serves to identify common actions, treatments and treatment methodologies associatedwith the Proposed Action and Community Alternative.a. Methodology for Application of TreatmentsThis planning process under NEPA has focused on the objectives and extent of treatments(the outcome or what is left on the landscape), rather than focusing on implementation (or theoutput of what is taken from the landscape). Additionally, throughout this process, the focushas been on ecological, rather than economic design criteria.Draft EIS II - 20 Ashland Forest Resiliency

There are a number of options to accomplish implementation of proposed fuel reductiontreatments. Implementation of the different aspects of the project proposals could beaccomplished through various acquisition methods, or combination of methods, such ascontracts, formal agreements, volunteers, community-service crews and Forest Service workcrews. The type of contract, agreement, or work crews selected for use would be part of anoverall project implementation strategy and plan, based on methods that best meet eachproject goal or objective, combined with Federal acquisition regulations and financingavailable for implementation.Under the Proposed Action, in various treatment proposals and prescriptions, there is apotential to generate material with commercial product value. While not ignoring that aspectof the proposal, it has not been the focus, i.e., neither the Forest Service or the City ofAshland is specifically proposing a commercial timber sale, and are not proposing the sale ofcommercial products to finance the hazardous fuel reduction treatments. Under the HFRA,financing and other opportunities would be developed subsequent to a decision under NEPAto go forward with treatments.Subordinate to this methodology, there has been no specific effort to estimate the quantity ofcommercial product; this is simply not the emphasis for treatments. Although roughestimates of potential total amounts of biomass (measured in cubic feet) that would begenerated are presented in Chapter III (consequences), there is no estimate of product incommercial sawlog quantities (i.e., board feet). Appropriate methods for any commercialproduct evaluations would be accomplished during implementation, ensuring fair value andreturn to the US Treasury from public lands.At this time, a likely scenario for implementation of this multi-year proposal for hazardousfuel reduction treatments is the use of Stewardship authorities for contracting. This issummarized in the following sub-section.Stewardship Contracting“Stewardship Contract” is a term applied to a service contract that “bundles” or combinesnumerous actions into contracts to capitalize on economies of scale, more efficientscheduling 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 obtainedby approval of the Regional Forester, per Section 323 of Public Law 108-7 (2450/6320; April28, 2004).The general purpose of stewardship end results contracting is to achieve land managementgoals 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 foraccomplishing the land management objectives described by the land and resourcemanagement plan (FSM 1920 and FSH 1909.12).Stewardship contracting provides for multi-year contracts up to 10 years duration. The useof multi-year contracts is encouraged to provide incentives to potential contractors to investin long-term landscape improvement projects. In accordance with 16 U.S.C. 2104 note(d)(3), the value of services received, payments made, or resources provided under astewardship contract shall not be considered to be monies received from the National ForestSystem for the purpose of calculating payments to States (FSH 6509.11g, sec. 61.1).Therefore, stewardship contracts do not require a minimum deposit to National Forest Fund(NFF) as prescribed in FSM 2431.31 and FSH 2409, Section 45.42.Draft EIS II - 21 Ashland Forest Resiliency

When the value of the products generated by a stewardship contracting project exceeds thecost of the services rendered, excess offset value results and residual receipts (sec. 60.5) aregenerated. Residual receipts may be transferred to another stewardship contracting project(when approved in advance by the Regional Forester) or directed to trust funds. Residualreceipts should be used on the same stewardship project or other approved stewardshipprojects. Title 16 U.S.C. 2104 note (c)(4) (sec. 60.1, para. 4) allows for the use ofdesignation of trees by description and designation of trees by prescription without marking.These methods must be used in a manner that ensures that the amount of material removed isverifiable and accountable.1. Designation by Description. Designation by description may be used for both commercialand non-commercial material, independent of the means of estimating the quantity of material tobe removed. Designation by description should be used only when it is the most efficient methodof designation. The description must be based on characteristics that can be verified after thematerial is removed; an example would be a certain species of tree with a given stump diameter.2. Designation by Prescription. Designation by prescription may be used for non-commercialmaterial, independent of the means of estimating the amount of material to be removed, and forcommercial material when the amount of material to be removed is determined by scaling inaccordance with FSH 2409.11.Forest Service Designation, Authority and ResponsibilityThis sub-section discusses Federal Forest Service responsibility for designation of trees to beremoved. Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. Section 472a (g),states “Designation, marking when necessary, and supervision of harvesting of trees, portionsof trees, or forest products shall be conducted by persons employed by the Secretary ofAgriculture. Such persons shall have no personal interest in the purchase or harvest of suchproducts and shall not be directly or indirectly in the employment of the purchaser thereof.”In a ruling by Judge Michael Hogan on August 3, 2004, (Biscuit Salvage) Siskiyou RegionalEducation Project, et al. v. Linda Goodman, et al., it was found that designation bydescription of trees reserved from cutting adjacent to active stream channels on six salvagesales on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest was adequate but that designation bydescription of trees reserved from cutting for standing dead trees was not adequate.NFMA does not prohibit designation by description but, as Hogan’s ruling points out,designation by description must be clear enough that there is no question about which treesare intended to be removed or reserved from removal. There also may not be any influencein the trees designated by anyone other than an employee of the Department of Agriculturewith no personal interest in the purchase or removal of designated forest products.Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY 1999 - As amended by Sec. 323 ofP.L. 108-7, 2003“Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects” (c) (4) Relation To Other Laws. “The ForestService may enter into agreements or contracts under sub-section (a), notwithstanding subsections(d) and (g) of Section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C.472a).”Draft EIS II - 22 Ashland Forest Resiliency

. Treatment ElementsTo accomplish the objectives for each Action Alternative, a variety of treatment options areidentified. The various proposed treatments that would be used to implement eachalternative that are common to both Action Alternatives are described in more detail below.They are organized for this discussion into three categories: density management, surfacefuel treatments, and prescribed fire. These terms are utilized in subsequent discussions onapplications of treatments.Density ManagementDensity management involves the selective cutting (and sometimes disposal or removal) ofsome trees within a stand to allow for growth in the crowns and root systems of theremaining trees. Stands receiving this treatment are generally over-dense, with high crowndensity and ladder fuels. Usually all large, dominant or pre-dominant trees are left. Methodsare designed to treat stands in a way that mimics past or other desired conditions thatimprove forest health and reduce fire hazards. Methods to dispose of slash created during theactivity may include chipping, handpiling and burning, jackpot burning, and/or underburning.Variable density management refers to a range of non-uniform stand treatments that modifyvegetation (i.e., reduce the density of existing trees) to achieve the objectives describedabove for each element. A common methodology toachieve this treatment is also referred to as “thin frombelow”. Under both Action Alternatives some level oftreatment would occur, depending on location andspecific objective. Density would be varied in someareas for high levels of insect risk, unstable areas,northern spotted owl core areas, and RiparianReserves, and legacy trees, depending on thealternative. All diameter and age classes are availablefor treatment based on a description of desiredconditions.“Thin From Below” – Is a type ofsilvicultural treatment that reduces standdensity. To achieve the desired density,cutting or removal would begin with thesmallest diameter trees and move up insize class until the desired objective ismet. Thinning removes the smallerdiameter trees that serve as ladder fuelsand reduces stress to the largerdiameter residual trees.Under both Action Alternatives, stands would be thinned from below to a specified relativestand density index. Treatments would be designed to produce an average flame length of 4-6 feet or less under 90 th percentile weather conditions.“90 th percentile” Weather Conditions are defined asthe combination of temperature, humidity, wind, and fuelmoisture that is warmer, drier, and windier than 90% ofall summer days. Under 90 th percentile weatherconditions, 10% of the summer days are assumed to behotter, drier, and windier. For example: the fire season isdescribed as the 153-day period between May 1 andSeptember 30 th . Ten percent (or 15 days) would behotter, drier, and windier than the conditions described as90 th percentile.“90 th Percentile WeatherConditions”1 hour Fuel Moisture 5.2%10 hour Fuel Moisture 6.0%100 hour Fuel Moisture 9.3%1,000 hour Fuel Moisture 10.6%Herbaceous Fuel Moisture 57.7%Woody Fuel Moisture 80.0%20 foot Wind Speed 5.9 mphTemperature 92 degreesDraft EIS II - 23 Ashland Forest Resiliency

For Ashland Forest Resiliency, weather and fuel moisture data was taken from the BuckhornSprings Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) 2 that is typical for the lower elevationswithin the Upper Bear Analysis Area.Relative Stand Density Index is used to express the relationship of the actual density oftrees in any stand relative to the theoretical maximum density possible for trees of that size(Reineke 1933). Values can be determined based on the number of trees per acre and thediameter of the average tree. This value is compared to the maximum density by primaryspecies to achieve a relative value. A value of 1.0 would be equivalent to the theoreticalmaximum density. Management actions, such as thinning, can be implemented to createstand densities that optimize various resource objectives. For example, relative density canbe used to establish a stand density that fully occupies a site while preventing initiation ofunderstory vegetation and ladder fuels. Specific treatment prescription guidelines aredescribed for each Action Alternative; DEIS Appendix B and C further describe and discussrelative stand density objectives.Common to both Action Alternatives and associated with density management and relativestand density index is a design element that staggers or “stages” density managementtreatments. This element is designed to allow time for root development (wind firmness) inresidual trees, and to minimize “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 underdensity management to obtain desired relative densities.Where existing stand density conditions are in excess of 0.6, and treatments are designed toreduce density to 0.6 (or less), in many cases (especially in Interface Compartments DouglasfirPAGs) this thinning would be done in stages to slowly release stands from the excessivedensities that have existed for many years, and to minimize detrimental effects on soilproductivity. Staged areas are candidates for further treatment in 3-10 years, depending onsite and stand conditions.Variable density management treatments under both Action Alternatives are designed topromote and maximize retention of “legacy” trees throughout the National Forest portion ofthe Analysis Area. The term “legacy” tree refers to existing large, old trees that were presentprior to the beginning of fire exclusion. For this analysis, these trees are defined as pinespecies or Douglas-fir over 150 years old (which may be determined by coring), or trees witha detectable fire scars with a diameter that is at least twice that of the average diameter forthe stand surrounding it.Surface Fuel TreatmentsSurface fuels include removal or rearrangement of dead and down wood on the forest floorand understory vegetation (generally shrubs and small trees 6 to 8 feet tall). Removal ofladder fuels is also included in this category. This component of forest structure would bemanaged in various amounts to minimize or reduce the intensity of surface fires andminimize the potential for a crown fire to be initiated. Coarse woody material and snagswould be maintained within the ranges identified for each individual PAG (see Component 2,pages 2-31 through 2-35 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, and sub-section C, thisChapter).2 Data from Buckhorn Springs: Calculated by Fire Family Plus, version 3.0.4. Data years 1996-2003. Elevation 2,900 feet.Draft EIS II - 24 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Within unstable areas and Riparian Reserves, coarse woody material would be maintained inthe upper end of the desired range to additionally provide for specific resource needs, such assoil stabilization, etc.PruningThe objective of this method is to eliminate ladder fuels by cutting branches from largertrees to specified heights above the ground or surface fuels. This is typically accomplishedwith chain saws or long-handled pole saws.Manual SlashingThis term applies to the cutting of dense brush or saplings to reduce fuel loadings, primarilywith chainsaws or hand labor. It is typically followed by handpiling and burning. Thistreatment would be employed where there is generally an open canopy (less than 40%canopy closure) and would not include heavy mechanical equipment.Lop and ScatterThis is a method of slash reduction where accumulations and concentrations aremechanically broken up (with chainsaws and hand labor) and dispersed from denselocations. This places woody material in proximity to the soil, where decomposition andsoil building processes can begin. No burning is prescribed under this method. Thistreatment is typically used where the slash accumulation is not expected to be heavy andrisk of ignition is low. This method could be applied on unstable areas (Landslide HazardZone 1) where additional ground cover is required.ChippingThere are two opportunities for chipping. A limited amount of chipping using a mechanicalchipper that is towed behind a truck could be accomplished where treatments are adjacent toexisting classified 3 roads (see Component 4 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment) to disposeof small diameter material. Chipped material could be used for erosion control along cutbanks 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 materialthat is hauled to the site. This method may be utilized in areas where the fuels could not betreated on site by burning or piling without causing unacceptable resource damage. Chipswould then be hauled from the site. Another untested potential application is use of aportable chipper that is moved around by helicopters.Hand PilingThis method would be used when the amount of fuels build up is too heavy to underburnwithout resulting in detrimental effects to the residual forest stand and soils. Concentratedareas of existing and post-treatment fuels are hand cut with chainsaws and piled (3 to 6 feetin diameter).3 Classified Roads are roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are determinedto be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, County roads, privately owned roads, NationalForest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service (36 CFR 212.1).Draft EIS II - 25 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Off-Site Removal of FuelsAn additional consideration of surface fuels treatments is the need to remove fuels from thesite, typically when resulting fuel loading is very high (either naturally or created). Thiscondition can occur if burning is not practical (because of unacceptable soil effects orburning window[see below] is too small), or when other methods are likewise impractical.Activity Fuels TreatmentDuring hazardous fuel reduction treatments (understory slashing, pruning, and thinningoperations), activity fuels would be created. Because hazardous fuel reduction treatmentswithout 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 describedabove.Once hazardous fuel reduction treatments and activity fuel treatments are completed, it ishoped that prescribed fire would be utilized extensively in a long-term maintenance program,returning low to moderate severity fire to more of its historical role as an ecosystemdisturbance process.Prescribed FireA prescribed fire is any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. Awritten prescribed fire plan, also referred to as a burn plan, is required to be developed andapproved by the District Ranger prior to ignition. Prescribed fire plans guide theimplementation based on site-specific conditions (including fuel moisture and weatherconditions) at the time of planned ignition, and provide for pre- and post-burn evaluation tomonitor the burn and its effectiveness at meeting resource objectives. These definedconditions when burning could occur, is termed the “burn window”.To meet State air quality requirements, prescribed burning would be implemented duringperiods of atmospheric instability (when weather disturbances are moving into or through thearea) and air is not trapped by inversions on the valley floor. Presently, the majority ofburning is carried out in the spring when fuel moisture and soil moisture levels are highestand air conditions offer more opportunities. This can limit the number of days whenprescribed fire may be used.While fall burns present challenges to fire managers, such as increased temperatures, erraticwinds, lower fuel moisture and increased fire behavior, conducting prescribed burns at thistime may reduce adverse effects to non-target plant and wildlife species. Under both ActionAlternatives, prescribed fire would be utilized any time of the year when desiredresource objectives can be attained. Types of prescribed burning that would be used toachieve the various fuel reduction objectives are described below:Pile BurningSmall piles (3-6 feet in diameter) of vegetation debris (that are a result of hand piling)would be allowed to cure or dry to optimize consumption, and would be burned followingadequate moisture accumulation to prevent escaped fire and achieve resource objectives.Draft EIS II - 26 Ashland Forest Resiliency

UnderburningPrescribed underburning involves the controlled application of fire to understory vegetationand coarse woody material. This would occur when fuel moisture, soil moisture, andweather and atmospheric conditions allow for the fire to be confined to a predeterminedarea and intensity to achieve the planned resource objectives. Where underburning isprescribed as the sole treatment for an area, follow-up maintenance burning would beneeded in 5 to 8 years to remove the vegetation killed from the first prescribed underburn.A period of time between the initial and second underburn is needed to allow for protectivesoil cover (duff, litter, forbs) to rebuild for soil protection, and for the material killed by thefirst burn to fall to the forest floor.Swamper BurningSwamper burning involves hand-cutting material to be burned, starting a small fire, andcontinuously feeding hand cut material into the fire. The fire ring size ranges from about 4to 10 feet in diameter, depending on the steepness of the slope (on steep slopes the fire ringcan increase in size as a result of rolling debris and convection heat).Jackpot BurningJackpot burning is the burning of discontinuous, concentrated areas of slash created fromvegetation treatments (e.g., variable density management). Burning would typically occurfollowing an extended period of dry weather to allow the slash to cure for optimalconsumption.c. Design ElementsDuring the course of the collaborative process, several design elements of proposedhazardous fuel reduction treatment action were identified as being common to both ActionAlternatives. This sub-section serves to identify common design elements associated withthe Proposed Action and Community Alternative. Elements that are not common or areunique or specific to the Proposed Action or Community Alternative are discussed in otherspecific sub-sections of this Section and Chapter.Coarse Woody Material (Snags and Down Wood)Coarse woody material (CWM) fulfills a number of important ecological functions such asstabilizing surface soils, increasing organic content in soils over the long-term, providinghabitat for the many organisms that depend on snags and down logs in various stages ofdecay, and ensuring adequate coarse woody material recruitment to meet the ecologicalneeds of aquatic systems over time.Past management has changed the recruitment and accumulation of snags and down logs.Mortality salvage immediately changed the forest structure by removing snags andsubsequently changed the recruitment and accumulation of down logs. Fires play a key rolein mediating the recruitment, accumulation and reduction of snags and down logs. With firesuppression and longer interval between fires, the recruitment, size, composition andprocesses associated with coarse woody material changes. At the same time, with increaseddensity in stands, mortality resulting from drought stress, insects, and disease is increasing byan order of magnitude. How these conflicting impacts have changed the dynamics of coarsewoody material is inadequately understood.Draft EIS II - 27 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Therefore, the Proposed Action and Community Alternative start with the assumptionthat all snags and down logs serve important ecological roles. The general overallstrategy under both Action Alternatives is to conserve snags and down wood by retainingthem on site. When specific management considerations (such as proximity to firesuppression lines, fire management safety, application of prescribed fire, urban interface, andthe 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 coarsewoody material have been satisfied.SnagsLarge snags over 21 inches diameter are particularly essential for forest function. Inaddition, at least 96 wildlife species in Oregon and Washington are associated with snags inforests, using snags for shelter, roosting and hunting. Most species use snags greater than 14inches diameter (Rose et al. 2001). Ridges, upper thirds of slopes, and riparian areas orlower third of slopes are very important for late-successional dependent species. Clusters ofsnags are especially important. In riparian areas and upslope areas prone to landslide, snagsof all size classes contribute the large woody material that is critical to creation andmaintenance of stream structure and function.Snags in various size classes also are important to the recruitment pathways of the downcoarse materials important to soils. Snags also can compromise wildfire suppressionactivities and the efficacy of fire suppression lines by increasing the rate of spread of a firethrough firebrand production (spotting) at their tops. This can result in a significant safetyhazard that can limit or prevent personnel deployment into critical fuel management zones(AWSA 1999). Similar problems can occur during prescribed fire, but in those instancesthese concerns can be accommodated more readily with preplanning and treatment design.Under both Action Alternatives, snag levels would be determined during implementation toidentify where snags are deficient. In such circumstances, trees otherwise identified forremoval may be retained as snags in lieu of removal. Largest diameter trees not selected forretention would be considered highest priority for snag creation/retention. Snag creation canalso include blasting the tops, girdling, inoculation with fungi, or leaving trees with heavymistletoe.If snags are determined to be in excess of the targeted maximums, they may be felled to meetdown 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 forsnags for that PAG as described in the 2003 Upper Bear Ecosystem Assessment. Greaterretention on lower slopes would help offset reductions required in areas that are a highpriority from a wildfire management perspective, such as ridge tops and other strategiclocations.Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at current levels (i.e. noadditional snags would be created) unless their retention would create a wildfire managementhazard. Snags that increase fire hazard would be felled and left on site unless that, in turn,increases wildfire hazard. Snags should be retained as high as possible on slopes. Snags thatextend above the primary canopy, but do not extend above the level of the ridgeline would bepriority for retention. Areas around clusters of three or more snags are a priority forunderstory vegetation slashing and pruning. Activity fuels would be hand piled and burnedto reduce the potential for ignition around snag clusters.Draft EIS II - 28 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Down WoodAs with snags, down logs are important for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem function. Inaddition, large coarse woody material is particularly important to maintaining and holdingsoils in place throughout the Analysis Area. Consistent with retention goals for snags, downcoarse wood would be retained to support forest function. Under both Action Alternatives,down logs are to be retained and are considered excess only when all site considerations havemet and in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.In general, both Action Alternatives would maintain coarse woody material within the upperone third of the range for down logs for that PAG, with more logs retained in riparian areasand on northerly aspects than on southerly slopes. Where standing green trees are felled tomeet habitat objectives, felled trees would be left in place as needed to meet coarse woodand/or soil objectives.A target range for number of pieces of coarse woody material per acre was developed foreach Plant Association Group using current plot data presented in the 2003 Upper BearAssessment (see Component 2, Section VI). This report assumes that by maintaining thedesired range of coarse woody material over all the sites, long-term site productivity wouldnot be reduced.The target ranges (desired conditions) for the area are shaped by the land management goalsand objectives, with domestic water quality being a primary concern (for the Ashland CreekWatershed), as well as late-successional habitat goals within most of the National forestportion of the Analysis Area. Because people, their management systems and their socialand economic values are now part of the Upper Bear landscape, a return to past processesand exclusively natural conditions is not necessarily be the desired goal.A key element of desired conditions for PAGs is down dead woody material. Desired levelsof dead wood per acre are shown below for each PAG. These figures were derived fromEcology Plot data, adjusted by past conditions established by PAGs, with consideration ofthe DecAID 4 advisory system.Table II-1. Target Coarse Woody Material LevelsPlant Association GroupDiameter Class< 10” 10” - 19.9” >20”Dry Douglas-fir (1407) 54 - 93 0 - 7 0 – 9Moist Douglas-fir (1408) 54 – 122 0 - 7 0 - 9Dry White Fir (2004) 0 – 94 0 - 7 0 - 9Moist White Fir (2003) 0 – 67 0 -12 0 - 11Cool White Fir (2098) and Moist Mountain Hemlock (2301) 0 - 69 0 - 11 0 - 11Cool Mountain Hemlock (2311) 0 - 35 10 - 33 0 - 114 DecAID is a work in progress on a decayed wood advisory tool for Washington and Oregon forests (Marcot et al., PNWResearch Note 2002). The title can be read as decayed wood advisor and management aid “decay-aid” or “decision-aid”.Draft EIS II - 29 Ashland Forest Resiliency

HardwoodsUnlike many past and typical forest management projects that tend to encourage conifers,both Action Alternatives intend to more broadly promote ecosystem functioning. Hardwoodsare a critical part of the species mix and may require non-traditional practices to maintaintheir roles in ecosystem function and resiliency. Hardwoods are particularly importantstructural features for wildlife habitat.Since hardwoods have the ability to sprout and hold soil after fire, areas with soilconservation concerns (e.g., landslide hazard zones) are places where hardwoods should beencouraged. Oregon white oak, California black oak, Pacific madrone, and goldenchinquapin are the primary hardwoods in the Analysis Area, and larger individuals of thesespecies (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 bothAction Alternatives. Thinning around these remnant hardwoods is designed to increase theirvigor, particularly since they tend to be shade-intolerant and easily overtopped by youngerdeveloping conifers in many situations. Removal of conifers from around preferredhardwoods should be dependent on the ability to remove them without damaging thepreferred hardwood.Hardwoods of all species are particularly important components of stands and vegetation onmore southerly to westerly aspects in the Analysis Area, while Pacific madrone is importanton more northerly aspects on lower and mid elevations.Botanical ResourcesForest Service botanists, contract botanists, and other knowledgeable professional andamateur 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 studentrelatedbotanical investigations, and recreational visits. Field reconnaissance for botanicalresources in areas proposed for treatment under both Action Alternatives has been completedon the majority of proposed treatment areas at this time of this Draft EIS. Further fieldreconnaissance will be conducted in the 2005 field season for any remaining un-surveyedportions of proposed treatments. This sub-section discusses important botanical resourcedesign elements common to both Action Alternatives. Complete botanical current conditionsand consequences of Action Alternatives are described in DEIS Chapter III. Additionalmitigation measures for botanical resources are described in Section C, sub-section 6, thisChapter.Clustered Ladyslipper and Mountain Ladyslipper OrchidsCypripedium fasciculatum (clustered ladyslipper orchid) is present in the National forestportion of the Analysis Area and is a Forest Service Sensitive vascular plant. There areroughly 6 occurrences (13 small patches) of the clustered lady-slipper orchid; they are in theTolman, Neil, and Wagner Creek sub-watersheds. The majority of the patches andindividuals are in the Tolman Creek sub-watershed in a relatively small portion of T39S,R1E, sections 27, 34, and 35.Draft EIS II - 30 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Occurrences are in older Douglas-fir forest with madrone, white fir and dogwood. Twoblocks (about 180 acres) in the upper Tolman sub-watershed would be excluded fromhazardous fuel treatments to protect the ladyslipper orchid habitat under both ActionAlternatives.Cypripedium montanum (mountain ladyslipper orchid) is an uncommon and locally rarevascular plant. An occurrence with seven individuals was discovered in the upper TolmanCreek watershed T39S, R1E, section 34 during 2004 botany field reconnaissance. No otherpopulations of Cypripedium montanum are known in the Analysis Area. Locally, suitablehabitat for the mountain ladyslipper orchid is the same as for the clustered ladyslipper orchid.There is some evidence that the mountain lady-slipper orchid may be more able to survivehabitat changes caused by mechanical disturbance or fire than clustered lady-slipper orchid.Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum occurrences not within the 180-acreexcluded area described above would also be excluded from hazardous fuel treatments withbuffers placed around them that are 100 ft. radius on the north side and 200 ft. radius on thesouth side (designed to provide shade).Oak FernIn 1969, Dr. Frank Lang reported a population of Gymnocarpium dryopteris (oak fern) onQuartz Creek, a tributary of Neil Creek, in the Analysis Area. Field reconnaissance in 1995and summer 2004 determined the population occupies approximately 1 mile of creek corridorfrom 3,630 ft. elevation up to 4,500 ft. The vast majority of plants are above 4,000 ft. Theoak fern was found in a 1/3-mile-long reach of another (un-named) tributary of Neil Creek inT40S, R1E, section 13 NW ¼ and section 14 NE ¼. This occurrence presumably extendsupstream into section 11 SE ¼. In the Analysis Area, oak fern is strictly riparian (and notassociated with oaks). It is always within 100 ft. of these perennial streams and usuallywithin 25feet. The habitat is moist, cool, shady or partly shady.The two riparian corridors where Gymnocarpium dryopteris (oak fern) grows would beexcluded from treatments to maintain the cool, moist, shaded environment that currentlyexists there. The untreated area on the north bank would extend 150 ft. outward from theactive stream channel. The untreated area on the south bank (which provides most of theshade) would extend 300 ft. outward from the active stream channel, with the exception thattreating 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 ElementsAdditional botanical design elements are noted here, as well as in the mitigation measuresection for botanical resources (Section C, sub-section 6, this Chapter). They are discussedhere because of their noteworthy prominence and/or occurrence within the Analysis Area.Perennial wetlands (with or without clearly defined stream channels) would be managedunder both Action Alternatives in the same manner as perennial streams, in order to maintainhabitat for the rich bryophyte and vascular plant communities that occur in these wetlands.Throughout all hazardous fuel treatments, Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) trees shallnot be adversely affected or cut, or removed.The old alder wetland within the Ashland RNA where the moss Ulota megalospora occurswould be left undisturbed.Draft EIS II - 31 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Black oaks that are known to harbor the lichen Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, andneighboring black oaks as well, shall not be adversely affected or cut, or removed.Throughout all hazardous fuel treatments, Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce) trees shallnot be adversely affected or cut, or removed. 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 perennialstream channel or wetland, where treatments could open the canopy more than desirable forspruce reproduction. Typically, riparian prescriptions under both Action Alternatives fulfillthis need.Invasive Non-native SpeciesInvasive non-native species alter the composition, structure, and ecosystem processes wherethey invade native systems. Some species already are established in the Analysis Area,particularly, hedge hog dogtail grass (Cynosurus echinatus), scotch broom (Cytisisscoparius), bull thistle (Circium vulgare), dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), amongothers. Weed species may spread by taking advantage of disturbed habitat adjacent to or inthe proximity of existing colonies. Roads and vehicle use can be an important vector for thespread of weeds. Informing implementation plans with the location and extent of existingweed colonies, along with control actions prior, during and after treatment can help avoidspreading them to new areas.Under both Action Alternatives and Forest Policy, a list of target species of concern would bedeveloped, mapped, and entered into a GIS database. Prior to hazardous fuel reductiontreatments, treatment of invasive non-native species populations is required within 250 ft. oftreatment areas prior to new disturbance. Hazardous fuel treatment implementation planswould prescribe entry routes to avoid weed patches.Vehicle and equipment would be washed prior to entering project areas after any use in otherareas with potential for supporting invasive non-native species. Post-treatment monitoring isrequired to detect the spread of existing or invasion of new invasive non-native speciespopulations. A spreading or a new population would be treated so it can be controlled oreliminated. Any areas authorized for hazardous fuel reduction treatments would be surveyedfor invasive non-native species and other invasive non-native plants during the secondsummer after activity occurs. If invasive non-native species are detected, appropriate actionwould be taken, in accordance with the Rogue River NF Weed Management Plan.Hazardous fuel reduction treatments shall generally not be conducted in the 20-acredalmation toadflax population in the Ashland RNA near the end of the Lamb Mine Trail.Himalayan blackberry located within potential helicopter landings would be treated inaccordance 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 grounddisturbance took place during management activities. Site-specific species would bedetermined and local collections will be made to meet seeding needs.Draft EIS II - 32 Ashland Forest Resiliency

d. Connected ActionsIn addition to the hazardous fuels reduction treatments described in the Proposed Action andCommunity Alternative, there are additional and inherent connected actions associated withimplementation. According to Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, Section1508.25, connected actions are closely related actions that: automatically trigger (or aretriggered by) other actions, cannot or would not proceed unless other actions are takenpreviously or simultaneously, and/or are interdependent parts of a larger action and dependon the larger action for their justification.Connected actions discussed in this Draft EIS are those that are directly related to hazardousfuels reduction treatments. Under HFRA, there is no authority to propose or analyze actionsthat are not related to the Purpose and Need for action. For example, there are opportunitiesfor watershed restoration, recreational enhancement or road-related improvements. Unlessrestoration or reclamation of sites is within the area affected by hazardous fuels reductiontreatments, they are not included under this proposal and analysis (see Section B, thisChapter). Connected actions that are common to both Action Alternatives are as follows:Helicopter Landings and AccessAs described by the mitigation measures, all hazardous fuels reduction treatments andvegetation manipulation activities must meet LRMP Standards and Guidelines and morespecific thresholds established for this project (see Mitigation Measures, Section C, 6, thisChapter). Further, design elements and mitigation require minimal ground disturbance.Given these constraints, it is anticipated that aerial systems, e.g., helicopters would be theprimary system used to accomplish any mechanical treatments requiring movement of largematerial (e.g., logs or bundled slash too large/heavy to be manipulated by humans).Helicopters can be used to move material from the treatment area sites, and move them toprocessing areas (i.e., landings). From the landings, material can then be removed from theforest by trucks, utilizing classified roads suitable for such use. Helicopters could also moveequipment such as portable chippers, to the site for processing. The use of helicopters allowsfor full suspension of trees or material from the treatment area to the landing area and doesnot create excessive ground disturbance via skid trails or corridors.To complete the consequence analysis for both Action Alternatives, a scenario wasdeveloped by the forest Service that assumed the use of helicopters and establishment of asystem of landings that could be used as a place to stage products or excess surface fuels.These landing sites would also be utilized for other yarding or bundling systems notinvolving the use of helicopters. National Forest and private lands within the entire AnalysisArea were reviewed by the Forest Service for locations where existing landings already exist,as well as logical sites where new landings could be developed.Upwards of 75 potential sites were initially identified. These candidate areas were thenrefined based on the areas proposed for treatments under the Proposed Action andCommunity Alternative within their respective Project Areas. During 2004, the majority ofthese sites were field verified by the Forest Service. This verification and refinementresulted in a total of 31 candidate landing sites.Draft EIS II - 33 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Criteria and considerations for identifying and selecting candidate sites included:ooooooooUtilization of previously utilized helicopter landings, including service landing sites;Utilization of previously disturbed areas (e.g., existing ground based landings or existing openareas);Consideration for utilizing existing landings located on adjacent private lands that may bestrategic to access on NFSL, would require minimal additional clearing, and have adequate roadaccess that would require minimal road maintenance for use;Development of new landing areas along existing classified roads and that would require minimalnew road construction access;Locating landings on ridgetop areas and away from unstable areas or Riparian Reserves;Locating landings on strategic topographic sites that would provide helicopter access to largeareas;The distance between landings (affecting the length of the helicopter flight path and ultimately,economic feasibility); andDevelopment of new landing areas that minimized effects to large trees, late-successional habitat,or intact and healthy forested areas.These 31 sites are the basis for consequence analysis under this Draft EIS for the ProposedAction and Community Alternative. Under this analysis, all of these potential landings in theidentified locations were assumed to be utilized. To ensure adequate consequence analysis,during actual implementation, there would be no additional landings authorized for usebeyond this scenario. It may be possible to exchange sites if the effects were determined tobe equivalent or less, and the final implementation plan could utilize less than this identifiednumber. In addition, the use of existing roads (in addition to or instead of additional landingconstruction) could be utilized during actual implementation, as long as compliance withState operational safety guidelines (OR-OSHA) occurred.New landings would be limited in size to approximately 0.75 acres in size. This generallyequates to a landing that is approximately 175 feet by 175 feet in size. Some existinglandings are larger than this. Some new landing areas may be designed to occupy an area assmall as 0.4 acre (80 feet by 200 feet). Using a “maximum case” scenario, these 32 landingswould include a total of approximately 24 acres, of which over 60% of the area to bepotentially utilized for a landing, is already disturbed (15 acres), because it is or has beenused as a road or log landing in the past. There would be a total of up to 9 acres of newadditional disturbance associated with landings.Helicopter landings, or roadways utilized as landings are required to have adequate “flightpaths” and “drop zones” under State operational safety guidelines (OR-OSHA). Compliancewith these guidelines would require the felling of some larger diameter trees. This situationwas minimized to the extent possible during refinement and selection of sites, as noted incriteria and considerations above.NOTE: Before a final decision is made, further verification and refinement of these sites isexpected to occur. Not all of these potential sites may be needed to facilitate the treatmentsproposed under the Proposed Action, or the Community Alternative. The inclusion oftreatments contained under the Final EIS is also unknown at this time. These factors maychange the number or use of potential sites identified at this time. However, refinementsunder the Final EIS are not likely to add additional sites beyond those identified and analyzedunder the Draft EIS.Draft EIS II - 34 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In summary, of the 31 landings, nine existing landings are proposed for use, and are currentlyadequate for this need. Six landings are existing, but would need additional expansion andclearing. Six existing landings were identified on private land and would need someexpansion and/or right-of-way approval for access and road use. Nine landings are onexisting roads and would require new development without additional road access. Twolandings are away from existing roads and would require additional new road constructionaccess (2 segments; 0.2 mile and 0.1 mile - total 0.3 miles). Table II-2 provides referenceand condition assessment for each of the 31 landings.Table II-2. Candidate Helicopter LandingsReferenceNo.Location Reference Condition or Comments0 PVT - City of Ashland Existing, adequate (rockpit)1 NFSL Existing, adequate4 NFSL Existing, expand5 NFSL Develop; on existing road11 NFSL Existing, adequate8 Horn Gap Develop; on existing road9 NFSL Existing, adequate12 NFSL Existing, adequate74 PVT land Existing, expand73 PVT land Existing, expand(75) PVT land (possible) Existing, expand70 PVT land Existing, expand10 NFSL Existing, adequate22 NFSL Existing, expanded under AWPP23 NFSL Develop, on existing road19 NFSL Existing, expand20 NFSL Existing, expand17 NFSL Existing, adequate16 NFSL Develop, on existing road15 NFSL Develop, .1 mile new road access13 NFSL Existing, expand24 NFSL, 4-Corners Existing, expand26 NFSL Develop, on existing road50 NFSL Develop, on existing road31 NFSL, Bull Gap Develop, on existing road45 NFSL Existing, expand47 NFSL Existing, expand; on PVT access road66 NFSL Develop, .2 mile new road access54 NFSL Existing, adequate56 NFSL Existing, adequate53 NFSL Develop, on existing roadPVT = privateNFSL = National Forest Systems LandsMap II-1 displays existing helicopter landing sites as well as potential locations for additionalhelicopter landing construction. These sites are the basis of NEPA effects analysis(consequences).Draft EIS II - 35 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP II-1. Potential Helicopter Landings and AccessDraft EIS II - 36 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Road Improvements and UseIn conjunction with helicopter landings and access, the connected actions associated withequipment access and commercial products haul to and from potential helicopter landings isdiscussed. Landing access and use could be for mechanical treatment, disposal, orcommercial sorting and removing of fuel treatment materials removed from the site tocommercial vendors off-Forest.Potential landings identified as 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 have the option of haulingnorth over Forest Service (FS) Road 2060 through Lithia Park if a permit from the City ofAshland is obtained. Another longer (twice as long) haul route not requiring a permit wouldbe over Road 2060, to Road 2080600 (section 34) to FS Road 2080 (section 35), then northover 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 and69 would haul north 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 ofAshland.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 overCounty Road 1151 to Interstate five. Swanson Group Inc. owns those lands outside of NFSLthereby requiring the FS to obtain R/W in order to use this road.Potential landings identified as 70, 73 and 74 would haul over FS Road 2200900 to theWagner Gap FS Road 22, then north over FS Road 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 greatercannot be conducted north over FS Road 2060 that enters Morton Street (section 16) thatleads into the City of Ashland. Morton Street roadways have insufficient road width to allowsafe 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 roadmaintenance prior to use. This maintenance may include various amounts of light brushing,culvert cleaning, ditching, and blading of road surfaces. Some roads may need additionalsurfacing (aggregate rock).Some weekend use of Roads 2060 and 2080 is listed in the Rogue River commercial road userules (May 28, 2002). The above routes have heavy seasonal recreation traffic consisting ofbikers, hikers and passenger vehicles that would require appropriate safety measures duringcommercial use periods. This could come in the form of signing, traffic control by trafficflag 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 BearAnalysis Area. The purpose of this analysis is to identify access routes with existing haulrestrictions for commercial and administrative haulers utilizing a five axle or larger vehicle toaccess the potential helicopter landing sites.Draft EIS II - 37 Ashland Forest Resiliency

4. The Proposed ActionIn order to conserve or promote resiliency in ecosystems, the Ashland Ranger District, RogueRiver-Siskiyou National Forest identified opportunities to achieve the restoration of physical andbiological processes and patterns that create and maintain diverse networks of habitats andpopulations while also recognizing the need for protection of socio-economic values. Findingsand recommendations are documented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. This documentprovides the basis for the Proposed Action analyzed in this Draft EIS.At the core of the analysis under the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment is the analysis of PlantAssociation Groups (PAGs) 5 . A qualitative evaluation of past conditions was overlain withassumed “sustainable” disturbance regimes and current vegetative conditions to determine futuredesired conditions for the PAGs, further refined by seral stage and proportions. Additionaldriving factors of this analysis were based on ecological and social issues surroundingoccurrence of high human-caused fire ignition and high fire occurrence history. Specific “valuesat risk” include human life and property associated with the wildland/urban interface; ecologicalsustainability including protection and maintenance of pine; water quality including protection ofthe municipal water supply, and protection of threatened species and maintenance of latesuccessionalhabitat.a. Function of the Proposed ActionA key function of the Proposed Action and its proposed fire protection strategy for AshlandForest Resiliency is the concept of “compartmentalization”. Compartmentalizing landscapeswould serve to protect larger surrounding areas at risk. This strategy is recognized in theNorthwest Forest Plan as means to manage the risk of disturbance within Late-SuccessionalReserves (NWFP page C-12, 13). Compartmentalization was also identified by localcitizen’s groups under previous planning efforts (AWSA 1999; page 33). Thecompartmentalization strategy associated with this Proposed Action involves creatingcompartments that range in size from approximately 800 – 6,700 acres (see Map II-2, andComponent 5, Section 5, A, of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment for more information onCompartments).The overall objective of compartmentalization is to be able to contain any fire start (humanor lightning), and subsequent fire spread, within the compartment in which it started. Thedelineation of compartments is based primarily on strategic topographic features, regardlessof land management responsibility or ownership. The topographic features coincide withstrategic ridgelines, vegetation changes, and/or human-made features such as roads.Under the Proposed Action, areas within compartments would be managed with thelong-term objective of achieving a fire resilient ecosystem, with special emphasis onproviding short-term protection to the Values At Risk 6 . As part of the recommendedstrategy, areas within the compartments would be treated using a variety of hazardousfuel reduction treatments over wide areas, based on desired conditions by PAGs.5 Plant Association Groups (PAGs) are discussed in detail in Component 2 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment; also see DEISAppendix D for updates to PAGs.6 Values At Risk are discussed in detail in Component 5 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment.Draft EIS II - 38 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP II-2. Compartmentalization Strategy Under the Proposed Actionb. Description of the Proposed ActionThe primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with the Proposed Actioninclude those that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Stand treatmentsare designed to influence fire behavior by altering available fuel, fuel arrangement, fuelmoisture, and species composition. Under the Forest Service Proposed Action for AshlandForest Resiliency, a total of approximately 8,150 acres would be treated. Proposedhazardous fuel reduction treatments are categorized into two broad groups:Draft EIS II - 39 Ashland Forest Resiliency

1) Treatments that modify fire behavior facilitating effective fire suppression, and2) Treatments that modify fire behavior to reduce potential and/or subsequentadverse effects.All of the actions and activities proposed under the Proposed Action fall under one of fourelements 7 :‣ creation of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones,‣ Interface Compartment treatments,‣ Late-Successional Habitat treatments, and‣ Research Natural Area treatments.Defensible Fuel Profile ZonesDefensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) are the foundation of compartmentalization and assuch, transcend boundaries of all compartments and is considered the highest priority(Priority 1). Within the Project Area, a maximum of 2,800 acres would be treated withDFPZ objectives and would include a combination of variable density management, surfacefuels treatments, and prescribed burning. These 2,800 acres would complement existingnaturally resilient features or previously established fuelbreaks 8 for a total DFPZ acreage ofapproximately 3,600 acres on NFSL.The objective of the fuel modification within the DFPZ is to create zones that are “crownfire-resistant”9 . Active crown fires moving into these areas would slow and drop to theground and become a surface fire. Refer to Appendix 3-A of Component 3 of the 2003Upper Bear Assessment for more detailed information on how DFPZs would function.The DFPZs proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are designed to: (1) reduce the extentof wildland fire severity 10 by limiting the amount of area affected by wildland fire, (2) createareas where fire suppression efforts can be conducted more safely and effectively, (3) breakup continuity of fuels over a large landscape, and (4) serve as anchor points for further areawidefuel treatments, such as prescribed burning.To develop the DFPZs, surface fuel reduction and understory vegetation clearing wouldcover a greater area than the existing current shaded fuel breaks. The variable width of thetreated area would generally be ¼ to ½ mile, depending on vegetation cover, roads,geographic features, strategic location, elevation and overall potential wildland fire riskrelative to the compartments.7 “elements” are simply a way to organize the suite of treatments associated with the Proposed Action into 4 groupings, withspecific and unique objectives.8 Approximately 9.5 miles of shaded fuelbreaks have been constructed to date in the Ashland Watershed. The efficacy of thesefuelbreaks has been largely lost due to lack of maintenance over the years since they were established (USDA 2001).9 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 thecrowns of trees and shrubs, usually ignited by a surface fire.10 Fire severity is the degree which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; also used in this document to describe theproduct of fire intensity and residence time (McPherson et al. 1990, Agee 1994, Rowe 1983).Draft EIS II - 40 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Stands within DFPZs would be thinned from below (treating all diameter classes) to arelative stand density of 0.4 to 0.6 followed by treatment of all existing or activity createdfuels to resemble a Fuel Model 8 or 9. An underburn would occur approximately 7-10 yearsfollowing the thinning to maintain the stand conditions.Treatments would achieve a live crown base heights of 20-25 feet above the surface fuels andare designed to produce an average flame length of 4-6 feet or less under 90 th percentileweather conditions (see sub-section b, Density Management for a description of 90 thpercentile 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 withvariation by PAG.The areas where DFPZs would occur are conceptually displayed (in green) on Map II-3. Notall of the area shown in green would be treated under Ashland Forest Resiliency at thistime; treatments would only occur where conditions are otherwise not at desiredconditions and would not exceed 2,800 acres (see above).The completed DFPZs would consist mostly of stands 11 that maintain a relative stand densityindex of 0.4 – 0.6, depending on PAG and seral stage. This density would maintain a closedcanopy in portions of the DFPZ where it currently exists. The relative stand density indexfor most of these stands is currently 0.7 to 1.0. Reasons for maintaining a relatively closedcanopy include: maintaining higher fuel moistures of remaining surface fuels, reducingunderstory vegetation establishment, and reducing the maintenance cost, interval, andintensity (compared to currently existing shaded fuelbreaks).The majority of treatments in the DFPZs would be surface fuel reduction treatments and theremoval of ladder fuels 12 by cutting smaller diameter trees that would allow fire to reach thecrowns, as well as pruning the lower limbs of larger diameter trees. Pruning would removeremaining ladder fuels and raise the crown base height (height from the ground to the bottomof 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 vigorousoverstory trees, dead or dying (within 1–2 years) trees that create a hazard for worker safety,live or dead trees that are part of overall implementation and would need to be removed for(helicopter) landings or helicopter flight paths 13 , and in some cases, heavily dwarf mistletoeinfected trees that compromise DFPZ objectives (by providing ladder fuels).11 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.12 Ladder fuels are shrubs, trees and other foliage that provide continuous fine material from the forest floor into the crowns ofdominant trees.13 The potential for helicopter use, including landings is discussed under Section 2, e. (Methodology for Accomplishment ofTreatments, this Chapter.Draft EIS II - 41 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Treating to a more open canopy around large individual “legacy” pine and Douglas-fir treeswould 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 oldertrees.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 ofvarious sizes or diameters) would be placed in contact with the soil and oriented to provide abarrier to surface soil movement. Ranges of desired levels of coarse woody material isdescribed by PAGS, as discussed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, Component 2, and isdescribed in Section 3, c, this Chapter. A higher density of trees may be left on these sitesthan on other areas with similar vegetation conditions, however this would not compromisethe 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 the Values At Riskwithin the Ashland Watershed: namely water quality and late-successional habitat. Byinterim, it is meant that DFPZs would need to be maintained as a management feature untilthe point in time where the treatment of adjacent larger areas within the compartments hasbeen accomplished and the landscape has developed to the desired condition. In theforest/urban interface area, this is estimated to be approximately 10-25 years depending onavailability of funding and workforce, and recovery of resource conditions betweentreatments.A graphic example of DFPZ treatments shown on a profile view is presented in Figure II-1(below). This picture shows the current conditions on a typical ridgeline before, and afterDFPZ treatment. Treated areas represent the crown closure, ladder fuel removal andvariability of width. This is presented only to communicate the concept; it is not meant to bespecific to any particular area and does not represent the extreme variability of currentconditions.Figure II-1. Profile View: Defensible Fuel Profile Zone¼ - ½ mile(not to scale)Draft EIS II - 42 Ashland Forest Resiliency

IN SUMMARY:DFPZs are designed to:‣ Provide the foundation for the compartmentalization strategy;‣ Breakup continuity of fuels over a large landscape and serve as anchor points forfurther area-wide treatments, e.g., prescribed burning;‣ Be an interim measure to facilitate protection of Values At Risk (until desiredconditions within adjacent compartments have been accomplished);‣ Modify fuel by creating variable width (¼ to ½ miles) crown fire resistant zones toreduce potential severity and size of wildland fires; and‣ Create areas where suppression can be conducted more effectively and safely.DFPZ treatments include:‣ A maximum of 2,800 acres on NFSL;‣ Primarily surface fuel reduction treatments and removal of ladder fuels (small treeremoval and pruning);‣ Variable density management and prescribed burning where appropriate;‣ Open canopies around large individual legacy trees (group selection);‣ Maintenance of a closed canopy over most of the area (Relative Stand Density Indexof 0.4 to 0.6); and‣ Modified treatments for protection of Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas, RiparianReserves, and northern spotted owl core areas.Interface Compartment TreatmentsInterface 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 ofcreating a strategic area of protection against large wildland fires entering the Mt. AshlandLate-Successional Reserve (LSR) and the Ashland Municipal Watershed via the forest/urbaninterface 14 .Efforts in these interface areas would be focused on modifying the existing stand density andcurrent/future surface fuel loads so that: 1) wildland fires are primarily surface fires (ascompared with active crown-fires); 2) fires that generate less than 4-6 foot flame lengthsfrom surface fire under 90 th percentile weather and fuel moisture conditions; and 3) maintaincoarse woody material to levels consistent with LSR and individual PAG objectives.Treatments in these areas would focus primarily on two seral stages; the mid-closed and lateclosedconditions 15 , though other seral stages would receive some treatment.14 The forest/urban interface or wildland urban interface (WUI) is the area or zone where structures and other humandevelopment meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the WUI is assumed to beapproximately 1.5 miles from the identified “At-Risk Community” (66 FR 753, January 4, 2001 and State or Oregon EmergencyManagement Plan, December 2003).15 These seral stage stand conditions are defined and discussed in Component 2 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment.Draft EIS II - 43 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Treatments would reduce the density of the current mid-seral and late-seral closed stands sothey become mid-seral and late-seral open stands in amounts that approximate the desireddistributions. This treatment would also accelerate growth of mid-seral stands into late-seralconditions. Reductions in stand density in the late, closed stands would reduce the insect anddisease risk levels in these areas. Where density is not managed within the mid and late-seralclosed stands, treatments would focus on hazard reduction (fire behavior modification)treatments that move toward a Fuel Model 8 or 9 in closed stands, and Fuel Model 2 16 in themore open areas. Stands would be thinned from below to a relative stand density of 0.2 – 0.3followed by treatment of all existing excess or activity created fuels. Treatments would bedesigned to achieve a flame length of 4-6 feet under 90 th percentile weather conditions.Treatments should generally not affect the species composition of the individual PAGs,however, some species would be given special consideration. Large madrone and oaksassociated with the dry PAGs would be maintained in early, mid open and late open seralstands. Ponderosa pine, sugar pine and incense cedar would be retained in all seral stagesand all PAGs. A fraction of the stands would be left with older trees infected with dwarfmistletoe that may be used as nesting platforms for northern spotted owls (young infestedtrees would not likely develop into large trees with good platforms because of the effects ofthe mistletoe).Treatments could occur within the core area of northern spottedowl activity centers, but would not change late seral, closedconditions. Within Riparian Reserves 17 , treatments wouldoccur within strategic areas where large areas of continuousfuels can be interrupted to reduce “wick-effect” conditions thatwould allow fire to travel unimpeded from low to higherelevations. Another objective within the interfacecompartments is to retain large legacy pines and Douglas-fir.While density management may benefit these trees,complimentary treatments could include creation of nonuniformopenings around pines (termed small group selection).“Wick-Effect” – In this context,refers to the ability of fire tospread through a drainage viathe riparian vegetation. If theRiparian Reserve areas are leftuntreated, surrounding bytreated areas, then theuntreated contiguous fuels inthese areas could act as“wicks”, allowing fire to spread.The proposed area for interface compartment treatments is also shown on Map II-3. Notethat the yellow shaded area portrays (based on satellite imagery) conceptual areas whereconditions are not currently at the desired conditions. Because not all acres within thesecompartments and yellow-shaded areas would be treated, the spatial arrangement oftreatments is important to accomplish the stated objectives. Strategically locating thetreatments can create non-continuous landscape fuel patterns that collectively slow firegrowth and modify behavior while minimizing the amount of area needing treatment (Finney2001).Of the total acres of National Forest System Lands within the interface compartments (6,630acres), a maximum of 3,200 acres would be treated under the Proposed Action.Approximately1,600 acres would be treated with variable density management and 1,600acres would be treated with surface fuel treatments or prescribed fire.16 Fuel models are based on Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, National WildfireCoordinating Group, 1982): see 2003 Upper Bear Assessment Component 2 and DEIS Appendix D for an update to informationand examples of Fuel Models.17 Riparian Reserves as defined by Northwest Forest Plan and White Paper #36 for the Rogue River NF.Draft EIS II - 44 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Factors affecting the location of treatment areas include topography, existing fuel loadingsand their characteristics (rate of spread, crown fire potential, flame length, etc.), and localweather conditions. The following figure graphically displays the potential effectiveness ofthe arrangement of Interface Compartment treatments.An example of area treatments placed on the landscape designed to interrupt fire spread andmodify fire behavior (clear areas) is shown in Figure II-2 (below). The winds in thisexample are from the northwest (A) and north (B). The lines indicate that the head of aspreading wildland fire would be continuously forced to flank around treated areas, causinglower rates of spread and fire intensity than if it were uninterrupted (adapted from Finney1999).Figure II-2. Landscape Arrangement of Treated AreasABIN SUMMARY:Interface Compartment treatments are designed to:‣ Create strategic areas where wildland fire can more effectively be managed to protectthe forest/urban areas, the Mt. Ashland LSR and the Ashland Municipal Watershed;‣ Modify existing stand density and surface fuel loading so that wildland fires areprimarily surface (as compared with running crown-fires);‣ Support wildland fire flame lengths less than 4-6 feet under 90 th percentile weatherand fuel moisture conditions; and‣ Maintain coarse woody material consistent with LSR and individual PAG objectives.Interface Compartment treatments include:‣ A maximum of 3,200 acres;‣ Variable density management of current mid-seral and late-seral closed stands toobtain desired conditions (approximately 1,600 acres);‣ Hazard reduction to desired Fuel Models (8, 9, or 2) with surface fuel reductiontreatments 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 northernspotted owls, and within portions of Riparian Reserve.Draft EIS II - 45 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Late-Successional Habitat TreatmentsUnder the compartmentalization strategy, there are two main areas where treatments wouldbe applied with the primary emphasis being the maintenance of late-successional habitat inrelation to Late-Successional Reserve objectives (Priority 3). One is in the Neilcompartment; the other is within the Ashland Watershed (Lower West Fork compartment)where there is an equally important objective of protecting water quality in regard tomunicipal water supply. To accomplish these objectives, the focus is on strategic treatmentof mid-seral closed stands where the average stand diameter is 5 - 17 inches. Within thesestands, trees less than 17 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) would be removed withinthe Lower West Fork and Neil compartments to provide for horizontal discontinuity in fuels.Hazardous fuel reduction treatments proposed here are focused to encourage healthy, lessdense mid seral stands that would develop into late-successional habitat. Proposedtreatments (maximum of 600 acres) would primarily be variable density management thatwould also reduce the fire hazard (see Map II-3 where treatments are shaded in light blue).An objective for these compartments include maintenance of at least 60 percent canopyclosure in those areas that currently provide northern spotted owl habitat, particularly onnorth and east aspects 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 nonuniformspacing adjacent to these trees (small group selection) would reduce competition andincrease the likelihood of maintaining these existing individual legacy trees.Additionally, to reduce fire risk (risk of human ignition) proposed treatments includeroadside areas (maximum of 250 acres) with variable density management (about 100-150feet below and 50 feet above the clearing limit of the road). Roadside areas to be treatedinclude portions (approximately 8 miles) of Forest Service Road 2060 (see Map II-3 wheretreatments are shaded in a darker blue).Careful spatial arrangement of treated areas would inhibit fire from moving unimpeded fromlow to higher elevations without entering a managed area. Treatments proposed under theProposed Action would be the first in a series of planned treatments over time to move thesestands toward the desired condition (seral stage distribution) identified in the 2003 UpperBear Assessment. Factors affecting the location of treatments areas include topography,existing fuel loadings and their characteristics (rate of spread, crown fire potential, flamelength, etc.), and local weather conditions.No treatments would occur within the core areas for known northern spotted owl pair activitycenters or on unstable lands (Landslide Hazard Zone 1) at this time within the Neil andLower West Fork compartments. Some treatments would occur within Riparian Reserves.Treatments would generally not affect species composition, however, some species would begiven special consideration. Large madrone and oaks would be maintained in early, midopen and late open seral stands. Ponderosa pines, sugar pines and incense cedars would beretained in all seral stages. Group selection treatments would promote regeneration of thepine species.Draft EIS II - 46 Ashland Forest Resiliency

IN SUMMARY:Late-Successional Habitat treatments are designed to:‣ Create healthy mid-seral stands that would more quickly develop into latesuccessionalhabitat (LSR objectives);‣ Create discontinuity in fuels to protect municipal water supply;‣ Maintain 60 percent canopy closure in areas currently providing northern spotted owlhabitat; and‣ Reduce wildland fire (human ignition) risk along Forest Road 2060.Late-Successional Habitat treatments include:‣ A maximum of 600 acres variable density management in mid seral stands within theNeil and Lower West Fork compartments (tree removal would not include treesgreater than 17” DBH);‣ Open canopies around large individual legacy trees (group selection);‣ Approximately 8 miles (250 acres) of variable density treatments along specificportions of Road 2060; and‣ No treatments within northern spotted owl core areas or Landslide Hazard Zone 1areas.Research Natural Area TreatmentsThe Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA) was established on May 4, 1970, to provideexamples of the “Pacific” ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest found west of the Cascade Range in southern Oregon. Moredetailed information is found in Component 1 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment.The overall proposed treatment for this area is to selectively remove competition to existinglarge ponderosa or sugar pine and Douglas-fir to create conditions that would encourageregeneration of the pine species. Approximately 1,300 acres are proposed for treatment(Priority 4). Variable density management, prescribed burning and other surface fuelreduction treatments are options that would encourage more natural species diversity and amore fire resilient forest. Stands in these compartments would be thinned from below to arelative stand density of 0.2 – 0.3 followed by treatment of all existing or activity createdfuels to resemble a Fuel Model 8, or 9. Treatments would be designed to achieve a flamelength of 4-6 feet under 90 th percentile weather conditions.Prescribed underburning is proposed as routine maintenance after variable densitymanagement treatments as a complementary method that would encourage more naturalregeneration of pines and sustain the pine ecosystem. An underburn would occurapproximately 10 years following the thinning to maintain stand conditions.The most northerly portion of the RNA is included in the Reeder Compartment, for whichwildland interface density management is proposed (see Map II-3). Additionally, thecompartment boundary between Reeder Reservoir and the RNA portion of the East ForkCompartment would be treated as a DFPZ. This is deemed a critical area for location of aDFPZ to meet fire size and spread compartmentalization objectives.Draft EIS II - 47 Ashland Forest Resiliency

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 contactwith the soil and oriented to provide a barrier to surface soil movement. As with other LHZ1 treatments, a higher density of trees would be left.A primary objective within the RNA is to retain large legacy pines and Douglas-fir. Whiledensity management may benefit these existing trees, complimentary treatments wouldinclude creation of non-uniform openings around these trees (small group selection) for pineregeneration.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 RiparianReserves would be maintained.IN SUMMARY:Research Natural Area treatments are designed to:‣ Create discontinuity in fuels to improve fire management efficacy to protectmunicipal water supply;‣ Maintain and encourage conditions representing the original RNA objectives; and‣ Selectively remove competition to existing legacy pines and Douglas-fir and createconditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species.Research Natural Area treatments include:‣ Variable density management and surface fuel treatments on a maximum of 1,300acres;‣ Surface fuel reduction treatments and prescribed burning where appropriate toencourage 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 northernspotted owls, and within portions of Riparian Reserves.Summary of TreatmentsTable II-3 provides a summary of treatment elements as discussed above, based on PAGs.Map II-3 portrays the Forest Service Proposed Action, based on conceptual location oftreatments and areas.Draft EIS II - 48 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP II-3. Proposed Action Treatment AreasDraft EIS II - 49 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Table II-3. Proposed Action - Summary of Treatments by PAGsPlant Association Groups(PAGs)Defensible FuelProfile Zones(Priority 1)InterfaceCompartments(Priority 2)Treatment ElementsLate-SuccessionalHabitatCompartments(Priority 3)ResearchNatural Area(Priority 4)Dry Douglas-fir (1407) 541 1,184 104 (+9 Roadside) 218Moist Douglas-fir (1408) 702 1,131 244 (+98 Roadside) 482Dry White Fir (2004) 984 387 124 (+85 Roadside) 220Moist White Fir (2003) 268 498 128 (+59 Roadside) 380Cool White Fir (2098) 180 NT NT NTMoist Mountain Hemlock (2301) 94 NT NT NTCool Mountain Hemlock (2311) 31 NT NT NTTotals 2,800 3,200 600 (+250 roadside) 1,300Grand total 8,150 acresNT = No treatment proposedAcres shown are considered the upper limit to be treated for each PAG.c. Specific Design Elements and Specific Mitigation MeasuresThis sub-section includes specific design elements that are identified as unique and/ordifferent that those contained under the Community Alternative (i.e., they are not common).These elements also include discussions that are considered specific mitigation measures.Implementation MethodologyUnder the Proposed Action, certain amounts of treatments are proposed associated withcertain design criteria or limitations. The actual on-the-ground conditions that trigger thesecriteria are to be identified and validated concurrent with implementation. Concurrentmonitoring would ensure that that the effects of any decision are equal to or lesser than thosedocumented in NEPA planning analysis and decision. Identification of conditions meetingtreatment criteria may include slope, aspect, soils type, tree size class distribution, basal area,species composition, Plant Association Group, snags, down logs by decay class, dwarfmistletoe levels, fuel loading, etc. Protocol for identification of conditions would bedetermined to influence site-specific prescription and operational plans.This non-traditional methodology is proposed for Ashland Forest Resiliency under theProposed Action because of the urgency and need for fuel reduction treatments and the timeconstraint associated with accomplishing planning inventories in traditional ways (i.e., standexams over several years). It is hoped that this methodology can be more efficient andflexible to accomplish implementation via stewardship contracting, etc.Soils and Site ProductivityAll hazardous fuels reduction treatments and vegetation manipulation activities must meetLRMP Standards and Guidelines and more specific thresholds established for this project forsoil quality and site productivity (see Mitigation Measures, Section C, 6, this Chapter). TheProposed Action requires that no ground-based equipment would be allowed off of classifiedroads, temporary roads, or landings. Given these constraints, it is anticipated that aerialsystems, e.g., helicopters would be the primary system used to accomplish any mechanicaltreatments requiring movement of large material (e.g., logs or bundled slash) under theProposed Action.Draft EIS II - 50 Ashland Forest Resiliency

5. The Community AlternativeThe 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 ecology scientists, andcommunity members within the Ashland community as an alternative to the Forest ServiceProposed Action for Ashland Forest Resiliency. This alternative outlines a strategy addressingthe risk of large-scale, stand replacing fire in the watershed. The alternative plan is referred to asthe Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative (AFRCA) or Community Alternative.The AFRCA is specifically designed to address the Purpose and Need statement established bythe Forest Service (a requirement of NEPA), as well as the requirements for an alternative asdefined in the HFRA.On May 12, 2004, the Responsible Official (Forest Supervisor) met to discuss the City’sresponse to the Forest Service’s proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency project being planed underthe guidelines of the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The City of Ashland hadresponded to the Proposed Action with Phase I of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan(CWPP), an element of HFRA that can be prepared by a community at-risk to wildfire, adefinition met by the City of Ashland. When the Federal agency’s Proposed Action does notimplement the recommendations in the CWPP regarding the general locations and basic methodof treatments, the agency is directed to evaluate the CWPP as an alternative to agency’sProposed ActionOn this date, the Responsible Official offered to halt preparation of the DEIS based only on theForest Service Proposed Action to provide the City of Ashland time to provide the details of theCWPP and alternative with enough specificity for the Forest Service to include it in the DEISand meet fair and equal analysis requirements relative to the Proposed Action. The objective ofthe Responsible Official was to have the Forest Service environmental analysis complete in orderfor implementation to begin field season 2005. To meet this schedule, the Responsible Officialstated a need for completed details of the alternative based on the City of Ashland’s CWPP byOctober 1, 2004. The City met the October 1 st deadline, however understanding the CommunityAlternative in order for the Forest Service to conduct fair and equal analysis, as well as otherForest 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 experiencednatural resource professionals representing the City of Ashland (Technical Team 18 ), thus buildingon many years of community involvement in public land management in the Ashland Watershed.The development of the Community Alternative devoted several months to defining the processand obtaining existing data from the Forest Service. The work of the Technical Team washeavily influenced by conceptual ecological models applied by the team based on extensiveexperience and varying degrees of field time in the Analysis Area and related systems.18 Marty Main, Consulting Forester, City of Ashland (Team Leader); Darren Borgias, Southwestern Oregon Stewardship Ecologist, The NatureConservancy; Richard Brock, Consulting Botanist; Chris Chambers, Forest Work Grant Coordinator, City of Ashland; Evan Frost, ConsultingEcologist; Jay Lininger, Conservation Fellow, University of Montana; Tony Kerwin, BLM Wildlife Biologist; Frank Betlejewski, Forest ServiceNatural 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.Draft EIS II - 51 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The work attempted to integrate a host of watershed information into spatially explicit treatment“settings” 19 with prescriptions for treatment in specified priority areas rendered primarily byPlant Association Group, and/or in combination with topography. Information used included:spatial data 20 on vegetation, wildlife, and riparian areas; digital elevation models and assessmentof landscape position to translate conceptual models; ecological and community social values;and informed judgment on environmental sensitivities. The Technical Team provided details ofthe alternative strategy but did not participate in the analysis of consequences, a responsibility ofthe Federal Agency.a. Function of the Community AlternativeThis alternative addresses the Purpose and Need by treating surface fuels and by creation ofmore open stand structure and reduction in vertical continuity (i.e., ladder fuels) in areasmost appropriate (based on PAGs) for this type of treatment. It proposes stand densityreduction to create a more fire resilient landscape while maintaining a high level of structuralheterogeneity across the landscape.This alternative offers a different approach to managing fire in the National Forest portion ofthe Analysis Area - the establishment of a mosaic of fire resistant patches to restorelandscape-scale resiliency. Implementation of this management approach is designed toresult in an immediate reduction in the risk of large-scale, high-severity wildland fire in theAnalysis Area. This alternative addresses the landscape homogenization of fuels andvegetation that has resulted from past management activities, including fire exclusion. Itsunderlying 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 reductionand the Community Alternative based to the greatest extent possible, its application ofvariable density management on natural landscape and vegetative features. This alternativeproposes to reestablish landscape-scale habitat patchiness through a “Fuel DiscontinuityNetwork” (FDN). The AFRCA relies on this patchiness to ameliorate fire behavior but doesnot directly address creating fire 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 thisclassification are referred to as “Category 1”.o Identify and implement fuel reduction treatments in areas where relatively littlemanagement investment may be able to create relatively fire resilient standconditions. Such lands readily made resilient are referred to as “Category 2”.19 “settings” are defined as classification of place, plant associations, slope, aspect, topographic position, and existing degree ofresiliency (Borgias pers. com 2005).20 Spatial data and PAG mapping was provided by the Forest Service.Draft EIS II - 52 Ashland Forest Resiliency

o Identify and implement treatments in those areas that occupy a strategicgeographic positions and connections in the landscape relative to Categories 1 and2. These areas are referred to as “Category 3”.Note: Numbering of categories above does not imply priorities within categories; seefurther descriptions, next page.‣ Where landscape-scale fuel reduction is determined to be most strategic, plantreatments that recognize and foster natural variability, pose the least risk to resourcevalues, and facilitate the restoration of fire as a key ecosystem process.b. Description of the Community AlternativeThe primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with AFRCA also includethose that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Like the ProposedAction, 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, andwhere necessary, create additional discontinuity in fuels (both horizontally and vertically) toestablish a fuel discontinuity network and thereby reduce landscape-scale fire hazard notnecessarily by improving control lines but by reducing potential overall severity of fire.Such an approach would achieve variability in fuel density across the landscape whiletreating the least number of acres necessary in order to address the Purpose and Needeffectively. The Community Alternative identifies approximately 8,990 acres of treatmentsettings 21 .The primary hazardous fuel reduction treatments are associated with creation of a FuelDiscontinuity 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 thisChapter, each Category identifies potential treatments and identifies Priorities withcategories. As with the Proposed Action, this does not imply that priorities cannot beimplemented concurrently or that the initial priorities must be completed prior to enactmentof the next priority; priorities only suggest the order and sequencing of treatments. Extent ofproposed treatments are estimated and rounded up to the nearest 10 acres in the followingdiscussions.Category 1. Features that are Currently Fire ResilientCategory 1 includes identification and use all features that currently have lower potential forcrown fire as the initial starting or anchor points for treating fuels in the National Forestportion of the Analysis Area. This may include natural openings, meadows, relatively openridgetops, moist riparian areas, relatively fire resilient lat seral forest, and areas whereprevious management has temporarily reduced crown fire potential. These areas wouldserve as the cornerstone for re-establishing more landscape-level patchiness in fuels andvegetation conditions, assuming adequate maintenance occurs.21 The 8,990 acres of settings represent a maximum potential and is used for analysis. Mapping refinements may reduce theoverall amount of setting area in the Final EIS.Draft EIS II - 53 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Based on this strategic assumption, Category 1 features do not require treatment at thistime and are not part of the Community Alternative’s proposal for hazardous fuelreduction (with the exception of previously treated areas in need of maintenance, seebelow). Category 1 areas are however a key component and basis of adjacent areas that arebeing proposed for treatment (i.e., Category 2 and 3). Map II-4 portrays areas analyzed asCategory 1 under the Draft EIS.MAP II-4. Community Alternative - Category 1 AreasR.1W.R.1E.Draft EIS II - 54 Ashland Forest Resiliency

An examination was made of the mapped vegetation and physical features of the AnalysisArea that, according to conceptual ecological models, might currently exhibit conditions thatsupport low crown fire potential. These areas make up approximately 3,800 acres of the total22,286 National Forest acres in the Analysis Area, the bulk of which are represented withinthe Riparian Reserves. Most of the natural openings are at high elevation within the ShastaRed Fir and Mountain Hemlock Plant Association Groups. While important for the highelevation sites, natural openings contribute little to the desired fuel discontinuity network thatwould 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 are moreprone to severe fire effects and therefore less fire-resilient.As originally analyzed, this alternative assumed that the Forest Service would complete theprojects scheduled in the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (AWPP). Based onexamination of the landscape and professional judgment, it is assumed that many of the areasthat previously had been treated to reduce fuels, such as the units of the AWPP (see subsection2, c, Section C, this Chapter), the prescribed broadcast underburns in and around theEast Fork of Ashland Creek and shaded fuel breaks, would require ongoing periodicmaintenance at a minimum. These previously treated lands were re-allocated to Category 2,Priority 3 areas.Category 2. Features that are “Readily” Made Fire ResilientCategory 2 includes identification and implementation of fuel reduction treatments in thoseareas where relatively little resource investment may be able to create relatively fire-resistantstand conditions. This may include low-productivity sites with relatively little encroachmentof small trees, dry Plant Association Groups on south and west aspects, or open standsdominated by large conifers or hardwoods. Targeting initial work, as needed, in these areaswould maximize the area to be treated with available funds and personnel, and therebyprovide the greatest opportunity to quickly reduce fuels and restore ecosystem function atlarger spatial scales.Physical information and vegetation data were analyzed to identify sites in addition to thepreviously treated lands discussed above, where forest composition and structure should bemanaged or maintained to restore conditions that increase the potential for fire resiliency bysustaining relatively low fire intensity and severity in the future. Based on conceptualecological models and judgment, category areas dominated by pine species and areaspredominantly in upper and middle slope positions were included, primarily on southerly andwesterly slopes prone to desiccation due to solar and wind exposure, shallower soils, andoverall lower soil moisture retention. These are conditions that typically support ponderosapine and Douglas-fir at relatively low density, along with hardwoods, particularly oakspecies.Based on analysis, this alternative excluded patches where fire resilient, late seral and oldgrowthconditions were likely to occur based on modeling with the vegetation data. Groundvalidation during implementation likely would identify some areas currently included thatshould not have been, as well as locate some areas currently excluded that should have beenincluded (see sub-section C).Draft EIS II - 55 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Under this Category, sensitive areas prone to landslide hazard (LHZ 1 and 2), areas withslopes greater that 65 percent, areas with shallow or sensitive soils and sites within ¼ mile ofa spotted owl activity are excluded. There are approximately 5,320 acres identified in thisCategory. Map II-5 portrays treatment areas proposed with the Community Alternativeunder the DEIS.Priority 2Several forest types were classified for treatment within this Category and Priority to meetthe goal of enhancing the survivorship of large fire-tolerant white and black oak, ponderosapine and sugar pine dominated forest stands. These legacy oaks and pines confer a highdegree of stand resilience to fire provided the understory of seedlings, saplings and poles arenot excessively abundant (conditions that create horizontal and vertical homogeneity in thefuel bed that is 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 twothirds slope positions on any aspect and a high priority was placed on these areas for variabledensity management (thinning from below) around these legacy trees. The legacy trees inthese sites are considered susceptible to reduced growth and vigor resulting from drought anddensity related moisture stress. Reduced vigor promotes insect and disease related mortality;hence the high priority for treatment in these stands. Approximately 1,810 acres areidentified for potential treatment within this Priority.Priority 3Some areas previously treated with hazardous fuel reduction actions need maintenance toremain effective. Under AFRCA, areas that received fuel reduction treatment in the pastoriginally were grouped within Category 1, but after further consideration, it was determinedat least some would need to be treated and were considered Category 2 (and Priority 3)because of their current or near-term future need for maintenance to retain conditions thatsupport low crown fire potential and satisfy other stated goals. Treatments may includefollow-up understory slashing, prescribed burning or thinning. Approximately 580 acres areidentified for potential treatment within this Priority.Priority 4Lower 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, matureDouglas-fir and white fir. Such low elevation mixed conifer stands are a high priority forunderstory thinning below and around these reserve trees to restore their fire resiliency byimproving the survivorship of the legacy trees in a subsequent fire. Currently, moisturecompetition 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-establishmore open conditions that would have occurred had fire suppression not affected standstructure. Historically these areas were prone to relatively frequent (yet variable) wildfire oflow and mixed fire severity that killed predominantly young trees, thinning from below,while larger trees more frequently survived. The intended manual treatments are designed toreestablish horizontal discontinuity in dead and live fuels, removing the abundance of youngrecruits that have established and grown in the long fire-free interval. Approximately 1,480acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority.Draft EIS II - 56 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Priority 5Compared with south and west aspects, moisture stress is less on the northerly and easterlyaspects of the upper thirds of the slopes at lower elevations—areas that include Douglas-firPAGs and the Dry White Fir PAG. Because of hill slope shading, temperatures are coolerand available moisture is typically greater (not included here are stands of the Moist WhiteFir PAG, which may occur in the same general slope and aspect, but within draws or onbenches where greater available moisture is retained).These areas have a higher site potential to support a healthy growth of trees at greater densitythan slopes facing the afternoon sun. However, not having developed with recurrent fireduring their growth, many such stands are found with excessive stand densities especially ofabundant understory and Cohort 2 trees (defined below) in the canopy, including some largerdiameter Cohort 2 trees. These conditions increase the potential for severe fire effects andthreaten the large legacy Douglas-fir and pine Cohort 1 trees where they occur. These sametrees often are threatened by loss of vigor due to density related issues that increase thepotential for more severe effects of insects, fungi, and parasitic plant populations.Approximately 1,380 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority.Priority 6The upper one-third of southerly and westerly aspects at middle elevation predominantlysupports the Cool White Fir Plant Association Group. Abundant legacy trees of Douglas-fir,pine species, and Shasta red fir occur in such areas and these historically conferred fireresilience to such stands, provided the interval between fires was not too extensive. Goodexamples can be seen along the road from Four Corners to Bull Gap. Understory and canopyencroachment by younger white fir and the accumulation of down and dead fuels in theabsence 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 theabsence of thinning by low intensity fire. While these stands are naturally thinning theirranks to varied degrees through competition for site resources (and potentially through insectand fungal related mortality) a greater probability of fire events burning with intense firebehavior and severe effects is expected. Reducing the density of such stands is proposed as ameans to reduce potential fire severity and increase the potential for development of latesuccessionalhabitat conditions and protection of watershed values, particularly water supply.This Priority includes portions of the Moist White Fir PAG which may occur in such slopepositions and aspects, but within draws or on benches where there is greater availablemoisture. Approximately 70 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority.Category 3. Strategic Connections (geographic, ecological, logistical, and social)This Category accounts for many types of treatment areas that may include all PAGsincluding the Cool White Fir PAG, Dry Douglas-fir (which contains inclusions of OregonWhite Oak, Ponderosa Pine PAGS), Moist Douglas-fir, Dry White Fir and Moist White FirPAGs. The areas were evaluated for fire hazard based on several factors including ecologicalvalue 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 areapproximately 3,670 acres in this Category. Map II-5 portrays treatment areas proposed withthe Community Alternative under the Draft EIS.Draft EIS II - 57 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Priority 1The highest priority strategic area within the National Forest portion of the Analysis Areaunder this alternative is considered the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) because of thehazard of fire in the proximity of homes and other development and escape routes. UnderAFRCA, this area is defined by the first major ridge above the city limits including ClaytonCreek to the south, Wildcat Canyon to the northwest, and an area around the ReederReservoir and water treatment plant. Much of the WUI on Federal land has already beentreated or identified for treatment under AWPP. Also proposed for treatment are LandslideHazard Zone 2 and slopes up to 75% in the interface (with proper mitigation measures andrationale) to allow for optimal abatement of fire hazard for the urban values. Approximately1,260 acres are identified for potential treatment within this Priority.Priority 7Corridors, not including the area within 50 feet of riparian areas within the middle and lowerelevation PAGs, that also are within 200 feet of any setting described above, were ranked asPriority 7. These areas would extend the higher priority treatments described above, furtherdown slope into Riparian Reserves to reduce the potential for the “wick effect” describedearlier, and to take advantage of resiliency, existing or created. Approximately 510 acres areidentified for potential treatment within this Priority.Priority 8Roadside corridors within 100 feet on either side of roads spanning short distances betweenother selected units are identified as Priority 8. Identification of these corridors was furtherrestricted to the lower elevation PAGs. These were designed to offer fuel reduction zonesthat would be useful in promoting use of prescribed fire and to facilitate wildfire firesuppression. Areas identified for inclusion in this priority also extend fire resilient linkagesbetween treated areas. Approximately 230 acres would be treated within this Priority.Priority 9Under Category 3, northern spotted owl 1/4 mi. activity centers in low/mid elevation PAGSwere identified for some light touch prescriptions to restore late-successional habitat benefitsfor northern spotted owls. Approximately 1,670 acres are identified for potential treatmentwithin this Priority. Map II-5 does not portray Priority 9 treatment areas proposed with theCommunity Alternative to avoid drawing attention to locations of known pair activitycenters.Stand DensityInventories completed on both City of Ashland and Forest Service lands indicate that in mostsituations stand densities are high to extreme, with relative densities very commonly at 0.6 to1.0 (a range that brackets the beginning stage of competition-related mortality and thetheoretical maximum). These conditions result in increased stress and reduced vigor andgrowth 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, fireresistant species. In the absence of fire, and with increasing duration of the fire free periodthe increasing proportion of the Analysis Area in this density range increases the potentialand concern about a rapid widespread wave of insect mediated mortality that woulddisproportionately affect the oldest cohort of trees (see below).Draft EIS II - 58 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Under the Community Alternative, identified stands within this range would be prioritizedfor treatment in order to improve retained tree vigor, particularly of preferred larger trees ofpreferred species. Thinning should be “from below”, creating stand structure that retains themost fire resistant trees and facilitates return of natural disturbance processes and creates fireresiliency.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 astand-by-stand basis. Coupled with ensuing slash treatment, this strategy has both improvedvegetation (stand) vigor and reduced potential wildfire severity on an area-wide basis. It isalso important to retain untreated portions of the landscape to encourage important structuralvariation, wildlife habitat, and other important values, thereby reducing total acreage treatedThis maintains and/or promotes heterogeneity of the vegetation throughout the area and is acritical project-level objective.Stand StructureOf the three characteristics that traditionally describe forested stands, density, structure, andcomposition, 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 developmentto achieve wildfire management benefits difficult. Nonetheless, in order for this approach tosucceed, existing, desired, and future stand structure must be specifically described in orderto assess the effectiveness of proposed treatments.Under AFRCA, description of stand structure can be facilitated by delineating each of thevarious sizes/ages/layers of vegetation in a stand, typically referred to as cohorts. In allsettings and treatments included under the Community Alternative, the intention is toprimarily leave trees that were part of the stand prior to fire exclusion, the first cohort, and toreduce the abundance of younger recruits in the third and second cohorts grown over the last80 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 someindividuals 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 weremore 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 andriparian areas‣ The most common PAGs and species: Oregon White Oak PAG; Oregon white oak,ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir;Douglas-firPAGs: ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; and White Fir PAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine,Douglas-fir, Shasta red firDraft EIS II - 59 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 standstructures‣ Typically initiated following moderate to high-severity disturbance, such as the 1901 or 1910wildfire events‣ Not having been thinned by subsequent fire, this cohort often currently is at excessive standdensities more typical of the stem exclusion stage of stand development, and declining ingrowth and vigor‣ The most common PAGS and species: Oregon White Oak PAG; Oregon white oak,ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Californiablack oak; Douglas-fir PAGs; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir; White Fir PAGs; sugarpine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red fir, white firCohort #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; ayounger example of Cohort #2‣ Most noticeable in stands with recent disturbance history‣ The most common PAGs and species: Oregon White Oak PAG; Oregon white oak,ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Californiablack oak; Douglas-fir PAGs; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir; White Fir PAGs; sugarpine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red fir, white firSpecies CompositionDue to fire exclusion, tree species composition has shifted from that expected under naturalconditions. In those areas of the Analysis Area that historically were typified by vegetationadapted to frequent fire, absence of fire has provided a competitive advantage for the treespecies that are both more shade tolerant and fire intolerant. These have replaced recruitmentof species that are both shade intolerant and fire tolerant which typically prosper when firesoccur more frequently. As a result, white fir is now more abundant on sites that would havesupported Douglas-fir (in White Fir PAGs) and Douglas-fir has moved onto sites wherefrequent fire favored dominance by pine and occasional oak and madrone (Oregon WhiteOak and Ponderosa Pine PAGs).To remedy this change in species composition and resistance to fire, pine and hardwoodretention would be favored over Douglas-fir on many lower elevation sites (ponderosa pineand Douglas-fir PAGs). Under AFRCA, Douglas-fir and pine retention would be favoredover white fir retention in the Douglas-fir and White Fir PAGs.Historically, both white and black oak are thought to have been more abundant throughoutthe 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 remnantsin mixed-conifer forests. It rarely exists as an understory tree, especially beneath a closedcanopy (McDonald 1990).Draft EIS II - 60 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Retention and promotion of Oregon white oak (tree form) is a primary objective for theCommunity Alternative. White oak tends to occur in soil and aspect settings with a lowerpotential for sustaining conifers. Nevertheless, Douglas-fir has encroached and overtoppedmany such oak settings. AFRCA promotes removing young encroaching conifers exceptpine and cedar species from the white oak sites.Under AFRCA, a species hierarchy is presented for each PAG, favoring those species thatare generally part of the first cohort and for which recruitment has declined in abundancewith changes in disturbance history over the last 150 years. All of the more detailedprescriptions (contained in DEIS Appendix C) are designed in part to promote and maximizeretention of Cohort 1 trees throughout the Analysis Area. Among the 2 nd and 3 rd cohorts, thelargest (based on height, diameter, or crowns) trees, and large, limby trees that developed in amore open, windy environment would be the priority for retention. Thinning would retainthose trees best suited to withstand the more open conditions that would result from thethinning and modified group selection 22 .SummaryUnder the Community Alternative, treatment areas are limited to National Forest lands in theUpper Bear Analysis Area. Categories were defined by the citizens group in April 2004.Treatment areas, categories and priorities were developed by 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 ¼ mile of northernspotted owl activity centers, unless noted. Some of these priorities include limited acreagewithin the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (see following discussion). Total areaidentified for potential treatment, including within plantations is approximately 8,990 acres.22 Modified group selection under the Community Alternative would create growing space around desired reserve trees byremoving less desirable trees at a distance within the crown radius of the reserve tree.Draft EIS II - 61 Ashland Forest Resiliency

IN SUMMARYCategory 1 - Existing Fire Resilient Areas 23 , including:‣ Previously completed USFS prescribed burns that are currently resilient.‣ Previously completed USFS fuel breaks that are currently fire resilient‣ Previously completed USFS fuel management units of the Ashland WatershedProtection Plan‣ Riparian Areas where fire behavior expected to be less intense in relatively moist,protected areas with higher potential for late-seral forest‣ Fire resilient late seral forests, with fewer than 50 seedling and saplings (

Table II-4 provides a summary of Categories and treatment Priorities as discussed above,based on PAGs. Map II-5 portrays the Community Alternative, based on areas identified forpotential treatment.Table II-4. Community Alternative - Summary of Treatments by PAGsPlant AssociationGroups (PAGs)Priority1Priority2Priority3Priority4Priority5Priority6Priority7Priority8Priority9Dry Douglas-fir(1407)403 490 143 299 266 NT 46 31 396Moist Douglas-fir(1408)447 485 176 287 438 NT 133 45 279Dry White Fir(2004)112 615 123 894 676 NT 128 72 693Moist White Fir(2003)298 184 102 NT NT 42 178 58 247Cool White Fir(2098)NT 36 36 NT NT 28 25 24 55Moist MountainHemlock (2301)NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NTCool MountainHemlock (2311)NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NTTotals 1,260 1,810 580 1,480 1,380 70 510 230 1,670Grand total 8,990 acresNT = No treatment proposedAcres shown are considered the upper limit to be treated for each PAG.Draft EIS II - 63 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP II-5. Community Alternative Treatment AreasDraft EIS II - 64 Ashland Forest Resiliency

c. Specific Design Elements and Specific Mitigation MeasuresThis sub-section includes specific Community Alternative design elements that are identifiedas unique and/or different that those contained under the Proposed Action (i.e., they are notcommon). These elements also include discussions that can be considered specificmitigation measures.Implementation MethodologyThe original Community Alternative, dated April 2004, called for a spatially explicitinventory of vegetation and soil conditions in the Ashland Watershed during the planningprocess under this DEIS. Therefore, a key design element under the Community Alternativeis the requirement for a site-specific ground-based inventory that would be accomplishedconcurrent with and at the time of implementation. This element is non-traditional to typicalForest Service planning efforts where inventories and even preliminary implementation areaccomplished in the planning phase.The Community Alternative envisions forthcoming explicit inventories to gather a variety ofdata during implementation, including site and stand evaluation data (i.e., slope, aspect, soilstype, tree size class distribution, basal area, species and cohort composition, PlantAssociation 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 andoperational plan for a given treatment area.Certain amounts of treatments are proposed associated with certain design criteria orlimitations. The actual on-the-ground conditions that trigger these criteria are to be validatedconcurrent with implementation. Concurrent monitoring would ensure that that the effects ofany decision are equal to or lesser than those documented in NEPA planning analysis anddecision. Further, development of inventory protocols and a detailed monitoring plan wouldbe developed concurrent with and at the time of decision.Baseline Inventory and MonitoringUnder AFRCA, there is a specific and unique requirement to conduct inventories and acquirebaseline data for monitoring. This inventory is to be gathered at a sufficient time prior toimplementation of treatments to allow it to be used to establish baseline conditions, for whichimplementation monitoring data can be compared. Most important of the data elements isvegetation data, which would validate the satellite imagery and validate the accuracy of thePAG mapping.Soil ConservationGiven the highly erosive nature of the soils in the Analysis Area, the following generalprescriptions would be imposed (to ensure long-term soil productivity is maintained) on anyvegetative treatment. See Soil and Site Productivity, Chapter III for specific soil types andfurther discussion.The AFRCA promoted alternative strategies for small-diameter material utilization, andtherefore was developed with the assumption that ground based yarding equipment could beutilized, 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 soilunits except on existing roadways without site specific mitigation measures designed toprotect the soil productivity and water resources. Their use would be mitigated as follows:Draft EIS II - 65 Ashland Forest Resiliency

-Slopes less than or equal to 20 percent would be the upper limit for ground basedequipment. “Slashbuster” tracked machines would not be allowed as an appropriate toolfor brush or tree thinning anywhere within the AFRCA Project Area.-Slopes below 20 percent may require one or more of the following mitigation measureswhich 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 placedon 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 20%.1) Slopes 0 to 20 percent: Mechanical use from existing roadways is valid with the prescriptionsaddressing soil Standards and Guidelines for the Municipal Watershed. Areas exposed and nothaving 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 areasof 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 rangethe site-specific rationale must be developed by geologists in the case of slope stability concernsor 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) ofstanding 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 ecologicalintegrity, a site specific rationale must be developed to justify any treatment on that site andmust incorporate measures to protect soil productivity, water quality and address erosion andslope stability concerns.Northern Spotted Owl Activity CentersTreatments within 0.25 miles of owl activity centers would be highly limited unlessundergrowth is considered excessive to provide for protection and/or restoration of existinghabitat. This situation exists where undergrowth inhibits owls from accessing grounddwellingprey species over 50 percent or more of any particular stand of 40 acres or more. Inall cases, at least 25–35 percent of a treatment area would remain untreated to provide habitatfor prey species. Treatments would concentrate on small diameter shrub and tree species thatpreclude meeting the 50 percent target.Prior to treatment of owl activity centers, site-specific treatment plans would be developed inconsultation with a wildlife biologist knowledgeable in habitat characteristics, and needs ofspotted owls and other late-successional dependent species.Draft EIS II - 66 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Treat only ladder fuels within approximately 0.25 miles around known nest sites. From 0.25to approximately 0.5 miles from known nest sites, other treatment options are possible. Thestrict “core” areas (activity center out to 0.5 miles) may be somewhat dissected by ridges thatsupport less suitable habitat.Within these areas, based on PAG or slope position, there are a number of differentprescriptions identified (see DEIS Appendix C). The prescription below takes precedenceover those prescriptions unless otherwise stated. Variable density thinning around retentionpine and hardwoods is a potential treatment in upland areas (upper 1/3 slope) and on slopeswith southern exposures where habitat is not currently suitable for spotted owls.Retain characteristics of suitable habitat and avoid canopy reduction within currently suitablehabitat, particularly along riparian corridors and on north slopes. Thinning prescriptions byPAG and aspect can be utilized around leave trees with the following restriction. Relativedensity treatment within these areas would be at or above the highest relative densityidentified in the prescription.In areas without retention pine or hardwood, high pruning, slashing, light understorythinning, and a prescribed fire treatment are recommended. Where appropriate, and onlywhere necessary to meet ecological objectives, general PAG prescriptions may be employed.However, note the canopy and habitat restrictions above. Canopy may be retained in anycanopy layer above 20 feet in height and can be composed of any conifer or hardwoodspecies. Within areas that would provide for connectivity between nest sites, such asnortherly aspects and riparian corridors, avoid reduction in canopy closure and retain otherhabitat characteristics generally considered to be important for spotted owls. Retain a multistoriedcanopy where it is available.Douglas-fir Dwarf MistletoeManagement of Douglas-fir infected with dwarf mistletoe is complicated by its inherenttendency to both promote important late-successional values (e.g., spotted owl nesting sites)while exacerbating processes (e.g., increased wildland fire severity) and/or successionaltrends (species composition change) that can detract from project goals. The complicatednature of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe management, particularly given the multiple andsometimes conflicting goals of the project, necessitates decision-making on a site-by-sitebasis during the implementation phase.Under AFRCA, the implementation process would require a spatially explicit inventory ofmistletoe infections at a landscape scale to support assessment of the need for treatment at astand scale. Projections for long-term availability of dwarf mistletoe infected trees with largebrooms, and subsequent protection and/or promotion of such features, should be included.Several features of dwarf mistletoe can be used to develop successful management practicesthat may promote goals outlined for the project. First, mistletoe is an obligate parasite thatrequires 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 10feet. And fifth, dwarf mistletoe infected trees usually are easy to visually detect.Draft EIS II - 67 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe management practices under the Community Alternativeinclude:• Killing some infected trees by girdling or cutting them.• Retaining non-host tree or shrub species between infected and uninfected Douglas-firtrees 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 tolatent infections, can diminish parasite abundance while raising crown base heights toaddress fire hazard. This is particularly effective in vigorous trees and stands withlow levels of infection.• Clumping the distribution of infected trees into small groups widely separated fromeach other, thereby reducing spread.• Cutting heavily-infected trees that can easily facilitate the movement of fire from theground surface into tree crowns, particularly in stands that have other large trees ofpreferred species in close proximity.• Utilizing potential barriers to dwarf mistletoe spread, such as roads, meadows, rockyoutcrops, creeks, species composition changes, etc.Management of dwarf mistletoe-infected trees can be avoided at lower slope positions wherereduced spread rates and spotted owl nest sites tend to occur. A much lower priority formanagement exists in relatively vigorous even-aged stands that feature limited Douglas-firunderstories or understories dominated by non-host species. Treatments generally are moreappropriate at upper two-thirds slope positions and in multi-layered stands with infectedoverstory trees.From a fire management perspective, dwarf mistletoe management can reduce vertical fuelcontinuity through broom pruning or felling of heavily-infected trees. Management also canreduce horizontal fuel continuity through felling or removal of infected trees in small, createdopenings subject to the retention preferences discussed above.Thinning around vigorous, lightly infected trees also can promote long-term availability ofwildlife nesting trees. Infected trees with branches able to support large brooms areparticularly important features to retain for potential spotted owl nest sites (Marshall et al.2003).Ecologically Functioning Riparian AreasDuring implementation, the Community Alternative proposes that the riparian areadelineation be tailored to reflect site-specific characteristics throughout the Analysis Area. Ingeneral, these ecologically functioning riparian areas and an additional 50-foot buffer wouldnot be treated. Above the no treatment zone in areas identified as priorities for fuelreduction, treatments gradually would increase in intensity so that they would receive thesame treatments as northerly aspects for that PAG.Within the riparian areas, restoration treatments would occur only where past timber harvestand management activities (including establishment of plantations) have encroached into theriparian area and natural recovery is not occurring. In such circumstances, recruitment oflarge woody debris may have been impaired and therefore, likely would need to besupplemented.Draft EIS II - 68 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Inventoried Roadless AreaThe Technical Team made assessments and planned management based primarily onecological attributes, but adjusted consideration and sensitivities based on social values aswell. During the alternative development process, the Team discovered some of the prioritysettings included limited acreage within the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area. TheTechnical Team recognized that treatments in the Roadless Area may be sociallycontroversial. Therefore, the nature of management actions was minimized on these lands toprescribed 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 CreekWatershed is very important to restoration of forest ecosystems because it supports natural,dynamic interactions between ecosystem structure and process. Wildland fire offers distinctadvantages over other management options in terms of restoration of landscape structuresand spatial patterning, and reflects one of the overall goals of this project and the CommunityAlternative, to restore wildland fire as a natural process in the Watershed. The mostappropriate places to implement landscape-scale fire restoration treatments include theInventoried Roadless Area and large blocks of lightly roaded areas where risks to human lifeand property are low, such as the lands outside of the wildland-urban interface.Large Tree RetentionAFRCA is designed to promote and maximize retention of Cohort 1 and larger Cohort 2 treesthroughout the Analysis Area. This alternative proposes to reduce fuels and the density ofthe smaller trees. Cohorts 2 and 3 would be thinned from below to establish desired moreopen forest structure and, to the extent possible, the largest trees of all species in the standwould be retained. Under the Community Alternative, specific justification would berequired for felling and/or removal of trees in Cohorts 1 and 2. Site-specific prescriptionswould be developed during implementation; protocols are discussed below.Around Cohort 1 trees, stand density reduction would be employed in priority areasidentified for treatment to improve vigor, reduce susceptibility to attack from bark beetlesand/or disease, and reduce the potential for damage from wildfire and/or prescribed fire - thatis, to maximize their potential for long-term retention. Stand density reduction should focuson smaller Cohort 2 and 3 trees first within the immediate vicinity of the retained Cohort 1trees and out to a radius equal to 2 crown radii. Complete tree and/or vegetation removalwithin this crown radii is not the intention; rather, an overall reduction in stand basal area notto exceed 50 percent of existing basal areas, or a specified basal area target (100 square feetper acre in Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir PAGs; 150 square feet per acre in White FirPAGs), whichever is greater (see DEIS Appendix C).Basal area targets in all PAGs 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 thinningwould be used to satisfy snag and down wood targets (largest first). Density and spacing oftrees left after stand density reduction can be ordered, clumped, or variable, ideally withvegetation and tree felling and removal greatest in downhill directions (or in the direction ofexpected spread in a wildfire event). Ladder fuels within the crown radius of the preferredCohort 1 tree are also a priority for removal. In the treatment area around the preferredCohort 1 tree, retention of the most vigorous Cohort 1 or 2 trees is desired to reach targetbasal areas, with pines and larger hardwoods particularly preferred.Draft EIS II - 69 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In stands within Priority areas identified for treatment where greater than 50% of basal areais in trees between 25 to 50+ inches (Cohort 1), the AFRCA requires site specific rationalefor cutting trees or creating snags from trees over 25 inches. Cutting typically means treesare left on site to satisfy habitat or soil objectives. Once density targets, snag recruitment,down wood, and soil management objectives are satisfied, felled trees are considered excessto fuel hazard objectives, and are available for removal. A transparent validation process isrequired 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 2dominated), AFRCA requires site-specific rationale for cutting and then removing (definedabove) trees over 17 inches, or creating snags, when all other objectives are met. Thetransparent validation process discussed above, is required for cutting and removal of trees inthis size class.6. Mitigation Measures Common to the Proposed Action andCommunity AlternativeThis Section discusses mitigation measures to constrain management actions that are applicableto the Proposed Action and Community Alternative that propose fire hazard reductiontreatments. These measures would be applied during implementation. Upon a final decision asdocumented in a Record of Decision, selected measures would become a requirement.As previously noted, the Forest Service Proposed Action and the City of Ashland’s CommunityAlternative was finalized under a collaborative process with representatives of the City ofAshland’s Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical Team and the Forest ServiceNEPA planning team. During the course of this process, many design elements that can becategorized as mitigation were identified as being common to both Action Alternatives, and aredocumented herein. Design elements and specific mitigation measures that were identified asnot being common, are discussed in the specific Section presented under each Action Alternative(above).The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations forimplementing the procedural provisions of NEPA to identify all relevant, reasonable mitigationmeasures that could improve the project. Mitigation, as defined in the CEQ Regulations (40CFR 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 itsimplementation.• Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operationsduring 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 avoid or minimizeadverse effects (or implement positive impacts) for the Action Alternatives are identified byresource topic area. Recommendations contained in the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis, the1996 Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, and the 2003 Upper Bear Assessmentfor achieving desired conditions and protecting resources were reviewed by the IDT.Draft EIS II - 70 Ashland Forest Resiliency

While some recommendations were specific, many are stated as general concepts. Therefore, itis necessary to further develop concepts based on site-specific information, and whereappropriate, recommendations were incorporated into the project design, or as mitigationmeasures.Mitigation measures identified herein are specific to the implementation of actions consideredwithin this EIS. Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the RRNF Landand Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan are also incorporatedby reference as required measures.The effectiveness and feasibility of the mitigation measures are assessed based upon thefollowing rating system. These ratings are applied to all mitigation measures, except theStandard Operating Procedures identified below. Each measure will identify the code foreffectiveness and feasibility at the end of the statement or paragraph. Ratings were determinedby professional resource specialists based on current scientific research and/or professionalexperience or judgmentTable II-5. Effectiveness and Feasibility of Mitigation MeasuresEFFECTIVENESS (E)E1E2E3Unknown or experimental; logic or practice estimated to be less than 75%; little or no experience in applyingthis measure.Practice is moderately effective (75 to 90%). Often done in this situation; usually reduces impacts; logicindicates practice is highly effective but there is minimal literature or research.Practice is highly effective (greater than 90%). Almost always reduces impacts, almost always done in thissituation; literature and research can be applied.FEASIBILITY (F)F1F2F3Unknown or experimental; little or no experience in applying this measure; less than 75% certainty forimplementation. May be technically difficult or very costly. May be legally or socially difficult.Technically probable; greater than 75% certainty for implementation as planned; costs moderate to high incomparison to other options. Legally or socially acceptable with reservations.Almost certain to be implemented as planned; technically easy; costs low in comparison to other options.Legally or socially expected.a. Standard Operating ProceduresA number of mitigation measures are basically standard operating procedures that would beemployed by the Forest Service and those implementing authorized actions, pursuant toFederal and State regulations and Forest Service Manual direction. These procedures wouldapply to all aspects of fire hazard reduction activities.(1) Comply with all Terms and Conditions and standards for protection 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 forManaging Competing and Unwanted Vegetation. (E3, F3)Draft EIS II - 71 Ashland Forest Resiliency

(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 beprepared 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 beapproved by the Forest Service prior to implementation of any project or action.(E3, F3)(6) When vegetation management in involved with any action or project, a site-specificsilvilcultural prescription for treatment will be developed and will be certified by aForest 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 anddesigned with qualified professional resource specialists. Examples include treatmentof owl activity centers, where site-specific treatment plans would be developed inconsultation with a wildlife biologist knowledgeable in habitat characteristics, and needsof spotted owls and other late-successional dependent species. Other examples includesoils, geology, and hydrology. Recommendations and/or determinations will bereviewed and approved by the Forest Service. (E3, F3)b. Hydrology, Soils and Site ProductivityBest Management Practices (BMPs)BMPs as identified in General Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA PNW1988) contain mitigation measures that will be used to protect watershed conditions andwater quality. While the terminology in these BMPs is dated (for example StreamsideManagement Unit now falls under Riparian Reserve), they are still considered effective undertoday's management direction. Specific BMPs determined to be applicable to hazardous fuelreduction actions include: (E3, F3)TIMBER HARVEST (T)T-1 Timber Sale Planning ProcessT-2 Timber Harvest DesignT-3 Use of Erosion Potential Assessment for Timber Harvest Unit DesignT-4 Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection NeedsT-5 Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale ActivitiesT-7 Streamside Management Unit DesignationT-8 Streamcourse ProtectionT-10 Log Landing LocationT-11 Tractor Skid Trail Location and DesignT-12 Suspended Log Yarding in Timber HarvestingT-13 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber Sale OperationsT-14 Revegetation of Areas Disturbed by Harvest ActivitiesT-15 Log Landing and Erosion Prevention and ControlT-16 Erosion control on Skid TrailsT-17 Meadow protection During Timber HarvestingT-18 Erosion Control Structure Maintenance.T-19 Acceptance of t\Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures Before Sale ClosureT-21 Servicing and Refueling EquipmentDraft EIS II - 72 Ashland Forest Resiliency

ROAD SYSTEMS (R)R-1 General Guidelines for the Location and Design of RoadsR-2 Erosion Control PlanR-3 Timing of Construction ActivitiesR-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 ProjectsR-18 Maintenance of RoadsR-19 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of MaterialsR-20 Traffic Control During Wet PeriodsR-23 Obliteration of Temporary Roads and LandingsFUELS MANAGEMENT (F)F1 Fire and Fuel Management ActivitiesF-2 Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Prescribed Fire PrescriptionsF-3 Protection of Water Quality During Prescribed Fire OperationsWATERSHED MANAGEMENT (W)W-1 Watershed RestorationW-3 Protection of WetlandsW-4 Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures PlanW-5 Cumulative Watershed EffectsW-6 Control of Activities Under Special Use PermitW-7 Water Quality MonitoringW-8 Management by Closure to Use (Seasonal, Temporary, Permanent)W-9 Surface Erosion Control at Facility SitesRECREATION (REC)REC-3REC-4Management of Sanitation FacilitiesControl of Refuse DisposalVEGETATIVE MANIPULATION (VM)VM-1VM-2VM-3VM-4Slope Limitations for Tractor OperationTractor Operation Excluded from Wetlands and MeadowsRevegetation of Surface Disturbed AreasSoil Moisture Limitations for Tractor OperationsThe following more specific mitigation measures are common to all Action Alternatives toreduce surface erosion, sedimentation rates, and the risk for landslides, protect water quality,and maintain or enhance soils/site productivity.Soils and Site ProductivityThe objectives relating to direct soil effects specific to this analysis are 1) to meet direction inthe National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other legal mandates, 2) to manageNational Forest System lands under ecosystem management principles without permanent,irreversible impairment to soil and site productivity, 3) to maintain or improve soil and waterquality and 4) to emphasize protection over restoration.Draft EIS II - 73 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Soil and site productivity is maintained when soil compaction, displacement, puddling,burning, erosion, loss of site organic matter (soil and down woody material), and altered soilmoisture regimes are kept within defined Standards and Guidelines. The direct detrimentaleffects on soils and site productivity occur when the indicators for these effects exceedStandards 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 RiverNational Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards and Guidelines for soilquality and the 1998 Regional Supplement to the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2521 R-6Supplement 2500-98-1, Effective August 24, 1998), dealing with soil resource and siteproductivity protection.The mitigation measures as expressed by Standards and Guidelines for soil and siteproductivity for Ashland Forest Resiliency are as follows:(1) For areas with no prior soil disturbances, design projects such that detrimental soilconditions do not exceed more than 20 percent of an activity area (this includes thepermanent transportation system). (E3, F3)(2) For areas where less than 20 percent of the site is in a detrimental soil condition fromprior activities, the cumulative detrimental effect of the current activity following projectimplementation 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 prioractivities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restorationmust, at a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and shallmove toward a net improvement in soil quality. (E3, F3)Definitions for detrimental soil conditions:Detrimental compaction is the increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent, or more, over theundisturbed level, a macropore space reduction of 50 percent or more, and/or a reductionbelow 15 percent macro porosity.Detrimental puddling is the observable soil deformation and loss of soil structure when thedepth of ruts or imprints is six inches or more. Soil bulk density usually increases withpuddling.Detrimental displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon, from acontiguous 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 beensignificantly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and the next one-half inchblackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer. Thedetrimentally burned soil standard applies to a contiguous area greater than 100 square feet,which is at least 5 feet in width.Draft EIS II - 74 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Detrimental Surface Erosion is the 1) visual evidence of surface soil loss in areas greater than100 feet through sheet, rill or gully erosion over a contiguous area greater than 100 squarefeet and 2) the reduction of an effective ground cover below a minimum-percent-acceptablelevel.(4) For activities to meet acceptable levels of soil loss and soil management objectives(based on implementation monitoring), the minimum-percent-effective ground coverfollowing 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 yearfrom the first year monitoring of the event. Effective ground cover is defined as anymaterial (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 (seeMt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS [August 2004] for description of model) for soiland 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 thisDraft EIS. (E3, F3)Table II-6. Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover by Erosion ClassErosion Hazard Class 1 st Year 2 nd YearModerate (60% >70%Severe and Very Severe (>35 gradient) >70% >85%(5) Soil Moisture Regime must remain unchanged (except for activities that restore naturalwater tables). Detrimental conditions are changes in soil drainage classes (Soil SurveyManual and Handbook) or aquatic conditions (Soil Taxonomy Handbook) that areincompatible with management objectives. Evaluate the effect of management-inducedwater table or subsurface flow changes on plant growth or potential communitycomposition. (E3, F3)Down WoodAs with snags, down logs are important for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem function. Inaddition, down coarse woody material is particularly important to maintaining and holdingsoils in place throughout the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area. Consistent withretention goals for snags, down coarse wood will be retained to support forest function.(1) In general, both Action Alternatives will maintain down logs within the upper one thirdof the range for down logs for that PAG, with more logs retained in riparian areas andon northerly aspects than on southerly slopes. Where standing green trees are felled tomeet habitat objectives, felled trees will be left in place as needed to meet down logand/or soil objectives. (E3, F3)A target range for number of pieces of coarse woody material per acre was developed foreach Plant Association Group using current plot data presented in the 2003 Upper BearAssessment (see Component 2, Section VI). This range assumes that by maintaining thedesired range of coarse woody material over all the sites, long-term site productivity wouldnot be reduced.Draft EIS II - 75 Ashland Forest Resiliency

A key element of desired conditions for PAGs is down dead woody material. Desired levelsof dead wood per acre are established for each PAG, and are displayed in Section 3, c, thisChapter. These figures were derived from Ecology Plat data, adjusted by past conditionsestablished by PAGs, with consideration of the DecAID advisory system.c. Geology(1) Reduce risk to landslide and surface erosion hazards as much as possible by locating anyfuel reduction units, helicopter landings, and/or spur road construction away fromunstable terrain and/or wetland areas. Avoidance of these features is the best mitigationin most cases. When these slopes must be crossed to access management units, roadsshould be adequately drained with water bars, drain dips, and/or culverts to avoidconcentrating surface and groundwater onto sensitive slopes. Drain dips and culvertoutlets may need to be armored with riprap to reduce surface erosion and increasestability. (E3, F3)(2) Slope stability and erosion mitigation measures need to be designed to prevent landslidesand soil erosion from occurring at freshly disturbed sites. This could include utilizinggeotextile fabric with rock blanketing to armor exposed slopes to prevent surface waterfrom transporting soils off site and/or concentrating flows into unstable locations.Erosion control blankets combined with vegetation plantings are also a good method touse to stabilize disturbed soils on steep or moderately steep slopes. (E3, F3)(3) Proper road construction methods are a very important requirement within the AnalysisArea. Soil and rock in cut and fill slope construction needs to be stabilized by adequatelycompacting these materials. Well-compacted road prisms and fill slopes are veryimportant to road strength, intrinsic permeability, and resistance to erosion and slopefailures. Reducing the size and rock armoring many of the large fill slopes would reducethe likelihood of large debris slides developing from fill failures during peak flow stormevents. (E3, F3)(4) A large majority of the Upper Bear Analysis Area contains sandy soils, which areextremely erosive during wet weather conditions and may cause road and other resourcedamages. To prevent these damages in these granular soils, roadways should be surfacedwith crushed aggregate from rock sources located in the nearby area, or restrict useduring wet weather conditions. (E3, F3)(5) Road construction and reconstruction will be accomplished by October 31, or ifconditions are still dry, roadwork will be finished prior to the onset of wet weatherseason as determined by a Forest Service Hydrologist, Geologist, Fisheries Biologist, orSoils Scientist. (E3, F3)(6) After a precipitation event or at the beginning of operations following the wet season, itwill be necessary to determine when conditions are dry enough for constructionactivities to resume. Local variations in soil type, hydro-geomorphology, and roadcomposition will result in certain areas or road segments drying sooner than others.Therefore, discretion is required and universal determinations can rarely be made. Ingeneral, if the roadway or work area can support vehicles without causing rutting, soildisplacement, damage to drainage structures, and with no sediment delivery to streams,it can be used. (E3, F3)Draft EIS II - 76 Ashland Forest Resiliency

(7) Inspection by Forest Service specialists experienced in construction practices willprovide additional control of activities and is effective in minimizing adverseenvironmental effects. (E3, F3)d. Fuels and Air Quality(1) Contractual fire requirements will be enforced. (E3, F3)(2) Burn during periods of atmospheric instability (fire). (E3, F3)(3) Utilize techniques for reduced consumption and smoldering of large woody material andduff layers. (E3, F3)(4) Implement prescribed burning of slash piles during periods when the atmosphericconditions will transport smoke in a southerly direction away from the Medford AirQuality Management Area. (E3, F3)(5) Apply erosion control measures (native grass seeding, lop and scatter wood, etc.) to areasof exposed mineral soil in excess of 100 square feet and 5 feet width that may result fromprescribed fire. (E3, F3)(6) Minimize fireline construction utilizing changes in aspect or wet line to the extent that isoperationally feasible. Firelines will be constructed as close to the date as possible thatunderburning would occur to minimize weathering and erosion. Litter-duff will be rakedback into the fireline after the prescribed underburn is declared out. (E3, F3)e. Botanical ResourcesIn addition to the design elements described in sub-section 3, this Section, this Chapter, thefollow specific mitigation measures are prescribed for protection of botanical resources:(1) Slash shall be kept off of known occurrences of Horkelia tridentata, Cryptanthamilobakeri, Swertia radiata, Alliium campanulatum, or Hieracium greenei. Logs shallnot 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 conditionsfor Horkelia tridentata, Cryptantha milobakeri, Swertia radiata, Alliium campanulatum,Hieracium greenei and Juniperus occidentalis, beyond what the hazardous fuelsprescriptions provide, will be created where occupied habitat for these species isbecoming too shady to sustain reproduction and survival. (E3, F2)(3) If candidate helicopter landing #26 is developed, adjust location to the north of theSwertia radiata (monument plant) population here. Landing should be far enough awayfrom the population that individuals and occupied habitat are not lost to disturbance byvehicles and machinery. (E3, F3)(4) The mock orange shrub uphill from the East Fork sediment dam (Reeder Reservoir) thatsupports the lichen Lobaria scrobiculata (or L. hallii), as well as neighboringhardwoods and large shrubs, shall remain undisturbed. (E3, F3)Draft EIS II - 77 Ashland Forest Resiliency

(5) As funding is available, canopy openings designed to improve light conditions forDendriscocaulon intricatulum and Lobaria scrobiculata (or L. hallii) beyond what thehazardous fuels prescriptions provide, will be created where occupied habitat for thesespecies is becoming too shady to sustain reproduction and survival. (E3, F2)(6) If field reconnaissance for Forest Service Sensitive plant species has not been completedby the time the Record of Decision is issued for this project, that reconnaissance willoccur before implementation of treatments. If Forest Service Sensitive plant species arefound, the mitigation measures in this section will be applied. (E3, F3)(7) If additional Forest Service Sensitive plant species not covered by these mitigationmeasures are found, mitigation measures will be developed to ensure the viability ofthose species in the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area. (E3, F3)f. Invasive Non-native PlantsThis EIS and these mitigation measures incorporate by reference the Decision Notice signedby J. Michael Lunn, Forest Supervisor, on September 1, 1999 for the EnvironmentalAssessment 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 forManaging Competing and Unwanted Vegetation (December 1988b), its Record of Decisionand the terms of a Mediated Agreement (March 1989), which provides the basis for theRRNF Weed Management Plan.(1) Limit activities at sites with known infestations of Oregon Dept. of Agriculture A, B, andT-listed noxious weed species (excluding bull thistle and Klamath weed). Treat knownoccurrences in accordance with the RRNF Weed Management Plan before projectimplementation, if activities must occur in these areas. Continue annual treatments aslong as activities continue in these areas. (E3, F3)(2) Logging, road-building, and construction equipment and machinery will be cleaned ofdirt, mud, and plant parts before arriving at the Project Area. If working in a portion ofthe Project Area infested with Oregon Dept. of Agriculture A, B, and T-listed noxiousweed species (excluding bull thistle and Klamath weed), wash and/or clean equipmentand 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 ordisturb road shoulders in the vicinity of noxious weed occurrences. If soil disturbance(grading, road reconstruction, road maintenance etc.) must occur, do so after infestationshave been treated. If grading must occur, grade into an infestation, not away. (E3, F3)(4) Any areas authorized for hazardous fuel reduction treatments will be surveyed fornoxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants during the second summer afteractivity occurs. If noxious weeds are detected, appropriate action will be taken, inaccordance with the RRNF Weed Management Plan. (E3, F3)Draft EIS II - 78 Ashland Forest Resiliency

(5) Hazardous fuel reduction treatments shall generally not be conducted in the 20-acredalmation toadflax population in the Ashland RNA near the end of the Lamb MineTrail. A DFPZ proposed on the northwestern edge of this population will be re-routedas much as possible to avoid the infested area. Prescribed fires used to reducehazardous fuels may occasionally overlap the fringes of this population but will not beconducted in the majority of the infested area unless non-herbicide control methods aredeveloped in the future that are shown to be effective on this species in thisenvironment. (E3, F3)(6) Himalayan blackberry at potential helicopter landings # 52, 56, and 24, and star thistle atpotential helicopter landing #11, will be treated in accordance with the RRNF WeedManagement 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 existingpopulations, and report new sites. (E3, F2)g. Terrestrial Wildlife Species and HabitatMitigation Measures to protect northern spotted owl pair activity centers (PACs):Any of the following mandatory mitigation measures may be waived in a particular year ifnesting or reproductive success surveys conducted according to US FWS-endorsed surveyguidelines 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 notgenerally used by the public, blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels,will not occur within specified distances (see Table II-7 below) of any nest site oractivity center of known pairs and resident singles between 1 March and 30 June (oruntil two weeks after the fledging period) - unless protocol surveys have determined theactivity center to be not occupied, non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt.(E3, F3)March 1 - June 30 is considered the critical early nesting period. A Forest ServiceBiologist has the option to extend the restricted season to as late as 30 September duringthe year of activity, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or recycle nestingattempt). The restricted area is calculated as a radius from the assumed nest site (point).Table II-7. Northern Spotted Owl RestrictionsType of ActivityBlast of more than 2 pounds of explosiveBlast of 2 pounds or less of explosiveImpact pile driver, jackhammer or rock drillHelicopter or single-engine airplaneChainsaws (vegetation clearing, tree felling, etc.)Heavy equipmentZone of RestrictedOperationI mile120 yards60 yards120 yards65 yards35 yardsDraft EIS II - 79 Ashland Forest Resiliency

(2) In the event new spotted owl pair activity centers are found adjacent to or within theProject Area, mitigation to prevent disturbance will be designed in accordance with theProject Design Criteria (PDCs) listed in the Rogue River/South Coast BiologicalAssessment and Opinion (USDA Forest Service 2003). (E3, F3)Fuels Management, Prescribed FireFire firefighter safety must he taken into account at all times when using mitigation measuresIf implementation of PDCs might cause human safety risks, the action agencies will respondto 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 spottedowl 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 (helicoptershould be a least 120 yards above ground level). (E3, F3)Mitigation Measures to protect bald eagles:(1) No known bald eagle nest trees, perch trees, or roost trees will be cut, or modified topreclude function on NFSL. This includes habitat at alternate nest sites. Eagles foragefrom these sites. Perch trees along shorelines are especially important. The intent is toprotect those potential perches that “stand out.” (E3, F3)(2) Work or other activities above ambient noise levels that cause disturbance, includinghelicopter use, logging, and construction will not take place within 0.25 mile(approximately 400 m) of active nests/roosts (not line of site) or within 0.5 mile(approximately 800 m) (line-of-sight) from nests/roosts during periods of eagle use,unless surveys demonstrate that the nest or roost is not being used. Critical nestingperiods generally fall between 1 January and 31 August. Active winter roosts needprotection from disturbance from approximately 15 November to 15 March. Workrestriction windows may be modified by local biologists, based on site-specificinformation. (E3, F3)Mitigation Measure to minimize effects to goshawks:(1) If a goshawk nest site is detected within the Project Area, a Wildlife Biologist willdetermine nesting status (presence or absence of young). If young are determined to bepresent, activities will be restricted within 0.25 mile of the nest site until August 31 oruntil a Wildlife Biologist determines young to be successfully fledged from the nest.(E3, F3)Mitigation Measure to minimize effects to great gray owls:(1) If a great gray owl nest is discovered during project implementation activities, protectnest site with a 0.25 mile no activity buffer around the nest site and a 300 foot noactivity buffer around natural meadows and openings. (E3, F3)Draft EIS II - 80 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Mitigation Measures to minimize effects to Pacific fisher and American marten:(1) With the exception of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones under the Proposed Action, and notin addition to design criteria under both Action Alternatives, retain a minimum of one0.5 to 1 acre untreated patch per 40 acre block of the largest diameter trees, snags, andCWM where overstory canopy closure is ≥ 70%. These patches are designed to providesuitable den and rest sites for American marten and Pacific fisher throughout alltreatment areas and will probably be attained via design criteria. (E3, F3)Mitigation Measures to minimize effects to bats:Abandoned mines pose hazards to people using public lands. Abandoned mine hazardsinclude falling into open shafts, trenches, or pits; radiation; falling rocks; rodent droppingswith Hanta virus; and suffocation.(1) As funding permits, construct a bat gate on the entrance of Lamb mine to eliminatedisturbance to roosting bats by recreational users of the mine. As funding permits,construct a bat gate on Ashland Loop Mine. Currently, the door blocking the mine isinsufficient to eliminate use by the general public. There is an opening above the doorwhich restricts the entry by bats to a small area; this has the potential to increasepredation 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 includinginventory and plans for protection from disturbance and vandalism (from ROD ToRemove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards andGuidelines 2004). (E3, F2)General Wildlife Mitigation Measure – Pile Burning:(1) Slash piles provide habitat for multiple species of wildlife. Mollusks, salamanders, andsmall mammals use these piles as refugia where surface and activity fuels have beentreated. Pacific fisher and American marten forage in these piles for prey. Within 0.5miles of northern spotted owl pair activity centers and elsewhere, leave 3-5 unburnedpiles/acre for wildlife where they do not serve as ladder fuels. (E3, F2)h. Aquatic Species and Habitat(1) Refuel power equipment, or use absorbent pads for immobile equipment, at least 150 feetdistant 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, andat stream crossings or other locations that could result in direct delivery to adjacentwater bodies. Procurement of water used in dust abatement activities from pumpchances will follow the Project Design Criteria for Pump Chance Use programmaticcategory (NOAA Fisheries 2001). (E3, F3)Draft EIS II - 81 Ashland Forest Resiliency

(3) Prescribed burning within Riparian Reserves to achieve fuel reduction and wildlifehabitat 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- underburning initiated outside of the 50' buffer will be allowed to back into thisbuffer as long as the underburn is of low intensity and the midlevel and uppercanopies are not at risk.(4) The burn plan for treatments adjacent to perennial streams will include the objectives ofretaining 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 objectives will bemet through means such as igniting well outside 50 feet, watering down or removingfuels around at risk coarse woody material, constructing handlines, etc. (E3, F3)i. Cultural Resources(1) Notify Forest Archaeologist of any heritage resources discovered during projectimplementation. If a cultural resource is found, cease construction activities at thatlocation 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 theProject Area by designating them as “avoidance areas”. No equipment transport, workcrew“lunch camps,” or other activities will be permitted in avoidance areas. (E2, F3)j. Recreation and Public Safety(1) Restrict hauling between the hours of 8:00 am to 9:00 am, and 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm toavoid safety concerns in school zones. Commercial tree removal and hauling operationswould not be allowed on weekends or holidays. (E3, F3)(2) Utilize partial area closures during commercial tree removal and underburning operationsto minimize the potential for accidental injury to recreationists during operations.Utilize signing, press releases, and recreation opportunity guides to redirect recreationactivities to safe use areas during project operations (recreation). Contractors will berequired to set up project operation warning signs. (E3, F3)(3) All project activities (Forest Service and contract) will comply with State and FederalOccupational Safety and Health (OSHA) codes. All Forest Service project operationswill 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 areworking. (E3, F3)(5) Prior to implementation, develop a safety plan(s) relative to public access. This willrequire close coordination with the City of Ashland, especially in areas where access toNFSL is gained from City lands. (E3, F3)Draft EIS II - 82 Ashland Forest Resiliency

(6) Identify public access points to NFSL. This includes City of Ashland roads and trailssuch 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 anumber of unmapped and/or unauthorized trails that access Forest Road 2060 betweenMorton Street and the Lamb Mine Trailhead. (E2, F2)(7) A number of mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the effects ofimplementation on recreation users. These would include advanced notice of closures,signing at appropriate locations, alternate route suggestions, and notification of varioususer groups. (E3, F3)(8) Mitigation measures to reduce this effect include increased patrol by law enforcementpersonnel and trained volunteers, continued cooperation with user groups to educate thepublic 24 , and signing placed at strategic locations (e.g., where DFPZs cross roads ortrails). Due to funding shortages, increased patrol by FS law enforcement officers maynot be possible. (E3, F3)(9) To the greatest extent possible, continue to authorize long established special userecreation events at their traditional locations. This will require close coordinationbetween FS recreation and contracting officer representatives in concert with permitholders. Provide legible maps to the public that clearly show area closures and/or areasof project activities. (E3, F2)(10) Immediately re-establish authorized trails in areas where project activities have blockedor otherwise impeded traditional trail use by recreationists. Examples includereestablishment of trail tread and clearing of fuels on the trail. (E3, F3)(11) Identify recreation improvements (trails, traiheads, signs) on contract area maps andprotect, repair and restore any damage caused by project operations. (E3, F3)7. Monitoring Common to the Proposed Action and CommunityAlternativeThe HFRA contains provisions requiring that the USDA Forest Service monitor the results of arepresentative sample of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects and submit a report every5 years that includes an evaluation of the progress toward project goals and recommendations forproject modifications. Fire sciences research funded by the National Fire Plan is assessingmonitoring schedules and protocols to meet the requirements of the HFRA, as well as those ofthe National Fire Plan. Recommendations for implementation will be made to the Wildland FireLeadership Council.24 For instance, the Southern Oregon Mountain Bike Association (SOMBA) is a highly respected local organization that hasactively participated in educating mountain bikers about responsible trail use in both the Analysis Area and other areas inSouthern Oregon. Members have regularly donated their time in decommissioning illegal trails as well as in construction anddesign of trails approved by the Forest Service.Draft EIS II - 83 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Multiparty MonitoringSection 102(g)(5) of the HFRA instructs the USDA Forest Service to establish a collaborativemultiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process when significant interest isexpressed in such an approach. The process would be used to assess the beneficial or adverseecological and social effects of authorized fuel-reduction projects.The requirement for multiparty monitoring is not directly connected to the requirements formonitoring a representative sample of projects, but shall be used where “significant interest isexpressed,” in the judgment of the field unit involved. The Forest Service has experience withmultiparty monitoring, which can be an effective way to build trust and collaborate with localcommunities and diverse stakeholders, including interested citizens and Tribes. Multipartymonitoring would be subject to available funding and the ability of stakeholders to contributefunds or in-kind services.a. IntroductionSignificant interest has been expressed during the Scoping process for the Forest Service toprovide for multi-party monitoring under Ashland Forest Resiliency. Associated with theforthcoming Record of Decision, the Forest Service would provide the opportunity forinterested parties to collaborate on the development of a multi-party monitoring plan. Thisplan would identify objectives for monitoring, specific items to be monitored, protocols formonitoring, and mechanisms for implementing the monitoring plan.There are substantial areas of uncertainty - both in theory and practice - surrounding therestoration of fire-adapted ecosystems and reduction in large-scale high-severity fire. Wehave a great deal to learn about the ecological effects of various restoration treatments andhow they can be most effectively implemented to produce desired outcomes. Thus, welldesignedmultiparty monitoring programs [pursuant to HFRA section 102(g)(5)] should bebuilt into the Record of Decision so that adaptive management can occur. Quantitativemonitoring should be ongoing to assess project layout and implementation and evaluatetreatment effects across a variety of different stand types.While much can be gained from a well-designed program of monitoring, some basic researchalso is critically important. Research programs should be developed to study theeffectiveness of fuels reduction treatments. Where possible, projects should be designed asexperiments with replicates and controls to test alternative hypotheses. New understandingresulting 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 monitorexperimental and ecologically sensitive forest management strategies designed to restoremore fire resistance and resiliency. To maximize the opportunities for such research it maybe necessary to update the RNA plan.Monitoring of all hazardous fuel reduction activities is a required element of bothAction Alternatives and would be carried out according to the Monitoring Plan. Adetailed Monitoring Plan would be incorporated by reference and made an attachmentto 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, andbe specific to the area(s) where authorized treatments would occur.Draft EIS II - 84 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The following Section provides a Draft EIS “framework” or strategy for development of theforthcoming Monitoring Plan.b. Monitoring FrameworkThis Section of this draft EIS discusses monitoring elements and requirements that would bespecifically designed for proposed management activities, under the recommended strategyfor action, or any other action selected under the NEPA process. Monitoring is important fortracking the implementation of a project; ensuring projects are implemented as planned, aswell as to measure success in meeting the stated project goals, objectives, and requiredmitigation.Monitoring and evaluation are separate, sequential activities that provide information todetermine whether programs and projects are meeting Forest Plan direction. Monitoringcollects information, on a sample basis, from sources specified in the Forest Plan. Evaluationof monitoring results is used to determine the effectiveness of the Forest Plan and the need toeither change the plan through amendment or revision, or to continue with the plan. Overalldirection is found in FSM 1922.7, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (Chapter 6), and36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.12(k).When designing a monitoring plan, a full spectrum of techniques and methods should beused to evaluate the results obtained from monitoring. Evaluation techniques include, but arenot limited to:o Site-specific observations by on-site resource specialists.o Field assistance trips by other technical specialists.o On-going accomplishment reporting processes.o Formal management reviews on a scheduled 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 analysis of records documenting monitoring results.o Re-measuring existing permanent inventory plots.Recommended Monitoring ElementsProject activities should be monitored during and after implementation of managementactions to ensure that design features and mitigation measures are implemented as specified.Monitoring is also proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of planned activities, includingstandard practices and mitigation measures, in achieving desired project outcomes. Lessonslearned from monitoring and evaluation should be incorporated into future project planningefforts. If monitoring indicates that laws, regulations, standards or critical objectives are notbeing met, the project should be modified as necessary.The following monitoring evaluation questions are designed for application to selectedactions considered in detail under this NEPA process. Questions would be further developedfor implementation specific to the selected alternative, based on decisions documented in aforthcoming Record of Decision.Draft EIS II - 85 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Implementation MonitoringImplementation monitoring asks the question, did we implement the project as outlined in thedecision document, including consistency with land allocations guiding the implementationof management activities in the project area? The following specific evaluation questionswould be used to complete implementation monitoring:1) Were treatments implemented according to design criteria including appropriatemitigation measures and management constraints outlined in the decision description andassociated listing of Mitigation Measures and Management Constraints? If implementationdeviated from design criteria and mitigation measures, document how and whyimplementation deviated and whether the desired objectives were achieved.2) Were fire hazard reduction treatments implemented according to the schedule outlined inthe 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, forreview by the Responsible Official and placed in the project file. Funding to completeimplementation monitoring is included in project costs. The overall responsibility for thecompletion of implementation monitoring lies with the Responsible Official.Effectiveness MonitoringEffectiveness monitoring answers questions concerning whether the implementation ofproposed fire hazard reduction activities were effective in achieving the overall Purpose andNeed for the project, as well as goals and objectives of the management land allocationsguiding the implementation of management activities in the project area.The effectiveness of actions in obtaining overall long-term goals will eventually bedemonstrated when a fire start (which is not suppressed) burns across a landscape as a lowintensity fire with low-moderate severity effects on forested conditions.While some questions will have more immediate answers (1 to 3 years followingimplementation), other questions will need to be monitored over time (5 to 10 years, orlonger in the case of trend monitoring). Proposed effectiveness monitoring is outlined belowunder monitoring questions and monitoring methodology.Effectiveness Monitoring QuestionsFire Behavior1) Were surface fuels and crown fuels reduced, and were crown base heights increased, such that awildland fire initiated within the Analysis Area would result in a low to moderate severity fire, andburn as a ground fire?Draft EIS II - 86 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Fire Resiliency1) What is the proportion of seral stages by PAG after treatment? How does it compare to desiredconditions?2) What is the proportion of fire adapted to non-fire adapted species within treatment units (pretreatment,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?Soils1) Were Forest and Regional Standards and Guidelines for soil protection met? How effective wereproject design criteria and mitigation measures in achieving desired results for soil protection asmeasured by:‣ Percent of treatment unit where effective soil cover maintained? (immediately followingtreatment; and 2 years following treatment)‣ Percent of treatment unit where soils detrimentally burned?‣ Percent of treatment area detrimentally compacted?Water Quality and Hydrologic Function1) Are water quality and hydrologic function being maintained?‣ Were stream temperatures maintained at existing levels?‣ Was there a measurable change in stream bottom composition as measured by the Wolmanpebble counts?‣ Percent of riparian areas protected from disturbance during activities.Late-Successional Reserve1) Did the project result in a change in average tree diameter within units treated? If changeoccurred, 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-successional character change (improvement or degrade) within stands treated asmeasured by per acre averages (by size and decay class) of large woody material, average standdiameter, diameter range (structure), average stand canopy closure, and snags per acre? Are resultingstand conditions within the ranges identified in the Desired Future Conditions?4) Did the project result in changes in timing (potential frequency or magnitude) of naturaldisturbance regimes (fire, insect, disease, wind)?5) What is the number of breeding owl pairs, before and after treatments? What is the effect to otherlate-successional species (e.g. fisher) to treatment activities?Scenery Management1) Was the valued landscape character maintained as anticipated by the analysis of fire hazardreduction project proposals.2) Were the scenic visual quality objectives maintained as anticipated by the analysis of fire hazardreduction project proposals.Draft EIS II - 87 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Recommended Monitoring MethodologyFire Behavior, Fire Resiliency, Soils and Late-Successional ReserveEvaluation questions developed under fire behavior, fire resiliency, soils, and Late-SuccessionalReserve can be answered using a combination of methodologies including soil and vegetationtransects, assessment of aerial photography and satellite imagery, long-term or trend monitoring ofecology plots, and research level investigations designed to answer specific questions.Landscape Scale Monitoring: Monitor watershed or landscape level trends in proportion anddistribution of successional stages by evaluating aerial photography and satellite imagery post project,and at 10-year intervals over time. Regional Aerial Detection Surveys are used to monitor trends ininsect and disease outbreaks over time.Stand Level Monitoring: Delineate and stratify the Analysis Area by PAGS and seral 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 ofplots with existing Forest Service ecology plots. Locate the remaining plots using the CVSestablished grid system and fill in the grid. Distribute samples at representative aspects, elevations,and PAGs.Collect the following tree data pre- and post-treatment, and at 10-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)‣ Live or snag‣ Dead and down materialIn addition to data collection, conduct photo monitoring at plot centers.Install 30-meter (100-foot) transects with a sample of plots. Transects would run the contour of theslope, randomly select the direction of each transect from plot center. Collect the following data atpre-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: Underburning treatments in foreststands where fire has been excluded for decades would likely injure some pines. When older pinesare stressed by physical injury, they become more susceptible to be killed by bark beetle infestations.To monitor the effects over time of underburing on large pine, establish plots within a selected sampleof prescribed underburn areas (including the effects of burning during different times of the year).Draft EIS II - 88 Ashland Forest Resiliency

For comparison, also establish control plots in unburned sites. Track the amount of bark beetleinfestation over the following 20 years.Ecology Plots: Ecology Plots, monitored by the Area Ecology Program, provide an opportunity tomeasure the effects and trends over time, of management activities in the Watershed. Plotsestablished 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 datawould further refine change and help to evaluate the cause of change as it is detected.Water Quality and Hydrologic FunctionContinue 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 two on West Fork).Continue monitoring stream temperature.Aquatic HabitatIn addition to water quality parameters, other aquatic and riparian should be monitored. Theseparameters can be used to assess changes in aquatic habitat and biological composition:‣ Macroinvertebrate assemblages and abundance‣ Resurvey fish habitat and populations in upper Neil and Ashland creeks using Forest ServiceRegion Six Level II Stream Survey protocol after AFR implementation (these streams havebeen surveyed before implementation)Scenery ManagementScenery resource monitoring will evaluate changes to the valued landscape character as a result of firehazard reduction treatments. Alterations to the landscape will be measured as changes in scenicquality, when viewed from the viewpoints identified below:‣ The Analysis Area itself (views from key public use areas within the Analysis Area), and‣ City of Ashland viewpoints (near Helman School, Interstate-5) and the Mt. Ashland Ski Area.Establish repeatable photo points from viewpoint locations. Photograph view shed prior to projectimplementation, during implementation, following completion of the project, and in 3 to 5 years afterproject is completed. Photos should be taken at both a 50-70 mm and 150-200 mm focal length toreplicate a naked eye view and zoomed image view, respectively.D. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVESThis Section compares the alternatives considered in detail, based on information presented inthis Chapter, as well as environmental consequences presented in Chapter III. The first sectioncontains a short description of the Proposed Action and Community Alternative; Table II-8contains a comparison of the alternatives in relation to the acres of PAGs; Table II-9 containsindicators of attainment of Purpose and Need; Table II-10 contains a comparison of some of theindicators relevant to the Significant Issues for the environmental consequences, and Table II-11contains a comparison of the alternatives to Other Issues.Draft EIS II - 89 Ashland Forest Resiliency

a. Description of the Alternatives Considered in DetailThe following contains a brief description of the No-Action Alternative, and the componentsand elements of the two Action Alternatives that are analyzed in this DEIS.No-Action AlternativeThe No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline against which to compare other alternatives. Noactivity is proposed under this alternative.Components of Proposed ActionDFPZ treatments include:• A maximum of 2,800 acres on NFSL;• Primarily surface fuel reduction treatments and removal of ladder fuels (small tree removaland pruning);• Variable density management and prescribed burning where appropriate;• Open canopies around large individual legacy trees (group selection);• Maintenance of a closed canopy over most of the area; and• Modified treatments for protection of Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas, Riparian Reserves, andnorthern spotted owl core areas.Interface Compartment treatments include:• A maximum of 3,200 acres;• Variable density management of current mid-seral and late-seral closed stands to obtaindesired conditions (approximately 1,600 acres);• Hazard reduction to desired Fuel Models (8, 9, or 2) with surface fuel reduction treatments andprescribed 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 spottedowls, and within portions of Riparian ReserveLate-Successional Habitat treatments include:• A maximum of 600 acres variable density management in mid seral stands within the Neil andLower 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 ofRoad 2060; and• No treatments within northern spotted owl core areas or Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas.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 morenatural species diversity;• Management as DFPZ in one strategic area within RNA; and• Modified treatments within Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas, core areas for northern spottedowls, and within portions of Riparian Reserves.Draft EIS II - 90 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Elements of Community AlternativeCategory 1 - Existing Fire Resilient Areas 25• Total Category 1 = 5,800 acresCategory 2 - areas “Readily” Made Fire Resilient, including:• Priority 2— Ponderosa and sugar pine dominated stands on upper two-thirds slopes within thedry Douglas-fir, moist Douglas-fir, dry white fir, moist white fir, and cool white fir PAGs.(1,810 ac.)• Priority 3—Maintenance of previously treated prescribed burns and fuel treatments. (580 ac.)• Priority 4—South and west-facing upper two-thirds slopes within the lower elevation PAGs(dry Douglas-fir, moist Douglas-fir, dry white fir). (1,480 ac.)• Priority 5—North and East facing upper one-third slopes within the lower elevation PAGs.(1,380 ac.)• Priority 6— Middle PAGs (moist white fir and cool white fir) on South and West facingupper 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 abovethe city limits including Clayton Creek to the south, Wildcat Canyon to the northwest, and anarea around Reeder Reservoir and water treatment plant. (1,260 ac.)• Priority 7 —Corridors within 50 feet of riparian areas within the middle and lower elevationPAGs, that also are within 200 feet of other treatments (510 ac.)• Priority 8— Roadside corridors within 100’ on either side of roads spanning short distancesbetween other selected units in the lower elevation PAGs. (230 ac.)• Priority 9—Northern Spotted Owl 1/4 mi. activity centers in low/mid PAGS (treatment forowl habitat restoration only). (1,670 ac.)b. Comparison of Action Alternatives by Plant Association GroupThe scale of vegetation mapping forming the basis of this analysis incorporates attributes ofplant series and plant associations and is termed Plant Association Groups (PAGs). Theutility of PAGS provides a scale or grouping for which similar consequences can bepredicted (refer to the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment).Table II-8. Summary of Alternative by PAGsPlant Association Groups(PAGs)Total Acres(Analysis Area)ProposedActionCommunityAlternativeDry Douglas-fir (1407) 7,201 2,056 2,074Moist Douglas-fir (1408) 7,944 2,657 2,290Dry White Fir (2004) 7,595 1,800 3,313Moist White Fir (2003) 5,525 1,333 1,109Cool White Fir (2098) 1,598 180 204Moist Mountain Hemlock (2301) 1,116 94 0Cool Mountain Hemlock (2311) 1,378 31 0Totals 8,150 8,99025 Category 1 features are assumed to not require treatment at this time and are not part of the Community Alternative’sproposal for hazardous fuel reduction (with the exception of previously treated areas in need of maintenance). Category 1 areasare however a key network and basis of adjacent areas that are being proposed for treatment (i.e., Category 2 and 3).Draft EIS II - 91 Ashland Forest Resiliency

c. Comparison of Alternatives Considered In Detail In Terms Of Attainment of Purpose and NeedTable II-9. Attainment of Purpose and NeedPurpose and Need Indicator No-Action Proposed Action Community AlternativeNeed(page I-5)Purpose(page I-5)Urgent reduction in thepotential for largescale,high-severitywildland fireFirefighter SafetyReduce hazardoussurface fuelsReduce crown firepotentialLarge treesProbability of ignition and firesuppression effectiveness(pg III-8)Scheduling of implementation(pg III-21)Safety zones (pg III-19)Acres of hazardous fuelreduction treatments(pg III-10)Acres where flame lengthwould be greater than 8 feet(pg III-13)Change from acres of FuelModel 10 to Fuel Model 8(pg III-16)Change in crown density(pg III-18)Maintenance of large treecomponent(pg III-19)No change in the currentpotential for large-scale,high-severity fire, and therisk would likely increasewith additional vegetationproviding fuel for wildlandfireNANo change – currently thereare 16 helicopter landingson NFSL that could beutilized as safety zonesThe probability of ignition does not significantly decrease butthe ability to suppress a wildland fire start is improvedthrough the reduction of hazardous fuels and reduced crowndensity, thus making potential fires smaller and of lowerseverityWould implement DFPZs asfirst priority allowing wildlandfires to becompartmentalizedWould implement treatmentsin the interface areas as firstpriority and would stagetreatments over two entriesBoth alternatives improve firefighter safety by constructingadditional helicopter landings that may be used as safetyzones - Other treated areas would provide some refugia fromdangerous burning conditions.0 8,150 acres 8,990 acres18,869Currently 23,535 acres ofFuel Model 10No changeNo change11,448 acres(39% reduction)-7,030 acres(30% reduction)12,797 acres(32% reduction)-5,413 acres(23% reduction)Both alternatives would reduce crown density in varyingdegrees on all acres treated. The Proposed Action wouldremove slightly more large trees, thus reducing canopydensity to a slightly higher degreeBoth Action Alternatives would maintain the majority of largetrees within stands – Treatments are designed to start cuttingsmaller diameter trees first and move upward in size untildesired stand density is achievedNote: Specific “values at risk” include protection of threatened species and maintenance of late-successional habitat, protection of human life and property; water qualityincluding protection of the municipal water supply, and ecological sustainability. Most of these values are addressed within this DEIS analysis as Significant or OtherIssues. These consequences are also related to attainment of Purpose and Need and are not listed in this table.Draft EIS II - 92 Ashland Forest Resiliency

d. Comparison of Action Alternatives In Terms of Significant and,Other IssuesIssues are defined in this analysis as points of discussion, debate, or dispute about theenvironmental effects of a Proposed Action or alternatives. Significant Issues as used inthis environmental analysis are those that are used to evaluate alternatives, affect thedesign of component proposals, prescribe mitigation measures, and/or describe importantand variable environmental effects. They are significant because of the extent of theirgeographic consequence, the duration of the effects, or the intensity of interest orresource conflict. Other Issues, as used in this analysis, differ from Significant Issues inthat they often describe minor and/or non-variable consequences. The following tablebriefly describes the consequences for each of the alternatives.Table II-10. Comparison of Alternatives - Significant IssuesSignificant Issues Indicator No-Action1-Soils and SiteProductivity(pg III-21)2-Slope Stability(pg III-28)3-SedimentDelivery(pg III-33)4-HydrologicFunction(pg III-38)5-CumulativeWatershedEffects(pg III-42)6-NorthernSpotted OwlHabitat(pg III-45)7-Late-SuccessionalHabitat(pg III-53)8-Insect RelatedTree Mortality(pg III-64)Total approximate acres within proposedtreatments in a detrimental conditionProposedActionCommunityAlternative0 acres 82 acres 83 acresAcres treated within Hazard Zone 1 0 acres 935 acres 0 acresLandslide HazardZones Hazard Zone 2 0 acres 736 acres 822 acresSediment delivery to streamsAcres of treatments within RiparianReservesResultant risk ratioTotal suitable northern spotted owl habitatremoved or downgraded within 0.5 milesof activity centerTotal suitable northern spotted owl habitatremoved or downgraded within 1.3 milesof activity centerPercent change in late-successionalhabitat – Project ScalePercent change in late-successionalhabitat – Mt. Ashland LSRPercent change in late-successionalhabitat – Critical Habitat Unit OR-76No change toexisting levelsunless there isa wildland firein which ratesare expectedto increase.With mitigation measures,surface erosion rates would below and sediment delivery tostreams would be nearly thesame as background levels.0 acres 1,400 acres 507 acresAshland Creek 0.346 0.531 0.540Neil Creek 0.894 0.957 0.989Upper Wagner Ck 0.598 0.792 0.629Hamilton Creek 2.751 2.770 2.7810 acres 0 acres 0 acres0 acres 445 acres 395 acres0% -13.5% -12.3%0% -3.6% -3.2%0% -4.6% -4.1%Estimated level of mortality due to insects 3-5% < 0.5% < 0.5%Draft EIS II - 93 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Significant Issues Indicator No-Action9-InventoriedRoadless Area(pg III-67)10-Old and LargeTreesPercent of total McDonald Peak RoadlessArea affectedTotal acres treated within McDonald PeakRoadless AreaPercent of total cut trees in 17-24”diameter rangeProposedActionCommunityAlternative0% 16.1% 15.7%0 acres 1,516 acres 1,481 acres0% 18% 12%(pg III-69) Percent of total cut trees > 24” DBH 0% 2% 1%11-Operational andEconomicFeasibility(pg III-74)Total estimated cost NA $8-10 million $8-10 millionEstimated potential biomassNA22-27,000CCF16-21,000CCFTable II-11. Comparison of Alternatives - Other IssuesOther Issues Indicator No-Action1-Water Chemistry(pg III-79)2-Riparian ReserveStandards andGuidelines(pg III-82)3-Air Quality(pg III-85)4-Windthrow(pg III-89)5-AshlandResearch NaturalArea(pg III-90)6-Other InsectInfestations andTree Diseases(pg III-94)7-TerrestrialWildlife, ESAlisted, ForestService Sensitiveand NWFPSpecies(pg III-96)Change in water qualityattributesAttainment of NWFPStandards and Guidelinesfor Riparian ReservesNo change exceptin the event oflarge-scale, highseveritywildlandfireNAProposedActionCommunityAlternativeSlight increase in potential to affect waterquality attributes but risk would bereduced for large-scale, high-severitywildland fireBoth Action Alternatives would meetStandards and Guidelines for proposedhazardous fuel reduction treatmentsEstimated annual tons ofPM 2.5NA 106-262 84-203Estimated annual tons ofPM 10NA 100-247 79-192Change in risk ofwindthrowNo changeSlight increase in riskAcres of treatment withinRNAImplementation of densitymanagement treatmentsDetermination of effects fornorthern spotted owlDetermination of effects fornorthern bald eagleDetermination of effects forForest Service Sensitivespecies0 acres 1,300 acres 520 acresNo treatmentNANANABoth Action Alternatives would implementdensity management treatments thatwould reduce risk for infestations ordisease“May affect, likely to adversely affect”No effect (with mitigation)“May adversely affect individuals, but willnot likely result in a loss of viability on theplanning area (RR-SNF), or cause atrend to Federal listing or a loss ofspecies viability range wide.”Draft EIS II - 94 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Other Issues Indicator No-Action8-TerrestrialWildlife – OtherSpecial Habitats(pg III-110)9-Forest PlanManagementIndicator Species(pg III-113)10-Botanical –Forest ServiceSensitiveVascular Plants.Bryophytes,Lichen, andFungi(pg III-119)11-Uncommon andLocally RareVascular Plants.Bryophytes,Lichen, andFungi(pg III-122)12-Non-Native PlantSpecies(pg III-132)13-Aquatic Habitatand Fish(pg III-134)Riparian HabitatsMine HabitatsNeotropical Migratory BirdsBlack-tailed deerRoosevelt elkAmerican martenNorthern spotted owlPileated woodpecker andother woodpeckersVascular plantsBryophytes, Lichen, andFungiEffects to identifiedvascular plants,bryophytes, lichen, or fungiRisk of infestationEffects determination forCoho SalmonEffects determination forChinook SalmonEffects determination forSteelhead TroutEffects determination forCoastal Cutthroat TroutEffects determination forFoothill yellow-legged frogNo habitat modifiedor removedNo habitat modifiedor removedNo habitat modifiedor removedNo effect, except inthe event of largescale,high-severitywildland fireNo effect, except inthe event of largescale,high-severitywildland fireCurrent levels ofrisk would remainNo effect, except inthe event of largescale,high-severitywildland fireincreased sedimentcould effectspawning habitatProposedActionTreats 1,400acres withinRiparianReserves – notreatments within50 ft. of streamsCommunityAlternativeTreats 507 acreswithin RiparianReserves – notreatments within 50ft. of streamsMitigation provided to limit disturbancewithin 250 ft of mineSome minor shifting in species diversityand abundanceThe Action Alternatives would have a“beneficial impact” by increasing foraginghabitatUnder both Action Alternatives activities“may adversely affect individuals, but willnot likely result in a loss of viability on theplanning area (RR-SNF), or cause atrend to Federal listing or a loss ofspecies viability range wide.”See Significant Issue #6 (Table II-10)Although some snags would be removed,proposed actions result in “no effect”No adverse effects expected for the 3Sensitive species within the Project Area.Risk of loss improved by fuel reductionactivitiesNone are known to occur in the Project AreaWith mitigation, no adverse effects areexpectedSlight increase in risk due to increasedactivity. Risk is proportional to amount ofground disturbed“May affect, not likely to adversely affect”“May adversely affect individuals, but willnot likely result in a loss of viability on theplanning area (RR-SNF), or cause atrend to Federal listing or a loss ofspecies viability range wide”Effects determination ofEssential Fish HabitatNA“May affect, not likely to adversely affect”14-Scenic Quality(pg III-142)Effects to scenic qualityobjectivesNo changeBoth Action Alternative would have shorttermminor effects to scenic quality –Over long-term, scenic objectives wouldbe metDraft EIS II - 95 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Other Issues Indicator No-Action15-Recreation andPublic Safety(pg III-145)16-Other Semi-Primitive(unroaded) Areas(pg III-150)17-HeritageResources(pg III-154)Effects to recreation usersAcres treated withinunroaded areasPercent of unroaded areatreatedAffects to historical orarcheological sitesNo changeProposedActionCommunityAlternativeShort-term conflicts between users andfuel reduction activities would occur asaccess is limited – Long-term effectwould be a change in character to moreopen stands and more varied landscapes0 acres 2,264 acres 983 acres0 73% 32%No effectEither Action Alternative was determinedto be a “no historic properties”undertakingDraft EIS II - 96 Ashland Forest Resiliency

CHAPTER III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESA. INTRODUCTIONThis Chapter describes environmental effects and consequences linked with implementing theProposed Action, the Community Alternative, or No-Action, considered and analyzed in detail.The following Sections portray outcomes for each alternative in terms of the first order fireeffects, elements and indicators of Purpose and Need, and predicted physical, biological,economic, and social direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the human environment, in regardto the Significant Issues, and Other Issues identified in Chapter I. In presenting consequencediscussions, the following terms are used to describe relevant spatial and temporal effects:Short-term effects address environmental consequences, which could occur duringhazardous fuels treatments or wildland fire events, and/or that arise within two-years oftreatments.Long-term effects address environmental consequences, which are delayed, periodic,and/or arise more than two-years after hazardous fuels treatments or wildland fire event.Direct effects refer to consequences caused by the activities or events themselves, occurringconcurrently and in the same location.Indirect effects include consequences, occurring later in time or are farther removed indistance from the point of contact, but are still reasonably foreseeable.Cumulative effects address incremental environmental consequences resultant of multiple,past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of land ownership, orwhich agency, or person initiated the action (40 CFR 1508.7).This analysis of environmental effects for each alternative is based on the recognition of Federallaws, National policies, regional Standards and Guidelines, and compliance with the RogueRiver National Forest LRMP, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. The Forest ServiceInterdisciplinary Team has conducted analysis and has disclosed environmental consequences forall alternatives considered in detail.1. Scales of AnalysisThe depiction of effects varies, based on the context in which they are analyzed. Therefore, ifpertinent, environmental consequences are presented in context of multiple scales, over varioustimeframes. For the purpose of this Draft EIS, the analysis was focused at the scale of theProject Area, that is, where actions are proposed and direct consequences would occur. TheProject Areas are unique to the Action Alternatives and vary according to the area wherepotential treatments would occur.Draft EIS III - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency

It is generally assumed that the Proposed Action would occur on approximately 8,150 acreswithin areas portrayed on Map II-3, and the Community Alternative would occur onapproximately 8,990 acres within areas portrayed on Map II-5. These Project Areas includeareas affected by hazardous fuel reduction treatments and utilization or creation of helicopterlandings (see Map II-1), and are not identical between the Action Alternatives.Effects analysis can be performed at various scales. For potential effects to be measurable(especially cumulative effects), the sub-watershed scale was selected for analysis. Subwatershedsare a subset of and smaller in area than watersheds and generally referred to as “6 thfield”. A sub-watershed, like a watershed, is an area of land that all drains to a point on a stream.Generally the location for this point is at a confluence with another stream. Watersheds aregenerally 40,000 to 250,000 acres in size and referred to as “5 th field”. Sub-watersheds areusually 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size.The Bear Creek Watershed (a 5 th field watershed) totals approximately 361 square miles(231,087 acres). This watershed lies approximately 127 miles upstream from the Pacific Oceanat the extreme southeast corner of the upper reaches of the Rogue River Basin. The boundariesof the watershed are formed by a ridgeline which travels along the Cascade Mountains on thenorth and east sides and the Siskiyou/Klamath Mountains to the south and west.Ashland Forest Resiliency Project areas are located within four separate sub-watersheds,described in this DEIS analysis as the Ashland Creek sub-watershed, the Neil Creek subwatershed,the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed and the Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed, allwithin the Bear Creek Watershed and the Rogue River Basin. The geographic extent of the subwatershedsis depicted on Map I-1, DEIS Appendix I.The Ashland Creek sub-watershed is approximately 24.7 square miles (15,785 acres) in size andis one of the primary tributaries to Bear Creek. This area includes all of the hydrologic areaassociated with the Ashland Municipal Watershed. This watershed extends from the summit ofMt. Ashland on the south to the confluence of Ashland Creek and Bear Creek on the north.The Neil Creek sub-watershed also contributes flow to Bear Creek, and this 21.2 square mile(13,563 acre) sub-watershed is located on the east side of the Analysis Area. The lowerboundary of the Neil Creek Watershed is located at the confluence of Neil Creek and BearCreek. Near the boundary of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, the slope of the valleyfloor decreases dramatically. Downstream from the National Forest boundary is primarilypasture or rural developed lands. Several other small streams contribute to this sub-watershed.The Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed is located in a generally north facing basin that is 9.2square miles in size (5,875 acres). The lower extent of the Upper Wagner Creek watershed thesame as the Upper Bear Analysis Area boundary, at the confluence with Wagner Creek and HornGulch Creek, which is in proximity to the National Forest boundary. The sub-watershed is a mixof interspersed privately owned and Federally managed lands. Wagner Creek flows to the northand into Bear Creek near the City of Talent.The 6.5 square mile (4,127 acre) Hamilton Creek sub-watershed is a north facing drainageimmediately to the south of the City of Ashland. The northern end of the Hamilton CreekWatershed is located at the confluence of Bear Creek and Hamilton Creek. The majority of thissub-watershed is located on privately owned lands.Draft EIS III - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency

B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - UPPER BEAR ANALYSIS AREAThe Bear Watershed Analysis was completed in 1995 by the Ashland Ranger District, RRNF.The 40,412 acre Bear Creek Watershed Analysis Area was comprised of the Ashland, Neil,Clayton, Tolman, Hamilton, and Wrights Creek sub-watersheds. The Bear Watershed AnalysisArea also includes about 4,672 acres in the headwaters of the Wagner Creek sub-watershed; allsub-watersheds are tributary to Bear Creek. The Watershed Analysis Area included Federallymanaged and private lands, as well as forested lands managed by the City of Ashland. None ofthe sub-watersheds analyzed within the Bear Watershed Analysis Area, including the AshlandCreek Watershed, are Federally designated as Key Watersheds by the Northwest Forest Plan.A Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) was completed in June 1996. The objectivesfor completing the assessment were to gain a better understanding of current conditions withinthe LSR, to determine how current conditions relate to LSR function and meeting the objectivesof the NWFP, and to provide a framework for the management of this LSR consistent withNWFP objectives.The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment is an analytical effort to validate and supplement theenvironmental condition information for the ecosystem and landscape associated with theAshland Watershed, and the larger Upper Bear Creek Analysis Area, to 2003 conditions. Thisincludes updating the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis, and the 1996 Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, under recommendation of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.Vegetation and disturbance factors were organized by Plant Association Groups (PAGs), andformed the majority of the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment update. This process alsoincluded an assessment of fire management conditions, providing the basis for a FireManagement Plan for the Federally managed portions of this landscape (National Fire Plan2000), and a scientifically based site-specific Roads Analysis (per FSM 7712.1).A primary objective of this effort was the preparation of an integrated assessment of currentconditions and scientific and professional identification of opportunities and priorities forFederal actions regarding elements of the environment that ought to be actively managed if thegoal 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.An additional objective of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was to provide the background andcurrent condition (Affected Environment) information for the forthcoming analysis under theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for Ashland Forest Resiliency (i.e., thisDraft EIS). This was done to minimize duplication of information, reduce the volume ofdocumentation, and focus the NEPA analysis on relevant issues.The Analysis Area for the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment includes all lands within the AshlandCreek Watershed, and portions of the Neil Creek, Hamilton Creek, and Wagner Creek subwatersheds.This is similar to, but not exactly the same area analyzed in the 1995 BearWatershed Analysis and the area analyzed in the 1996 Mt. Ashland Late-Successional ReserveAssessment (see Component 1). This Analysis Area is a logical set of sub-watersheds of similarconditions, management objectives, human values, and is designed to include the fire influencezone surrounding the Ashland Municipal Watershed.Draft EIS III - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency

1. Updates to 2003 Upper Bear AssessmentThe format for Component 1 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was to approximately followthe outline associated with the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis, with validation of informationpresented, as well as the information contained in the1996 Mt. Ashland Late-SuccessionalReserve Assessment (North Zone). This format was designed to allow for the integration ofvegetation data by Plant Association Groups, the update/creation of a Fire ManagementAssessment, and the inclusion of a scientifically-based Roads Analysis.In terms of current condition information, the strategy for the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment wasnot to entirely replace the 1995/96 documents, rather, the strategy was to validate existinginformation and documentation, and update and/or supplement where conditions have changed,or there is new information. This then suggests that users of this document will retain the1995/96 documents and utilize both to bring the 1995/96 assessments and the 2003 updates andassessment together. Landscape issues, desired conditions, opportunities and recommendationsfor Federal actions were brought forward and validated from these earlier efforts and integratedinto an assessment of opportunities (Component 5).The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was completed in December 2003. Since that time (2004-2005), there have been several corrections, updates, and supplements to the information providedin the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. These updates are documented in Appendix D to thisDEIS, to provide a most accurate assessment of the current condition (Affected Environment) aspossible, in support of analysis under Ashland Forest Resiliency.These updates include a Climate Update (precipitation - seasonal characteristics, precipitation -long-term distribution, temperature, humidity, and snow); a Landslide Hazard Zonation Update;a Plant Association Group (PAG) Update; and a Fuel Model Update. These updates aredocumented in DEIS Appendix D, incorporated by reference to this EIS.C. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEEDAs 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-severitywildland fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The Purpose of the Action is to protectvalues at risk, reduce hazardous fuels, reduce crown fire potential, and obtain conditionsthat are more resilient to wildland fires.This Section is designed to take a closer look at attainment of the Purpose and Need andestablish indicators to compare the Proposed Action and Community Alternative in relation tothe No-Action Alternative. While many elements of Purpose and Need are related, eitherdirectly or indirectly, to the Significant Issues, this Section is not designed to assessconsequences (effects) in terms of Significant Issues. It is designed to assess the overallattainment of the Purpose and Need (i.e., attainment of project objectives).This Section is organized by four key elements of the Purpose and Need statement. The firstelement addressed is the “Potential for Large-Scale, High-Severity Wildland Fire.” Withinthis element, Probability of Ignition and Fire Suppression Effectiveness, and Fuel HazardConditions are discussed.Draft EIS III - 4 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The second key element is “obtain conditions that are more resilient”, referred to and analyzed inthis Section as Fire Resilient Forests. Within this element, Surface Fuels, Crown Fire Potential,Crown Density, and Large Tree Component are discussed.Specific “values at risk”, as brought forward from the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, includeprotection of threatened species and maintenance of late-successional habitat, human life andproperty associated with the wildland/urban interface; water quality including protection of themunicipal water supply, and ecological sustainability including protection and maintenance ofpine (see DEIS Chapter I and Component 5 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment).Most of these values are addressed within this DEIS analysis as Significant or Other Issues.Their consequences, as discussed in this Chapter, are also related to attainment of Purpose andNeed. Therefore, specific consequence discussion for threatened species and maintenance oflate-successional habitat, water quality including protection of the municipal water supply, andecological sustainability including protection and maintenance of pine, is not included in thisSection.One of the values, i.e., protection of “human life and property” is integrated into this analysis incomplex ways. Protection of property is only indirectly applicable to Ashland Forest Resiliencybecause there are no private residential property values located on the National Forest (there aresome privately owned forest lands within the National Forest). While treatments that make theNational Forest more resilient to wildland fire may indirectly provide protection to adjacentprivately-owned residential property, there is no way to model or predict the extent of change(consequences) over current conditions.In addition, within the Upper Bear Analysis Area, the topographic conditions suggest thatwildland fire would rarely progress down slope from the National Forest to private lands whereprivate residential property is located. Therefore, the protection of “property” value at risk is notanalyzed in detail in this DEIS.Protection of “human life” is partially applicable to analysis under Ashland Forest Resiliency.Human life is directly related to “Firefighter Safety”, as related to fire management or firesuppression actions of people working in the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area, and isanalyzed in this Section as the third key element. Public safety is addressed in sub-section 15,Section E, Chapter III, this DEIS.The final element of Purpose and Need analyzed in this Section is related to the “urgentreduction” portion of the Need statement. In this Section, this element is described and analyzedas “Temporal Scheduling.”Commonly, analysis of wildland fire employs the mean and variance of a probability distributionof mean fire size, mean area burned, etc. This was the basis of analysis for the AshlandWatershed Protection Project (2001). However a single catastrophic event may disrupt thecentral tendency of the fire occurrence distribution. Extreme, catastrophic events are notadequately addressed by standard statistics (Sandberg et al. 1998). Although historical fireoccurrence was used for portions of this analysis, there is no absolute assurance that future fireswill occur in this area. While a pattern is often evident, demographics, human activities, andclimatic conditions can change, therefore, predicting a specific location for a fire to start,predicting its size, or predicting area burned over time is often highly subjective. Therefore,these factors are not predicted in this Section as an element of attainment of Purpose and Needobjectives.Draft EIS III - 5 Ashland Forest Resiliency

1. Modeling ProcessPredictions of fire behavior are important in making decisions about fire management. Resultsfrom any modeling process are only approximations of what to expect when any treatment isimplemented. The objective of modeling is to aid in estimating likely future consequences ofalternatives. A comparison of alternatives can be made even though the model may lackprecision in describing specific attributes.Since simulation models are simplifications of reality and are based on numerous assumptionsand variables, their results are often subject to debate. Models can serve as one source ofinformation for decision making, but their primary usefulness is to gain understanding ofcomplex systems. Simulations of fire processes are subject to limitations but are often the onlyway, short of actual tests on the ground, of analyzing proposed scenarios (Van Wagtendonk1996).For analysis in this Section, a number of fire behavior models were utilized to assess theprobability of a large wildland fire event and to examine the potential for high-severity fireeffects. The models used in this DEIS analysis include FARSITE, FlamMap, FireFamily Plus,BehavePlus, and NEXUS. These models are briefly described below.Mark Finney (1994) developed a fire simulator called FARSITE as a deterministic model forsimulating the spatial and temporal spread and behavior of fires under conditions ofheterogeneous terrain, fuels, and weather. Since it also includes spotting and crowningpotential, the FARSITE simulator is an ideal tool to use to evaluate fuel treatmenteffectiveness. The simulator has been verified in the field, using prescribed natural fires inYosemite and Glacier National Parks (Finney and Ryan 1995).FlamMap (Finney in preparation) is a spatial fire behavior mapping and analysis programthat requires a FARSITE landscape file, as well as fuel moisture and weather data. However,unlike FARSITE, FlamMap assumes that every cell (an area 25 meters on each side) on thelandscape burns and makes fire behavior calculations (e.g., fireline intensity, flame length)for each location (cell), independent of one another. That is, there is no predictor of firemovement across the landscape, and weather and wind information can be held constant. Byso doing, FlamMap output lends itself well to landscape comparisons (e.g., pre- and posttreatmenteffectiveness) and for identifying hazardous fuel and topographic combinations,thus aiding in prioritization and assessments (Stratton 2004).FireFamily Plus is a software system for summarizing and analyzing historical daily fireweather observations and computing fire danger indices based on the National Fire DangerRating System (NFDRS).The BehavePlus fire modeling system is a computer program that is a collection of modelsthat describe fire and the fire environment. It is a flexible system that produces tables andgraphs and can be used for a multitude of fire management applications. BehavePlus is thesuccessor to the BEHAVE fire behavior prediction and Fuel Modelsing system (Andrews1986, Andrews and Chase 1989, Burgan and Rothermel 1984, Andrews and Bradshaw 1990).NEXUS is crown fire hazard analysis software that links separate models of surface andcrown fire behavior to compute indices of relative crown fire potential.Draft EIS III - 6 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The discussions in this DEIS analysis are focused around the probability of a wildland fire eventhappening, and predicting fire effects, based on current conditions and those resulting fromimplementation of either of the Action Alternatives.Of the factors involved in modeling fire behavior, weather (i.e., climate) is the most variable andis difficult to predict. Standard fire modeling practices use historical weather records and modelthem over as long of period as there is data available.For this analysis, annual fire weather patterns were based on historical weather conditions takenfrom the Buckhorn Springs Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) 1 that is typical for thelower elevations within the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The 95 thpercentile weather conditions used in this analysis are summarized below.It should be noted that the discussion in DEIS Chapter II states that the Proposed Action isdesigned under 90 th percentile weather conditions to achieve a flame length of 4 to 6 feet. Firebehavior analysis is typically performed on more extreme fire behavior conditions to assess theeffects related to the time when most large fires occur. While this would appear to beinconsistent with analyzing the effects at the 95 th percentile, it is not because the design of thefuel treatments covers the majority of the fire season (see below) and represents a reasonableobjective. It would not be prudent to design a landscape that would maintain small flame lengthsover the entire landscape, because of the extent of treatments that would be required to achievethis condition (i.e., over 75% of the existing levels of fuels over most of the area would have tobe treated).Figure III-1. 95 th Percentile Weather Condition Assumptions for Fire Behavior Analysis1 hour Fuel Moisture 3.5%10 hour Fuel Moisture 4.3%100 hour Fuel Moisture 7.3%1,000 hour Fuel Moisture 8.8%Herbaceous Fuel Moisture 41.7%Woody Fuel Moisture 66.8%20 foot Wind Speed 8.5 mphTemperature 97 degreesEach year, the Oregon Department of Forestry’s District Forester designates fire season based onthe fire danger. In Southern Oregon, it typically begins in June although it has begun as early asApril. It generally lasts until the fire danger diminishes to a point that burning no longer needs tobe regulated outside of rural fire districts. Fire season typically ends in October, but can end inSeptember or even November. For analysis purposes, the fire season is assumed to be May 1 toSeptember 30.The most stable variable in the modeling of fire behavior is topography. The topography of theNational Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area is steep and highly dissected. Thesteeper slopes tend to allow fire to spread faster. Winds in small, narrow drainages may increasefire intensity near the heads of canyons and some riparian areas may burn more intensely due tohigher wind speeds in these areas as a result of the channeling effect caused by the narrowcanyons. The topography of the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area is aconstant under all analyses.1 Data from Buckhorn Springs: Calculated by Fire Family Plus, version 3.0.4. Data years 1996-2003; elevation 2,900 feet.Draft EIS III - 7 Ashland Forest Resiliency

2. Potential for Large-Scale, High-Severity Wildland FireThe primary factors involved when assessing the potential for a large-scale high-severitywildland fire include the likelihood of ignition (discussed as probability in this analysis), thecurrent fire hazard conditions and the agency’s fire suppression capabilities at the time. Theprobability of a fire burning over a landscape is based on factors such as the probability ofignition, potential rate of spread, historical and predicted weather conditions, topography, andlength of the fire season (Miller 2003). Weather conditions, fire season, and topographyassumptions are discussed (above).The Probability of Ignition and Fire Suppression Effectiveness are analyzed and discussedbelow. Fire Hazard Conditions are also analyzed and discussed in this sub-section. Theagency’s fire suppression capabilities (not effectiveness based on fire hazard conditions) do notmeasurably change between the current condition, or under any hazardous fuel reductiontreatment. The effectiveness of fire suppression does change between the alternatives, and isdiscussed below.a. Consequences of Alternatives – Probability of Ignition and Fire SuppressionEffectivenessThe probability of ignition is assessed by using the BehavePlus (version 2.0.2) fire model.Looking at historical fire records from 1960 through 2002, fires resulting from lightning,occurred mostly on ridgetops or exposed areas (see Map 3-3, 2003 Upper Bear Assessment).Analysis of the lightning-caused fires determined that they occurred primarily in areascurrently mapped as Fuel Model 10 (dense, forested stands). Based on 95 th percentileweather conditions, it is predicted that there is an approximate 20% chance of ignition. Thisvalue assumes that the lightning storm is not accompanied by heavy precipitation. Therehave been many more lightning strikes recorded in recent years than the number of fires.Many did not result in wildland fire due to precipitation or high humidity accompanying thelightning storm. Average number of lightning-caused fires per year on NFSL over the fortytwoyear period is 1.9.In addition to lightning-caused fires, there have been a number of human-caused fires thatoccurred in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. On National Forest lands within the AnalysisArea, there have been approximately 36 human-caused fires from 1960 through 2002 thatrequired some suppression action. Adjacent to the National Forest, there have been manymore human-caused fires. The highest density of human-caused fires within the AnalysisArea occurs in the Tolman Creek drainage (see Map 3-3, 2003 Upper Bear Assessment).No-ActionThe probability of ignition for human-caused or lightning-caused wildland fires would notmeasurably change under any of the alternatives based on the assumptions used in themodeling process. The primary difference between the No-Action and the ActionAlternatives is that the probability of a large-scale high-severity wildland fire is reduced, andthe ability to suppress these fires is changed (improved), as affected by the lack of fuels tocarry the fire once ignited.Draft EIS III - 8 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Suppression by itself would not insure that a large wildland fire would not occur within theAnalysis Area. Due to the unpredictable change in annual funding levels, it is difficult topredict the number and type of suppression forces that would be available for any givenseason. Based on past experience, these forces are often spread thin by other local andregional incidents that require additional crews and equipment. In recent seasons,suppression actions have proven to be successful, but this can be attributed as well to otherfactors such as favorable weather conditions at the time of ignition, and/or early detection.Proposed ActionUnder the Proposed Action, the areas most likely to receive lightning strikes (ridgetops)would be treated as a DFPZ. The probability of ignition would likely be lowered due toreduced fuel loadings in these areas. The probability of large-scale high-severity wildlandfire is reduced, as the ability to effectively suppress is improved. Suppression of any firestarts would be facilitated by more efficient fireline construction rates (as a result of fewersurface and ladder fuels) and lower flame lengths which would allow “direct attack” firesuppression techniques. Access along the ridgetops would be improved due to the removalof surface fuels thus making response times quicker where access is by foot.If ignition of a fire were to occur off of NFSL, the treatments in the Interface Compartmenttreatment areas would slow the advance and allow suppression forces an opportunity tocontain the fire. It is important that, in addition to Federal fire fighting resources, State andlocal resources for initial attack are trained, equipped and prepared to address fires in thewildland urban interface. Appropriated Federal funds for preparedness apply only to landsfor which the Forest Service has direct fire protection responsibilities. Because of this, mostof the Upper Bear Analysis Area would continue to be covered by multi-agency mutual aidinitial attack agreements. In addition to Federal fire fighting resources, State and localresources for initial attack are trained, equipped and prepared to address fires in the wildlandurban interface.Under 95 th percentile weather conditions, fires that burn toward or through DFPZs wouldprimarily be surface fires, with lower intensity because of the lack of surface fuels. This is afundamental objective of compartmentalization. This suggests that the use of retardant maynot be necessary. However, if fire retardant was used, the relatively closed canopy wouldmake the use of retardant for surface fire less effective. Within DFPZs, retardant could beutilized to retard a crown fire, thus helping return the fire to the surface where it would be alow-intensity fire. In the Interface areas and RNA, retardant use would be more effectivethan the current condition due to more areas of more open canopy.Dense stands (canopy cover) tend to provide more shading of fuels, keeping relativehumidity higher and air and fuel temperature lower than in more open stands. Thus, densestands tend to maintain higher surface fuel moisture contents compared to more open stands(Andrews 1986). This in combination with surface and ladder fuel reduction treatments,reduces the probability of ignition and spread of fire. More open stands tend to allow higherwind speeds that tend to dry fuels compared to dense stands (Weatherspoon 1996). Thesefactors may increase probability of ignition in some open canopy stands compared to densecanopy stands.Draft EIS III - 9 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Community AlternativeThe Community Alternative would have similar consequences as the Proposed Action. Theareas most likely to receive lightning strikes (ridgetops) would be treated to reduce surfaceand ladder fuels. The main difference in the two Action Alternatives would be the degree oftreatment on the south and west facing slopes along ridges.The Community Alternative would treat to a lower relative stand density. This would openmore of the existing canopy tending to dry the surface fuels, making them more susceptibleto ignition. However, this is offset by the lower fuel loading making it more difficult for awildland fire to spread. As in the Proposed Action, access for fire suppression within thetreated areas would be improved over the current condition.As with the Proposed Action, if ignition of a fire were to occur off of NFSL, the treatments inthe areas adjacent to the National Forest boundary would slow the advance and allowsuppression forces an opportunity to contain the fire. A difference between the ProposedAction and Community Alternative is the amount of area treated within the Upper WagnerCreek drainage adjacent to the National Forest boundary. The Proposed Action would treatmore acres in this area increasing the opportunity to contain a fire.In general, under all alternatives, the probability of an ignition would stay the same and ishighly variable depending on a multitude of factors. The difference between No-Action andthe Action Alternatives is reduced fuel loading, which would slow the ignition and spread ofa fire under most weather conditions, and allow more effective suppression efforts.b. Consequences of Alternatives – Fuel Hazard ConditionMathematical surface fire behavior and fire effects models and prediction systems are drivenin part by fuel bed inputs such as load, bulk density, fuel particle size, heat content, etc. Tofacilitate use in models and systems, fuel bed inputs have been formulated into Fuel Models.A Fuel Model is a set of fuel bed inputs needed by a particular fire behavior or fire effectsmodel. The Fuel Models used in this analysis are described in: Aids to Determining FuelModels For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, National Wildfire Coordinating Group,1982. Figure III-2 displays the distribution of all Fuel Models within the Upper BearAnalysis Area. A short description (including examples) is provided in DEIS Appendix D.Figure III-2. Distribution of Fuel Models – Current Condition60%50%40%Distribution 30%20%10%0%14568Fuel Model9109899Draft EIS III - 10 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Though there are other Fuel Models within the Analysis Area, the potential rate of spreadwas assessed by using BehavePlus only for Fuel Models 4, 6, 8, and 10. These are the FuelModels most prevalent and important to the analysis of fire behavior. A brief summary ofthe Fuel Models (FM) used for this analysis are:‣ Fuel Models 4 is a tall brush model‣ Fuel Models 6 is a brush model similar to FM 4 but shorter vegetation height‣ Fuel Models 8 is a closed canopy stand with little understory vegetation or surface fuels‣ Fuel Models 10 is a closed canopy with heavy understory and surface fuel loadingsThese models were selected because they typify the majority of Fuel Model types within theNational Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area (see 2003 Upper Bear Assessment,Component 3). Table III-1 below displays outputs from the BehavePlus model run for theseFuel Models, under 95 th percentile weather conditions, within the Upper Bear Analysis Area.Table III-1. Fire Behavior Outputs for Fuel Models 4, 6, 8, 10Fuel Model 4 Fuel Model 6 Fuel Model 8 Fuel Model 10Acres within Analysis Area 377 5,671 2,987 23,535Rate of spread (chains per hour) 230 85 5 26Fireline intensity (BTU/foot/second) 12,848 849 21 699Flame length (feet) 35 10 2 9Fire area (acres in 1 st hour) 1,415 192 1 18Probability of tree mortality (17” DBH tree) NA NA 9% 93%Figure III-3 below displays and compares the resulting acres of Fuel Models 4, 6, 8, and 10resulting from treatments under the Action Alternatives, compared to the current condition.Figure III-3. Distribution of Fuel Models by Alternative25,00020,000Resultant Acres15,00010,0005,00004 6 8 10Proposed Action 377 5,279 10,016 16,506Community Alternative 377 5,089 8,477 18,045Current Condition 377 5,671 2,987 23,535Draft EIS III - 11 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Important to note is the difference between Fuel Models 8 and 10. The majority of theNational Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area (79%) is currently in Fuel Model10. Both of the Action Alternatives would convert treated areas to a condition similar to FuelModels 8, that is, the treatments would reduce surface and ladder fuels and retain most of thelarger trees. These important indicators are further discussed below.3. Fire Resilient ForestsForest “Resiliency” as used in this analysis refers to the ability of the ecosystem to recover fromdisturbances related to large-scale, high-severity wildland fire (DEIS Chapter I).Fire resilient forests have characteristics that allow them to survive wildland fires. Thesecharacteristics include forest structures that limit the behavior of surface and crown fires andprovide a fair degree of resistance to tree mortality (Agee 2002). Historically, wildland fires inthe National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area were frequent, having primarily alow to moderate mixed severity with a low percentage of area in a high-severity condition. Withexisting fuel loadings caused by decades of fire exclusion (resulting in a higher intensity fire), awildland 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 forestecosystem to recover.Surveys of the 6,000-acre Quartz Fire, which occurred immediately west of Ashland Creek in2000, showed that 41% of the burned area was classified in a “severe” burn severity category.The similarity of local weather and topographical conditions between the Quartz Fire area andthe lower portions of the Ashland Watershed suggests that, based on current conditions, awildland fire in the Ashland Watershed could have similar effects as those of the Quartz Fire.Each fuel bed and combustion environment can create a different fire severity (Ryan and Noste1983). Crown fires have the largest immediate and long-term ecological effects and the greatestpotential 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 Skinner2005; article in press). First, surface fire behavior must be managed, so that treatments shouldeither reduce such potential behavior or at least not contribute to increased fire behavior.Because such treatments often open the understory so that midflame windspeed will increase andfine fuel moisture will decline (van Wagtendonk 1996, Weatherspoon 1996), maintaining nochange in surface fire behavior generally requires a reduction in surface fuels or substantialgreenup of grasses and low shrubs (Agee et al. 2002).Second, a reduction in torching potential requires a comparison of potential surface fire flamelength with a critical flame length, which is a function of canopy base height. A reduction inpotential surface fire behavior plus an increase in canopy base height will minimize torchingpotential.Third, reduction in potential active crown fire spread can be accomplished by a reduction incanopy bulk density. Where thinning is followed by sufficient treatment of surface fuels, theoverall reduction in expected fire behavior and fire severity usually outweigh the changes in fireweather factors such as wind speed and fuel moisture (Weatherspoon 1996).Draft EIS III - 12 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The fourth principle in a fire resilient forest strategy for the short-term is to keep large trees inthe stand if they are present. These are the most fire-resistant trees in the stand, as they have thetallest crowns and thickest bark (Peterson and Ryan 1986). In the long-term, provision must bemade for sufficient spatial variation in tree age classes to provide for replacement of the largertrees as they die.The large tree component is analyzed here as a function of its contribution to fire behavior. Oldand large trees are also analyzed in this DEIS as a Significant Issue relating to human socialvalues.To compare the Proposed Action and Community Alternative with the No-Action Alternative,the following indicators of current and resultant resiliency conditions are used:• Surface Fuels• Crown Fire Potential• Crown Density• Large Tree Componenta. Consequences of Alternatives - Surface FuelsThe intensity and duration of surface fires depend on the availability and condition of surfacefuels. Woody fuel can greatly increase the energy released from surface fires and in somecases increase flame lengths sufficiently to ignite ladder and/or canopy fuels, thus initiatingcrown fire.The most effective and appropriate sequence of fuel treatment depends on the amount ofsurface fuel present; the density of understory and mid-canopy trees; long-term potentialeffects of fuel treatments on vegetation, soils, and wildlife; and short-term potential effectson smoke production (Huff et al. 1995). In forests that have not experienced fire for manydecades, multiple fuel treatments are often required to achieve the desired fuel conditions.Thinning followed by prescribed burning reduces canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, therebyproviding maximum protection from severe fires in the future (Peterson et al. 2003).The beneficial effects of prescribed fire on altering fuel structure and wildland fire behaviorand effects have long been observed and reported (Weaver 1955, Weaver 1957, Cooper1960, Biswell et al. 1973, Fernandes and Botelho 2003).Prescribed fire is a useful tool that can effectively alter potential fire behavior by influencingmultiple fuel bed characteristics, including:‣ Reducing fuel loading of fine fuels, duff, large woody fuels, rotten material, shrubs,and other live surface fuels, which together with compactness and continuity, changethe fuel energy stored on the site and potential spread rate and intensity; and‣ Reducing horizontal fuel continuity (shrub, low vegetation, woody fuel strata), whichdisrupts growth of surface fires, limits buildup of intensity, and reduces spot fireignition probability.Treatments designed to remove ladder fuels will decrease the vertical continuity betweensurface fuels and canopy fuels. Prescribed burning often directly consumes some of thelowest ladder fuels (shrubs, dead trees, small trees).Draft EIS III - 13 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Prescribed fire also often scorches the lower branches of the overstory trees, killing them,and effectively raises the live crown above the ground surface. Climatic and fuel moistureconditions severely restrict prescribed burning windows 2 in many forests, especially thosewith high densities and heavy fuels.Thinning has the ability to more precisely create targeted stand structure than does prescribedfire (van Wagtendonk 1996, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996, Stephens 1998, Agee andothers 2000, Miller and Urban 2000). Using hand-saws or machinery, specific trees can beselected for treatment. Used alone, mechanical thinning, especially emphasizing the smallertrees and shrubs, can be effective in reducing the vertical fuel continuity that fosters initiationof crown fires. In addition, thinning of small material and pruning branches are more precisemethods than prescribed fire for targeting ladder fuels and specific fuel components in theladder-fuel stratum. The net effect of removing ladder fuels is that surface fires burningthrough treated stands are less likely to ignite the overstory canopy fuels.The change in surface fuels results in a change in fireline intensity and flame length which isdirectly related to the ability to suppress a wildland fire. Table III-2 displays the relationshipbetween flame length and suppression tactics.Table III-2. Relationship of Flame Length and Suppression TacticsFlame lengths 8 feetFires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by persons using hand tools. Handline should hold the fire.Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using fire engines; retardantaircraft can be effective.Fires may present serious control problems, such as torching, crowning, and/or spotting.Control efforts at the fire head would probably be ineffective.BehavePlus and FlamMap are used to calculate fireline intensity and flame length becausethese models are designed for making pre- and post-treatment comparisons and contrastsacross landscapes.In areas where the flame length exceeds eight feet, the spread rate is estimated to range from26-85 chains per hour (1 chain equals 66 feet). The fireline intensity associated with theseburning conditions would result in a high probability (90+ %) of overstory tree mortality dueto estimated scorch heights greater than 100 feet. The scorch height is the height above theground where the temperature is high enough to kill live crown foliage (this is assumed to be140 degrees Fahrenheit).The indicator used to compare alternatives is the amount of area by alternative where flamelengths are reduced.No-Action AlternativeUnder the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change to the existing fuel loading andassociated hazard with the exception of AWPP. Since AWPP is planned to treat only 10% ofthe Analysis Area within the Ashland Municipal Watershed, the current overall hazard wouldremain relatively high (2003 Upper Bear Assessment).2 The “burning window” refers to site-specific conditions (including fuel moisture and weather conditions) at the time of plannedignition.Draft EIS III - 14 Ashland Forest Resiliency

High fuel loading equates to a high rate of spread for a fire burning under high or extremeweather conditions. As discussed above, flame lengths of greater than eight feet createoverstory tree mortality. The following maps display the areas (in red) where flame heightsof greater than eight feet would be expected, for No-Action, the Proposed Action, andCommunity Alternative.MAP III-1. Flame Length >8 feet (95 th percentile weather conditions) - Current ConditionMAP III-2. Flame Length > 8 feet (95 th percentile weather conditions) - Proposed Action (left)and Community Alternative (right)Draft EIS III - 15 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action would reduce the amount of area where flame lengths are expected toexceed eight feet. This would be accomplished by various surface fuels treatments such asprescribed underburning, hand piling and burning, and ladder fuels reduction treatments suchas pruning. Understory thinning would also accomplish the reduction of ladder fuels. TableIII-3 shows the acres of flame length category by alternative on National Forest lands. Underthis alternative, the area that would produce flame lengths greater than eight feet would bereduced by approximately 39%, from current conditions.Community AlternativeThe Community Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action in that it wouldimplement treatments that would reduce the amount of area where flame lengths wouldexceed eight feet. Under this alternative, the area that would produce flame lengths greaterthan eight feet would be reduced by approximately 32%, from current conditions.Table III-3. Acres by Flame Length Category, by AlternativeTotal Acres Within NFSLFlame Length CategoryProposed CommunityNo-ActionAction AlternativeLess than 4 feet 1,975 9,004 7,4654 – 8 feet 1,220 1,612 1,802Greater than 8 feet 18,869 11,448 12,797b. Consequences of Alternatives - Crown Fire PotentialAn active crown fire is one in which the entire surface/canopy fuel complex becomesinvolved, but the crowning phase remains dependent on heat from the surface fuels forcontinued spread. Active crown fires typically lead to high acreage burned and adverseenvironmental effects, and offer the most challenge to fire managers (Scott and Reinhardt2001).Crown fires occur when surface fires create enough energy to preheat and combust live fuelswell above the ground. There are two stages to the crown fire process: the initiation of crownfire activity, known as ‘‘torching’’, and the process of active crown fire spread, where firemoves from tree crown to tree crown (Van Wagner 1977; Agee et al. 2000).Torching occurs when the surface flame length exceeds a critical threshold that is defined bymoisture content in the crown and the vertical distance to live crown, called canopy baseheight or height to live crown. Moisture content of the crown is highest in the spring,particularly for new foliage, and declines to the level of older foliage as the summerprogresses (Agee et al., 2002). It is usually the late season moisture value that is used forplanning purposes, so torching becomes primarily a function of canopy base height. At100% foliar moisture, a 2 meter (6.6 feet) canopy base height will require a flame length of1.3 meters (4.3 feet) to initiate torching, while a 6 meter (19.8 feet) canopy base height willrequire a 2.8 meter (9.2 feet) flame length (Agee 1996). Active crown fire spread beginswith torching, but is sustained by the density of the overstory crowns and the rate of spreadof the crown fire. Although the canopy base height of an individual tree may be high, and assuch, would not initiate crown fire, the presence of continuous ladder fuels can have the sameeffect as a canopy base height of zero. In other words, canopy base height by itself is not anindicator of the potential for crown fire; ladder fuels must be considered.Draft EIS III - 16 Ashland Forest Resiliency

For modeling comparisons, three main factors are considered; fuels, topography, andweather. To examine the differences between alternatives, it is assumed that topography andweather (using 95 th percentile conditions) remain constant. The differences in the modeloutputs indicate various levels of change between the no treatment scenario and the ActionAlternatives. These differences are displayed in terms of Crowning Index and TorchingIndex. Crowning Index is defined as the minimum wind speed (an index to rate of spread)required to maintain crown fire activity (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Torching Index isdefined as the open wind speed at which crown fire can initiate.NEXUS is crown fire hazard analysis software that links separate models of surface andcrown fire behavior to compute indices of relative crown fire potential. Computer analysisusing NEXUS identified a Torching Index and Crowning Index for the primary forested FuelModel within the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area, Fuel Model 10,under 95 th percentile weather conditions. Table III-4 shows that due to the amount of ladderfuels and the fact that there are continuous fuels from the ground to the crowns, torchingcould occur with the presence of any surface fire.Table III-4. Crown Fire IndicesTorching IndexCrowning IndexFuel Model 100 mph21 mphNo-ActionThe Torching and Crowning Indices are relatively low (high crown fire potential) with FuelModel 10 under the current condition and indicate that fires are likely to get into the crownsof trees with a light wind. The Torching index of 0.0 indicates that the initiation of crownfire (torching) is likely under any wildland fire scenario where Fuel Model 10 is present. Awind of slightly over 20 miles per hour would initiate an active or running crown fire in FuelModel 10, and would be sustained as long as the wind continues. Under the currentcondition, there are many areas of contiguous Fuel Model 10 within the Upper Bear AnalysisArea, thus making the potential for an active crown fire relatively high (see Map III-3).MAP III-3. Fuel Model 10 Distribution – Current ConditionDraft EIS III - 17 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP III-4. Fuel Model 10 Distribution – Proposed Action and Community AlternativeProposed ActionUnder the Proposed Action, existing areas of Fuel Model 10 change to Fuel Model 8, as aresult of hazardous fuel reduction treatments on NFSL. Approximately 7,030 acres wouldchange from Fuel Model 10 to Fuel Model 8, thus reducing the crown fire potential byreducing surface and ladder fuels and distributing treated areas across the landscape thatwould provide strategic breaks in continuous areas of Fuel Model 10. This is a reduction inFuel Model 10 by approximately 30 percent from current conditions.Community AlternativeThe Community Alternative would also change the distribution of Fuel Model 10 and FuelModel 8 across the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Thisalternative would also reduce the potential for crown fire initiation; the reduction in FuelModel 10 is approximately 23 percent, from current conditions.c. Consequences of Alternatives - Crown DensityAny density management stand treatments can substantially influence subsequent firebehavior at the stand level by either increasing or decreasing fire intensity and associatedseverity of effects (Graham et al. 1999). Depending on intensity, thinning from below canmost effectively alter fire behavior by reducing crown bulk density, increasing crown baseheight, and changing species composition to lighter crowned and fire-adapted species.The indicator used to compare alternatives is the acres of hazardous fuel reductiontreatments. All of the treatments proposed under the Action Alternatives would serve toreduce canopy bulk density to some degree. Even in cases where only the ladder fuels areremoved, the density of the canopy is reduced in relation to fire behavior.No-ActionUnder this alternative there would be no reduction in crown density and the potential for ahigh-severity wildland fire would remain the same.Draft EIS III - 18 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Proposed ActionUnder the Proposed Action, approximately 8,150 acres would be treated, thus reducing thecrown density to varying degrees. The areas treated within the Interface and RNACompartments would reduce crown density the greatest, bringing these areas closest to past(historical) conditions. The treatments in these areas would be thinning from below until thedesired relative stand density is obtained. This would reduce the intensity and severity of fireburning in these areas.Within the DFPZs, crown density of individual large trees would not be substantially reducedexcept in insect and disease pockets. However, the removal of surface and ladder fuelswould reduce the severity of a fire in these areas. Treatments in the Late-successionalCompartments would employ a thin from below that would reduce crown density in the midseralstands that do not currently provide suitable northern spotted owl habitat. The treatedareas would be strategically located to provide a degree of protection for suitable habitat.Community AlternativeThe Community Alternative would treat approximately 8,990 acres and, as under theProposed Action, would reduce crown density in varying degrees on these acres. All areasproposed for treatment, with the exception of the areas within the McDonald Peak RoadlessArea (1,481 acres), would reduce the canopy density as a result of thinning from belowtreatments. Treatments within the roadless area would reduce surface and ladder fuels,providing some reduction in canopy density.d. Consequences of Alternatives - Large Tree ComponentOne of the principles in regard to a fire resilient forest is, in the short-term, to keep the largetrees in stands or landscapes if they are present. These are the most fire-resistant trees in thestand, as they have the tallest crowns and thickest bark (Peterson and Ryan 1986). Thedegree of damage to roots, stems, and the crown determines whether trees will survive awildland fire.Bark thickness plays an important role in the survival of these trees. Larger trees, such asponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, develop a thick bark that insulates the cambium fromdamaging heat. Even if the bark is considerably scorched, the cambium can remainundamaged. In addition, the crowns of larger trees are more elevated, thus protecting thebuds and foliage from heat scorch. Crown scorch and bud kill is considered a principle causeof death from fire. In healthy, well-spaced stands, mortality is usually low.In the longer term, provision must be made for sufficient spatial variation in age classes toprovide for replacement of the larger trees as they die. Both Action Alternatives are designedto treat the smaller diameter trees in the stand first, and then move upward in size until thedesired stand density is obtained.4. Firefighter SafetyThis analysis does not attempt to address the mental and physical aspects of firefighter safety. Interms of this analysis, the important indicator utilized is the change in areas where firesuppression and prescribed burning can be conducted more safely. All wildland firefightersworking on or near a fireline must be able to identify a safety zone. Furthermore, they need toknow how “big” is “big enough” for a safety zone.Draft EIS III - 19 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The National Wildfire Coordinating Group defines a safety zone as “a preplanned area ofsufficient size and suitable location that is expected to prevent injury to fire personnel fromknown hazards without using fire shelters” (USDA/USDI 1995).BehavePlus estimates safety zone size requirements based on the number of personnel and heavyequipment that would occupy the zone. For analysis under Ashland Forest Resiliency, this wasassumed to be 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 ¼ acre (FuelModel 8) to over 2 acres (Fuel Model 10) in size. Safety zone size is proportional to flameheight. Therefore, any feature or action that reduces flame height will have a correspondingeffect on the required safety zone size (Butler and Cohen 1998).Radiant energy travels in the same form as visible light, that is, in the line of sight. Therefore,locating safety zones in areas that minimize firefighters’ exposure to flames will reduce therequired safety zone size. For example, topographical features that act as radiant shields are thelee side of rocky outcroppings, ridges and the tops of ridges, or peaks containing little or noflammable vegetation.No-ActionUnder the No-Action Alternative, the only areas within the Analysis Area that could serve assafety zones are the existing helicopter landings. Most of these would be sufficient for safetyzones with minor treatments to reduce surface and ladder fuels in the areas immediately adjacentto the landings. Roads within the area would not be sufficient for safety zones. Emergencyevacuation along the roads within the Analysis Area is risky at best depending on the location ofthe wildland fire, and weather conditions. Based on analysis using BehavePlus and FlamMap, itwould be highly risky to have crews in the area during a large-scale wildland fire situation.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeHazardous fuel management offers increased safety to firefighters, particularly when related tofires burning in high hazardous fuel complexes and under severe conditions (Williams 1995).Treated areas provide refugia from dangerous burning conditions resulting from large blocks ofcontinuous fuels. Burning under controlled conditions without the impending need forsuppression action avails an individual the time and circumstance to view complex relationshipsdriving fire behavior in real world situations, and to thus complete operations in a safe manner.Both Action Alternatives would have similar consequences in regard to firefighter safety. This isprimarily due to the large amount of area of Fuel Model 10 that is changed to Fuel Model 8. TheProposed Action converts more area of Fuel Model 10 to Fuel Model 8, thereby providingpotentially more areas of lower hazard to firefighters. In addition, both Action Alternativeswould create additional safety zones as a result of constructing helicopter landing areas, aconnected action to treatments.Hazardous fuel reduction treatments along roads would aid in emergency evacuation, althoughthis still would be inadequate under extreme conditions. Though safety would be improvedunder average to high fire danger, wildland fires that occur in extreme weather conditions (97-100 th percentile) would not allow firefighters the ability to make a direct attack.Draft EIS III - 20 Ashland Forest Resiliency

5. Temporal SchedulingAn urgent reduction in the risk of a large-scale high-severity fire was identified as an importantelement in the Purpose and Need statement. The No-Action Alternative would not change thecurrent risk because no hazardous fuel reduction activities would take place. Both ActionAlternatives would reduce the risk, although there would be a difference in the timing ofimplementation.The Proposed Action would implement the DFPZs as the first priority. Completion of thesetreatments along strategic ridgelines would reduce the risk of spread by compartmentalizing theAnalysis Area, which would limit the extent of a large-scale wildland fire. This would provide alevel of protection to the values at risk that would be further enhanced as the remainder of thetreatment priorities are implemented. Staging of treatments in the Interface and RNAcompartments would lengthen the time in which the treatments would be implemented to thedesired condition.The Community Alternative proposes to stage the density management treatments in severalentries in order to minimize the effects on stands as a result of changes in density. This wouldtend to lengthen the time in which the treatments become fully effective as designed.It must be noted that any treatment of hazardous fuels would make the overall conditionsin the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area improved over currentconditions.D. ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITHSIGNIFICANT ISSUESSignificant Issues were used to design specific elements of the alternatives and proposals,mitigation measures, and/or facilitate the display of important (and variable) environmentalconsequences. NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on theSignificant Issues related to an action. These issues (presented in Chapter I) have beendetermined to be significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the context ofassociated consequences, the duration of the effects, or the intensity of interest or resourceconflict. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change from the current conditions(unless otherwise noted), however, the short- and long-term effects of no (additional) hazardousfuels treatments are discussed in detail (here and in Section C, this Chapter).1. Soil and Site ProductivityActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially prescribed fire, tree removaland connected actions such as landing or road construction) may cause direct detrimentaleffect to soils and site productivity by surface erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling,loss of organic matter and change in moisture regime.Site productivity is defined in this assessment as the ability of the land to sustain an inherentlevel of plant biomass. Long-term site productivity is the maintenance of an inherent level ofplant biomass over several forest rotations. For discussion purposes, site-productivity can bedivided into inorganic and organic components.Draft EIS III - 21 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The inorganic component includes soil characteristics and properties such as soil depth, texture,mineralogy, nutrients, porosity, water regime, slope gradient, and aspect. The inorganiccomponent primarily governs water and nutrient storage and availability for plant use (seeAshland Watershed Protection Project FEIS, Chapter IV, Section 2).The organic component includes duff and litter, soil organic matter, soil organisms, down woodymaterial, snags and live vegetation. The organic component regulates nutrient cycling andavailability of nutrients for plant growth. Site productivity may be changed when the organiccomponent has been impacted. The importance and function of organic matter in maintaininglong-term site productivity is discussed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment.a. BackgroundSoilsSoils of the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area have been mapped as part of theRogue River National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Badura and Jahn 1977). Additionalcurrent soils information for this Analysis Area has been collected on a site-specific basisthrough random soil transects between years 2000 and 2002. The 2003 Upper BearAssessment (incorporated by reference) describes supplemental soils information (page 1-47).The soils in the Project Areas associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency are derived fromquartz diorite bedrock (generally referred to as granitic bedrock) that has weathered to asandy loam topsoil and a gravelly, sandy loam subsoil (ranging between 15 and 60 percentgravels and cobbles).Topsoil varies by aspect, slope and topography but generally ranges in depth from 5 to 10inches. Depth to bedrock ranges from two to four feet but is often deeper below rockoutcrops and in colluvial deposits. Soils are well to moderately well drained. Duff and litterlayers vary between 1.5 and 3.5 cm (0.6 and 1.4 inches) thick and on most sites cover greaterthan 90 percent of the soil surface, leaving less than 10 percent exposed soil (see AshlandWatershed Protection Project FEIS, page III-7).There is a high potential for surface erosion when soils are disturbed through loss of soilcover, compaction, removal of soil or loss of site organic matter. The most commonhistorical disturbance mechanism in the Analysis Area is wildland fire. High intensity fireconsume surface duff and litter layers and expose bare soil to rainfall impact and sheeterosion. The potential for sheet erosion increases with the reduction in effective soil cover.Table II-5 shows the relationship between the percent bare soil exposure and the potential forsheet erosion.The greatest potential for erosion is during the first year after disturbance. Erosion potentialdecreases rapidly after the first year with the reinvasion of vegetation, the input of plant litterand needle cast. In areas of previous disturbance, such as the 1959 wildland fire, unitsburned by the Ashland Ranger District in the past two decades and thinning sites, haverecovered a protective soil cover of duff, litter and live ground vegetation. These areas haveno visible signs of surface erosion (see Ashland Watershed Protection Project FEIS,page III-7).Draft EIS III - 22 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Slope gradient is another important factor for soil erosion in the Analysis Area. Soil erosionpotential increases dramatically as slope gradients become steeper. All site factors beingequal, the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) soil erosion model (Disturbed WEPP)computer model runs show that erosion rates can more than double as slope gradientsincrease from 25 percent gradients to 75 percent gradients (Figure III-4). Similar to theanalysis done for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project FEIS (Page III-7 and III-8),erosion potential ratings for this project is based on slope gradients: 0– 0 percent slopegradient has a moderate erosion rating; 30 to 60 percent gradient has a severe rating, andslope gradients over 60 percent has a very severe erosion rating.Snow cover can also reduce soil erosion by protecting the surface soil from rainfall impactduring rain-on-snow events. Higher elevation sites have higher accumulations of snow andtherefore should have less surface erosion than lower sites during winter and spring rainfallevents.Coarse Woody MaterialTable III-5 shows the current levels of coarse wood in the Analysis Area (from 2003 UpperBear Assessment). The distribution of coarse wood is clumpy over the landscape, as shownby the median position within the range. Most PAGs have coarse wood in the low end of therange, and a few carry very high levels. In the Douglas-fir and Dry White Fir PAGs, thehighest levels of coarse wood are in the smallest diameter class. In the more moist PAGs, thehighest levels of coarse wood are in the 10 to 19.9 inch diameter class. In the Douglas-firPAGs, at least 50 percent of the plots had no large coarse wood.Table III-5. Current Levels of Coarse Woody MaterialPlant AssociationGroupMedian pieces per acreless than 10 inches indiameterMedian pieces per acrebetween 10 and 19.9 inchesin diameterMedian pieces per acre 20inches or greater indiameterDry Douglas-fir 64 (range 36-219) 0 (range 0-105) 0 (range 0-57)Moist Douglas-fir 103 (range 0-151) 13 (range 0-114) 0 (range 0-11)Dry White Fir-Douglas-fir 34 (range 0-186) 18 (range 0-133) 9 (range 0-33)Moist White Fir 19 (range 0-341) 26 (range 0-284) 7 (range 0-136)Cool White Fir 17 (range 0-296) 58 (range 0-240) 8 (range 0-54)Moist Mountain Hemlock 12 (range 0-209) 78 (range 33-124) 11 (range 0-20)Cold Mountain Hemlock Data not available Data not available Data not availableb. Direct Effects of AlternativesDirect detrimental effects on soils and site productivity include surface erosion, compaction,displacement, puddling, loss of organic matter and change in moisture regime. Theindicators for these direct effects are contained in Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Forthis analysis, these indicators have been re-organized by compiling direction from theStandards and Guidelines from the 1990 Rogue River National Forest Land and ResourceManagement Plan for soil quality, and the 1998 Regional Supplement to the Forest ServiceManual (FSM 2521 R-6 Supplement 2500-98-1, Effective August 24, 1998), dealing withsoil resource protection. Site-specific Standards and Guidelines relating to direct soil effectsspecific to this analysis are presented in the Mitigation Measures (Section C, sub-section 6,Chapter II).Draft EIS III - 23 Ashland Forest Resiliency

For activities to meet acceptable levels of soil loss and soil management objectives (based onimplementation monitoring), the minimum-percent-effective ground cover followingcessation of any soil-disturbing activity for this project is shown in Table III-6. First yearimplies after the ground disturbing event. Second year implies another year from the firstyear 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 arebased 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 soiland site variables specific to the mid to lower elevations of the Analysis Area.Table III-6. Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover by Erosion ClassErosion Hazard Class 1 st Year 2 nd YearModerate (60% >70%Severe and Very Severe (>35 gradient) >70% >85%The most sensitive erosion parameters in the Analysis Area are effective ground cover andslope gradient. Figure III-4 (below) shows the relationship between slope gradient andpercent effective ground cover using WEPP erosion model for three different slope gradients,and a range of percent effective ground covers. WEPP model used prescribed burnparameters, local weather station data and soils information from the Upper Bear AnalysisArea.Figure III-4. Predicted Erosion Rates Using WEPPDraft EIS III - 24 Ashland Forest Resiliency

For all slope gradients, rates of predicted sheet erosion increases after effective ground coveris reduced below 70%. Predicted soil erosion rates on 50% and 75% slope gradients aresimilar as compared to predicted erosion rates from 25% slope gradients. A midpoint of 35%slope gradient is established to differentiate minimum effective ground cover for moderateand severe erosion hazard classes. Sites above 35% slope gradient should have a minimumpercent effective ground cover following cessation of any soil-disturbing activity disturbanceof 70%, and after one year of 85%. Those sites with slope gradients below 35% should havea minimum percent ground cover of 60% following cessation of any soil-disturbing activity,and 70% after one year.Organic material targets are levels of site organic matter that should be maintained for soiland long-term site productivity. Site organic matter can be grouped into two size fractions –fine organic matter (litter, duff and woody material, less than 3 inches in diameter), and largecoarse woody material (greater than 3 inches in diameter); each fraction play a role innutrient cycling.The fine organic matter fraction has higher nutrient concentrations than the large coarsewoody fraction. Some nutrients in this fraction would be consumed during prescribed burnsand wildland fires, while others remain in the ash and become more available for plantgrowth. High-intensity fires that consume all of the organic matter on the surface and severalinches of the topsoil result in “detrimental burned soil” conditions. No more than 20 percentof the site is allowed in this condition (see above). Maintaining an effective ground covershould also be sufficient for maintain a minimum target for fine organic matter.Conditions in the Analysis Area where detrimental burned soil and minimum effectiveground cover guidelines might not be sufficient for maintaining fine organic matter fractionsfor site productivity are sites with south facing slopes, steep slope gradients, and sites withlow percentage of canopy cover. For this project, these sites are identified by having lessthan 90% organic ground cover and less than 0.6 inches of combined duff and litter. Forthese sites, maintenance and improvement of existing fine organic matter should be achievedthrough appropriate fuels management. Minimum thresholds for detrimental burned soil andeffective ground cover should be higher than those previously stated, and have beenspecifically designed for Ashland Forest Resiliency.The coarse woody material fraction is important for long-term site productivity because it is amajor source of long-term energy, nutrients and moisture for microbes, fungi, invertebrates,vertebrates and roots. Nitrogen-fixing organisms may inhabit these structures and supply asubstantial amount of this nitrogen to the site.A target range for number of pieces of coarse woody material per acre was developed foreach Plant Association Group using current plot data presented in the 2003 Upper BearAssessment (see Component 2, Section VI). This analysis assumes that by maintaining thedesired range of coarse woody material over all the sites, long-term site productivity wouldnot be reduced.Draft EIS III - 25 Ashland Forest Resiliency

A key element of desired conditions for PAGs is down dead woody material. Desired levelsof coarse woody material per acre are shown below for each PAG. These figures werederived from Ecology Plot data, adjusted by past conditions established by PAGs, withconsideration of the DecAID 3 advisory system.Table III-7. Target Coarse Woody Material LevelsPlant Association GroupDiameter Class< 10” 10” - 19.9” >20”Dry Douglas-fir (1407) 54 - 93 0 - 7 0 – 9Moist Douglas-fir (1408) 54 – 122 0 - 7 0 - 9Dry White Fir (2004) 0 – 94 0 - 7 0 - 9Moist White Fir (2003) 0 – 67 0 -12 0 - 11Cool White Fir (2098) and Moist Mountain Hemlock (2301) 0 - 69 0 - 11 0 - 11Cool Mountain Hemlock (2311) 0 - 35 10 - 33 0 - 11No-Action AlternativeIf 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 minimal effects on site productivity. Surveys of the6,000-acre Quartz Fire, which occurred immediately west of Ashland Creek in 2000, showedthat 35.5% of the area burned in a moderate soil burn severity category and 41% burned in ahigh burn severity category. The similarity of local weather conditions between the QuartzFire area and the lower portions of the Ashland Watershed suggests that a wildland fire in theAshland Watershed could have a similar distribution of burn severity as that of the QuartzFire. The No-Action Alternative would have an increased potential for a wildland fire thatwould result in a high percentage of high-severity burn, as compared to the Proposed Actionand Community Alternative. A wildland fire would create a mosaic, leaving some areasunburned, some in a low burn severity, but most in a moderate to high soil burn severitycategory.A wildland fire, similar to the Quartz Fire, occurring in the Analysis Area would likely resultin over 50% of the soils in the moderate or high severity categories. The minimum effectiveground cover that would occur under the moderate and high severity categories the first yearafter the wildland fires would not meet the minimum effective ground cover identified formedium to very high erosion hazard class soils (Table III-6) and there would be a greaterpotential for loss of soil due to surface erosion in the first two years after the wildland fire.Soil in a high severity burn category would also be considered detrimentally burned becausethe mineral soils would have oxidized in the top several inches of soil. Both soil conditionswould have substantial long-term adverse effects on soil and site productivity.Under the No-Action Alternative, during wildland fire suppression operations, detrimentalsoil compaction and detrimental soil displacement would likely result from the constructionof firelines or fuelbreaks created by ground-based equipment. Creating fuelbreaks duringwildland fire suppression involves removing vegetation with either a blade or a bucket. Onsteeper slopes, the blade of a tractor is often used as a brake by the operator, in which casesoil is often displaced for long distances.3 DecAID is a work in progress on a decayed wood advisory tool for Washington and Oregon forests (Marcot et al., PNWResearch Note 2002). The title can be read as decayed wood advisor and management aid “decay-aid” or “decision-aid”.Draft EIS III - 26 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Since constructing firelines are often immediate and unsupervised by resource specialists, itmust be assumed that wherever ground based equipment is used, there would be detrimentalcompaction and displacement. Most of this disturbance would occur on ridgetops and sideridges, at an extent that would likely exceed standards and guidelines. In many cases on pastfires, the disturbance caused from building tractor firelines is greater than that caused by thefire. Firelines created by the use of hand tools also have the potential for causing detrimentaleffects by creating an avenue for water runoff and erosion to occur.Proposed ActionThe activities proposed in this alternative are designed to stay within the soil qualityStandards and Guidelines discussed above. Prescribed burns would take place under highfuel and duff moisture conditions to reduce the potential for detrimentally burned soils and tomaintain an effective ground cover. Soil compaction, displacement and soil erosion wouldoccur on landings and these sites would be considered to be in a short- and long-termdetrimental soil condition but would not exceed 20 percent of the area as defined in ChapterII, Section C, 6. Monitoring for implementation compliance would ensure levels ofdetrimental soils conditions would not exceed these thresholds. In addition to those areastreated with helicopter systems and areas used for helicopter landings (approximately 9acres), total acres estimated to be in a detrimental condition is approximately 82 acres (1.0%of the Project Area for the Proposed Action.Under this alternative, the risk of wildland fires would still be present in the Analysis Area,but after implementation, resultant wildland fires would likely have fewer acres in a highburn severity category due to the reduction in surface fuels. The long-term effects on soilsand site productivity should therefore be much less under this alternative than the No-ActionAlternative.Community AlternativeThis alternative is similar to the Proposed Action in the effects it would have on soils and siteproductivity. Both alternatives would stay within soil quality Standards and Guidelineswhich are designed to maintain soil quality. There are two primary differences between theAction Alternatives – the Community Alternative proposes 1) ground based yardingequipment, and 2) a greater reduction in relative stand density in the lower elevation PAGs(compared to the area of the DFPZs in the Proposed Action).Under the Community Alternative, downhill yarding using ground-based equipment on slopegradients less than 20 percent would be allowed. Standards and Guidelines limit this activityto less than 20 percent of an area; however there are potentially approximately 230 acres thatmeet these slope criteria within the Project Area for the Community Alternative and could beimpacted by ground-based equipment. These impacts primarily include compaction anddisplacement. Assuming detrimental impacts on 10% of the ground to be treated withground-based systems, this equates to 23 acres in a detrimental condition in addition to thoseareas treated with helicopter systems and areas used for helicopter landings (approximately 9acres). Total acres estimated to be in a detrimental condition is approximately 83 acres(0.9% of the Project area for the Community Alternative. These percentages are closebetween Action Alternatives for various compensating reasons associated with alternativedesign.Draft EIS III - 27 Ashland Forest Resiliency

While the Community Alternative and Proposed Action provide the opportunity for highrates of biomass removal, at the level and intensity of this analysis, it is unlikely that there isa substantial difference between the Action Alternatives on long-term organic mattermaintenance, and site productivity.c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Action AlternativesIn addition to the indirect effects of increased soil erosion, loss of duff and litter layer,increased compaction and puddling, and burned soils, is the potential for decreased waterquality. These effects are discussed in this document within several Significant and OtherIssues, this section.This project, along with the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, the Mt. Ashland SkiExpansion and the recent helicopter thinning project in the lower sections of the watershed(on City of Ashland lands) constitute a potential cumulative effect on the watershed. Thecumulative effects of short-term disturbances associated with the implementations of theseprojects should be minimal because 1) the activities are not concentrated in one area butspread across the affected watersheds, 2) the activities are spread out over several years and3) all activities individually are planned to stay within soil quality Standards and Guidelines,therefore cumulatively they would not exceed these guidelines. Further, the only activitiesthat would cumulatively occur on the same acre are hazardous fuel reduction treatments, e.g.,density management, activity fuels treatments and/or maintenance prescribed burning.2. Slope StabilityActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal and connectedactions such as landing or road construction) may affect geologic slope stability and causedirect or indirect mass wasting (landslides).Wildland fires, floods, landslides, and surface erosion are all common natural disturbances and arean intrinsic part of the landscape associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency. These naturaldisturbances often have both short- and long-term detrimental effects that are not only important forlandscape and stream development, but may adversely affect humans, buildings, roads, bridges,vegetation, and wildlife habitat (Benda et al. 2000). Land management activities within the AnalysisArea may accelerate erosion and mass wasting if implemented too intensely or in areas that areextremely sensitive to management activities. Many of these natural disturbances are interrelatedand may react with each other in several different ways. These interactions are explored andanalyzed in section.a. BackgroundThe Upper Bear Analysis Area is located on the eastern edge of the Klamath MountainsPhysiographic Province. A majority of the sub-watersheds are situated in highly dissectedgranitic terrain. Igneous, sedimentary, and some metasedimentary rock types of the WesternPaleozoic and Triassic Belts underlie the Analysis Area. The area is composed mainly of bandsof granitic and minor amounts of metamorphic rocks that have been accreted to the continentalplate. This portion of the Klamath Mountains is made up of composite belts of rocks formerlypart of an oceanic environment. After these tectonic belts or slices were accreted to thecontinental plate, the terrains were welded to the mainland by granitic intrusions, which occurredin several waves during late Mesozoic time (Orr & Orr 1999).Draft EIS III - 28 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Upper Bear Analysis Area contains slopes that range in elevation from approximately 2,300feet above the City of Ashland, to 7,530 feet at Mt. Ashland. The area is largely located withinthe Low Granitics (LG), Mid Granitics (MG), and Middle to High Granitics (MHG) terrains.These three terrains are separated by elevation zones and are discussed in detail in the 1995 BearWatershed Analysis. The upper-most terrain type is Glaciated Granitics (GG) and ranges inelevation from approximately 5,800 to 7,500 feet. All of these granitic landforms arecharacterized by naturally high rates of erosion and often contain unstable to potentially unstableslopes (USDA 1995). Slopes are highly dissected and are gentle to steep, ranging from 20 to 70percent, for the majority of the Analysis Area. Fieldwork conducted reveals that there are alsovery steep slopes (greater than 70% to 110%), in some portions of the canyons of Tolman, Neil,Reeder Gulch, and Hamilton Creeks.A more detailed description of the geology and current condition of the majority of the UpperBear Analysis Area is described in the Bear Watershed Analysis (USDA 1995), supplemented inthe 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (pages I-42-46). Specific updates to the Landslide HazardZone mapping is also discussed in updates to the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment, documented inDEIS Appendix D (incorporated by reference).b. Direct Effects of AlternativesLandslide Hazard Zones are used as indicators for the slope stability effects analysis. The leaststable terrain within the Analysis Area is Landslide Hazard Zone (LHZ) 1. LHZ 1 contains thelandscape which has had past mass wasting occurrences and/or contains areas where potentiallandslides may occur in the future. This is the most sensitive hazard of the four hazard zonesutilized to reflect forest land stability, and is the primary indicator for slope stability of theamount (acres) and types of land treatments proposed by each Action Alternative. Table III-8below is used to illustrate the number of acres of LHZ 1 affected for each of the threealternatives considered in detail.The second most sensitive zone is LHZ 2, which often contains moderately steep areas aboveLHZ 1, and contains locations/sites where management may increase the potential for masswasting. Treatments on LHZ 2 can trigger landslides by increasing the amount of groundwateravailable to marginally stable, to unstable slopes below. Table III-9 below is used to illustratethe amount of acres of LHZ 2 affected for each of the three alternatives considered in detail.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 slopefailures and therefore, these two hazard zones are not used as indicators for slope stabilityeffects analysis.No-Action AlternativeUnder this alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects associated with hazardousfuel reduction treatments. Under the No-Action scenario, there would be long-term effectson slope stability. This alternative presents the highest risk for impact to geologicallysensitive areas (Tables III-8 & 9). With a large-scale high-severity wildland fire, vegetationwould likely be removed over very large areas. Certain vegetation, especially conifers,hardwoods, and brush species over 30 years of age, helps stabilize soils and geologicallysensitive slopes.Draft EIS III - 29 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Large root systems provide more soil cohesion and use an abundant volume of groundwater,which would otherwise increase the saturation of soils and make slopes more prone tolandslides. Although fire models can be used to predict fire consequences, they cannotpredict the location of these fires relative to geologically sensitive areas (high risk landslidezones). However, it can be assumed that the larger the area burned by fire, especially duringhigh and severe fire weather conditions, the greater the risk for adverse effects to slopestability as a result of wildland fires.Under No-Action, if a large high-severity wildland fire event occurs, medium to largelandslides would likely be triggered. Mass wasting would be increased due to high-severitywildland fires burning forests more thoroughly and accelerating landslide movement inunstable and potentially unstable areas. The groundwater table would be brought closer tothe ground surface, because little to no vegetation would be available to utilize it. As a resultof these factors brought about by large high-severity wildland fires, debris flow landslideswould likely transport large volumes of sediment and debris to area streams. Sedimenttransport volumes would be increased to the largest extent due to wildland fire occurrenceslocated in and near steep canyon walls.Immediately following the wildland fire, even though vegetation would be killed by the fire,the root structure would remain largely intact and would remain so for many years.However, as the roots began to decay, their ability to hold soil in place would decrease andthere would likely be an increase in the frequency, and possibly the size of landslides, and anincrease in sediment delivery to streams. This increase in mass wasting and sedimentdelivery would probably lag several years behind the wildland fire event.The assessment of relative risk for impacts to slope stability from wildland fire are based onthe assumption that the greater the area burned at a high fire severity, the greater the potentialfor loss of vegetation, loss of root strength, and loss of large wood, all of which help stabilizeslopes and soil. It can also be assumed that area burned by wildland fire would increaseproportionately to increase in average fire size and increase in cumulative acres burned overlonger periods of time.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 wouldoccur, cannot be predicted. Adverse impacts from wildland fire suppression can be discussedin general terms based on average fire sizes and cumulative area burned over a long timeframe. It can be assumed, the smaller the area burned by wildland fire, the lower the risk toslope stability from the fire itself or associated fire suppression tactics. In the event of awildland fire, a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA) is conducted to establishobjectives and constraints for the management of a wildland fire. Appropriate resourcespecialists are included in the process in order to adequately assess the effects of various firemanagement alternatives, relative to effects on resource values and land managementobjectives. Geologically sensitive areas would be considered during this process and impactsfrom fire suppression activity minimized or avoided to the extent that it would not result ingreater area burned at high severity. Usually, but not always, fire suppression activities areassociated with ridgelines, which are usually characterized as the most stable terrain.Draft EIS III - 30 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Proposed ActionUnder the Proposed Action, some treatments would occur in small areas of LHZ 1 to creatediscontinuity of fuels and to reduce the potential for large wildland fires wicking within theRiparian Reserves. These treatments would include density management, with some fuelreduction activity and surface fuel prescribed burning.The relative risk for accelerating landslide activity under the Proposed Action would be low.Since this alternative would affect vegetation with density management and other hazardousfuel reduction treatments within LHZ 1, this alternative would have a slightly greater risk forthe short-term for accelerating slope instability over the No-Action Alternative, but wouldcontain a much lower risk than the No-Action Alternative over the long-term. The ProposedAction would create a slightly higher risk for landslide acceleration over the CommunityAlternative for the short-term. Over the long-term, direct effects of the Proposed Actionwould be a slightly higher risk than the Community Alternative, because there would morearea in surface fuel treatments within Landslide Hazard Zone 1, however, mitigationmeasures would be utilized to reduce risks that could initiate slope failures.Direct effects for the Proposed Action would be the highest of all alternatives for the shortterm.The probability for slope failures is low, but might be more likely to occur ifhazardous fuel treatments occurred on steeper slope gradients (65 percent and greater),following peak flow storm events. Long-term direct effects from the Proposed ActionAlternative would be much less than the No-Action Alternative and similar to, but slightlymore than the Community Alternative. See Tables III-8 & 9 below, which reflect the longtermscenario for relative landslide risk and direct acres LHZ 1 and 2 affected by treatmenttype and method.Community AlternativeThe Community Alternative would have the lowest relative landslide risk from managementactivities of the Action Alternatives. This alternative would exclude treatments in LandslideHazard Zone 1 under all of the priority treatments, and LHZ 2 under all but Priority 1 areas.Steep slopes (>65%) would be excluded under all priority treatment settings except Priority 1where slopes up to 75% may be treated. This alternative would treat more total overall acres(8,990 acres) but would cut and/or remove fewer medium and large sized trees. Short-termmanagement effects would be similar, but slightly lower than the Proposed Action as well.Naturally occurring landslides produced following large storms would be expected to befrequent, but would not increase as a result of hazardous fuel treatments under theCommunity Alternative. Proposed treatments would be of very low impact to geologicstability for the short term. For the longer term the remaining tress at managed sites wouldgrow larger root systems, making treated sites more resistant to wildland fires and masswasting over time.SummaryTable III-8 and III-9 below, shows acres LHZ 1 and 2 affected by treatment type and method,and the long-term scenario for relative landslide risk.Draft EIS III - 31 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Table III-8. Acres of Landslide Hazard Zone 1, by Treatment Method and AlternativeAlternativePrescribedFire/Surface FuelsDensityManagementTractorNo-Action 0 0 0ProposedActionCommunityAlternativeRelative LandslideRiskHighest(assuming wildland fire)585 350 0 Low0 0 0 LowestTable III-9. Acres of Landslide Hazard Zone 2, by Treatment Method and AlternativeAlternativePrescribedFire/Surface FuelsDensityManagementTractorNo-Action 0 0 0ProposedActionCommunityAlternativec. Indirect Effects of AlternativesRelative LandslideRiskHighest(assuming wildland fire)398 238 0 Low250 572 0 LowestNo-Action AlternativeThe greatest indirect effect of the No-Action Alternative would occur when large landscapescale wildland fires severely burn the forest and soils, and cause debris flow landslides totransport sediment to area streams and Reeder Reservoir. The increased volume of sedimentwould not only limit the amount of water storage capacity available for the City of Ashland’sMunicipal water supply, but may also adversely affect water quality. In addition, the fine siltand medium sand material would be delivered to the larger creeks and may cover rearingbeds for rainbow trout and salmon habitat below Reeder Reservoir.Proposed Action and Community AlternativePotential indirect effects brought about by either Action Alternative are not expected to resultin increased mass wasting or in increased sediment or decreased water quality off-site. TheCommunity Alternative would have the least potential to cause increased indirect effectsfrom mass wasting.d. Cumulative Effects of Action AlternativesAshland Forest Resiliency was evaluated along with past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable future actions within the Analysis Area to determine the potential for adversecumulative effects to slope stability. Other actions in the Ashland Creek Watershed andadjacent sub-watersheds included in this analysis are the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion,and the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (AWPP). These projects are considered lowpotential cumulative impacts on slope stability since all management treatments anddevelopment areas avoided the highest Landslide Hazard Zone (LHZ 1). These projects areconsidered low impacts for landslide initiation and/or reactivation. The remainder of thissection of the document describes the potential adverse cumulative effects associated withthese projects, in addition to potential Ashland Forest Resiliency treatment for acceleratinglandslide activity in the Analysis Area.Draft EIS III - 32 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Considering the implementation of the Ashland Forest Resiliency project proposal togetherwith past (as represented by current conditions), other present, or reasonably foreseeableprojects described above, there would be low risk for adverse cumulative effects to slopestability. Most Ashland Forest Resiliency actions are designed to avoid Landslide HazardZone (LHZ) 1. However, some treatments would be completed in small areas of LHZ 1 toreduce the potential for large wildland fires wicking within the Riparian Reserves.Geologists would locate the most stable ground within LHZ 1, just prior to projectimplementation where small areas may be thinned from below. This detailed mapping and/orlandslide modeling within LHZ 1 would ensure all management treatments would beconducted successfully and would be completed in areas found to contain a small risk forlandslide acceleration.Mitigation and project design for reducing potential for adverse direct and indirect impacts toslope stability would be accomplished by reducing the number and size of trees that arethinned in the least stable portions (i.e., steep headwalls, incised channels, wetlands, andpotential landslide areas) of Riparian Reserves. Understory vegetation clearing within LHZ1 and LHZ 2 would be distributed across the landscape such that the effects of each actionwould be limited to small areas and would not collectively result in adverse cumulativeeffects to slope stability. Treatment areas would not be concentrated in or near the leaststable portions of LHZ 1.3. Sediment DeliveryActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal and connectedactions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slash treatments) mayaffect water quality via erosion and resultant sediment delivery to streams.Sediment delivery is the indirect result of the amount of sheet erosion and ravel moving intounstable zones, the percent of effective ground cover, the number and size of landslides, rootstrength, and slope features. The actual amount of sediment delivered to a stream channel or toReeder Reservoir is related to all of these features and is dependent the magnitude and timing ofclimatic events, which is the driving force. Standards which govern the proposed operations cancontrol the amount of ground disturbance relative to the physical features, but cannot control theweather. The LRMP Standards and Guidelines for the amount and location of grounddisturbance are believed to be sufficient to control sediment delivery at a level that is belowlevels that would produce adverse resource damage.a. BackgroundFire can adversely affect the physical and biological composition of soil. Soil burn severityis a qualitative term that describes classes of fire-caused changes to soil hydrologic function.The classes are identified by soil characteristics and surface fuel and duff consumptionfollowing fire and incorporate residence time. The resultant classes are Unburned to VeryLow soil burn severity, Low soil burn severity, Moderate soil burn severity, and High soilburn severity. In general terms, the higher the temperatures and the longer the residence timeassociated with the fire, the greater the effects. With increasing soil burn severities, soilerosion and resultant sedimentation will increase. Without vegetation and intact duff layersto moderate conditions, runoff rates will increase. The presence of water repellent soils willfurther increase runoff rates, which will facilitate increased erosion and sedimentation.Draft EIS III - 33 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Once sediment is delivered to stream channels, it will become entrained in the system andmove down-channel and into Reeder Reservoir in relation to stream flows. Sediment willhardly move at all during low flows and will move in great quantities during high flow orflood events. The stream channels have a complex morphology. Generally, the channelshave steeper gradients toward the upper ends of the drainages. The gradient becomesprogressively gentler the lower one goes in the drainage. The effects of channel morphologyon sediment movement have been described by Montgomery and Buffington (1993) in thegeneral terms of source, transport, and response units. Within the Analysis Area, ReederReservoir, as a depository for sediment, replaces the response unit described by Montgomeryand Buffington. For most of their length, stream channels in the Analysis Area will betransporters of sediment.The channels are not smooth and sediment does not move in a uniform fashion through thesystem. Instead, there are numerous depositional areas within the channels where sedimentaccumulates for periods of time. These depositional areas are mostly the result of largewoody material that has fallen into the channel. The length of time that sediment isstationary in the channel and the distance it will move when disturbed depends on the forceof water and/or landslide movement. In low and moderate flow conditions, the sediment willmove only short distances, or not at all. It is only during extreme events such as occurred in1964, 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 streamchannel is expected to reach the larger streams of the sub-watersheds. Debris flowlandsliding is the dominant natural process that transports eroded sediment from the smallerdrainages to the larger creeks (Ashland and Bear Creeks) and eventually to the Rogue River.During peak flow storm events, a large majority of the accumulated sediment deposited insmall drainages from surface erosion, small slumps, and debris slides, will eventually bepicked up and incorporated into larger debris flows. These debris flow landslides may oftentransport this sediment a mile or more down stream before it is finally deposited.b. Direct Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeWith the current fuel loading conditions, a wildland fire would likely leave a large portion ofthe area in the moderate and high soil burn severity categories. When wildland fires burn,there is no control over burn severity. The Quartz Fire, which burned over 6,000 acresimmediately west of the Ashland Creek Watershed, had 41% of the burned area in the severesoil burn severity, and 35.5% in the moderate soil burn severity categories. Most of thevegetation in the moderate and high soil burn severity categories was killed. A wildland firein the Upper Bear Analysis Area could be expected to have around 50% in the moderate andhigh severity categories and would have significant effects on soils and watershed properties.With wildland fires, there is no control over many of the factors that determine burn severity.Fuel moisture levels are likely to be low or very low. Residence time of the burn on the soilis likely to be long, causing more of the surface and subsurface organic material to beconsumed. Once this happens, a lot of the binding material for soil particles disappearsleading to an increased risk of surface erosion. Wildland fires often burn in riparian areas;this is more likely to happen in periods when fuel moisture is very low. Lastly, wildlandfires do not have any mitigating measures in place prior to ignition; therefore, adverse effectsoccur unabated.Draft EIS III - 34 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Sediment yields have been predicted using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)model (see discussion of model in Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS Appendix). Themodel results are shown in Figure III-5. Common variables used in all WEPP model runs forthis 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 75% slope gradients,sediment yield values increased by 25 to 40%. WEPP model runs using 25% slope gradientsdecreased sediment rates by 40 to 60%. The predicted sediment yields on a per acre basis areall much higher for wildland fires than for either the current conditions, or for controlledburns.The elevated erosion and sediment yields from wildland fires would deposit soil in streamchannels where the sediment can in the near term bury aquatic habitat and fill in-channelgravel spaces. In the longer timeframe, the sediment would move downstream where itwould be deposited in Reeder Reservoir, decreasing it’s storage volume and lessen theamount of domestic water available from the reservoir.Figure III-5. Fire Effects on Sediment Delivery (50% Slopes Gradients)Reeder Reservoir is currently considered water quality limited by Oregon’s Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ), and is on their 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. The draftWater Quality Management Plan for the lands above Reeder Reservoir calls for maintainingthe level of sedimentation within the range of natural variability through minimizing humancaused soil compaction, erosion, and mass movement. A large wildland fire above thereservoir would increase the level of sedimentation. It would make little difference whetherthe source of the ignition was natural (lightning strike) or human caused, sedimentationwould still increase. Because large-scale fire in the Analysis Area has been effectivelyexcluded, allowing for an unnatural buildup of fuels, it would be reasonable to consider thatthe resultant sedimentation from wildland fire would be outside the natural range ofvariability.Draft EIS III - 35 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The greatest increase in sediment from surface erosion sources would occur during the firstand second years after large-scale wildland fire. As soil cover increases through plant reestablishment,needle and leaf cast from standing dead or live trees, and armoring of the soilsurface, erosion and sediment rates should decline. Figure III-5 shows the relationship of soilcover to sedimentation and why it is important to maintain soil cover near stream channels.Sediment from landslide sources would lag several years behind the fire, and would not peakuntil that time. Sediment from landslides would likely greatly exceed that produced bysurface erosion.Proposed ActionThe activities proposed in this alternative are designed to lessen fire hazards by reducing thedensity of vegetation and surface fuels in selected areas. Each of the proposed treatmentmethods, whether prescribed fire or density management, would be appropriate for the landand conditions where applied. With each project type, land managers would have controlover the exact area where the treatment would be applied, and the conditions under which theapplication would occur. For instance, in the case of prescribed fire, activities can happen ata time when fuel moisture is high. The prescribed burn areas would have fire linessurrounding them, and crews on-site to manage the fire. The resultant burn severity shouldbe in the low category.Each project would have mitigation measures prescribed in the form of Best ManagementPractices to protect water quality. Buffers of intact vegetation and duff layers would separatethe treatment areas from stream courses. These areas would trap eroded soil before it moveddown slope into a stream channel. The resultant sediment yield would be much less than theyield following a wildland fire and would be just slightly more than under the currentconditions. The sediment yields are shown in Figure III-5 where results of the WEPP modelrun are displayed. 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 activitiesassociated with the Proposed Action.Community AlternativeAs in the case with the Proposed Action, there would be considerable control of timing andlocation of treatments under the Community Alternative. Ground based equipment, withrestrictions, is proposed under this alternative. Restrictions would mitigate potential effects.There is a prohibition in the Community Alternative against the use of water bars as anerosion control measure on slopes less than 20%. Water bars are one of the main tools usedin controlling erosion on roads and trails. To prohibit their use could result in more erosionand sedimentation than would otherwise be the case. Even with the prohibition against waterbars, erosion rates from surface sources are likely to be low and subsequent sedimentdelivery to streams insignificant.c. Indirect Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeThe greatest indirect effect of large-scale wildland fire in the Analysis Area would be on thedomestic water availability for the City of Ashland, from storage at Reeder Reservoir.Ashland Creek, as the city’s primary water source, would show a marked decline in waterquality. Turbidity would increase until the time the watershed stabilized and vegetationbecame reestablished to a level to hold soil in place. Even then, sediment entrained in thechannels would still be moving through the system and would accumulate in ReederReservoir.Draft EIS III - 36 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Water treatment costs for the City would likely be higher than current, due to the need forextra treatment of the turbid water. Sediment delivery to Reeder Reservoir could be highenough that normal maintenance procedures might not “keep up” and sediment wouldaccumulate to a level that would require the reservoir to be drained and sedimentmechanically removed.The second indirect effect of a large wildland fire would be an increase in water yield. Thiswould be a result of lower infiltration rates on the burned-over land, from decreasedinterception of precipitation on leaves and needles of vegetation, and from less transpiration.The increased runoff would partially be realized as increased summer flows and could be abenefit for the City of Ashland, which often has to regulate water use during low flowperiods. It is doubtful that this benefit would offset the other adverse effects and costs ofhaving a large area of the watershed damaged by fire.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeThere would be no indirect effects of the treatments on sediment delivery beyond thosedescribed above for direct effects.d. Cumulative Effects of Action AlternativesWithin the Analysis Area, the only major activity being planned is the expansion of the Mt.Ashland Ski Area. The effects of the proposed expansion are documented in the 2004 FEISand Record of Decision for this proposal. The expansion of the ski area is not expected toproduce measurable changes in sediment delivery to streams in the watershed, or to ReederReservoir. The Ashland Watershed Protection Project is currently active. Erosion andsediment changes from that project have been analyzed in the 2001 NEPA documentpertaining to it. Changes in sedimentation from this project were not believed to besignificant, and the project is being implemented. Increases in sedimentation following alarge-scale wildland fire would completely overwhelm the insignificant changes in erosionand sediment yield associated with the ski area expansion or AWPP.In the event of a large-scale wildland fire, there would be an increase in the amount ofsediment entering Reeder Reservoir. Accumulated sediment in Reeder Reservoir could beremoved by the traditional method of sluicing the deposits through the pipe in the bottom ofHosler Dam, or in the case of huge accumulations, which would be associated with a majorstorm, by other methods such as draining the reservoir and using ground based equipment orby dredging from a floating suction dredge. In either case, the sediment would enter AshlandCreek first, and then Bear Creek and the Rogue River. In each stream, the sediment wouldadd to the amounts that originate elsewhere in the Bear Creek watershed or Rogue RiverBasin. Bear Creek is currently listed on the DEQ 303(d) list as impaired because of a varietyof water quality problems. Sediment would add to these adverse conditions and could affectanadromous and inland fish habitat, irrigation diversions, and aesthetics.The Proposed Action and Community Alternative activities would have no, or minor adverseeffects on sedimentation affecting water quality in the Analysis Area streams. Controls onlocation and timing of activities, slope, size of riparian buffers, amount of disturbance,prescribed burn intensities, etc. would mitigate the amount of erosion and sedimentattributable to the project. The minor change in erosion and sedimentation would notaccumulate with effects from other activities to the point where cumulatively, there would bean adverse effect.Draft EIS III - 37 Ashland Forest Resiliency

4. Hydrologic FunctionActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially connected actions such aslanding or road construction, tree removal, and prescribed fire or slash treatments) maydirectly or indirectly affect streams, wetlands, and hydrologic function such as runoff,stream flow, temperature, and quantity and quality of domestic water sources.Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Areas are located within four separate sub-watersheds,described in this DEIS analysis as the Ashland Creek sub-watershed, the Neil Creek subwatershed,the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed and the Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed, allwithin the Bear Creek Watershed and the Rogue River Basin.At issue is the effects of hazardous fuel treatments (especially connected actions such as landingor road construction, tree removal, and prescribed fire or slash treatments) and theirconsequences in terms of domestic water quality associated with Reeder Reservoir and the Cityof Ashland.a. BackgroundFlowThe two-year Peak Flows shown in Tables 1-7 and 1-8 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessmentare incorrect. The numbers presented in the tables below are the correct two-year annual highflows, which are different from the instantaneous peak flows.The following represents the estimated 2-year peak flows (CFS or cubic feet per second) forstreams in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The estimates were calculated using a programfound on the Oregon Water Resources Department interactive Internet page.East Fork Ashland Creek:West Fork Ashland CreekNeil Creek72 CFS74 CFS70 CFS (Neil Creek is an estimate based on the gaugedstations on the East And West Forks of Ashland Creek)RunoffThe annual runoff pattern follows the precipitation pattern. The chart below displays thisrelationship. Runoff generally peaks on an annual basis in late spring as the upper elevationsnowpack melts off.As was noted in the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis, the large peak flows, such as were seen inthe 1964, 1974 (and 1997) floods, occur in December-January as a result of rain on snowevents. Most sediment originates and moves in these events. In years without these largeflood events, more sediment would tend to move during the annual peak flows in May andJune.Draft EIS III - 38 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Figure III-6. Average Precipitation and Runoff in Ashland Creek Watershed18%16%14%12%Percent of Annual10%8%PrecipitationRunoff6%4%2%0%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthWater Quality LimitationsSeveral waterbodies in the Upper Bear Analysis Area are considered water quality limited bythe Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). These waterbodies are:Table III-10. ODEQ Listed WaterbodiesWaterbody River Mile ParameterReeder Reservoir 4.9-5.4 SedimentNeil Creek 0 – 4.8 TemperatureNeil Creek 0 – 4.8 Dissolved OxygenWagner Creek 0 – 7.4 TemperatureAshland Creek 0 – 2.8 Fecal ColiformExcept for Reeder Reservoir, the river mile limits for the listings are either below or on thelower edges of the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Activitiesassociated with the Ashland Forest Resiliency are connected to the listings, but with carefulplanning, should not worsen conditions and in the longer time period, should improveconditions.Reeder Reservoir, being located at the drainage outlet for most of the area, is more likely tobe affected by activities within the Analysis Area. The reservoir is the storage facility for theCity of Ashland’s water supply. With increasing development within the City, the watersupply system is often being used to its limits in the summer. In recent years, a program ofwater use restrictions has sometimes been employed to allow the water supply to stretch tomeet demands. Because of the seasonal shortage, it is important that the volume of ReederReservoir be maintained and that sediment input into the reservoir be held to levels withinthe natural range of variability. This issue was evaluated in the draft Water QualityManagement Plan written by the Forest Service and submitted to ODEQ in 1999.Draft EIS III - 39 Ashland Forest Resiliency

. Direct Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeThe water quality issue of most concern is discussed above in the section on sedimentation.In addition to an increase in sediment, there could be increases in stream temperature and inthe concentration of many chemicals that are present in all runoff.There are many chemicals naturally present in soil and vegetation in the forest environment.Transport of nutrients to streams occurs before, during, and after wildland fires. The sourcesfor this transport are direct leaching from the soil, diffusion of smoke and gases directly intostreams, or deposition of ash into a stream. After a fire, compounds containing, but notlimited to nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium contained in soil and ash deposits can leachinto streams following precipitation events. Without live vegetation for uptake of thenutrients and with decreased ability for soils to retain water, streams are likely to show anincrease in concentrations of a number of chemicals. These increases are usually short-lived,often lasting only a year or two.The magnitude of increased nutrient levels is dependent on the severity of the fire, and on theintensity of storm events. The natural levels of cations and anions in local forested streams islow and, while concentrations are likely to increase following a wildland fire, the levelsshould not cause concerns from a drinking water quality standpoint (Dissmeyer 2000).If wildland fires burn within riparian areas and consume the forest canopy which shadestreams, then water temperatures would increase. Stream temperatures are a function of thevolume of water in the stream, the surface area exposed to the sun, and to the amount ofincoming solar radiation. The latter is controlled by shading vegetation. Following fires,stream 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 theOregon water quality standard of 64 o F. Also, the warm stream temperatures would adverselyaffect the drinking water quality, as warmer temperatures are less palatable to users. Asstreamside shading recovers along with vegetation recovery, the temperatures would begin tolower and would eventually return to pre-fire levels. This is a process that could take adecade or more to accomplish.Wildland fires that burn with a moderate or high soil burn severity on more that 25% of adrainage, could produce increases in both peak and annual stream flows. The magnitude ofsuch increases has been documented in the FEIS for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area, and FEIS forthe AWPP 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. Withoutevapotranspiration from live vegetation, soils would enter the fall season with more groundwater storage than if the area was still completely vegetated. The early fall storms would fillup the available soil storage and runoff would occur more quickly. Depending on the size ofthe storm, there could be enough flow at peak to move large wood and sediment within thechannel and possibly plug culverts, although there are not many of these structures. Therewould be no change in situations of large flow events, as these happen in conjunction withsaturated soil conditions and watershed response is no different, with or without vegetation.The change in annual water yield would be slight, but measurable. This could be a benefit tothe City of Ashland because summer low flows would be greater at a time when they areneeded most.Draft EIS III - 40 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Proposed Action and Community AlternativeAny changes in nutrient loading in streams following implementation of the ActionAlternatives would be small. As was discussed in the section covering sedimentation, therewould be sufficient buffers left between treatment units and streams to prevent virtually allsoil movement into the channels. Likewise, remaining vegetation would be available foruptake of available nutrients, which would prevent their moving through the soil and intostreams.The buffers between any treatment areas and streams would continue to provide shade on thewater surface and would prevent any changes in the current stream temperature regime,which is currently well within the water quality standard.Stream flows should not change as a result of implementation of either Action Alternative.There would not be enough alteration in the evapotranspiration or infiltration components ofthe hydrologic cycle to cause changes in runoff.c. Indirect Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeThe possible increase in stream temperatures from extensive high-severity wildland fireswould result in higher water treatment costs for the City. The higher temperature wouldallow for a higher level of biologic activity such as increased algae growth, which couldproduce tastes and odors that would have to be mitigated at the treatment plant.There could be some movement of large woody material into Reeder Reservoir as a result ofhigher peak flows. This would require some additional work by the City to keep the intakesto the water system pipelines clear, and to keep floating debris away from the gates on HoslerDam.Within the Bear Creek fifth-field watershed, many of the streams tributary to Bear Creek areconsidered water quality limited because of elevated stream temperatures, among otherparameters. With the possibility that Ashland Creek and Tolman Creek would be added tothis list and the listings for Neil Creek and Wagner Creek being extended, and because theyare major tributaries to Bear Creek, progress toward improving temperatures in Bear Creekwould 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 Creekbecause the higher temperatures produced in the Ashland Creek watershed would bemitigated somewhat by Reeder Reservoir.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeThere should be no adverse indirect effects from implementation of the projects associatedwith the Action Alternatives. The activities would be implemented in a manner that controlsthe amount of disturbance. There would be an undisturbed buffer of live vegetation andground cover between any activity and streams. Prescribed fires would be planned to keepintensities low so that there would be minimal consumption of ground cover, which wouldleave soils protected. The location of the activities would follow criteria that would provideprotection for both on- and off-site values. With these guidelines in place, there would not bea significant increase in surface erosion or in sediment delivered to streams.Draft EIS III - 41 Ashland Forest Resiliency

d. Cumulative Effects of Action AlternativesProposed Action and Community AlternativeSuccessful implementation of the actions proposed under either Action Alternative wouldlead to improved water quality conditions within the Bear Creek watershed. By lowering thefire severity potential in the Analysis Area, the projects would lessen the probability andimpact of large increases of sediment produced by a large-scale wildland fire. This wouldresult in continued improvement in the overall water quality and fish habitat in Bear Creek.In the past, during times that Reeder Reservoir was cleaned of sediment, Ashland Creek wasa major contributor of sediment to Bear Creek. Lower fire intensities, severities, andlessened acreage of area burned would result in markedly less sediment entering ReederReservoir following a wildland fire, and would cumulatively result in less impact on BearCreek.5. Cumulative Watershed EffectsActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments, in combination with past, othercurrent, and reasonably foreseeable future actions may result in adverse cumulativewatershed effects to hydrologic function and water quality.A cumulative watershed effect is any response to multiple land-use activities that is caused by, orresults in, altered watershed function. The process generating a cumulative watershed effectsanalysis is complicated by the variety of land-use activities that may cause effects, and by themultitude of philosophical and economic values affected. However, land-use activities candirectly change only a few parameters that can affect water quality: vegetation, topography, soilproperties, water distribution, erosion and mass wasting rates, and chemical inputs. Indirectcumulative watershed effects accrue if effects of proposed activities are transported through abasin. The effects usually manifest as changes in the rate, mode, or timing of the transport ofwater, sediment, organic matter, chemicals, or heat. These offsite impacts result directly orindirectly from changes in transport (Naiman R. J. and R. E. Bilby, 1998, R. R. Ziemer 1981).a. BackgroundThe Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Methodology was used to assess the cumulativewatershed effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities for AshlandForest Resiliency. The processes and findings from this analysis are summarized from DEISAppendix I, Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (incorporated by reference). It isrecommended the reader refer to Appendix I to gain a better understanding of the somewhatcomplex and integrated analysis methodology used to determine relative risk of adversecumulative watershed effects.The Analysis Area for cumulative effects is located within four separate sub-watersheds,described as the Ashland Creek sub-watershed, the Neil Creek sub-watershed, the HamiltonCreek sub-watershed and the Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed, all within the Bear CreekWatershed and the Rogue River Basin. The geographic extent of the sub-watersheds for thisreport are depicted on Map I-1, of DEIS Appendix I. Sub-watersheds are described inSection A, 1, this Chapter.Draft EIS III - 42 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Equivalent Roaded Area MethodologyThe ERA Methodology utilizes GIS analysis of land use activities to convert road, timberharvest, fire, and other disturbances within each sub-watershed to equivalent roaded areasbased on coefficients that are regionally specific. The resulting equivalent roaded area withineach sub-watershed is divided by the acres of each watershed to calculate a relativedisturbance rating, which is called the percent ERA. Then, the percent ERA is compared tothe Threshold of Concern (TOC) for each sub-watershed. The TOC is developed specificallyfor each watershed and is based on channel sensitivity, beneficial uses, soil erodibility,hydrologic response, and slope stability. DEIS Appendix I contains a description of themethodology used to determine the numerical index for each of the factors listed above.Once the index values have been determined for each watershed, the Watershed SensitivityLevel (WSL) is calculated. Next, the WSL is converted to a watershed specific TOC value.Finally, the calculated TOC is compared to the percent ERA for each watershed to determinea watershed Risk Ratio.A Risk Ratio approaching or greater than 1.00 serves as a “yellow flag” indicator ofincreasing susceptibility for significant adverse cumulative effects occurring within awatershed. Susceptibility of cumulative watershed effects generally increases from low tohigh as the level of land disturbing activities increase toward a risk ratio value of 1.00 (USFS1988). Watersheds with a “yellow flag” rating of 1.00 are not necessarily in eminent dangerof unacceptable cumulative watershed effects, but these watersheds contain enoughdisturbance to “warrant a closer look” (Beaver Creek Ecosystem Analysis 1996). It shouldbe noted that the ERA Methodology analyzes watershed conditions regardless of landownership.b. Current Conditions and Cumulative Effects of Action AlternativesThe ERA Methodology was used to assess the relative risk of adverse effects relating tosedimentation, physical integrity, and stability of stream channels, based on the current(cumulative) conditions and the effects of each alternative considered in detail. The resultsof the cumulative watershed effects analysis are presented in Table III-11. The resultantindicators by alternative can be compared to the background levels, showing the degree ofchange.Table III-11. Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA), Threshold of Concern (TOC), and Risk Ratiofor Sub-watershed Analysis Areas, by AlternativeSub-watershedAshland CreekNeil CreekUpper Wagner CreekHamilton CreekFactors(Background) Proposed CommunityNo-Action Action AlternativeERA% 2.9% 4.5% 4.6%TOC 8.5 8.5 8.5Risk Ratio 0.346 0.531 0.540ERA% 8.0% 8.6% 8.9%TOC 9.0 9.0 9.0Risk Ratio 0.894 0.957 0.989ERA% 5.4% 7.1% 5.7%TOC 9.0 9.0 9.0Risk Ratio 0.598 0.792 0.629ERA% 30.3% 30.5% 30.6%TOC 11.0 11.0 11.0Risk Ratio 2.751 2.770 2.781Draft EIS III - 43 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Current ConditionsThe most noticeable value in the above table is the high background percent ERA value forthe Hamilton Creek sub-watershed (30.3%). This is due to the amount of private land withinthe city limits of Ashland. Approximately 93% of this sub-watershed is off NFSL and hasbeen highly developed and roaded. Not including private land, the percent ERA for theportion of the sub-watershed on National Forest would be less than one percent. The landwithin the city limits, though developed and roaded, is in a static condition with stormdrainage, etc. The ERA model was not designed to evaluate these types of situations.The risk ratios for the Ashland Creek and Upper Wagner sub-watersheds are at levels that donot warrant concern at this time. The value for the Neil Creek sub-watershed approaches the1.0 threshold, but is currently below.The Hamilton Creek sub-watershed has a value that exceeds 1.0 and indicates a potential foradverse cumulative effects. However, as noted, approximately 93% of this sub-watershed isoff NFSL and has been highly developed. Of the total area within this sub-watershed, onlyan estimated 35% is in a forested condition. Considering only forested land within the subwatershed,the percent ERA would be 10.9%. Based on that assumption, the currentcondition risk ratio would be 0.932.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeNone of the sub-watersheds show any substantial increase in the risk ratio associated with theAction Alternatives for Ashland Forest Resiliency. This is primarily due to the type andintensity of the proposed treatments under each of the Action Alternatives. Treatmentsproposed under both Action Alternatives are primarily “thinning from below” or prescribedburning, and are of low to moderate disturbance. Relatively few acres of ground basedharvest systems are proposed under the Community Alternative. Though the risk ratio forthe Neil Creek sub-watershed is relatively high, it would remain less than 1.0 (“yellow flag”threshold) under both Action Alternatives.Although the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed has a high risk ratio, the reasons for this arediscussed. If only forested lands were included, the baseline risk ration would be 0.932 andneither of the Action Alternatives would change it by more than 8%, resulting in a ratio ofless than 1.000.Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Modeling AssumptionsCumulative effects analysis requires that future actions that are reasonably foreseeable beexamined along with proposed actions. For this analysis, a time period of 10 years wasselected to examine future actions. This time period was selected because it is anticipatedthat this is the length of time that the Proposed Action or Community Alternative would taketo fully implement.It is assumed that there are no other (reasonably foreseeable) fuels management on NationalForest 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 NEPAdecision documents and as such, have been assumed for modeling purposes to already havebeen implemented. These include the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, Mt. AshlandSki Area Expansion, and various trail construction/reconstruction projects.Draft EIS III - 44 Ashland Forest Resiliency

During the modeling of current condition, it was assumed that most of the lands outside theNational Forest boundary have been subjected to recent disturbance and as such, itanticipates and models future activities. There are currently no known actions beingscheduled off of the National Forest with the exception of the City of Ashland owned land insection 32 (the “Winburn” parcel). This area has been planned for a hazardous fuelsreduction treatment and is scheduled to be implemented within the next 5 years. Otherindustrial forest lands within the sub-watershed analysis areas may or may not be treatedwithin the next 10 years. However, this has been accounted for in the current conditionmodeling, by applying a disturbance coefficient that assumes treatment.Sensitivity analysis is a procedure to determine the sensitivity of the outcomes of a model tochanges in its parameters. If a small change in a parameter results in relatively large changesin the outcomes, the outcomes are said to be sensitive to that parameter. The margin of errorrefers in this analysis to the reliability of the data. These factors are discussed in DEISAppendix I.6. Northern Spotted Owl HabitatActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal and connectedactions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slash treatments) maydirectly or indirectly affect suitable or dispersal habitat associated with core areas used bynorthern spotted owls.This Significant Issue is designed to focus on the direct, indirect and cumulative effects ofhazardous fuel reduction treatments on habitat associated with the northern spotted owl. Thedirect effects of primary concern are those associated with known or suspected spotted owl coreareas (pair activity centers) that are potentially affected by treatments within the Project Areasassociated with the Proposed Action and Community Alternative.a. BackgroundNorthern Spotted Owl - Federally Threatened, RRNF LRMP Management Indicator SpeciesThe northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is listed as Threatened under theEndangered Species Act (ESA) (55 FR 26194) on June 23, 1990 (USDI Fish and WildlifeService 1990).The most recent surveys for northern spotted owl nesting sites were conducted in portions ofthe Upper Bear Analysis Area during 2001 by Forest Service personnel, and again in 2002 byGalea Wildlife Consulting (Galea 2002). Protocol surveys were conducted for six historicalsites, primarily in the area of the Forest Service Proposed Action by Smeltz SpecialtyContracting in 2004. All of the Analysis Area will be surveyed in 2005.Under the assumptions of this Draft EIS and based on previous surveys, fifteen spotted owlpair activity centers are historically known to be located within the Analysis Area boundary.A majority of these sites have habitat that would be potentially affected by hazardous fueltreatments proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency because they are in proximity ofproposed treatments.Draft EIS III - 45 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The majority of areas proposed for treatments are within the northern portion of the Mt.Ashland Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) RO-248, designated by the Northwest Forest Planin 1994. The majority of the Analysis Area is also part of a Critical Habitat Unit (CH) OR-76 designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the recovery of the northern spotted owl(USDI 1992). Information on historical and primary surveys and food habits for northernspotted owl, prior to 1996, within the LSR portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area can befound in the Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996).Although overlapping is some areas, the LSR and CHU do not occupy the same area (seeMap III-1, next section). Effects on LSR and CHU are discussed under the next SignificantIssue in this Draft EIS. The focus of this Significant Issue in on known or suspected pairactivity centers associated with the Project Area of each Action Alternative.The primary prey of northern spotted owls in the Upper Bear Analysis Area are dusky-footedwoodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) and northern flying squirrel (Glaucomy sabrinus) (USDA ForestService 1996). Dusky-footed woodrats are occasionally abundant in early mixed-coniferforests and present in late stages of forest development (Carey et al. 1999). Northern flyingsquirrels are generally associated with older forests. Zabel et al. (1995) verified a trend ofnegative, linear relationship between home range size during the breeding season and theproportion of woodrats in the diet of northern spotted owls. The proportion of northernflying squirrels in the diet was positively correlated with home range size. Reduction incanopy closure and fuels treatments associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency has thepotential to increase habitat for dusky-footed woodrats through regeneration of shrub habitatsand young stands. Effects of these treatments on northern flying squirrel populations areunknown.Northern spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because they contain thestructures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. Adefinition of suitable nesting and roosting northern spotted owl habitat in the KlamathProvince is difficult to identify because of the variety of ecological types and frequent firehistory (USDA Forest Service 1996). The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA ForestService 1996) identified stands which supported northern spotted owl as >17” averagediameter and >60% canopy closure (CC). The Rogue River/South Coast BiologicalAssessment defines nesting/roosting/foraging (NRF) habitat as >21” average diameter and>40% CC (USDA Forest Service 2003b). Zabel et al. (2003) identified habitat models fornorthern spotted owls in the Klamath Province of northern California which correctlyclassified owl-occupied sites with >85% accuracy. Within Douglas-fir habitats below 6,000ft. elevation in the Eastern Klamath Ecological Zone, these sites were classified as >17”average diameter and >60% CC. Zabel et al. (2003) concluded that their model performedbest at the 200 hectare radius (0.5 mi.). For this analysis, the Zabel et al. (2003) definition ofNRF was used, and analysis was conducted at the 0.5 mi. radius from the known or suspectednest site.For tracking purposes, habitat is also analyzed at the 1.3 mile radius from the known orsuspected nest site. This guideline was established by USFWS in 1990, based on research inthe Coast Range and the Cascades, and is used for analysis of the potential habitat effects.The actual habitat used by northern spotted owls in the Klamath Province is more oftenoblong or elliptical (following topographical features), rather than circular.Draft EIS III - 46 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Research has shown that about 40 percent of the home range needs to be occupied by suitablenesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for a site to be viable over time. Site specificinformation for owl pairs within the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area haveidentified that the majority of nests are located in mistletoe platforms rather than cavities, andtrees

Large scale, stand-replacement fire would remove large blocks of late-and mid-successionalhabitat and likely reduce northern spotted owl presence and pair density within the northernportion of the LSR. Connectivity and dispersal within and between late-successional patchesand the LSR network would likely be adversely affected, albeit to an unknown extent.Effect Mechanisms Common to Action AlternativesOpening a stand through tree removal can provide more light to the ground and increaseunderstory trees and shrubs. The result of this treatment on owl habitat and ecology dependson the current stand condition (and how close it approximates late-successionalcharacteristics important to owls), how many trees are cut and removed, the residualoverstory, the time year the treatment occurs, and the method of yarding/tree removal(USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS 2003). The following text defines effect mechanisms forsuitable habitat (nesting, roosting, and foraging), and for dispersal habitat.Within suitable habitat, treatments that reduce the overstory canopy to less than 60%(relative stand density index of less than 0.4), but that would retain canopy closure above40% would downgrade suitable habitat to dispersal habitat. If stands are reduced to lessthan 40% canopy closure (relative stand density index of less than 0.2), suitable habitatwould be removed.Within suitable habitat, where the canopy cover is greater than 60% and understorytreatments such as pruning, underburning, handpile/burn, and removal of small diametertrees < 8” diameter occur, suitable habitat would remain but would be degraded due toloss of structure.Stands not considered as suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat with canopies ofgreater than 40%, and are considered to provide dispersal habitat for northern spottedowls. Where understory treatments occur in these stands, dispersal habitat would bedegraded. If stands are reduced to below 40% (relative stand density index of less than0.2), dispersal habitat would be removed.It is expected that current northern spotted owl pairs and territorial singles would exhibitsome shifting within and among core habitats and remaining suitable habitats as a result ofimplementation of hazardous fuel reduction treatments under both Action Alternatives.Both Action Alternatives would remove existing spotted owl NRF suitable habitat where newlandings are created or where existing landings are enlarged, where canopy closure isreduced to below 40%.Proposed ActionSuitable habitat would be degraded in DFPZ treatments where existing canopy closures are ≥60% through the removal (understory thinning, brushing, and pruning) of the understorywithin the multi-layered canopy to reduce ladder and surface fuels. Where canopy closuresare < 60%, dispersal habitat would remain.Treatments in the Interface Compartments would focus primarily on mid-closed and lateclosedstands. Interface compartments prescribe reducing stand density to 0.2 - 0.3. Wherethese treatments are implemented, suitable habitat would be downgraded to dispersal habitatbecause canopy closures would be < 60%. Where treatments occur within known northernspotted owl activity centers, prescriptions would retain an overstory canopy of ≥ 60% butremove understory structure and those stands would be degraded.Draft EIS III - 48 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Within Late-Successional Habitat treatments, the focus is to treat mid-seral closed standswhere average stand diameter is 5-17 inches. The objective is to reduce fire hazard, and toreduce competition within these stands and move them toward late-successional habitatsooner. No treatments would occur within suitable nesting or roosting habitat within theLate-Successional Habitat compartments.The proposed treatment within the Research Natural Area (RNA) area would removecompetition for the existing large pines and Douglas-fir. Late-seral, closed conditions withinnorthern spotted owl activity centers and Riparian Reserves would be maintained. Standdensities outside of pair activity centers would be reduced to 0.2 - 0.3. These treatmentswould reduce overstory canopy to < 60% and would downgrade suitable habitat to dispersalhabitat outside of northern spotted owl activity centers. Small diameter trees would also beremoved to allow regeneration of pine species. Underburning is prescribed followingtreatment to maintain the stand in a more open and natural condition.Based on habitat analysis assumptions and effects by types of treatments discussed above,Table III-12 and Table III-13 provide a summary of direct effects to northern spotted owlhabitat, for known or suspected pair activity centers, within 0.5 and 1.3 mile radius of corecenter, for the Proposed Action. Note that the 1.3 mile radius includes the acres within the0.5 mile radius.Table III-12. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 0.5 Mi. Radius - Proposed ActionActivity CenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 372/75 147 0 0 0 140013 395/79 96 0 0 0 280016 409/82 74 0 0 0 45019 409/82 80 0 0 0 3023 422/85 77 0 0 0 232024 368/74 74 0 0 0 116043 433/87 61 0 0 0 149046 373/76 87 0 0 0 343049 420/84 68 0 0 0 0050 286/57 178 0 0 0 173051 387/77 91 0 0 0 262052 452/90 44 0 0 0 55065 375/75 93 0 0 0 218069 346/70 138 0 0 0 179071 385/77 110 0 0 0 306Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acres cannot becumulatively added in this table.Draft EIS III - 49 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Table III-13. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 1.3 Mi. Radius - Proposed ActionActivityCenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 2,734/81 992 2 50 13 541013 2,295/68 731 1 185 23 882016 2,565/76 521 1 129 8 613019 2,339/69 539 1 5 14 89023 2,701/80 519 1 0 5 0024 2,677/79 496 1 2 6 124043 2,734/81 436 3 6 14 469046 2,498/74 722 1 99 37 1,080049 2,666/79 459 0 0 23 10050 1,755/52 1200 2 125 16 545051 2,329/69 640 0 69 2 468052 2,829/83 299 0 34 0 173065 2,295/68 829 1 137 0 687069 2,160/64 944 0 97 1 345071 2,126/63 738 0 82 0 964Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acrescannot be cumulatively added in this table.Community AlternativeWithin the Ponderosa Pine PAG, overstory canopy would be reduced to ≤ 40%. Up to 5% ofthe area within this PAG may remain untreated if it does not compromise wildfire orprescribed fire management goals. Prescriptions within the Douglas-fir PAGs may reducecanopy closure to below 60% (0.4 relative stand density index) within some areas on southand west aspects. Areas within northern and eastern aspects would retain ≥ 60% canopyclosure. Removal of overstory canopy to < 60% on south and west aspects would downgradesuitable habitat to dispersal habitat. Thinning of understory canopy through small diametertree and shrub removal would degrade habitat on all aspects even if canopy closure remains ≥60%. Prescriptions within the Dry and Moist White Fir PAGs are similar to Douglas-firPAGs in regard to aspect, canopy closure, and removal of understory canopy. Effects tosuitable habitat are the same as those described for the Douglas-fir PAGs.Canopy closure would be retained at ≥ 60% on the Cool White Fir PAG. Removal ofunderstory would degrade suitable habitat where it now occurs. Northerly aspects in thisPAG would not be treated under the Community Alternative.Where undergrowth inhibits owls from accessing ground-dwelling prey species, over 50% ormore of any stand greater than 40 acres or more, the Community Alternative considerstreatment within northern spotted owl activity centers (Priority 9). Twenty five to 35% of atreatment area would remain untreated to provide habitat for prey species. Site-specifictreatment plans would be developed by a wildlife biologist knowledgeable in habitatcharacteristics prior to treatment within activity centers. Within 0.25 miles of known nestsites, only ladder fuels would be treated.Between 0.25 and 0.5 miles from a nest site, other treatment options are possible.Characteristics of suitable habitat would be retained and canopy reduction would be avoidedwithin currently suitable habitat. More specific prescriptions are described in theCommunity Alternative section of Chapter II, and in DEIS Appendix C.Draft EIS III - 50 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Based on habitat analysis assumptions and effects by types of treatments discussed above,Table III-14 and Table III-15 provide a summary of direct effects to northern spotted owlhabitat, for known or suspected pair activity centers, within 0.5 and 1.3 mile radius of corecenter, for the Community Alternative. Note that the 1.3 mile radius includes the acreswithin the 0.5 mile radius.Table III-14. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 0.5 Mi. Radius - CommunityAlternativeActivityCenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 372/75 147 0 0 0 169013 395/79 96 0 0 0 223016 409/82 74 0 0 0 210019 409/82 80 0 0 0 194023 422/85 77 0 0 0 186024 368/74 74 0 0 0 139043 433/87 61 0 0 0 199046 373/76 87 0 0 0 287049 420/84 68 0 0 0 194050 286/57 178 0 0 0 197051 387/77 91 0 0 0 204052 452/90 44 0 0 0 172065 375/75 93 0 0 0 181069 346/70 138 0 0 0 149071 385/77 110 0 0 0 262Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acrescannot be cumulatively added in this table.Table III-15. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 1.3 Mi. Radius - CommunityAlternativeActivityCenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 2,734/81 992 1 13 10 105013 2,295/68 731 1 35 18 413016 2,565/76 521 1 71 8 662019 2,339/69 539 1 44 12 312023 2,701/80 519 1 61 23 513024 2,677/79 496 1 56 6 438043 2,734/81 436 3 35 13 519046 2,498/74 722 1 67 11 842049 2,666/79 459 0 23 5 135050 1,755/52 1200 2 132 16 869051 2,329/69 640 0 61 12 643052 2,829/83 299 0 31 10 542065 2,295/68 829 1 121 14 670069 2,160/64 944 0 34 9 469071 2,126/63 738 0 51 11 825Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acrescannot be cumulatively added in this table.Draft EIS III - 51 Ashland Forest Resiliency

c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesThe No-Action Alternative would not directly affect any spotted owl roosting, foraging, ordispersal habitat through management action. No spotted owl pairs would be affected byreductions in habitat, and dispersal opportunities would not be reduced within the Late-Successional Reserve and Critical Habitat Unit. An indirect effect of No-Action is thecontinued risk of high-severity wildland fire. These consequences are discussed above andthroughout this DEIS.Timber harvest within the Ashland Watershed and surrounding National Forest portion of theAnalysis Area during the 1960s through 1980s modified suitable habitat for northern spottedowl, prior to portions of the area being designated as Late-Successional Reserve and CriticalHabitat. The Ashland Watershed Protection Project removed 18 acres and degraded anadditional 260 acres of suitable northern spotted owl habitat. Some of this effect iscumulative to habitat effects analyzed under Ashland Forest Resiliency. This effect has beenaccounted for under the assumptions for the current condition baseline (Tables III-12 throughIII-15 above).The Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion will remove 44 acres of suitable habitat and remove 17acres of dispersal habitat. This effect is also accounted for in current condition baseline. Notall of this effect is cumulative to the same owl pairs with proposed treatments under AshlandForest Resiliency.Cumulative effects of both Action Alternatives considered under Ashland Forest Resiliencyare 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 developthem into late-seral stands earlier than would be expected under the No-Action Alternative.These stands are expected to develop into suitable habitat for northern spotted owl within thenext 3-5 decades. During the interim, these stands would continue to function as dispersalhabitat. Fuels treatments that include understory thinning, underburning, and pile and burnwould remove understory structure and simplify structure. It is unknown how northernspotted owl prey populations would respond to these treatments or what effect it may have onpredators or competitors.SummaryIn compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Forest Serviceconducted a Biological Evaluation for all Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlifespecies. In regard to the northern spotted owl, conferencing with the USDI Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) was initiated in 2004 and has been ongoing. Cindy Donogan, Section 7biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, is currently a member of theInterdisciplinary Team for Ashland Forest Resiliency.Treatments under both Action Alternatives that remove or downgrade suitable habitat due toreduction of canopy to < 60% and modification of understory canopies in forested standsresult in a “May affect, likely to adversely effect” (LAA) determination. Treatmentsproposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency result in this determination under both ActionAlternatives for northern spotted owl pairs and territorial singles due to disturbance andadverse modification of suitable habitat. Please see the Terrestrial Wildlife BiologicalEvaluation for more information, contained in DEIS Appendix F.Draft EIS III - 52 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Formal consultation will be initiated for the Ashland Forest Resiliency project, in associationwith the Final EIS, in 2005. The type of actions proposed under this project include thosedescribed by the interagency programmatic Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion for2004-2008. Project Design Criteria are utilized from this opinion for protection of northernspotted owl and are listed in the Mitigation Measure section of this DEIS (Chapter II).7. Late-Successional HabitatActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially tree removal and connectedactions such as landing or road construction, and prescribed fire or slash treatments) mayaffect late-successional habitat characteristics, habitat connectivity, and function of theLate-Successional Reserve.This Significant Issue is designed to focus on the direct, indirect and cumulative effects ofhazardous fuel reduction treatments on late-successional habitat. In order to analyze effects onfunction of this habitat, several scales of analyses are utilized.The direct effects associated with known or suspected northern spotted owl core areas (pairactivity centers) that are potentially affected by treatments within the Project Areas associatedwith the Proposed Action and Community Alternative are discussed in Significant Issue 6,above. The focus of that analysis is at the Project Area scales, as associated with the ProposedAction and Community Alternative.This Significant Issue addresses current conditions and consequences at the scale of the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), and Critical Habitat Unit (CHU). The Mt. Ashland LateSuccessional Reserve, RO-248, was designated by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. CriticalHabitat Unit OR-76, was designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the recovery of thenorthern spotted owl (USDI 1992).Information on historical and primary surveys and food habits for northern spotted owl, prior to1996, within the LSR portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area can be found in the Mt. AshlandLSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996). Additional information is contained the 2003Upper Bear Assessment and the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Final Environmental ImpactStatement (USDA Forest Service 2004). Although overlapping in places, the LSR and CHU donot occupy the same area; see Map III-5 (below) for locations of these designated areas.a. BackgroundMt. Ashland Late-Successional ReserveThe objective of Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessionaland old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successionaland old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl (Northwest Forest Plan1994).The Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Network in the Rogue Basin generally coversthree major mountain ranges in the Pacific Northwest: the Cascades, the Klamath, and theCoast Ranges (described as forming an “H” pattern). Plants and animals tend to use majormountain ridges and rivers for migration and dispersal, which are essential processes fornatural selection, and in the long-term, evolution.Draft EIS III - 53 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP III-5. LSR RO-248 and CHU OR-76Low elevation passes are important during climatic extremes. Where these features (majormountain ridges, rivers, and passes) come together, such as where the Siskiyous, Cascades,Klamath River, and the Siskiyou Pass meet, there is often greater species diversity thansurrounding areas (USDA Forest Service 1996).Each feature acts as a conveyor to and from its extremes, constantly bringing new geneticcombinations together. Specifically, the Mt. Ashland LSR is a critical node in the overallmigratory patterns in the Pacific Northwest, linking the high elevation Siskiyou range of theKlamath Mountains with the southern Oregon Cascades (USDA Forest Service 1996). TheMt. Ashland LSR also provides inter- and intra-provincial linkage between the KlamathMountains Province and the Western Cascades Province.Draft EIS III - 54 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Mt. Ashland LSR (RO-248) encompasses 51,512 acres located within the SiskiyouMountain Range of the Klamath Mountain Physiographic Province in northern Californiaand southern Oregon. The LSR straddles the Siskiyou Crest with the northern portion(21,341 acres) draining into the Rogue River Basin via Ashland and Bear Creeks, and thesouthern portion (30,683 acres) draining into the Klamath River Basin via Beaver Creek.The majority of the LSR is National Forest lands, a small portion is managed by USDIBureau of Land Management.The Siskiyou Crest also provides the boundary between the Ashland Ranger District (RogueRiver National Forest, Region 6) and the Scott River Ranger District (Klamath NationalForest, Region 5). Throughout this analysis, the Ashland Ranger District portion is referredto as the northern portion of the LSR, and the Scott River Ranger District portion is referredto as the southern portion. Approximately 21,341 acres within the Upper Bear Analysis Areaare designated as LSR (USDA Forest Service 2003a).Late-successional habitat refers to late seral successional forest stages as well as other interrelatedelements of an ecosystem resulting in habitat where dependent species are capable ofsurviving. LSRs are designed to meet the needs of late-seral dependent wildlife species.Portions of the Mt. Ashland LSR are at high risk to stand replacing fire, which would reducelate-successional habitat (USDA 1996). There is currently 28,846 acres of late-successionalhabitat within the entire Mt. Ashland LSR. There is currently 16,219 acres of latesuccessionalhabitat within the northern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR.Along the environmental gradient represented by the range in elevation, vegetation will varyby PAG; subsequent capable late-successional habitat conditions will vary as well. In otherwords, as late-seral conditions change by PAG, so will the vegetation’s ability to supportlate-successional habitat for specific late-successional species. Habitat cannot be supportedfor all late-successional species across the entire environmental gradient within the LSR.Each PAG will have the capability of providing some habitat for specific late-successionalspecies. As PAGs appear on the landscape as a mosaic, so will the habitat for various latesuccessionaldependent species (USDA Forest Service 2003a).Critical Habitat UnitCritical Habitat Unit (CHU) OR-76 was designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for therecovery of the northern spotted owl (USDI 1992). Critical Habitat Unit OR-76 is designatedto provide inter- and intra-provincial linkage between the Klamath Mountains Province andthe Western Cascades Province. It is the main link to the Ashland Area of Concern andprovides east-west distribution of northern spotted owl habitat in the Oregon portion of theKlamath Mountains Province.There are 56,787 total acres in OR-76, seventy-one percent of these acres (40,351) are in theMt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve. There are currently 22,570 acres of suitable NRFhabitat in OR-76. This number has only changed by 72 acres since the 1996 baseline (USDAForest Service; USDI FWS 2003). There were 28 historical activity centers within OR-76 asof 1994 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).Habitat ConnectivityThe effects of habitat connectivity (fragmentation) vary by the species under consideration,and the type of treatments involved. Species with good dispersal capabilities (i.e., capable offlight, large and medium sized mammals) are not affected to the same extent by a particularaction as small cursorial species (i.e., small mammals, mollusks, and other invertebrates).Draft EIS III - 55 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Analyses on fragmentation must consider scale such as the normal home range or core areasize of the species of interest. For a small cursorial species such as land snails orsalamanders, thinning of the canopies in a stand may result in unsuitable conditions formovement or dispersal between suitable patches because increased solar radiation causesdesiccation in the individual. Within this same habitat, there would be no effect onmovement or dispersal of species such as northern spotted owl, fisher, or black-tailed deer.b. Effects Mechanisms and Scales of AnalysisLate-Successional Reserve FunctionBoth Action Alternatives utilize similar methods of hazardous fuel reduction treatments.Both propose density management of small diameter material, and underburning. Theprimary difference between the Action Alternatives lies in juxtaposition and extent. TheProposed Action includes only helicopter yarding. The Community Alternative allowsground-based skidding on slopes equal to or less than 20%.The Action Alternatives associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency would add to existinghuman generated habitat effects on late-successional habitat. Reduction of canopy closure toless than 60% in mid-seral stands adjacent to late-successional stands would increase theedge-effect and effectively reduce interior patch size. Reduction in canopy closure to lessthan 60% within late-successional stands would reduce available habitat for late-successionalspecies. Fuel reduction treatments would remove some small diameter stems and result indecreased stand complexity and potential loss of vertical structure. Loss of understorystructure (small diameter trees and shrubs) would reduce nesting habitat for some neotropicalbirds, and could potentially change micro-site characteristics required for other species suchas mollusks and salamanders. Objectives for snag and coarse woody material retention aredescribed specifically in Chapter II, Section C, 6.Large trees felled during implementation would be left on-site until objectives for coarsewoody material are met. Where standing snags are deficient, sufficient numbers of largetrees would be left for recruitment into the snag component. Underburning would consumesmall and some medium-sized woody material, large woody material generally remains afterunderburning treatments. Removal of forest litter and debris associated with broadcast andpile burning could reduce habitat and connectivity for small cursorial species. Therequirements for dispersal of many small vertebrate and invertebrate species is not wellunderstood.Underburning also has the potential to ignite and consume standing snags. Loss of snagsreduces available nesting and roosting habitat of numerous species including, but not limitedto northern spotted owl, fisher, bats, northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), andsome neotropical birds. Additional loss of snags may be expected during implementation ifthey are deemed hazardous to human operations.The primary indicator for effects on late-successional habitat is change of average foreststand conditions that are assumed to currently represent late seral conditions, i.e., stands thataverage 17 inches or larger in diameter, and have 60% or greater canopy closure. There arethree scales utilized for analysis of late-successional habitat effects: the Project Areas foreach Action Alternative, the scale of the northern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR, and thescale of the entire Mt. Ashland LSR.Draft EIS III - 56 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Critical Habitat EffectsCritical Habitat Units are a designation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, primarily designedfor 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. Theseeffect mechanisms are discussed in greater detail under the northern spotted owl habitatSignificant Issue (Section 6, above).The scale for analysis of effects is the Project Areas for each Action Alternative, and at thescale of entire CHU.Habitat Connectivity EffectsConnectivity is a term for the extent to which the large landscape pattern of the latesuccessionaland old-growth ecosystem provides for biological and ecological flows thatsustain late-successional animal and plant species. Connectivity does not necessarily meanthat late-successional areas have to be physically joined in space, because many latesuccessionalspecies can move (or be carried) across areas that are not in late-successionalecosystem conditions. Large landscape features affecting connectivity are (1) distancebetween late-successional areas, and (2) forest conditions in areas between late-successional(USDA and USDI 1994).c. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesLate-Successional Reserve FunctionNo-Action AlternativeIn the absence of stand-replacement wildland fire or large-scale insect and disease outbreaks,the Mt. Ashland LSR would remain a critical node in the LSR network and would providesuitable migration, travel, and dispersal corridors for multiple species between the Siskiyouand Cascade Ranges. The Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve and CHU would continueto provide high-quality habitat for northern spotted owl, fisher (Martes pennanti), and otherlate-successional species.Early and mid-seral stands would continue to develop into mature habitat. Ecosystemprocesses such as insect infestations and disease would continue to create decadence,mortality, and deformities in individual or groups of trees which provide diversity in standsand nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities for many late-successional species.Large-scale insect or disease outbreaks resulting in tree mortality over large areas couldresult in substantial loss of late-successional habitat and LSR function and connectivity.Historically, bark beetles (family Scolytidae) killed some trees in the LSR. Frequent, lowintensityfires, which historically regulated stand densities, is thought to have preventedmajor beetle outbreaks (USDA Forest Service 1996). Fire exclusion over the last 8-9decades has resulted in high stocking densities and increased ladder and ground fuels.Effective fire suppression and high stocking densities has resulted in the highest bark beetlemortality rates ever recorded in western Oregon over the last 10 years (USDA Forest Service1996).Draft EIS III - 57 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Large portions of the Analysis Area have missed one or more fire-return intervals resulting inover-stocked stands and high fuel loading. This combined with steep topography, highsummer temperatures, and the history of numerous fire starts in the area, creates the potentialfor large-scale high-severity wildland fire. This could involve substantial loss of latesuccessionalhabitat, and loss of LSR function and connectivity resulting in potentialtemporary reduction or extirpation of some late-successional species.In the event of large-scale, high-severity wildland fire, the Mt. Ashland LSR would likely notsupport current densities of late-successional species. Travel and dispersal corridors from theSiskiyou and Cascade Ranges could potentially be severely disrupted depending on thejuxtaposition of late-successional habitat remaining after a fire, particularly when combinedwith the barrier imposed by the Interstate 5 corridor to the East.Proposed ActionTreatments under the Proposed Action are identified by Components. For analyses of effectsto LSR, the following discussions refer to the descriptions outlined in this DEIS, Chapter IIand Appendix B: Background and Prescriptions for the Forest Service Proposed Action.Treatments within Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) would retain 60% canopy closurein stands currently at or greater than this canopy closure. The majority of treatments withinDFPZs would be surface fuel reduction treatments. These include removal of small diametertrees and pruning of limbs on large trees to raise live crown height to 20-25 feet. Thesetreatments would remove the lower layer of canopy, if the stand is currently multi-layered.Removal of small diameter trees and the potential removal of mistletoe brooms in the lowerbranches of large trees would simplify the structure of the stand and may reduce its value forsome late-successional species by removing nesting or roosting habitat or habitat and securitycover for prey species. Treatments within DFPZs would not measurably add to humangenerated habitat fragmentation because forested stands would remain at ≥ 60% canopyclosure.Treatments within the Interface Compartments are designed to reduce crown density andsurface and ladder fuels. These treatments would reduce canopy closure to as low as 40% insome 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 woodymaterial, dense canopy closures, and multi-storied stands. Reducing canopy to below 60% islikely to reduce the stand’s ability to provide nesting and roosting habitat for latesuccessionalspecies, due to reduction of structure and loss of thermal and security cover.Reduction of canopy closure and removal of vertical and horizontal structure within a latesuccessionalstand may allow access for species which are not normally associated with theseforest types. Presumably, these actions could create an increase in the potential for predationon, and competition with, late-successional species. Currently, there is a paucity ofinformation on the effects of thinning to late-successional habitats and associated species.Treatments within Interface Compartments would retain dispersal habitat for northern spottedowl and other species; it is unknown how these type treatments affect movement in specieswith poor dispersal capabilities.Draft EIS III - 58 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Late-Successional Habitat Compartment treatments are designed to thin mid-seral closedstands where the average diameter is 5-17 inches. This treatment is designed to promotegrowth in the larger trees by reducing competing vegetation so that it develops into latesuccessionalhabitat more quickly, and to reduce the risk of fire adversely affecting suitablenorthern spotted owl habitat. Canopy closure would be maintained at ≥ 60% in those areasthat are adjacent to northern spotted owl habitat. Treatments that retain ≥ 60% canopyclosure would not create a well-defined edge, and would not impede movement or dispersalof late-successional species. Under the Proposed Action, no treatments would occur within a0.5 mile radius of known northern spotted owl nest sites within defined Late-SuccessionalCompartments.Management within the Research Natural Area (RNA) is designed to reduce competitionwith large pines and Douglas-fir and provide favorable conditions for regeneration of thesespecies. Within the Research Natural Area, variable density management would be used tothin stands to near 40% canopy closure. Thinning of small diameter stems and disposal ofactivity fuels would remove horizontal and vertical structure and remove some multi-layeredcanopies where they now occur. Treatments within this strategy would have similar effectsto late-successional species as Interface Compartment treatments described above.The primary indicator for effects on late-successional habitat is change of average foreststand conditions that are assumed to represent mid to late seral conditions, i.e., stands thataverage 17 inches or larger in diameter, and have 60% or greater canopy closure (matureforest). The following table identifies the current and resultant conditions at the three scalesutilized for analysis for late-successional habitat effects.Table III-16. Late-Successional Habitat Effects - Proposed ActionTotal AcresBy ScaleLate-SuccessionalHabitatCurrent Condition(Acres/ %of total)Late-SuccessionalHabitatResultant Condition(Acres/ %of total)PercentChangeProject Area Scale 8,150 7,669/94 6,634/81 -13.5Northern PortionMt. Ashland LSR21,341 16,219/76 15,184/71 -6.4Entire Mt. Ashland LSR 51,512 28,846/56 27,811/54 -3.6The objectives of the Proposed Action are compatible with the Northwest Forest Planobjectives for the Late-Successional Reserve System which is designed to protect andenhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, serving as habitatfor late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl.Treatments prescribed under the Proposed Action are designed to protect the Late-Successional Reserve and the Ashland Municipal Watershed in the event of large-scale highseveritywildland fire. In the long-term, treatments prescribed under the Proposed Action areexpected to result in an increase in average stand diameters and the overall amount of latesuccessionalhabitat.Draft EIS III - 59 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Community AlternativeTreatments under the Community Alternative are identified by PAGs. For analyses of effectsto LSR, the following discussions refer to the descriptions outlined in DEIS Chapter II andAppendix C: Background and Prescriptions for the Community Alternative. Within thePonderosa Pine PAG, overstory canopy would be reduced to ≤ 40%. Up to 5% of the areawithin this PAG may remain untreated if the areas do not compromise wildland fire orprescribed fire management goals. Reduction of canopy closure to less than 60% where itcurrently occurs would affect late-successional habitat. Removal of shrub species and smalldiameter Douglas-fir (< 7” diameter) would remove vertical and horizontal structure. Theeffects to late-successional habitat would be similar to those described under the InterfaceCompartment treatments of the Proposed Action.Prescriptions within the Douglas-fir PAGs may reduce canopy closure to below 60% (< 0.4relative stand density) within some areas on south and west aspects. Areas within thenorthern and eastern aspects would retain ≥ 60% canopy closure. Removal of overstorycanopy to < 60% would downgrade late-successional habitat to dispersal habitat. Thinningof understory canopy through small diameter tree and shrub removal would have effectssimilar to those described under the Interface Compartment treatments of the ProposedAction.Prescriptions within the Dry and Moist White Fir PAGs are similar to Douglas-fir PAGs inregard to aspect, canopy closure, and removal of understory canopy. Effects to latesuccessionalhabitat are similar to those described under the Interface Compartmenttreatments of the Proposed Action.Canopy closure would be retained at ≥ 60% on the Cool White Fir PAG. Removal ofunderstory would have similar to those described under the Interface Compartmenttreatments of the Proposed Action. Northerly aspects in this PAG would not be treated underthe Community Alternative.The indicator for effects on late-successional habitat is also change of average forest standconditions that are assumed to represent late seral conditions, i.e., stands that currentlyaverage 17 inches or larger in diameter, and have 60% or greater canopy closure. Thefollowing table identifies the current and resultant conditions at the three scales utilized foranalysis for late-successional habitat effects.Table III-17. Late-Successional Habitat Effects - Community AlternativeTotal AcresBy ScaleLate-SuccessionalHabitatCurrent Condition(Acres/ %of total)Late-SuccessionalHabitatResultant Condition(Acres/ %of total)PercentChangeProject Area Scale 8,990 7,463/91 6,545/73 -12.3Northern PortionMt. Ashland LSR21,341 16,219/76 15,301/72 --5.7Entire Mt. Ashland LSR 51,512 28,846/56 27,928/54 -3.2Draft EIS III - 60 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Critical Habitat UnitNo ActionIn the absence of stand-replacement wildland fire or large-scale insect and disease outbreaks,CHU OR-76 would continue to provide high-quality habitat for northern spotted owl, fisher(Martes pennanti), and other late-successional species. Early and mid-seral stands wouldcontinue to develop into mature habitat. Ecosystem processes such as insect infestations anddisease would continue to create decadence, mortality, and deformities in individual orgroups of trees which provide diversity in stands and nesting, roosting, and foragingopportunities for many late-successional species.Large portions of the Analysis Area have missed one or more fire-return intervals resulting inover-stocked stands and high fuel loading. This combined with steep topography and highsummer temperatures creates the potential for large-scale, high-severity wildland fire. Thiscould involve substantial loss of late-successional habitat, and loss of LSR function andconnectivity resulting in potential temporary reduction or extirpation of some latesuccessionalspecies.In the event of large-scale, high-severity wildland fire, travel and dispersal corridors from theSiskiyou and Cascade Ranges could potentially be severely disrupted depending on thejuxtaposition of suitable habitat remaining after a fire, particularly when combined with thebarrier imposed by the Interstate 5 corridor to the East.Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action would downgrade or remove northern spotted owl suitable habitat inOR-76 through removal and reduction of canopy closure and multiple canopies in forestedstands. Additional degrading would occur by understory treatments that include burning andunderstory thinning.The indicator for effects analysis for CHU is the change in northern spotted owl nesting,roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat. Change in dispersal habitat is also considered. Thescale for analysis of effects is the scale of entire CHU. Downgrading suitable habitat reducesoverstory canopy to less than 60 percent but greater than 40 percent, and changes suitablehabitat to dispersal-only habitat. Thinning that removes some overstory, but retains 60percent canopy coverage or more is considered degraded, but remains suitable.Table III-18. CHU Habitat Effects - Proposed ActionCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalOnlyAcresResultantSuitable/NRFAc/%ResultantDispersalOnlyAcresAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegradedCHU OR-76 22,570/40 8,669 21,535/38 8,556 3,978Draft EIS III - 61 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 1,035 acres of habitat would be removed ordowngraded within Critical Habitat Unit OR-76 during landing construction andimprovement, or treatments within the Interface and RNA. However, these areas are widelydispersed which would minimize effects to connectivity. Within the treatment areas, forestedhabitats would remain and continue to provide for movement and dispersal within and acrossthe CHU.Community AlternativeThe Community Alternative would also downgrade or remove northern spotted owl suitablehabitat (approximately 918 acres) in OR-76 through landing construction and improvementor removal and reduction of canopy closure and multiple canopies in forested stands.Additional degrading would occur by understory treatments that include burning andunderstory thinning.Table III-19. CHU Habitat Effects - Community AlternativeCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalOnlyAcresResultantSuitable/NRFAc/%ResultantDispersalOnlyAcresAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegradedCHU OR-76 22,570/40 8,669 21,652/38 8,580 3,495Under the Community Alternative, Critical Habitat Unit OR-76 would continue to provideeast-west linkages for northern spotted owl in the Klamath Mountains and across to theCascades because a very small amount of habitat would be removed during landingconstruction and improvement and these areas are widely dispersed. Within the treatmentareas, forested habitats would remain and continue to provide for movement and dispersalwithin and across the CHU.Effects DeterminationTreatments under both Action Alternatives that degrade Critical Habitat due to removal ofunderstory and overstory canopy but retain canopy closure ≥ 60%, would equate to a “Mayaffect, not likely to adversely effect” determination. However, because treatments underboth Action Alternatives remove or downgrade Critical Habitat due to reduction of canopy to< 60% and modification of understory canopies in forested stands, results in an overall “Mayaffect, likely to adversely effect” determination for Critical Habitat.Habitat ConnectivityNo-ActionUnder the No-Action Alternative there would be no change in the current condition. Thenorthern 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-successionalhabitat that currently exist in the northern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Although thehabitat along the crest is currently fragmented by natural open meadows, it would stillprovide connecting habitat.Draft EIS III - 62 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Proposed Action and Community AlternativeUnder the two Action Alternatives, all of the treatments methods (density management,understory thinning, slash abatement) may have some effect on dispersal for some species. Itis unknown how movement and dispersal would be affected for many species by the ActionAlternatives. However, treatments proposed under both Action Alternatives would onlyaffect about one third of the National Forest portion of the Analysis Area, the majority of thearea would remain untreated, and within the treatment areas, there would be minimal to noeffect on connectivity. There are no models identified to portray these effects that aresensitive enough to the change the Action Alternatives would incur.The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996) identified loss of largeblocks of late-successional habitat as a key issue. The choices faced are to do nothing andrisk large-scale fragmentation for all late-successional species associated with the AnalysisArea, or attempt to modify the fire severity and create potential for fragmentation in theshort-term for some species. Interstate 5 exacerbates the issue of fragmentation because itlimits dispersal and migration eastward to the Cascade Range for all species with the possibleexception of those which are capable of flight.d. Cumulative Effects of AlternativesEffects Common to Action AlternativesCumulative effects are caused by the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actionsas the effects would change or alter aspects of species behavior or alter habitatcharacteristics. Cumulative effects are considered regardless of ownership. Aspectsaddressed when considering cumulative effects include the total effect applicable to the scopeof the project, and relative to spatial and temporal accumulation of actions relative to theactivity area of the project.The incremental loss of habitat through proposed activities would affect, long-term (3-5decades), the landscape by increasing fragmentation of roadless and “unentered” areas; thiswould concurrently decrease the contribution of the area as a favorable habitat corridor andrefugia, by potentially increasing edge effects for interior species where canopy closure isreduced to below 60%.The proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency activities would have cumulative effects with regardto Mt. Ashland Late Successional Reserve, under the Proposed Action due to the amount ofhabitat entered. Table III-12 through III-15 identifies effects to late-successional habitat byalternative. Approximately 18 acres of late-successional habitat are removed under AshlandWatershed Protection Project. Implementation of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion willresult in a loss of 44 acres of late-successional habitat, however, the Special Use Permit areais not allocated to LSR under the Northwest Forest Plan. Timber harvest affected latesuccessionalhabitat during the 1960-90 time period. Salvage and roadside hazard operationswithin the Ashland Watershed reduced the large snag component within the Analysis Area.Region 5 of the USDA Forest Service is planning fuel reduction and thinning projects withinnon late-successional habitat on the south slope of Mt. Ashland, and within the Southernportion of the LSR. Projects are designed to reduce competition within young stands topromote growth and move them into late-successional habitat quicker and reduce effects ofwildland fire to extant stands. These projects would reduce stand density on approximately4,500 acres (C. Oakley, pers. comm.). There are no other Federal actions planned within theMt. Ashland LSR which would further reduce late-successional habitat.Draft EIS III - 63 Ashland Forest Resiliency

8. Insect Related Tree MortalityActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially density management ofvegetation) may affect the risk of tree mortality due to pine bark beetles and flatheaded firborer infestations.There are basically four groups of forest insects and pathogens that are considered as disturbanceagents in and around the Ashland Watershed (i.e., the Upper Bear Analysis Area): white pineblister rust, bark beetles and woodborers, dwarf mistletoe, and laminated root rot. The mostsignificant of these agents are those of insects.Based on recent evaluations of ecology plots and other insect and disease surveys, mortality dueto western and mountain pine beetle in ponderosa and sugar pine in the Upper Bear AnalysisArea now varies between 1.0 and 3.0 percent of the pines annually. There is no information onlevels of bark beetle caused pine mortality for 1850 or before, but there has been a substantialincrease since 1914. It seems certain that there have been increased impacts by bark beetlesfrom historical to current times, and these were likely due to fire exclusion and the resultantincreases in stand densities. Pine bark beetles infest stressed hosts and this includes thoseweakened as a result of competition for water and other resources in dense stands. Hostsgrowing at lower elevations and on drier exposures are especially vulnerable.a. BackgroundThe 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (incorporated by reference) describes insect and diseaseinformation at pages I-31-33. This information, as primarily related to pine bark beetles andflathead fir borer is summarized below.Several species of native bark beetles (family Scolytidae) and flatheaded woodborers (familyBuprestidae) cause mortality of conifers in Southwest Oregon. The most prominent speciesin the Analysis Area include western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis) on ponderosapine, mountain pine beetle (D. ponderosae) on ponderosa and sugar pine, and flatheaded firborer (Melanophila drummondi) on Douglas-fir.Pine bark beetles prefer or are most successful on hosts that are under some degree ofphysiological stress. They almost always infest host trees that are injured, diseased, or of lowvigor because of competition with other trees for limited water and/or other resources. In theAnalysis Area, they are especially likely to infest hosts growing in overstocked stands (standswith pine components that have relative stand densities greater than 0.3 in the Dry DouglasfirPAG or greater than 0.4 in the Moist Douglas-fir or Dry White Fir PAGs). They tend tobe involved in tree mortality during drier than normal years.Western pine beetles frequently infest the largest ponderosa pines in a stand and/or groups ofsmall ponderosa pines in dense thickets. Mountain pine beetles often infest small orintermediate-sized ponderosa pines in groups and scattered sugar pines of all sizes.Draft EIS III - 64 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Flatheaded fir borers prefer stressed hosts. They are especially active in dense Douglas-firstands at low elevations, on drier aspects, and on harsh sites. Local experience indicates thatDouglas firs in stands in the Dry Douglas-fir PAG with relative stand densities over 0.5 areparticularly vulnerable. Flatheaded fir borer activity is associated with drier than normalyears and especially with several consecutive years of droughty conditions. Flatheaded firborers infest Douglas-fir of all sizes and frequently kill trees in groups.b. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, stands in the Analysis Area would remain heavily stockedand continue to be vulnerable to pine bark beetle and flatheaded fir borer infestation. In factin the absence of fire, stand densities over time would increase above the already high levelsthat now prevail and vulnerability would increase. Insect-caused mortality would continue tooccur or would increase in the Dry White Fir, Moist Douglas-fir, and Dry Douglas-fir PAGsand would be particularly substantial in the latter. Some kinds of stands, stand components,and trees would be especially hard hit including the densest stands with pine components,dense Douglas-fir stands at the lowest elevations especially on ridgetops and south and westaspects, and large heritage pine and Douglas-fir surrounded by heavy understories. Levels ofmortality due to insects are projected to be 3 to 5 percent of the host types annually in theAnalysis Area, if this alternative were selected.Under the No-Action Alternative, if the Analysis Area is burned in a large-scale highintensitywildland fire, there would also be insect ramifications. Tree killing insects wouldnot be present for many years in portions of the area that were burned at high severity andhad all the large trees killed outright by the fire. However, trees in less severely burned areasthat were injured but not killed by the fire would likely become more susceptible toinfestation by bark beetles and flatheaded borers. Substantial infestation of pines andDouglas-firs of this type would be expected. Also, green trees in stands surrounding the areaaffected by the fire could experience increased insect infestation. It is hard to predict withprecision whether or not this would happen. Based on evidence from past fires, sometimes itdoes and sometimes it doesn’t. It appears to be most likely to occur in an area where insectpopulations are already elevated at the time that a large wildland fire burns. This wouldcertainly be the case in the Analysis Area, depending on the particular year a wildland firehappens to burn.Proposed ActionUnder the Proposed Action, stands within the Project Area would be thinned to variouslevels. Thinning has been documented as an effective way to decrease risk of infestation bypine bark beetles on a variety of pine species (Clements 1953, Cochran 1992, Cochran et al.1994, Fiddler et al. 1989, Gibson 1988, Larsson et al. 1983, McCambridge et al. 1982,Mitchell et al. 1983, Oliver 1995, Pitman et al. 1982, Preisler and Mitchell 1993, Sartwell1971, Sartwell and Dolph 1976, Sartwell and Stevens 1975, Schmid et al. 1994) and is alsobelieved to reduce risk of flatheaded fir borer infestation. Thinning both increases host vigorand adversely influences the abilities of insects to locate hosts and aggregate populations.The heaviest density management under the Proposed Action (Interface CompartmentTreatments) would reduce relative densities to levels of 0.3 or lower on very dry sites (DryDouglas-fir PAG) or 0.4 or lower on dry but slightly wetter sites (Moist Douglas-fir and DryWhite Fir PAGs).Draft EIS III - 65 Ashland Forest Resiliency

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.Thinning in DFPZs would immediately reduce relative densities to about 0.5 or 0.6. Thisshould 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 groupsof pines may partially ameliorate this concern, but only in the cases of the individual pines orgroups of pines so treated. Eventually (within the next 20 years), DFPZs would havestocking levels reduced to the same levels as in the Interface Compartments, and insect riskwould drop to the same levels.Late-successional habitat would be retained at current high stocking levels (relative densitiessimilar to those currently existing in closed stands averaging 0.7 to 1.0). Pines on all sitesand/or Douglas-firs on lower elevation dry sites would be at high risk of insect infestation incompartments with these stocking levels. To have the greatest likelihood of beingsustainable, these habitat retention blocks should be located in riparian areas or on northfacing slopes, contain relatively small pine components if any, and, whenever possible, belocated in the moister PAGs.Community AlternativeLike the Proposed Action, the Community Alternative would also involve thinning stands tolower densities. Where treatments would decrease relative densities in pine stands or pinecomponents to 0.3 on very dry sites (in the Dry Douglas-fir PAG) or 0.4 on dry but slightlywetter sites (in Moist Douglas-fir and Dry White Fir PAGs), risk of pine bark beetleinfestation would be substantially lowered. The risk of flatheaded fir borer infestation wouldlikewise be lowered where densities were reduced below 0.6 in the Dry Douglas-fir PAG.The difference between the Proposed Action and the Community Alternative would be 1) inthe number of acres that would be treated under the two proposals, 2) in the relative amountof density reduction that would be accomplished under the two treatments, and perhaps 3) inthe long term plans for additional thinning treatments in the future (beyond this proposal).It appears the Community Alternative plans to treat a larger number of acres immediatelyover the Proposed Action. However, the Proposed Action might actually thin key areas inthe Interface Compartments to lower, more desirable residual densities, in terms of risk ofinsects. The long-term strategy under the Proposed Action acknowledges the need for moreadditional thinning in the future, beyond this proposal.c. Cumulative Effects of AlternativesThe long term consequences of the No-Action Alternative would be to: 1) greatly reduce thepine components throughout the Project Area but especially in the Douglas-fir PAGs, 2)virtually eliminate the large heritage ponderosa and sugar pines, especially in the drier PAGs,3) allow extensive pulses of Douglas-fir mortality throughout the dry Douglas-fir PAG and indrier locations (especially south and west aspects) in the wet Douglas-fir PAG, and 4) createlarge amounts 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. Thisconsequence would clearly contribute to greater risk of high-severity stand replacement fire.These risks would be reduced under both Action Alternatives, because of hazardous fueltreatments that are designed to make the ecosystem more fire resilient.Draft EIS III - 66 Ashland Forest Resiliency

9. Inventoried Roadless AreaActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments may affect the McDonald PeakInventoried Roadless Area; some people may value this area for its undisturbed (orspiritual) character.The McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area occurs partially within the Upper Bear AnalysisArea. This inventoried roadless area, in the vicinity of proposed hazardous fuel reductiontreatments, currently possesses undeveloped character values. A portion of the McDonald PeakInventoried Roadless Area (IRA) lies within the Ashland Creek Watershed and Wagner Creeksub-watersheds. Controversy over roadless areas has been in public debate for decades.Inventoried Roadless areas, like Wilderness, are valued by many for their very existence in anundeveloped state. This value is experienced practically by users of the area, and intrinsically bythose who place value in simply knowing that undeveloped lands, perceived as “wild,” still exist.a. BackgroundThe 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (incorporated by reference) describes supplementalroadless area information at pages I-12-14. This supplemental section briefly outlines thehistory behind roadless areas, and specifically for the McDonald Peak IRA, an area withoutroads and inventoried for its roadless characteristics and once considered for potentialWilderness designation. The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment shows the IRA in relation to theUpper Bear Analysis area at page 1-14.The McDonald Peak IRA is located entirely on lands administered by the RR-SNF. TheMcDonald Peak IRA is not adjacent to, contiguous to or near any designated Wildernessarea. It is not adjacent to, contiguous to or near any other area previously or currentlyinventoried as roadless. Approximately 7,380 acres of the 9,425 acre IRA is containedwithin the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The McDonald Peak IRA was not considered suitablefor Wilderness during analysis for inclusion in the 1984 Wilderness Act and was released formultiple use management with the decisions associated with the 1990 RRNF LRMP.b. Direct Effects of AlternativesThe modification of forest and evidence of human activity into this previously undevelopedarea are a direct effect; and could also create indirect human social effects. While there is ameasurable difference in acres affected, the most significant and measurable effect is themere presence of modification of the natural landscape, thus the subsequent discussions ofroadless and undeveloped character focus on the differences between No-Action and theAction Alternatives.No-Action AlternativeThis alternative would maintain the current conditions with no effect on primitive recreationopportunities within the IRA and additional adjacent areas that currently possess anundeveloped character. Current opportunities in a primitive, natural setting with a highdegree of solitude, would be maintained.Draft EIS III - 67 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The No-Action Alternative maintains the same potential for future Wilderness designation ofMcDonald Peak as does the current condition. This potential is currently perceived by manyto be low because of the area’s small size, and lack of adjacent undeveloped areas availableto substantially expand its size.Proposed ActionAshland Forest Resiliency proposes hazardous fuel reduction treatments within portions ofthe IRA. Although no new roads or landings would be constructed within the IRA,management actions such as density management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed.These actions would not be evident from a landscape or overhead view but would be visibleto persons walking through areas where treatments occurred.As much as 1,516 acres of the IRA is proposed for some form of treatment under theProposed Action. This is an upper threshold of extent, as not all of this acreage within theIRA may be identified for treatment during implementation.The proposed management actions may affect the existing character for those who feel itshould remain undeveloped and show no evidence of human disturbance. There would be nosubstantial change to late-successional habitat or late seral vegetation conditions. Somestumps may be evident. The ecological effects of fragmentation and late-successional forestconnectivity would be minimal with these types of treatments and the resulting reduction infire hazard and risk may further protect the integrity of the IRA.Community AlternativeHazardous fuel reduction treatments are also proposed within portions of the IRA, under theCommunity Alternative. No new roads or landings would be constructed within the IRA,and 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 prescribedfire are proposed. These actions would not be evident from a landscape view but would bevisible to persons walking through areas where treatments occurred.Approximately 1,481 acres of the IRA is proposed for treatment under the CommunityAlternative. The proposed management actions may affect the existing character for thosewho feel it should remain undeveloped and show no evidence of human disturbance. Therewould be no substantial change to late-successional habitat or late seral vegetationconditions. Some small diameter stumps may be evident. The ecological effects offragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity would be minimal with these types oftreatments and the resulting reduction in fire hazard, and risk may further protect the integrityof the IRA.SummaryThe following table summarizes the direct effects in terms of acres potentially treated,expressed as a percentage of the IRA within the Upper Bear Analysis Area, and the entireIRA.Draft EIS III - 68 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Table III-20. Effects to Inventoried Roadless Area, by AlternativeAcres TreatedWithin IRAPercent of AreaTreatedPercent of Total IRAAffectedNo-Action(Current Condition0 0 0ProposedAction1,516 20.5% 16.1%CommunityAlternative1,481 20.1% 15.7%Note: Total McDonald Peak IRA is inventoried at 9,425 acres; total IRA area within Upper Bear AnalysisAreas is 7,380 acres.c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesThere have been no management actions in this area since the Forest Service inventoryoccurring in the 1980s (and the adjustment of area process in 1999) except for annualmaintenance of the Wagner Butte Trail and fire suppression activities (e.g., Horn Gap Fire,2003, 15 acres). In addition to current and proposed ski area expansion activities, there ispossible 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 physicaleffects of development are likely to be offset by the restoration nature of the ActionAlternatives on the current conditions.Ecosystem function is not a product of specifically designated boundaries or land allocations.The McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area, and its natural habitat, is simply onecomponent together with the Ashland Watershed, Late-Successional Reserve, and other landswhose management shapes the ecological function of the Siskiyou Mountains. Specificecological effects of fragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity are discussed inmore detail in Section D, 7, this Chapter. The ecosystem effects at the landscape scale ofaltering relatively natural forest in this area are also discussed in Section E, 16, of thisChapter (other non-inventoried semi-primitive unroaded areas).10. Old and Large TreesActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments may affect late seral or old-growthvegetative conditions and old or large trees; this may cause a change in amenity values forrecreation use and/or existence values for those who believe such conditions should bepreserved on public lands.Whether or not to cut and/or remove old and large trees is one of the hottest issues in debate withprojects that are designed to reduce fire hazard. Some people want policies that prohibit anyremoval of trees over a specified diameter. Scientists however, point out that such a blanketpolicy would have substantial consequences on attainment of fire hazard reduction.The old-growth and large-tree retention provisions of the HFRA only apply to “covered”projects. Covered projects, as defined in Section 102(e)(1)(B), include all projects authorizedunder the HFRA on National Forest System lands, such as Ashland Forest Resiliency.Draft EIS III - 69 Ashland Forest Resiliency

a. BackgroundOld GrowthSection 102(e)(2) provides that the USDA Forest Service, when carrying out coveredprojects using HFRA authority, are to “fully maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of,the structure and composition of old-growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression oldgrowthconditions characteristic of the forest type, taking into account the contribution of thestand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the large treescontributing to old-growth structure.”Section 102(e)(3) provides that old-growth direction in resource management plansestablished on or after December 15, 1993, (so-called “newer plan direction”) is sufficient tomeet the requirements of Section 102(e)(2) and will be used by agencies carrying out projectsunder the HFRA. For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Northwest Forest Plan provides thisdirection. The HFRA does not mandate particular definition of old-growth or the specificprocess to identify old-growth stands, nor does the HFRA require that old-growth stands bemapped. For this analysis, old-growth is essentially defined as late-successional habitat, asdescribed by the NWFP.Large-Tree RetentionSection 102(f) governs vegetation treatments in covered projects outside of old-growth, andwhere the resource management plan does not contain old-growth management direction.The section requires such treatments to be carried out in a manner that:• Will “modify fire behavior, as measured by the projected reduction of uncharacteristicallysevere wildland fire effects for the forest type (such as adverse soil impacts, tree mortality, orother impacts).” In achieving this objective, vegetation treatments are to focus “largely” onsmall-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 thelarge trees promote fire resilient stands.”The HFRA also states that the large-tree retention requirements of Section 102(f) must notprevent agencies from reducing wildland fire risk to communities, municipal water supplies,and at-risk Federal land. In areas where large-tree retention requirements apply, resourcemanagers should design projects that retain large trees to the extent possible, while they alsoapply treatments that are appropriate for the forest type, will reduce uncharacteristicallysevere wildland fire effects within the treated area, and will meet the objective of reducingwildland fire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and at-risk Federal land.Specific vegetation treatment methods to be applied within these areas should be guided bythe key objectives described above. Treatment prescriptions should be designed for forestvegetation treatments that integrate fuel and other resource objectives to meet the resourcemanagement plan direction. The prescriptions should prescribe for retention of large, fireresilienttrees (generally intolerant tree species adapted to fire processes) and retain largetrees to the degree this practice is consistent with the objective of maintaining or restoringfire-resilient stands. However, large trees of selected species that are not adapted to fireprocesses may need to be removed to promote greater fire resiliency. Similarly, the removalof small- to mid-sized trees will generally be needed to reduce fuel ladders within thetreatment area, curtailing uncharacteristically severe wildland fire effects and enabling use ofprescribed fire.Draft EIS III - 70 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Trees in a variety of size classes may need to be removed in these areas to reduce wildlandfire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and at-risk Federal land. These practicesare allowed under the HFRA.b. Direct Effects of AlternativesTreatments that directly affect old-growth are discussed under the late-successional habitatSignificant Issue (sub-section 7, Section D, Chapter III). Amenity values associated withold-growth forest are tied to the discussion on Inventoried Roadless Area and unroadedcharacter (sub-section 7, Section D, Chapter III, and sub-section 16, Section E, Chapter III).The discussion of effects for this issue (large trees) is focused on the quantities of large treesby size class. A “large” tree is somewhat a value judgment and difficult to define. For thisanalysis, two size classes are used to identify large trees. These classes are 17 to 24 inches indiameter, and greater than 24 inches in diameter. Estimates for the number of trees cut peracre by size class are based on modeling satellite imagery and are intended to provide arough indication of quantity for comparison purposes. The exact quantity of large trees to becut under either of the Action Alternatives would ultimately be determined by fieldverification of the treatment criteria and tracked during implementation monitoring.No-Action AlternativeUnder 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 highseverityfire were to occur within the Analysis Area, the numbers of large trees would slowlyincrease to some point where mortality related to over-density would occur. In the event of awildland fire, there is the potential to lose portions of the large tree component due to a highseverityfire. The actual extent of this loss is unknown and is not able to be predicted. Referto the discussion in sub-section 3, Section C, Chapter III, regarding crown fire potential, andthe discussion regarding fire behavior associated with the large tree component.Proposed ActionThe cutting of large trees under the Proposed Action is dependent on the major treatmentobjectives for each of the components.In the DFPZs, it is estimated that trees larger than 15 inches in diameter would not need to becut in order to achieve the desired stand conditions, with the exception of insect or diseasepockets. Over the 2,800 acres of DFPZ treatments, this exception is estimated to occur on 60acres. These areas are defined as a portion of a stand where laminated root rot is detected, orwhere 10 percent or more of the overstory Douglas-fir have detectable dwarf mistletoeinfections, or where pine bark beetles or flathead fir borers are attacking trees. To achievethe desired condition on these 60 acres, the treatments would call for thinning to a relativestand density of 0.2. to 0.3. This would likely require that some trees larger than 17 inches indiameter would need to be cut. Based on satellite imagery, this is estimated to beapproximately 3-7 trees per acre, 17-24 inches in diameter, and 0-2 trees per acre greater than24 inches in diameter.Draft EIS III - 71 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Within the Interface, treatments would be focused on modifying the existing stand densityand current/future surface fuel loads. Treatments in these areas would focus primarily ontwo seral stages; the mid-closed and late-closed conditions, though other seral stages wouldreceive some surface fuel reduction treatments. Although treatments would be focused onsmaller diameter trees to meet these objectives, larger trees would need to be cut to achievethe desired relative stand densities. Density management treatments would occur onapproximately 1,600 acres, where large trees may be cut. Based on satellite imagery, this isestimated to be approximately 7-13 trees per acre, 17-24 inches in diameter, and 0-3 trees peracre greater than 24 inches in diameter.Treatments within the RNA would be similar to those in the Interface compartments in thatlarger trees would need to be cut in order to achieve the desired conditions. Based onsatellite imagery, this is estimated to be approximately 7-13 trees per acre, 17-24 inches indiameter, and 0-3 trees per acre greater than 24 inches in diameter.Within the areas of the Late-Successional treatments, no trees larger than 17 inches indiameter 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 cutto 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 areintended to provide a rough extent for comparison purposes. Once density targets, snagrecruitment, down wood, and soil management objectives are satisfied, felled trees areconsidered excess to fuel hazard objectives, and are available for removal.Table III-21. Estimate of Large Trees per Acre to be Cut – Proposed ActionComponentEstimated Trees per Acre to be Cut17-24” DBH > 24” DBHDFPZ 3-7 0-2Interface 7-13 0-3RNA 7-13 0-3Late-Successional 0 0Landings 2-4 0-2Community AlternativeUnder the Community Alternative, specific justification would be required for felling and/orremoval of trees in Cohort 1 (25 to 50+ inches DBH) and larger Cohort 2 (10 to 25 inchesDBH). Site-specific prescriptions would be developed during implementation under thisalternative.In stands within priority areas identified for treatment where greater than 50% of basal area isin trees between 25 to 50+ inches (Cohort 1), the Community Alternative requires sitespecific rationale for cutting trees or creating snags with trees over 25 inches. Cuttingtypically means trees are left on site to satisfy habitat or soil objectives. Once density targets,snag recruitment, down wood, and soil management objectives are satisfied, felled trees areconsidered excess to fuel hazard objectives, and are available for removal. A validationprocess (described in Chapter II) is required for removal of trees over 25 inches DBH.Draft EIS III - 72 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In stands where greater than 50% of basal area is in trees 10-25 inches DBH (Cohort 2dominated) the Community Alternative requires site-specific rationale for cutting, and thenremoving trees over 17 inches, or creating snags, when all other objectives are met. Thevalidation process is required for cutting and removal of trees.An estimate of the number of large trees to be cut under the Community Alternative wasestimated by using the satellite imagery and shown in Table III-22.Table III-22. Estimate of Large Trees per Acre to be Cut – Community AlternativeTreatment Estimated Trees per Acre to be CutArea 17-24” DBH > 24” DBHPriority 1 7-13 0-2Priority 2 5-9 0-1Priority 3 0-5 0Priority 4 6-12 0-1Priority 5 4-11 0-1Priority 6 3-9 0Priority 7 0-3 0Priority 8 2-5 0Priority 9 0 0Landings 2-4 0-2Note: settings within McDonald Peak IRA would not cut anytrees > 7” DBHSummaryFigure III-7 and III-8 below, proportionally displays the size class distribution of treesexpected to be cut, including the large tree classes, for each of the Action Alternatives.Figure III-7. Distribution of Cut Trees by Size Class – Proposed Actionp17-24"24+"11-17"0-11"Draft EIS III - 73 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Figure III-8. Distribution of Cut Trees by Size Class – Community Alternative17-24"24+"11-17"0-11"c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeAs a result of not cutting any large trees, there would be no indirect adverse effect fromhazardous fuel reduction treatments. The indirect effects on large trees from continueddensity and from potential large-scale high-severity wildland fire is discussed in otherSignificant Issues. If large trees were not cut, the ecological sustainability value (protectionof legacy trees) would not be obtained.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeUnder the proposed action, the cutting of large trees would directly and indirectly leadtoward meeting the hazardous fuel reduction objectives. Large trees often provide thegreatest competition to conservation of legacy trees, and if large trees were not cut, theecological sustainability value (protection of legacy trees) would not be obtained. Theamenity values of old-growth forest would be changed to some degree as discussed in otherSignificant Issues.11. Operational and Economic FeasibilityThe design of hazardous fuel treatments may or may not be operationally feasible (are theyhumanly possible?), and/or may or may not be economically feasible (is there a way to fundtreatments?).Policymakers, Agency personnel and private businesses worry that the high cost of forest fuelreduction treatments will make community protection and ecological restoration unattainable inthis time of tight Federal budgets. Under the Action Alternatives and with various treatmentproposals and prescriptions, there is a potential that trees to be cut have commercial productvalue. While not ignoring that aspect of the proposal, it has not been the focus, i.e., neither theForest Service or the City is specifically proposing a commercial timber sale, and are notanalyzing the sale of commercial products to finance the hazardous fuel reduction treatments.Draft EIS III - 74 Ashland Forest Resiliency

For the analysis of Ashland Forest Resiliency, the traditional discussion of timber goals,revenues, and/or profitability is considered out of scope. This issue therefore focuses on theoperational feasibility, and the mechanisms to fund hazardous fuel treatments. Under the HFRA,to go forward with hazardous fuel reduction treatments, financing and other opportunities wouldbe developed subsequent to a decision under NEPA.a. BackgroundTwo landscape-scale studies show some of the differences among two different types offorests and fuel reduction treatments related to economic feasibility.The Blue Mountains Demonstration Project analyzed forests, fire threat, and fuel reductiontreatments on a landscape level for the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon. In the BlueMountains vegetation assessment, commercial potential on Federal forest lands was definedas more than 400 cubic feet per acre of trees larger than 7 inches diameter. The analysis alsoassumed that no trees larger than 21 inches diameter would be removed. Severalmanagement alternatives were studied.In the Blue Mountains study, scientists found that the removal of only small trees wouldreduce fire hazard substantially. Merchantable trees did not have to be cut and removed toreduce the crown bulk density (and increase the crowning index) to acceptable levels. Theharvest of merchantable trees would pay for the treatment costs on only about 40,000 acres,or 3 percent, of the Federal forest acres. If restrictions on harvesting trees greater than 21inches diameter were removed, the acres that could be treated without a subsidy mightincrease to about 80,000, still only 6 percent of the total acres.In the FIA BioSum pilot study for the southwestern Oregon subregion, scientists found thatthe removal of only trees less than 7 inches diameter would not reduce the crown bulkdensity to an acceptable level. Forests in southwestern Oregon typically have moremerchantable trees per acre than the Blue Mountains forests. For the southwestern Oregonforests, removal of some trees greater than 7 inches diameter would be primarily a fuel loadand fire hazard issue, not just an economic issue. This analysis is described in the case studycontained in science update, PNW Issue 7 (2004).Another example is the work completed by the City of Ashland on forested City lands withinthe Ashland Interface. Fuel reduction was accomplished here along with commercialremoval of products that offset most of the costs associated with the project. The timber salecomponent of the Ashland Forest Lands Restoration Project was completed in April 2004. Aproject financial summary is provided below (source: City of Ashland websitewww.ashland.or.us):Total net payment to City of Ashland from log buyer $ 262,650.49Payment for helicopter services $-263,091.64Project cost to City of Ashland $ -441.15The examples above are provided to illustrate various scenarios of hazardous fuel reductiontreatments and the relationship to removal of commercial products in order to help offsetimplementation costs.Draft EIS III - 75 Ashland Forest Resiliency

. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative EffectsOperational FeasibilityOperational feasibility has been addressed during the design phase of the ActionAlternatives. It is assumed that all of the proposed treatments can be physicallyaccomplished (humanly possible). All of the fuel reduction activities proposed have beensuccessfully accomplished either on other locations on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NationalForest or on other areas with similar attributes.There have been many examples of the successful use of helicopters (proposed under bothAction Alternatives) and ground-based systems (proposed under the Community Alternativeonly). Helicopters and ground-based systems have been used in and adjacent to the AshlandWatershed in the past to remove biomass.Because there would be no activities associated with the No-Action Alternative, thediscussion of operational feasibility for this alternative is not applicable.Economic FeasibilityNo ActionUnder No-Action, there would be no costs associated with hazardous fuel reduction and nofunding needs nor would there be any potential revenues generated to fund future fuelreduction treatments.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeRestoring biological, and physical processes and functions to ensure the long-term ecologicalsustainability of the public lands in the Analysis Area for this project is more important to theForest Service and Ashland community than the output of forest products. As a result, anycommodity production derived from the implementation of this proposal is expected to occuronly as a by-product of hazardous fuel reduction treatments.A review of recent contracts for performing hazardous fuel reduction projects provides ageneral per unit cost for completing this type of work. An approximate average ranges fromslightly below $1,000 to over $1,200 per acre to complete understory thinning and activityfuel treatments such as hand piling and burning. The cost for prescribed fire (underburning)ranges from $80 to $350 per acre, depending on the complexity of the activity (amount offuels, topography, etc.).If this average cost per acre is assumed, then it is estimated that the fuel reduction treatmentswithin the Project Area for each Action Alternative could be completed for approximately$8-10 million dollars (this assumes $1,000 per acre, times the number of treated acres withineach alternative: 8,150 for the Proposed Action and 8,990 for the Community Alternative).If the total cost were spread over a ten year period, it would work out to a cost of one to twomillion dollars per year to accomplish the hazardous fuel reduction objectives.This estimated cost does not include the cutting of larger trees (greater than 11 inches indiameter) necessary to meet stand density objectives, nor the cost of removing excessbiomass as a product with commercial value. For example, the cost for a heavy-lifthelicopter operation (typical for removal of commercial products) is approximately $5,000per hour of operation.Draft EIS III - 76 Ashland Forest Resiliency

With stewardship contracting authority the potential for economic return from the sale ofproducts would help pay for the cost of implementing treatments. Under the ActionAlternatives, varying amounts of biomass could be made available to the woods productindustry.A preliminary estimate was performed utilizing satellite imagery to estimate numbers of treesper 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 coarsewoody material to be left on site to meet PAG objectives or other resource issues.Of the material remaining, it is estimated that the Proposed Action would removeapproximately 22,000 to 27,000 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of biomass from trees greater than11 inches in diameter. Using the same assumptions, the Community Alternative wouldpotentially remove 16,000 to 21,000 CCF of biomass.This could generate approximately from 5-9 million dollars for the Proposed Action and 4-7million dollars for the Community Alternative, depending on current market conditionswhich would determine the actual value of the biomass available for commercial removal.Although there are environmental benefits, the staging of various treatments could be anadded cost. This would be due to treating the same area a second time with the associatedcosts of moving in equipment and personnel.A difference in the alternatives would be the costs associated with inventory prior toimplementation. The Community Alternative proposes to conduct extensive inventoriesprior to implementation of treatments. The Proposed Action would not require furtherinventory of conditions prior to implementation. Actual on-the-ground conditions thattrigger these criteria are to be identified and validated concurrent with implementation.FundingFunding is a variable that is difficult to predict. In a study that looked at the National FirePlan for fiscal years 2001 through 2003, it was noted that expenditures for fire suppressionand hazardous fuel reduction follow opposite trends. That is, fire suppression expendituresconsistently exceed the appropriated amount, while fuel reduction expenditures areconsistently less than the appropriated amount (McCarthy 2004). In other words, not all ofthe dollars appropriated for fuel reductions treatments are spent each year.Several factors contribute to this situation. Some land management units suspendmechanical and prescribed fire treatments during times when there are drought conditions orhigh fire danger. As fire seasons intensify, agencies usually curtail non-essentialexpenditures and “borrow” fuel treatment funds to pay for fire suppression. Even when fueltreatment funds are restored, it is difficult to accomplished treatments in a timely mannerbecause the funds are withdrawn during the field season and restored when winter weatherconditions can hamper field work.This situation can be addressed by looking at options for long-term stewardship contracts.Draft EIS III - 77 Ashland Forest Resiliency

StewardshipAshland Forest Resiliency was approved to use stewardship authorities (per Section 323 ofPublic Law 108-7) by the Regional Forester in April 2004. These authorities include:Trading goods for servicesDesignation by description or prescriptionRetention of receiptsBest value contractingMulti-year contractingThese authorities allow for the flexibility to generate funding for completion of the hazardousfuel reduction treatments by allowing any revenue produced to be returned to the area forfurther treatments.“Best value” contracting, as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), could beused to award fuel reduction contracts. The best value form of contracting allows thegovernment to take into account factors other than the lowest price. For example, contractsawarded as “best value” consider factors such as past performance, experience, and methodalong with price. This provides the decision-maker with more flexibility in utilizing the localworkforce.Draft EIS III - 78 Ashland Forest Resiliency

E. ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITHOTHER ISSUESOther Issues (also presented in Chapter I) were used to formulate design elements and/ormitigation measures common to Action Alternatives (as effects are predicted to be minor and/orsimilar between Action Alternatives), providing nominal comparison of consequences to aid inlater decision-making. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change from thecurrent conditions (unless otherwise noted), however, the short- and long-term effects of no(additional) hazardous fuels treatments are discussed.1. Water ChemistryFire hazard treatments could affect water chemistry (pH, bacterial and/or petrochemicalpollutants).Water quality in the State of Oregon is regulated by the Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality (ODEQ) under authority granted by the Clean Water Act (1948), and subsequentamendments. Water quality attributes that are considered under the Clean Water Act includetraditional physical and chemical constituents such as pH, bacteria concentration, temperature,discharge, and chemical pollutants. The Forest Service is the responsible management agencyfor water quality on the lands it manages, as described in a memoranda of understanding (MOU)with ODEQ. This MOU requires the agency to meet water quality standards, monitor activitiesto assure they meet standards, report results to the state, and periodically re-certify BestManagement Practices (BMPs).a. BackgroundThe primary mechanisms for regulating and controlling non-point sources of pollution are (1)Best Management Practices (2) numeric and narrative water quality standards, and (3) theAntidegradation Policy (40 CFR 131). This Federal CFR is applicable to the states, forestablishment of water quality standards. In Oregon, the ODEQ has policy, permitting andmonitoring responsibility and requirements in place, in compliance with the AntidegradationPolicy.Surface waters in portions of the affected sub-watersheds have been monitored for a varietyof water quality parameters over the past several years. Turbidity, fecal coliform, andbacteria have been monitored in Ashland Creek, downstream of Reeder Reservoir.Comparatively little data has been collected on the Neil Creek sub-watershed. The waterquality in Neil Creek is believed to be similar to Ashland Creek Watershed, as this watershedhas 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 small streams serve as the headwaters for largerstreams including Neil, and Ashland Creeks. These waters are generally considered to be inGood condition, however there are elevated levels of suspended sediment in all streamsduring storm events, due in part to the highly erosive granitic soils of the area, and tohistorical disturbances such as timber harvest, grazing, and high road density, in all subwatershedsexcept Ashland Creek.Draft EIS III - 79 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to oxygen that is dissolved in water. The amount of oxygenthat can be held by the water depends on the water temperature, salinity, and pressure, whichis dependent on elevation. Gas solubility increases with decreasing temperature (colder waterholds more oxygen). Gas solubility increases with decreasing salinity (freshwater holdsmore oxygen than does saltwater). Both the partial pressure and the degree of saturation ofoxygen 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 thedecrease in relative pressure.pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. One of the most importantenvironmental factors of pH is the affect that it has on the solubility and thus thebioavailability of other substances. This process is important in surface waters. Runoff fromagricultural, 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 coliform bacteria in aquatic environments indicates that the water hasbeen contaminated with the fecal material of humans or other animals. The fecal matter mayalso be carrying pathogens or disease producing bacteria or viruses that were present in thesource water ingested by the human or animal. The presence of fecal contamination is anindicator that a potential health risk exists for individuals exposed to this water. Fecalcoliform 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.Fire retardants are largely composed of fertilizer and other additives that aid in applicationmixed with water. Retardants that are used in municipal watersheds have been throughextensive testing to make sure that chemical additives will not pose a threat to water supplies.Retardants that are applied solely to the land will mostly be incorporated into the soil and thenutrients contained within them will be available for uptake by plants as they recover andgrow. However, some studies on runoff following fires have shown elevated levels ofphosphorus which can be attributed to the use of retardants in fire suppression (Ranalli2004).Retardants that are applied directly to streams can be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms inthe immediate vicinity. This effect will dissipate as the retardant is washed downstream andis diluted with increases in stream flow. The introduction of fertilizer into a stream canproduce an increase in algae which can in-turn affect both pH and dissolved oxygenconcentration. A sufficient introduction of retardant into Reeder Reservoir could produce analgae bloom there. This would likely lead to increased treatment costs to remove any tastes,odors, or other effects the bloom would trigger.b. Direct Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeA wildland fire which would burn a considerable portion of the Analysis Area would releasechemicals which would show up in runoff. A number of nutrients incorporated in litter arevolatilized 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 backgroundlevels in streams.Draft EIS III - 80 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Nitrogen is a highly mobile ion and is often leached from burned areas ending up in surfaceor groundwater. Numerous studies have shown elevated levels of nitrate nitrogen in streamsfollowing both wildland and prescribed fires (Ranalli 2004). In local streams, thebackground nitrate levels in streams are very low, generally being below 0.1 mg/l (RRNFinternal report). Following a wildland fire, concentration of nitrates would increase, but it isdoubtful that the accumulations would reach a level where the drinking water qualitystandard (10mg/l nitrate nitrogen) would be violated. The highest levels of nitrateconcentrations 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, burn severity, rainfall after the fire, slopesteepness, 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 ofalkaline compounds such as calcium carbonate, magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, andmagnesium carbonate from the ash (Ranalli 2004).Since the background levels of most nutrients in streams is low, changes in their levelsfollowing a fire would be substantial, but would not necessarily produce a significant threatto water quality for the City of Ashland, as adverse water quality standard levels would notbe reached.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeThe mechanisms of change which increase nutrient levels in runoff following a prescribedfire, are the same as with wildland fires. However, because prescribed fire occurs undercontrolled conditions, the magnitude of change in stream chemistries should be less, or evenundetectable, over what would be expected following a wildland fire (no chance of retardantintrusion). Fuel moisture levels during controlled burns are higher than in most wildlandfires and there is less consumption of the duff layer. Less consumption means that therewould be small quantities of ash elements released by burning. Suspensions of ash elementsand water soluble nutrients would be filtered by the unburned litter and soil layers beforeentering the stream systems. Additionally, the unburned strip of vegetation along streamswould serve to filter out elements before they can enter streams (Ranalli 2004).c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeSmoke and ash particulates move out of the immediate burn area and settle onto watershedsand waterbodies 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 intothe soil. This can lead to an increase in nutrient levels in streams, although the magnitude ofchange 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 intostreams and Reeder Reservoir to increase algae growth. If this happened, there could be ataste and odor problem imparted to the water and this would cause increased treatment costsfor Ashland’s water supply. Increased algae levels can also affect dissolved oxygen levelsand pH in streams which can in-turn affect aquatic organisms. There is a low probability ofthis happening to a significant level.Draft EIS III - 81 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Proposed Action and Community AlternativeThere should be no or very low change in nutrient levels in streams or Reeder Reservoirfollowing implementation of the Action Alternatives. However, with repeated burning ofareas to keep fuel levels at low levels, there could be a reduction in site productivity asimportant nutrients are repeatedly volatilized with the fires. This effect is analyzed underSoils and Site Productivity, Section D, 1, this Chapter.2. Riparian Reserve Standards and GuidelinesFire hazard treatments and other connected actions could affect attainment of NWFPStandards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves.According to the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the Aquatic ConservationStrategy (ACS) was developed to improve and maintain the ecological health of watersheds andaquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. The four primary components of theACS are designed to operate together to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency ofriparian and aquatic ecosystems; they include: 1) Riparian Reserves; 2) Key Watersheds; 3)Watershed Analysis; and 4) Watershed Restoration.Riparian Reserves are established as a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy,designed primarily to restore and maintain the health of aquatic systems and their dependentspecies. Riparian Reserves also help to maintain riparian structures and functions and conservehabitat for organisms dependent on the transition zone between riparian and upland areas.As discussed in Chapter I, on March 22, 2004, the Northwest Forest Plan was amended tochange the documentation requirements with regard to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.Therefore, project documentation requirements have changed for projects affecting RiparianReserves. There is now no requirement to document how the project is or is not consistent withACS Objectives. Several Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines make reference to ACSObjectives (ACSOs).a. BackgroundRiparian Reserves include lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, andpotentially unstable areas that are subject to special Standards and Guidelines designed toconserve aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Standards and Guidelines apply toactivities in Riparian Reserves that may otherwise retard or prevent attainment of AquaticConservation Strategy (ACS) objectives, as defined in the 1994 ROD. The 1990 LRMPincluded some areas assigned to Restricted Riparian. More lands are included under theNorthwest Forest Plan in Riparian Reserves; total area of Riparian Reserves within theFederally managed portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area is 4,698 acres (2003 Upper BearAssessment).Widths for Riparian Reserves necessary to ensure ACS objectives for different waterbodiesare established based on ecological and geomorphic factors. Widths are typically one sitepotential tree height (150 feet for this portion of the Forest, see RRNF White Paper #36)along each side of stream channels. Widths are twice this distance along fish bearingstreams. These widths are designed to provide a high level of protection to fish and riparianhabitats.Draft EIS III - 82 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Key Watershed designation is an additional component of the ACS that is applied towatersheds that contain at-risk fish species or anadromous stocks and that provide highquality water and fish habitat. Although there are anadromous species within portions of theAnalysis Area, none of the area has been designated as a Key Watershed.The analysis of the existing conditions of the five affected sub-watersheds relative toRiparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines is presented below for all alternatives consideredin detail (1994 NWFP ROD, pages C-31 through C-39). These Standards and Guidelineswere reviewed for applicability relative to the types of actions being proposed under AshlandForest Resiliency.The Timber Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-31) were determined tonot be applicable because timber management is not the goal of hazardous fuel reductiontreatments. While commercial by-product from density management treatment is foreseeableunder Ashland Forest Resiliency, no commercial product would be removed from designatedRiparian Reserve.The Roads Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-32) were determined to bepartially applicable because of the maintenance and/or reconstruction of existing roads foraccess and hauling needs (RF-2, RF-4, RF-6, and RF-7 are determined to be applicable).Existing roads cross stream courses and Riparian Reserves. Although short spur roads arebeing proposed to access new helicopter landings, these new roads are not being proposedwithin or adjacent to Riparian Reserves.The Grazing Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-33) were determined tonot be applicable because grazing management is not the goal of hazardous fuel reductiontreatments (and is not allowed within the National Forest portion of the Upper Bear AnalysisArea).The Recreation Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-34) were determinedto not be applicable because recreation management is not the goal of hazardous fuelreduction treatments.The Fire/Fuels Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP C-35) were determined to beapplicable because fuels management is the goal of Ashland Forest Resiliency, and somehazardous fuel reduction treatments are being proposed within Riparian Reserves.The Lands Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-36) were determined to not beapplicable because no actions associated with these Standards and Guidelines are part ofhazardous fuel reduction treatments.The General Riparian Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-37) weredetermined to be applicable to all projects under the NWFP that include actions proposedwithin Riparian Reserves.The Watershed and Habitat Restoration and Fish and Wildlife Management Standards andGuidelines (NWFP page C-37) were determined to not be applicable because no actionsassociated with these Standards and Guidelines are part of hazardous fuel reductiontreatments.b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesDraft EIS III - 83 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The applicable NWFP Standards and Guidelines (1994 ROD, pages C-31 through C-39) foralternatives considered for hazardous fuel reduction activities under Ashland ForestResiliency, and their consequences, are displayed in Table III-23.Table III-23. Evaluation of Applicable NWFP Riparian Reserve Standards and GuidelinesStandardandGuidelineRF-2RF-4RF-6RF-7FM-1 andFM-4FM-2FM-3 andFM-5Fire/FuelsManagementOtherAndRA-4RA-1RA-2RA-3No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Community AlternativeExisting roads and landings, to theextent possible, have minimized effectson Riparian Reserves.Existing stream crossings, to the extentpossible, have been designed toaccommodate a 100-year flood.Existing stream crossings, to the extentpossible, have been designed toaccommodate fish passage.Road Management Objectives are inplace for all existing roads. Inspectionand maintenance during and after stormevents is a reoccurring practice in thisarea of decomposing granitic terrain.Current condition and pastmanagement has included fueltreatment and fire suppressionstrategies, practices, and activitiesdesigned to meet ACSOs, and tominimize disturbance of riparian groundcover and vegetation.Under current conditions, incidentbases, camps, helibases, stagingareas, helispots and other centers forincident activities are located outsideRiparian Reserves, in accordance withFire Management Plan.Under current conditions, delivery ofchemical retardant, foam, or additivesto surface waters is minimized inaccordance with the Fire ManagementPlan.Both Action Alternatives propose no new roads or landings located within RiparianReserve. All design specifications for existing and proposed roads and landingswould minimize delivery of sediment to streams. No wetlands are affected byexisting or proposed new spur roads.Both Action Alternatives propose no new stream crossings. If road reconstructioninvolves stream crossings, culvert replacement would be designed, to the extentpossible, to accommodate a 100-year flood.Both Action Alternatives propose no new stream crossings. If road reconstructioninvolves stream crossings, culvert replacement would be designed toaccommodate fish passage.Under both Action Alternatives, Road Management Objectives would continue tobe in place and inspection and maintenance during and after storm events wouldbe a reoccurring practice in this area.Both Action Alternatives include fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies,practices, and activities to allow attainment of ACSOs, and to minimizedisturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Ashland Forest Resiliencyrecognizes the role of fire in ecosystem function and has identified instanceswhere fire suppression or fuels management activities could be damaging tolong-term ecosystem function.Under both Action Alternatives, incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas,helispots and other centers for incident activities would continue to be locatedoutside Riparian Reserves. Both Action Alternatives propose no new roads orlandings located within Riparian Reserve. All design specifications for existingand proposed roads and landings would minimize delivery of sediment tostreams.Under both Action Alternatives, delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or additivesto surface waters would continue to be minimized in accordance with the FireManagement Plan. Both Action Alternatives would enact treatments to make thelandscape more fire resilient, which would have the indirect effect of requiringless fire suppression (i.e., retardant) needing to be used. Emergency andrehabilitation teams would evaluate fire damaged Riparian Reserves, per FireManagement Plan.Under current conditions and both Action Alternatives, In Riparian Reserves, the goal of wildfire suppression is to limit thesize of all fires. Because of existing conditions, Wildland Fire Use is not considered an appropriate response in the UpperBear Analysis Area (see Section B, 1, Chapter II). As fuel reduction treatments are enacted and as monitoring isaccomplished with additional information gathered, Wildland Fire Use could become one of the tools used by land managersin the future. Rapidly extinguishing smoldering coarse woody material and duff is considered to preserve ecosystemelements. In Riparian Reserves, water drafting sites are located and managed to minimize adverse effects on riparianhabitat and water quality, consistent with ACSOs.Under current conditions, no changeto in-stream flows would take place(not including effects of a large highseveritywildland fire).Under Alternative 1, no trees wouldbe felled near Riparian Reserves.Existing operations do not utilizeherbicides, insecticides, toxicants,or other chemicals within or inproximity to Riparian Reserves.Under both Action Alternatives, there would be no direct impacts to stream channelsor aquatic habitat. There would be no measurable change to the timing, duration, ormagnitude of low flow and peak flow conditions due to land cover alterations fromany Action Alternative because of project design and employment of MitigationMeasures.As part of project design and in accordance with Mitigation Measures for both ActionAlternatives, some trees may be felled in Riparian Reserves; these trees would beleft on-site unless they adversely contribute to fuel loading (see design elements,Chapter II).Both Action Alternatives include no use of and specifically prohibit use of herbicides,insecticides, toxicants, or other chemicals within or in proximity to RiparianReserves.Draft EIS III - 84 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Research Standards and Guideline (NWFP page C-38) RS-1 was determined to beapplicable because research is a potential activity associated with hazardous fuel reductiontreatments under AFR; there are no adverse effects from ongoing or proposed researchactivities.3. Air QualityParticulate matter produced during the implementation of prescribed fire has the potential toadversely affect 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 (AQMA),and nearby Class 1 Airsheds, and whether hazardous fuel reduction treatments (i.e., prescribedburning) conforms to the Clean Air Act and to EPA and ODEQ regulations and guidelines.Analysis pays particular attention to potential effects to visual quality since this attribute hasbeen identified by ODEQ as being a primary concern and is believed to be the most sensitive airquality related attribute (Finneran 1999). Primary pollutants of concern with respect to visualquality are inhalable particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established by the Clean Air Act(CAA) of 1963 and subsequently amended (as amended, at 42 USCA 7401 to 7671(q)). Primaryair quality standards were established under the act to protect public health; secondary standardswere established to protect public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effectsassociated with the presence of ambient air pollutants. These standards and more detail on theair quality analysis conducted for Ashland Forest Resiliency are contained in DEIS Appendix J,incorporated by reference.a. BackgroundAir quality is a concern in the Upper Bear Creek Valley (hereafter referred to as the RogueValley) where the surrounding mountains tend to hold in pollutants produced by industrialplants, woodstoves, motor vehicles, and other sources. Consideration for potential air qualityconsequences resulting from implementation of the alternatives is important for the health oflocal residents and for retention of visual values in southwest Oregon and northwestCalifornia.The Analysis Area is located immediately adjacent to or within the non-attainment area ofthe southern portion of the Rogue River Valley. Non-attainment areas are identified throughambient air monitoring conducted by an air quality regulatory agency, and the Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ODEQ), that presently exceed national ambient air quality standards.The Medford area was designated a non-attainment area because air quality exceeded PM 10National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As a result, the Medford area became designatedas the “Medford-Ashland Air Quality Management Area” (AQMA). The non-attainmentstatus of this AQMA is not attributable to prescribed burning. Major sources of particulatematter within the Medford/Ashland area are smoke from woodstoves (63%), dust andindustrial sources (18%). Prescribed burning contributes less than 4% of the annual total.Draft EIS III - 85 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Oregon State Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-43-043) provides a specificframework for the administration of the smoke management program as administered by theState Forester. The Smoke Management Plan (SMP) instructs the State Forester and eachfield administrator to maintain a satisfactory atmospheric environment in designated areasand other areas sensitive to smoke consistent with the plan objectives and smoke driftrestrictions.The SMP establishes a set of limitations applicable to specified burning and mixingconditions. These limitations relate to tonnage of fuel per 150,000 acres, which, ideally, maybe burned under various sets of mixing conditions. Experience has shown that thesestandards are adequate to protect designated areas only under ideal conditions. Frequently, inorder to meet air quality objectives, the State Forester must apply more specific restrictionsthrough issuance of smoke management instructions.Additional detail on air quality conditions, atmospheric conditions influencing air quality andthe SMP can be found in the RRNF Fire Management Plan, and in the 2003 Upper BearAssessment (pages 3-36-38).b. Effects of No-Action AlternativeUnder No-Action, there would be no immediate impact to air quality, as no prescribedburning would occur except for identified in the Record of Decision for AWPP. There wouldbe an increase in the potential for future wildland fire events and the resultant impacts to airquality associated with large-scale wildland fires.c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Chemical Pollutants –Action AlternativesLeadThe principle source of lead emissions is the combustion of gasoline containing lead alkyladditives. Particles deposited on vegetation over decades can become re-emitted if thevegetation is burned. However, the lead content of forest fuels is negligible and is not aconcern as an air pollutant in prescribed burning.Sulfur DioxideHumans react to sulfur dioxide exposure with an increase in airway resistance. Excess sulfurdioxide can also cause cellular injury to sensitive plant species. Most forest fuels contain lessthan 0.2 percent sulfur; therefore, sulfur dioxides would be produced only in negligiblequantities during prescribed burning.Carbon MonoxideCarbon monoxide is a poisonous inhalant that deprives the body tissues of necessary oxygen.Extreme exposure (usually occurring in non-ventilated enclosures) to CO can cause death orcentral nervous system reactions such as impairment of visual acuity, brightnessdiscrimination, and psychomotor functions.Large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO) can be produced from prescribed burning.Exposure to carbon monoxide may be high for fireline workers. However, carbon monoxideis 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 concernto urban or rural areas even a short distance down wind from prescribed burning activities.Draft EIS III - 86 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Studies on the effects of smoke exposure on the respiratory systems of wildland firefightersindicate that long exposure to carbon monoxide during a fire season may result in smallchanges in lung function. The health implications of short-term exposure and potential longtermeffects have not been quantified (Mangan 1994).Nitrogen OxidesThe formations of oxides of nitrogen occur at temperatures not normally found in prescribedburning. Generally, wildland burning is considered an insignificant contributor of nitrogenoxide emissions.OzoneOzone is a secondary pollutant formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds withoxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. Prescribed burning emits volatile organiccompounds, which can react with urban sources of nitrogen to form ozone. In sufficientquantities, ozone can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation in humans.d. Direct and Indirect Effects of Particulate Matter –Action AlternativesParticulate matter (PM) may cause a toxic effect on humans in the following ways: 1) theparticulate may be intrinsically toxic because of its chemical and/or physical characteristics,2) the particle may interfere with one or more of the mechanisms which normally clear therespiratory tract, 3) the particle may act as a carrier for an absorbed toxic substance. Medicalstudies have shown a relationship between increases in particulate concentrations and rises inthe number of clinic and hospital visits for upper respiratory infections, cardiac diseases,bronchitis, asthma, pneumonia, and emphysema.Particulate matter standards were originally promulgated in 1971 and measured totalsuspended particulate matter (TSP). Later studies indicated that most of the adverse healtheffects caused by particulate matter were caused by the fine, inhalable particles, smaller than10 microns in aerodynamic diameter, referred to as PM 10 . Presently, standards are beingdeveloped for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM 2.5 . These standardsare expected to be finalized and administratively implemented within the next several years.PM 10 Conformity CalculationsApplicability analysis under 40 CFR (51.853) for annual rates of PM 10 particulates werecompleted for all Action Alternatives and is summarized below (Table III-24). This tabledisplays a range of estimated tons produced due to the variability of existing and createdfuels throughout the areas to be treated.Table III-24. Estimated Tons of PM 10 Produced by AlternativeProposedActionCommunityAlternativeYears1-2Years3-4Years5-6Years7-8TotalAnnualAverage183.7 - 486.5 254.8 - 628.8 228.1 - 535.6 182.8 - 445.1 894.4 - 2096.0 106.2 - 262.0128.1 -342.9 200.8 - 488.3 189.2 - 436.2 151.2 - 360.2 669.2 - 1627.5 83.7 - 203.4Draft EIS III - 87 Ashland Forest Resiliency

PM 2.5 Conformity CalculationsAn analysis of PM 2.5 using EPA approved emission factors was completed for all ActionAlternatives and is summarized below (Table III-25). The table displays a range of estimatedtons produced due to the variability of existing and created fuels throughout the areas to betreated.Table III-25. Estimated Tons of PM 2.5 Produced by AlternativeProposedActionCommunityAlternativeYears1-2Years3-4Years5-6Years7-8TotalAnnualAverage173.3 - 459.1 240.5 - 593.4 215.2 - 505.4 172.6 - 420.1 849.4 - 2096.0 100.2 - 247.3120.9 - 323.6 189.5 - 460.8 178.5 - 411.6 142.7 - 339.9 631.5 - 1535.9 78.9 - 192.0Practices that would be employed to reduce emissions include burning concentrations of fuel(jackpot-burning) rather that the entire areas, burning when the fuel moistures are high(particularly in large fuels such as down logs), burning within four drying months oftreatment when live fuel moisture is present in large fuels, burning when the duff is wet(during spring or within 5 days of measurable rain), using rapid ignition to achieve a highintensity fire, and further utilization of material prior to burning, i.e., firewood.The burning of piled fuels can further optimize combustion, particularly when the amount ofdirt in piles is minimized. The prompt “mopping up” of fires after the flames havediminished further reduces the amount of particulate matter produced.e. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesPrescribed burning is a component of each of the Action Alternatives. Since all burningwould be prescribed and controlled, there would be ample opportunity to schedule burningwhen the atmospheric conditions are optimal for smoke dispersal. Likewise, there would bean opportunity to limit the size of burning events to control emissions. It is expected thatnone of the Action Alternatives would result in a violation of National Ambient Air QualityStandards, or an appreciable reduction in air quality related values.Wildland fires are naturally occurring events, and can be responsible for emissions ofsubstantial amounts of pollutants, particularly CO and particulates. Management activitiessuch as proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are attempting to minimize the risk oflarge-scale fires. Minimizing this risk subsequently reduces the risk of large, uncontrolled airemissions. Activities designed to minimize the risk of conflagrations through prescribedburning and surface fuel/ladder fuel reduction may lead to temporary increases in airemissions. However, these emissions are smaller in volume than natural fires, and can bescheduled to take advantage of favorable meteorological conditions.Current trends in human activity within the region are anticipated to continue over the life ofthe project. Population growth and an associated increase in vehicle miles driven areanticipated 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 phasingout of lead gasoline additives and the reduction in the volume of logging slash burned havecontributed to improvements in air quality.Draft EIS III - 88 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Neither the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, nor thehazardous fuels reduction proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are considered likely tolead to a violation of NAAQS, either independently, or if implemented simultaneously.Therefore, while controlled burns may increase the incidence of emissions, they are unlikelyto increase the incidence of violations of applicable air quality standards. These events areconsidered to be independent of any action proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency andare therefore likely to proceed independent of this evaluation and approval process. Whilethe anticipated effects disclosed under the direct and indirect effects discussion to air qualitymay result in a minor increase in air emissions, they are minor in comparison to the ongoingeffects of human occupation within the region, and insignificant either alone, or whenconsidered in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.4. WindthrowDensity management or other treatments could change environmental conditions for residualtrees causing shock (change in light conditions), and/or lead to increased wind throw (treesbroken off or uprooted by wind).This issue is based on the concern for residual trees remaining after treatments that reducedensity, tree spacing and crown spacing that could cause trees to experience a change in lightconditions, causing shock (or death), and/or break off or be uprooted by wind (termedwindthrow).a. BackgroundAny treatments that open up currently dense stands, could cause the residual trees in thesestands to experience poor health, due to change in light conditions, for which these trees arenot adapted. This change could cause shock or death to individual or groups of trees.The topography of the Analysis Area (steep and highly divided) moderates the effects ofnormal storm events. Incidents of toppled trees were observed across the entire AshlandRanger District following the winter of 1995/96 as a result of heavy snowfall. In the AshlandWatershed, areas of toppled trees were observed along road cut banks and drainages wherethe ground was saturated and could not withstand the extra weight of heavy wet snow. The1962 Columbus Day storm resulted in massive wind damage across the inland valleys ofwestern Oregon. Storms of this magnitude are unusual, but if they occurred again couldresult in large amounts of windthrow within the Analysis Area.b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeUnder this alternative, there would be no change from current conditions. Theimplementation of AWPP could enact density management treatments, however the level ofthinning and the extent of treatments were not found to be substantial under the AWPP FEIS.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeWindthrow and effects from shock are an indirect effect of density management treatments.The risk of windthrow increases as stands become more open, and are subjected to wind flowconditions that are different than the current conditions.Draft EIS III - 89 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Common to both Action Alternatives and associated with density management and relativestand density index is a design element that staggers or “stages” density managementtreatments (see Chapter II, Section C, 3, b). This element is designed to allow time for rootdevelopment (wind firmness) in residual trees. This element would also facilitate a drasticchange in light conditions that could cause tree shock. Quality and vigor of the trees to beretained would help determine the need for staging under density management to obtaindesired relative densities.The Community Alternative would create more open stands on ridges, but the staging designelement would allow residual trees to develop windfirm-ness and resistance to shock beforebeing opened up to the designed density levels. The Proposed Action would not initiallyopen up stands to the same degree on ridges, and within DFPZs. This difference however, isprobably negligible between the Action Alternatives.There are no real cumulative effects from foreseeable actions, as treatments would only beassociated with Ashland Forest Resiliency. Untreated AWPP areas may be treated underAshland Forest Resiliency, however, they would not be treated under both projects. There isa cumulative, but insignificant effect of multiple treatments under Ashland Forest Resiliency,i.e., density management, followed by activity fuel treatments, followed by maintenancebroadcast burning. These cumulative effects do not create significant risk or threat ofincreased shock or windthrow.5. Ashland Research Natural AreaHazardous fuel treatments may affect the Ashland Research Natural Area; some people mayvalue this area for undisturbed and unique or scientific character. Treatments could alsoaffect forest species composition and natural variability (ecological sustainability) in theResearch Natural Area.A vegetation management recommendation identified in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessmentincludes enacting treatments that maintain and/or encourage natural species diversity.“Ecological sustainability” is a term developed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment as part of theValues At Risk analysis in reference to the ability to maintain past vegetative conditions(biological diversity) within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Loss of pine species is the elementof biological diversity of particular concern. The Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA) wasestablished as a representative area for ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir plant communities, and isthe focus of this recommendation.Ecological sustainability refers to the ability to maintain past vegetative conditions (biologicaldiversity) within the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The definition of Ecological Sustainability fromthe 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 andthe productive capability of ecological systems.” An important element of this value in thisAnalysis Area is the conservation of large ponderosa pine, and pine species in general, as part ofthe species diversity. Although pine species generally occur throughout the Analysis Area, theResearch Natural Area (RNA) was established as a representative area for ponderosa pine andDouglas-fir.Draft EIS III - 90 Ashland Forest Resiliency

a. BackgroundAccording to the Establishment Report for this area (Establishment Report for the AshlandResearch Natural Area, Rogue River National Forest, 1970), the Ashland Research NaturalArea contains 1,408 acres of predominantly ponderosa pine and mixed ponderosa pine –Douglas-fir forest types. It is located in a steep mountain valley (lower drainage of the EastFork of Ashland Creek). The purpose of setting aside this tract was to provide anundisturbed example of Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir for: (1) scientific andeducational study of ecological processes, successional trends, and environmentalrelationships of these types; (2) a control site for comparison with others influenced byhumans and (3) a gene pool and preserve for plant and animal species within the tract. Theobjective of management in the natural area is to maintain natural conditions within the tractfor scientific and educational study.The Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1990 provides thatmaintenance of natural processes within the area will be the prime consideration. Thelandscape will consist of naturally established patterns of vegetation and areas will beprotected to preserve the natural features for scientific purposes and natural processesallowed to dominate. The Director of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Forest and RangeExperiment Station must approve management activities. When conflicts exist betweenRNAs and other resources, the conflict will be resolved in favor of the RNA.The 2003 Upper Bear Assessment identified that the RNA is experiencing a general declinein the ponderosa and sugar pine component, especially in the larger tree size class. LargeDouglas-fir trees have experienced heavy mortality also, especially on drier sites. Theincrease in tree mortality is contributing to an increase in fire hazard. The fire risk andhazard in the RNA is moderate to high. Approximately 77% of the RNA is in PlantAssociation Groups 1407 and 1408. These PAGs are rated at high risk for insect and diseaseinfestations. They also have a very high probability of undergoing a stand replacement fire,and there is a moderate to high risk for landslides and erosion.b. Direct Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeThe RNA was originally established in 1970 to represent “Pacific” ponderosa pine andponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forests in a steep, granitic mountain valley of southwesternOregon’s Eastern Siskiyou Mountains. While the role of fire in maintaining most of theRNA stands in a seral or late-seral condition was recognized at the time of establishment, thetruly dangerous and destructive effects of fire exclusion in the area were not completelyunderstood. Fire exclusion over the last 100 years, especially the last 50, has clearly alteredthe stands in the RNA, resulting in an unnatural and dangerous build-up of standing anddown 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).Draft EIS III - 91 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Under this alternative, current conditions would continue. The RNA is in need of restoration.The large, 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 canburn through the area without leading to crown fires. The PNW Forest and RangeExperiment Station supports the use of thinning and removal of wood, prescribed burning,and clearing around large, healthy pines and Douglas-firs. The ponderosa and sugar pines inthe RNA have especially important ecological value (Sarah Greene pers. com. 2004).Proposed ActionThe treatments for the RNA under the Proposed Action are designed to selectively removecompetition to existing large ponderosa or sugar pine and Douglas-fir to create conditionsthat would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Approximately 1,300 acres areproposed for treatment. Variable density management, prescribed burning and other surfacefuel reduction treatments are options that would encourage more natural species diversity anda more fire resilient forest. Stands in these compartments would be thinned from below to arelative stand density of 0.2 – 0.3, followed by treatment of all existing or activity createdfuels to resemble a Fuel Model 8 or 9. Treatments would be designed to achieve a flamelength of 4-6 feet under 90 th percentile weather conditions.Prescribed underburning is proposed as routine maintenance after variable densitymanagement treatments, as a complementary method that would encourage more naturalregeneration of pines and sustain the pine ecosystem. An underburn would occurapproximately 10 years following the thinning to maintain stand conditions.The Proposed Action proposes to put a DFPZ through a small portion (approximately 30acres) of the northern portion of the RNA. If there is a need for this in the overall watershedstrategy, and if the DFPZ concept is adopted, the effects are acceptable according to thePNW Forest and Range Experiment Station. The station would work “hand in hand” withthe district in developing the implementation strategy (Sarah Greene pers. com. 2004).Community AlternativeSome areas previously treated within the RNA need maintenance to remain effective. Underthis alternative, areas that received fuel reduction treatment in the past were originallygrouped within Category 1, but after further consideration, it was determined at least somewould need to be treated because of their current or near-term future need for maintenance toretain conditions that support low crown fire potential, and satisfy other stated goals.Treatments may include follow-up understory slashing, prescribed burning or silviculturalthinning.Within the RNA, lower elevation southerly and westerly slopes on the upper two-thirds ofhillsides and ridges, typically support open mixed stands of oaks and madrone, largeDouglas-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 mixedconifer stands are a high priority for understory thinning from below and around these legacytrees to restore their fire resiliency by improving the survivorship of the legacy trees (withinthe RNA) in a subsequent wildland fire.Draft EIS III - 92 Ashland Forest Resiliency

While the Community Alternative does not specifically address the RNA, fuels would bereduced and the density of the smaller trees would be thinned to re-establish more openconditions that would have occurred, had fire suppression not affected stand structure.Approximately 520 acres within the RNA would be treated under the CommunityAlternative. Historically these areas were prone to relatively frequent (yet variable) wildlandfire of low and mixed fire intensity and severity that killed predominantly young trees, whilelarger trees more frequently survived. The intended manual treatments are designed toreestablish horizontal discontinuity in dead and live fuels, removing the abundance of youngrecruits that have established and grown in the long fire-free interval.c. Indirect Effects of Action AlternativesUnder both Action Alternatives, the decline in large pine species and large Douglas-fir wouldslow to a stop and regeneration of pine would increase as competition for light and water isreduced. Opening up stands would allow pine and fir to be more resistant to insects anddisease, and density related mortality. The RNA would trend back toward the plantcommunity for which it was established.The visitor that walks through the RNA would encounter a range in forest conditions fromclosed dense stands of timber to open park-like areas. Evidence of management would beapparent from the stumps remaining and the signs of prescribed burning such as blackenedareas of ground where piles were burned and broadcast burning was applied. These signs ofburning would not be evident with 2 years as new litter from the overstory covers them.Some scorched trees are expected to be evident. The average size of trees in the stand wouldbe 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 burnedby wildland fire would likely be smaller. Wildland fires, if they occurred in the RNA, wouldbe less intense, as much of the fuel would have been removed.d. Cumulative Effects of AlternativesManagement in the RNA has included some prescribed burning, accomplished in the 1980s.This treatment is not effective today, and fuel loading is once again high. There is littleobvious evidence of that treatment today. Both Action Alternatives would enact treatmentsthat would occur on the same area as these previous treatments. AWPP does not proposetreatments in the RNA, and would therefore not be cumulative.In some ways, what is proposed under Ashland Fire Resiliency is driven by social values –what is it that “we” want for the Ashland Watershed? Reeder Reservoir seems to be the onemajor feature that all agree must be protected at any cost, therefore it is clearly a socialconstruct that is driving what is done biologically in the Ashland Watershed. People willlikely differ considerably on how they think that should be done and how it should look onthe landscape, within the RNA.This philosophical debate also surfaces in light of whether human treatments are necessary ina “natural” area, designed for research and study, e.g., a Research Natural Area. To some,management should not be part of the RNA; to others, management is clearly needed tomaintain the conditions for which the RNA was established. There is also debate as to howintensive treatments should be, and with how much of the RNA area should be treated.Draft EIS III - 93 Ashland Forest Resiliency

6. Other Insect Infestations and Tree DiseasesActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments (especially density management ofvegetation) may affect the risk of tree mortality due to other insects and diseases.In addition to pine bark beetles and flatheaded fir borers discussed above, a number of otherinsects and diseases affect the health of trees within the Upper Bear Analysis Area to lesserdegrees. These include:• Four species of dwarf mistletoe, Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii),western dwarf mistletoe (A. campylopodum), white fir dwarf mistletoe (A. abietinum 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)a. BackgroundThe dwarf mistletoes occurring in the Analysis Area are very host specific: Douglas-fir dwarfmistletoe 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 Shastared fir. The dwarf mistletoes are higher plants that are obligate parasites, growing on andobtaining 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 in theAnalysis Area, Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe has the greatest impact on infected hosts. Itbecomes systemic, induces formation of very large “witch’s brooms,” and is particularlydebilitating to health of individual trees.All dwarf mistletoes spread by forcibly discharged seeds. Spread and intensification isgreatest in multistoried stands with major components of the particular dwarf mistletoe’s hostin both the understory and overstory. Dwarf mistletoes have probably been favored by fireexclusion since it fosters stand conditions favorable for spread.White pine blister rust is an introduced disease that affects all five-needle pines. It causesresinous cankers that girdle host stems, killing small hosts outright and weakening largerhosts by killing tops and branches. The causal pathogen has a complex life cycle thatinvolves five spore stages and requires two hosts for completion (an alternate host in thegenus Ribes as well as a five-needle pine). Some spore forms are capable of spreading verylong distances via wind and most spore forms are greatly favored by moist conditions. Thedisease is most evident following years with moist conditions in late summer and fall, andtends to be more severe on wet than dry micro-sites.Draft EIS III - 94 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Laminated root rot is a disease of the site. The causal pathogen survives for protracted timeperiods in infected roots in soil and infects new hosts when their roots contact inoculum onold roots. The fungus then extensively decays susceptible host roots, causing the trees to bewindthrown or killing them by disrupting their ability to transport water and nutrients.Within the Analysis Area, Douglas-fir and white fir are highly susceptible to the disease,readily infected by the pathogen when growing in disease centers, and usually killed wheninfected. Pines, cedars, and hardwoods are resistant or immune and can grow in root rotpockets with little likelihood of damage.Fir engraver beetle is the main bark beetle that affects true firs. In the Analysis Area, itprefers stressed hosts, especially those weakened by root disease or drought. Unlike the barkbeetles of pines and the flatheaded fir borer, it is not influenced by stand density, and densityreduction treatments have little or no impact on its occurrence.Douglas-fir beetle occurs in the Analysis Area, but plays a secondary role to flatheaded firborer in killing Douglas-fir there. Douglas-fir beetle prefers very weak hosts and is mostsuccessful in root-diseased, fire-injured, or windthrown trees. When large amounts ofpreferred host material suddenly become available (for example after a major windstorm orwildland 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 theAnalysis Area. Douglas-fir beetles are not greatly influenced by stand densities, and standdensity reduction projects have little or no impact on them.b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesThe diseases and insects mentioned in this section certainly affect trees, but their impacts, inmost cases, would be similar between the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives.None are greatly influenced by stand densities. The Action Alternatives would providelimited opportunities to physically remove hosts of the various pathogens and insects andfavor non-hosts in affected areas that are being thinned. This might be particularly valuablein stands with Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe or laminated root rot. Thinning could alsoinfluence stand structure in dwarf mistletoe infected stands and decrease spread by makingstands less multistoried.The Community Alternative places special emphasis on Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe; seeChapter III, Section C, 5, c). The Community Alternative proposes to discriminate againstdwarf mistletoe-infected Douglas-fir in thinning except in cases where dwarf mistletoeinfectedtrees are providing important wildlife values. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe hassubstantial impacts on host vigor and survival and also may influence fire behavior byinducing large brooms low in the crowns of infected hosts.Draft EIS III - 95 Ashland Forest Resiliency

7. Terrestrial Wildlife - ESA Listed, Forest Service Sensitive andNWFP SpeciesHazardous fuel treatments could affect terrestrial species listed or proposed under theEndangered Species Act, and could affect Sensitive terrestrial animal species listed by theForest Service, or certain cavity nesting birds associated with the Northwest Forest Plan.In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(1973 et seq.) and the ForestService Biological Evaluation process for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) wildlifespecies, the list of species potentially occurring within the Upper Bear Analysis Area wasreviewed. Lists for the RR-SNF and the Pacific Northwest Region (R6) were reviewed in regardto potential effects on any of these species by actions associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency.Pre-field and reconnaissance results are summarized in Table III-26 and Table III-27.This Section of the DEIS also includes discussion on Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) species thathave special management recommendations and Standards and Guidelines.a. BackgroundTable III-26. Terrestrial Wildlife TES Species PresenceWildlife SpeciesPre-field Review Field SurveysScientific NameExisting Sighting or Habitat or(Common name)Potential Habitat Species PresentThreatened SpeciesNorthern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Yes YesNorthern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes YesCanada Lynx Lynx canadensis No NoSensitive SpeciesBlack Salamander Aneides flavipunctatus Yes YesSiskiyou Mtn. Salamander Plethodon stormi No NoOregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa No NoNorthwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata Yes YesCommon Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula No NoAmerican Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum No NoGray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii No NoTri-colored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor No NoBlack Swift Cypseloides niger No NoRed-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Yes YesHorned Grebe Podiceps auritus Yes YesBufflehead Bucephala albeola Yes YesPacific Shrew Sorex pacificus cascadensis Yes YesPacific Fringe-tailed Bat Myotis thysanodes vespertinus Yes NoPacific Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus pacificus Yes NoTownsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Yes YesWolverine Gulo gulo Yes NoPacific Fisher Martes pennanti Yes YesChace Sideband Monadenia chaceana Yes YesEvening Field Slug Deroceras hesperium No NoCrater Lake Tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum crateris No NoDraft EIS III - 96 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Table III-27. Terrestrial Wildlife NWFP Species PresenceWildlife Species(Common name)Scientific NameNWFP SpeciesPre-field ReviewExisting Sighting orPotential HabitatField SurveysHabitat orSpecies PresentWhite-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Yes YesBlack-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus No NoPygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea No NoFlammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Yes YesHabitat does not exist within the Analysis Area for the following Forest Service Sensitivespecies or NWFP species. These species are not discussed further within this DEIS; seeWildlife Biological Evaluation, DEIS Appendix F for more information.Plethodon stormiLampropeltis getulaFalco peregrinus anatumEmpidonax wrightiiAgelaius tricoloCypseloides nigerPicoides arcticusSitta pygmaeaDeroceras hesperiumPristiloma arcticum craterisSiskiyou Mountain salamanderCommon kingsnakePeregrine falconGray flycatcherTricolored blackbirdBlack swiftBlack-backed woodpeckerPygmy nuthatchEvening fieldslugCrater Lake tightcoilKnown species occurrence or suitable habitat may occur within the Analysis Area for thefollowing species, and is summarized in the DEIS; also see Wildlife Biological Evaluation,DEIS Appendix F for more information.Strix occidentalis caurinaHaliaeetus leucocephalusLynx canadensisAneides flavipunctatusClemmys marmorata marmorataPodiceps grisegenaPodiceps auritusBucephala albeolaSorex pacificus cascadensisMyotis thysanodes vespertinusAntrozous pallidus pacificusCorynorhinus townsendiiGulo gulo luteusMartes pennantiMonadenia chaceanaPicoides albolarvatusOtus flammeolusNorthern spotted owlNorthern bald eagleCanada lynxBlack SalamanderNorthwestern pond turtleRed-necked grebeHorned grebeBuffleheadPacific shrewPacific fringe-tailed batPacific pallid batTownsend’s big-eared batCalifornia wolverinePacific fisherChace’s sidebandWhite-headed woodpeckerFlammulated owlDraft EIS III - 97 Ashland Forest Resiliency

. Species DiscussionESA Listed SpeciesNorthern Spotted OwlSeveral northern spotted owl pairs are known to exist within the Analysis Area. This speciesand effects to its habitat are discussed in Significant Issue 6, this Chapter. Also see WildlifeBiological Evaluation, DEIS Appendix F for more information.Bald EagleAn active bald eagle nest (Nest 1034) is located east of the Analysis Area on BLM managedlands around Immigrant Lake. The nest is located in a dominant ponderosa pine within theSlide Creek drainage (V. Arthur, pers. com.). A Bald Eagle Consideration Area (BECA)encompasses a portion of Forest Service managed lands within the Analysis Area within theNeil 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 baldeagle was observed roosting in the Neil Creek drainage in 1994, and adult eagles wereobserved flying toward the Neil Creek drainage several times during the evening. It isunknown whether eagles roost in the drainage, use it to access the nest stand, or both (Poppand Isaacs 1995).Bald eagles are fairly tolerant of human activity, but high level noise or disturbance candissuade them from important breeding area or winter roost sites, particularly during theearly nesting season. Individual pairs have widely variable responses to disturbance.Seasonal and distance protection are generally effective in reducing adverse impacts ofhuman disturbance activity to bald eagles. Habitat protection is generally effective if largetrees that support nesting and roosting are maintained within the nesting or wintering standand any disruptive activity is scheduled outside of sensitive periods (USDA Forest Service;USDI FWS 2003).Canada LynxIn late February of 2000, agreement was reached between the Forest Service (RegionalOffice in Portland) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding presence of lynx on theRogue River National Forest (RRNF). The results of that agreement are based on theposition of the USDA Forest Service that the RRNF is not considered to have suitable lynxhabitat. The RRNF was therefore not included in the Lynx Conservation Assessment andStrategy (Ruediger et al. 2000), and is not subject to consultation/conferencing for thisspecies under the ESA.The reasons for not including the RRNF with the conservation strategy are; 1) A paucity ofinformation, derived from historical records, concerning lynx on the west slope of theCascade Mountains in southern Oregon, 2) the extremely limited amount of habitat identifiedby the lynx habitat model, 3) the lack of habitats known to be used by lynx, and 4) thegeographic location of the RRNF in the overall range of lynx. Historic and current records oflynx occurrence in Oregon, and specifically the RRNF, is very limited with no verifiedrecords of occurrence on the Forest (McKelvey et al. 2000). Canada lynx will not bediscussed further within this document.Draft EIS III - 98 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Forest Service Sensitive SpeciesBlack SalamanderThe black salamander ranges from a limited distribution in southern Oregon into Santa Cruzand Santa Clara Counties, California. In Oregon, the few records available indicate a smallrange in extreme southern Jackson and southeastern Josephine Counties (Leonard et al.1993). Black salamanders are found in coniferous forests, mixed deciduous-coniferousforests, and open hillsides from sea level up to at least 1,700 meters in elevation (Nussbaumet al. 1983). Black salamanders are most likely to be found in the moist crevices of decayinglogs 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 collectionwere tentatively identified as black salamander by Dr. Stephen Cross. These specimens weretaken in May 1971 from a mine shaft along the eastern border of the RNA (Cross 1973). Sixindividuals (1 adult male, 2 adult females, 1 subadult, 2 juveniles) were located by ForestService and FWS biologists conducting herptile surveys for the Ashland Forest Resiliencyproject in April 2004. The adults and sub-adult were located under a large boulder and thejuveniles were found under debris associated with a large downed log. All of the individualswere found within a 10 meter radius within a dry, fairly open site.Northwestern Pond TurtleThe northwestern pond turtle occurs in both perennial and intermittent waters includingmarshes, sloughs, moderately deep ponds, and slow-moving portions of creeks and rivers(Brown et al. 1995, Nussbaum et al. 1983). They favor habitats with large amounts ofemergent logs or boulders, where they aggregate to bask (Brown et al. 1995).Pond turtles are known to occur in the ponds at Lithia Park and potential habitat exists atReeder Reservoir.Red-necked and Horned GrebesThe red-necked grebe breeds from the British Isles east to Siberia, and in N. America fromcentral Alaska south and southeast through the Yukon to eastern Oregon and Idaho east toManitoba (Spencer 2003). The red-necked grebe’s breeding habitat consists of extensiveclear, deep-water marshy lakes and ponds in timbered regions (Spencer 2003). Adult diet iscomposed of small fish, aquatic and terrestrial insects and their larvae, tadpoles, salamanders,crustaceans, mollusks, and aquatic worms. The only consistent breeding population inOregon consists of 5-20 birds at Rocky Point in the Upper Klamath Lake NWR (Spencer2003).The horned grebe is holarctic in distribution. In Oregon, it is a rare breeder and all knownnest are east of the Cascades. Diet is similar to red-necked grebe. The horned grebe is anuncommon spring and fall transient on lakes, reservoirs, and large rivers west of theCascades, and uncommon to common east of the Cascades (Spencer 2003).Both red-necked and horned grebes may use Reeder Reservoir for resting during migration inlate spring or fall. These species were not recorded during point-count surveys conducted byKlamath Bird Observatory for Ashland Forest Resiliency.Draft EIS III - 99 Ashland Forest Resiliency

BuffleheadThere are isolated breeding populations of bufflehead in Washington, Oregon, California,Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Gauthier 1993). In winter, the high densities are foundalong the Pacific and Atlantic coasts (Gauthier 1993). Breeding habitat is primarily infreshwater, permanent ponds with no outlet or only seasonal outflow, and small lakes. Largelakes are avoided except by molting flocks. In the interior of British Columbia, ponds usedfor nesting have only a small fringe of emergent vegetation (sometimes none at all) along theshore. Ponds with extensive emergent or submergent vegetation avoided (Gauthier 1993).There are no records of bufflehead nesting in SW Oregon, however, they are known to winterin the area (N. Barrett, pers. com.).Buffleheads winter at Fish Lake on the eastern portion of the Ashland Ranger District, and onLost Creek and Willow lakes in Jackson County (N. Barrett, pers. com.). Reeder Reservoirprovides wintering habitat for bufflehead and it is likely that they occur there during thewinter months.Pacific ShrewBailey (1936) indicated that this species is often found in moist wooded areas with fallendecaying logs and brushy vegetation. Maser et al. (1981) described occupied habitat forPacific shrew as identical to the fog shrew; alder-salmonberry, riparian alder and skunkcabbage marsh habitats; the species is less often found in the mature conifer and immatureconifer habitats.Suitable habitat exists within the Analysis Area. Two specimens were collected within theRNA in the Ashland Watershed and are in collections at Southern Oregon University (Vertsand Carraway 1998).Pacific Fringe-tailed BatMiller and Allen (1928) (as reported by Verts and Carraway 1998) considered M. thysanodesa cave-dwelling bat, even though most of the specimens they examined were from buildings.It appears to be adapted to living in areas with diverse vegetative substrate.Fringe-tailed myotis are known to occur within the Analysis Area. Cross et al. (1997)reported capturing two M. thysanodes (1 male, 1 female) within the Ashland Watershedduring August.Pacific Pallid BatPallid bats are known to occur throughout SW Oregon and NW California. Suitable roosthabitat types include buildings, bridges, rock outcrops, and large decadent snags. Pallid batshave been captured from several sites on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest,including some locations on the Applegate Ranger District. They have also been captured ata site just south of Pilot Rock at 4,500 feet in elevation, southwest of the Analysis Area (D.Clayton pers. obs.).Pallid bats are known to roost under loose bark of large snags and within rock crevices (D.Clayton, pers. com.). Dr. Stephen Cross sampled for bat species in 1973 near the AshlandCreek 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 RNA (Cross et al.1997). Pallid bats were not detected with either effort.Draft EIS III - 100 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Cross (1973) considered expected presence of pallid bats to be marginal or uncommon withinthe RNA. However, surveys conducted by Cross sampled only a small portion of theAnalysis Area. Based on documented presence of pallid bats at both Applegate RD and PilotRock, and the presence of large, decadent snags for roosting, pallid bats may occur within theAnalysis Area.Townsend’s Big-eared BatTownsend’s big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitats, its distribution tends to begeomorphically determined and is strongly correlated with the availability of caves or cavelikeroosting habitat (e.g., old mines) (Pierson et al. 1999). The species may also use hollowtrees for roosting. Suitable roosts sites and hibernacula fall within a specific range oftemperature 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 potentialroost/maternity sites for Townsend’s big-eared bats. Lamb mine is near a trail and isfrequented by recreational users which makes it unavailable for C. townsendii because theyare highly susceptible to disturbance. The Ashland Loop Mine has a gate on it whichprecludes human use, but needs to be re-configured to allow easier access and reduce thepotential for predation. Cross et al. (1997) surveyed both mines in 1997 and C. townsendiiwere not captured.California WolverineMarshall (1989) described wolverine habitat in Oregon as similar to what was described byHornocker and Hash (1981) in Montana. In Montana, wolverines selected alpine fir (Abieslasiocarpa) forests over ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii) and spruce (Picea sp.), but showed some preference for lodgepole pine (Pinuscontorta) and western larch (Larix occidentalis). Wolverines tended to work large areas ofscattered conifers but also pockets, rocky, and ecotonal areas. Young, dense conifer standswere used least. Wolverines were rarely located in burned-over or wet areas, and crossed butdid not linger in clear-cuts (Hornocker and Hash 1981).Status of the wolverine in Oregon remains unknown. There are very few verifiable recordsfor the State (Verts and Carraway 1998), none of which come from Jackson or JosephineCounties. Numerous carnivore surveys and a considerable amount of carnivore researchhave been conducted in southern Oregon and northern California in the past decade. Theseinclude, but are not limited to, over 150 baited camera stations on the Cascade Zone of theRRNF, numerous baited stations on the Diamond Lake R.D. of the Umpqua N.F., andsurveys in the Ashland Watershed by agency biologists and private individuals incooperation with the BLM, Southern Oregon University, and Forest Service. Radiotelemetrystudies have been conducted on marten in northwestern California and on theWinema National Forest, and radio-telemetry studies have been conducted on fisher innorthwestern California and the southern Oregon Cascades. All of these efforts have usedcarrion as bait, none have detected wolverine.Draft EIS III - 101 Ashland Forest Resiliency

In addition, the Winema, Umpqua, and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests have beenconducting helicopter surveys in the Sky Lakes and Thielsen Wilderness areas for the past 3years, which provide the highest quality wolverine denning habitat in southern Oregon basedon known den sites (Magoun and Copeland 1998) and a wolverine den habitat model (Hart etal. 1997). Wolverine dens or tracks have not been detected with this effort. Since virtuallyall studies of wolverines have shown their dependence on carrion as forage, and wolverinesare known to den at high elevation at or above timberline, it appears highly unlikely thatwolverines are resident in southern Oregon and northern California at the present time.Wolverines are known to cover large areas. Dispersing individuals have the ability to enterSW Oregon from neighboring states. It is possible that wolverines will be located in SWOregon in the future.Pacific FisherPacific fisher were petitioned for listing by the Center for Biological Diversity and severalother 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) andgave a “warranted but precluded” decision to the petition, designating the West Coast DPS aFederal Candidate species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).The geographic distribution of fishers in Oregon has been greatly reduced in extent from presettlementconditions. Prior to extensive European settlement, the fisher occupied mostconiferous forest habitats in Washington, Oregon, and California (Aubry and Lewis 2003).Currently, there are two documented populations in southern Oregon which appear to begenetically isolated from each other due to the presence of potentially strong ecological andanthropogenic barriers which include the white oak savanna habitat of the Rogue Valley andInterstate 5 (Aubry et al. 2004). Individuals in the southern Oregon Cascades appear to bedescendents of animals re-introduced from British Columbia and Minnesota during the late1970s and early 1980s by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Aubry et al. 2004).Animals in the northern Siskiyou Mountains are genetically related to individuals in thenorthwestern California population, which is indigenous.The fisher is one of the most habitat-specialized mammals in western North America(Buskirk and Powell 1994). Specialization appears to be tied primarily to denning andresting habitats, because the varied diet of fishers suggests they forage in a variety ofhabitats.Fishers have been documented in the Analysis Area. While there have been no telemetrystudies of fishers in or immediately adjacent to the Analysis Area to determine home rangesof individuals, it is assumed that fishers are resident in the Ashland Watershed. During thewinter of 2001/2002, a biologist associated with Southern Oregon University (Weir 2003)located and photographed an adult Pacific fisher using carnivore bait stations which wereplaced to protocol in the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. Forest Service biologists are currentlyconducting fisher surveys on Mt. Ashland. Current surveys include a hair-snaring device.The objective of these surveys are identify the genetic relationships to determine ifindividuals from Mt. Ashland are related to the native California population or the introducedCascade population, and to identify gender. At least one individual has been detected as ofMarch 2005.Draft EIS III - 102 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Chace SidebandThe chace sideband may be found within 30 m (98 ft.) of rocky areas, talus deposits and inassociated riparian areas in the Klamath physiographic province and adjacent portions of thesouth-western Oregon Cascades. Areas of herbaceous vegetation in these rocky landscapesadjacent to forested habitats are preferred (Duncan et al. 2003).Two individual specimens were located by a contractor conducting herptile surveys forAshland Forest Resiliency. These individuals were positively identified by Nancy Duncan(Region 6 mollusk expert).Northwest Forest Plan SpeciesAs noted in DEIS Chapter I, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior proposed toremove the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines by amending 28 land and resourcemanagement plans within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service andUSDI Bureau of Land Management jointly prepared a Final Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation MeasureStandards and Guidelines. This FSEIS was completed in January 2004. A Record ofDecision was signed on March 22, 2004.The Record of Decision for the removal or modification of the Survey and ManageMitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines results in continued species diversity andconservation while at the same time reducing costs and facilitating the agencies’ ability toimplement the forest management and timber production goals of the Northwest Forest Plan.Appendix 1 to this Record of Decision deals with certain cavity-nesting birds, Canada lynx,and some bat roosts. These sections were not proposed for removal under any of thealternatives in the January 2004 Final SEIS. The standards and guidelines and managementrecommendations remain in effect.White-headed WoodpeckerThe white-headed woodpecker requires montane coniferous forests dominated by pines, withtree species composition varying geographically (Garrett e. al. 1996). In much of the range,ponderosa pine is the dominant pine; however, extensive regions dominated by ponderosapine lack white-headed woodpecker (Garrett et al. 1996). Other important species includesugar pine, lodgepole pine, white fir, incense cedar, and Douglas-fir. The majority offoraging takes place on trunks, branches, needle clusters, and cones of coniferous trees.Invertebrates and larval insects, especially ants, beetles, and scale insects form the majorityof the diet (Garrett et al. 1996). White-headed woodpeckers are known to occur on Mt.Ashland. A nest was documented near the back parking lot of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area(Norm Barrett, pers. com.). Personnel from the Klamath Bird Observatory did not documentthis species during point-count surveys in 2004. However, habitat is present in the RNA andpotential habitat occurs throughout rest of the Analysis Area.Flammulated OwlNesting has been confirmed or adults have been seen during breeding season on the eastslope of Cascades and interior ranges of Washington, Oregon, northeastern California, andwestern Nevada. In winter, the flammulated owl occurs in lowlands peripheral to breedinghabitat in September–October, sparingly November, and occasionally December (McCallum1994).Draft EIS III - 103 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Habitat is primarily open ponderosa pine or forest with similar features, e.g., dry montaneconifer or aspen forests, often with dense saplings, oak, or other brushy understory(McCallum 1994). Diet consists primarily of nocturnal arthropods, especially owlet moths(Noctuidae), beetles (Coleoptera), and crickets and grasshoppers (Orthoptera) (McCallum1994). In Oregon, adults forage more than expected by chance in stands with low to mediumstem density, also favor ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir over mixed conifers and grassland,but edge most preferred of all (Goggans 1986).Flammulated owls were not recorded during spotted owl surveys for the Ashland Watershed.However, the RNA has habitat that is similar to that described for the species, so there ispotential for occupancy within the Analysis Area. There is an unconfirmed record of thespecies near Wolf Gap in Little Applegate Drainage (G. Rible, pers. com.).c. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesESA Listed SpeciesBald EagleUnder the No-Action Alternative, there would be no proposed change in habitatcharacteristics for bald eagles. Stand-replacement wildland fire may effect eagle habitatthrough the destruction of the nest tree, or perch trees within and adjacent to the nest stand.Both Action Alternatives prescribe treatment of mid-seral stands within 1 mile of the activebald eagle nest site. These treatments would provide some added protection from wildlandfire by reducing ladder fuels under large legacy trees and snags which could be used asalternate nest trees and perches by the resident eagle pair. Removal of over-dense young andmid-aged trees around legacy trees would also reduce competition for resources and shouldincrease survival. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at currentlevels unless their retention would create a wildfire management hazard. Snags would beretained as high as possible on slopes. Snags that extend above the primary canopy, but donot extend above the level of the ridgeline would be priority for retention. Some large snagsmay be removed during implementation of the Action Alternatives if they are deemedhazardous to operations.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 convertmid-seral closed stands to mid-seral open stands. These treatments would have “no effect”to bald eagles given implementation of Mitigation Measures (Project Design Criteria -PDCs).Areas within 1 mile of the active bald eagle nest under the Community Alternative fallunder Priorities 2, 4, 5, and 9. Priorities 2, 4, and 5 prescribe treating ladder and ground fuelsto reduce competition for large legacy pines and oaks. Priority 9 are treatments withinnorthern spotted owl activity centers and are described in Chapter II, Section 5. In general,these treatments would reduce some small diameter material, but retain ≥ 60% canopyclosure where it occurs now within suitable owl habitat. The Community Alternative wouldhave “no effect” to bald eagles given implementation of Mitigation Measures (PDCs).Draft EIS III - 104 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Forest Service Sensitive SpeciesFor many R-6 Sensitive species, the effects between the two Action Alternatives are similarand do not warrant individual discussion. Both Action Alternatives would affect several ofthe R-6 Sensitive species in a similar fashion. Both Action Alternatives prescribe overstoryand understory removal, pile burning, and pruning in some areas. The primary differencesbetween the two Action Alternatives are in juxtaposition and extent.Black Salamander and Chace SidebandThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used byblack salamanders or chace sideband snail. Movement and dispersal opportunities would notbe reduced within current habitats. In the absence of large-scale wildland fire, blacksalamander and chace sideband densities would likely remain stable or increase in theAnalysis and Project Areas because decadence and decay in timbered stands would increasestructure on the forest floor.Under both Action Alternatives, the felling and leaving of large trees in areas deficient ofcoarse woody material could benefit black salamander and chace sideband by increasinghabitat and dispersal opportunities. Removal of overstory canopy would increase solarradiation in treated stands and create less desirable habitats than current conditions, due toincreased temperatures at ground level.Fire has proven to be detrimental for mollusks. The initial fire kills the slow-moving animalsthat are not deeply buried in the soil or large wood pieces. Fire removes fuels that wouldserve as habitat or forage sites for mollusks. Some black salamanders may be able to escapethe initial effects of fire if they are in proximity to underground escape routes that are deepenough to provide protection from the heat. Piling of surface fuels would likely attract somespecies of mollusks and salamanders because they provide suitable surrogate habitats overthe short-term. Piles are generally left for at least one season to dry and cure prior toburning. Some individuals would be lost when the piles are burned. Underburning wouldhave an adverse effect on both 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 and chace sideband, both Action Alternatives “may adversely impactindividuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (RogueRiver 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 individualsand prescribed burning operations may cause mortality in individuals and would reducemovement and dispersal opportunities.Northwestern Pond TurtleThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used bynorthwestern pond turtles.Reeder Reservoir provides the only potential habitat within the Analysis Area. Pond turtleswere 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).Draft EIS III - 105 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Action Alternatives would not modify habitat for the northwestern pond turtle. Thereservoir has very few basking sites currently available. There is potential to increasebasking sites by placing logs in the reservoir if they do not interfere with operationsassociated with the City of Ashland’s water supply. Both Action Alternatives have “noimpact” to northwestern pond turtle.Red-necked and Horned Grebes, and BuffleheadThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by R-6Sensitive grebes or bufflehead.Both grebe species only use waterbodies in SW Oregon for rest sites during migrations, thebufflehead is resident on SW Oregon ponds and lakes during winter (N. Barrett, pers. com.).The effects to all three of these species for both Action Alternatives are limited todisturbance during implementation of harvest in units near Reeder Reservoir. Humanactivities associated with hazardous fuel reduction treatments “may adversely impactindividuals, 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 all threespecies, due to disturbance.Pacific ShrewThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used byPacific shrews.It is not clear exactly what type of riparian habitats Pacific shrews occupy. Verts andCarraway describe habitats used by Pacific shrews as those which have alder and skunkcabbage in their species composition. These habitats are not common in the Analysis Area,but at least 2 individuals from the RNA are in specimen collections at SOU (Verts andCarraway 1998). Therefore, it must be assumed that Pacific shrew occupy all riparianhabitats within the Project and Analysis Areas.Under the Proposed Action there are approximately 1,400 acres of treatments withinRiparian Reserves. Within these treatments, there are 565 acres of density management, 230acres of underburning, and 505 acres of surface fuel treatments (pile and burn). Treatmentsassociated with the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely toresult in a loss of viability on the planning area, (RRNF), nor cause a trend to federallisting or a loss of species viability range wide” because removal of canopy may change themicroclimate of riparian areas which shrews occupy, and fuels treatments andimplementation during hazardous fuel reduction treatments may cause mortality in someindividuals.Under the Community Alternative there are approximately 507 acres of treatments withinRiparian Reserves. Treatments associated with the Community Alternative “may adverselyimpact 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”because removal of canopy may change the microclimate of riparian areas which shrewsoccupy, and fuels treatments and implementation during hazardous fuel reduction treatmentsmay cause mortality in some individuals.Draft EIS III - 106 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Fringe-tailed, Pallid, and Townsend’s Big-eared BatsThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used byfringe-tailed, pallid, or Townsend’s big-eared bat.Snags that have exfoliating bark serve as important roost sites for both fringe-tailed andpallid bats. Under both Action Alternatives, snag levels on lower slopes would be retainedat the upper one-third of the range for that PAG. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levelswould be retained at current levels unless their retention would create a wildfire managementhazard. Both Action Alternatives would retain down logs within the upper one-third of therange for down logs for that PAG.Some snags would be felled during implementation of harvest if they represent a hazard tooperations. If snags that extend above the level of the ridgeline may be removed if they havethe potential of spreading wildland fire from one drainage to the next. Some snags mayignite and be lost during underburning.Both Action Alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in aloss of viability on the planning area, (RRNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or aloss of species viability range wide” because some snags would be lost duringimplementation if they present hazards during underburning operations.California WolverineThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats potentially used bywolverines. There is no habitat within the Analysis Area which is suitable for wolverinedenning habitat. Wolverines are not known to occur in SW Oregon.The Siskiyou crest potentially does provide suitable dispersal habitat or the potential, as atravel corridor for wolverine. Treatments proposed under both Action Alternatives wouldnot create forest fragmentation of the type considered to be a barrier to wolverine movementor dispersal. Both Action Alternatives would have “no impact” on wolverine.Pacific FisherThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats used by fishers.Fishers have been documented in and around the Analysis Area for the past 3 years.Treatments that have the greatest potential of affecting fishers are those that remove standing,large, decadent trees that have the potential of forming cavities, large standing snags, andthose that remove mistletoe brooms. Large decadent trees and standing large snags formedthe majority of rest sites for both male and female fishers in SW Oregon (Aubry et al. 2002).Treatments in the Interface Compartments and RNA of the Proposed Action and within thePonderosa Pine, and Douglas-fir PAGs of the Community Alternative are likely to have thegreatest detrimental effect to potential fisher den and rest sites due to removal of overstorycanopy to below 60%. Both Action Alternatives therefore “may adversely impactindividuals, 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” becausesome large, decadent trees and snags would be removed during implementation, andtreatments that reduce under- and mid-story canopies near large den structures wouldadversely effect the immediate area by reducing the suitability of the site as a rest or denstructure. Areas that receive treatments would still provide suitable foraging habitat.Draft EIS III - 107 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Northwest Forest Plan SpeciesWhite-headed Woodpecker and Flammulated OwlThe No-Action Alternative is likely to have a more detrimental effect on white-headedwoodpeckers and flammulated owls than the Action Alternatives because the white-headedwoodpecker and flammulated owl require montane coniferous forests dominated by pines.Under the No-Action Alternative, pine species would eventually be severely diminishedthroughout the Project and Analysis Areas. Pines require a more open condition to surviveand reproduce than most of the species that are currently found in the Analysis Area. Lack offire has benefited shade-tolerant species such as white fir and stands are becoming too overstockedwith these species to allow for regeneration of the pine species. It is expected thatpine species would be diminished and eventually excluded without restoration of wildland orprescribed fire, and understory removal treatments.Under the Proposed Action, treatments within the RNA are specifically designed tomaintain large pine and create suitable conditions for their regeneration. Treatments withinthe Interface Compartments would also benefit pines by reducing overstory canopy closurewhich would result in reduced competition with shade-tolerant species. Within these RNAand Interface Compartment areas, pine are expected to respond positively to prescribedtreatments through increased survival and regeneration. This, in turn, would provide a“beneficial impact” to white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls through increasingpreferred habitat for the species.Under the Community Alternative, treatments within the Ponderosa Pine PAG arespecifically designed to maintain large pine and create suitable conditions for theirregeneration. Treatments within the Douglas-fir PAGs would also benefit pines by reducingoverstory canopy closure which would result in reduced competition with shade-tolerantspecies. Within Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir PAGs, pines are expected to respondpositively to prescribed treatments through increased survival and regeneration. This, inturn, would provide a “beneficial impact” to white-headed woodpeckers and flammulatedowls through increasing preferred habitat for the species.SummaryThe following table (Table III-28) provides a Summary of Conclusions and Effects forThreatened, Sensitive, and Northwest Forest Plan terrestrial wildlife species, as discussedabove.Draft EIS III - 108 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Table III-28. Summary of Effects to Threatened, Sensitive, and NWFP TerrestrialWildlife SpeciesWildlife Species(Common name)Determination ofEffectsThreatened Species and CHUNorthern Spotted OwlLAACritical Habitat Unit OR-76LAANorthern Bald EagleNE (with mitigation)Forest Service Sensitive SpeciesBlack SalamanderMIIHChace SidebandMIIHNorthwestern Pond TurtleNERed-necked GrebeMIIHHorned GrebeMIIHBuffleheadMIIHPacific Fringe-tailed BatMIIHPacific Pallid BatMIIHPacific ShrewMIIHWolverineNEPacific FisherMIIHNorthwest Forest Plan SpeciesWhite-headed WoodpeckerBIFlammulated OwlBILegend for codes used in above table:NE = No Effect or ImpactNLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affectLAA = May affect, likely to adversely affectMIIH = May adversely impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the planning area (RogueRiver Siskiyou NF) nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wideBI = Beneficial Effect or Impactc. Cumulative Effects of AlternativesActivities and events that may cumulatively affect black salamander and mollusks includehistorical timber harvest, AWPP, Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and actions associatedwith Ashland Forest Resiliency. Other factors include ongoing fire suppression and burningactivities. Past logging activity typically left little coarse woody material on the ground inthe harvest unit due to requirements of yarding non-merchantable material to the landing.Removal of small diameter stems and pile burning associated with AWPP has likely reducedhabitat both species.Snag habitat within the Analysis Area has likely increased overall since fire suppression hasbecome more effective (over the last 8-9 decades). Timber harvest in the 1960-1980s likelydecreased snag habitat in the harvest units due to loss from yarding and operations. The Mt.Ashland Ski Area Expansion will reduce snag habitat on approximately 68 acres.Underburning associated with AWPP may reduce snag habitat where underburningtreatments occur. Ashland Forest Resiliency would maintain snags at current levels on upperslopes. Snag habitat is expected to be maintained or increase on lower elevations duringimplementation. However, some snags may be removed during implementation due to thehazard they represent from both the implementation and wildland fire perspectives.Draft EIS III - 109 Ashland Forest Resiliency

As with wolverine, the most significant cumulative impact for fishers in the Analysis Area isthe barrier to dispersal presented by Interstate 5. Recent DNA analyses conducted on fisherhair samples collected from Mt. Ashland confirm that they are genetically related to fishersin northern California, and they are not related to introduced individuals in the southernCascades. Past timber harvest activities has reduced the den and resting habitat of fishers byremoving timber and large snags. Ashland Forest Resiliency would reduce high-quality denand resting habitat under both Action Alternatives where canopy closures are reduced andmistletoe brooms are pruned.8. Terrestrial Wildlife - Other Special Habitats and SpeciesHazardous fuel treatments could affect other special terrestrial wildlife habitats and species.Several types of special terrestrial wildlife habitat exist within the Analysis Area, and may beaffected by proposed hazardous fuel reduction treatments. Special habitats discussed in this subsectioninclude riparian habitat, sub-alpine meadows, abandoned mines (bat habitat), and habitatfor neotropical migratory birds.a. BackgroundRiparian zones provide a high diversity and abundance of invertebrate species, which islikely to be an important factor influencing the mammal diversity in these areas, as riparianareas provide the major food source for mammalian species, when compared to uplandhabitats. Riparian zones provide habitat for more species of breeding birds (includingneotropical species) than any other habitat type in the world. Alteration of the function andstructure of riparian areas could affect riparian dependent individuals.Sub-alpine meadows near the summit of Mt. Ashland provide a unique habitat in the overallforested condition of the Analysis Area. These areas provide high-quality seasonal forageboth black-tailed deer and elk. Reeder Reservoir provides a resting area for migratingwaterfowl including bufflehead, and may include horned and red-necked grebes.Mines provide important habitat for bats, and have similar internal structure and microhabitatsas natural caves. Two mines within the Project and Analysis Areas may provideimportant habitats for local bat species which include three R-6 Sensitive species.Ashland Loop Mine is located in the East Fork of Ashland Creek at 4,100 ft. elevation. Theopening of the mine is partially blocked by an old wooden door. The mine extendsapproximately 100 m, then splits into three short shafts after a partial breakdown. The floorhas some water on it (Cross et al. 1997). Cross et al. (1997) captured 5 Myotis californicusand one M. thysanodes at this site in August.Lamb Mine is located at 3,450 ft. elevation in the East Fork of Ashland Creek. It isapproximately 2 meters in diameter and there is approximately 10 cm of water standing onthe floor of the mine. Lamb Mine provides a unique habitat that is particularly important tobats. Cross et al. (1997) determined this mine could be attractive to bats for breeding,drinking, 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).Draft EIS III - 110 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Lamb Mine provides the conditions which could make it suitable habitat for many of the lifehistoryneeds for the R-6 Sensitive Townsends big-eared bat. These include winterhibernacula and summer maternity roosts. C. townsendii is a colonial species with relativelyrestrictive roost requirements. Unlike many species that seek refuge in crevices, C.townsendii forms highly visible clusters on open surfaces making them extremely vulnerableto disturbance (Pierson et al. 1999). Currently, Lamb Mine is accessible to the generalpublic. In fact, there is a well-signed trail that leads to the entrance of the mine. During asite 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 roostinghabitat.Several species of neotropical migratory birds and resident birds are known to occur withinthe Analysis Area. The Forest Service contracted with Klamath Bird Observatory in 2004 toconduct bird censuses using standard survey methodologies within portions of the UpperBear Analysis Area. Surveys were designed to gather pre-treatment baseline data in order totrack changes in species composition and abundance of bird populations between pre- andpost treatment. Nine survey routes were located in areas of proposed fuel reductiontreatments within the Interface Compartments, and the Research Natural Area. Baseline datawas collected at a total of 109 census stations (Heinzelmann and Alexander 2004). TheKlamath Bird Observatory is continuing with bird census in the 2005 nesting season.The five species detected at the largest number of stations were the hermit warbler(Dendroica occidentalis), Oregon junco (Junco h. oregonus), hermit thrush (Catharusguttutus), Stellar’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), and the winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes).Hermit warblers were the most commonly detected species occurring at 66% of stations(Heinzelmann and Alexander 2004). Only the Oregon junco and Pacific-slope flycatcherwere detected on all routes (Heinzelmann and Alexander 2004). Abundance of speciesvaried among the 9 routes. Thirteen species detected within the Ashland Watershed arePartners In Flight coniferous forest focal species of Oregon and Washington and/orcontinental stewardship species of the Pacific Avifaunal Biome (Heinzelmann and Alexander2004).b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by thosespecies which use riparian or sub-alpine meadow habitat. Under No Action, the Lamb Minewould continue to be visited by recreational users making it a less desirable roost site for batspecies. No-Action would not affect any habitats associated with species of neotropicalmigratory birds and/or resident birds known to occur within the Analysis Area.Proposed Action and Community Alternative - Riparian HabitatThere would be some treatments in riparian areas under both Action Alternatives. Under theProposed Action, Riparian Reserve treatments would occur within strategic areas where largeareas of continuous fuels can be interrupted to reduce “wick-effect” conditions that wouldallow fire to travel unimpeded from low to higher elevations. An estimated 1,400 acreswould be treated.Draft EIS III - 111 Ashland Forest Resiliency

“Wick-Effect” refers to the ability of fire to spread through a drainage via the riparianvegetation. If the Riparian Reserve areas are left untreated, surrounding by treated areas,then the untreated contiguous fuels in these areas could act as “wicks”, allowing fire tospread.Under the Community Alternative, treatments would also occur within strategic areas wherelarge areas of continuous fuels can be interrupted to reduce “wick-effect” conditions.However, the Community Alternative prescribes no treatment in ecologically functioningriparian areas and an additional 50 ft. buffer. Within riparian areas, the CommunityAlternative prescribes treatment only in those areas that have been previously entered andwhere natural recovery is not occurring, and proposes approximately 507 acres of treatmentsin riparian areas.Proposed Action and Community Alternative - Mine HabitatUnder both Action Alternatives, no direct effects are anticipated from hazardous fuelreduction treatments. Abandoned mines pose hazards to people using public lands.Abandoned mine hazards include falling into open shafts, trenches, or pits; radiation; fallingrocks; rodent droppings with Hanta virus; and suffocation. Mitigation measures common toboth Action Alternatives include provision for sites occupied by bats, to prohibit disturbancethat could change cave (mine) temperatures within 250 ft. of the sites.As identified in DEIS Chapter II, an opportunity exists (as funding permits,) to construct abat gate on the entrance of Lamb Mine and Ashland Loop Mine to eliminate disturbance toroosting bats by recreational users of the mine.Proposed Action and Community Alternative - Neotropical Species and HabitatThe response of bird populations to land management activities varies by species andfunctional groups, and the type of treatments implemented. Janes (2003) studied responsesof bird populations to commercial thinning in two stands in southwest Oregon.Responses in breeding bird populations were sharply different on the two sites whichreflected differences in aspect, post-harvest treatment and vegetation responses to thinning.On the north-facing site, a general decline in abundance and diversity was observed in thefirst two years following thinning, but no substantial difference in overall abundance wasmeasured after seven years in comparison with pre-treatment populations. Substantialchanges in the abundance of several individual species were observed. Four species declinedincluding hermit warblers, golden crowned kinglets (Regulus satrapa), pine siskins(Carduelis pinus), and Pacific-slope flycatchers (Empidonax difficilis). Only winter house(Troglodytes aedon) wrens showed a substantial increase in abundance. On south-facingaspects where shrub cover increased dramatically, no general changes in abundance ordiversity were detected until seven years after treatment when both increased (Janes 2003).In general, with treatments proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency, there would be someshifting in species diversity and abundance. Some species would benefit from treatmentswhile others may be reduced within the Project Areas. Ground and shrub nesting andforaging species would likely be adversely affected throughout the treatment areas underboth Action Alternatives because the primary objective of the project is to reduce the groundand ladder fuels in which these species nest and forage.Draft EIS III - 112 Ashland Forest Resiliency

These include Swainson’s (Catharus ustulatus) and hermit thrushes, towhees, Oregon Junco,winter wren, Wilson’s (Wilsonia pusilla) and orange-crowned (Vermivora celata) warblers,chipping (Spizella passerine) and song (Melospiza melodia) sparrows, and possibly willowflycatchers (Empidonax traillii) to name a few.Under both Action Alternatives, the goal is to maintain the understory in an open conditionusing prescribed fire to retain fire resiliency, therefore ground nesting and foraging specieswould likely be maintained at lower levels than the existing condition.Species that inhabit mature conifer forests such as hermit and Townsend’s (Dendroicatownsendi) warblers, western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), pygmy owls (Glaucidiumgnoma), and red-breasted nuthatches (Sitta canadensis) may be reduced initially. However,reducing suppressed and sub-dominant trees would increase growth and vigor of thedominant and co-dominant remnant trees and would result in younger stands developingmature characteristics sooner, thereby benefiting these species in the long-term. Theproposed treatment would preserve hardwoods and other less common species, increasing thebird species diversity within the stands.Burning operations proposed under both Action Alternatives would generally occur prior tothe nesting season for songbirds. These treatments should stimulate grass production andseeds for many seedeaters. Snags and coarse woody material would be maintained at currentlevels or increase with implementation under both Action Alternatives. Leaving large woodymaterial in stands that currently lack this component would provide drumming sites forruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), as well as covered nest sites for ground nesting birds likeOregon junco, spotted towhee (Pipilo maculates), and mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus).Increased abundance of snags would benefit the woodpecker (Picinae) guild and cavitynesting species.9. Forest Plan Management Indicator SpeciesHazardous fuel treatments could affect Management Indicator Species, as identified in the1990 RRNF LRMP.Five forest wildlife species and one group were selected as Management Indicator Species(MIS), as detailed in the 1990 Rogue River Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA ForestService 1990). Indicator species were intended to serve as habitat surrogates used to suggestqualitatively the condition of the habitat they represent. These species include: Black-tailed deer Roosevelt elk American marten Northern spotted owl Pileated woodpecker and other woodpeckersDraft EIS III - 113 Ashland Forest Resiliency

a. BackgroundBlack-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)Black-tailed deer are year-round residents of the Analysis Area and rely upon severaldifferent successional stages of vegetation to meet their life needs. Areas with heavy canopyclosure are used during all seasons. In summer, areas of heavy canopy closure are used tofacilitate thermal regulation during periods of high temperatures. During winter, heavycanopy closure moderates temperatures and intercepts snowfall during winter storms. Thereduction of snow depth under heavy canopy reduces energetic expenditure duringmovements of deer and provides areas of browse that would normally be under the snowsurface. 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 andhiding/escape cover interspersed with open areas for optimal foraging conditions. Within theAshland Watershed, deer probably use all elevations during the snow-free period, but areforced to use lower elevations during the winter where snow depths are diminished or absent.A mature buck that was captured by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)near the summit of Mt. Ashland was fitted with a radio-collar and was found to winter justabove Reeder Reservoir (V.Oredson, pers. com.). The ODFW conducts an annual census ofdeer in the East Applegate Game Management Unit, but there are no current survey routeswithin the Ashland Watershed.Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elephus roosevelti)Currently, use of the watershed by elk is thought to be seasonal. Roosevelt elk herds havebeen infrequently reported crossing the Mt. Ashland access road (S. Johnson, pers. com.). Itis assumed that a herd that winters in the Colestine area of California typically will enter intothe Ashland Watershed in mid-summer seeking the cooler conifer stands above the 2060Road and west of the 2080 Road. Elk typically prefer a grass and forb diet during spring andearly summer then include more browse species after herbaceous plants become senescent.Forage for these animals is probably provided by the meadows and glades above FS Road2060. Elk requirements for thermal cover and forage areas are similar to black-tailed deer.Elk herds in the Ashland area are increasing and there is currently a large herd that resides inthe Valley View area (M. Vargas, pers. com.). It is likely that elk will reside year-round orfrequently in the Ashland Watershed in the near future.American Marten (Martes americana)Hargis et al. (1999) stated that in North America, American martens are closely associatedwith mature conifer stands with complete canopy closure, and small (

In the western United States in winter, most prey are captured beneath the snow surface, butsquirrels may be caught in trees (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Snags, downfall, and largewoody material provide cover, denning sites, and access points to forage areas below thesnow (subnivean habitat).Diet of American marten is highly diverse. Zielinski and Duncan (2004) found that in thesouthern Sierra Nevada, diets of both marten and fisher were more diverse than previouslyreported for North America. Of the major taxonomic groups, mammals were most commonfollowed by insects and plants (mostly fruits).There are no confirmed sightings of marten in the Ashland Watershed; there is oneunconfirmed sighting in the Red Buttes Wilderness from 1990 (D. Clayton, pers. com.). TheMedford District BLM and the RR-SNF have conducted several remote camera surveys onMt. Ashland in the past 3 years, but no marten have been detected. USFS biologistsinterviewed Ray Havera, a long-time employee of Mt. Ashland Ski Area, in February 2005.Ray had never seen marten in or around the ski area. There appears to be a gap in martendistribution between the Illinois Valley Ranger District of the RR-SNF, and BLM landsapproximately 10-15 miles northeast of Interstate 5, even though mature habitats occur inthat area.Northern Spotted OwlRefer to Section D, 6, this Chapter for background discussion and effects on habitat fornorthern spotted owls.Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) and Other WoodpeckersAll woodpeckers in the Analysis Area nest in snags or dying trees and feed on a variety offorest insect pests. The nest holes excavated by these woodpeckers serve as future nest sitesfor a variety of other animals (Thomas et al. 1979), including several other bird species foundin the Analysis Area. Snag levels may be the best habitat indicator for woodpeckers andother cavity nesting species.Snags serve as an important component in fulfilling the life history requirements of manyspecies of birds, bats and other species (Thomas et al. 1979). They provide cavities fornesting, protection from inclement weather, foraging perches, and insect food sources. Froma forest health standpoint, it is important to maintain high numbers and species of birds andbats since they are major predators on insects that can kill trees. Birds (as well as bats)consume large quantities of the invertebrate biomass, thereby reducing potential outbreaks ofinsect pests.The pileated woodpecker is a Partners In Flight coniferous forest focal species of Oregon andWashington. Pileated woodpeckers are resident in the Ashland Watershed and weredocumented at 6% of the point-count stations conducted by the Klamath Bird Observatoryduring surveys completed for Ashland Forest Resiliency analysis (Heinzelmann andAlexander 2004). Other woodpeckers documented by Heinzelmann and Alexander (2004)include the Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) and red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicusruber). White-headed woodpeckers are known to have nested near the summit of Mt.Ashland and are suspected in the Analysis Area. For discussion of background and effects towhite-headed woodpecker, refer to the Sensitive Species section.Draft EIS III - 115 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Aubry and Raley (2002) proposed that the Pileated woodpecker is a keystone habitatmodifier in the Pacific Northwest. Because pileateds are capable of creating large cavities inhard snags and decadent large trees, a wide array of species, including many that are ofmanagement concern in the Pacific Northwest (these include northern spotted owl andfisher), use old pileated nest and roost cavities.b. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesFor some RRNF MIS species, the effects between the two action alternatives are similar anddo not warrant individual discussion. Both Action Alternatives would affect several of theMIS species in a similar fashion. Both Action Alternatives prescribe overstory andunderstory removal, under- and pile burning, and pruning in some areas. The primarydifferences between the two action alternatives are in juxtaposition and extent.No-Action AlternativeThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used byblack-tailed deer and elk. There would be no adverse effects to black-tailed deer and elkpopulations under the No-Action Alternative.The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used byAmerican marten. There will be no adverse effects to American marten under the No-Action alternative.The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used bypileated and other woodpeckers. There would be no adverse effects to pileated and otherwoodpeckers under the No-Action alternative. The one exception is the white-headedwoodpecker. For analyses of effects to white-headed woodpeckers, please refer to theSensitive species section.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeReduction of over- and understory canopies would result in increased solar radiation at theground level. These treatments would increase the shrub and forb component by reducingcompetition from overstory species. Underburning regenerates browse species preferred bydeer and elk. Work activities associated with implementation of treatments would causedisturbance in deer and elk populations in the immediate area where they are occurring.However, the Project and Analysis areas are large and implementation is scheduled over aperiod of several years, so there are opportunities for animals to move into more remote areasof the Analysis Area that are infrequently used by humans.The implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency under both Action Alternatives wouldhave a “beneficial impact” on black-tailed deer and elk by increasing foraging habitatthroughout the lower elevation portions of the Analysis Area.American marten are associated with mature habitats that generally provide relatively highlevels of canopy closure, large snags, and downed wood. Currently, the Analysis Areacontains high-quality late-successional habitat that appears to be suitable for marten.Surveys that are designed to detect forest carnivores have been conducted in the Mt. Ashlandarea for the past 3 years. These surveys have successfully detected fisher, a close relative ofthe marten, and other forest carnivores, but martens have never been documented in the area.Draft EIS III - 116 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Ashland Forest Resiliency proposes to reduce overstory and understory canopy under varioustreatments throughout the Project Areas. Fragmentation of forested habitats significantlyreduces the suitability of the habitat for marten (Hargis et al. 1999). However, studies thataddress the effects of fragmentation on forest associated species tend to focus on effectscaused from clear cutting, and the spatial extent of non-forested patches within a forestedlandscape.There is currently a paucity of information on the effects of large-scale thinning projects onlate-successional species. With implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency, thinningwould reduce canopy closure, but coarse woody material and large snags would be retainedat current levels or increased throughout the Project Areas under both Action Alternatives.There is no evidence that marten occur in the Analysis Area. As described earlier, carnivoresurveys have been conducted in and around the watershed, and marten have not beendocumented even though fisher and other forest carnivores have. Therefore it is assumedthat marten either occur at such low density they are undetectable with accepted surveymethods (Zielinski and Kucera 1995), or they are not present. However, the area doesprovide late-successional habitat which is the preferred habitat of American marten, andmarten populations are known to occupy areas both east and west of the Analysis Area.It must be assumed that if marten are not currently present, they have the potential tocolonize the area in the future. Therefore, Ashland Forest Resiliency, under both ActionAlternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but will not likely to result in a loss ofviability on the planning area, (RRNF), or cause a trend to federal listing or a loss ofspecies viability range wide” for American marten.Both Action Alternatives propose to maintain or increase snags and downed wood across thetreatment areas. These actions would increase nesting and foraging habitat for allwoodpeckers known to occur within the Analysis Area. Larger and older trees withheartwood decay are preferred by pileated woodpeckers for foraging and nesting (Aubry andRaley 2002). The largest live trees would be maintained under both Action Alternatives.Some snags would be removed during implementation if they pose a threat to operations.Overall, Ashland Forest Resiliency, under both Action Alternatives, would result in “noimpact” to pileated and other woodpeckers.c. Cumulative Effects of AlternativesThe potential for adverse cumulative effects to Management Indicator Species was analyzedfor this project together with other past, current, planned, and reasonably foreseeable actions.Black-tailed Deer and ElkBlack-tailed deer and elk rely upon a variety of vegetative conditions to meet their life needs.On a landscape level, vegetation conditions would be maintained as functional habitat forthese species. Some projects, such as AWPP, the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, andAshland Forest Resiliency treatments may cumulatively increase disturbance in the shortterm.However, these projects would result in long-term beneficial effects by reducing denseoverstory conditions that inhibit the growth of herbaceous and shrubby vegetation thatprovide quality forage.Draft EIS III - 117 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Work activities associated with these projects would contribute to occasional disturbance tothese species. During winter, both elk and deer move to lower elevations to escape deepsnowconditions. Therefore, winter recreation on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area would have noeffect to these species. Disturbance to these species during summer months is less criticalthan during the winter months, when the animals are under stress from reduced forage andcold weather conditions.The Action Alternatives associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency would provide abeneficial effect to both black-tailed deer and elk by increasing forage in the lower elevationareas that are important for wintering herds. These projects would not result in adversecumulative effects on black-tailed deer and elk.American MartenActivities and events that have and could cumulatively affect marten include historical timberharvest, AWPP, the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and Ashland Forest Resiliencytreatments, burning projects, and ongoing fire suppression. Martens appear to need interiorforested habitats (Hargis et al. 1999). Large-scale thinning projects are a relatively newtreatment, and are a response to HFRA. Because these type treatments have only recentlybeen implemented, research is still on-going, and there is little information in peer-reviewedjournals on the effects of these type treatments on late-successional species.After implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency, canopy closure in both the over- andunderstory would be reduced, however, habitats would still retain the largest trees, snags, anddowned wood which would result in late-successional, open conditions. These conditionsmay degrade habitat for marten, but they would not result in the type of fragmentation thatwould preclude the area from use by the species. The majority of late-successional habitatwould not be affected during implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency. Areas oftreatments would still retain the condition and structures important to martens for their lifehistoryrequirements, therefore, no adverse cumulative effects would be expected for thisspecies under the Action Alternatives.Pileated and Other WoodpeckersActivities and events that have and could cumulatively affect pileated and other woodpeckersinclude historical timber harvest, AWPP, the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and theAshland Forest Resiliency treatments, burning projects, and ongoing fire suppression. Lossof snags associated with salvage logging have reduced woodpecker habitat in the AnalysisArea. Logging operations prior to NWFP Standards and Guidelines reduced woodpeckerhabitat in the Neil and Clayton Creek drainages, through the removal of snags and CWM.Some snags would be lost during implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency project ifthey pose a threat to operations, however, both Action Alternatives propose to maintain orincrease snags and CWM. The single largest threat to CWM and snag habitat in the AnalysisArea is large-scale, high-severity wildland fire.Draft EIS III - 118 Ashland Forest Resiliency

10. Botanical - Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes,Lichen, and FungiThe implementation of fire hazard reduction treatments could affect vascular plants,bryophytes, lichens and fungi (associated with this locale) listed by the Forest Service asSensitive.a. BackgroundForest Service Sensitive Vascular PlantsCypripedium fasciculatum (clustered ladyslipper orchid): There are roughly 6 occurrences(13 small patches) of the clustered lady-slipper orchid known in the Analysis Area. Theyare in the Tolman, Neil, and Wagner Creek watersheds. There are over 100 stems in all theseoccurrences (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 theAnalysis Area patches and individuals are in the Tolman Creek watershed in a relativelysmall portion of T39S, R1E, sections 27, 34, and 35. Project Area occurrences are in olderDouglas-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 lowmidelevation late-successional conifer forest, though it is absent from most of the mesic oldforests of the Pacific Northwest. There are several hundred known sites in southwesternOregon and northwestern California, mostly in the Klamath Mountains, where this taxon isperhaps found more frequently than anywhere else in its range.Occurrences are generally small. The majority of occurrences in this region have only 1-several individuals. On Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, most occurrences of this orchid are in theApplegate watershed on Applegate and Ashland Ranger Districts, and in the Taylor Creekwatershed on the Galice Ranger District.Cryptantha milobakeri (Milo Baker’s cryptantha): This is a small inconspicuous annualmember of the borage family. It was tentatively identified from the dry open slopes in theAshland RNA near the end of the Lamb Mine Trail. A re-visit in early summer 2005 will beneeded to confirm if the species is indeed present. There are a small number of knownoccurrences of Milo Baker’s cryptantha in southern Jackson and Josephine Counties, Oregon.It is more commonly found in northern California. On Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, there aretwo other occurrences known, both in the Carberry Creek watershed on Applegate RangerDistrict. Habitat is dry openings, in rocky or gravelly soils.Horkelia tridentata (three-toothed horkelia): This perennial forb in the rose family isknown from about 60 patches (lumped into roughly 15 occurrences) across the AnalysisArea. These occurrences are confined to the few remaining openings left in the Project Areaafter many decades of fire exclusion. The exposed south aspects along ridges, knolls, andupper slopes seems to be preferred habitat. Many of these areas are now fuel breaks. Theexisting fuel breaks contain the largest current populations of the horkelia. It is clear thatpast activities to create and maintain the fuel breaks have maintained habitat for the horkelia.It can tolerate partial shade on the edges of these openings, but it will clearly disappear asbrush and trees fill in.Draft EIS III - 119 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Although this species does not particularly respond to disturbance, and plants can be lost todisturbance, it appears to be able to slowly colonize areas that have experienced somedisturbance in the past. Monitoring plots established in the Ashland Watershed in 1997, priorto prescribed burns, are intended to test how this species responds to burning of individualhorkelia plants and habitat. Re-visits are planned for summer 2005 and may provide someuseful information that can be shared in the FEIS for this project.The Ashland, Tolman, Clayton, Neil, and Wagner Creek watersheds appear to have the onlyknown Oregon occurrences of this species. Almost all known Oregon occurrences are withinthe Analysis Area. This plant ranges throughout similar habitats in northern California and issecure in that state. There is a good chance that undiscovered populations of this horkeliaoccur on Jackson County lands in the Klamath River drainage.Forest Service Sensitive BryophytesNone are known to occur in the Project Area.Forest Service Sensitive LichensNone are known to occur in the Project Area.Forest Service Sensitive FungiNone are known to occur in the Project Area. However, it is likely that some FS Sensitivefungi are present in the Project Area. See the Botanical Biological Evaluation in DEISAppendix G for more information.b. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesA Biological Evaluation (BE) describing project effects to Sensitive vascular plants,bryophytes, lichens, and fungi is included as Appendix G to this Draft EIS. All relevantfindings from the BE, about species which actually occur in the Project Areas or which maybe affected by project activities, are included below. The rationale used in the BE todetermine project effects is briefly summarized here. See the BE, as well as the botanical“background” section above for complete supporting information.Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants: Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered ladyslipper orchid)The No-Action Alternative provides protection only as long as wildland fires can beeffectively suppressed in areas with orchid occurrences. Presumably, wildland fires wouldeventually occur in some or all of these areas and would be severe enough to eliminate orreduce the orchid populations and their habitat. Therefore, compared to the ActionAlternatives, the No-Action alternative could be detrimental to the viability of localpopulations of the clustered lady-slipper orchid.The Proposed Action is not expected to have adverse effects on these orchids because of amitigation measure protecting known occurrences, and because the best occupied habitat (2old-growth stands in the upper Tolman Creek watershed) is left untreated. Also, it ispresumed that the Proposed Action would provide a protective (beneficial) effect because itreduces the possibility that lady-slipper orchid occurrences and habitat would be lost to largescalewildland fire. The untreated old-growth stands in the upper Tolman Creek watershedare expected to increase the local viability of this species because apparently optimum habitatwould continue to be available, if the current population has the ability to expand.Draft EIS III - 120 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Community Alternative is not expected to have adverse effects on these orchids becauseof a mitigation measure protecting known occurrences. Also, it is presumed that theCommunity Alternative would provide a protective (beneficial) effect because it reduces thepossibility that lady-slipper orchid occurrences and habitat would be lost to wildland fire.Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants: Cryptantha milobakeri (Milo 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 notoccur and the canopy closes over the open habitat needed by the cryptantha. On the otherhand, if large fires do occur, a beneficial effect is likely as new habitat and improved habitatis created by fire.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that protects the cryptantha duringproject activity. Another mitigation measure, if funding is available, would maintain andimprove habitat for the cryptantha.The Community Alternative would have the same effects on the cryptantha as the ProposedAction, for the same reasons.Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants: Horkelia tridentata (three-toothed horkelia)The No-Action Alternative has unpredictable effects on this species. In the absence of largewildland fires, the canopy would continue to close in around existing horkelia occurrencesand many would be lost over time. Under this scenario, given that almost all known Oregonoccurrences are in the Project Area, the No-Action Alternative would definitely have anadverse effect on the viability of this species in Oregon. If large wildland fires occurred(more likely under the No-Action Alternative than under the Action Alternatives) and burnedthrough a substantial number of Horkelia patches, the viability of this species in Oregonwould be enhanced, because of all the newly open and newly suitable habitat for this plant.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that would prevent damage to horkeliaplants during project activities. Another mitigation measure (if funding is available) createscanopy openings and gaps where needed to maintain habitat suitability and retainreproductive potential for the horkelia. Therefore, at a minimum, the Proposed Action wouldhave no adverse effect on this species, and if the second mitigation measure is implemented,would have a beneficial effect on this species.The Community Alternative would have the same effects on the horkelia as the ProposedAction, for the same reasons.c. Cumulative Effects of Action AlternativesSome Horkelia tridentata occurrences are in areas being treated under the AshlandWatershed Protection project that would also be treated under either Action Alternative. Thetreatments under both alternatives are often neutral for the horkelia, but may be beneficial,depending 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 effectwhen a horkelia occurrence is treated under either Action Alternative.Draft EIS III - 121 Ashland Forest Resiliency

If Forest Service Sensitive fungi are present in areas being treated under the AshlandWatershed Protection Project, they could be experiencing adverse effects from changes totheir habitat, substrate, and microclimate. The effects could be cumulative when the sameareas are treated under the Ashland Forest Resiliency, either Action Alternative.11. Uncommon and Locally Rare Vascular Plants, Bryophytes,Lichens and FungiThe implementation of hazardous fuel treatments could affect other botanical resourcesthat are locally rare and/or species of interest to the Oregon Natural Heritage InformationCenter.a. BackgroundVascular plantsAllium campanulatum (Sierra onion): This locally rare or uncommon onion is known tooccur in 3 small patches in one specific part of the Analysis Area. They are about 1 milenorth-northeast of Bull Gap, T40S, R1E, sec 11, NW ¼. Project Area occurrences are in dryopenings 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 20 occurrences on the Forest. Populations are mostlysmall with only a handful of individuals. This species is more commonly found east of theCascades in Oregon, and occurs in many parts of California.Cypripedium montanum (mountain ladyslipper orchid): An occurrence with sevenindividuals was discovered in the upper Tolman Creek watershed T39S, R1E, section 34during 2004 botany field reconnaissance. No other populations of Cypripedium montanumare in the Project Area. Other occurrences are known outside the Analysis Area in theApplegate Watershed, and in the southern Oregon Cascades. Locally, suitable habitat for themountain ladyslipper orchid is the same as for the clustered ladyslipper orchid.There is some evidence that the mountain lady-slipper orchid may be more able to survivehabitat changes caused by disturbances or fire than the clustered lady-slipper orchid. Thisspecies ranges from Santa Cruz County California, to Vancouver Island west of theCascades, and occurs also in Eastern Oregon and Washington, and several other westernstates and provinces. There are about 40 occurrences on the Forest (mostly in the SiskiyouMountains) and about 100 in southwestern Oregon. Most occurrences have only a fewindividuals (1-several).Galium oreganum (Oregon bedstraw): There are 7-10 known Analysis Area occurrences ofthis shaded wetland forb in the Clayton and Neil Creek watersheds. Additional smallwetlands on the east side of the Analysis Area could also harbor this forb. Oregon Bedstrawis common throughout much of western Oregon, including the northern part of the Forest inthe Cascades, on Prospect Ranger District. However it becomes increasingly uncommon onthe southern edge of its range. These Analysis Area occurrences plus one additionaloccurrence on Applegate Ranger District are the only occurrences known so far in theSiskiyou Mountains. In California, this plant is under review for inclusion on CaliforniaNative Plant Society rare plant lists.Draft EIS III - 122 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Gymnocarpium dryopteris (oak fern): In 1969 Dr. Frank Lang reported a population of oakfern on Quartz Creek, a tributary of Neil Creek, in the Project Area. Field reconnaissance in1995 and summer 2004 determined the population occupies roughly 1 mile of creek corridorfrom 3,630 ft. elevation up to 4,500 ft. The vast majority of plants are above 4,000 ft.Also in summer 2004 oak fern was found in a 1/3-mile-long reach of another (un-named)tributary of Neil Creek in T40S, R1E, section 13 NW ¼ and section 14 NE ¼. Thisoccurrence presumably extends upstream into section 11 SE ¼.This fern is common in northern Oregon but disjunct in southwestern Oregon. The onlysouthern Oregon occurrences besides the two Project Area occurrences are in DouglasCounty, 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 alwayswithin 100 ft. of these perennial streams and usually within 25 feet. The habitat is moist,cool, shady or partly shady.Hieracium greenei (Greene’s hawkweed): This is a perennial forb in the chicory tribe of thesunflower family which is locally rare or uncommon. There are seven occurrences in theAnalysis Area, all in the Ashland Creek Watershed. Across the Forest, there are 22 knownoccurrences on Prospect, Applegate, and Ashland Ranger Districts. This hawkweed is morecommon and secure in California. In Oregon, it is under review for inclusion on the OregonNatural Heritage Program’s rare plant lists.Habitat in the Project Area is dry, often rocky, openings on warm aspects. There has beensome encroachment into this habitat by trees and shrubs over many decades of fire exclusion.There may have been some decline in population numbers and occurrences during that perioddue to shading.Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) is present in the Analysis Area on the main ridge0.6 miles north of the abandoned lookout on Wagner Butte. There is one large tree only.Though it is a dominant feature of plant communities east of the Cascades, western juniper isuncommon west of the Cascade crest, and only about 4 sites are known to occur on theForest. One of those sites is on the southwest slope of Wagner Butte and this Analysis Areatree probably shares its ancestry with that stand. Other places west of the Cascades, off-Forest, western juniper occurs on the south slopes of Anderson Butte (Little Applegatewatershed), in the “Siskiyou Summit” area near I-5, BLM’s Cascade-Siskiyou NationalMonument, Klamath River Canyon, as well as the Shasta Valley, Scott Valley andsurrounding hills. It typically grows in dry, open, rocky areas.Lewisia cotyledon var. howellii (Howell’s lewisia): This rock outcrop “succulent” is a wavyleavedlower-elevation variety of the Siskiyou lewisia which more typically occurs at higherelevations in the Siskiyous, and elsewhere in the Klamath Mountains. There are twoAnalysis Area occurrences. One is on an outcrop above the East Fork Ashland Creek, in theResearch Natural Area. The other is in a cliff area near an un-named tributary of the WestFork Ashland Creek, northwest of Winburn Ridge. There are 24 occurrences of Howell’slewisia on the Forest. There are also at least this many occurrences on BLM land in Jacksonand Josephine Counties. Howell’s lewisia is uncommon in northwestern California butpresumably more prevalent there, than in Oregon.Draft EIS III - 123 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce): An extensive population of Engelmann spruceoccupies roughly 6 miles of riparian corridors in the East Fork Ashland Watershed. Itslowest point on the East fork is 4320 ft. elevation at section line 4/9 and it extends upwardfrom there into various headwaters, most of which are outside the Project Area. One westernarm of this dendritic-shaped occurrence slightly overlaps one of the DFPZs in T40S, R1E,section 9, NW ¼ of the NW ¼. Also, about 0.4 miles of the spruce-occupied East Forkcorridor, from Road 2060 down to section line 4/9, in the Ashland Research Natural Area, ispart of the Project Area.Englemann spruce is common in riparian and wetland habitats in the Cascades as far south asthe Dead Indian Plateau located on the east side of the Ashland Ranger District. The EastFork Ashland Creek population is the only one known in the Siskiyou Mountains. A fewsmaller occurrences are farther south in California, within the Russian Peak Wilderness, anda few other locations in Siskiyou, Trinity, and Shasta Counties. The species is also foundthroughout the Rocky Mountains from British Columbia, south to Arizona and New Mexico.Silene lemmonii (Lemmon’s catchfly): This woodland perennial forb is regularlyencountered in the Analysis Area. At least 72 patches have been found so far, fairly welldistributed throughout the Analysis Area, mostly below 5,000 ft. elevation. It is not strictabout habitat, occupying a wide range of aspects, upland forest and forest openings, disturbedand undisturbed, various ages, from deep shade to partly sunny.This plant is common and secure in northwestern California. In Oregon, it is under reviewfor inclusion on the Oregon Natural Heritage Program’s rare plant lists. It has beendocumented from Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties. However, the vast majority ofknown Oregon occurrences are in the Analysis Area.Swertia radiata (Frasera speciosa) (monument plant): This robust plant in the gentianfamily is striking in appearance when it bolts and flowers (and dies) after spending manyyears or decades as a rosette. There are 10 occurrences known in the Analysis Area, havingroughly 400 individuals total. The largest of these has about 200 plants, on the main ridgeabout 1/3 mile north of the abandoned lookout on Wagner Butte. The other Analysis Areaoccurrences are on the same ridge, also on the divide between the East Fork and West Forkof Ashland Creek, and on the East Fork Ashland Creek/Clayton Creek Divide including thepotential helicopter landing site #26. Project Area populations are found in open forestwhere fire has kept the trees spaced out and a rich herbaceous plant community on the forestfloor, or in manzanita brushfields or sagebrush patches.The monument plant is found throughout the ranges of the arid intermountain west, and themountains of northern California. There is one additional occurrence with 50 individuals in abig meadow in the Ashland Watershed outside of the Project Areas (T40S, R1W, sec 1, SW¼ of SE ¼). A large intermittent population of monument plant is present on the Forestalong the main ridge from McDonald Peak to Wagner Butte, in mostly sagebrush habitat,west aspects, containing several hundred and perhaps over 1,000 individuals.Draft EIS III - 124 Ashland Forest Resiliency

BryophytesPtilidium californicum (Pacific fuzzwort (a liverwort)): There are 5 occurrences of thisliverwort known in the Project Area, each on the boles of single fir trees. Another AshlandWatershed occurrence is outside the Project Area, near the ski area on 3 boulders in a Shastafir forest. Although it is uncommon and hard to find, there are undoubtedly moreoccurrences of this liverwort on older white firs trunks and other substrates in the middle andportions of the Ashland Watershed. Botanical field reconnaissance for this project did notfocus on finding this liverwort.This liverwort is relatively common and widespread in the Cascade Zone of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, and northward. It becomes only occasional south of Highway 140and uncommon or rare farther south. It has a North Pacific distribution and is known fromJapan, Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Northern California.Ulota megalospora (a moss): One occurrence of this small epiphytic moss is known in theProject Area, on old alders in a wetland in the Bull Gap Creek drainage, in the AshlandResearch Natural Area. It is a former Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage specieswhich has turned out to be common in much of mesic western Oregon and Washington, butis mostly absent from the Eastern Siskiyous.LichensDendriscocaulon intricatulum (no common name): One occurrence of this small epiphyticlichen is known in the Project Area, on at least one black oak trunk, in the Neil Creekwatershed, T40S, R1E, section 1, SW ¼ of the NE ¼. This lichen hasn’t otherwise beenfound on National Forest lands in the Siskiyou Mountains. Other FS occurrences of thislichen are found on Butte Falls Ranger District. Many occurrences are known on the ButteFalls Resource Area and Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford BLM, where it appears to bemore common than anywhere else in its range (northern California through southeasternAlaska).These lichens find habitat on the trunks of black oaks (Quercus kelloggii) that grow in ornear conifer stands. Prescriptions that maintain the long-term presence of black oaks in thesestands are apt to be beneficial to this lichen.Lobaria scrobiculata or Lobaria hallii (no common names): There is one occurrence of thislobaria known in the Project Area, on a large old mock orange shrub in a semi-shadedopening not far from the sediment dam on the East Fork Ashland Creek above ReederReservoir. Final determination of exactly which of these two closely related taxa is presenthere has not been done. Lobaria scrobiculata is not otherwise known from the Forest butmany occurrences are known from Medford BLM lands. Roughly a dozen populations ofLobaria hallii are known to occur on the Forest. Many more occurrences of Lobaria halliiare known on Medford BLM lands. These are former Northwest Forest Plan Survey andManage species that eventually turned out to be too common within the NWFP area to meritprotection as Survey and Manage species. The range of these lichens in North America isfrom northern California to Alaska and east to western Montana.These lichens most commonly occur on oaks, maple, and other hardwoods. Silviculturalprescriptions or prescribed fire prescriptions that maintain the long-term presence ofhardwoods in Project Area stands below 4000 ft. elevation are apt to be beneficial to theselichens.Draft EIS III - 125 Ashland Forest Resiliency

FungiThere are no uncommon and/or locally rare fungi known to occur in the Project Area.b. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesVascular Plants: Allium campanulatum (Sierra onion)The No-Action Alternative would gradually allow canopy closures to shrink available habitatfor this onion and local occurrences could be lost. However, just about any kind of wildlandfire (more likely under this alternative than under the Action Alternatives) would increaseavailable habitat for this onion.A mitigation measure (common to both Action Alternatives) would protect the onion fromdisturbance during project activity. Another mitigation measure (if funding is available)creates canopy openings and gaps where needed, to maintain habitat suitability and retainreproductive potential for the onion. Therefore, at a minimum, the Proposed Action wouldhave no adverse effect on this species and, if the second mitigation measure is implemented,would have a beneficial effect on this species.The Community Alternative would have the same effects on the Sierra onion as the ProposedAction, for the same reasons.Vascular Plants: Cypripedium montanum (mountain ladyslipper orchid)The No-Action Alternative protects the single mountain lady-slipper occurrence from humandisturbance and would continue to provide good habitat as long as high-severity wildlandfires can be kept away. Presumably wildland fire would eventually occur here and could besevere enough to eliminate or reduce the orchid population and/or its habitat quality. This isthe only known occurrence in all of the Analysis Area so local viability of the mountain ladyslipperorchid is dependent on the existence of this population. On the RR-SNF and insouthwestern Oregon in general, there are enough occurrences that viability at thosegeographic scales is not dependent on maintaining this one small occurrence.The Proposed Action is not expected to have adverse effects on this patch of mountain ladyslipperorchids because the old-growth stand where it occurs in the upper Tolman Creekwatershed is designed to be left untreated, to protect the orchid and provide what appears tobe optimum habitat if the current population has the ability to expand. Also, it is presumedthat the Proposed Action would provide a protective (beneficial) effect because hazardousfuels treatments below the 2080 Road and in adjacent areas should reduce the possibility thatthis lady-slipper orchid occurrence and its habitat would be lost to wildland fire.The Community Alternative is not expected to have adverse effects on this patch of mountainlady-slipper orchids because it is in an old-growth area which would presumably not betreated, and because a mitigation measure protects known occurrences. The CommunityAlternative would provide some protective (beneficial) effect because its hazardous fuelstreatments in some of the surrounding areas reduces the possibility that lady-slipper orchidoccurrences and habitat would be lost to wildland fire. Since less of these surrounding acresare treated under this alternative, it will not provide as much protective (beneficial) effect asthe Proposed Action.Draft EIS III - 126 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Vascular Plants: Galium oreganum (Oregon bedstraw)The No-Action Alternative, compared to the Action Alternatives, could allow wildland fire toburn around more of the wetlands containing the galium, hence reducing the shade on thesewetlands and possibly adversely affecting some occurrences. However, because thesewetlands themselves are unlikely to be severely affected, and crown fires around thewetlands are not expected to be universal, it is unlikely that any wildland fire scenario wouldcause the extirpation of the galium from the Analysis Area.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure common to both Action Alternativeswhich specifies that wetlands would be managed like perennial streams, hence leftundisturbed with most of the surrounding canopy left intact. This measure is adequate tomaintain the viability of the Galium in the Analysis Area.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Vascular Plants: Gymnocarpium dryopteris (oak fern)The No-Action Alternative leaves the riparian corridors where the oak fern grows in anundisturbed condition. However, compared to the Action Alternatives, there is more risk thatwildland fire could burn these riparian corridors or the upland forest which provides shadefor the oak 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.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure common to both Action Alternativeswhich leaves wide untreated riparian areas where the oak fern grows and allows treatmentbeginning 150 ft. away from these areas, this would reduce the overall risk of wildland firewithout decreasing the shade or degrading the cool, moist environment at streamside wherethe oak fern grows.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Vascular Plants: Hieracium greenei (Greene’s hawkweed)The No-Action Alternative would allow the canopy to continue to close over someoccurrences and available suitable habitat acres would continue to decline in the absence ofwildland fires. Some Analysis Area occurrences would likely disappear. Conversely, largeextensive wildland fires, more likely to occur under this alternative than under the ActionAlternatives, would presumably open up substantial amounts of newly suitable potentialhabitat, 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. Anothermitigation measure (if funding is available) creates canopy openings and gaps where neededto maintain habitat suitability and retain reproductive potential for this hawkweed.Therefore, at a minimum, the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on this speciesand, if the second mitigation measure is implemented, would have a beneficial effect on thisspecies.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Draft EIS III - 127 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Vascular Plants: Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper)The No-Action Alternative would leave the lone juniper tree in the Analysis Areaundisturbed. This tree is not in immediate danger of being overtopped or shaded out by tallerconifers. It is in an area where it is not likely to be killed by wildland fire, and if it were,recruitment of some new individuals might occur following the wildland fire.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that prohibits cutting juniper trees. Noadverse effects to the lone juniper tree are expected.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Vascular Plants: Lewisia cotyledon var. howellii (Howell’s lewisia)The No-Action Alternative should have little or no effect on this rock outcrop species. Bothoccurrences are in areas where the amount of shade has probably reached its maximumpossible in this rocky habitat, and the populations appear to be fine. If the surrounding forestwere to burn in a wildland fire, the populations would do fine in more sun as well.The Proposed Action includes hazardous fuels treatments in the general area of bothoccurrences but little activity would occur on these rock outcrops. Since disturbance is notan issue, and the rocky habitat would change little, and canopy coverage changes are notlikely to matter, no adverse or beneficial effects are expected.The Community Alternative includes hazardous fuels treatments in the general area of theRNA occurrence but it is not certain how close. Effects are the same as described for theProposed Action, for the same reasons.Vascular Plants: Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce)The No-Action Alternative does nothing to reduce the threat of large scale wildland fire in theupper parts of the East Fork watershed where the spruce occurs. The spruce is thin-barkedand easily killed by fire. Engelmann spruce does not rely on fire as part of its evolutionarystrategy for recruitment of new individuals. Its habitat in riparian areas, around wetlands, orin 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 sprucepopulation could eventually be lost to wildland fire under this scenario.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure common to both Action Alternativeswhich prohibits cutting spruce trees and maintains a suitable reproductive environment.Most of the spruce population is in untreated riparian areas and/or where no treatments areproposed. The fuels management activities of the Proposed Action between the sprucepopulation and the urban interface should substantially reduce the likelihood of a large scalewildland fire in the upper parts of the East Fork watershed, thereby adding safety for thespruce population.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Draft EIS III - 128 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Vascular Plants: Silene lemmonii (Lemmon’s catchfly)The No-Action Alternative would maintain the current range of habitats that are currentlyoccupied by this catchfly. Possibly even more areas would have a closed canopy in thefuture, but this catchfly seems to tolerate shade. Wildland fires could open up the habitat,possibly over large areas, but the catchfly also tolerates sun fairly well, except where too hotand dry. No effects to viability of this catchfly are expected under the No-ActionAlternative.The Proposed Action includes hazardous fuels treatments over many of the knownoccurrences. Though some individuals and even small occurrences may be lost todisturbance, or under slash piles, the plant is common enough that local viability would notbe threatened. In addition, some of the most robust populations are in existing shaded fuelbreaks, indicating that the plant can tolerate some disturbance and that it does well in partsun/part shade. Both of these conditions are expected under the Proposed Action.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Vascular Plants: Swertia radiata (Frasera speciosa) (monument plant)The No-Action Alternative, in the absence of wildland fires, would allow the canopy tocontinue to encroach on the known Project Area occurrences. The deep shade, buildup ofduff and litter, and lack of development of a herbaceous plant layer, would cause mostoccurrences to disappear. If low to moderate severity wildland fires eventually burnmonument plant occurrences, new or improved habitat could be created. High-severity fireswould probably be detrimental.The Proposed Action, compared to the No-Action Alternative, is much more likely to bebeneficial to monument plant occurrences. A mitigation measure common to both ActionAlternatives keeps slash off of monument plants and prevents other serious disturbance toindividuals. Most of the hazardous fuels treatments of the Proposed Action would createmore open forest conditions favored by the monument plant. Another mitigation measure, iffunding were available, would create openings and gaps conducive to monument plantreproduction. Finally, large-scale, high-severity wildland fires are much less likely to occurunder this alternative than under the No-Action Alternative.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Bryophytes: Ptilidium californicum (Pacific fuzzwort)The No-Action Alternative would leave Ptilidium occurrences undisturbed in the short term.Compared to the Action Alternatives, the No-Action Alternative carries a substantially higherrisk that large amounts of Ptilidium habitat and substrates could be lost to wildland fire in thefuture.The Proposed Action includes hazardous fuels treatments that are likely to change themicroclimate and substrate (drier, more light, scorched tree bases) at four of the five knownProject Area occurrences. Accordingly, these occurrences are likely to be lost. However,much greater amounts of the best Ptilidium habitat in the general area (older white fire foreston cool aspects at 4,200 to 5,800 ft.) will not be treated under the Proposed Action.Draft EIS III - 129 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the risk of losing large amounts of Ptilidium habitatand substrate to wildland fire is substantially reduced under the Proposed Action. For thisreason, it is estimated that the Proposed Action would have a beneficial effect on the viabilityof this uncommon liverwort within the watersheds affected.The Community Alternative has the same effects as the Proposed Action, for the samereasons.Bryophytes: Ulota megalospora (a moss)The No-Action Alternative would leave the single known Analysis Area occurrenceundisturbed in the short term. In the long term, there is some risk that wildland fire couldburn through this wetland killing the old alders that support this moss or killing the coniferoverstory that provides shade here. However, because of the concave landform, the wet coolhabitat, and the late-successional character of the surrounding forest, the risk of wildland firein this site is considerably less than in the adjacent uplands.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that manages perennial wetlands thesame as perennial streams, so the alder substrate for this moss would not be affected. Thereis a slight risk that hazardous fuels treatments beyond 50 ft. from this wetland mightcontribute more light, or a drying of the microclimate in the wetland, that would bedetrimental to the Ulota. The Proposed Action decreases the risk of wildland fire to somedegree, compared to the No-Action Alternative. It is uncertain if the net effect is positive ornegative under this alternative.The Community Alternative includes a mitigation measure that manages perennial wetlandsthe same as perennial streams, so the alder substrate for this moss would not be cut. TheCommunity Alternative does not treat late-successional forest areas such as surrounds thiswetland. The Community Alternative decreases the risk of wildland fire to some degree,compared to the No-Action Alternative. Accordingly, the net effect for the ulota occurrenceis expected to be beneficial under this alternative.Lichens: Dendriscocaulon intricatulumThe No-Action Alternative would leave the black oak stand where this lichen occursundisturbed. There is a risk that wildland fire could burn over the site and kill the lichens orthe black oak stems on which the lichen resides. A wildland fire could actually improvehabitat for the dendriscocaulon at this site if it burned in a manner where competing coniferswere killed, but not the black oak stems. In more general terms, wildland fire is likely toencourage more black oaks in the Analysis Area and could increase the potential habitat andpotential substrate for this lichen. However, since the dendriscocaulon appears to be mostlyabsent from the area currently, it is not certain that new habitat or substrates could becolonized by this lichen.Draft EIS III - 130 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that would protect the specific black oakstand that harbors the dendriscocaulon from being affected during project activities. In otherforest stands, some hazardous fuels treatment prescriptions would encourage more black oakpresence, providing potential new habitat for this lichen if local occurrences have the abilityto expand in the future. If funding is available, a second mitigation measure would createcanopy openings designed to maintain or improve suitable habitat for this lichen. Therefore,the Proposed Action is expected to be at least neutral for this species, and could be beneficial.The Community Alternative would have the same effects on the dendriscocaulon as theProposed Action, for the same reasons.Lichens: Lobaria scrobiculata or Lobaria halliiThe No-Action Alternative would leave the site where this lichen grows undisturbed.However, in the absence of fire, the conifer canopy would eventually shade the mock orangeshrub where this lichen occurs, to the point that it would no longer support the lichen. Awildland fire under this alternative could affect this site (the lichen, its substrate, and habitat)in numerous unpredictable ways. In more general terms, wildland fire in the area mayincrease habitat suitability for this lichen by enhancing the presence of shrubs andhardwoods.The Proposed Action includes a mitigation measure that would protect the specific mockorange that harbors the lobaria, as well as adjacent hardwoods and large shrubs, from beingaffected during project activities. If funding is available, a second mitigation measure wouldcreate canopy openings designed to maintain or improve occupied habitat for this lichen. Ingeneral terms, elsewhere in the Project Area, hazardous fuels treatments under the ProposedAction are likely to reduce the presence of shrubs that could harbor this lichen, encourage thehardwood trees that could harbor this lichen, and provide more part sun/part shade conditionswhich would be favored by this lichen. The net effect would probably be slightly beneficial.The Community Alternative would have the same effects on the lobaria as the ProposedAction, for the same reasons.c. Cumulative Effects of Action AlternativesSome Hieracium greenei occurrences are in areas being treated under the Ashland WatershedProtection Project that would also be treated under either of the Action Alternatives. Thetreatments are often neutral for this hawkweed, but may be beneficial, depending on howmuch the canopy around these occurrences is opened up, or at least prevented from closing.There is at least an opportunity for a beneficial cumulative effect when a Hieracium greeneioccurrence is treated by both projects.Some Engelmann spruce trees are planned to be removed as part of the Mt. Ashland Ski Areaexpansion. These are only a minor fraction of the current population. However, if there is arisk to viability of Engelmann spruce in the East Fork Ashland Creek watershed due towildland fire under the No-Action Alternative, losing some ski area trees could increase thatrisk slightly.Draft EIS III - 131 Ashland Forest Resiliency

12. Non-Native Plant SpeciesFire hazard reduction treatments may introduce or encourage exotic (non-native) andundesirable (noxious) plant species.The majority of the Project Area is dominated by native vegetation. The overstory, understory,and shrub vegetation layers are almost entirely native. The herbaceous vegetation ispredominately native at higher elevations and in forested areas. It is a mix of native and nonnativespecies at lower elevations, in disturbed areas, and on hot dry slopes.a. BackgroundSome noteworthy examples of non-native herbaceous plants that are common, and evendominant 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 ½ of the ResearchNatural 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 theOregon Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds are described below:Bull thistle is transitory in disturbed areas and regularly found in the Project Area. It is notas prevalent in the Project Area as it is on many other parts of the Forest. However, it hashighly mobile wind-born seeds and the soil seedbank in the Project Area holds bull thistleseeds that germinate and grow when areas are disturbed.Dalmation toadflax occurs in a large population (about 20 acres) on a dry sunny steep openslope in the Ashland Research Natural Area at the end of the Lamb Mine Trail. Its also beendocumented at the Forest boundary in T39S, R1E, sec 17, SE ¼ of NE ¼.Himalaya blackberry is present at potential helicopter landings #52, 56, and 24. It is also inan old disturbed area on lower Neil Creek. It’s at the FS boundary on Tolman Creek near theeast ¼-corner of section 27. Presumably it is also along a short segment of Ashland Creek onFS land in T39S, R1E, section 17 (presumed because of the high frequency of HimalayaBlackberry on City and private land in this vicinity).Himalaya blackberry is undoubtedly present elsewhere in the Analysis Area, at disturbedsites or low elevation riparian corridors. Off-forest, Himalaya blackberry is rampant aroundfarms, homes, ditches, fencerows and low elevation riparian corridors. For example, theentire Bear Creek corridor from Emigrant lake to the Rogue River is occupied by Himalayablackberry.Klamath weed is present along most of the roadsides in the Project Area and is often foundin low densities in other natural and human-made openings.Scotch broom is known from 2 sites within the Project Area: A sharp bend on Road 2080 atT39S, R1E, sec 27, middle of SE ¼. It is present on a ridge in T39, R1E, sec 21, NW ¼. Itmay also be present but undocumented in a few other low elevation sites in the Project Area.Draft EIS III - 132 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Star-thistle is present in a private quarry and at roadside at the Forest boundary in T39S,R1E, sec 17, SE ¼ of NE ¼. It is also present at potential helicopter landing #11. AnotherProject Area location is at the end of Road 2080-300 in T40S, R1E, sec 14, SE ¼. Anotherlocation, outside the Project Area in the upper Neil Creek watershed, but close enough thatactivities could be staged there, is on Road 2080, north of Road 100 junction in T40S, R1E,sec 22, NE ¼.The Forest treats noxious weed infestations as described in the Decision Notice andEnvironmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Management of the Rogue RiverNational Forest, 1999. Normally, bull thistle and Klamath weed infestations are not treated,or sometimes are treated with biological control organisms. Dalmation toadflax occurrencesare typically treated with herbicides but the large population in the Research Natural Area istreated only with biological control organisms (because its relatively close to the East Forkand Reeder Reservoir, and because herbicide use may also conflict with RNA managementobjectives). 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 thistleoccurrences are currently small because of past treatments, it is likely that only hand-pullingwill be used on them in the future. The 1999 decision doesn’t specifically address thesemore-recently-found Himalaya blackberry infestations, but the Decision does contain astrategy for dealing with new occurrences and new species. Under that strategy it is likelythat the Himilaya blackberry infestations along waterways will not be treated and theinfestations on potential helicopter landing sites will be treated with the herbicidesglyphosate or picloram.b. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesThe No-Action Alternative carries a risk of introducing or spreading non-native speciesthrough current on-going activities in the Project Area. Humans and machinery are vectorsand any disturbance is an opportunity for establishment of these species. Current levels ofrisk 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 theAction Alternatives) is a disturbance event that could facilitate expansion of existing nonnativeplant populations. Wildland fire suppression activities (which could be moreextensive under this alternative than under the Action Alternatives), could also lead tointroductions or the spread of non-native plant species.The Proposed Action has more activity than the No-Action alternative and hence carries anincreased 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 wouldameliorate but not eliminate this risk. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the ProposedAction carries less risk of introducing and spreading non-native species through wildland fireevents, or wildland fire suppression activities.Draft EIS III - 133 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Community Alternative would have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for thesame reasons. Assuming the mitigation measures are applied equally to both ActionAlternatives, and assuming the risk of spreading non-native species through wildland fire orwildland fire suppression activities is equal, the degree of risk that each Action Alternativecarries is roughly proportional to the amount of disturbance that would occur from projectactivities.c. Cumulative Effects of AlternativesThe No-Action Alternative carries a risk of introducing or spreading non-native speciesthrough current on-going activities in the Project Area. Humans and machinery are vectorsand any disturbance is an opportunity for establishment of these species. Current levels ofrisk 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 underthis alternative than under the Action Alternatives) is a disturbance event that could facilitateexpansion of existing non-native plant populations.The Proposed Action has more activity than the No-Action Alternative and hence carries anincreased 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 willameliorate but not eliminate this risk. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the ProposedAction carries less risk of introducing and spreading non-native species through wildland fireevents or wildland fire suppression activities.The Community Alternative would have the same effects as the Proposed Action, for thesame reasons. Assuming the mitigation measures are applied equally to both ActionAlternatives, and assuming the risk of spreading non-native species through wildland fire orwildland fire suppression activities is equal, the degree of risk that each Action Alternativecarries is roughly proportional to the amount of disturbance that would occur from projectactivities.13. Aquatic Habitat and FishFire hazard reduction treatments could adversely affect the downstream habitat (AshlandCreek below Reeder and Granite Street Reservoirs, and lower Tolman and Hamilton creeks)for resident and anadromous fish populations including coho salmon, which are listed asthreatened, and steelhead trout, a candidate species for listing under the ESA.a. BackgroundFor discussion purposes, the Project Area refers to the immediate area involved in the action(land within the 8,150-acre or 8,990-acre boundaries), while the Action Area refers to allareas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action (such as streams downstreamof the Project Area) and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.Draft EIS III - 134 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The three fish-bearing streams in the Project Area are Ashland Creek including its West andEast forks, Neil Creek, and Horn Gulch. Fish-bearing streams outside of the Project Areathat could be affected by actions inside the Project Area are Wagner, Clayton, Tolman,Hamilton, and Bear creeks.Quality and Quantity of Fish HabitatNeil Creek provides about 44.9 miles of fish habitat; 18.5 miles (41%) inside the ProjectArea and 26.4 miles (59%) outside the Project Area. Although large wood frequency isrelatively low and sand frequency relatively high, overall habitat quality in Neil Creek ismoderate to high inside the Project Area and appears to be functioning properly (EcosystemsNorthwest 2000). Fish habitat quality in Neil Creek downstream of the Project Area is lowbecause of lack of side channels and large wood; warm, turbid water; reduced stream flowand shallow depth; abundance of fine sediment; and frequent artificial fish-passage barriers(Siskiyou Research Group 2002a).Ashland Creek provides about 27.2 miles of fish habitat; 14.5 miles (53%) inside the ProjectArea and 12.7 miles (47%) outside the Project Area. All anadromous fish passage is blockedfrom the Project Area by two large dams downstream (Granite Street and Hosler). Althoughlarge wood frequency is relatively low and sand frequency relatively high, overall habitatquality in Ashland Creek is high inside the Project Area, especially above Reeder Reservoirin the East and West forks (Abbas 1997; Siskiyou Research Group 2002b). Fish habitatquality in Ashland Creek downstream of the Project Area is low because of channelization;lack of side channels, large wood, and suitable spawning substrate; and warm watertemperatures (Siskiyou Research Group 2001).The mainstem of Wagner Creek provides about 5.4 miles of fish habitat; all located outsidethe Project Area. Approximately 0.5 miles of fish habitat occur inside, and 1.0 miles outside,the Project Area in Horn Gulch.Clayton Creek provides about 2.5 miles of fish habitat; all located outside the Project Area.Habitat quality in the bottom 0.5 miles is poor due to channelization, bank erosion andinvasion by exotic plants, and lack of instream structure and suitable spawning substrate(Siskiyou Research Group 2004).Tolman Creek provides about 1.3 miles of fish habitat; all located outside the Project Area.Hamilton Creek provides about 0.8 miles of fish habitat; all located outside the Project Area.For a more complete description of fish habitat and use in Tolman, Hamilton, and Claytoncreeks see USDA FS 2001.Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Fish Species and Stream Amphibians PresentProposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) fishes potentially found inside theProject Area are: steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout. In addition to these two species,PETS fishes and amphibians found in the Action Area downstream of the Project Area areChinook and coho salmon and foothill yellow-legged frog. See USDA FS 1995 (pp. 50-53)for a cursory discussion of coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout life histories anddistributions within the Bear Creek watershed.Draft EIS III - 135 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Coho Salmon (Threatened)Coho salmon in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts(SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), and were listed as Threatened under theEndangered Species Act on 6 May 1997. Critical habitat was delineated by NOAA Fisherieson 5 May 1999, and includes all streams within the Project Area that are accessible to thespecies. Abundance of the SONCC ESU has declined from an estimated 150,000 to 400,000native fish to about 10,000 wild fish (Federal Register 1999) because of overharvesting,habitat degradation and loss, and hatchery interactions (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Within theRogue basin, recent population estimates of wild coho have ranged from 1,261 fish in 1993to 12,213 in 2001 (ODFW 2004a). The Bear Creek subpopulation of SONCC coho salmonis 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 between2001 and 2004 in Bear Creek during a juvenile outmigrant study (Vogt 2004). In contrast,Little Butte Creek is similar to Bear Creek with respect to watershed size and amount of fishhabitat—but contains better habitat quality—and produced 10,000 to 68,000 coho smoltsbetween 2001 and 2003.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 April1999 (GIS files), suggesting lower Hamilton Creek is potential winter rearing habitat. Cohosalmon 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 habitatin these streams may be limited, or that spawner escapement in the upper Bear Creekwatershed is very low. No coho salmon or redds were detected in spawner surveysconducted in Ashland Creek in 2002 or 2003, even though 2002 was an above-average returnyear for the Rogue basin (ODFW 2003, 2004b). However, coho salmon spawning activitywas observed in Ashland Creek near Lithia Park in January 2005 (pers. com. Jay Doino,Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Chris Volpe, Medford BLM). Current coho salmondistribution and abundance in Wagner Creek is unknown although the recent removal ofmigration barriers could have increased coho use of this drainage.Chinook Salmon (Sensitive)Chinook salmon in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern CaliforniaCoastal (SONCC) (ESU), and were not warranted for federal protection under theEndangered Species Act on 9 September 1999. Essential fish habitat for SONCC Chinooksalmon is identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Most Rogue basin Chinook salmonhave a four to five year life cycle, spending three to four years in the ocean and less than ayear in freshwater (Groot and Margolis 1998; Jacobs 2003). The Rogue basin contains bothfall and spring Chinook salmon runs, and the Bear Creek watershed currently containsprimarily fall Chinook salmon, which spawn in the fall, hatch in late winter, and enter theestuary by the following fall.Fall Chinook salmon is the most abundant salmonid in the Rogue basin with recent estimatesranging from 150,000 to 291,000 wild adults (Jacobs 2003). Vogt (2002) estimated thepopulation size of juvenile Chinook salmon produced in the Bear Creek watershed wasgreater than 205,000 fish. No recent record exists of Chinook salmon using streams in theProject Area for spawning or rearing. However, lower Ashland and Neil creeks containpotential spawning habitat based on their gradient and substrate. While Chinook salmonusually spawn in larger streams such as Bear Creek and the Rogue River, during large runyears they disperse into smaller tributaries to spawn.Draft EIS III - 136 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Steelhead Trout (Sensitive)Steelhead in the Rogue basin are part of the Klamath Mountains Province ESU, and were notwarranted for federal listing by NOAA Fisheries on 30 March 2001. Both summer andwinter runs of steelhead occur in the Rogue basin and Bear Creek watershed and are largelyseparated genetically by spawning timing and location (Everest 1971, 1973). Within theRogue River, summer steelhead populations are considered depressed and winter steelheadhealthy (Busby et al. 1994). In addition to habitat degradation and loss, Everest (1971) listedangling pressure, and summer water quality and quantity as factors that adversely affectRogue basin summer steelhead populations. Although habitat has been substantially altered,the Bear Creek watershed is still an important contributor to wild steelhead production in theRogue basin. Recent estimates of Bear Creek steelhead production range from 10,000 toalmost 40,000 smolts, and average nearly 240 smolts per mile (Vogt 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 steelheadspawning occurs in Tolman, Hamilton, and Clayton creeks, however small, sometimesintermittent, tributaries like these are preferred habitat for Rogue basin summer steelheadspawning (Everest 1973).Distribution of steelhead spawning and rearing in Wagner and Neil creeks is poorlyunderstood because of the effects of passage barriers and lack of survey effort. In 2002,steelhead spawning activity was observed in Neil Creek above the Interstate 5 culvert(thought to be a barrier), but not within the Analysis Area (Wier 2001). If they have accessto the ocean, rainbow trout in the Rogue basin are generally assumed to be steelhead unlessthey occur in isolated populations above barriers. However, snorkel surveys conducted inNeil Creek within the project area did not find a dominant young-of-the-year class associatedwith high steelhead fecundity and suggested that observed trout in the Analysis Area wereresident rainbow trout (Ecosystems Northwest 2000). In winter 2000, Forest Serviceemployees electroshocked a 0.5-mile long section of Neil Creek near the Project Area lowerboundary and found only cutthroat trout suggesting absence of steelhead in the Project Area(Reid 2000).Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Sensitive)Coastal cutthroat trout in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Oregon California CoastsESU, and the anadromous form (which does not currently, and probably never occurred inthe Bear Creek watershed) was found not warranted for federal listing by NOAA Fisheries on5 April 1999. Coastal cutthroat trout is the most abundant salmonid in many Oregonheadwater streams (Hooton 1995) and its populations are often more genetically diverse andlocally isolated than other Pacific salmon and trout (Williams and Reeves 2004). Ashlandand Neil creeks are near the southern range limits of coastal cutthroat trout distribution, andcontain well-distributed, moderately abundant populations, especially in their upper reacheswithin the Project Area (Abbas 1997; Siskiyou Research Group 2002a).Genetic isolation occurs in these streams, due to natural and artificial barriers (waterfalls anddams). An adfluvial (lake-dwelling) population of SOCC cutthroat trout exists in ReederReservoir, although its dynamics and spawning behavior have not been studied. Small, oftenintermittent, streams draining into Reeder Reservoir (such as Reeder Gulch) may beimportant spawning habitat, while current research has documented lake shoal spawning incoastal cutthroat trout (Saiget 2004). Little is known about the distribution and abundance ofSOCC coastal cutthroat trout in other streams draining the Analysis Area.Draft EIS III - 137 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Sensitive)Ecology 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 ResearchGroup 2002a), but not lower Ashland Creek (Siskiyou Research Group 2001), and mightoccur in lower Hamilton, Clayton, Tolman, and Wagner creeks. The species inhabits streamswith cobble, gravel, or sand bottoms and attaches its eggs on rocks underwater (Leonard etal. 1993).Effect MechanismsWhile many uncertainties exist about effects of wildlife to fish (see Bisson et al. 2003), ingeneral, direct or short-term physical effects from large scale wildland fire can includereduction in ground and canopy cover and an increase in water temperature, erosion andsedimentation rates, and changes in pH and chemical concentrations (Rieman and Clayton1997; Benda et al. 2003). These physical effects can be manifested in fish individuals andpopulations by altered behavior, reduced fitness, and subsequent declines in populationabundance and distribution. Conversely, wildland fires can improve fish habitat and increasefish production through increased input of large wood, gravels, and nutrients (Dwire andKauffman 2003; Minshall 2003; Spencer et al. 2003).In Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains, summer water temperature increased as much as 10° C insmall streams that were intensely burned by the Silver Fire and lost canopy cover(Amaranthus 1990). However, Amaranthus (1990) found water temperatures did not increaseat the mouth of large, fish-bearing streams downstream of the fire area, possibly due toincreased base flows or groundwater recharge. In Glade Creek, seven-day average maximumtemperatures increased 0.7° C the summer following the Quartz Gulch Fire, while noincrease was observed in an adjacent unburned watershed (Reid unpub. data). In GladeCreek, Sedell (2003) found an increase in large wood and bank instability, and a decrease indeep pool frequency the year following the Quartz Fire.Effects of fire-caused physical changes to fish populations vary based on fire intensity;physical watershed parameters such as geology, drainage density, slope, land management,precipitation, and vegetation; and connectivity and abundance of fish sub-populations(Dunham et al. 2003; Rieman et al. 2003; Kershner et al. 2004). Fish population abundanceand distribution can decrease in the first or second year following a large wildland fire, thenincrease to pre-fire levels or greater in the following years because of improved spawningand rearing habitats (Howell 2003). These responses were observed during recent largewildland fires in Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains with juvenile steelhead in Silver Creek(Haspiel 1990) and rainbow trout in Glade Creek (Chambers 2003; Reid and Chambers2005).Many gaps exist in understanding how wildland fires affect amphibian populations (seePilliod et al. 2003). It can be assumed that fires that negatively affect fish could alsonegatively affect stream-dwelling amphibians, provided the amphibians and fishes sharesimilar habitat requirements. Wildland fires may have more adverse effects on amphibianpopulations than fish because amphibians tend be less fecund and able to disperse efficiently.After the Quartz Fire, stream amphibian abundance in Glade Creek took longer to recoverthan fish (Reid and Chambers 2005).Draft EIS III - 138 Ashland Forest Resiliency

. Direct Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativePhysical scientists predict a wildland fire in the Analysis Area would have significant effectson soils and watershed properties (USDA FS 2005). Models predict a negative linearrelationship between soil cover remaining after the fire and erosion. A large wildland fire inthe Analysis Area that removes soil and canopy cover is likely to increase stream temperatureand fine sediment production in upper Ashland, Neil, and Wagner creeks.These physical changes would likely have negative effects on fish populations within theProject Area. There is the chance of direct mortality from excessive stream temperaturecaused by the ambient heat of the fire. If direct mortality is severe, sub-populations ofcutthroat trout above barriers could be lost and would not be re-established. There is also thestrong likelihood of reducing trout fitness in the Project Area because of reduced pool depthsand degraded spawning habitat expected to occur the year following the fire, in addition todecreased macroinvertebrate production through clogging interstices with fine sediment.Temperature increases in some affected streams within the Project Area may be great enoughto reduce trout fitness. Intense sediment delivery to Reeder Reservoir could greatly reducespawning success of cutthroat trout, especially if shoal spawning occurs, jeopardizing thissub-population.Downstream of the Analysis Area, a large wildland fire-related increase in sedimentation inlower Neil, Wagner, Clayton, Hamilton, and Tolman creeks and Bear Creek would adverselyaffect spawning and rearing habitats for coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead. Increasedsediment could negatively affect foothill yellow-legged frog breeding habitat by smotheringegg attachment sites with fine sediment.Input of large wood after a wildland fire could improve trout habitat in the Analysis Area,which has low abundance of instream large wood (Abbas 1997, Ecosystems Northwest 2000,Siskiyou Research Group 2002b). Because of numerous dams, culverts, and bridgesdownstream of the Analysis Area, it is extremely unlikely large wood would be recruiteddownstream into most habitats where anadromous fish occur.Proposed ActionPhysical scientists predict the resulting sediment yield would be much less than the yieldfollowing a large wildland fire, and would be similar to baseline conditions (USDA FS2005). The Proposed Action should not significantly change erosion and sedimentation as aresult of surface erosion following the activities in streams draining the Project Area or inReeder Reservoir. Using mitigation measures in the form of Best Management Practiceswould protect water quality (e.g. sediment, nutrients, pH, temperature). These BestManagement Practices would include buffers of intact vegetation and duff layers that wouldseparate the treatment areas from streams and trap eroded soil before it moves down slopeinto a stream channel.Because ambient temperature from prescribed burns would not significantly increase streamtemperatures to the point of upper lethal temperature, direct mortality would not occur.Because the Proposed Action would not significantly change water quality, no adverseeffects to fish in the Project Area should occur. Likewise, no effects to foothill yellowleggedfrogs or their habitat should occur from the Proposed Action, because there would beno significant changes in water quality.Draft EIS III - 139 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Understory thinning in some riparian zones could promote large wood recruitment in theProject Area by releasing conifers and reducing competition. This action could benefit trouthabitat in the Project Area, but is unlikely to have any effect on downstream fish habitatbecause of barriers to wood migration.Community AlternativeThis alternative is similar to the Proposed Action in the effects it would have on erosion andsedimentation. Both alternatives would stay within soil quality standards and guidelineswhich are designed to maintain soil quality. There are two primary differences between theAction Alternatives – the Community Alternative proposes 1) ground based yardingequipment, and 2) a greater reduction in relative stand density in the lower elevation PAGs(compared to the area of the DFPZs in the Proposed Action).Under the Community Alternative, downhill yarding using ground-based equipment on slopegradients less than 20 percent would be allowed. Mitigation measures would limit thisactivity to less than 20 percent of an area; however there are potentially 230 acres that meetthese slope criteria in the Project Area and could be impacted by ground-based equipment.While the Community Alternative suggests slightly higher rates of erosion andsedimentation, at the level and intensity of this analysis, it is unlikely that there is adetectable difference between the Community Alternative and Proposed Action on levels ofsedimentation that would reach streams.b. Indirect Effects of AlternativesNo-Action AlternativeIndirect effects related to the No-Action Alternative include effects related to fire suppressionand sluicing Reeder Reservoir in the event of intense sedimentation. Suppression activitiescould result in input of fire retardants and construction of fire lines that also contribute toerosion and sedimentation. Fire retardants are toxic to many salmonids and have caused fishkills when applied to streams (Norris et al. 1991). Fire lines and other ground-disturbingsuppression activities can have significant and long-lasting environmental effects, if notrehabilitated (Bisson et al. 2003).Physical scientists predicted that an indirect effect of the No-Action Alternative could besevere sedimentation in Reeder Reservoir and associated reduction in storage (USDA FS2005). Reduced storage would likely result in mechanical sediment removal, which couldpotentially include sluicing. The sluicing of fine sediments and coarse sand from thereservoir bottom could severely degrade aquatic habitat in Ashland and Bear creeks,affecting fish behavior through turbidity and fitness through degradation of spawning andrearing habitats and reduction of macroinvertebrate production by clogging interstices andincreasing embeddedness.Proposed Action and Community AlternativePhysical scientists predicted there would be no indirect effects of the treatments on sedimentdelivery beyond those already described (USDA FS 2005). Subsequently, there would be nolong term indirect effects on fish or stream amphibians from the Proposed Action andCommunity Alternative. Locally, at the site scale there may be slight effects to cutthroattrout and yellow-legged frog habitat.Draft EIS III - 140 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Effects DeterminationsBased on an extensive review of best available science, input from an interdisciplinaryscience team, and professional judgment, the effects from the No-Action Alternative underthe Ashland Forest Resiliency Project combined with a large wildland fire would result inconditions that may adversely affect SONCC coho salmon, SONCC Chinook salmon, KMPsteelhead, SOCC cutthroat trout, and foothill yellow-legged frog. The No-Action Alternativecombined with a large and severe wildland fire would also likely adversely affect SONCCcoho salmon critical habitat and coho and Chinook salmon Essential Fish Habitat.Based on science review, input from an interdisciplinary science team, and professionaljudgment, the effects from treatments under the Proposed Action and Community Alternativeunder the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project would result in a determination of “May Affect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) for SONCC coho salmon (Reid 2005). Thesensitive species determination is “May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat” but not likely tocause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability” (MIIH) for SONCC Chinooksalmon, KMP steelhead, SOCC cutthroat trout, and foothill yellow-legged frog. Theseeffects are short-term.Because it reduces risk of substantial short-term environmental degradation associated with alarge wildland fire, in the long term, the Proposed Action and Community Alternative arelikely to result in a beneficial effect to aquatic habitats and fauna by preventing habitatimpacts associated with large wildland fire.The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-267), amended the Magnuson-StevensFisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require federalagencies to consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries(NOAA) on activities that may adversely affect “Essential Fish Habitat”. The Act definesEFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, orgrowth to maturity” and includes all freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish,marine waters, and intertidal habitats. Critical Habitat is identical to coho habitat protectedunder the Endangered Species Act and the determination of effect is the same.c. Cumulative EffectsWithin the Analysis Area, a major activity being planned by the Forest Service is theexpansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. The effects of the expansion are documented in theFinal Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for this action (USDA FS2004). Cumulative effects in the Analysis Area could occur through increased humandevelopment, land management, and water allocation throughout the Bear Creek watershed.The increases in erosion and sedimentation associated with a large wildland fire would dilutethe minor changes in erosion and sediment yield associated with the Mt. Ashland Ski Areaexpansion to a degree that the expansion effects could not be measured (USDA FS 2004).Increased human development and resource management in the Bear Creek watershed arepredicted to have adverse effects to fish and aquatic habitats within the Action Area.Physical effects from a large-scale wildland fire could be acute to fish populations (primarilycoho salmon and steelhead trout) in the Analysis Area when combined with effects fromincreased human development.Draft EIS III - 141 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Effects to fish and aquatic habitats from the Proposed Action and Community Alternativewould be negligible compared to current and predicted future effects from humandevelopment in the downstream watersheds. Implementing the Proposed Action orCommunity Alternative would reduce the risk of wildland fire, a disturbance that couldcombine with other factors to reduce fish production in the Bear Creek watershed. The BearCreek subpopulation of coho salmon is at remnant levels and could be near extinction (Vogt2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). A large wildland fire in the Project Area coupled with specificenvironmental factors could adversely affect coho salmon habitat quality throughout theUpper Bear Creek watershed.14. Scenic QualityThere is concern for the resulting visual character (evidence of management) and attainmentof visual quality objectives for scenic quality, as a result of hazardous fuel treatments.The scenic resources on National Forest System lands associated with the Upper Bear AnalysisArea were inventoried under the Forest Service’s Visual Management System (VMS) systemduring the late 1970s and updated as specific projects were identified. Ashland Forest Resiliencywill be analyzed utilizing the VMS in order to maintain the integrity of the original inventory andestablished Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs).a. BackgroundScenic Management GuidelinesBasic inventories for developing the VQOs of an area include:Landscape Variety Class (A = Distinctive; B = Common; and C = Minimal) is adetermination of the importance of the scenic quality of the natural landscape.Sensitivity Level (Level 1 = high; 2 = average; and 3 = low) is a measure of the people’sconcern for scenic quality.Distance Zones is a measurement of the landscape seen from the viewing point(foreground is up to one-half mile; middleground up to five miles; and background to theremaining seen area).Forested foreground scenery viewed from sensitivity level one roads and trails would beexpected to exhibit a late seral character as well as a multi-storied stand of conifers. Theimmediate foreground should display a diversity of species and age groups includinghardwoods and the shrub/groundcover layer.Attention to details, such as minimizing ground disturbance, reducing stump heights, andmanaging to view large trees is necessary to maintain the sense of a natural system and thetraveling public’s scenic expectations. Form, lines of individual trees, and color are thedominant characteristics of the seen landscape in foregrounds.Middleground and background areas should appear in a near natural state with openings ofsizes and shapes that would reflect natural processes. Texture and lines in the landscape areimportant in these viewed areas.Draft EIS III - 142 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Forest Resource and Land Management Plan (LRMP), 1990, assigned Visual QualityObjectives to each of the land allocations. As shown on Map 1-1 of the 2003 Upper BearAssessment (page 1-7), visual management allocations include Foreground Retention (282acres) within the upper portions of Neil Creek, associated with the Access Road (CountyRoad 1151), and Foreground Partial Retention (1,740 acres), and Middleground PartialRetention (1,106 acres), as associated with the roads, trails, and interface area next to thecommunity of Ashland. The Northwest Forest Plan (1994) replaced or modified the LRMPland allocations, including Late-Successional Reserve (LSR). The NWFP indicated thatVQOs identified in current plans would remain (see FEMAT Appendix A, SocialAssessment of Options).Scenic Analysis AreaThe scenic Analysis Area is located in the Eastern Siskiyou Mountains of the KlamathMountains physiographic province, known for its steep and dissected terrain. Greenexpanses of dense conifer forests dominate the view from the upper Bear Creek valley.Natural breaks in this canopy occur at clear cuts (Neil Creek drainage), rocky outcrops,sparsely-spaced meadows, and ski runs. The National Weather Service radar station atop Mt.Ashland is clearly visible. During the winter, the ski runs and meadows are morepronounced because of the contrast between snow and vegetation. Tourism officials inAshland promote the heavily forested backdrop to the City of Ashland in many of theirpictures and brochures.Portions of the Analysis Area are visible from several viewpoints in and around the City ofAshland, 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 PartialRetention and Middleground Partial Retention. These areas, as seen from selected travelroutes and use areas are to be managed so that, to the casual observer, results of activities areevident but are visually subordinate to the landscape. A management system is adoptedwhich 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.b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesThe scenic quality of the Analysis Area can be changed by high intensity wildland fire andby management activities such as thinning that reduces stand densities, and other visuallyapparent management activity including burning landscapes, in both the short- and longterm.No-Action AlternativeThere would be no effect on current scenic quality of the Analysis Area as seen from anylocation if no high severity wildland fires are assumed and no management activities wouldtake place. However, if a large (500 acres or more) high-severity wildland fire were to occur,there would be adverse impacts on scenic quality in both the immediate foreground adjacentto roads/trails, and from more distant scenic viewpoints such as Interstate 5 and the City ofAshland. Since the precise location of a potential wildland fire cannot be known, thisanalysis considers all viewpoints equally affected and that larger fires would have moreadverse effects on all viewpoints.Draft EIS III - 143 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Proposed ActionEffects related to a large high intensity wildland fire would be the same as for the No-ActionAlternative. However, analysis under this alternative assumes that such a fire would be lesslikely as fuel reduction treatments would take place over time, and would make the AnalysisArea (especially areas allocated to visual Foreground and Middleground Partial Retention),more fire resilient.Management activities associated with the Proposed Action would result in short-term effectsto scenic quality within the Analysis Area, particularly from roads and trails. Proposedunderburning and pile burning would have minor direct short-term effects on scenic qualityresulting from the presence of burned trees and vegetation. For most visitors, this impactwould be considered adverse. Density management would create more open forested stands.In the long-term, these effects would become less noticeable to the casual observer. Abeneficial effect of underburning is that it often creates a mosaic of stand structures and smallopenings, a desirable characteristic that would meet scenic quality objectives.Over the long-term, the primary change to scenic quality would be a more open, park-likeappearance to those areas adjacent to roads and trails. This would be a result of removingthick vegetative stands by “thinning from below,” pruning of limbs, and underburning. It isanticipated that most people would welcome a more open forest with greater vistas and theopportunity to see more of what they are surrounded by. Others may prefer the more closedfeeling associated with the current condition.Over the short-term and long-term, helicopter landings would be visible from a number oflocations within the Analysis Area. These landings would have both adverse and beneficialeffects for the casual viewer of the surrounding landscape. Some individuals would feel thatthese small cleared areas (approximately 175 feet by 175 feet) would detract from theunaltered appearance of many locations within the Analysis Area. For others, the landingsites would provide valued scenic points from which to view the surrounding landscape, bothwithin and outside of the Analysis Area.Overall, scenic quality objectives and guidelines as viewed from within the Analysis Area orfrom scenic viewpoints outside of the Analysis Area, would be met. The heavily forestedbackdrop to the City of Ashland would appear to remain unaltered from scenic viewpointswithin Ashland and along the Interstate 5 corridor.Community AlternativeEffects to scenic quality under the Community Alternative would be very similar to theProposed Action. The primary difference would be that the Community Alternative wouldbe spread over a slightly larger geographical area, thereby potentially affecting a greaternumber of scenic quality objectives. This difference in effect would be hard to measure andnot apparent to the casual observer.The Community Alternative proposes to enact treatments within the area allocated asForeground Retention (Category 2); the Proposed Action does not. Treatments proposedhere would not appear noticeable and would meet the visual quality objective.Draft EIS III - 144 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Similar to long-term effects associated with the Proposed Action after project completion, theCommunity Alternative would also result in a change of character along most roads and trailsbecause of more open park-like stands of trees and other vegetation. This change would bespread across a larger geographical area than the Proposed Action.Overall, the patchwork effect associated with the Fuel Discontinuity Network across a largergeographical area would result in a more varied landscape relative to the Proposed Action.This minor difference in landscape character between the two Action Alternatives would notbe obvious to most persons viewing the surrounding landscape.Although as with the Proposed Action, some small openings may be created, all proposedfire hazard reduction treatments would also be consistent with the visual quality objectives ofForeground and Middleground Partial Retention.15. Recreation and Public SafetyHazardous fuel treatment activities may affect or change public use of recreation facilities andfeatures (including illegal activities), and may affect the safety of the recreating publicThe Analysis Area within NFSL provides high quality dispersed recreation opportunities. Thetwo primary uses are mountain biking and hiking. The Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) providesa major winter attraction within the upper reaches of the Analysis Area. Other recreationpursuits include hunting, fishing, horseback riding, Nordic skiing (including backcountry skiing),snowshoeing, running, dog walking, picnicking, and scenery and nature observation andphotography.Camping is not allowed within the Ashland Watershed and portions of the Tolman and ClaytonCreek drainages. Developed recreation sites are limited to rustic trailheads and the Mt. AshlandSki Area. A number of recreation events are held each year, primarily running and mountainbike races. The most heavily used areas are close to the City of Ashland. One writer hascharacterized the area as “all the forest’s a stage” for recreation activities (in reference to theShakespearean theme of Ashland) (Hess 1986).a. BackgroundHistorical SituationRecreation use in the Ashland Watershed was first promoted by the City of Ashland in theearly 1900s. The City helped finance a road several miles up Ashland Creek and touted thearea as “Ashland’s Grand Canyon.” Tourists and residents traveled by wagons (and later,automobiles) to a saddle on Winburn Ridge. From that point, some visitors followed a trailto Mt. Ashland (LaLande 1980). Other recreation use in the area during this timeframeprobably took place on other trails in the area that led from the upper Bear Creek Valley tothe Siskiyou Crest. These trails included one in the Neil Creek area and one on the mainridge line that divides Ashland Creek from Neil, Clayton, and Tolman Creeks. Although notconstructed for recreation purposes, Forest users most likely used these trails for fishing,hunting, and sightseeing.Draft EIS III - 145 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The next major development that affected recreation use was the construction of the AshlandLoop Road by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1937. This road began above Lithia Parkand passed through Four Corners, Bull Gap, and Mt. Ashland before continuing west alongthe Siskiyou 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 longroad…provided some magnificent mountain scenery previously available to only a hardyfew” (LaLande 1980). This road was no doubt popular with local residents and tourists. Italso 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.A less significant development was the Bull Gap “Campground” or “Picnic Ground.” CCCrecords 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 longtimelocals, there was an established picnic ground by the early 1950s. The picnic groundincluded five picnic sites, a fence, outhouses, a small water development (spring box andmortared stone fountain/hydrant. The site was dismantled in the early 1970s and currentlyserves as a trailhead for the Bull Gap Trail (Johnson 1993).In the late1950s and early 1960s, additional Forest Roads were constructed in the AshlandWatershed and the Neil Creek drainage for timber harvest and fire access purposes. Theseroads (2060 and 2080 with their various spurs) provided vehicular access to areas thatpreviously could only be reached by trails. From 1960 to the late 1980s, these roads wereused on an increasing basis by recreating public.Due to resource damage concerns, safety issues, and conflicts between motorized and nonmotorizedusers of these roads, the Forest Service has closed most of 2060 and its spur roadsto motorized use except for administrative purposes. Road 2080 remains open to the public,except for a season closure in the winter months between the 2080/600 junction and the Mt.Ashland Access Road (County Road 1151).Current SituationSkiers, hikers, and mountain bikers dominate current recreation uses within the AnalysisArea. Skier visitation figures at MASA show an average of over 87, 000 visits per year witha record year of 104,000 in 1994/95 (MASA DEIS 2003).Recreational hikers have been using the Analysis Area for over a hundred years and thisactivity remains popular today amongst local residents and tourists. The areas closest to theCity boundaries are the most heavily used. Access to NFSL is within walking distance(under 2 miles) for many City residents who use a number of City streets and trails located inAshland’s urban/wildland interface. Many hikers use the 2060 Road, which is closed tovehicles throughout its length except for the portion between Morton St. and the WhiteRabbit Trailhead. The heaviest use occurs on the lower reaches of Road 2060 (both ends)and on the following trails near or adjacent to the City: BTI, Alice in Wonderland, WhiteRabbit, Toothpick, and Lamb Mine. This use occurs on a year-round basis. Hiker usedeclines where trails are located further away from the City due to longer access or snowcover. However, during the summer months almost all trails (and roads closed to vehicletraffic) see use on a daily basis.Draft EIS III - 146 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Mountain bikers began using the area in the early to mid 1980s. This relatively newrecreation activity has grown extensively since the 1980s on both a local and national basis.Relative to hikers, this use is more widespread throughout the Analysis Area. Popular routesinclude the Lithia Loop, which starts and ends at Lithia Park by following Road 2060 formost its 28-mile length. Another route is the recently established Creek to Crest route fromthe 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 HornGap, Eastview, and Bull Gap trails).Unfortunately, a small percentage of mountain bike users have constructed a number ofunauthorized trails within the Ashland Watershed. This activity has caused resource damagesuch as increased erosion and plant mortality. The 2000 Ashland Watershed Trails EA andDecision Notice discussed this issue in more detail. A number of component projectsassociated with that planning process has resulted in less illegal activity, but problems remainrelative to the use of mountain bikes off of designated trails and roads.Of the remaining recreation activities, runners and those walking their dogs comprise thelargest percentage of users. During the winter months, the Bull Gap Nordic Trail is a populardestination. Nordic skiers also ski to the City from Mt. Ashland after storm events with lowsnow levels (2000-2500 feet in elevation). Equestrians also use the area on a regular basis,but not nearly to the same degree as other users.Approximately seven Special Use permits are issued each year for running and mountainbike events. Hunting and fishing use has decreased since the 1990s due to more difficultaccess caused by road closures. Scenic driving primarily occurs on Road 2080 within theTolman and Neil Creek drainages.Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) are prohibited within the Ashland Watershed. OHV use isextremely low in other areas due to steep terrain and dense vegetation.Based on observations by Forest Service personnel and the use of trail counters, overall usewas conservatively estimated at 16,000 visits per year in 2000 (Ashland Watershed TrailsEA, 2000).Recreation use has increased substantially since that time and probably exceeds 40,000 visitsper year within the NF boundary 4 . Use within the urban/wildland interface on City andprivate lands is most likely even greater due to its close proximity to homes and businesses.“The Forest at Ashland’s Doorstep” (Hess 1986) provides a high quality recreationexperience to an increasing number of users in a dispersed setting that is highly valued bylocal residents and visitors.4 Beginning in 2001, trail counters have been placed on selected trails and roads closed to vehicle traffic. Three of theselocations include Road 2060 above the Granite Street gate, Toothpick Trail, and Alice in Wonderland Trail. The combined yearlyaverage count at these three sites was 37,550 visits. The counts were adjusted to include “out and back” visits as just onevisitor. 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.Draft EIS III - 147 Ashland Forest Resiliency

. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesNo Action AlternativeIt is expected that current uses would increase in proportion to population and tourismincreases in the Rogue Valley and further home construction in the urban/wildland interface.Potential conflicts between users may increase (e.g., high speed mountain bikersencountering hikers on a leisurely walk). Higher visitation rates may also contribute to anincreased fire risk associated with illegal campfires, smoking, and fireworks. Since nohazardous fuel treatments are proposed under this alternative, there is a greater likelihood ofhuman-caused fires escaping the initial attack efforts of firefighters.Proposed ActionTwo primary factors would affect recreation users within the Analysis Area, (1) actualproject implementation and (2) actual post-project completion. It is realized that these twofactors would often overlap and take place simultaneously throughout the projected 10-yearimplementation period. This overlap would occur on both a spatial and temporal basis.The primary effects to recreationists during the short-term implementation phase wouldinvolve road and trail closures (for safety reasons), noise (chain saws, heavy equipment,helicopters), smoke, and increased vehicle traffic. This direct effect would degrade therecreation experience for most users who have come to expect a quiet experience with fullaccess to authorized trails and roads within a relatively pristine environment. Since not allareas would be receiving treatments at the same time, many trails and roads would remainopen while implementation activities occur. Visitor density would increase in those areasthat remain open.Some helicopter landing sites are located on or adjacent to established trails and roads usedas trails. These landing sites would preclude trail use during helicopter operations. Thegreatest effect to users would be in the lower portions of the Ashland Watershed where thehighest use occurs (landing sites 1, 11, and 22-24; see Map II-1, Chapter II). Each site wouldrequire a specific safety plan relative to trail use. For example, a trail might be open to thepublic after helicopter operations have ceased each day or might be allowed to occur onweekends only.It is expected that most users would accept short-term inconveniences to their accustomedhabits. This would be especially true for Ashland residents who are familiar with the need toreduce the risk of catastrophic fire in the Ashland Watershed.For some users, the recreation experience would be enhanced through viewing and observingproject implementation. This comment is based on conversations that Forest Servicerecreation personnel have had with users during implementation of the Ashland WatershedProtection Project. Comments such as “I really appreciate the work being done” and “now Iunderstand what is meant by fuel hazard reduction” are views commonly heard by ForestService personnel working in the Ashland Watershed.A number of mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the effects ofimplementation on recreation users. These would include advanced notice of closures,signing at appropriate locations, alternate route suggestions, and notification of various usergroups (see Mitigation Measures, Section C, 6, Chapter II).Draft EIS III - 148 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The primary effect to recreationists in the long-term after project completion, would be achange in character along many roads and trail. Currently, many of these areas are border bydense tree stands and downed woody material that tend to enclose or envelop the trail orroad. Under the Proposed Action, these stands would be opened up through cutting anddisposing of generally small diameter trees along with pruning and underburning, resulting ina more open forest. Users reaction to this change in character is difficult to predict. Itsanticipated that most would welcome a more open forest with greater vistas and theopportunity to see more of what they are surrounded by. Others may prefer the more closedfeeling associated with the current condition.A more open forest might increase the potential for a small portion of the mountain bikecommunity to construct or establish illegal trails. Since there would be less fuel, bothstanding and down, trail construction would be easier to accomplish. Increased illegal trailconstruction (or simply riding off trail) would result in a similar increase to erosion and plantmortality. Mitigation measures to reduce this effect include increased patrol by lawenforcement personnel and trained volunteers, continued cooperation with user groups toeducate the public 5 , and signing placed at strategic locations (e.g., where DFPZs cross roadsor trails). Due to funding shortages, increased patrol by Forest Service law enforcementofficers may not be possible.There would be no change to existing trails within the Forest Boundary in terms of mileagenumber of trailheads. All current uses would remain as they are now. Future visitorincreases would be similar to No-Action, but may increase slightly due to public curiosityabout the project.Community AlternativeThe primary effects to recreationists during the short-term implementation phase would bevery similar to the Proposed Action. The primary difference would be that the CommunityAlternative would be spread over a larger geographical area, thereby potentially affecting agreater number of users. This difference in effect would be hard to measure and is difficultto predict, but is expected to be minimal.Similar to long-term effects associated with the Proposed Action after project completion, theCommunity Alternative would also result in a change of character along most roads andtrails. However, this change would be spread across a larger geographical area and wouldinclude a small portion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Special Use Permit (SUP) area adjacentto the geographic feature known as the “Knoll” (40S, R1E, Section 15). Fuel treatmentswithin the SUP would require coordination with ski area management. Currently, section 15receives very low use by backcountry skiers both within and outside the SUP (estimated atless than 50 visits per year). Fuel treatments in this area would enhance the backcountry skiexperience by providing more room for skiers to navigate through dense stands.Overall, the patchwork effect associated with the Fuel Discontinuity Network across a largergeographical area would result in a more varied landscape relative to the Proposed Action.This difference in landscape character between the two Action Alternatives is not expected tochange recreation patterns on NFSL within the Analysis Area.5 For instance, the Southern Oregon Mountain Bike Association (SOMBA) is a highly respected local organization that has actively participatedin educating mountain bikers about responsible trail use in both the Analysis Area and other areas in Southern Oregon. Members haveregularly donated their time in decommissioning illegal trails as well as in construction and design of trails approved by the Forest Service.Draft EIS III - 149 Ashland Forest Resiliency

16. Other Semi-Primitive (unroaded) AreasActivities associated with hazardous fuel treatments may affect other (non-inventoried)“roadless” or semi-primitive areas that are currently unroaded; some people may value themfor their undeveloped (or spiritual) character.Roadless area management became a national issue in 1972 when the Forest Service initiated areview of National Forest System Lands (NFSL) greater than 5,000 acres to determine theirsuitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The second and finalreview process, the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II), resulted in a nationwide inventory of roadless areas.There are two areas on NFSL within the Upper Bear Analysis Area that were not identified in theRARE II inventory, but currently have few or no classified roads. These other “unroaded areas”contain roadless characteristics similar to inventoried roadless areas. There is an opportunity andobligation under NEPA to respond to the public input received during scoping for this project.a. BackgroundThe Upper Bear Analysis Area contains areas that possess some semi-primitive unroadedcharacter and values, not inventoried under RARE II. This sub-section documents thecriteria used to identify semi-primitive unroaded areas for these values. The term “semiprimitiveunroaded area” was developed solely for the Ashland Forest Resiliency process.This process was used as part of a project-level NEPA analysis and does not claim to be inaccordance with national roadless policy.It does attempt to reflect the concerns and values expressed during scoping; furthermore, it isnot meant to satisfy any one particular set of values as received from any one person ororganization. For the Upper Bear Analysis Area, those criteria include:SIZECriteria 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“Reasonable” is further defined as having habitat value and character; a criterion of 500 feet wasused to define any area in width at its narrowest point. This figure is derived from an assumptionthat a viable habitat “corridor” could be 300 feet with an additional 100 feet as an ecotone oneither edge (300 ft. plus 200 ft.).ROADS and DISTANCE FROM ROADSEach area shall not include any managed or unmanaged, “classified” or “system” road currentlyon the Forest Transportation system. A “road” is defined as a motor vehicle travelway over 50inches wide. A “classified” road is a road within NFSL planned or managed for motor vehicleaccess including State roads, County roads, private roads, permitted roads, and Forest ServiceRoads (36 CFR 212.1).Draft EIS III - 150 Ashland Forest Resiliency

An area could be adjacent to a Maintenance Level 1 system road; it should be no closer than onetree height from Maintenance Level 2, 3, 4 or 5 roads (as road maintenance includes fallinghazard/danger trees).VEGETATION CONDITIONBased on average natural stand conditions, stands should be at or near to late seral or latesuccessionalstage conditions for the sub-watershed (i.e., for a given site).For the Upper Bear Analysis Area, this has been determined to be stands ages of approximately120 – 140 years or more. Approximate tree diameters in these seral classes range from around 17– 25 inches. Forest structure (if present) should include some multi-layering. Densities should beat or greater than 100 square feet of basal area and have approximately 50% in overstory crownclosure. Vegetative areas can also include contiguous natural, non-forested or sparse vegetationtypes and plant communities, e.g., meadows.DEGREE OF PAST MANAGEMENTAreas should be relatively un-entered and un-managed; minimal past salvage activity would beacceptable. Areas would not include any areas that were managed as regeneration is the last 100years (e.g., clear-cut or shelterwood silvicultural treatments).b. Direct and Indirect Effects of AlternativesThis sub-section discusses the effects to identified semi-primitive areas identified underAshland Forest Resiliency. Direct effects include hazardous fuel treatments (densitymanagement, surface and ladder fuel treatments, prescribed burning, etc.), occurring in areasidentified through GIS analysis utilizing the above described process. Map III-6 portrays thesemi-primitive areas. The following discussion includes the extent or area of effect (change)to these areas.As shown on the map, there are two areas of contiguous forest that met the criteria for semiprimitive areas. They include an area within the West Fork of Ashland Creek (approximately1,739 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 helicoptersalvage. The “East Fork” area is essentially the RNA, and has experienced somemanagement in the form of prescribed burning in the past (see RNA Other Issue, Section E,5, this Chapter).Note that these areas are in proximity of the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area, butare not the same and are not contiguous. They are separated by the presence of FS Road2060, and the associated “roaded” or managed character adjacent to this road, they possess.Map III-6 also highlights the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (see IRASignificant Issue, Section D, 9, this Chapter).The modification of forest and evidence of human activity into these largely undevelopedareas are a direct effect; and could also create indirect human social effects. While there is ameasurable difference in acres affected, the most significant and measurable effect is themere presence of modification of the natural landscape, thus the subsequent discussions ofroadless and undeveloped character focus on the differences between No-Action and theAction Alternatives.Draft EIS III - 151 Ashland Forest Resiliency

MAP III-6. Semi-primitive Unroaded Areas (and McDonald Peak IRA)Draft EIS III - 152 Ashland Forest Resiliency

No-Action AlternativeThis alternative would maintain the current conditions with no effect on primitive recreationopportunities within the areas that currently possess an undeveloped character. Currentopportunities in a primitive, natural setting with some degree of solitude, would bemaintained.Proposed ActionAshland Forest Resiliency proposes hazardous fuel reduction treatments within portions ofthese two semi-primitive areas. These areas have no formal protection status and areallocated under the LRMP to LSR and RNA.Although no new roads or landings would be constructed within the RNA, managementactions such as density management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed. Theseactions would not be overly evident from a landscape or overhead view but would be visibleto persons walking through areas where treatments occurred.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.As much as 2,264 acres of semi-primitive unroaded areas proposed for some form oftreatment under the Proposed Action. This is an upper threshold of extent, as not all of thisacreage within these areas may require treatment during implementation.The proposed management actions may affect the existing character for those who feel itshould remain undeveloped and show no evidence of human disturbance. There would be nochange to late-successional habitat or late seral vegetation conditions. Some stumps andevidence of management may be evident.The ecological effects of fragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity would beminimal with these types of treatments and the resulting reduction in fire hazard and risk mayfurther protect the integrity of these semi-primitive areas.Community AlternativeHazardous fuel reduction treatments are also proposed within portions of these semiprimitiveunroaded areas under the Community Alternative.Although no new roads or landings would be constructed within the RNA, managementactions such as density management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed. Theseactions would not be overly evident from a landscape or overhead view but would be visibleto persons walking through areas where treatments occurred.As with the Proposed Action, one short spur roads and helicopter landing may be constructedwithin the West Fork area (candidate landing site #13). Other management actions such asdensity management, pruning, and prescribed fire are proposed throughout the West ForkArea.As much as 983 acres of semi-primitive unroaded areas proposed for some form of treatmentunder the Community Alternative. This is an upper threshold of extent, as not all of thisacreage within these areas may require treatment during implementation.Draft EIS III - 153 Ashland Forest Resiliency

The proposed management actions may affect the existing character for those who feel itshould remain undeveloped and show no evidence of human disturbance. The overall effectand 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 beminimal with these types of treatments and the resulting reduction in fire hazard and risk mayfurther protect the integrity of the IRA.SummaryThe following table summarizes the direct effects in terms of acres potentially treated,expressed as a percentage of the semi-primitive areas within the National Forest portion ofthe Upper Bear Analysis Area.Table III-29. Effects to Other Semi-primitive Unroaded Areas, by AlternativeAcres TreatedWithin “West Fork”AreaAcres TreatedWithin “East Fork”AreaTotal Acres TreatedWithin SemiprimitiveAreasPercent of AreaAffectedNo-Action(Current Condition0 0 0 0ProposedAction1,055 A 1,209 B 2,264 73%CommunityAlternative447 536 983 C 32%“West Fork “ area is 1,739 acres “East Fork” area is 1,348 acresA Treatments include DFPZ, Interface, and Late-successional HabitatB Treatments include RNA onlyC Treatments include Priority 1-9c. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesAs 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 theAshland Watershed, Late-Successional Reserve, RNA and other lands whose managementshapes the ecological function of the Siskiyou Mountains. Specific ecological effects offragmentation and late-successional forest connectivity are discussed in more detail inSection D, 7, this Chapter. The ecosystem effects at the landscape scale of altering relativelynatural forest in this area are also discussed in Section E, 16, of this Chapter (other noninventoriedsemi-primitive unroaded areas.17. Heritage (Cultural) ResourcesHazardous fuel treatments may affect archaeological or historical sites and/or current NativeAmerican values.a. BackgroundPast Uses of the Area -Native UsesBased on archaeological evidence from the wider region, native (or American Indian) groupsalmost certainly inhabited southwestern Oregon for much of the past 10,000 years. Some ofthem would have occupied the upper Bear Creek valley area (including the lowest reaches ofAshland Creek), and these people would have ascended into the hills and higher mountainsof the Ashland vicinity on seasonal hunting and gathering expeditionsDraft EIS III - 154 Ashland Forest Resiliency

By the time that Euroamerican explorers passed through the valley during the 1820s-1840s,the native peoples that lived in the valley consisted of two groups: Upland Taklema (a.k.a.“Latgawa”) and Shasta. These two ethnic groups spoke distinctively different languages butthey shared a very similar way of life as hunters/gatherers/fishers. During the 1840s-50s aShasta village was situated on lower Ashland Creek (within the present city limits ofAshland, apparently near the present Plaza); however, it is likely that both Shasta and UplandTakelma bands seasonally passed through and regularly used the mid-elevation forests thatare included within what is now the proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Area.Early-summer to early-fall hunting of large mammals (deer and elk, primarily) accounted formuch of this seasonal use. Cooperative game drives that employed extensive ground-fires toherd animals upslope to a chosen killing ground may have occurred in the foothills of theProject Area (this activity is known to have occurred elsewhere locally, based on the directtestimony of Takelma and Shasta elders who were interviewed by anthropologists around1900). Higher-elevation forests (such as upper Neil Creek and near Horn Gap) probably sawsomewhat more limited amounts of hunting (and this by smaller groups or even solitaryhunters), as well as late-summer harvesting of various edible berries and roots. Fires werealso frequently set on the area’s lower slopes in order to help maintain a more open oak/pinedominatedwoodland (and hence more productive in terms of its important edible plants) thanmight 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 fromthe slopes of the Project Area prior to the recent era of fire-suppression (and that era’sresulting increase in forest-stand density and change in species composition).Past Uses of the Area -Historic-Period UsesThe earliest Euroamericans to actually see the hills of the Project Area were fast-movingbrigades of fur trappers who passed through the vicinity in the 1820s-40s. Beaver trappingwithin 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 throughthe valley. The first permanent settlement by Euroamerican farmers in the Ashland areabegan in the early 1850s, in association with simultaneous gold discoveries nearby in theRogue and Klamath basins. Hunting of large game definitely brought farmers, miners, andothers into the higher hills, as did the very labor-intensive, horse-/oxen-powered logging ofselected ponderosa and sugar pines on the lowest slopes for dimension lumber and miningflumes.As the communities of Ashland and Wagner Creek (later Talent) began to thrive during thelate 1850s through the 1870s, local residents diverted the waters of Ashland Creek, TolmanCreek, Wagner Creek, and other lower-reach streams into irrigation ditches and into flumesthat powered sawmills, flouring mills, and a woolen mill. (Within the Project Area itself,mining remained only a relatively small-scale activity.) With the railroad’s arrival in theRogue River valley during the 1880s local products such as wheat, lumber, wool, and (after1900) orchard fruit could now be shipped to far-distant markets. Woolgrowers grazed herdsof sheep in upper Neil Creek and in the headwaters of Ashland Creek, leading to protestsfrom water-quality-conscious townsfolk. This situation led, in 1893, to a presidentialproclamation creating the Ashland Forest Reserve --- from which sheep were to be excluded.Draft EIS III - 155 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Starting in the 1890s and increasing through the 1920s, local lumbermen (now assisted bysteam-powered skidders that accelerated production and enabled logging on much steeperslopes) ventured higher into the hills to log the big old pines. Such operations includedsmall-capacity rough-cut sawmills such as those that operated on the middle section of NeilCreek, near the present site of Ashland Creek’s Hosler Dam, and near Wagner Gap. NationalForest land in these and other completely reforested areas still are marked by rotted pinestumps and by the now barely-visible log-skid trails gouged into the granitic soils by steamdonkeys.The USDA Forest Service assumed responsibility for the Forest Reserve in 1905, soonexpanded and renamed the Crater (now Rogue River –Siskiyou) National Forest. The earlyForest Service built trails and fought fires (including a sizable Ashland Creek burn in 1910that required emergency reinforcements of US Army troops to suppress). In the 1920s theagency built fire lookouts on the summits of Mt. Ashland and Wagner Butte, stringing milesof telephone line to connect these remote stations to the ranger’s office below. The City ofAshland vastly improved its domestic water supply and storage capacity during the 1920swith construction of Hosler Dam, impounding a stretch of Ashland Creek into ReederReservoir.During the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the most famous and effectiveemployment/conservation program of the New Deal, brought hundreds of young men towork in the National Forest. The Forest Service employed C.C.C. crews on a variety ofprojects 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 routelinked the town of Ashland directly to the highest slopes of Mt. Ashland. Meant to providefor (among other purposes) faster fire suppression, the “Loop Road” increased public travelthrough 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 eventssince the first recorded severe flood of 1855. (Subsequent notably destructive Ashland Creekfloods occurred in 1892, 1927, 1955, 1964, and 1974, with the 1997 New Year’s flood beingthe most recent.) Fire suppression became increasingly effective in the Project Area after1910. Soon, partly as a result of the near-absence of fire, major vegetational changes beganto occur, particularly in the lower and middle elevations. During the early 1960s, the ForestService logged a number of scattered clear cut units in the Ashland Watershed, mainly in thenorthwestern section, with the associated new roads providing better vehicle access in case offire. Also during the early 1960s came development of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area, as well asweather-radar and television-transmitting facilities on the mountain’s summit.Over the past three decades, municipal water concerns have dominated the management andthe kinds of activities occurring within most of the Project Area. Unauthorized camping andcampfires have proven to be a difficult activity to control. Recreational use on NationalForest land has increased exponentially, with backcountry skiing, a proliferation ofhiking/mountain biking trails, special long-distance-running events, expensive homes builton nearby private land, and other factors contributing to this pattern.Draft EIS III - 156 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Tribal ConsultationAs part of its government-to-government consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes, theForest Service formally contacted and invited consultation on Ashland Forest Resiliency withthe three federally recognized tribes that include descendants of the original Upland Takelmaand Shasta inhabitants of the upper Bear Creek valley: Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indiansof Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, and theQuartz Valley Indian Reservation (Ft. Jones, CA).b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of AlternativesBeginning in the late 1970s, the Forest Service has conducted a number of cultural resourcesurveys within most portions of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Area. These pastsearches for archaeological and historic sites have included most of the acreage of what isclassified as “high-probability ground” within the area (i.e., land-types considered to have ahigh probability for containing significant cultural resources). These surveys resulted indocumentation of a number of previously unknown resources, ranging from isolated chippedstoneartifacts (such as arrow-points) to historic-period sites and features that resulted frompast mining, homesteading, or logging. Many of these sites, although they have beenadequately recorded for posterity, are evaluated as not significant cultural resources. Othersites found during these past surveys do meet the eligibility criteria of the National Registerof Historic Places.No-Action AlternativeThe 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 beaffected, either negatively (e.g., potential damage) or positively (possible site enhancementor public interpretation), by project or project follow-up activities. A longer-term effect ofthis alternative likely would include high-severity fires that could: (a) incinerate thecombustible portions of cultural resources (including any as-yet undiscovered historiccultural resources); and/or (b) reveal currently unknown prehistoric or historic resources thatare obscured beneath organic litter and duff.Proposed Action and Community AlternativeThe Action Alternatives entail various amounts of ground-disturbing activities of the typethat can potentially affect cultural resources. The Proposed Action includes fewer potentialacres of treatment than the Community Alternative. These differences are insignificantbetween the Action Alternatives. Under both Action Alternatives, sites found during pastsurveys that meet the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places assignificant resources, are excluded from Ashland Forest Resiliency’s Project’s areas ofpotential effect. Mitigation measures would be required to notify the Forest Archaeologist ifany sites are discovered during project implementation.Ashland Forest Resiliency is determined to be a “no historic properties” undertaking. Thisdetermination was made by the Forest Archaeologist under the terms of the 2003Programmatic Agreement between ACHP, Oregon SHPO, and USFS R6. See DEISAppendix K for more information on this determination.Draft EIS III - 157 Ashland Forest Resiliency

F. OTHER EFFECTSThe following is a summary of effects that were considered during the analysis process, notnecessarily as issues, and not always totally quantifiable. All effects analyzed for all ActionAlternatives were determined to be consistent with goals, objectives and Standards andGuidelines identified in the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Planas amended by the Northwest Forest Plan.1. Public and Worker SafetyThere may be a concern for increased risk of accidental injury to members of the public whorecreate in the Project Areas during implementation activities. The application of mitigationmeasures designed for the protection of forest visitors would minimize this risk. Mitigationmeasures would include: restricted operations during specific industrial implementation actions;informing forest visitors of alternative use areas through signing of the Project Areas; and partialor complete closure of some areas during implementation activities.All project activities (Forest Service actions and actions under Forest Service contractauthorities) 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 (Healthand Safety Code Handbook).2. Relationships Between Local and Short-term Uses of the HumanEnvironment and Maintenance or Enhancement of Long-term ProductivityAnalysis indicates that long-term production and quality of water, maintenance and developmentof late-successional habitat, and protection of Late-Successional Reserve values would beenhanced by the implementation of fire hazard reduction activities. Both Action Alternativeswould help to protect long-term productivity by reducing the risk of large-scale high-severitywildland fire. With full implementation of the mitigation measures and managementrequirements and constraints developed for the Action Alternatives, soil productivity would bemaintained over the long-term.Under the No-Action Alternative fire hazard would continue to increase. The risk of large-scalehigh-severity wildland fire would be higher than with implementation of either ActionAlternatives. The potential effects of large-scale high-severity wildland fire under the No-ActionAlternative are discussed in various section of this chapter.3. Environmental JusticeEnvironmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, allpopulations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, areallowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in adisproportionately high and adverse manner, by government programs and activities affectinghuman health or the environment.Draft EIS III - 158 Ashland Forest Resiliency

One goal of Executive Order 12898 is to provide, to the greatest extent practicable, theopportunity for minority and low-income populations to participate in planning, analysis, anddecision-making that affect their health or environment, including identification of programneeds and designs.This public involvement process for the Proposed Action has been conducted underDepartmental regulation 5600-2, December 15, 1997, including the Environmental JusticeFlowchart (Appendix E). The Proposed Action, its Purpose and Need, and area of potentialeffect have been clearly defined. Scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act hasutilized extensive and creative ways to communicate.This Proposed Action does not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect onminority or low-income populations. Extensive scoping did not reveal any issues or concernsassociated with the principles of Environmental Justice. No mitigation measures to offset orameliorate adverse affects to these populations have been identified. All interested and affectedparties will continue to be involved with the public involvement and decision process.4. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be AvoidedThe implementation of either Action Alternatives would result in some adverse impacts to thephysical, biological, and human environments. Many of these impacts can be mitigated toacceptable levels using the Mitigation Measures specified by resource topic and alternative (seeDEIS Chapter II). The unavoidable adverse impacts summarized below are those that areexpected to occur after the application of mitigation measures, or cannot be mitigated to a levelapproaching existing conditions.Increased sediment delivery and water quality: Although mitigation measures (BestManagement Practices) are expected to reduce the potential for accelerating sedimentproduction to near baseline levels, there is a minimal risk for short-term indirect impacts towater quality as a result of implementing the Action Alternatives. The risk for short-termimpacts is lower than the potential adverse impacts that could result from large-scale highseveritywildland fire associated with the No-Action Alternative.Soils/site productivity: Under the Action Alternatives, some detrimental soil impacts wouldoccur as a result of the use of heavy equipment to remove trees for fire hazard reduction, andform prescribed burning. Mitigation measures would limit the detrimental areas to meet R6and Forest Standards and Guidelines for soil protection.Air quality: Project design and mitigation measures are expected to reduce the potential forair quality degradation. The potential exists for changes in atmospheric conditions thatwould allow smoke and particulate matter to drift down slope into residential areas and theMedford-Ashland Air Quality Management Area, causing minor short-term impacts on airquality and residents sensitive to smoke. All prescribed burning operations would beconducted in compliance of Oregon Smoke Management Guidelines administered by OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality.Draft EIS III - 159 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Late-successional habitat: Under the Action Alternatives, 918 to 1,035 acres of latesuccessional habitat would be treated, modifying some of the late-successional structure suchas reducing some large woody material, multi-canopy layering, etc. These impacts areconsidered minor in context of the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve, especially whenconsidering that fire hazard reduction treatments would reduce the risk for large-scale lossesof late-successional habitat that could result from large-scale high-severity wildland fireassociated with the No-Action Alternative.Wildlife: As a result of the removal and or modification of various vegetation structures thatserve as habitat for a variety of wildlife species, some wildlife species may be adverselyimpacted with individuals being displaced from their current locations, direct mortality, etc.Mitigation measures and project design criteria are expected to minimize these impacts,however, they cannot completely alleviate all impacts. Impacts specific to the speciesconsidered is discussed in detail in this Chapter.Noise: Under the Action Alternatives, noise from connected actions, e.g., chainsaws andhelicopters operating in the Project Area, are likely to be heard in residential areas located inthe foothills of south Ashland, near the Project Area. The noise from operations throughoutmost of the Project Area would be buffered (reduced) as a result of topographic breaks.Noise would be the most noticeable during periods when helicopters would be operating inthe north end of the Project Area, near the Forest Boundary.Recreation: Recreation use within the Project Area would be impacted to some degreeunder both Action Alternatives. Actions would displace some recreation use where partialclosures would be needed for visitor safety. There would be some disturbance above normalconditions from increased activities associated with underburning and/or chainsaw use.Although mitigation measures are designed to minimize the impacts on recreation use, theimpacts would not be completely alleviated.5. Effects on Wetlands and FloodplainsWetlands associated with Executive Order 11990, are likely to exist within the Project Area butdo not exist within areas proposed for management treatments. If any wetlands were to belocated during project layout, appropriate buffers would be provided in compliance with theAquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan.There would be no effects on floodplains associated with Executive Order 11988 as a result ofimplementing this fire hazard reduction proposal, as none exist or would be affected.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable EffectsIrreversible commitment of resources refers to a loss of non-renewable resources, such asmineral extraction, heritage (cultural) resources, or to those factors, which are renewable onlyover long time spans, such as soil productivity. Under No-Action, there would be no irreversibleor irretrievable commitment of resources.Under the Action Alternatives, additional area would be irreversibly committed from theconnected actions associated with landing construction and roads. These impacts are considerednecessary to implement and maintain the efficacy of hazardous fuel treatments over time.Draft EIS III - 160 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Irretrievable commitment applies to losses that are temporary, such as use of renewable naturalresources. The production lost would be irretrievable, but the action would not be irreversible.Vegetation removed as commodity byproducts under the Action Alternatives, is considered anirretrievable impact. Forest conditions would return, but it would take many decades for them toobtain the current conditions.The vegetation that would be removed under the Action Alternatives would also have value aslate-successional wildlife habitat, and/or human value for recreation or aesthetics, and would beirretrievably lost. However, this impact is in accordance with the management goals andobjectives of hazardous fuel reduction treatments.7. Recreation Opportunity SpectrumThe area of consideration is contained within a range of Recreation Opportunity Spectrumclassification including “Roaded Natural, to Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized”. The existingclassifications would not be changed with the implementation of either Action Alternative, andwould be in compliance with Forest Plan management direction.8. Effects on Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest LandAll alternatives are in keeping with the intent of Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 forprime farmland. The Upper Bear Analysis Area does not contain any prime farmlands orrangelands. Prime forest land is not applicable to lands within the National Forest System. Inboth Action Alternatives, Forest system lands would be managed with coordination andsensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.9. Energy Requirements of AlternativesUnder the Action Alternative, various amounts of fossil fuels, and human labor would beexpended. Fossil fuel energy would not be retrievable. However, they are not in short supplyand their use would not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources.10. Effects of Alternatives on Minorities and WomenPrior to the public-scoping process for Ashland Forest resiliency, in order to seek current tribalviews on the proposed projects and the question of possible ongoing traditional uses or otherconcerns about the area, the Forest Service formally contacted and invited consultation onAshland Forest Resiliency with the three federally recognized tribes that include descendants ofthe original Upland Takelma and Shasta inhabitants of the upper Bear Creek valley:Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand RondeCommunity of Oregon, and the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation (Ft. Jones, CA). No interestfrom these Tribes was expressed.There would be no discernable differences among alternatives regarding effects on NativeAmericans, women, other minorities, or the Civil Rights of any American Citizen.Draft EIS III - 161 Ashland Forest Resiliency

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER IV - REFERENCESA Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems(October 2000)A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment(August 2001)Abbas, J.G. 1999. Personal communications concerning anecdotal sightings of tailed frog larvae in theEast Fork of Ashland Creek.Agee and Huff. 2000. The Role of Prescribed Fire in Restoring Ecosystem Health and Diversity inSouthwest Oregon: Part 1. Ecological Conditions”, a report to the Pacific Northwest Research StationDirector’s Office, September 2000.Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC.Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In: Proceedings of the 17th AnnualForest Vegetation Management Conference, January 16–18, 1996. Redding, CA.Agee, J.K. 1997. The severe weather wildfire: too hot to handle. Northw. Sci. 71, 153–156.Agee, J.K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management: managing for firesafe forest reserves. Conserv.Biol. Practice 3 (1), 18–25.Agee, J.K. 2003. Monitoring postfire tree mortality in mixed-conifer forests of Crater Lake. Oregon.Nat. Areas J. 23, 114–120.Agee, J.K., Bahro, B., Finney, M.A., Omi, P.N., Sapsis, D.B., Skinner, C.N., van Wagtendonk, J.W.,Weatherspoon, C.P. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management.Agee, J.K., Wright, C.B., Williamson, N., Huff, M.H. 2002. Foliar moisture content of PacificNorthwest vegetation and its relation to wildland fire behavior. For. Ecol. Manage. 167, 57–66. For.Ecol. Manage. 127, 55–66.Agee, James K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C.493pp.Agee, James K. 1996. “The Influence of Forest Structure on Fire Behavior.” 17 th Forest VegetationManagement Conference; 52-68 pp.Agee, James K., B. Bahro, M.A. Finney, P.N. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C. Skinner, J. W. van Wagtendonk, andC.P. Weatherspoon. 1999. The Use of Fuelbreaks in Landscape Fire Management, unpublished.Allen, C.D., Savage, M., Falk, D.A., Suckling, K.F., Swetnam, T.W., Schulke, T., Stacey, P.B., Morgan,P., Hoffman, M., Klingel, J.T. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems:a broad perspective. Ecol. Appl. 12, 1418–1433.Amaranthus, Michael P. Personal communications concerning wildfire effects on soil cover followingthe 1987 Longwood Fire.Draft EIS IV - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Amaranthus, Michael P. and Trappe, James M. 1993. “Effects of Erosion on Ecto- and Va-MycorrhizalInoculum Potential of Soil Following Forest Fire in Southwest Oregon.” Plant and Soil 150; 41-49 pp.Anderson H.E., 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA USFS.GTR-INT-122. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Andrews, P. L. and L. S. Bradshaw. 1990. Rx Window: defining windows of acceptable burningconditions based on desired fire behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-273. 54 p.Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. 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, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. 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 andtrends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Final Report to the Interagency RegionalMonitoring Program, Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 179pp.Arthur, V. 2004. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land Management, Medford, OR. Personalcommunications.Atzet, T., White, D.E., McCrimmon, L.A., Martinez, P.A., Fong, P.R., Randall, V.D. 1996. Field guideto the forested plant associations of southwestern Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestRegion, Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96.Atzet, Thomas and D.L. Wheeler. 1982. “Historical and Ecological Perspectives on Fire Activity in theKlamath Geological Province of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests.” R6 Range, 102, 1982.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.Atzet, Thomas and D.L. Wheeler. 1984. Preliminary Plant Associations of the Siskiyou MountainProvince. USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.Atzet, Thomas, D.E. White, L.A. McCrimmon, P.A. Martinez, P Reid Fong, and V.D. Randall. 1996.Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of Southwestern Oregon. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOLTP-17-96. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.Atzet, Thomas. 1979. Description and Classification of the Forests of the Upper Illinois River Drainageof Southwestern Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.Atzet, Thomas. 1994. “The Southern Oregon Intersection.” Foghorn, Winter 1994-1995. Friends of theGreensprings, Ashland, Oregon.Atzet, Thomas. 1998. Personal communication, re: missed fire cycles and wildfire severity.Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) inOregon: 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 thePacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181.Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in thesouthern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June, 2002. USDA Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station, Olympia, WA.Aubry, K.B., S.M. Wisely, C.M. Raley, and S.W. Buskirk. 2004. Zoogeography, spacing patterns, anddispersal in fishers: insights gained from combining field and genetic data.Draft EIS IV - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Badura, George and Philip Jahn. 1977. Soil Resource Inventory for the Rogue River National Forest.Medford, Oregon.Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna, 55:1-416.Barbour, Michael G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The Benjamin/CummingsPublishing Company, Menlo Park, California.Barrett, N.M. 2004. Wildlife Biologist, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Prospect, OR. Personalcommunications.Benda, L., and Dunne, T. 1987. Sediment routing by debris flows: In Erosion and Sedimentation in thePacific Rim, Edited by Beschta, R.L., Blinn, R., Grant, G., and Swanson, F.J., International Associationof Hydrological Sciences Publication 165, P. 213-223.Benda, L., Miller, D., Bigelow, P., and Andras, K. 2000. Effects of Post-Wildfire Erosion on ChannelEnvironments, Boise River, Idaho.Beschta, R.L., M.R. Pyles, A.E. Skaugset, and C.G. Surfleet. 2000. “Peakflow Responses to ForestPractices in the Western Cascades of Oregon, USA” in Journal of Hydrology. Vol. 233.Beukema, S., Reinhardt, E., Greenough, J., Kurz, W., Crookston, N., Robinson, D. 2000. Fire and FuelsExtension: Model Description. ESSA Technologies, Vancouver, BC.Bird, Frank. 2000. Personal communication, re: NMFS fish consultation. February.Biswell, H.H. 1989. Prescribed Burning in California Wildlands vegetation. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.Brose, P., Wade, D. 2002. Potential fire behavior in pine flatwood forest following three different fuelreduction techniques. For. Ecol. Manage. 163, 71–84.Brown, H.A., R.B. Bury, D.M. Darda, L.V. Diller, C.R. Peterson, and R.M. Storm. 1995. Reptiles ofWashington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.Brown, J.K., Arno, S.F. 1991. The paradox of wildland fire. Western Wildlands (Spring) 40–46.Brown, R.T., Agee, J.K., Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest restoration and fire – principles in the context ofplace. Cons. Biol. 18, 903–912.Burns, Craig. 1999. Personal communication, re: NMFS fish consultation. November 28.Bush, G.W. 2002. Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities.The White House, Washington, DC.Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994 American marten. Pages 38 -73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry,S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores;American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical ReportRM-254. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation.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 andConservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 283-296.Draft EIS IV - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Carey, A.B., C.C. Maguire, B.L. Biswell, and T.M. Wilson. 1999. Distribution and abundance ofNeotoma in western Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science, Vol. 73, No. 2.Childs, S.W., Shade, S.P., Miles, E.W., Sheppard, E. and Froehlich, H.A. 1989. “Soil PhysicalProperties: Importance to Long-Term Forest Productivity.” Maintaining the Long-Term Productivity ofPacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press.Clayton, Dave. 2004. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg, OR. Personalcommunications.Clayton, Dave. 1999. Personal communication, re: utilization of habitat by bats.Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho,Moscow, ID.Costa, J.E. 1984. Physical geomorphology of debris flows, Chapter 9. In: Costa, J.E., Fleisher, P.J.(eds.), Developments and Application of Geomorphology. Springer-Verlag Publishing Co., Berlin, Pages268-317.Costa, J.E. 1988. Floods from dam failures, Chapter 26 of Baker, V.R., Kochel, R.C., and Patton, P.C.,eds., Flood geomorphology: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Pages 439-463.Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin,J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status ofthe northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.Covington, W.W., Everett, R.L., Steele, R., Irwin, L.L., Daer, T.A., Auclair, A.N.D. 1994. Historicaland anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the inland west of the United States. J. Sustain. For. 2 (1–2), 13–63.Cross, S.P. 1973. Preliminary vertebrate faunal survey of the Ashland Research Natural Area.Unpublished Report. Southern Oregon College.Cross, S.P., H. Lauchstedt, and M. Blankenship. 1997. Bat studies in the Ashland and ApplegateDistricts of the Rogue River National Forest. Final Report. Southern Oregon University.Daily, Gretchen C., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney,S. Postel, S. H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem Services: BenefitsSupplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology. Ecological Society of America,Number 2, Spring.Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant Communities: A Textbook of Plant Synecology. Harper and Row, NewYork, NY.Debano, Leonard F. 1981. Water Repellent Soils: A State-of-the Art. PSW General Technical ReportPSW-46.Detling, L.E. 1953. “The Chaparral Formation of Southwestern Oregon, with Considerations of itsPostglacial History,” in Ecology, 42: 348-357 pp.Dinwiddie, John. 1995. Understanding The Ecological Implications of The Hull Mountain Fire. U. S.Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, unpublished.Draft EIS IV - 4 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Dinwiddie, John. 1998. Personal communications concerning wildfire effects on soil cover following the1994 Hull Mountain Fire.Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manageterrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. USDI Bureau of LandManagement, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth andbehavior. For. Sci. 47, 219–228.Finney, M.A. 2003. Calculation of fire spread rates on random landscapes. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 12, 167–174.Finney, M.A., Bartlette, R., Bradshaw, L., Close, K., Gleason, P., Langowski, P., McHugh, C.W.,Martinson, E., Omi, P.N., Shepperd, W., Zeller, K. 2002. Interim Hayman fire case study analysis:report on fire behavior, fuel treatments, and fire suppression. USDA Forest Service, Rocky MountainResearch Station. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/hayman_fire/text/02finney/ 02finney.html.Flanagan, P. 1996. “Survival of Fire-Injured Conifers. Fire Management Notes, 56:13-16 pp.Frandsen, William and Kevin C. Ryan. 1986. Soil moisture reduces below ground heat flux and soiltemperatures under a burning fuel pile. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16: 244-248 pp.Frissel, Christopher A. 1986. Classification of Stream Habitat and Watershed Systems in South CoastalOregon and an Assessment of Land Use Impacts. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland,Oregon.Froehlich, Aulerich, and Curtis. 1981. Designing Skid Trail Systems to Reduce Soil Impacts fromTractor Logging Machines. Research Paper 44. Oregon State University Forest Research Laboratory.Froehlich, Robbins, Miles, and Lyons. 1983. Monitoring recovery of Compacted Skid Trails in CentralIdaho. Special report for Payette National Forest.Fule, P.Z., Covington, W.W., Smith, H.B., Springer, J.D., Heinlein, T.A., Huisinga, K.D., Moore, M. M.2002. Comparing ecological restoration alternatives: Grand Canyon, Arizona. For. Ecol. Manage. 170,19–41.Galea, F. 2002. Northern spotted owl surveys for the Ashland Watershed Project Area, 2002. FinalReport. Galea Wildlife Consulting. Crescent City, CA.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.Gauthier, G. 1993. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola). In The Birds of North America, No. 67 (A. Pooleand F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The AmericanOrnithologists’ Union.Goggans, R. 1986. Habitat use by Flammulated Owls in northeastern Oregon. Masters thesis, OregonState Univ., Corvallis.Graham, R.T. Harvey, A., Jain, T., Tonn, J.R. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatmentson fire behavior in western forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463.Draft EIS IV - 5 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar StandTreatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR463. Portland, OR. PacificNorthwest Research Station.Gruell, G.E. 1983. Fire and vegetative trends in the northern Rockies: Interpretations from 1871-1982photographs. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-158.Gruell, G.E., Schmidt, W.C., Arno, S.F., Reich, W.J. 1982. Seventy years of vegetative change in amanaged ponderosa pine forest in western Montana – implications for resource management. USDAForest Service General Technical Report INT-130.H. A. Mooney, S. Postel, S. H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem Services:Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology. Ecological Society ofAmerica, Number 2, 1997.Hardy et al. 1998. Mapping Historic Fire Regimes for the Western United States: Integrating RemoteSensing and Biophysical Data”Hardy, C.C. 2005. Wildfire hazard and risk: problems, definitions, and context. For. Ecol. Manage.doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005. 01.029.Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation andlandscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36. p.157-172.Harrington, M.G., and S.S. Sackett. 1992. “Past and present fire influences on southwestern ponderosapine old-growth”. Old-growth forests of Southwest and Rocky Mountain Region. Workshop, Portal, AZ.pp. 44-50.Hart, M.M., J.P. Copeland, and R.L. Redmond. 1997. Mapping wolverine habitat in the northernRockies using a GIS. A poster presented at the Wildlife Society’s 4 th Annual Conference. SnowmassVillage, CO.Hartsough, B. 2003. Economics of harvesting to maintain high structural diversity and resulting damageto residual trees. West. J. Appl. For. 18, 133–142.Heinzelmann, J.L., and J.D. Alexander. 2004. Bird abundance in the Ashland Watershed: results from2004 bird monitoring. Unpublished Report. Klamath Bird Observatory. Ashland, OR.Henderson, J.A., Peter, D.H., Lesher, R.D., Shaw, D.C. 1989. Forested plant associations of the OlympicNational Forest. USDA Forest Service R6 ECOL Technical Paper 001-88.Hess, Jurgen A. 1986. The Forest at Ashland’s Doorstep – A Study of Visitation to the Ashland CreekWatershed. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.Hessburg, P.F., Agee, J.K. 2003. An environmental narrative of inland Northwest US forests, 1800–2000. For. Ecol. Manage. 178, 23–59.Heyerdahl, E.K., Brubaker, L.B., Agee, J.K. 2001. Spatial controls of historical fire regimes: amultiscale example from the interior West. USA. Ecol. 82, 660–678.Hicks, B.G. and Dan R. Sitton. 1998. “Landslide Mapping on the Rogue River National Forest” inEnvironmental Groundwater and Engineering Geology: Applications from Oregon. Scott Burns, editor.Association of Engineering Geologists. Star Publishing Company. Belmont, California.Draft EIS IV - 6 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Hicks, B.J., R.L. Beschta, and R.D. Harr. 1991. “Long-term Changes in Streamflow following loggingin Western Oregon and Associated Fisheries Implications” in Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 27, No. 2.Hirsch, Stanley, D.L. Radloff, W.C. Schopfer, M.L. Wolfe, and RF Yancik. 1981. The Activity FuelAppraisal Process: Instructions and Examples. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-83.Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. CanadianJournal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.Hungerford, Rodger, M. Harrington, W. Frandsen, K. Ryan, G. Niehoff. 1991. “Influence of Fire onFactors that Affect Site Productivity.” Proceedings - Management and Productivity of Western MontaineForest Soils. General Technical Report INT-280.Iverson, R. 1997. The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophysics 35, Pages 245-296.Janes, S.W. 2003. Bird populations on the Panther Gap Timber Sale, 1994-2003: short- and long-termresponse to commercial thinning. Unpublished technical report. Medford District Bureau of LandManagement.J.K. Agee, C.N. Skinner / Forest Ecology and Management. 2005. Benedict, M.A., 1930. Twenty-oneyears of fire protection in the national forests of California. J. For. 28, 707–710.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: Biologyand Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 377-387.Keane, R.E., Finney, M.A. 2003. The simulation of landscape fire, climate, and ecosystem dynamics.In: Veblen, T.T., Baker, W.L., Montenegro, G., Swetnam, T.W. (Eds.), Fire and Climatic Change inTemperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 32–68.Kellogg, L. 1995. Environmentally and economically sound timber harvesting in eastside forests. In:Johnson, K.N. (Ed.), Forest Health and Timber Harvest on National Forests in the Blue Mountains ofOregon. Report to Governor of Oregon John Kitzhaber. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.Keppeler, E.T. 1998. The Summer Flow and Water Yield Response to Timber Harvest. USDA ForestService General Technical Report. Fort Bragg, CA.LaLande, Jeff. 1980. Prehistory and History of the Rogue River National Forest: A Cultural ResourceOverview. Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.Laudenslayer Jr. W.F., Shea, P.J., Valentine, B.E., Weatherspoon, C.P., Lisle, T.E. (Eds.). USDA ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181:445-454.Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians ofWashington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.Magoun, A.J., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal ofWildlife Management 62(4):1313-1320.Main, Marty. 1998. Native Grass Establishment in a Newly Cleared Brushfield. Special report to theCity of Ashland.Draft EIS IV - 7 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Mangan, Richard J. 1995. “The Effects of Forest Fire Smoke on Firefighters.” The Biswell Symposium:Fire Issues and Solutions in Urban Interface and Wildland Ecosystems. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-158. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany,California.Marshall, D.B. 1989. Status of the wolverine in Oregon. Unpublished report. Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife. Portland, OR.Martin, R.E. and D.B. Sapsis. 1992. Fires as agents of biodiversity: Pyrodiversity promotes biodiversity.In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northern California. Univ. California, Berkeley.pp. 150-157.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.McCallum, D. A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus). In The Birds of North America, No. 93(A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: TheAmerican Ornithologists’ Union.McCandliss, D.S. 2002. Prescribed burning in the Kings River Ecosystems Project Area: lessonslearned. In: Proceedings of a symposium on the Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Project:progress and current status. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-183, pp. 37–46.McCrimmon, Lisa and Thomas Atzet. 1992. Distribution of Large Woody Debris on the Rogue RiverNational Forest. Medford, Oregon.McKelvey, K.S, K.B. Aubrey, and Y.K. Ortega. 1999. “History and Distribution Lynx in the ContiguousUnited States.” Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk et al., tech eds. The Scientific Basis for LynxConservation in the Contiguous United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah.McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguousUnited States. Chapter 8 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S.McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University ofColorado Press, Boulder, CO.McKelvey, K.S., Skinner, C.N., Chang, C., Erman, D.C., Husari, S.J., Parsons, D.J., van Wagtendonk,J.W., Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. An overview of fire in the Sierra Nevada. In Sierra Nevada EcosystemProject: Final report to Congress, vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options.Water Resources Center Report No. 37. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University ofCalifornia, Davis, pp. 1033– 1040.McKenzie, D., Hessl, A., in press. A neutral model of low-severity fire regimes. USDA Forest ServiceGeneral Technical Report PSW-GTR.Meyer, G. A., Pierce, J. L., Wood, S. H., and Jull, A. J. T. 2001. Fire, storms, and erosional events in theIdaho Batholith, Hydrological processes. 15, 3025-3038.Meyer, G. A., Wells, S. G., and Jull, A. J. T. 1995. Fire and alluvial chronology in Yellowstone NationalPark: Climatic and intrinsic controls on Holocene geomorphic processes. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 107,1211-1230.Meyer, G., Pierce, J., In Press. Climatic Controls on Fire-Induced Sediment Pulses in YellowstoneNational Park and Central Idaho: A Long-Term Perspective.Draft EIS IV - 8 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Miller, C., Urban, D.L. 2000. Modeling the effects of fire management alternatives on Sierra Nevadamixed-conifer forests. Ecol. Appl. 10, 85–94.Muraro, S. J. 1968. Prescribed fires - evaluation of hazard abatement. Canadian Department of Forestryand Rural Development, Forestry Branch Publication Number 1231, 28 p.Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the PacificNorthwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID.Oakley, C. Wildlife Biologist. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka, CA. Personal communication.Oliver, W. W. 2000. Ecological research at the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest in northeasternCalifornia. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-179. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest ResearchStation, Albany, CA.Ollivier, L., R.D. Clayton, and H. Welsh. 2001. Habitat Correlates of the Siskiyou MountainsSalamander, Plethodon stormi (Caudata: Plethodontidae). Report to Rogue River National Forest,Medford District BLM, and California Department of Fish and Game.Omi, P.N., Martinson, E.J. 2002. Effects of fuels treatments on wildfire severity. Final report, Joint FireSciences Program. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.Omi, Philip N. 1997. Final Report, Fuels Modification to Reduce Large Fire Probability. WesternForest Fire Research Center (WESTFIRE), Colorado State University.Oredson, V. 2005. Habitat Biologist. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. White City, OR.Personal communications.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Aquatic survey data, on file at the Ashland RangerDistrict.Oregon Department of Forestry. 2000. Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Oregon Administrative Rules629-043-00043.Orr, E., and Orr, W. 1999. Geology of Oregon, Fifth Edition, by Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Otak, Inc. 1997. Appendix Two to Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project Final Report: AshlandCreek Hydrologic Investigation Flow Magnitude Determination. Lake Oswego, Oregon. October 29.Pages 201-220 in D.J. Harrison, A.K. Fuller, and G. Proulx, eds. Marten and fishers (Martes) in humanalteredenvironments: and international perspective. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY.279pp.Perry, D. A., R Molina, M.P. Amaranthus. 1987. “Mycorrhizae, Mycorrhizospheres, and Reforestation:Current Knowledge and Research Needs. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Vol. 17.Peterson G.L. and C.F. Sorg. 1987. Toward the Measurement of Total Economic Value. Gen. Tech.Report RM-148. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. FortCollins, Colorado.Peterson, D.L., Ryan, K.C. 1986. Modeling post-fire conifer mortality for long-range planning. Environ.Manage. 10, 797–808.Draft EIS IV - 9 Ashland Forest Resiliency

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. Speciesconservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendiiand Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish andGame, Boise, Idaho.Pierson, T.C., and Costa, J.E. 1987. A rheologic classification of subaerial sediment-water flows,Engineering Geology and Geological Society of America, #7, Pages 1-12.Pollet, J., Omi, P.N. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosapine forests. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 11, 1–10.Popp, D. and F.B. Isaacs. 1995. Draft site-specific management plan for the Emigrant Lake bald eaglenest site. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Klamath Falls, OR.Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2 nd ed. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.Pyne, S.J. 2001. Year of the Fires: Story of the Great Fires of 1910. Viking Press, New York.Raley, C. 2005. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station.Olympia, WA. Personal communication.Randall, A. 1992. “A Total Value Framework for Benefit Estimation.” In: Peterson, G.L. et al., eds.Valuing Wildlife Resources in Alaska. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 87-111.Regional Ecosystem Office. 1996. Memorandum. Review of Rogue River and Klamath NationalForest’s Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. September 30, 1996.Reinhardt, E.D., Keane, R.E., and Brown, J.K. 2002. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0,User’s Guide. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-344 (updated to WindowsTMversion 5.0).Rible, G. 2005. Research Assistant. Oregon State University. Ashland, OR. Personal communication.Rose, W.R. 1999. Personal communications, re: seasonal duff, soils, and fuel moistures in the easternSiskiyou Mountains of southwest Oregon.Rosgen, Dave. 1994. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology. Unpublished course manual. WildlandHydrology Consultants. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.Rothermel, R.C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the northern Rocky Mountains.USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-438.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 lynxconservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDIBureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53,Missoula, MT. 142pp.Ruggerio, L.F., K.Aubry, S. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W. Zeilinski. Tech eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis forConserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western UnitedStates. Gen. Tech. Report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.Draft EIS IV - 10 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Ryan, K.C. 1990. “Predicting Prescribed Fire Effects on Trees in the Interior West.” M.E. Alexander,F.F. Bisgrove technical advisors The Art and Science of Fire Management. Proceedings of the FirstInterior West Fire Council Annual Meeting. Forestry Canada, Northern Forestry Centre. 148-162 pp.Ryan, K.C. and W.H. Frandsen. 1991. “Basal Injury from Smoldering Fires in Mature Pinus Ponderosa.”International Journal of Wildland Fire. 1: pp. 107-118.Sandberg, David. 1980. Duff Reduction by Prescribed Underburning in Douglas Fir. PNW ResearchPaper MW-272. Portland, Oregon.Schafer, C. 2004. A reptile and amphibian survey of the Ashland Watershed. Unpublished report.Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P., Hardy, C.C., Hann, W.J., Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarsescalespatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. USDA Forest Service General Technical ReportRMRS-GTR-62.Scott, J.H. 1999. NEXUS: a system for assessing crown fire hazard. Fire Manage. Notes 59 (2), 20–24.Scott, J.H., Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crownfire behavior. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RMRS-RP-29.Show, S.B., Kotok, E.I. 1924. The role of fire in the California pine forests. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC, US Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 1294.Show, S.B., Kotok, E.I. 1929. Cover type and fire control in the National Forests of northern California.US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Department Bulletin No. 1495.Skinner, C.N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath Mountains ofnorthwestern California, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 10, 219–228.Skinner, C.N. 2002. Influence of fire on dead woody material in forests of California and southwesternOregon. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Dead Wood in WesternForests, November 2–4,1999.Reno, NV.Skinner, C.N., Ritchie, M.W., Hamilton, T., Symons, J., in press. Effects of prescribed fire and thinningon wildfire severity: the Cone Fire, Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest. In: Proceedings of the 25thAnnual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, January 20–24, 2004. Redding, CA.Skinner, C.N., Taylor, A.H. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a lot-successional reserve,Klamath Mountains, California. In Forest Ecology and Management 111 (1998) 285-301.Slauson, K. and W.J. Zielinski. 2001. Distribution and habitat ecology of American martens and Pacificfishers in southwestern Oregon. Unpublished Progress Report I, July 1 – November 15, 2001. USDAForest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station and Department of Forest Science, Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, OR 17p.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.Steel, B. S., P. List, and B. Shindler. 1995. “Conflicting Values About Federal Forests: A Comparison ofNational and Oregon Publics.” Society and Natural Resources, 7: pp. 137-153.Steele, R., Pfister, R.D., Ryker, R.A., Kittams, J.A. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. USDAForest Service General Technical Report INT-114.Draft EIS IV - 11 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Steinfeld, Dave. 1997. Applegate AMA Learning Summary. Applegate Ranger District. Jacksonville,Oregon.Stephens, J. 2004/2005. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land Management. Medford, OR. Personalcommunications.Swetnam, T.W., Baisan, C.H. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United Statessince AD 1700. In: Allen, C.D. (Ed.), Fire Effects in Southwestern Forests: Proceedings of the Second LaMesa Fire Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-286Swetnam, T.W., Baisan, C.H. 2003. Tree-ring reconstructions of fire and climate history in the SierraNevada and south-basis for management options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Universityof California, Davis, Water Resources Center Report No. 37, pp. 1471–1492.Swezy, D.M. and J.K. Agee. 1990. “Prescribed Fire Effects on Fine Root and Tree Mortality in Old-Growth Ponderosa Pine.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 626-634 pp.Taylor, A.H., Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve inthe Klamath Mountains, California, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 111, 285–301.Taylor, A.H., Skinner, C.N. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and foreststructure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecol. Appl. 13, 704–719.Thomas, J. W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A ConservationStrategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation ofthe Northern Spotted Owl, U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. Portland,Oregon. 427 pp.Thomas, J.W., R.G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E.L. Bull. 1979. Chapter 5; Snags in Wildlife habitats inmanaged forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. J.W. Thomas, J.L. Parker, R.A.Mowrey, G.M. Hansen, and B.J. Bell editors. USDA Forest Service. Agricultural Handbook No. 553. pp60-77.Thomas, T.L. and J.K. Agee. 1986. “Prescribed Fire Effects on Mixed Forest Structure at Crater Lake,Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16: 1082-1087 pp.USDA and City of Ashland. 1929. Cooperative Agreement for the Purpose of Conserving andProtecting the Water Supply of the City of Ashland, Oregon. August 21.USDA Forest Service and City of Ashland. 1996. Memorandum of Understanding. Rogue RiverNational Forest. May 17.USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, et al. 1993. Forest EcosystemManagement: An Ecological, Economic and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest EcosystemManagement Assessment Team (FEMAT). Portland, Oregon.USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. The Record of Decision forAmendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Rangeof the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, Oregon.USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Ecosystem Analysis at theWatershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis - Section II.Draft EIS IV - 12 Ashland Forest Resiliency

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Memorandum, Federal WildlandFire Policy.USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Managing the Impacts of Wildlandfires on Communities and the Environment — The National Fire Plan(http//:www.fireplan.gov/references/).USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standardsand Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other MitigationMeasures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR. 135 pp.USDA Forest Service. 1985. Values at Risk, A Comprehensive Assessment of Resource Values of theAshland Watershed. Medford, Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 1987. Origins and Characteristics of Sedimentation in Reeder Reservoir. RogueRiver National Forest. Medford, Oregon. AugustUSDA Forest Service. 1990. Record of Decision - Rogue River National Forest Land and ResourceManagement Plan. Medford, Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 1990. Rogue River National Forest Fire Management Action Plan. Updatedannually. Medford, Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 1990. Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.Medford, Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 1992. Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook. Forest ServiceHandbook (FSH) 1909.15. Washington, DC.USDA Forest Service. 1994. Width Determination – Riparian Reserves. Rogue River National Forest.Medford, Oregon. Forest White Paper Number 36. May 3.USDA Forest Service. 1995. The Bear Watershed Analysis. Ashland Ranger District. Ashland, Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 1996. The Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Ashland RangerDistrict. Ashland, Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National ForestTransportation System. Miscellaneous Report FS-643.USDA Forest Service. 2004. Regional Forester's sensitive species list. From Forest Service Manual2670-44. Last updated May 2004.USDA Forest Service. 2004. Regional Forester’s (Region 6) Sensitive Species list. Pacific NorthwestRegional Office. Portland, Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 2000. Aquatic survey data, on file at the Ashland Ranger District.USDA Forest Service. 2002. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Fire Management Plan. RogueRiver National Forest. Medford, Oregon. March.USDA Forest Service. 2003. Rogue River National Forest Roads Analysis. Rogue River NationalForest. Medford, Oregon. March.Draft EIS IV - 13 Ashland Forest Resiliency

USDA Forest Service. Undated. Forest Orders for Ashland Watershed. 36 CFR Part 261.50 (a)(b).Ashland Ranger District. Ashland, Oregon.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 Assessment. FY 04-08 for activitiesthat may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for Medford District BLM, RogueRiver and Siskiyou National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR.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/PNW. 1988. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on ManagingCompeting and Unwanted Vegetation. Portland, Oregon.USDA Forest Service/PNW. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices.USDC NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Section 7 Informal Consultation, ForestService and BLM Actions Affecting Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho Salmon in Oregon.August 11, 1997.USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1994. Applegate Adaptive ManagementArea Ecosystem Health Assessment. Medford, Oregon.USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1995. Little Applegate River WatershedAssessment. Medford, Oregon.USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1996. Rogue River/South CoastBiological Assessment.USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1998. Wildland and Prescribed FireManagement Policy, Implementation Procedures Reference Guide. National Interagency Fire Center.Boise, Idaho.USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1999. Draft SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and otherMitigating Measures, Standards and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon.USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision to remove ormodify the survey and manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines in the Forest Service andBureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. UnitedStates Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Cascade Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area – DraftManagement Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Medford, OR.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996. Biological Opinion on the August 1, 1996, RogueRiver/South Coast Biological Assessment, 1-7-96-F-392.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Formal and informal consultation and informal conferencing onhabitat 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.Draft EIS IV - 14 Ashland Forest Resiliency

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination ofthreatened status for the northern spotted owl: final rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:26,114-26,194.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination ofcritical habitat for the northern spotted owl; Final rule.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Rogue River/South Coast Biological Opinion. FY 04-08 foractivities that may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for Medford DistrictBLM, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg FieldOffice, Roseburg. Oregon.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month findingfor petition to list the West Coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); ProposedRule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:69. p.18,769-18,792.Van Wagner, C.E. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Can. J. For. Res. 7, 23–34.van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1995. Large fires in wilderness areas. In: Proceedings, symposium on fire inwilderness and park management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-320, pp.113–116.van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. In: SierraNevada Ecosystem Project, vol. II. Final Report to Congress. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.University of California, Davis, pp. 1155–1166.Vargas, M. 2005. District Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. White City, OR.Personal communications.Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press.Berkeley, CA.Weatherspoon, C.P. and C. Skinner. 1996. “Landscape-Level Strategies for Forest Fuel Management.”Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Assessment and Scientific Basis forManagement Options. Volume II. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.Davis, California.Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra forests. In: Sierra Nevada EcosystemProject, Final Report to Congress, II: Assessments, scientific basis for management options, ed., vol. II:Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources,University of California, Davis, Water Resources Center Report No. 37, pp. 1167–1176.Weatherspoon, C.P., Skinner, C.N. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to treecrowns from the 1987 wildfires in northern California. For. Sci. 41, 430–451.Weatherspoon, C.P., Skinner, C.N. 1996. Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel management. In:Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, II: Assessments, scientific basis formanagement options, vol. II: Assessments and scientific 32.Weir, E. 2002. Report on pacific fisher sightings in Mt. Ashland Ski Area. Unpublished.Draft EIS IV - 15 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Weir, E. 2003. Ashland and Applegate Ranger District forest carnivore survey; summary of results forphotographic bait station and snow tracking surveys conducted on the Ashland and Applegate RangerDistricts of the Rogue River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest,Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR.Wells, Carol; Ralph Campbell, Leonard DeBano, Clifford Lewis, Richard Fredriksen, Carlyle Franklin,Ronald Froelich, and Paul Dunn. 1979. Effects of fire on soil - a state-of-knowledge review. USDAForest Service General Tech. Report WO-7.Wemple, B.C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, Westerncascades, Oregon. Oregon State University MS Thesis. Corvallis, Oregon.Whittaker, R. H. 1960. “Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California.” Ecol. Monogr.30:279-338pp.Williams, J.T., R.G. Schmidt,, R.J. Lasko, R.A. Norum, P.N. Omi, and R.G. Lee. 1994. Communicatingfire related considerations along successional pathways using decision tree analysis. In: Proceedings ofthe 12th conference on fire and forest meteorology, October 26-28, 1993, Jekyll Island, Georgia. Societyof American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. pp. 291-302.Wisseman, Bob. 1995. Benthic Invertebrate Biomonitoring in the Rogue River National Forest, Oregon.Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Ashland Ranger District. Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc.Corvallis, Oregon.Zabel, C.J., J.R. Dunk, H.B. Stauffer, L.M. Roberts, B.S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spottedowl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). EcologicalApplications 13(4):1027-1040.Zabel, C.J., K. McKelvey, and J.P. Ward Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size andhabitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology.73:433-439.Zielinski, W.J. and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martesamericana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammology, 85(3)Zielinski, W.J., and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methodsfor their detection. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station. General TechnicalReport PSW-GTR-157.Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truax, A.P. Clevenger, and R.H. Barrett. 1999. Diet offishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammology, 80(3):961-971.Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truax, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitatselection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(3);475-492.Draft EIS IV - 16 Ashland Forest Resiliency

CHAPTER V - LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORSThis Draft EIS document was prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rogue River–SiskiyouNational Forest. A Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) developed analysis, prepared theDEIS document, and provided technical review of analysis and documentation. This Chapteridentifies the coordinators, resource specialists, and others who participated in the overallpreparation of the Draft EIS for Ashland Forest Resiliency.A. FOREST SERVICE PROJECT COORDINATORSThe following Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest personnel provided leadership for thisproject, or served as project coordinators during different phases of the project. Chiefresponsibilities included conducting the environmental analysis process, public participation andreview, organization of draft and final reports, and documentation of the Draft EIS under theprovisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).CONTRIBUTORScott ConroyForest SupervisorRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestLinda DuffyDistrict Ranger, Ashland RDRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestKen GrigsbyForest NEPA CoordinatorRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestDon BoucherResource Planner and Analyst, EnvironmentalCoordinator, Cascade ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestChuck Anderson (retired 4/05)Forest PlannerRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestCONTRIBUTIONResponsible OfficialManagement of NEPA process; delegated Responsible Official for analysisand public participation.Writer/Editor; overall document compilation, editing, and review. NEPAprocess specialist. Process and alternative documentation; analysis anddocumentation of Roadless Areas and unroaded areas. Review anddevelopment of helicopter landings and access.Analysis and documentation of Proposed Action and CommunityAlternative, fire behavior and effects analysis, Air Quality analysis, RoadsAnalysis, Arc-View mapping, cumulative watershed effects, consequenceanalysis, operational and economic feasibility analysis, and overallwriting/editing.IDT Leader, scoping process, Research Natural Area documentation.B. FOREST SERVICE RESOURCE SPECIALISTSThe following Forest Service personnel provided resource analysis and documentation for thisproject and/or provided review for the analysis that was conducted.CONTRIBUTORCarl SkinnerFire Behavior Specialist, USFSPacific Southwest Research Station (California)Dan SittonEngineering GeologistRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestDave GreenForest Roads ManagerRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestCONTRIBUTIONFire behavior consultation.Slope stability and landslide analysis, documentation, and mapping.Transportation review, recommendations and documentation; access andlogging systems.Draft EIS V - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency

CONTRIBUTORDave KnutsonHeritage Resources Specialist,Cascade/Siskiyou Zones, Rogue River-SiskiyouNational ForestDave SteinfeldSoil Scientist, Assistant Nursery Manager – J.Herbert Stone Nursery, Rogue River-SiskiyouNational ForestDavid ClaytonForest Wildlife Biologist (formerly USFWS)Rogue River-Siskiyou National ForestDennis DelackFuels SpecialistRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestDiane WhiteEcologistRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestDon GoheenEntomologist/Plant PathologistForest Service, Southwest OregonIan ReidFish and Aquatic Biologist, Siskiyou ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestJanice SchultzInformation Assistant, Cascade ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestJeff LaLandeForest Archaeologist,Rogue River-Siskiyou National ForestJeff VonKienastWildlife Biologist, Cascade ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestJon BrazierForest HydrologistRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestLes RobertsonStaff Officer, Fire Management, Siskiyou ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestLouisa EversFire EcologistBLM/USFS Regional OfficeMaria KoziolInformation Assistant, Siskiyou ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestPatricia MartinezEcologist, Southwest OregonRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestRobert ShoemakerFuels Specialist, Siskiyou ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestSarah GreeneRNA Scientist, USFSPNW Range & Experiment StationSteve Bulkin and Steve BoyerSilviculturistsRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestCONTRIBUTIONAnalysis and documentation of Heritage Resources. Conducted heritagefield work.Analysis and documentation of soil processes including erosion,sedimentation, and site productivity.Wildlife analysis and documentation, including review of BiologicalEvaluation.Fire management planning and fuels reduction consultation.Plant Association Group (PAG) updates.Analysis and documentation of insects and disease.Fisheries and aquatics. Provided analysis and documentation ofThreatened, Endangered, and Sensitive fish species.Coordination of DEIS printing and mailing.Completed heritage analysis and documentation in compliance with theNational Historic Preservation Act and conducted archaeological surveysand documentation.Wildlife analysis and documentation, including ESA listed, FS Sensitive,MIS and other terrestrial species.Analysis and documentation of watershed resources and review ofcumulative effects analysis.Fire management, implementation and contracting.Treatment design and fire effects consultation.Assisted in aspects of public involvement including mail list and mailings,and other office support.Provided Plant Series and Plant Association information.Analysis and documentation of fuels management, treatment design andfire behavior consequences.Consultation and review of RNA management and issues.Silvicultural input, review and consultation.Draft EIS V - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency

CONTRIBUTORSteve JohnsonRecreation Specialist, Siskiyou ZoneRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestTim RichFuels SpecialistUSFS Regional OfficeWayne RolleForest BotanistRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestCONTRIBUTIONAnalysis and documentation of Recreation and Scenic Quality.Contributed to Heritage Resources.Fuels consultantBotanical analysis and documentation, including field surveys.C. COMMUNITY AND OTHER NON-FOREST SERVICE PERSONNELThe following non-Forest Service personnel provided input on the Proposed Action and/or theCity of Ashland’s Community Alternative.CONTRIBUTORPaula BrownPublic Works DirectorGino GrimaldiCity AdministratorJohn MorrisMayorKeith WoodleyFire ChiefAshland Fire and RescueMarty MainCommunity MemberSteve JensenCommunity MemberDarren BorgiasCommunity MemberJim AgeeProfessor, University of WashingtonCindy DoneganWildlife Biologist, USFWSJerry FranklinProfessor, University of WashingtonCONTRIBUTIONCity of AshlandStaff leadership for Ashland Forest Lands Commission.HFRA Collaboration for CWPP.HFRA Collaboration for CWPP.City staff liaison with Ashland Forest Lands Commission.Ashland Forest Lands CommissionTechnical Team 1 , Leader for Ashland Forest LandsCommission, and FS liaison for collaboration.Chair, Ashland Forest Lands Commission.Technical Team Co-Leader for Ashland Forest LandsCommission, and FS liaison for collaboration.Other ConsultantsFire behavior and ecology.Wildlife. Member of IDT.Fire behavior and ecology.1 The Technical Team includes Marty Main, Consulting Forester, City of Ashland (Team Leader); Darren Borgias, Southwestern OregonStewardship Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy; Richard Brock, Consulting Botanist; Chris Chambers, Forest Work Grant Coordinator, City ofAshland; 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.Draft EIS V - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency

CHAPTER VI - LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TOWHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARESENTCopies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) have been distributed to thefollowing organizations and government agencies in the form of a hard copy, compact disc, or anotification that the document is available on the Internet. Individuals specifically requesting acopy of the Draft EIS have also been mailed a hard copy or compact disc. Other parties on theproject mailing list have requested and been mailed a Summary document.Copies of the Draft EIS are available for review at the following locations:Rogue River-Siskiyou National ForestRogue River–Siskiyou National ForestSupervisor’s OfficeAshland Ranger District333 West 8 th St. 645 Washington St.P.O. Box 520 Ashland, OR 97520Medford, OR 97501FEDERAL AGENCIESAdvisory Council on Historic PreservationAgriculture, U.S. Department ofAPHIS PPD/EADForest Service, Regional OfficeForest Service, Washington OfficeNational Agricultural LibraryNatural Resource Conservation ServiceOffice of Civil RightsCommerce, U.S. Department ofNational Marine Fisheries ServiceDefense, U.S. Army EngineerNorthwest DivisionEnergy, U.S. Department ofOffice of NEPA Policy and ComplianceEnvironmental Protection AgencyOffice of Federal Activities, EIS Filing SectionRegion 10, EIS Review CoordinatorFederal Aviation AdministrationRegional Administrator, Northwest Mountain RegionDraft EIS VI - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Federal Highway AdministrationDivision AdministratorHomeland Security, U. S. Coast GuardEnvironmental Impact BranchInterior, U.S. Department of theBureau of Land ManagementFish and Wildlife ServiceOffice of Environmental Policy and ComplianceNOAA Office of Policy and Strategic PlanningNEPA CoordinatorREGIONAL AGENCIESNorthwest Power Planning CouncilSTATE AGENCIESState of OregonDepartment of Environmental QualityDepartment of Fish and WildlifeDepartment of ForestryGovernor’s Forest AdvisorWater Resources DepartmentNATIVE AMERICANSConfederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of OregonConfederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of OregonQuartz Valley Indian ReservationELECTED OFFICIALSU.S. Senator Gordon SmithU.S. Senator Ron WydenU.S. Representative Peter DeFazioU.S. Representative Greg WaldenCITYCity of AshlandCOUNTYJackson County Board of CommissionersLIBRARIESDraft EIS VI - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Jackson County, AshlandSouthern Oregon UniversityORGANIZATIONSAmerican Lands AllianceAshland Forest Lands CommissionHeadwatersKlamath Siskiyou Wildlands CenterNature ConservancyOregon Natural Resources CouncilRogue Group Sierra ClubRogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG)Society of American ForestersSouthern Oregon Timber Industry Association (SOTIA)World Wildlife FundOTHERSAshland Daily TidingsMedford Mail TribuneDraft EIS VI - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency

GLOSSARYAbiotic: Non-living. Climate is an abiotic component of ecosystems.Active crown fire: A crown fire in which the entire fuel complex becomes involved, but thecrowning phase remains dependent on heat released from the surface fuels for continued spread.Also called running and continuous crown fire.Adaptive management: A type of natural resource management that implies making decisionsas part of an on-going process. Monitoring the results of actions will provide a flow ofinformation that may indicate the need to change a course of action. Scientific findings and theneeds of society may also indicate the need to adapt resource management to new information.Affected environment: The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area beinganalyzed.Airshed: A geographical area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares thesame air.Anadromous fish: Species of fish that mature in the sea and migrate into streams to spawn.Aspect: The direction a slope faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect.Backfire: A fire set along the inner edge of a fireline to consume the fuel in the path of a fire orto change the fire’s convection column (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 1995).Bark beetle: An insect that bores through the bark of forest trees to eat the inner bark and layits eggs. Bark beetles are important killers of forest trees.Basal area: The area of the cross section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 and 1/2 feetabove the ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. Theterm basal area is often used to describe the collective basal area of trees per acre.Best Management Practices: Practices designed to prevent or reduce water pollution.Biological control: The use of natural means to control unwanted pests. Examples includeintroduced or naturally occurring predators such as wasps, or hormones that inhibit thereproduction of pests. Biological controls can sometimes be alternatives to mechanical orchemical means.Biological diversity: The number and abundance of species found within a commonenvironment. This includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and the ecologicalprocesses that connect everything in a common environment.Biomass: The total weight of all living organisms in a biological community.Biotic: Living, green plants and soil microorganisms are biotic components of ecosystems.Draft EIS Glossary - 1 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Board foot: A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood contained inan unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide.Browse: Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs that animals eat. Browse is oftenused to refer to the shrubs eaten by big game, such as elk and deer.British thermal unit (BTU): A British standard unit of energy. One BTU is equal to theamount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of liquid water by 1 degreeFahrenheit at it s maximum density, which occurs at a temperature of 39.1 degrees Fahrenheit.Burned soil: Changes in soil physical, chemical, and biological characteristics caused by heatflux through the surface soil.Burning period: That part of each 24-hour period when fires will spread most rapidly.Typically, with some exceptions, this is from about mid-morning to late afternoon or sundown.Cambium: Plant tissue (meristematic) responsible for the thickening (growth) of stems,branches, and roots.Canopy: The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to theuppermost layer of foliage, but it can be use to describe lower layers in a multi-storied forest.Cavity: A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting, andreproduction.Clean Air Act, as Amended (CAA): The principal law governing the nation’s air qualitystandards.Clean Water Act, as Amended (CWA): The principal law governing the nation’s water qualitystandards. Also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.Codominant: A species that shares dominance with another species in an area.Cohort: A group of individuals of the same age, recruited into a population at the same time;age class (Smith 2000).Conifer: A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir trees.Connectivity (of habitats): The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches,corridors, or "stepping stones" of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to whichsimilar habitats are linked.Contour: A line drawn on a map connecting points of the same elevation.Corridor: Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation maycreate a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows where wildlife feed.Draft EIS Glossary - 2 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established bythe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It coordinates federal environmental efforts andoversees federal agency implementation of the environmental assessment process.Cover: Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live vegetation,boulders, or undercut streambanks. Animals use cover to escape from predators, rest, or feed.Creep: The very slow, generally continuous down slope movement of soil and debris under theinfluence of gravity.Critical habitat: Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened orendangered species.Crown base height: The average distance (height) from the ground level to the lower branchesof the trees that form the main forest canopy.Crown bulk density: The mass of crown fuels per unit of volume that are contained in the mainforest canopy (kg m -3 ). The crown fuels are considered those which interact in a crown fire(usually the needles, and may include lichens and fine branches, etc.).Crown fire: Any fire that burns in canopy fuels.Cultural resource: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past; thiscan be historical or pre-historic.Debris landslides: Rapid mass wasting events that carry large volumes of rock soil andvegetation down slope.Detrimental soil compaction: An increase in soil bulk density of more than 15 percent at 4 to12 inches in soil depth (R6 soil quality standards).Detrimental soil displacement: The removal of more than 50 percent of the “A” horizon froman area greater than 100 square feet, and at least five feet in width (R6 soil quality standards).Detrimental surface soil erosion: Visual evidence of soil loss in areas greater than 100 squarefeet; the presence of rills or gullies and/or degradation of water quality from sediment or nutrientenrichment (R6 soil quality standards).Developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated useof the area. For example, skiing requires ski lifts, parking lots, buildings, and roads.Campgrounds require roads, picnic tables, and toilet facilities.Diameter at breast height (DBH): The diameter of a tree 4 and 1/2 feet above the ground onthe uphill side of a tree.Direct attack: Any treatment of burning fuel, such as by wetting, smothering, or by physicallyseparating burning from unburned fuel.Draft EIS Glossary - 3 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Dispersed recreation: Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site, such ashunting, backpacking, and scenic driving.Disturbance: Any event, such as wildland fire or insect infestations that alter the structure,composition, or functions of an ecosystem.Duff: Partially decomposed organic matter lying beneath the litter layer and above the mineralsoil. Includes the fermentation and humus layers of the forest floor (Brown 2000).Earthflow: A form of slow, but perceptible, mass movement with high content of water androck debris. With increasing moisture content, an earthflow will grade into a mudflow.Ecology: The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or thestudy of these interrelationships.Ecoregion: An area over which the climate is sufficiently uniform to permit development ofsimilar ecosystems on sites that have similar properties. Ecoregions contain many landscapeswith different spatial patterns of ecosystems.Ecosystem health: The degree to which ecological factors and their interactions are reasonablycomplete and functioning for continued resilience, productivity, and renewal of the ecosystem.Ecosystem management: An ecological approach to natural resource management to assureproductive, healthy ecosystems by blending social, economic, physical, and biological needs andvalues.Ecosystem: An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move amongthem. Living things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be rocksand minerals. Weather and wildfire are two of the forces that act within ecosystems.Ecotone: The transition zone between two biotic communities, such as between the Ponderosapine forest type and the mixed conifer forest, which is found at higher elevations than pine.Ecotype: A population of a species in a given ecosystem that is adapted to a particular set ofenvironmental conditions.Endangered species: A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or asignificant portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of the Interiorin accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.Endemic plant/organism: A plant or animal that occurs naturally in a certain region and whosedistribution is relatively limited geographically.Environmental analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable long andshort-term environmental effects. Environmental analyses include physical, biological, social,and economic factors.Draft EIS Glossary - 4 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Environmental Impact Statement: A statement of environmental effects of a proposed actionand alternatives to it. The EIS is released to other agencies and public for comment and review.Ephemeral streams: Streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt. Theyhave no permanent flow.Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by wind or water.Escaped fire: A fire that has exceeded, or is anticipated to exceed, preplanned initial actioncapabilities or fire management direction.Extended attack: The control efforts taken by resources on a fire which has exceeded thecapability of the initial attack resources.Fauna: The animal life of an area.Felling: Cutting down trees.Fire behavior: The manner in which a fire reacts to the variables of fuel, weather, andtopography.Fire duration: The length of time that combustion occurs at a given point. Fire duration relatesclosely to downward heating and fire effects below the fuel surface as well as heating of treeboles above the surface.Fire exclusion: The policy of suppressing all wildland fires in an area (Smith 2000).Fire frequency: Number of fires per unit time in a specified area (McPherson and others 1990).Fire hazard: The measure of ease of ignition, fire spread potential, and fire suppressiondifficulty as influenced by the type, volume, size, distribution, condition, arrangement, andlocation of fuels.Fire intensity: The energy release rate per unit length of fireline.Fire intolerant: Vegetation with characteristics that make it more susceptible to damage fromfire, such as thin bark, shallow root systems, or low-branching.Fire regime: Describes the patterns of fire occurrence, size, and severity - and sometimes,vegetation and fire effects as well - in a given area or ecosystem (Agee 1994, Mutch 1992,Johnson and Van Wagner 1985).Fire resistant species: Species with morphological characteristics that give it a lowerprobability of being injured or killed by fire than a fire sensitive species, which has a "relativelyhigh" probability of being injured or killed by fire (McPherson and others 1990).Fire return interval: The average number of years between successive fires in a designatedarea.Draft EIS Glossary - 5 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Fire severity: Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; also used to describethe product of fire intensity and residence time (McPherson and others 1990, Agee 1994, Rowe1983).Flame height: Distance from base to tip of flame as measured on the vertical axis.Flame length: The length of flames in a fire front measured along the slant of the flame, fromthe midpoint of its base to its tip. Flame length is mathematically related to fireline intensity andtree crown scorch height (Brown 2000).Flora: The plant life of an area.Forage: All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife.Forb: A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody material in it.Foreground: The part of a scene or landscape that is nearest to the viewer.Forest Service Handbook (FSH): Codifies the agency’s policy, practice and procedure.Handbooks are the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carry out thedirection in the Forest Service Manual.Forest Service Manual (FSM): Codifies the agency’s policy, practice and procedure. Containslegal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on acontinuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff.Forest Supervisor: The official responsible for administering National Forest lands on anadministrative unit, usually one or more National Forests. The Forest Supervisor reports to theRegional Forester.Fragmentation: The splitting or isolating of patches of similar habitat, typically forest cover,but including other types of habitat. Habitat can be fragmented naturally or from forestmanagement activities.Fuel bed: an array of fuels usually constructed with specific loading, depth and particle sizerelative to fuel composition in natural settings.Fuel continuity: A qualitative description of the distribution of fuel both horizontally andvertically. Continuous fuels readily support fire spread. The larger the fuel discontinuity, thegreater the fire intensity required for fire spread (Brown 2000).Fuel ladder: Flammable vegetation (live and dead) that forms a continuum that can carry firefrom the surface fuels to the canopies of trees.Fuel loading: The weight per unit area of fuel, often expressed in tons per acre or tons perhectare. Dead woody fuel loadings are commonly described for small material in diameterclasses of 0 to 1/4-, 1/4 to 1-, and 1 to 3-inches and for large material in one class greater than 3inches (Brown 2000).Draft EIS Glossary - 6 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Hydrology: The science dealing with the study of water on the surface of the land, in the soiland underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere.Indigenous (species): Any species of wildlife native to a given land or water area by naturaloccurrence.Initial attack: The control efforts taken by resources which are the first to arrive at a fire.Interdisciplinary team: team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focuseson the same task or project.Invasive species: Species that can move into an area and become dominant numerically or interms of cover, resource use, or other ecological impacts (Randall 1987).Jackpot burning: Underburning discontinuous, concentrated areas of slash or natural fuels.Ladder fuels: Vegetation located below the crown level of forest trees which can carry firefrom the forest floor to tree crowns. Ladder fuels may be low-growing tree branches, shrubs. orsmaller trees.Land use allocation: Site-specific management direction applied to National Forest SystemLands.Landing: Place where material is gathered for processing or further transport from the area.Landscape: A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due tofactors such as geology, soils, climate, and human impacts. Landscapes are often used for coarsegrain analysis.Landslides or mass wasting: The down slope movement of masses of soil and rock material.Movements can be fast such as that which occurs with debris slides, or slow such as that whichoccurs with earthflows or creep movement.Litter: The top layer of the forest floor (01 soil horizon); includes freshly fallen leaves, needles,fine twigs, bark flakes, fruits, matted dead grass and other vegetative parts that are little alteredby decomposition. Litter also accumulates beneath rangeland shrubs.Management indicator species: A wildlife species whose population will indicate the health ofthe ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the effects of forest management activities tothat ecosystem. MIS species are selected by land management agencies.Mean fire interval: Arithmetic average of all fire intervals determined, in years, for adesignated area during a specified time period; the size of the area and the time period must bespecified.Mesic: Pertaining to conditions of moderate moisture or water supply (Smith 2000).Draft EIS Glossary - 8 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Fuel model: A simulated fuel complex for which all fuel descriptors required for the solution ofa mathematical fire spread model have been specified.Fuel moisture: Percent or fraction of oven dry weight of fuel. It is the most important fuelproperty controlling flammability. In living plants it is physiologically bound. Its dailyfluctuations vary considerably by species but are usually above 80 to 100%. As plants mature,moisture content decreases. When herbaceous plants cure, their moisture content responds asdead fuel moisture content, which fluctuates according to changes in temperature, humidity, andprecipitation (Brown 2000).Fuel type: An identifiable association of fuel elements such as species, form (live, dead,standing, or down), size, and arrangement that can be used to predict a rate of fire spread anddifficulty to control under specific topographic and weather conditions.Fuel: Comprised of living and dead vegetation that can be ignited. It is often classified as deador alive and as natural fuels or activity fuels (resulting from human actions). Fuel componentsrefer to such items as downed dead woody material by various size classes, litter, duff,herbaceous vegetation, live foliage etc. (Brown 2000).Fuels management: The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with effective firemanagement or control. For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of fuels thataccumulate on the forest floor before the fuels become so heavy that a natural wildland fire in thearea would be impossible to control.Fuels: Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that are capable of burning.Fuelwood: Wood cut into short lengths for burning.Geographic information systems: GIS is both a database designed to handle geographic dataas well as a set of computer operations that can be used to analyze the data.Geomorphology: The science that deals with the relief features of the earth's surface.Ground fire: A fire that burns along the forest floor and does nor affect trees with thick bark orhigh crowns.Habitat diversity: A number of different types of wildlife habitat within a given area.Habitat: The area where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions.Hazard zones: The system used to classify the landslide hazard risk associated with variousterrain features. The classification system uses Hazard Zone 1 though 4; Hazard Zone 1 isassociated with the highest risk terrain and Hazard Zone 4 the lowest.Holarctic: Of, relating to, or being the zoogeographic region that includes the northern areas ofthe earth.Draft EIS Glossary - 7 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Middleground: A term used the management of visual resources, or scenery. It refers to thevisible terrain beyond the foreground where individual trees are still visible but do not stand outdistinctly from the stand.Mineral soil: Soil that consists mainly of inorganic material, such as weathered rock, ratherthan organic matter.Mitigation: Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or rectify the impact of a land managementpractice.Mixed severity fire regime: Fire regime in which fires either cause selective mortality indominant vegetation, depending on different species’ susceptibility to fire, or vary betweenunderstory and stand replacement (Smith 2000).Monitoring and evaluation: The periodic evaluation of forest management activities todetermine how well objectives were met and how management practices should be adjusted. See"adaptive management".National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as Amended (NEPA): The federal act whichrequires federal agencies to prepare reports on the environmental effects of proposed actions onpublic lands.National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: Also called the Forest Plan, thisdocument guides the management of a particular National Forest and establishes managementstandards and guidelines for all lands of that National Forest.National Forest Management Act: This law was passed in 1976 and requires the preparationof Regional Guides and Forest Plans.Natural fuel: Fuel comprised of wildland vegetation resulting from natural processes and notdirectly generated or altered by management practices, including fuel that has accumulated as aresult of fire exclusion.No-action alternative: The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if managementpractices continue unchanged.Non-native species: An introduced species evolved elsewhere that has been transported andpurposefully or accidentally disseminated by humans (Li 1995).Noxious weeds: Plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture orby responsible state official. These species are generally aggressive, difficult to manage,poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and are non-native,new, or uncommon to the United States.Nutrient cycle: The circulation of chemical elements and compounds, such as carbon andnitrogen, in specific pathways from the non-living parts of ecosystems into the organicsubstances of the living parts of ecosystems, and then back again to the non-living parts of theecosystem.Draft EIS Glossary - 9 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Old-growth: Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in tree sizes andspecies, decadent old trees, and standing and dead woody material.Organic soil: Soil at least partly derived from living matter, such as decayed plant material.Overstory: The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory.Parent material: The mineral or organic matter from which the upper layers of soil are formed.Park-like structure: Stands with large scattered trees and open growing conditions, usuallymaintained by ground fires.Partial retention: A visual quality objective which, in general, means human activity may beevident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.Passive crown fire: A crown fire in which individual or small groups of trees torch out, butsolid flaming in the canopy cannot be maintained except for short periods. Passive crown fireencompasses a wide range of crown fire behavior form the occasional torching of an isolated treeto a nearly active crown fir. Also called torching and candling.Patch: An area of homogeneous vegetation, in structure and composition.Pathogenic: Capable of causing disease.Perennial stream: A stream that flows throughout the year and from source to mouth.Plant association: A system used to classify and describe vegetation in units of similarcomposition and management response.Plant series: An aggregation of plant associations with the same climax dominant species.Pre-commercial thinning: The removal of trees not for immediate financial return but toreduce stocking to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees, or to accomplish some otherresource objective such as fuel reduction.Prescribed fire: Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural ormodified state, under specified environmental conditions which allow the fire to be confined to apredetermined area and at the same time to produce the intensity of heat and rate of spreadrequired to attain planned resource management objectives.Prescription: Management practices selected with a detailed plan to accomplish specific landand resource management objectives.Project area: Geographic area where the proposed action(s) are located.Public involvement: The use of appropriate procedures to inform the public, obtain early andcontinuing public participation, and consider the views of interested parties in planning anddecision making.Draft EIS Glossary - 10 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Rain-on-snow: When thick snow packs are melted by warm rains causing peak flow events andflooding. Rain-on-snow events usually occur in the transient snow zone (generally 3,500 to5,000 feet elevation) in early to late winter.RARE II: Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. The national inventory of roadless andundeveloped areas within the National Forests and Grasslands.Record of Decision: An official document in which a deciding official states the decision thatwill be implemented from a prepared EIS.Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: The land classification system that categorizes land by itssetting and the probable recreation experiences and activities it affords.Relative stand density index: A relative measure of stand density that converts a stand’scurrent density into a density at a reference size (Reineke 1933)Resilience: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity, and ecologicalprocesses following a disturbance. Forest “Resiliency” as used in this analysis refers to theability of the ecosystem to recover from disturbances related to large-scale, high-severitywildland fire.Responsible Official: The Forest Service line officer with the authority and responsibility tomake decisions regarding projects analyzed under NEPA.Rhizome: A creeping plant stem (not a root) growing beneath the surface, consisting of a seriesof nodes with roots commonly produced from the nodes and producing buds in the leaf axils(Brown 2000).Riparian area: The area along a stream course.Riparian ecosystem: The ecosystems around or next to water areas that support uniquevegetation and animal communities as a result of the influence of water.Root crown: The point at which the root and stem of a plant meet and the primary vascularanatomy changes from that of a stem to that of a root. Transition point between stem and root(Brown 2000).Sanitation salvage: The removal of dead, damaged or susceptible trees primarily to prevent thespread of pests or disease and promote forest health.Scale: In ecosystem management, it refers to the degree of resolution at which ecosystems areobserved and measured.Scoping: The ongoing process to determine public opinion, receive comments and suggestions,and determine issues during the environmental analysis process. It may involve public meetings,telephone conversations, or letters.Draft EIS Glossary - 11 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Sensitive species: Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes or impactsfrom activities. The official designation is made by the USDA Forest Service at the Regionallevel and is not part of the designation of Threatened or Endangered Species made by the USFish and Wildlife Service.Seral stage: A developmental stage of an ecological succession, characterized by a group ofspecies or a plant community that will eventually be replaced by a different group of species orplant community if protected from disturbance.Sere: The product of succession: a sequence of plant communities that successively occupy andreplace one another in a particular environment over time.Site productivity: The ability of the land to sustain an inherent level of plant biomass overseveral forest rotations, and includes all plant community types.Slash: The residue left on the ground after management or left after a storm, fire, or other event.Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc.Snag: A standing dead tree from which the leaves and some of the branches have fallen (Smith2000).Spot fire: Fire set outside the perimeter of the main fire by flying sparks or embers.Stand: A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age, andcondition.Standards and Guidelines: Requirements found in a Forest Plan which impose limits onnatural resource management activities, generally for environmental protection.Stand-replacement fire: A fire regime in which fires kill or top-kill aboveground parts of thedominant vegetation, changing the aboveground structure substantially. Approximately 80% ormore of the aboveground, dominant vegetation is either consumed or dies as a result of fires.Applies to forests, shrublands, and grasslands (Smith 2000).Stewardship: Caring for the land and its resources to pass healthy ecosystems to futuregenerations.Structure: How the parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and vertically.Structure might reveal a pattern, or mosaic, or total randomness of vegetation.Surface fire: Fire that burns in the organic material below the litter layer, mostly by smolderingcombustion. Fires in duff, peat, dead moss and lichens, and punky wood are typically groundfires (Brown 2000).Succession: The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. Conditionsof the prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions that are favorable for theestablishment of the next stage.Draft EIS Glossary - 12 Ashland Forest Resiliency

Successional stage: A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare groundto climax. The grass-forb stage of succession precedes the woody shrub stage.Surface fire: Fire that burns in litter and other live and dead fuels at or near the surface of theground, mostly by flaming combustion (Brown 2000).Surface soil erosion: The detachment and transport of individual soil particles by wind, water,or gravity. It is caused by rainfall impact and overland flow of water on soils which have losttheir protective duff, litter, or vegetative cover through the direct effects of displacement ororganic material removal.Swamper burning: Prescribed fire burning method in which fuels are gradually and continuallyadded (usually over the course of a day) to a hand pile.Thinning: A cutting treatment type made in an immature stand of trees to accelerate growth ofthe remaining trees or to improve the form of the remaining trees.Threatened species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout allor a specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.Underburn: A burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and "ladder" fuels.(See prescribed fire)Understory: Plants growing beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually refers to grasses,forbs, and low shrubs and trees under a larger tree canopy.Viable population: The number of individuals of a species sufficient to ensure the long-termexistence of the species in natural, self-sustaining populations that are adequately distributedthroughout their range.Visual quality objective: A set of measurable goals for the management of forest visualresources.Wildland fire: Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in a wildland(National Park Service and others 1998).Windthrow: Trees uprooted by wind.Xeric: Having very little moisture; tolerating or adapted to dry conditions (Smith 2000).Yarding: Transport of woody material from stump to a processing area (See landing). Yardingcan be ground-based (tractors, horses), skyline-based (using a cable suspended between twopoints), or aerial (helicopter).Draft EIS Glossary - 13 Ashland Forest Resiliency

APPENDIX APROCESS RECORDThis appendix contains copies of NEPA process documentation and other letters relevant to the analysis processfor Ashland Forest Resiliency.APPENDIX A Page 1Process Record

APPENDIX A Page 2Process Record

APPENDIX A Page 3Process Record

APPENDIX A Page 4Process Record

APPENDIX A Page 5Process Record

APPENDIX A Page 6Process Record

APPENDIX A Page 7Process Record

APPENDIX A Page 8Process Record

APPENDIX BBACKGROUND AND PRESCRIPTIONSFOR THE FOREST SERVICE PROPOSED ACTIONThe Forest Service Proposed Action proposes to take a different approach in terms offorthcoming application or implementation of the various hazardous fuel reduction treatments.Instead of precisely or exactly describing the location of specific treatment units, the ProposedAction has focused on the specific objectives, the maximum extent of proposed treatments, andthe application of these objectives and treatments across the landscape. This is due to theurgency of the need to move beyond the planning phase and into implementation of hazardousfuel reduction treatment actions, and the extreme variability of current and resultant conditions.The following process is proposed to be used to specifically locate the treatments on the groundduring implementation under the Forest Service Proposed Action. The use of a “dichotomouskey” is recommended due to the extreme variability in stand conditions found throughout theProject Area for the Proposed Action. This process establishes a hierarchy to follow that leads toa specific treatment. Based on Geographic Information System (GIS) modeling, the extent ofarea or maximum amounts of treatment is established and is used for the analysis of effects.During implementation, these established limits of treatments would not be exceeded; actualtreatments may however be less than these limits if objectives are otherwise obtained. Note: Theacres shown within the key could vary plus or minus five percent. This allows for someflexibility during implementation. The total acres of treatment described for each element wouldnot exceed the amount stated. For example, the total maximum treatment for DFPZs would notexceed 2,800 acres but the individual treatments described within the DFPZs could vary + 5%.To guide the application of treatments on the ground during implementation, the followingdichotomous key has been developed that factors in Plant Association Group (PAG), seral stage,certain land classifications (resource constraints), existing fuel models, and vegetation conditions(often expressed by relative stand density index). The following figure displays the overallhierarchy of the key. Additional keys flow from each of the four elements in the forthcomingdiscussion to lead to a treatment to be applied at the location that fits the criteria described in thekey.Figure B-1. Treatment Key HierarchyFuel Hazard Reduction TreatmentsTreatments to FacilitateFire SuppressionTreatments to MinimizeAdverse Fire EffectsDefensible FuelProfile Zones (DFPZ)InterfaceCompartmentsLate-SuccessionalHabitat CompartmentsResearch NaturalAreaSee Figures B-2a,b,c,dSee FiguresB-3a,b,c,d,e,fSee Figures B-4a,b,c,dSee FiguresB-5a,b,c,d,e,fAPPENDIX B Page 1Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Within the forthcoming keys, the color scheme for the four elements is presentedconsistently, e.g., DFPZ key boxes and subsequent treatment references are shown ingreen; interface is yellow, etc. In addition, the following definitions apply to all of thefollowing keys:Insect or Disease Present?The presence of insect or disease would be determined using the following criteria: A stand or portion ofa stand where laminated root rot is detected, or where10 percent or more of the overstory Douglas-firhave detectable dwarf mistletoe infections, or where pine bark beetles or flathead fir borers are attackingtrees. This is defined as either: (a) 10 percent or more of the pines have dead, red foliage, exhibit fadingcrowns, or have pitch tubes, pitch streamers, or evidence of woodpecker feeding; or (b) where 10 percentor more of the Douglas-fir have red foliage, fading chlorotic crowns, pitch streaming, or evidence ofwoodpecker feeding.LHZ 1?This box in the key refers to unstable land (Landslide Hazard Zone 1 as defined in the 2003 Upper BearAssessment, and as updated in DEIS Appendix D). Unstable lands mapped as LHZ 1are considered partof the Riparian Reserve network.Riparian Reserve (not LHZ 1)?Riparian Reserves for the Project Area are defined in RRNF White Paper #36 and are shown in the 2003Upper Bear Assessment. For determining treatments within Riparian Reserves, unstable land (LHZ 1areas) would take precedence in the key. This definition is applicable to Riparian Reserves that are notwithin LHZ 1.Insect Risk Area?An area defined as less than 3,500 feet in elevation, East, South, or West aspect, and greater than 70percent canopy closure. These areas would be at the highest level of risk within the Project Area frominsect infestation.NSO Core Area?This is defined as the area within a one-half mile radius of a northern spotted owl (NSO) activity center.Fuel Model 8?This fuel model describes an area with closed canopy, very little reproduction, and a light surface fuelloading. Refer to Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, April1982, GTR INT-122Fuel Model 2?This fuel model refers to an area that is primarily grass with a scattered timber or shrub overstory. Referto Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, April 1982, GTR INT-122.Legacy pine or Douglas-fir Present?This refers primarily to large, old trees that were present prior to the beginning of fire exclusiontreatments. For this analysis, these trees are defined as those pine or Douglas-fir over 150 years old (asdetermined by coring) or trees with a detectable fire scar or charred bark or tree with a diameter that is atleast twice that of the average diameter for the stand it is located in. To be viable, these trees should havea live crown ratio of 25 percent or greater (live crown ratio refers to the ratio of the living crown to thetotal height of the tree).APPENDIX B Page 2Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

NSO nesting, roosting, habitat?Northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting or roosting habitat is identified as forest with older forest structure,multiple canopies, canopy closure of 60 percent or greater and in this Project Area, having conifers atleast 17 inches in diameter.NSO foraging habitat?Northern spotted owl (NSO) foraging habitat is identified as forest with average diameters of 11 inches indiameter and with canopy closure of 40 percent or greater that is not otherwise nesting or roosting habitat.Existing Plantations?For this proposal, plantations refer to created (managed) stands resulting from planting of previouslyharvested areas.Slope >60%?Percent slope is rise over run expressed in percent and is a special consideration in specific areas forapplication of treatments.Note:Prescription number references associated with the following keys are not (necessarily) in consecutive order(having been developed from an iterative process)APPENDIX B Page 3Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-2a. DFPZ, PAG 1407, Non-forest, Early or Open, and Mid, ClosedDFPZPAG 1407All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-2c-d)No TreatmentFuel Model 2?(Figure B-2b)YesNoTreatment 14110 acresInsect or DiseasePresent?NoYesTreatment 1510 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoYesYesYesTreatment 25 acresTreatment 110 acresTreatment 35 acresYesYesNSO core area?NoYesFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?NoTreatment 55 acresNo TreatmentYesTreatment 415 acresTreatment 65 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoNSO foraginghabitat?NoTreatment 410 acresNoYesNo TreatmentYesYesTreatment 55 acresInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoExisting Plantation?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoTreatment 10145 acresYesYesYesYesTreatment 710 acresTreatment 1120 acresTreatment 810 acresTreatment 95 acresAPPENDIX B Page 4Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-2b. DFPZ, PAG 1407, Late, ClosedDFPZPAG 1407All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-2c-d)(Figure B-2a) (Figure B-2a) (Figure B-2a)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 155 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoYesYesYesTreatment 25 acresTreatment 15 acresTreatment 35 acreYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?NoYesYesTreatment 55 acresNo TreatmentYesTreatment 410 acresTreatment 65 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoYesNoNo TreatmentInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoYesYesTreatment 75 acresTreatment 1110 acresTreatment 540 acresLegacy pine orDF present?NoYesTreatment 95 acresTreatment 1070 acresAPPENDIX B Page 5Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-2c. DFPZ, All Other PAGs, Non-forest, Early or Open, and Mid, ClosedDFPZ(Figures B-2a-b)PAG 1407Non-forestAll Other PAGsEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, ClosedNo TreatmentYesFuel Model 8?No(Figure B-2d)NoTreatment 14460 acresInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 1515 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoYesYesYesTreatment 25 acresTreatment 125 acresTreatment 35 acresYesYesNSO core area?NoYesFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?NoTreatment 55 acresNo TreatmentYesTreatment 425 acresTreatment 610 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoNSO foraginghabitat?NoTreatment 435 acresYesYesYesNoNo TreatmentTreatment 535 acresInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoExisting Plantation?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoTreatment 10500 acresYesYesYesYesTreatment 1320 acresTreatment 1150 acresTreatment 860 acresTreatment 920 acresAPPENDIX B Page 6Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-2d. DFPZ, All Other PAGs, Late, ClosedDFPZ(Figures B-2a-b)PAG 1407Non-forestAll Other PAGsEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figure B-2c) (Figure B-2c) (Figure B-2c)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 1530 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoYesYesYesTreatment 210 acresTreatment 125 acresTreatment 35 acresYesYesNSO core area?NoYesFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?NoTreatment 55 acresNo TreatmentYesTreatment 440 acresTreatment 610 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoYesNoNo TreatmentInsect Risk area?NoFuel Model 8?NoYesYesTreatment 1330 acresTreatment 1195 acresTreatment 5200 acresLegacy pine orDF present?NoYesTreatment 930 acresTreatment 10550 acresAPPENDIX B Page 7Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Defensible Fuel Profile Zone Treatment PrescriptionsThe following is a description of the treatment prescriptions identified in the key for the areaswithin the DFPZs. It is important to remember the DPPZ objectives for each decision (trigger)point in the key when applying a particular treatment. Briefly, DFPZs are designed to:‣ Provide the foundation for the compartmentalization strategy;‣ Breakup continuity of fuels over a large landscape and serve as anchor points for furtherarea-wide treatments, e.g., prescribed burning;‣ Be an interim measure to facilitate protection of values at risk (until desired conditionswithin adjacent compartments have been accomplished);‣ Modify fuel by creating variable width (¼ to ½ miles) crown fire resistant zones toreduce potential severity and size of wildland fires; and‣ Create areas where suppression can be conducted more effectively and safely.Treatment #1 (15 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.3 in ponderosa pine stands and 0.4 in Douglas-fir dominated stands. Favor other species(especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn all activity created fuels and allexisting surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM at the upper end of the rangeas described for PAGs.Treatment #2 (25 acres)Handpile and burn all surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM at the upper endof the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #3 (20 acres)Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpileand burn all activity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter.Leave CWM at the upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #4 (135 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.6. Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall.Handpile and burn all activity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches indiameter. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #5 (300 acres)Underburn to reduce surface fuels and ladder fuels.Treatment #6 (30 acres)Treat only 50% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.4 to 0.6. Raise crown baseheight by pruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM atthe upper end of the range as described for PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 8Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #7 (15 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.3 to 0.4. Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall.Remove shrubs and all trees less than 6” DBH. Treat all activity created fuels with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removalof fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window toosmall). Target condition is less than 3 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. MeetCWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #8 (70 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index ofapproximately 0.4. Raise crown base height to 15 to 20 feet. Raise crown base height bypruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn all activity createdfuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Meet CWM guidelines asdescribed by PAGs.Treatment #9 (60 acres)Thin around heritage pine and Douglas-fir trees to remove all trees less than 100 years old.Remove all trees under the crown and 20 feet beyond the dripline around pines and 10 feetbeyond the dripline around Douglas-fir. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from siteif burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Targetcondition is less than 3 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines asdescribed by PAGs.Treatment #10 (1,265 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.6. Remove shrubs and all trees less than 6” DBH. Raise crown base height by pruningto 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity created fuels with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removalof fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window toosmall). Target condition is less than 3 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. MeetCWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #11 (175 acres)Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Removeshrubs and all trees less than 6” DBH. Underburn to treat activity created fuels and existingfuels. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #12 (10 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index ofapproximately 0.4 in ponderosa pine stands and 0.4-0.6 in Douglas-fir dominated stands.Consider favoring other species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Raise crownbase height by pruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM atthe upper end of the range as described for PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 9Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #13 (50 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.5. Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall.Remove shrubs and all trees less than 6” DBH. Treat all activity created fuels with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removalof fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window toosmall). Target condition is less than 3 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. MeetCWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #14 (570 acres)Combination of surface fuels treatments. Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25 feet in alltrees greater than 40 feet tall. Remove shrubs and thin all trees less than 6” DBH to a relativestand density index of 0.3-0.4. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling,underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burningis not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is lessthan 3 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described byPAGs.Treatment #15 (60 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.2 to 0.3 in ponderosa pine stands and 0.3 to 0.4 in Douglas-fir dominated stands. Removeinfected trees (because of the potential to create additional hazardous fuels). Consider favoringother species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Handpile and burn all activitycreated fuels and treat existing surface fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acrefollowing treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 10Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-3a. Interface Compartment, PAG 1407, Non-forest, Early or Open, and Mid, ClosedInterface CompartmentsPAG 1407All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-3c-f)No TreatmentYesNoLHZ 1?YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 2340 acresYesTreatment 32170 acresYesYesFuel Model 2?NoNoTreatment 2150 acresTreatment 2220 acresTreatment 2465 acresInsect or DiseasePresent?(Figure B-3b)YesRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentTreatment 2025 acresYesYesYesYesTreatment 2425 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 2615 acresNoNSO nestingroosting orforaging Habitat?NoTreatment 2520 acresNoNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesYesNoNo TreatmentTreatment 2475 acresFuel Model 8?NoExisting Plantation?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoYesYesYesTreatment 3150 acresTreatment 2820 acresTreatment 2910 acresNSO foraginghabitat?NoYesTreatment 2725 acresTreatment 30330 acresTreatment 2820 acresAPPENDIX B Page 11Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-3b. Interface Compartment, PAG 1407, Late, ClosedInterface CompartmentsPAG 1407All Other PAGsNon-forest Early or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-3c-f)(Figure B-3a) (Figure B-3a) (Figure B-3a)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 2015 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 3330 acresYesYesYesTreatment 2150 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 2135 acresYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesNoYesTreatment 2420 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 2515 acresTreatment 2610 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoTreatment 24160 acresYesNoNo TreatmentFuel Model 8?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoTreatment 34160 acresYesYesTreatment 3120 acresTreatment 2910 acresAPPENDIX B Page 12Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-3c. Interface Compartment, PAG 1408, Non-forest, Early or Open, and Mid, ClosedInterface CompartmentsPAG 1408All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-3a,-b,e-f)No TreatmentYesFuel Model 2?No(Figure B-3d)NoTreatment 32230 acresInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 3510 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 2310 acresYesYesYesTreatment 2130 acresTreatment 225 acresTreatment 215 acresYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesYesYesNSO nestingroosting orforaging Habitat?NoTreatment 2410 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 3610 acresTreatment 375 acresNoNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesYesNoNo TreatmentTreatment 2455 acresFuel Model 8?NoExisting Plantation?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoYesYesYesTreatment 3125 acresTreatment 2810 acresTreatment 2910 acresNSO foraginghabitat?NoYesTreatment 3820 acresTreatment 39200 acresTreatment 2820 acresAPPENDIX B Page 13Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-3d. Interface Compartment, PAG 1408, Late, ClosedInterface CompartmentsPAG 1408All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-3a-b,e-f)(Figure B-3c) (Figure B-3c) (Figure B-3c)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 3520 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 3335 acresYesYesYesTreatment 2150 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 2145 acresYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesNoYesTreatment 2430 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 3620 acresTreatment 3720 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoTreatment 24180 acresYesNoNo TreatmentFuel Model 8?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoTreatment 40310 acresYesYesTreatment 3140 acresTreatment 2910 acresAPPENDIX B Page 14Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-3e. Interface Compartments, All Other PAGs, Non-forest, Early or Open, & Mid, ClosedInterface Compartments(Figures B-3a-d)PAG 1407, 1408Non-forestAll Other PAGsEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, ClosedNoNo TreatmentYesFuel Model 2?NoTreatment 3230 acresInsect or DiseasePresent?(Figure B-3f)YesTreatment 355 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 235 acresYesYesYesTreatment 215 acresTreatment 225 acresTreatment 215 acresYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesYesYesNSO nestingroosting orforaging Habitat?NoTreatment 245 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 365 acresTreatment 375 acresNoNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesYesNoNo TreatmentTreatment 2410 acresFuel Model 8?NoExisting Plantation?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoYesYesYesTreatment 315 acresTreatment 285 acresTreatment 295 acresNSO foraginghabitat?NoYesTreatment 385 acresTreatment 3910 acresTreatment 285 acresAPPENDIX B Page 15Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-3f. Interface Compartments, All Other PAGs, Late, ClosedInterface Compartments(Figures B-3a-d)PAG 1407, 1408Non-forestAll Other PAGsEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figure B-3e) (Figure B-3e) (Figure B-3e)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 3515 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?YesYesTreatment 215 acresNo TreatmentYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?YesYesTreatment 245 acresNo TreatmentNoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 335 acresYesTreatment 215 acresNoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentNoYesTreatment 365 acresTreatment 375 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoTreatment 2450 acresYesNoNo TreatmentFuel Model 8?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoTreatment 4060 acresYesYesTreatment 3110 acresTreatment 295 acresAPPENDIX B Page 16Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Interface Compartments Treatment PrescriptionsThe following is a description of the treatment prescriptions identified in the key for the areaswithin the Interface compartments. It is important to remember the Interface compartmentobjectives for each decision (trigger) point in the key when applying a particular treatment.Briefly, Interface Compartment treatments are designed to:‣ Create strategic areas of protection against large wildland fires affecting the forest/urbanareas, the Mt. Ashland LSR and the Ashland Municipal Watershed;‣ Modify existing stand density and surface fuel loading so that wildland fires are primarilysurface (as compared with running crown-fires);‣ Support wildland fire flame lengths less than 4-6 feet under 90 th percentile weather andfuel moisture conditions; and‣ Maintain coarse woody material consistent with LSR and individual PAG objectivesTreatment #20 (40 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.2 to 0.3 in ponderosa pine stands and 0.3 to 0.4 in Douglas-fir dominated stands. Removeinfected trees (because of the potential to create additional hazardous fuels). Consider favoringother species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Handpile and burn all activitycreated fuels and treat existing surface fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acrefollowing treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #21 (295 acres)Handpile and burn all surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM at the upper endof the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #22 (30 acres)Raise crown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM atthe upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #23 (50 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.6. Consider favoring other species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning.Raise crown base height by pruning to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpileand burn all activity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter.Leave CWM at the upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #24 (690 acres)Underburn to reduce surface fuels and ladder fuels.Treatment #25 (35 acres)Treat only 50% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.3 to 0.4. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 17Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #26 (25 acres)Treat only 25% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.Treatment #27 (25 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.3 to 0.4. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, orswamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical(unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #28 (80 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index ofapproximately 0.3 to 0.4. Raise crown base height by pruning to 15 to 20 feet. Handpile andburn all activity created fuels and treat existing fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #29 (55 acres)Thin around heritage pine and Douglas-fir trees to remove all trees less than approximately 100years old. Remove all trees under the crown and 20 feet beyond the dripline around pines and 10feet beyond the dripline around Douglas-fir. Treat all activity created fuels with a combinationof handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels fromsite if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Targetcondition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines asdescribed by PAGs.Treatment #30 (330 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.3 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.4 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Remove shrubs and all trees less than 6” DBH. Raise crown baseheight to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity created fuels with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removalof fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window toosmall). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. MeetCWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #31 (150 acres)Prescribed underburn to maintain existing fuels and reduce ladder fuels. Meet CWM guidelinesas described by PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 18Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #32 (430 acres)Combination of surface fuels treatments. Raise crown base height to 20-25 feet in all treesgreater than 40 feet tall. Remove shrubs and thin all trees less than 6” DBH to a relative standdensity index of 0.3-0.4. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling,underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burningis not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is lessthan 5 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described byPAGs.Treatment #33 (70 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 9” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.6. Consider favoring other species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning.Handpile and burn all activity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches indiameter. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #34 (160 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 9” DBH to an approximate relative density of0.3 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.4 in stands dominated byDouglas-fir. Remove all trees between 6 and 9 inches DBH unless it would create an openinggreater than 0.25 acres. In that case, reduce density of trees less than 6” DBH by approximately50%. Raise crown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activitycreated fuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need toconsider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects orburning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels followingtreatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #35 (50 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.3 to 0.4 in ponderosa pine stands and 0.4 to 0.5 in Douglas-fir dominated stands. Removeinfected trees (because of the potential to create additional hazardous fuels). Consider favoringother species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Handpile and burn all activitycreated fuels and treat existing surface fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acrefollowing treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #36 (40 acres)Treat only 50% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.Treatment #37 (35 acres)Treat only 25% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative stand density index of 0.5. Treat allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end ofthe range as described for PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 19Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #38 (25 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, orswamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical(unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #39 (210 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.4 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.5 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Reduce the density of all conifer trees less than 6” DBH. Raisecrown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity createdfuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need toconsider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects orburning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels followingtreatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #40 (370 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 9” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.4 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.5 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Remove all trees between 6 and 9 inches DBH unless it would createan opening greater than 0.25 acres. In that case, reduce density of trees less than 6” DBH byapproximately 50%. Raise crown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall.Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, or swamperburning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical(unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 20Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-4a. Late-Successional Habitat Compartments, PAG 1407, Non-forest, Early or Open,Mid, Closed, and Late, ClosedLate-Successional Habitat CompartmentsRoadside TreatmentsPAG 1407All Other PAGs(Figure B-4d)Non-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-4b-c)No TreatmentNo TreatmentNo TreatmentLHZ 1?YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesSlope >60%? Treatment 50NoTreatment 5120 acresYesYesYesNoNo Treatment10 acresRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesNoYesYesYesNo TreatmentTreatment 5330 acresNoTreatment 5220 acresFuel Model 8?NoExisting Plantation?NoTreatment 55200 acresYesYesNo TreatmentTreatment 5415 acresAPPENDIX B Page 21Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-4b. Late-Successional Habitat Compartments, PAG 1408, Non-forest, Early or Open,Mid, Closed, and Late, ClosedLate-Successional Habitat CompartmentsRoadside TreatmentsPAG 1408All Other PAGs(Figure B-4d)Early or OpenNon-forest Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-4a,c)No TreatmentNo TreatmentNo TreatmentLHZ 1?YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesSlope >60%? Treatment 5015 acresNoTreatment 5120 acresYesYesYesNoNo TreatmentRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesNoYesYesNo TreatmentTreatment 5710 acresNoTreatment 565 acresFuel Model 8?YesNo TreatmentNoExisting Plantation?NoYesTreatment 5410 acresTreatment 58165 acresAPPENDIX B Page 22Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-4c. Late-Successional Habitat Compartments, All Other PAGs, Non-forest, Early orOpen, Mid, Closed, and Late, ClosedLate-Successional Habitat CompartmentsRoadside TreatmentsPAG 1407, 1408All Other PAGs(Figure B-4d)(Figures B-4a-b)Non-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, ClosedNo TreatmentNo TreatmentNo TreatmentLHZ 1?YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesSlope >60%? Treatment 505 acresNoTreatment 515 acresYesYesYesNoNo TreatmentRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)YesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesNoYesYesNo TreatmentTreatment 565 acresTreatment 575 acresNoFuel Model 8?YesNo TreatmentNoExisting Plantation?NoYesTreatment 545 acresTreatment 5855 acresAPPENDIX B Page 23Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-4d. Late-Successional Habitat Compartments, Roadside TreatmentLate-Successional Habitat CompartmentsOther TreatmentsRoadside Treatment Unit(Figures B-4a-c)All PAGsAll Seral StagesWithin 50’ ofperennial stream?NoYesTreatment R310 acresLHZ 1?NoYesTreatment R25 acresTreatment R1225 acresAPPENDIX B Page 24Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Late-Successional Habitat Compartment Treatment PrescriptionsThe following is a description of the treatment prescriptions identified in the key for the areaswithin the Late-Successional Habitat compartments. It is important to remember the Late-Successional Habitat compartment objectives for each decision (trigger) point in the key whenapplying a particular treatment. Briefly, Late-Successional Habitat compartment treatmentsare designed to:‣ Develop healthy mid seral stands that would grow into late-successional habitat (LSRobjectives);‣ Create discontinuity in fuels to protect municipal water supply;‣ Maintain 60 percent canopy closure in areas currently providing northern spotted owlhabitat; and‣ Reduce wildland fire (human ignition) risk along Forest Road 2060.Treatment #50 (30 acres)Handpile and burn all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM at theupper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #51 (45 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.5. Favor other species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Raise crownbase height by pruning to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM atthe upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #52 (20 acres)Treat only 50% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.3 to 0.4. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.Treatment #53 (30 acres)Treat only 25% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.Treatment #54 (30 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index ofapproximately 0.3 to 0.4. Raise crown base height by pruning to 15 to 20 feet. Handpile andburn all activity created fuels and treat existing fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 25Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #55 (200 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.3 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.4 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Reduce density of all trees less than 6” DBH. Raise crown baseheight to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity created fuels with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removalof fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window toosmall). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. MeetCWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #56 (10 acres)Treat only 50% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.Treatment #57 (15 acres)Treat only 25% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative stand density index of 0.5. Treat allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end ofthe range as described for PAGs.Treatment #58 (220 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.4 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.5 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Reduce the density of all conifer trees less than 6” DBH. Raisecrown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity createdfuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need toconsider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects orburning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels followingtreatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 26Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Roadside TreatmentIn addition to the treatments described above, selected areas along Forest Road 2060 wouldbe treated to reduce risk and hazardous fuels and provide anchor points from which toconduct prescribed burning. The areas to be treated are shown on Map II-2. The total area tobe treated is approximately 250 acres. All of the areas would be treated as follows:Treatment R1 (225 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative density of 0.4 to 0.6.Remove shrubs and all trees less than 6” DBH. Raise crown base height by pruning to 20-25feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels fromsite if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small).Target condition is less than 3 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWMguidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment R2 (5 acres)Treatments would be the same as R1, with the following exception: Maintain trees andshrubs less than 6” DBH. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment R3 (10 acres)Treatments would be the same as R1, with the following exception: Treatments of areaswithin 50 feet of perennial streams would be modified to only perform pruning. Fuels thatare a result of this pruning would be piled greater than 50 feet from the stream and burned.APPENDIX B Page 27Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-5a. Research Natural Area, PAG 1407, Non-forest and Early or OpenResearch Natural AreaPAG 1407All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-5d-f)No Treatment(Figure B-5b)(Figure B-5c)NoLHZ 1?NoYesFuel Model 2?NoYesNo TreatmentSlope >60%?YesTreatment 61No5 acresTreatment 725 acresRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesFuel Model 2?NoYesNo TreatmentPerennial Stream?NoYesTreatment 615 acresTreatment 725 acresFuel Model 2?NoTreatment 7235 acresYesNo TreatmentAPPENDIX B Page 28Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-5b. Research Natural Area, PAG 1407, Mid, ClosedResearch Natural AreaPAG 1407All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-5d-f)(Figure B-5a) (Figure B-5a) (Figure B-5c)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 6010 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 6320 acresYesYesYesTreatment 6110 acresTreatment 6210 acresTreatment 6425 acresYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesYesYesNSO nestingroosting orforaging Habitat?NoTreatment 645 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 655 acresTreatment 665 acresNoNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesYesNoNo TreatmentTreatment 6420 acresFuel Model 8?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoTreatment 70135 acresYesYesTreatment 7110 acresTreatment 695 acresNSO foraginghabitat?NoYesTreatment 675 acresTreatment 6810 acresAPPENDIX B Page 29Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-5c. Research Natural Area, PAG 1407, Late, ClosedResearch Natural AreaPAG 1407All Other PAGsNon-forestEarly or Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures II-6d-f)(Figure B-5a) (Figure B-5a) (Figure B-5b)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 6010 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?YesYesTreatment 615 acresNo TreatmentYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?YesYesTreatment 645 acresNo TreatmentNoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 6315 acresYesTreatment 6125 acresNoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentNoYesTreatment 655 acresTreatment 665 acresNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoYesNoNo TreatmentFuel Model 8?NoLegacy pine orDF present?YesYesTreatment 7115 acresTreatment 6910 acresTreatment 64No70 acresTreatment 70100 acresAPPENDIX B Page 30Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-5d Research Natural Area, All Other PAGs, Non-forest and Early or OpenResearch Natural AreaAll Other PAGsPAG 1407Non-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-5c-c)No Treatment(Figure B-5e)(Figure B-5f)LHZ 1?NoYesFuel Model 2?NoYesNo TreatmentSlope >60%?YesTreatment 61No5 acresTreatment 725 acresRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)YesFuel Model 2?NoPerennial Stream?NoTreatment 725 acresYesYesNoNo TreatmentTreatment 615 acresFuel Model 2?NoTreatment 7260 acresYesNo TreatmentAPPENDIX B Page 31Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-5e. Research Natural Area, All Other PAGs, Mid, ClosedResearch Natural AreaAll Other PAGs PAG 1407Non-forestEarly or Open Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figures B-5a-c)(Figure B-5d) (Figure B-5d) (Figure B-5f)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 755 acresLHZ 1?NoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)NoYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoSlope >60%?NoTreatment 6315 acresYesYesYesTreatment 615 acresTreatment 625 acresTreatment 6120 acresYesNSO core area?NoFuel Model 8?NoPerennial Stream?Yes> 50’ from stream?NoNo TreatmentYesYesYesYesNSO nestingroosting orforaging Habitat?NoTreatment 645 acresNo TreatmentTreatment 765 acresTreatment 775 acresNoNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoNSO nesting,roosting habitat?NoYesYesNoNo TreatmentTreatment 6415 acresFuel Model 8?NoLegacy pine orDF present?NoTreatment 7920 acresYesYesTreatment 715 acresTreatment 695 acresNSO foraginghabitat?NoYesTreatment 7810 acresTreatment 6810 acresAPPENDIX B Page 32Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Figure B-5f. Research Natural Area, PAG 1407, Late, ClosedResearch Natural AreaAll Other PAGs PAG 1407Early or OpenNon-forest Mid, Closed Late, Closed(Figure B-5a-c)(Figure B-5d) (Figure B-5d) (Figure B-5e)NoInsect or DiseasePresent?YesTreatment 7515 acresLHZ 1?YesNoRiparian Reserve? (not LHZ1)YesNoNSO core area?YesTreatment 61NSO core area?YesTreatment 64No10 acresNo10 acresYesYesFuel Model 8? No TreatmentFuel Model 8? No TreatmentNoNoYesNoSlope >60%?Treatment 61Perennial Stream? Treatment 76No25 acresYes Yes10 acres> 50’ from stream? Treatment 77Treatment 63No10 acres15 acresNo TreatmentNSO core area?YesFuel Model 8?NoYesNoNo TreatmentFuel Model 8?NoLegacy pine orDF present?YesYesTreatment 7120 acresTreatment 6910 acresTreatment 64200 acresNoTreatment 80155 acresAPPENDIX B Page 33Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Research Natural Area PrescriptionsThe following is a description of the treatment prescriptions identified in the key for the areaswithin the Research Natural Area. It is important to remember the Research Natural Areaobjectives for each decision (trigger) point in the key when applying a particular treatment.Briefly, Research Natural Area treatments are designed to:‣ Create discontinuity in fuels to protect municipal water supply;‣ Maintain and encourage conditions representing the original RNA objectives; and‣ Selectively remove competition to existing legacy pines and Douglas-fir and createconditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species.Treatment #60 (20 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.2 to 0.3 in ponderosa pine stands and 0.3 to 0.4 in Douglas-fir dominated stands. Removeinfected trees (because of the potential to create additional hazardous fuels). Favor other species(especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Handpile and burn all activity created fuelsand treat existing surface fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acre following treatment.Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #61 (120 acres)Handpile and burn all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM at theupper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #62 (15 acres)Raise crown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM atthe upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #63 (65 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.6. Favor other species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Raise crownbase height by pruning to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Handpile and burn allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Leave CWM atthe upper end of the range as described for PAGs.Treatment #64 (355 acres)Underburn to reduce existing surface fuels and ladder fuels.Treatment #65 (10 acres)Treat only 50% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.3 to 0.4. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 34Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #66 (10 acres)Treat only 25% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end of the range asdescribed for PAGs.Treatment #67 (5 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.3 to 0.4. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, orswamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical(unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #68 (20 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index ofapproximately 0.3 to 0.4. Raise crown base height by pruning to 15 to 20 feet. Handpile andburn all activity created fuels and treat existing fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #69 (30 acres)Thin around heritage pine and Douglas-fir trees to remove all trees less than approximately 100years old. Remove all trees under the crown and 20 feet beyond the dripline around pines and 10feet beyond the dripline around Douglas-fir. Treat all activity created fuels with a combinationof handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels fromsite if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Targetcondition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines asdescribed by PAGs.Treatment #70 (235 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.3 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.4 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Remove shrubs and all trees less than 6” DBH. Raise crown baseheight to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity created fuels with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removalof fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window toosmall). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. MeetCWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #71 (50 acres)Maintenance underburn to treat existing fuels and reduce ladder fuels. Meet CWM guidelines asdescribed by PAGs.Treatment #72 (115 acres)Combination of surface fuels treatments. Reduce density in trees less than 6” DBH byapproximately 50%. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling,underburning, or swamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burningis not practical (unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is lessthan 5 tons/acre of surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described byPAGs.APPENDIX B Page 35Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Treatment #75 (20 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.3 to 0.4 in ponderosa pine stands and 0.4 to 0.5 in Douglas-fir dominated stands. Removeinfected trees (because of the potential to create additional hazardous fuels). Favor other species(especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Handpile and burn all activity created fuelsand treat existing surface fuels to a target condition of less than 5 tons/acre following treatment.Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #76 (15 acres)Treat only 50% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of 0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activitycreated fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with a combination ofhandpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave excess amounts of CWM on site.Treatment #77 (15 acres)Treat only 25% of the acres in this condition with the following: Thin from below beginningwith trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative stand density index of 0.5. Treat allactivity created fuels and all existing surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter with acombination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. Leave CWM at the upper end ofthe range as described for PAGs.Treatment #78 (10 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to a relative stand density index of0.4 to 0.5. Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, orswamper burning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical(unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #79 (20 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 6” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.4 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.5 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Reduce the density of all conifer trees less than 6” DBH. Raisecrown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall. Treat all activity createdfuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, or swamper burning. May need toconsider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical (unacceptable soil effects orburning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acre of surface fuels followingtreatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.Treatment #80 (155 acres)Thin from below beginning with trees greater than 9” DBH to an approximate relative standdensity index of 0.4 in stands dominated by ponderosa pine and to approximately 0.5 in standsdominated by Douglas-fir. Remove all trees between 6 and 9 inches DBH unless it would createan opening greater than 0.25 acres. In that case, reduce density of trees less than 6” DBH byapproximately 50%. Raise crown base height to 15-20 feet in all trees greater than 40 feet tall.Treat all activity created fuels with a combination of handpiling, underburning, or swamperburning. May need to consider removal of fuels from site if burning is not practical(unacceptable soil effects or burning window too small). Target condition is less than 5 tons/acreof surface fuels following treatment. Meet CWM guidelines as described by PAGs.APPENDIX B Page 36Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

Compartmentalization Strategy and SummaryA key function of the Proposed Action and its proposed fire protection strategy for AshlandForest Resiliency is the concept of “compartmentalization”. Compartmentalizing landscapesserve to protect larger surrounding areas at risk. This strategy is recognized in the NorthwestForest Plan as means to manage the risk of disturbance within Late-Successional Reserves(NWFP page C-12, 13). Compartmentalization was also identified by local citizens groupsunder previous planning efforts. The compartmentalization strategy associated with thisProposed Action involves creating compartments that range in size from approximately 800 –6,700 acres (see Map II-2, and Component 5, Section 5, A, of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessmentfor more information on Compartments).The overall objective of compartmentalization is to be able to contain any fire start (human orlightning), and subsequent fire spread, within the compartment in which it started. Thedelineation of compartments is based primarily on strategic topographic features, regardless ofland management responsibility or ownership. The topographic features coincide with strategicridgelines, vegetation changes, and/or human-made features such as roads.Under the Proposed Action, areas within compartments would be managed with the long-termobjective of achieving a fire resilient forest, with special emphasis on providing short-termprotection to the Values At Risk 1 . As part of the recommended strategy, areas within thecompartments would be treated using a variety of hazard reduction treatments over wide areas,based on desired conditions by PAGs. The following table provides a summary of treatments byCompartment.Table B-1. Proposed Action - Summary of Treatments by CompartmentsCompartmentNFSLAcresDefensible FuelProfile ZonesTreatment ElementsInterfaceCompartmentsLate-SuccessionalHabitatCompartmentsResearchNatural AreaNeil 3,884 95 NT 260 NTClayton 866 190 290 NT NTTolman 913 235 530 NT NTAshland 518 70 330 NT NTReeder 1,822 330 1,075 NT 95Panther 364 80 195 NT NTHorn Gulch 1,387 265 520 NT NTWagner Gap 762 275 260 NT NTLower West Fork 3,442 575 NT 340 (+110 roadside) NTEast Fork 4,966 475 NT (140 roadside) 1,205Upper West Fork 3,051 210 NT NT NTBald 5 NT NT NT NTTotals 2,800 3,200 600 (+250 roadside) 1,300Grand total 8,150 acresNT = No treatment proposedAcres shown are considered the upper limit to be treated for each of the compartments.1 Values At Risk are discussed in detail in Component 5 of the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment.APPENDIX B Page 37Background and Prescriptions - Proposed Action

APPENDIX CBACKGROUND AND PRESCRIPTIONSFOR THE COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVEThe following process and prescriptions are proposed to be used to specifically locate thetreatments on the ground during implementation under the City of Ashland’s - CommunityAlternative. Descriptions in this appendix are excerpts from Chapter 8 of the CWPP.This alternative considers the Plant Association Group (PAG) the key determiner of the proposedprescription are therefore described by PAG. The implementation of prescriptions acrosstreatment setting types (Category/priority) must identify and map the PAG, because thetreatment setting types contain a mix of PAGs in most cases. The general guidelines providedhere are meant to apply in most situations where treatments are proposed. Stand level inventoryshould be used to develop site-specific prescriptions during the implementation phase.Individual site differences may suggest slight prescription changes to more accurately reflect theinherent heterogeneity of site conditions within and among the treatment units/areas arrayedacross the watershed.Of the three characteristics that traditionally describe forested stands, density, structure, andcomposition, 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 toachieve wildfire management benefits difficult. Nonetheless, in order for this approach tosucceed, existing, desired, and future stand structure must be specifically described in order toassess the effectiveness of proposed treatments. Under the Community Alternative, descriptionof stand structure can be facilitated by delineating each of the various sizes/ages/layers ofvegetation in a stand, typically referred to as cohorts. In the Analysis Area, combinations ofthree 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 patternswere 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 andriparian areas‣ The most common PAGs and species: Oregon White Oak PAG; Oregon white oak,ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; Ponderosa Pine PAG; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir;DouglasfirPAGs: ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir; and White Fir PAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine,Douglas-fir, Shasta red firAPPENDIX C Page 1Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

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 standstructures‣ Typically initiated following moderate to high-intensity disturbance, such as the 1901 or1910 wildfire events‣ Not having been thinned by subsequent fire, this cohort often currently is at excessivestand densities more typical of the stem exclusion stage of stand development, andrapidly declining in growth and vigor‣ The most common PAGS and species: Oregon White Oak PAG; 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 FirPAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red fir, white firCohort #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-agedstands; a younger example of cohort #2‣ Most noticeable in stands with recent disturbance history‣ The most common PAGs and species: Oregon White Oak PAG; 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 FirPAGs; sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Shasta red fir, white firIn all stands and treatments included under the Community Alternative, and as described below,the intention is to primarily leave trees that were part of the stand prior to fire exclusion, the firstcohort, and to reduce the abundance of younger recruits in the third and second cohorts grownover the last 80 to 100 years. To maintain diversity of ages and inclusion of multipleregeneration events, and to ensure ongoing stand development, it is important under theCommunity Alternative that none of the cohorts are completely removed.These prescriptions are designed to promote and maximize retention of Cohort 1 and largercohort 2 trees throughout the Analysis Area. This project proposes to reduce fuels and thedensity of the smaller trees. Cohorts 2 and 3 would be thinned from below to establish desiredmore open forest structure and, to the extent possible, the largest trees of all species in the standwould be retained. Specific justification will be required for felling and/or removal of trees incohorts 1 and 2. Justification protocols are discussed below.Around Cohort 1 trees, stand density reduction will be employed in priority areas identified fortreatment to improve vigor, reduce susceptibility to attack from bark beetles and/or disease, andreduce the potential for damage from wildfire and/or prescribed fire - that is, to maximize theirpotential for long-term retention. Stand density reduction should focus on smaller Cohort 2 and3 trees first within the immediate vicinity of the retained Cohort 1 tree and out to a radius equalto 2 crown radii.APPENDIX C Page 2Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

Complete tree and/or vegetation removal within this crown radii is not the intention; rather, anoverall reduction in stand basal area not to exceed 50 percent of existing basal areas, or aspecified basal area target (100 square feet per acre in Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir PAGs;150 square feet per acre in White Fir PAGs), whichever is greater.Basal area targets in all PAGs are intended as guides to facilitate site-specific evaluations.Where management is necessary, thinning will start first with the smallest trees on the site.Conversely, the largest trees on the site will be reserved first. Trees identified for thinning willbe used to satisfy snag and down wood targets (largest first). Density and spacing of trees leftafter stand density reduction can be ordered, clumped, or variable, ideally with vegetation andtree felling and removal greatest in downhill directions (or in the direction of expected spread ina wildfire event). Ladder fuels within the crown radius of the preferred Cohort 1 tree are also apriority for removal. In the treatment area around the preferred Cohort 1 tree, retention of themost vigorous Cohort 1 or 2 trees is desired to reach target basal areas, with pines andhardwoods particularly preferred.100 Feet of Basal AreaTreeDiameter inInchesFeet of BasalArea / TreeNumber ofTrees / 100Feet BasalArea20 2.2 4530 4.9 2040 8.7 1150 13.6 760 19.6 5TreeDiameter inInches150 Feet of Basal AreaFeet of BasalArea / TreeNumber ofTrees / 150Feet BasalArea20 2.2 6830 4.9 3040 8.7 1750 13.6 1160 19.6 7In stands within priority areas identified for treatment where greater than 50% of basal area is intrees between 25 to 50+ inches (cohort 1) there has to be site specific rationale for cutting treesor creating snags with trees over 25 inches. Cutting means trees are left on site to satisfy habitator soil objectives. Once density targets, snag recruitment, down wood, and soil managementobjectives are satisfied, felled trees are considered available for removal. A transparentvalidation process is required for removal of trees over 25 inches DBH.In stands where greater than 50% of BA is in trees 10-25 inches DBH (cohort 2 dominated) therehas to be site-specific rationale for cutting and then removing (defined above) site trees over 17inches, or creating snags, when all objectives are met. A transparent validation process isrequired for removal of trees is required for cutting and removal of trees.APPENDIX C Page 3Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

Oregon White Oak PAGOregon white oak - Hedgehog dogtail plant associationThis plant association may be in a resilient condition that represents Category 1, but most standswithin those priority areas of the watershed identified for treatment occur as inclusions within theDry Douglas-fir PAG, and most likely will need to be treated.Reduce the density of conifers and other vegetation around reserve pine and hardwood species.There will be cases where trees of the same species are growing closely together and functioningas one tree. Where this occurs the clump will be treated as a single tree and be a priority forretention.During selection of trees to thin, reserve white oak and black oak greater than 6 inches DBH.Reserve madrone greater than 16 inches DBH. Reserve intermediate and overstory ponderosapine with live crown ratios greater than 25 percent. Remove small diameter (7”DBH) Douglas firand white fir within two crown radii of reserve trees. Keep the largest and most vigorous treesregardless of distribution.Exception 1: Some pines or large hardwoods with a live crown ratio less than 15 percentwill have vegetation reduced within 2 crown radii. These trees are candidates for futuresnag recruitment if additional snags are perceived to be needed in the future.Exception 2: Douglas-fir greater than 16 inches DBH, representing individuals that maybe part of Cohort 1 in this setting, with greater than a 40 percent live crown ratio will beretained.Other vegetation greater than 1 inch in diameter at 1 foot above ground level will be cut(slashed). Shrub species and residual Douglas-fir will be slashed except as needed for soil coverand habitat considerations. Retain pine less than 7 inches DBH. To maintain structural, species,age class and habitat diversity, occasional untreated patches of various sizes up to 5 percent ofthe area can be retained in those areas that do not compromise wildfire management goals and/orpotential future application of prescribed fire. Spacing guidelines will be developed on a sitespecificbasis at the time of implementation.Treat existing fuels and activity fuels with a broadcast burn wherever possible. If a broadcastburn is not possible, hand pile and burn. In broadcast burn areas, use ignition pattern that reducesflame intensity near smaller hardwoods and pine. Do not hand pile (where possible) within 10feet of retained hardwoods and pines.Restore native grass component. Roemer’s fescue, prairie junegrass, and California fescuerecommended.A second vegetation treatment may be needed within 5 years. To the extent possible, scheduleprescribed fire to maintain fire resiliency.APPENDIX C Page 4Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

Ponderosa Pine PAGPonderosa pine - Douglas-fir plant associationDesired relative density: 0.2 to 0.4This plant association may be in a resilient condition that represents Category 1, but most standswithin those priority areas of the watershed identified for treatment are in a Category 2 condition,with stands in selected treatment priority areas occurring as inclusions within the Dry DouglasfirPAG. This PAG is a valuable part of the Category 2 priorities associated with the FuelDiscontinuity Network. Maintenance of the veteran pine and opening and re-establishinghorizontal discontinuity of tree crowns is desired.Reserve white oak and black oak greater than 6 inches DBH. Reserve madrone greater than 16inches DBH. Reserve intermediate and overstory pine species and incense cedar with live crownratios greater than 25 percent. Remove small diameter (7”DBH) Douglas fir within two crownradii of reserve trees. Reduce the density of Douglas-fir within four crown radii of reserveconifers and four crown radii of reserve hardwoods, if this can be done without damaging thereserved tree. Trees in cohorts 3 and 2 will be prioritized for removal. Keep the largest andmost vigorous trees regardless of distribution.Exception 1: Some pines or large hardwoods with a live crown ratio less than 15 percentwill have Douglas-fir removed within 2 crown radii if a future need for snags isperceived.Exception 2: Douglas-fir with greater than 40 percent live crown ratio will be retained.Thin “from below” to a relative density of 0.2-0.4 based on stand characteristics, soil cover andtopography. Slash shrub species and residual Douglas-fir except in those areas retained forhabitat and soil considerations. Retain pine less than 7 inches DBH. To maintain structural,species, age class and habitat diversity, occasional untreated patches of various sizes up to 5percent of the area can be retained in those areas that do not compromise wildfire managementgoals and/or successful application of prescribed fire. Spacing guidelines will be developed on asite-specific basis at the time of implementation.Treat existing fuels and activity fuels with a broadcast burn wherever possible. If a broadcastburn is not possible, hand pile and burn. In broadcast burn areas, use ignition pattern that reducesflame intensity near smaller hardwoods and pine. Do not hand pile (where possible) within 10feet of retained hardwoods and pines.Restore native grass component. Roemer’s fescue, prairie June junegrass, and California fescuerecommended.In areas where shrubs are not desired, a second vegetation treatment may be needed within 5years. To the extent possible, schedule prescribed fire to maintain fire resiliency.APPENDIX C Page 5Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

Dry Douglas-fir PAGDouglas-fir-Incense cedar/Piper's Oregon grape plant associationDouglas-fir-Ponderosa Pine/Poison oak plant associationDouglas-fir/Dry shrub plant association1. Southerly and Westerly AspectsDesired relative density: 0.3 to 0.5This PAG is an important part of our fuel discontinuity network, extensively represented in highpriority treatment settings of Category 2 (priority 4). Maintenance of the reserve pine andDouglas-fir in these stands, and opening and re-establishing horizontal discontinuity of treecrowns is desired.Reserve black oak greater than 6 inches DBH, and ponderosa and sugar pine, incense cedar withlive crown ratios greater than 25 percent. Douglas-fir with crown ratios over 30 percent also arereserved. In priority areas selected for treatment, remove small diameter (7”DBH) Douglas firwithin two crown radii of reserve trees. Reduce the density of Douglas-fir within three crownradii of reserve conifers and two crown radii of reserve hardwoods if this can be done withoutdamaging the reserved tree. Target basal area around reserve trees is 100 sq. ft./acre. Trees incohorts 3 and 2 will be prioritized for removal, as needed to meet this prescription. Keep thelargest and most vigorous trees regardless of distribution.Exception 1: Some sugar pine, incense cedar, or large hardwoods with a live crown ratioless than 15 percent will have Douglas-fir and white fir removed within 1 crown radius ifa future need for snags is perceived. These trees are candidates for future snagrecruitment.Exception 2: Douglas-fir greater than 16 inches DBH, representing individuals that maybe part of Cohort 1 in this setting, with greater than a 40 percent live crown ratio will beretained.Thin “from below” to a relative density of 0.3-0.5 based on stand characteristics, soil cover andtopography. When thinning Douglas-fir, thin from below. Spacing for leave trees will be theresult of analysis of stand data collected in the field from individual units. Thin to retain thelargest trees and trees with the best live crown ratios that will most rapidly occupy the site, andtrees growing in microsites that may confer a degree of protection from a ground fire. There willbe cases where trees of the same species are growing closely together and functioning as onetree. Where this occurs the clump will be treated as a single tree and be a priority for retention.Clumping of leave trees is permitted as long as canopy closure exceeds 40 percent on southslopes.Slash shrubs, white fir, and other residual conifers except in those areas retained for habitat andsoil considerations. Retain unthinned patches (up to 5 percent of the area) in areas where theywill not preclude meeting prescribed burning operations or in places where wildfire suppressionobjectives would be compromised. Recommended areas for shrub retention are areas that are tobe handpiled and burned or the lower portion of broadcast burn areas.APPENDIX C Page 6Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

2. Northerly AspectsDesired relative density: 0.4 to 0.6Thinning in stages may be particularly appropriate in priority areas selected for treatment withvegetation in this PAG. Dense stands that have good vertical discontinuity have wildfiremanagement benefits if they can be retained without significant density and bark beetlemortality.Hardwoods, pine and cedar will be treated as described above for southerly aspects. Whenthinning Douglas-fir, trees in cohorts 3 and 2 will be prioritized for removal, as needed to meetthis prescription. Keep the largest and most vigorous trees regardless of distribution.3. All AspectsRetain pine less than 8 inches DBH. Slash other vegetation less than 7 inches DBH.In priority areas selected for treatment, treat existing fuels and activity fuels with a broadcastburn wherever possible. If a broadcast burn is not possible, hand pile and burn. In broadcastburn areas, use ignition pattern that reduces flame intensity near smaller hardwoods and pine.Do not hand pile (where possible) within 10 feet of retained hardwoods and pines.Seed burn piles and disturbed soil with native grasses. California fescue and western fescue arerecommended.Moist Douglas-fir PAGDouglas-fir-White fir plant associationDouglas-fir-white fir/Creeping snowberry plant associationDouglas-fir-Canyon live oak/Poison oak plant associationPlant associations in this PAG follow a moisture gradient from dry to moist and can be identifiedwith a field inventory at implementation:Douglas-fir-white fir/Creeping snowberry plant associationDouglas-fir-Canyon live oak/Poison oak plant associationRecommended treatments in priority areas selected for treatment are the same for this PAG asfor the dry Douglas-fir PAG. Douglas-fir is a priority for retention over white fir.Douglas-fir-White fir plant associationThis plant association is characterized by a mix of species, including a low cover of white fir,often in a multi-layered canopy structure and a relatively dense shrub layer including highpercent-cover of dwarf Oregon grape.APPENDIX C Page 7Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

1. Southerly AspectsDesired relative density: 0.3 to 0.5Reserve hardwoods, except madrone, greater than 8 inches DBH. Madrone greater than 16inches DBH is reserved. Overstory sugar pine, ponderosa pine, and incense cedar with livecrown ratios greater than 25 percent also are reserved. In priority areas selected for treatment,remove small diameter (7”DBH) Douglas fir and white fir within two crown radii of reservetrees. Reduce the density of Douglas-fir and white fir within two crown radii to 100 sq. ft./acrebasal area if this can be done without damaging the reserved tree. Trees in Cohorts 3 and 2 willbe prioritized for removal, as needed to meet this prescription. Keep the largest and mostvigorous trees regardless of distribution.Exception 1: Some pines or large hardwoods with a live crown ratio less than 15 percentwill have Douglas-fir and white fir removed within 1 crown radius. These trees arecandidates for future snag recruitment if additional snags are perceived to be needed inthe future.Exception 2: Douglas-fir greater than 16 inches DBH, representing individuals that maybe part of Cohort 1 in this setting, with greater than a 40 percent live crown ratio will beretained.Thin “from below” to a relative density of 0.3-0.5 based on stand characteristics, soil cover andtopography.Slash shrubs, white fir, and other residual conifers except in those areas retained for habitat andsoil considerations. Retain un-thinned patches (up to 5 percent of the area) in areas where theywill not preclude meeting prescribed burning operations or in places where wildfire suppressionobjectives would be compromised. Recommended areas for shrub retention are areas that are tobe handpiled and burned or the lower portion of broadcast burn areas.2. Northerly aspectsDesired relative density: 0.4 to 0.6Hardwoods, pine and cedar in priority areas selected for treatment will be treated as describedabove for southerly aspects. When thinning Douglas-fir or white fir, trees in cohort 3 and 2 willbe prioritized for removal, as needed to meet this prescription. Keep the largest and mostvigorous trees regardless of distribution.3. All AspectsRetain pine less than 8 inches DBH. Retain madrone greater than 16 inches DBH. In priorityareas selected for treatment, slash other vegetation less than 7 inches DBH. Treat existing fuelsand activity fuels with a broadcast burn wherever possible. If a broadcast burn is not possible,hand pile and burn. In broadcast burn areas, use ignition pattern that reduces flame intensity nearsmaller hardwoods and pine. Do not hand pile (where possible) within 10 feet of retainedhardwoods and pines.APPENDIX C Page 8Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

Dry White fir PAGWhite fir-Douglas-fir/Baldhip rose plant associationWhite fir/Creeping snowberry plant associationThis plant association can be identified by the presence of large overstory pine and Douglas-fir,and golden chinquapin as an understory tree. Forests in this plant association have a higherpotential than warmer and dryer PAGs to support habitat for late-successional dependent speciessuch as the spotted owl and retain this habitat over time. These forests were also more likely toexperience patches of high severity fire events.In priority areas selected for treatment, manage for higher site occupancy by Douglas-fircompared with white fir unless precluded by mistletoe considerations.Retention of large hardwoods other than chinquapin will become more difficult in higherelevations due to snow load.1. Southerly AspectsDesired relative density: 0.3 to 0.6 (0.3 in areas of higher wildfire management priority or topromote pines).Reserve golden chinquapin greater than 8 inches DBH. Sugar pine, ponderosa pine, with livecrown ratios greater than 25 percent also reserved. In priority areas selected for treatment,remove small diameter (

2. Northerly AspectsDesired relative density: 0.4 to 0.6Hardwoods, pine and cedar will be treated as described above for southerly aspects. Whenthinning Douglas-fir or white fir in those priority areas identified for treatment, trees in Cohort 3and 2 will be prioritized for removal, as needed to meet this prescription. Keep the largest andmost vigorous trees regardless of distribution.3. All AspectsRetain pine less than 8 inches DBH. Retain madrone greater than 16 inches DBH. In priorityareas identified for treatment, slash other vegetation less than 7 inches DBH. Broadcast burnwherever possible. If a broadcast burn is not possible, hand pile and burn. In broadcast burnareas, do not light near smaller hardwoods hardwoods and pine. Do not hand pile (wherepossible) within 10 feet of retained hardwoods and pines.Moist White fir PAGWhite fir-Incense cedar/Western starflower plant associationWhite fir/Dwarf Oregon grape plant associationWhite fir/Dwarf Oregon grape/Western twinflower plant associationThese forests were more likely to experience at least patches of high severity fire events. Forestsin this PAG have the potential to support habitat for late-successional dependent species such asthe spotted owl and retain this habitat over time. Forests in this PAG also have the potential for ahigh severity fire event.Retention of large hardwoods other than chinquapin will become more difficult in higherelevations due to snow load.1. Southerly AspectsDesired relative density 0.3 to 0.6Reserve black oak and white oak greater than 8 inches DBH and sugar pine and incense cedarwith live crown ratios greater than 25 percent. In priority areas identified for treatment, removesmall diameter (

Exception 2: Douglas-fir greater than 16 inches DBH, representing individuals that maybe part of Cohort 1 in this setting, with greater than a 40 percent live crown ratio will beretained.2. Northerly AspectsTreatments are not being proposed for this landscape setting.3. All AspectsIn priority areas identified for treatment, retain uncut patches of shrubs (up to 5 percent of thearea) where they will not preclude meeting prescribed burning operations or in places wherewildfire suppression objectives would be compromised. Pacific yew is reserved. Areascontaining Pacific yew and Pacific dogwood are candidates for no treatment. Areas that are tobe handpiled and burned would be favored for shrub retention or the lower portion of broadcastburn areas.Retain incense cedar and pine less than 8 inches DBH. Slash other vegetation less than 7 inchesDBH. In broadcast burn areas, do not light near smaller hardwoods and pine. Do not hand pileor light near Pacific yew. Do not hand pile (where possible) within 10 feet of retainedhardwoods and pines. Broadcast burn where road access permits, otherwise hand pile and burnthe piles.Cool White Fir PAGWhite fir-Shasta red fir/Common prince’s pine-Threeleaf anemone plant associationDesired relative density: 0.4 to 0.7This plant association can be characterized by the beginning emergence of Shasta Red Fir as anintegral part of existing stands, particularly as an overstory species. Shasta Red Fir is moretolerant of frequent, low-to-moderate intensity fire than its primary vegetation associate in thisPAG, white fir, due to characteristics such as thicker bark, elevated foliage, large size, greaterlongevity and increased resistance to root disease common in these plant associations.The absence of fire has compromised the long term viability of some large overstory Shasta RedFir and occasional large sugar and ponderosa pines that occur on upper south and west slopes.Plot data suggests that over twice as many trees per acre (largely white fir) occur in this PAG asin any other PAGs in the project area. Retention of large hardwoods other than chinquapin willbecome more difficult in higher elevations due to snow load. South and west aspects andridgelines in this PAG, designated Priority 6 in the treatment grid, are the highest priority fortreatment. Northerly aspects in this PAG will not be treated.APPENDIX C Page 11Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

1. All AspectsReserve golden chinquapin greater than 8 inches DBH and Shasta red fir and pine with livecrown ratios greater than 25 percent. In priority areas identified for treatment, reduce Douglasfirand white fir within 2 crown radii of these trees to a basal area density of 150 sq. ft./acre ifthis can be accomplished without damaging the retention tree. Trees in cohorts 3 and 2 will beprioritized for removal, as needed to meet this prescription.Spacing for thinning will be determined on a site-specific basis at the time of implementation.Shasta red fir, pines and Douglas-fir are priorities for retention over white fir. Keep the largestand most vigorous trees regardless of distribution.Exception 1: Some sugar pine, incense cedar, or large hardwoods with a live crown ratioless than 15 percent will have Douglas-fir and white fir removed within 1 crown radius.These trees are candidates for future snag recruitment if additional snags are perceived tobe needed in the future.Exception 2: Douglas-fir greater than 16 inches DBH, representing individuals that maybe part of Cohort 1 in this setting, with greater than a 40 percent live crown ratio will beretained.Thin “from below” to a relative density of 0.4-0.7 based on stand characteristics, soil cover andtopography. Understory thinning should be heaviest on the downhill side of preferred overstoryShasta red fir and pines in order to minimize impacts during a wildfire event. Retain uncutpatches of shrubs (up to 5 percent of the area) where they will not preclude meeting prescribedburning operations or in places where wildfire suppression objectives would be compromised.Pacific yew is reserved. Areas containing Pacific yew and Pacific dogwood are candidates forno treatment. Areas that are to be handpiled and burned would be favored for shrub retention orthe lower portion of broadcast burn areas.Retain Shasta red fir, incense cedar, and pine less than 8 inches DBH. Slash other vegetationless than 7 inches DBH. In broadcast burn areas, do not light near smaller hardwoods and pine.Do not hand pile or light near Pacific yew. Do not hand pile (where possible) within 10 feet ofretained hardwoods and pines. Broadcast burn where road access permits, otherwise hand pileand burn the piles.Small Diameter Thinning and Surface Fuels ReductionPreviously Harvested Areas (Clear-cuts and plantations)Plantations, Priority 3 among the treatment settings, were considered strategic areas to thinwithin Category 3. Individual project areas should be subdivided into four units, eachrepresenting a variation in spacing: 30 percent regular spacing, 30 percent wide spacing, 30percent variable spacing, and 10 percent no treatment. Each will have to be designated on theground.Regular spacing will thin conifers on a 15-foot by 15-foot spacing and hardwoods on a 20-footby 20-foot spacing. Criteria for hardwood spacing will be as follows:APPENDIX C Page 12Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

Sprouting hardwood stumps with more than 3 sprouts shall be cut back to three sprouts. Criteriafor selecting which 3 sprouts to leave shall be prioritized as follows:1. Largest diameters at 2 feet above ground level.2. Best-formed, straightest, and with the best developed crowns.3. Originates closest to ground level.Wide spacing will thin conifers on 30 by 30 foot spacing and hardwoods on 40 by 40 footspacing. Wide spacing ideally should be placed on the gentler/ more stable slope locations.Other treatments will be as listed for regular spacing. Hand pile and burn all activity fuels.Any vigorous pine (ponderosa or sugar) or hardwoods greater than 12 inches DBH will have allvegetation within their drip lines slashed. Vigorous pine is defined as pine with at least 30percent live crown ratio. Vigorous hardwoods are those with a minimum of 25 percent livecrown ratio.All other vegetation greater than 1 inch in diameter at 1 foot above ground level will be slashed,piled, and the piles burned.Understory Treatments (partial cut areas, including shaded fuel breaks)Understory cohorts in previously logged areas will be retained where they occur as a result of acanopy gap. Treatments will be the same as listed for young stand management. Whereunderstory cohorts are not associated with a canopy gap, ladder fuels will be removed over timeand burned as per soils recommendations. Many of these areas currently have wildfiremanagement benefits and are listed as high priority for treatment. To the extent possible,schedule prescribed fire to maintain fire resiliency.APPENDIX C Page 13Background and Prescriptions - Community Alternative

APPENDIX DUPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENTThe 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was completed in December 2003. Since that time, there havebeen several corrections, updates, and supplements to the information provided in the 2003Assessment. These are documented below, to provide a most accurate assessment of the currentcondition (Affected Environment) as possible, in support of analysis under Ashland ForestResiliency.A. Climate UpdateOregon's weather and climate are affected by large-scale circulation in the atmosphere; byregional influences involving the Pacific Ocean, the shoreline, and the interior; and by localcharacteristics, such as topography. Local conditions are influenced by all of these, and more:distance from the coast, elevation, and terrain orientation (for example, north- vs. south-facingslopes) can have profound climatic effects. The north-south orientation of the coastline is almostdirectly perpendicular to the prevailing atmospheric flow at upper levels. The steep and ruggedtopography leaps from the sea nearly everywhere except where major rivers reach the PacificOcean.The interior of southwestern Oregon is one of the more rugged parts of the state. Mountains andridges are separated by deeply indented river valleys with most of the rivers flowing westwardtoward the Pacific Ocean. Although much of the area lies in somewhat of a rain shadow,sheltered from the Pacific by the Coast Range to the west and by the Klamath Mountains to thesouth, many of the higher elevation sites receive abundant precipitation.1. Precipitation - Seasonal CharacteristicsThe bulk of the annual precipitation in southwestern Oregon comes during winter. The wettestmonths tend to be the November-March period. Total precipitation in a given area is stronglyinfluenced by elevation. In general, the driest areas are those at the lowest valley locations,while precipitation increases steadily at higher elevations. The driest area extends from CentralPoint through Medford and nearly to Ashland, all of which receive less than 20 inches per year.At the south end of the valley, Mt. Ashland at 7,500 feet, receives an excess of 50 inches peryear.2. Precipitation - Long-term DistributionAnalysis of long-term time series of precipitation in the area reveals rather substantial year-toyearvariations; correlations between successive years are generally quite low. However, therecords indicate a number of longer-term cyclical patterns, in which relatively dry years andrelatively wet years are bunched together. Regionally, there are four distinct periods discernablewhen looking at the annual precipitation records. Some feel that a fifth such period began in1995. These periods and their classifications are:APPENDIX D Page 1UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

1896-1917 Generally wet1918-1944 Generally dry (in several cases 4 or more dry years in a row)1945-1974 Generally wet (even the "dry" years were not particularly dry)1975-1994 Generally dry (including 10 years in a row at the end of the period)1995-2001 Generally wet3. TemperatureTemperatures in the upper Rogue River valley are generally the warmest in the state in thesummer months. Ashland averages 34 days with temperatures above 90 degrees F annually.Average daily maximum temperatures in July and August are above 86 degrees F. The periodsof highest temperatures coincide with the times of least precipitation and lowest relativehumidity, meaning that hot, dry conditions prevail.4. HumidityIn the interior of southwestern Oregon, humidities are lower than elsewhere in western Oregon.Late summer humidities more closely resemble those in drier eastern Oregon than other locationswest of the Cascades. In Medford, average relative humidity at 4:00 PM (generally the lowestdaily value) during the months of July, August, and September are 27%, 26%, and 31%respectively. Ashland and the Analysis Area, being at a higher elevation, would have slightlyhigher values for these months.5. SnowSnow falls nearly every winter in southwestern Oregon. In Ashland, there is an average annualtotal of about 4.2 inches of snow. High atop the Ashland Creek Watershed, Mt. Ashlandreceives several hundred inches of snow each year. Late winter accumulations at an elevation of6,500 feet average between six and seven feet. In between these two locations is an area,generally considered to be from 3,500 feet to 5,000 feet in elevation, where snow accumulationsare transient (often described as the Transient Snow Zone). In this zone, warm winter rains oftenmelt shallow depths of snow, which increases runoff.6. Climate Update SummaryStatistics for climate data in Ashland are presented in the following table:APPENDIX D Page 2UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

Table D-1. Monthly Means and Extremes for Ashland Oregon. Period 1971 - 2000Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YearMean Temperature FMaximum 47.5 53.0 56.8 62.5 70.1 78.3 86.7 86.1 79.5 67.6 52.4 46.3 65.6Minimum 29.1 31.0 32.8 35.2 40.4 45.6 49.6 48.8 42.8 36.4 31.8 28.6 37.7Mean 38.3 42.0 44.8 48.9 55.3 62.0 38.2 37.5 31.2 52.0 42.1 37.5 51.7Extreme Temperature FMaximum 70 78 82 87 97 105 106 108 103 97 77 70 108Minimum 9 8 20 21 27 33 37 37 30 19 13 -4 -4Precipitation InchesMonthly Mean 2.49 1.92 2.09 1.68 1.55 0.92 0.51 0.61 0.88 1.46 2.85 2.80 19.76Extreme – 24 hrs. 2.86 1.62 1.39 1.26 1.59 1.14 1.35 .99 2.10 1.27 1.94 2.48 2.48Snowfall – InchesMonthly Mean 1.32 0.71 0.39 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 1.21 4.20Average # of Days withTemperatureMaximum = 90 or more 0 0 0 0 0.9 4.1 12.4 11.2 4.5 0.3 0 0 33.8Maximum = 32 or less 0.4 .01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.8Minimum = 32 or less 19.6 15.7 13.5 7.6 1.6 0 0 0.4 5.5 13.9 20.0 97.1Average # of Days withPrecipitation0.01 inches or more 12.8 11.9 13.0 11.8 9.1 5.5 2.7 3.0 4.4 7.6 14.3 13.7 109.30.10 inches or more 6.1 5.4 6.4 5.7 4.6 2.8 1.4 1.5 2.5 4.3 7.6 7.0 55.60.50 inches or more 1.3 0.8 0.9 .05 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.5 1.5 9.31.00 inches or more 0.4 .01 0.1 0 0.1 0 .01 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.6B. Landslide Hazard Zonation UpdateSince the completion of the Upper Bear Assessment in 2003, additional survey work has beencompleted for areas within the Neil Creek drainage. This work was accomplished primarilyfrom aerial photos and visits in the field. Map D-1 is the latest version of landslide hazard zonemapping that was used in the analysis of effects.APPENDIX D Page 3UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

Map D-1. LHZ UpdatesAPPENDIX D Page 4UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

C. Plant Association Group (PAG) Update1. Plant Association Group DelineationThe Upper Bear Analysis Area was characterized by Plant Association Group (PAG), anddocumented in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (see Component 2). These PAGs are groups ofplant associations (Atzet, et al. 1996) that are similar based on floristics and environment.The PAGs were developed at the province level, using multivariate statistical analyses to identifythe groups. PAG plant association membership is as follows;PAG 1002 Ponderosa PinePIPO-PSMEPIPO-QUKEPAG 1103 Oregon White OakQUGA4-PSME/RHDI6QUGA4/CYECPAG 1407 Dry Douglas-firPSME-CADE27/BEPI2PSME-PIPO/RHDI6PSME-QUKE/RHDI6PSME/HODI/WHMO-SWOPSME/DRY SHRUBPAG 1408 Moist Douglas-firPSME-ABCO/SYMOPSME-QUCH2-LIDE3PSME-QUCH2/BENE2PSME-QUCH2/RHDI6PSME/ACCI-BENE2PSME/ARNE-SWOPSME/BENE2/POMUPAG 2003 Moist White FirABCO-CADE27/TRLA6ABCO/BENE2ABCO/BENE2/ACTRABCO/BENE2/LIBOLPAG 2004 Dry White FirPSME-ABCOABCO-PSME/ROGYABCO/SYMOAPPENDIX D Page 5UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

PAG 2098 Cool White FirABCO-ABMAS/ACTRABCO-ABMAS/CHUM/ANDE3ABCO-ABMAS/QUSAABCO-PIBR/CHUM-PYPI2PAG 2103 Shasta Red FirABMAS-ABCO/QUSA2/PYSEABMAS/OSCHABMAS-ABCO/QUSA2/CHUMABMAS-ABCO/ROGY/PYSEPAG 2311 Cool Mountain HemlockTSME-ABMAS/RULA2/PYSETSME/ARNE/CHUMTSME/HERBTSME/VAME/PYSE2. Plant Association Group MappingThe PAGs were mapping using first a modeling approach, then refined by local knowledge basedon stand exam plots and field verification.The PAG mapping model was developed by Dr. Jan Henderson on the Mt. Baker-SnowqualamieNF (Henderson and Lescher, 2004) and is a regional level (Oregon and Washington) model. It isdesigned to be used on a regional scale. The region was divided into vegetation zones, roughlybased on plant series. The Ashland area included the Douglas-fir, White fir, Shasta red fir, andMountain hemlock vegetation zones. The Oregon white oak and Ponderosa pine vegetationzones were added to the map using local knowledge. These vegetation zones were modeledusing environmental factors.The model area (Oregon and Washington) was divided into ecoregions and precipitation zones.The precipitation zone is precipitation adjusted to sea level. Each ecoregion has a uniqueenvironment and as a result, a unique set of vegetation zones. The model area is broken into 30meter pixels. Each pixel is described by an ecoregion, vegetation zone, adjusted precipitation,topographic moisture, elevation and aspect.Each PAG is modeled within ecoregion and precipitation zone. The plots are located in anenvironment described by topographic moisture, elevation, and aspect. The patterns of plotlocation are integrated, and the environments in which they occur are assigned. These areattached. These assigned environments are mapped, producing a PAG map.The first PAG map was modeled using 70 plots.APPENDIX D Page 6UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

3. PAG mapping Updates and RefinementsRefinements were made on the modeled PAG map by using additional plots and by fieldverification by FS Ecologists and City collaborators during the winter of 2005. This data wasused to generate an updated PAG map, as portrayed below.Map D-2. PAG UpdatesAPPENDIX D Page 7UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

D. Fuel Model UpdateThe Fuel Model mapping displayed in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment was a result of workcompleted by the team of resource specialists who studied this landscape during the winter of2002/03. This group of specialists, including the specialties of silviculture, forest ecology, fireecology, fuels, wildlife, insects and diseases, geology, and geographic information systems(GIS), developed the Plant Association Group (PAG) report (Component 2 of the Assessment).Within PAGs, vegetation conditions were described using five stand structure types: Early seral,mid-seral closed, mid-seral open, late-seral closed, and late-seral open. For analysis at thewatershed-scale, the Fuel Model map in the assessment was correlated to these seral stages.In the summer of 2002, the Fire Vision Enterprise Unit of the Okanogan and Wenatchee NationalForests (funded by R6/PNW Fire and Aviation Management) used satellite imagery to modelfuel types. The purpose of that work was to develop data layers needed for input to theFARSITE model for lands on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and BLM ApplegateWatershed. The final product was “fine-tuned” by local fuels specialists from the Forest Serviceand BLM. For the Upper Bear Analysis Area, this Fuel Model map only covered lands withinthe National Forest boundary.For this EIS, additional work was done to validate and update the Fuel Model map which is usedas the basis for the fire behavior analysis. This additional work included mapping areas withinthe Analysis Area and outside the National Forest boundary and validating the map in the field.Figure D-1 displays the distribution of Fuel Models within the analysis area as a result ofupdating the map.Figure D-1. Distribution of Fuel Models Within Upper Bear Analysis Area - 01/0560%50%40%Distribution30%20%10%0%14568Fuel Model9109899APPENDIX D Page 8UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

The following is a brief description of Fuel Models within the Upper Bear Analysis Area(adapted from Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal E.Anderson, 1982). Note: Fuel Models 98 and 99 refer to water and bare ground.Fire Behavior Fuel Model 1Fire spread is governed by the fine, very porous, andcontinuous herbaceous fuels that have cured or are nearlycured. Fires are surface fires that move rapidly throughthe cured grass and associated material. Very little shrubor timber is present, generally less than one-third of thearea.Fire Behavior Fuel Model 4Fires intensity and fast-spreading fires involve thefoliage and live and dead fine woody material inthe crowns of a nearly continuous secondaryoverstory. Besides flammable foliage, deadwoody material in the stands significantlycontributes to the fire intensity. Height of standsqualifying for this model depends on localconditions. A deep litter layer may also hampersuppression efforts.Fire Behavior Fuel Model 6Fires carry through the shrub layer where thefoliage is more flammable than Fuel Model5, but this requires moderate winds, greaterthan 8 mi/h (13 km/h) at midflame height.Fire will drop to the ground at low windspeeds or at openings in the stand. Theshrubs are older, but not as tall as shrubtypes of model 4, nor do they contain asmuch fuel as model 4. A broad range ofshrub conditions is covered by this model.APPENDIX D Page 9UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

Fire Behavior Fuel Model 8Slow-burning ground fires with lowflame lengths are generally the case,although the fire may encounter anoccasional “jackpot” or heavy fuelconcentration that can flare up. Onlyunder severe weather conditionsinvolving high temperatures, lowhumidities, and high winds do thefuels pose fire hazards. Closed canopystands of short-needle conifers orhardwoods that have leafed outsupport fire in the compact litter layer.This layer is mainly needles, leaves,and occasionally twigs because littleundergrowth is present in the stand.Fire Behavior Fuel Model 9Fires run through the surface litterfaster than model 8 and have longerflame height. Both long-needleconifer and hardwood stands aretypical. Fall fires in hardwoods arepredictable, but high winds willactually cause higher rates of spreadthan predicted because of spottingcaused by rolling and blowing leaves.Concentrations of dead-down woodymaterial will contribute to possibletorching of trees, spotting, andcrowning.Fire Behavior Fuel Model 10Fires burn in the surface and ground fuelswith greater intensity than the othertimber litter models. Dead-down fuelsinclude greater quantities of 3-inch orlarger limbwood or natural events thatcreate a large load of dead material onthe forest floor. Crowning, spotting, andtorching of individual trees are morefrequent in this fuel situation, leading topotential fire control difficulties. Anyforest type may be considered if heavydown material is present; examples areinsect- or disease-ridden stands,windthrown stands, and aged lightthinning or partial-cut slash.APPENDIX D Page 10UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

The following map displays the updated Fuel Model mapping.Map D-3. Fuel Model UpdatesAPPENDIX D Page 11UPDATES TO 2003 UPPER BEAR ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX EHISTORICAL BACKGROUNDAND OBSERVATIONS OF FOREST CONDITIONSJohn B. Leiberg’s 1899 Observations on the Forests and Fire in and around the AshlandForest Reserve and the Ashland Creek Watershed.Prepared by Darren Borgias M.S., Southwest Oregon Stewardship Ecologist, The NatureConservancy, September 2004. Submitted to the Ashland Fire Resiliency CommunityAlternative Technical Committee (CWPP Appendix 8.3). Used with permission of author.Ecosystem management and the restoration of long term ecological viability in natural systems can beinformed by reference to historic observations of past conditions in those systems. Such assessments areespecially critical in systems that have been impacted by management over time and for which naturalprocesses are believed to have been altered (Noss 1985). Such records reveal how ecosystems have beenexpressed, providing a valuable perspective on the background range of natural variability and suggestpart of the potential range of future expressions for that system. Historic observations of the forests andforest processes in and around the Ashland watershed reveal the type and magnitude of changes that haveoccurred in the structure, composition, and functioning of the forests there that have followed roughly 100years of management that emphasized wildfire suppression.Forest Conditions in Western Oregon and the Rogue Basin During Euro-American Settlement andLaterEarly observations of the region, from just prior to settlement to 50 years after, document the prevalenceof fire that influence the pattern of grassland, savanna, woodland and forest on the landscape. Lightningcommonly strikes the upland areas to ignite fire on an annual basis. The historic areas burned by wildfirelikely depended on daily weather conditions, particularly fuel moisture (humidity) and wind, and thepattern of previous burns that modified fuel loading and fuelbed structure. Aboriginal burning conductedfor numerous reasons greatly increased the prevalence of fire. Multiple purposes for aboriginal burning aredocumented (LaLande 2002). In 1830, David Douglas observed multiple aboriginal burns in the Willametteand Umpqua Valleys which were said by his Indian interpreters to be set to improve hunting by creatingisolated green islands in which game would congregate (Davies 1980). The overland party of the UnitedStates Exploring Expedition reported observing numerous fires while traversing the interior valleys betweenthe Columbia River and the San Francisco Bay late in the summer of 1841 (Wilkes 1849). Their notesreported “Scorched prairies”, “charred forest”, “air thick with smoke”, and columns observed in the distanceon numerous days. Hurrying through the Rogue Valley in September, afraid of the notoriously hostileTakelma Indians, the party camped in burned prairie and then climbed out of the valley the next morning.Ascending the grade toward the Siskiyou Pass, they observed "an old squaw" igniting grass and brush using alarge fire brand. Concentrating on her effort, she did not notice the group of forty men on horseback untilthey were almost upon her.Historical accounts in the region depict the earliest changes in the structure and extent of vegetation resultingfrom the curtailment of Native American burning. The Wilkes Expedition noted the role of fire in keepingdown undergrowth and the rapidity with which the undergrowth became established where settlers precludedfires. The effect of precluding fires was also observed by General Joseph Lane, who commanded Fort Lanenear Lower Table Rock during the 1850's (Walling 1884). Looking back only thirty years after hisassignment there, Lane notes:APPENDIX E Page 1Historical Background - Forest Conditions

The hilltops now covered by dense thickets of manzanita, madrone or evergreen brush werethen devoid of bushes and trees because of the Indian habit of burning over the surface toremove obstructions to their seed and acorn gathering.The fire history of the Rogue Valley appears to have been important in impeding succession to more densestands of vegetation. The background fire regime, mediated by both meteorological and pre-Columbiananthropogenic ignition maintained the pattern of grasslands, woodland, chaparral, and forest of the RogueRiver Basin (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, Wright and Bailey 1982).Forest Conditions in 1899The United State Geological Survey (USGS) reported in 1900 on a systematic, Township by Township,inventory of the forest resources within the newly established Ashland Forest Reserve that included theAshland Creek watershed (Leiberg 1900). John B. Leiberg (1853 - 1913), was a botanist and foresterwhose career with the federal government spanned many of the western States 1 . Leiberg’s notes werepublished in a lengthy, detailed inventory and assessment of the condition of the forests in the Ashlandand Cascade Forest Reserves. His 290 page report provides a valuable, detailed and a comprehensiveaccount of vegetation in southwestern Oregon at the turn of the century. The document describes theforests across the region and then provides a township by township accounting of the forest compositionand condition. He also described at length and in numerous points throughout the document the prevalenceof fire and its effects on forests. I have selected excerpts from his report, providing emphasis on certainpoints with bold typeface, underline, and sometimes both, and commented separately on his observations.Leiberg provided a somewhat more detailed set of observations specifically for the Ashland Watershedwithin the Ashland Forest Reserve, because of its important designation as a municipal water supply. Hepoints out that ...The forest consists of stands of alpine-hemlock, red-fir, and yellow pine types. Thealpine-hemlock type occurs on the summit of the peak, and is composed almost wholly ofnoble fir. The others have the ordinary composition of their respective types elsewhere.Fires have marked most of the forest, but have not burned in the reserve within the lastten or twelve years to any great extent, except on the summit of the range, at the base ofthe peak, where the timber on 300 or 400 acres has been almost totally destroyed.The mill timber in the reserve is of good quality, except in the eastern portion, wherefires, years ago, badly seared the most of it. It is generally difficult of access for loggingoperations. But whether easy or difficult of access, it is obvious that the maintenance ofthe Ashland Creek water volume is prohibitive to lumbering operations in the reserve.The areal and timber estimates are as follows:Forested and other areas in Ashland Forest Reserve, Oregon.Acres.Area forested - 20, 000Area naturally nonforested - 1,700Area deforested by fires of modern date - 3001 http://www.oregonflora.org/ofn/v6n2/Leiberg.htmlAPPENDIX E Page 2Historical Background - Forest Conditions

To understand the “ordinary composition” of the forests in 1899, is important to review how Leibergdescribed the regional vegetation in general, specific types and subtypes, as well as his observations onthe ongoing and changing processes for those forest. Leiberg classified the forests by three majorclimatic zones, the semi-arid, subhumid, and humid. He associated the Ponderosa Pine Type with whathe called the “semi-arid” region, an area generally below 3000’ in elevation but extending up to 4000’ onthe southwest slopes of Grizzly Peak, and to 4800’ on similar slopes of the Applegate Valley. Hisobservations of forest conditions led him to believe that the semi-arid conditions were expanding,advancing northward, hypothesizing that the cause was climatic change.…these have their origin in the relief of the country, and possibly in slow climaticchanges taking place over the entire western slope of the Cascades and connectingranges along the coast. They are permanently semiarid, and, if the climatic hypothesis betrue, they are gradually enlarging their area.Leiberg’s “subhumid region” accounted for most of the Region and the Ashland Forest Reserve, rangingfrom 3000 to 6000 feet but starting higher on southwest facing slopes as noted above. In contrast to thesemi-arid ponderosa pine, forests of subhumid region were “moderately heavy to dense” standsdominated by Douglas-fir (referred to as “red fir” by Leiberg). For the higher elevations, Leiberg,described the “alpine hemlock” (mountain hemlock) forests of the Humid Region.Ponderosa Pine ForestsPonderosa pine type forests covered nearly 24% of the forested acreage west of the Cascades in theCascade and Ashland Forest Reserves. Leiberg pointed out that while the ponderosa pine had a capacityto occur at elevations between 1,300 and 6,000 feet, that the species reached “its best development”between 4,000 and 5,500 feet.” He classified and described six subtypes within the Ponderosa Pineforest.Leiberg described the open nature of the Ponderosa Pine Type, particularly the paucity of seedlings andsaplings, and distinguished the pine forests west of the Cascade divide from those on the east for havinggreater abundance and variety of understory species and having a greater abundance of Douglas fir mixedin.The yellow-pine type west of the Cascades, as already remarked, averages a smallerpercentage of yellow pine in its composition than is the case east of the range. Rarely is itas high as 70, more often it is 60, and more frequently it falls below the standard hereconsidered as representing the type 2 .The aspect of the type is that of an open forest with a minimum of undergrowth andseedling or sapling growth. The forest on the eastern side of the Cascades is moreconspicuous in this respect than the forest on the western, owing to less variety in thefrutescent flora of the former and, in general, to a smaller precipitation. But the opencharacter of the yellow-pine type of forest anywhere in the region examined is due tofrequently repeated forest fires more than to any other causeLeiberg described six subtypes for the Ponderosa Pine Type forests. The prevalence of madrone and oakstands around the lower fringes of the Ponderosa Pine Type, were associated with the “semi-arid”conditions of the interior valley, much as is found today, including parts of the Ashland area and theAshland Creek Watershed. Four Ponderosa Pine Subtypes dominated by either Douglas-fir or white firor a combination occurred in areas extending into the “sub-humid” conditions at higher elevation. Theseoccurred in small stands situated in hollows, depressions, and north slopes, their location and extentdependant only on the requisite soil moisture, and bearing no evident relationship to surrounding seedtrees.2 Leiberg set the standard for inclusion in his types at 50% of the stands trees greater than 4” DBH.APPENDIX E Page 3Historical Background - Forest Conditions

SUBTYPES WEST OF THE CASCADESThe madrona rarely forms groups by itself. Usually it is scattered throughout otherwisenearly pure stands of yellow pine, where it forms a sort of undergrowth…The two species of oak peculiar to the region often constitute the larger percentage ofarborescent growth on the lower areas of the yellow-pine forest. They form opengrowths, sometimes with a great deal of underbrush composed of (Ceanothus cuneatusand other ceanothi, service berry, hawthorn, and the like; at other times the oak standsare entirely free of undergrowth of any sort. … At higher elevations with greater ratiosof precipitation and soil moisture they run from 40 to 60 per cent oak, the balanceconsisting of pine and fir or of madrona and other species of broad-leaved trees.The subtypes formed by aggregations of red [Douglas-fir] and white fir are morecommon and characteristic than any of the others. They are scattered almost everywherethroughout the stands of the type. They are never singly of large extent, from a half acreto one acre being an average size. The ratios in which the species occur are greatlyvaried, but the following proportions predominate in the majority of instances:Proportion of species forming yellow-pine subtypes.Percent 3 .1. 2.Red fir 60 Red fir -- 50White fir 35 White fir 50Yellow pine 53. 4.Red fir 35 Red fir 80White fir 45 White fir 20Yellow pine - 20The subtypes occur, as a rule, in or along hollows or depressions in the general level,on northern slopes, or on low inequalities of the ground, in short, where the requireddegree of soil moisture exists. Neither the presence nor absence nor relative abundanceof seed trees of the species on adjacent areas has any influence upon the formation ofthese subtypes or aggregations. Nor do the tolerance ratios of the different elements thatcompose them operate in any way to change their composition between the sapling andthe veteran stage.Of the other elements which constitute the yellow-pine type the most prominent are thesugar pine and the incense cedar. They rarely form any considerable groups oraggregations together or singly, being found mostly as scattered trees among the otherspecies….For the Ponderosa Pine Type he observed a paucity of duff and litter on the forest floor and itsrelationship to the prevalence of fire:3 Proportions based on abundance of trees > 4” DBH.APPENDIX E Page 4Historical Background - Forest Conditions

The forest floor in the type is covered with a thin layer of humus, consisting entirely ofdecaying pine needles, or it is entirely bare. The latter condition is very prevalent east ofthe Cascades, where large areas are annually overrun by fire. But even on the westernside of the range, where the humus covering is most conspicuous, it is never more than afraction of an inch in thickness, just enough to supply the requisite material for thespread of forest fires.Douglas Fir ForestsLeiberg described the Douglas-fir type, ranging from 3,800’ to 6,200’ and finding its best growth at 4000to 5800 feet in elevation. He determined that Douglas-fir forests occupied 58% of the forested acreagewest of the Cascades. He noted the extremely varied and diverse composition of the forest, incorporatingspecies from the ponderosa pine forests below and the subalpine species at higher elevation. Leiberg didnot recognize a forest type for white fir.The red-fir [Douglas-fir] type is never a pure type here. In not a single place in the entireregion were as much as 200 acres carrying a pure growth of red fir found in one body.While the red-fir component often overwhelmingly outnumbers all the other elements inany particular stand there always is a sufficient quantity of the other species present tomake the admixture conspicuous. … Along and between the 5,300- and 5,900-footcontours the red fir predominates. Below these lines are found greater quantities of thespecies characteristic of the yellow-pine type, while above occur species more or lessclosely identified with the alpine-hemlock type.Along the lower and middle limits of the red-fir type are seen the effects of the semiaridand subhumid conditions advancing through the yellow-pine type in a diminished densityof stands and smaller dimensions of the trees. There is in consequence a broad belt ofred-fir type lying adjacent to the yellow pine which naturally could not produce a forestof any but a medium density.…As exhibiting the composition of the red-fir type at lower elevations, or where humidityconditions approach those which determine the yellow-pine type, the following may betaken as representative:Composition of forest in T40S., R 1 W., Oregon [Upper Applegate and Upper W. Fork ofAshland Creek].PercentYellow pine 25Sugar pine 5Red fir 55White fir - . 5Incense cedar 2Oak and madrona 8Note: the description above includes a portion of the upper elevations within the West Fork ofAshland Creek. Of particular interest is the very low proportion of white fir, a species thatcurrently overwhelms the composition on a stems per acre basis in many stands.APPENDIX E Page 5Historical Background - Forest Conditions

The percentage of red fir in stands of the type varies from 50 per cent, which here isconsidered the lowest ratio for stands representative of the type, to 75 and in some casesto 85 per cent. A characteristic stand, and one which is typical of much of the red-firforests of the region, contains about 60 per cent of red fir, the balance being made up ofvarying ratios of white fir, sugar pine, yellow pine, and occasional trees of incense cedar.While many contemporary foresters and ecologists in the west point to the influx of Douglas-fir and truefirs into ponderosa pine types, including such forests within the Ashland Watershed, at the turn of thecentury, Leiberg observed the opposite dynamic in the Douglas-fir forests of the Ashland and CascadeForest Reserves—ponderosa pine advancing under Douglas fir. The cause of this shift may have been therelatively dryer and warmer conditions following the “little ice age”, or, conceivably, a period ofincreased use of fire by the Native Americans just prior to his observations. Such shifts have beenrecently documented by paleo-ecologists studying pollen deposits in lake sediments.… The tendency of the red-fir type here is always toward added or greater ratios of thespecies requiring less moisture for their growth. In other words, throughout the regionexamined west of the Cascades there is every-where a clearly marked extension of theYellow-pine type elements into the areas of the red-fir type, where they are slowly butsurely supplanting the species that need a high degree of soil and atmospheric humiditywith species which require a smaller ratio of these factors of growth.… I should say that the red-fir species is, on the whole, assuming minor proportions inthe general composition of the type, giving way chiefly to increasing percentages ofyellow pine and white fir. The change is slow and gradual, but is steadily progressing, atleast on areas of low elevation along the upper limits of the yellow-pine type.Leiberg also commented on the structure of Douglas fir forest he observed—relatively densely stockedcompared to other forest types, yet shrubs of many species filled the understory beneath the canopy.Compared to the ponderosa pine forests, humus and litter were more abundant.In the red-fir type the forests in these regions reach their maximum density. This holdsgood for the mature timber as well as for the seedling and sapling growth. The type neverhas the open aspect which characterizes stands belonging to the yellow-pine type. Excepton areas where heavy stands of mature timber effectually shade the ground there is agood undergrowth of many species of shrubs.Humus and litter in stands of the type are moderately abundant. On ground where fireshave not run for one hundred to two hundred years humus covers the forest floor to adepth which varies from .3 to 5 inches. The litter consists of broken trees and branches. Itis enormously increased in quantity when a fire, even of low intensity, sweeps through theforest.Leiberg was cognizant of the numerous varied stand compositions, and dynamics within stands due to thevariable effects of fire and the site potential determined by the moisture available. Leiberg’s perceptionwas limited in part by his classification which contained a very broad Douglas-fir type and only a whitefir subtype within it. Within Douglas fir stands, Lieberg attributed reproduction dominated by white firevents to disturbance by relatively more severe fire. He believed that white fir that was established insuch events “dwindled” over time, eventually giving way to Douglas fir. Leiberg did not recognize therole of low or moderate-severity fire in mediating this transition to Douglas fir.APPENDIX E Page 6Historical Background - Forest Conditions

The lesser groupings of the species which form the general red-fir type are verynumerous, but mostly of small areal extent in any one locality. The most commonsubtype in our region is one in which white fir forms the chief component. In every casethe ascendancy of this species can be traced to the effect of forest fires.Where fires have ravaged 4 the stands, the red fir will come again as the primary andprincipal seedling growth, provided the fire was one of low or moderate intensity. Wherethe stands have been totally destroyed or the destruction amounts to 75 per cent andupward red fir may come as the chief growth if the local seepage is sufficient to maintainthe requisite degree of soil humidity.The stands of the white-fir subtype furnish in their numbers, extent, and ratios ofcomposition unfailingly guides for the estimation of the extent and age of fires in the redfirtype before the advent of the white man.It is rare, however, to find the white-fir stands maintaining their numerical superiorityinto maturity. It is more often the case that a white-fir stand or reforestation which startsin the seedling stage with a ratio of 70 to 80 per cent has dwindled by the time it hasreached a well-advanced sapling stage to a ratio of 20 to 35 per cent of white fir, thebalance being red fir principally.Leiberg described the occurrence of ponderosa pine subtypes within the Douglas-fir Type, largelyconsidered successional expressions that would give way to Douglas fir. He also describes therelatively minor role of sugar pine widely spread through the type.The yellow pine occasionally forms stands and becomes a subtype. We may consider it asubtype on the grounds that on the areas here in view it is a temporary reforestation afterfires, and while the particular stand may grow to a sort of “immature" maturity it willnot reproduce itself in a preponderating ratio. Subtypes consisting of 10 to 80 per centyellow pine surrounded with dense red-fir growths on the same level are found in manyplaces. Good examples occur in the massive, veteran red-fir growths in the Rogue RiverVallev… Here yellow-pine reforestations have reached maturity, are in at state of decay,and are gradually being replaced by red fir, which advances from the surrounding' forestto close the gap.Sugar pine occurred throughout the Douglas-fir Type, but at low abundance.The sugar pine never forms stands of pure growth, nor does it ever exist among othergroups in preponderating or large ratios. It is a tree that, whatever may have been thecase in past times, is now decidedly deficient in reproductive capacity in this region. Ittherefore exists as scattered trees among the mass of red fir and other species of thattype.Again, Leiberg described a very broad Douglas-fir type that extended to and included speciestypically associated with more subalpine settings. He included both the western white pine foundat higher elevation, its few and declining numbers, and also some noble fir stands within theDouglas-fir type. Stands where the predominance of noble fir was greater, Leiberg ascribed as asubtype to the Alpine Hemlock Type.4 His bias against fire is evident in the statement where he described fires having “ravaged” but recognized that firesoccurred with a range of low, moderate, and high severity.APPENDIX E Page 7Historical Background - Forest Conditions

The white pine rarely occurs in sufficient numbers to form stands distinguishable assubtypes. It is mostly found scattered throughout mixtures of red and white fir in themiddle and upper areas of the red-fir type. ... It is an open question whether the speciesis maintaining its present general ratio in the forests of red-fir type in the region…. Itsreproductive capacity here is certainly poor. The number of veterans and standardsthroughout the forest is greater than the sapling growth of the species.The noble fir is plentiful in numerous localities along the upper areas occupied by thered-fir type…. More frequently the percentages of the different species stand as follows:Red fir, 25 per cent; white fir, 20 per cent; noble fir, 55 per cent.Ecological Processes of Fire and SuccessionLeiberg commented on the successional processes of the forests—the transitions in composition heobserved, attributing them to the variable influence of fire and change in soil moisture due to historicvariation in climatic conditions. He described the multiple successional pathways he observed for thedevelopment of the forests. His observations provide a basis for considering a wider range of forest standdevelopment trajectories than typically accounted for by modern ecologists.The numerical status of a species in the early stages of growth is determined in thisregion by its environments as regards shade, and by the multitudinous modifications anddepartures from the composition of the original growth on areas undergoingreforestations after fires.While Douglas fir was the numerical dominant, providing a greater percentage of the forest trees in theregion west of the Cascades, he considered ponderosa pine the “superior” species because of its ability toendure and survive fire— what some refer to as fire resiliency. Note that here he emphasized survival ofsmall trees in the “oft-repeated” sweeping fires.The cause lies entirely in the oft-repeated forest fires which sweep through these woodedareas. The seedlings and young trees possessing the greatest fire resistance survive, theothers die. In its capacity to endure fire and survive the yellow pine is greatly thesuperior of all the other conifers in this region.Leiberg described a dynamic forest that rapidly changed through time.[The subtypes of forest] … frequently change, sometimes two or three times in ageneration. Forest fires are fertile causes for inducing such rapid changes. But evenwhen left undisturbed a subtype rarely persists in any particular locality for more than250 or 300 years.He described the fire mediated dynamics of forests at lower elevations, particularly encroachment ofDouglas fir into ponderosa pine and the opposite.…West of the Cascades the yellow-pine tracts in some places barely hold their own.Along their upper and higher limits there is occasionally a decided tendency toward alarger proportion of red fir [Douglas-fir] as the coming forest.There are cases observable in many localities along the upper limits of the yellow-pinetype where stands of red fir are slowly replacing yellow pine. These are not due toextensions of red-fir areas, but are merely cases in which the red fir is again asserting itssupremacy on tracts whence it was driven by forest fires long ago.APPENDIX E Page 8Historical Background - Forest Conditions

In the middle elevations of its range yellow pine is often found to have supplanted tractsof nearly pure red-fir stands. This shifting about is due chiefly to forest fires. On areaswhere yellow pine has replaced red fir there has been a decrease in the ratio of soilhumidity necessary to the maintenance of the red-fir preponderance. The same conditionhas existed along the upper limits of the type where now red fir shows a comingascendancy over the yellow-pine element, due to a return to higher soil-moisture ratios.Patterns in Fire Intensity and ExtentUnder a section referred to as “AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIALLY VALUABLETIMBER”, Leiberg describes at length the effects of fire in the region, concerned as he was about the useof the resource. Despite his bias against fire, he provided a great deal of insight into the ecologicalfunctioning of fire. He documented fire evidence in every township to varied degrees. He interpreted theevidence of fire and provided some insight into the fire history. His observations led him to believe thatfires prior to settlement were typically smaller than during the settlement era, and less frequent.EXTENT OF FIRES-- Fires have widely ravaged the region examined. There is not asingle forested township either on the west side or on the east side of the range in whichthe timber is not more or less fire marked.TIME OF FIRES-- …But, on the other hand, the great diversity in the age of such standsas show clearly their origin as reforestations after fires, proves that the fires during theIndian occupancy were not of such frequent occurrence nor of such magnitude as theyhave been since the advent of the white man.The fires were more numerous and devastated much larger areas in the early days of thesettlements than they have done in later years. Much the larger percentage of what maybe classed as modern burns date back twenty-five to forty years. As time has passed, thefrequency of forest fires in the region has much diminished.Along with decreased incidence of intentional and negligent ignition, and outright suppression, heemphasized the role that previous fires played in moderating fuel accumulation which controlled extentand the intensity and severity of future fires. He did not directly account for the contribution ofunderstory vegetation and small trees as ladder fuels.This [decreased incidence and extent of fires after early settlement] is owing to a varietyof causes, chief of which are the numerous fire breaks caused by the earlier burns; thegradual extinction of the game and consequent diminished number of hunting parties andlessened risk from unextinguished camp fires; the acquisition of valuable timber claimsby private parties throughout the heavily forested sections and the measure of protection,prompted by self-interest, bestowed on their property and incidentally on adjoiningareas, and, lastly, the destruction of the humus layer, the chief factor in the spread offorest fires in this region, by the earlier conflagrations and the insufficientaccumulations of this material since then to support hot, large, and destructive fires.Leiberg noted that evidence of burning in the region prior to settlement indicated small fires, and cited anexample of a large fire at 5000 acres. Leiberg was unlikely to be able to discern if some of the small firesmay have been small patches, severely burned, within a matrix of low severity fire on a larger scale.Benefiting from first-hand local knowledge about fire behavior and fuels, the Native Americans may havebeen able to intentionally control to some degree the extent of fires, but that control was likely largelypredicated upon use of previously burned area.APPENDIX E Page 9Historical Background - Forest Conditions

The age of the burns chargeable to the era of Indian occupancy can not in most cases betraced back more than one hundred and fifty years. Between that time and the time of thewhite man's ascendency (sic), or, between the years 1750 and 1855, small andcircumscribed fires evidently were of frequent occurrence. There were some large ones.Thus, in T. 37 S., R. 5 E., occurs a growth of white fir nearly 75 percent pure coveringbetween 4,000 and 5,000 acres.Larger, more recent post settlement fires were documented. Leiberg sited a burned area covering nearly59,000 acres in seven townships (161,280 acres in total) north of Mount McGloughlin (“Mount Pitt”). Aburned area of 60,000 acres was documented east of the Cascades that showed the remains of lodgepolestands that followed burned and killed ponderosa pine forests. Fire intensity and severity were variable.Much of the region under examination is composed of high subalpine regions whichnaturally carry light stands of timber. Extensive fires have devastated them at varioustimes. Reforestations of all ages and differing in composition cover them. In other placesfires have destroyed a certain percentage of the forest. The damage may vary from 10 to60 per cent or higher. The destruction has not been all in one place or body. The fire hasrun through the forest for miles, burning a tree or a group of trees here and there.Reforestations after fires at middle elevations on the western slopes of the Cascades…are extremely varied and complex.Post-Fire Forest DevelopmentLeiberg described forests in the Cascades that were much like forest currently found in parts ofthe Ashland Watershed. Areas with veteran Douglas fir, sugar pine, and ponderosa pine with theunderstory reproduction dominated by white fir.Fires in the mixed growth or in timber stands where the red fir predominates arefrequently followed by great masses of white-fir seedlings, which develop into heavy anddense forest stands, and occupy the ground for a century or more. An example of thiskind occurs in T. 37 S., It. 5 E. We here have a forest composed almost wholly of whitefir, in the midst of which rise here and there huge veterans of red fir 400 to 500 years old.The white fir is a reforestation, a hundred years old, following a burn which destroyed amixed growth in which red fir largely predominated. Notwithstanding the fact that largenumbers of seed trees of red fir escaped destruction, this species was quite unable againto occupy the ground as the first forest growth after the fire.Leiberg emphasized that forest regeneration following fires depended most importantly on soilmoisture characteristics of the site. He did not distinguish how the eventual success of areproductive event might be affected by subsequent low intensity fires.The tendency of all reforestations after fires in the humid and subhumid forest types is toform pure-growth stands of the species naturally occurring in the region, the condition orratio of soil humidity, an ever-varying factor, determining the particular species. Theabundance or scarcity of seed trees and the degree of tolerance possessed by the variousspecies are factors of trifling importance.Soil erosion following fire was observed by Leiberg, but he considered it not very conspicuous except inthe pumice soils of the Cascades.APPENDIX E Page 10Historical Background - Forest Conditions

The effects of forest fires in their relation to the accelerated transfer of soil and rockdebris from higher to lower levels are noticeable everywhere throughout the region, butare not very conspicuous outside the pumice-covered areas [in the Cascades].It is perhaps noteworthy that Leiberg generally did not observe or notice signs of disease,pathogens, or parasitic plants among the forests, except for a few incidental comments on treeswith rotten cores in some instances (white fir, cedar, oak) induced by fire sears and scars.Observations Specific to the Townships Covering the Ashland Creek WatershedLeiberg provided general descriptions of the setting and forest character on a large scale for eachTownship in the Forest Reserve. His notes reveal that much of the forest had already been partiallylogged, and that most areas had been burned to varying degrees.The first township description covers the area centered on the current City of Ashland up to theconfluence of the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek (Figure 1). His summary of the composition ofthe forests is compiled in Table 1.TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST.The extreme western portions of this township consist of low, sparsely timbered slopes,with heavier stands in the ravines; the central portions comprise agricultural and grazinglands while the eastern mainly include semiarid, rocky, nonforested slopes [belowGrizzly Peak]. The forest is of poor quality throughout. Since the first settlement of theregion [Ashland] it has been culled and burned repeatedly. Private holdings haveconserved some of the better portions. In general the timber is of little commercial value.TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST.This township comprises steep rocky slopes, draining partly into Applegate Creek, partlyinto Bear Creek. Originally of good proportion, the forest has been culled during manyyears and stripped of its best timber, only a trace remaining. Fires have wrought greathavoc and have transformed many of the slopes into great brush heaps with thin lines ofhalf-dead trees in their midst.In the next township, centered on Mt Ashland, the importance of ponderosa pine and sugar pine and thelack of a mention for white fir for the upper Ashland Watershed is remarkable, given the prevalence ofwhite fir there now. His map for the range of white fir points to lower elevation positions for the species(Figure 2) and the wide ranging distribution of ponderosa pine in the Watershed (Figure 3).TOWNSHIP 40 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST.This township consists chiefly of high rocky combs and ridges culminating in SiskiyouPeak [Mt Ashland]. It forms the larger portion of the Ashland Forest Reserve [includingmost of the upper Ashland Watershed]. Along the higher slopes the forest occurs inscattered stands, largely composed of noble fir. The lower areas bear good stands ofyellow and sugar pine. The red fir is mostly of small growth. Fires have run throughoutthe forest in the township. The summit of the ridge near Siskiyou Peak has been burned tothe extent of 75 per cent within the last two or three years. Although a forest reserve forthe purpose of supplying the town of Ashland with pure water, sheep are permitted tograze on the high slopes, defiling the water.APPENDIX E Page 11Historical Background - Forest Conditions

TOWNSHIP 40 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST.This township consists of high slopes and summits of the Siskiyou Range. The highestslopes are largely nonforested, either bare, rocky expanses or grassy gladespredominating [south slopes Wagner Butte]. The lower elevations bear moderately heavystands of fair quality. The forest is seared by fire in all of its parts, and is generallydifficult of access. A portion of the township forms part of the Ashland Forest Reserve[Upper West Fork of Ashland Creek].The table provides clear portrayal of the minimal role of tree species in the forest within and surroundingthe Ashland Creek Watershed during the 1899 inventory. Ponderosa pine dominated in the watershedfrom the forks of the Ashland Creek downstream. Douglas fir was secondary in importance. At higherelevation, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine and noble fir dominated in the upper settings above the confluenceof the forks and over the summit. Sugar pine played an important role in the forests at the time. The tableclearly portrays the minor role played by white fir in any of the forests in the townships covering theAshland Watershed. These conditions are notably different from what is observed today, with white firthe prevalent species in terms of trees per acre over much of the watershed at middle elevations.Altered Fire RegimeThe background fire regime has been altered in terms of the characteristic fire intensity, duration,periodicity, and scale, and the severity of effects on vegetation. A significant proportion of the landscapeat low and middle elevations historically had greater capacity to support and a larger expression ofrelatively “open”, complex, mixed-conifer stands dominated by large fire-tolerant ponderosa pine andDouglas fir. These systems were maintained by a fire regime characterized by relatively frequent lowintensity/severity fire with small patch inclusions of moderate and severe effects. Overlapping andinteracting with this background disturbance were more random events with larger expression of severeeffects mediated by climatic events and feedback with variation in the low intensity fire frequency. Withrecurrent low severity fire, seedlings and saplings were periodically killed, and recruitment of individualtrees and clumps was metered out over decades or centuries to create multi-age stands. Variation in theinterval between fires, and in the intensity and severity of fires, contributed to the patch dynamics andcomplexity within and among stands.Currently, most ignitions of fire are extinguished quickly after they cover a small area. Slow moving andless intense fire, typically backing down hill or up wind, or burning in the relatively moist end of theweather spectrum are the most easily suppressed and the potential acreage they could influence,untrammeled, is truncated. Fire breaks such as roads, ditches, and other development augmentsuppression efforts to reduce the overall scope of lower intensity burns.Shortly after Euro-American settlement, in the relative absence of frequent low intensity fire, andfollowed by increasingly effective suppression of moderate severity fire into the late decades of the 20 thCentury, stand densities and fuels generally increased. In the absence of recurrent fire in low and middleelevations, entire cohorts of young recruits grew up with their density without thinning by fire. Relativelyshade-tolerant species followed in some settings— Douglas fir or white fir, in natural succession,increasing the landscape expression of mid-seral closed canopy stands, changing the diversity ofstructures, species, and fire behavior within stands and among stands across the landscape at variousscales. Increased density of retained regeneration increases the intensity and severity of fires, dependingon the age and structure of recruits within the stand.APPENDIX E Page 12Historical Background - Forest Conditions

Compared to fuel beds regularly reduced by recurrent fire, forest stand with dense tree reproduction lowerthe threshold of weather conditions necessary to generate severe effects. Landscapes with greatercontinuity of such fuelbeds contribute to the potential for extensive spread of flaming fronts with severeeffects generated under severe fire weather (e.g. Hayman, Rodeo-Chedeski, Biscuit, et al.). The groundcovered by such intense, fast moving fire fronts with more severe effects has arguably increased in areawithin and among fire events due to the accumulation and continuity of potential dead and live fuel withinand among stands.Concern has been raised in particular about the ability to retain intact late-successional habitats and large,old stands of fire-maintained pine forests which have already been reduced through a 150-year history oftimber harvest, especially in the lower and middle elevations.ConclusionJohn Leiberg’s 1899 assessment of the Forest Reserves in southern Oregon, including the Ashland Creekwatershed, reveals the highly dynamic forests occupying the landscape at the time. The development andcondition of forests depended on the recurring and variable influence of fire to mediate recruitment eventsand subsequent differential survival of individual trees based in the species’ relative tolerance to laterfires. Leiberg highlighted the pervasive role of fire in forests across the landscape, yet also how thespread of individual fires were reduced where wildfire encountered areas burned earlier. He noted howthe fuel accumulated and changed fire behavior after only several decades, and that the size of fire eventsvaried with the patterns in the frequency of fire for the region. The highly varied and dynamic forestdevelopment for this region was mediated by a fire regime that combined the effects of frequent fire oflow intensity and more randomly occurring mixed and high severity fire events.His observations bring to light the dramatic changes in the composition and functioning of the forests thathave occurred in the last 100 years. Specifically for the Ashland Creek Watershed, the presence ofrelatively open ponderosa pine was greater in extent and abundance, and white fir was remarkably lowerin abundance at the turn of the last century. Leiberg’s detailed and comprehensive observations on forestsand fire provide the basis for managers and society to open wider their concepts of forest development toinclude multiple pathways and a wide range of potential for this landscape.APPENDIX E Page 13Historical Background - Forest Conditions

Townships Covering the Ashland WatershedTownshipwatrlineusfs_roadsCLIP_spcssectionsuprbearbdy_spcscitylineT39SR1ET39SR1WT40SR1WT40SR1EMt AshlandFigure 1: Townships covering the Ashland WatershedAPPENDIX E Page 14Historical Background - Forest Conditions

Figure 2. Part of Southern Oregon Showing the Distribution of White Fir (green shading). FromLeiberg, 1900, USGS, 21 st Annual Report, plate LXXX. Siskiyou Peak was the former name of MtAshland.Figure 3. Part of Southern Oregon Showing the Distribution of Ponderosa Pine (in tan shading), andWhitebark Pine (green shading). From Leiberg, 1900, USGS, 21 st Annual Report, plate LXXXII.Siskiyou Peak was the former name of Mt Ashland.APPENDIX E Page 15Historical Background - Forest Conditions

Literature CitedDavies, J. 1980. Douglas of the Forests: The North American Journals of David Douglas. University ofWashington Press, Seattle.Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon StateUniversity Press, Corvallis Oregon.LaLande:Lane, J. 1884. History of Southern Oregon. Portland, OR, A.G. Walling, editor. p. 316, 334.Leiberg, J.B. 1900. Cascade Range and Ashland Forest Reserves and adjacent regions. in United StatesGeological Survey, 21st Annual Report, 1899 - 1900 Part 5, Forest Reserves, pp 211-498.Noss, Reed F. 1985. On characterizing presettlement vegetation: How and why. Natural Areas Journal v.5(1) pp. 11.Walling A. G. 1884. History of Southern Oregon. A. G. Walling, Portland, OR, p. 316, 334.Wilkes, C. 1849. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840,1841, 1842. Volume V pages 215-250.Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey, 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and southern Canada. A WileyInterscience publication, New York. 501 pp.APPENDIX E Page 16Historical Background - Forest Conditions

REFERENCE CONDITIONS FROM THE OREGON AND CALIFORNIAREVESTMENT NOTES (CWPP Appendix 8.2)The attached table presents a summary of the data collected during inventories of railroad landsthat would be revested to the United States. Summary descriptions of the conditions are offeredbelow.Reference Condition In The Interface Forest (Circa 1920)Area inventoried total 1300 acres, including: 39S-1E-7 - 80 acres, 39S-1E-17 - 120 acres, 39S-1E-19 - 600 acres, 39S-1E-21 - 460 acres, 39S-1E-29- 40 acres. These tracts were inventoried in1916 and 1917 except for 39-1E-29 which was inventoried in 1921.Vegetation and management:Review of the data show that 66% (860 acres) of the surveyed tracts were in the Douglas-firseries of plant associations 31% White fir (400 acres), and 3% Ponderosa pine (40 acres). LateSeral conditions (greater than 10,000 board feet/acre) occurred on 12% (160 acres), 9% (120acres) in the white fir series, and 3% (40 acres) in the Ponderosa pine series. The Dominant treespecies were Pacific madrone is listed on 80% of the parcels - 920 acres, sugar or ponderosa pinealso occurs on 80% of the parcels - 920 acres. Sugar or ponderosa pine are the first or secondmost common species on 57% of the parcels; 680 acres. Pine species and madrone were verycommon in this part of the watershed.Timber was harvested on 160 acres in section 21, and the conditions on 93% (1100 acres) of thetracts were recommended for grazingWildfire:Fire evidence included 40% (480 acres) reported burned, comprised of 30% (360) acres in thewhite fir series, and 10% (120) acres in the Douglas-fir series. Most of the acreage, 60% (720acres) had no signs of a recent burn. No 40 acre parcel was reported as completely destroyed byfire. Some portion always remained unburned although it could be small; in one instance 38acres burned and only 2 acres were untouched. Where fire did occur, 2/3s of the time it wasstand destroying.Reference Condition In The Montane Forest (Circa 1920)Two parcels were inventoried in Montane forest areas in 1920: 40S-1E-19 - 120 acres, and40S-1E-21 – 160 acres,Vegetation and management:Review of the data show that 71% (200 acres) was in the Mountain Hemlock (referred to in thenotes as “Larch”), while 29% (80 acres) occurred as Open Glades. Late Seral conditions (greaterthan 10,000 board feet/acre) occurred on 29% (80 acres). The Dominant and single tree speciesreported was mountain hemlock.All 160 acres listed in section 21 had Christmas trees sold from them, and the reportsrecommended for grazing for the entire acreage inventoried (280 acres).APPENDIX E Page 17Historical Background - Forest Conditions

Wildfire:No acres were recorded as burned, however, the ridgetops were generally open and 6 of the 7parcels were completely or partially open glades.GENERAL LAND OFFICE O & C REVESTMENT NOTES FOR TRACT IN THEASHLAND WATERSHED.LegalSurveyDateVolume /Acre(MBF)Volume %by Species39S-1E-7SWNE 10/9/16 0.3 100% DF(small)NWNE 10/9/16 0.1 100% DF(small)39S-1E-17NWSW 10/8/16 6.0 79% DF,21% PP(small)SWNW 10/8/16 0.5 100% DF(small)NSOHabitatSeriesBurnedHumanPresenceRemarksNO DF NO NO A lot of madrone andbuckbrush; goodgrazingNO DF NO NO A lot of madrone andbuckbrush; goodgrazingNO DF NO NO A lot of madrone andbuckbrush; very goodgrazingNO DF NO A farm, 15ac peaches,fenced withroadsMadrone, buckbrush,DFNWNW 10/8/16 0 - NO - NO Road A lot of madrone, goodgrazing39S-1E-19SESE 9/4/17 22.2 62% DF,23% WF,11% PP,4% SPNWSE 10/7/16 7.0NESE 10/7/16 6.3SESW 9/4/17 8.744% WF,42% DF,7% SP, 7%PP (small)60% DF,26% WF,10% PP,4% SP(small)71% DF,29% PP,cordwoodYES WF NO AbandonedcabinNONOWFWFNO DF NOSWSW 9/4/17 13.8 100% PP YES PP NONWSW 10/7/16 5.6NESW 9/5/17 18.8SENW 10/8/16 2.341% WF,36% DF,23% PP87% DF,13% WF63% DF,37% WF(small)NOWFYES, 10ac,northsideYES, 23ac, westsideYES, 8ac, eastsideNORoadYES WF NO NONOWFYES, 20ac, westsideAbandonedcabinTrail to theeastTrailsteepCovered with madrone,buckbrush, highintensity fire, goodgrazingCovered with madrone,buckbrush, highintensity fire, goodgrazingRidgetop, $2.50/ac, forgoat grazing, $6.50 forcordwoodRidgetop, $2.50/ac forgoatsA little madrone andbuckbrush, timber notbadly burnt, goodgrazing$2.50/ac for goats,steep, rocky, brushyMain ridge, madroneand buckbrush, highintensity fireAPPENDIX E Page 18Historical Background - Forest Conditions

LegalSurveyDateSWNW 10/8/16 3.5NWNW 10/8/16 4.5NENW 10/8/16 10.7SENE 10/8/16 8.8SWNE 10/8/16 7.2NWNE 10/8/16 5.0NENE 10/8/16 6.539-1E-21SESE,W1/25/26/17 3.3SWSE 5/26/17 4.0NWSE 10/6/16 2.6NESE 10/6/16 3.8SESW 10/6/16 6.5NESW 10/6/16 1.9SENW 10/6/16 2.3Volume /Acre(MBF)Volume %by Species45% DF,37% WF,18% PP(small)40% DF,38% WF,22% PP(small)72% DF,18% PP,10% WF48% DF,21% SP,19% WF,12% PP57% PP,26% SP,17% DF(small)61% DF,33% WF,5% PP, 1%SP (small)55% DF,35% WF,10% PP(small)92% PP,8% DF50% PP,50% DF75% DF,25% PP(small)100% DF(small)61% DF,39% PP(small)65% PP,35% DF(small)100% DF(small)NSOHabitatNONOYESNONONOSeriesWFWFWFWFDFWFBurnedYES, 38acYES, 24ac, eastsideYES, 8ac,southwest cornerYES, 2ac,southeast cornerYES, 10ac,southeast cornerYES, 25ac incenterHumanPresenceNONOTrailNONONONO WF NO NONO DF NO NONO DF NO NONO DF NONO DF NONONODFDFNO DF NOYES,2ac onthenorthlineYES, 12ac on thesouthsidePhone topowerhouse atAshlandcreek.Road oncreekPastharvest,roadRoadRoad,phone line,DF and PPfelled forharvestUSFSRemarksA lot of madrone,“sweet” (black?) oak,high intensity fire,good grazingA lot of madrone andbuckbrush, “sweet” oak,high intensity fire,good grazingA lot of madrone andbuckbrush, highintensity fire, ridgetop,Good grazing, dbh avg:PP 30”, WF 28”, SP24”, DF 24”A lot of madrone andbuckbrush, highintensity fire, goodgrazingA lot of madrone andbuckbrush, goodgrazing, high intensityfireA lot of madrone andbuckbrush, goodgrazingPoor soil, brushy,primarily grazingRocky, poor soil,brushy, primarilygrazingMadrone, buckbrush,manzanita, whiteoak(?), grazing land,Madrone, buckbrush,manzanita,Ridgetop, grazing,madrone, manzanita,buckbrush,Grazing, madrone,manzanita, buckbrushGrazing, madrone,buckbrush, manzanita,white oak?APPENDIX E Page 19Historical Background - Forest Conditions

LegalSurveyDateNENW 10/6/16 3.1SENE 10/6/16 4.2SWNE 10/6/16 4.9NWNE 10/6/16 5.5NENE 10/6/16 5.439S-1E-29SWNW40S-1E-1911/27/21Volume /Acre(MBF)1.0NWNE 10/9/20 15.0Volume %by Species86% DF,14% PP(small)100% DF(small)96% DF,4% PP86% DF,14% PP(small)83% PP,17% DF(small)56% PP,44% DF100%Larch (Mt.hemlock)NSOHabitatSeriesNO DF NOBurnedHumanPresencePhone lineto powerplantNO DF NO RoadNO DF NONO DF NONO DF NORoad,phone lineto powerplantRoad,timberharvest, DFand PPRoad,timberharvest, DFand PPRemarksGrazing, madrone,buckbrush, manzanita,white oak?Grazing, madrone,buckbrush, manzanita,white oak?Grazing, madrone,buckbrush, manzanita,white oak?Grazing, madrone,buckbrush, manzanita,white oak?Grazing, madrone,manzanitaNO DF NO NO Grazing, brushyYES MH NOSWNE 10/9/20 0 - NO - NONENW40S-1E-21NENENWNENENWNWNW10/10/2010/13/2010/13/2010/14/2010/14/204.48.210.01.8100%Larch (Mt.hemlock)100%Larch (Mt.hemlock)100%Larch (Mt.hemlock)100%Larch (Mt.hemlock)NO MH NO NONO MH NOYES MH NONO MH NO0 - NO - NOTrail in SEcornerTrail inNW cornerXmas treeselling areaXmas treeselling areaXmas treeselling areaXmas treeselling areaFair grazing land, rockcliffs on S side of tract,open glades on NW sideof trail along ridge, logs24” @ butt, 5 logs/treeRock cliffs, openglades, on summitFair grazing land, rockcliffs open glade Wside, timber E sideFair grazing land, openglades, surface rock,logs 24” @ butt, 4 logs/treeOpen glades, logs 24”@ butt, 5 logs/treeFair grazing land 3 logs24” @ butt, 4 logs/ treemonths/year,Top of Mt. Ashland, Nside reforesting to scrub“larch” , S half openAPPENDIX E Page 20Historical Background - Forest Conditions

ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCYSISKIYOU ZONEDEISAPPENDIX FTERRESTRIAL WILDLIFEBIOLOGICAL EVALUATION9 April, 2005Prepared By: Jeff VonKienastCascade Zone Wildlife BiologistRogue River-Siskiyou National ForestReviewed By: Dave ClaytonForest Wildlife BiologistRogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Executive SummaryThis Wildlife Biological Evaluation evaluates the potential impacts of Ashland ForestResiliency within Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) OR-76 in the Ashland Creek, Neil Creek, UpperWagner Creek, and Hamilton Creek sub-watersheds of the Bear Creek fifth-field watershed onFederally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive specieslisted on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Siskiyou Zone. Conferencing with the USFish and Wildlife Service has been on-going. Consultation will be initiated after the PreferredAlternative is identified (likely between Draft and Final EIS).Ashland Forest Resiliency falls within the Mt. Ashland LSR RO-248 and CHU OR-76. Lateandmid-successional habitat occurs within and adjacent to the proposed project on NationalForest lands. Thirteen historic northern spotted owl (NSO) pairs and two territorial singles occurwithin the Upper Bear Analysis Area. Nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat forspotted owls would be removed, downgraded, and degraded by the proposed project. Mitigationmeasures will meet the Project Design Criteria found in the 2004-08 BiologicalAssessment/Biological Opinion (USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS 2003).The following table provides a Summary of Conclusions and Effects for Threatened andSensitive terrestrial wildlife species, known to be within and/or affected by the project.Table F-1. Summary of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Animal SpeciesWildlife Species(Common name)Determination ofEffectsThreatened Species and CHUNorthern spotted owlLAACritical Habitat UnitLAANorthern bald eagleNE (withmitigation)Forest Service Sensitive SpeciesBlack SalamanderMIIHChace SidebandMIIHNorthwestern Pond Turtle NERed-necked GrebeMIIHHorned GrebeMIIHBuffleheadMIIHPacific Fringe-tailed BatMIIHPacific Pallid BatMIIHPacific ShrewMIIHWolverineNEPacific FisherMIIHLegend for codes used in above table:NE = No Effect or ImpactNLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affectLAA = May affect, likely to adversely affectMIIH = May adversely impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the planning area (RogueRiver NF) nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wideBI = Beneficial Effect or ImpactAPPENDIX F Page 1Wildlife BE

I. IntroductionHazardous fuel treatments and connected activities considered under Ashland Forest Resiliencyrequire a Biological Evaluation to be completed (FSM 2672.4). The purpose of this BiologicalEvaluation (BE) is to document the effects of the proposed action and alternatives to anyThreatened, Endangered, or Proposed species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),as amended, and Sensitive species as designated by the Regional Forester R-6 (USDA ForestService 2004). The proposed action addressed in this BE is located in the Bear Creek watershedof the Rogue River/Siskiyou National Forest (RR-SNF).Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs each Federal agency to insure that anyaction authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of any Threatened or Endangered species or result in the destruction or adversemodification of their critical habitat. The ESA also directs each Federal agency to confer orconsult with the appropriate Secretary on any action, which is likely to jeopardize or affect thecontinued existence of any species or its critical habitat.Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES)In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(1973 et seq.) and the ForestService Biological Evaluation process for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) wildlifespecies, the list of species potentially occurring within the Upper Bear Analysis Area wasreviewed. Lists for the RR-SNF and the Pacific Northwest Region (R6) were reviewed in regardto potential effects on any of these species by actions associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency.Pre-field and reconnaissance results are summarized below.Table F-2. Terrestrial Wildlife TES Species PresenceWildlife Species(Common name)Scientific NameThreatened SpeciesPre-field ReviewExisting Sighting orPotential HabitatField SurveysHabitat orSpecies PresentNorthern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Yes YesNorthern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes YesCanada Lynx Lynx canadensis No NoSensitive SpeciesBlack Salamander Aneides flavipunctatus Yes YesSiskiyou Mtn. Salamander Plethodon stormi No NoOregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa No NoNorthwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata Yes YesCommon Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula No NoAmerican Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum No NoGray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii No NoTri-colored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor No NoBlack Swift Cypseloides niger No NoRed-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Yes YesHorned Grebe Podiceps auritus Yes YesBufflehead Bucephala albeola Yes YesPacific Shrew Sorex pacificus cascadensis Yes YesAPPENDIX F Page 2Wildlife BE

Wildlife SpeciesPre-field Review Field SurveysScientific NameExisting Sighting or Habitat or(Common name)Potential Habitat Species PresentPacific Fringe-tailed Bat Myotis thysanodes vespertinus Yes NoPacific Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus pacificus Yes NoTownsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Yes YesWolverine Gulo gulo Yes NoPacific Fisher Martes pennanti Yes YesChace Sideband Monadenia chaceana Yes YesEvening Field Slug Deroceras hesperium No NoCrater Lake Tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum crateris No NoII. Description of the Proposed ActionsAshland Forest Resiliency project is designed to reduce the potential for large-scale, highintensity fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The Forest Service is analyzing Ashland ForestResiliency as an authorized hazardous fuels project under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of2003.There are two action alternatives identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for theAshland Forest Resiliency project, the Proposed Action, and the Community Alternative. Bothaction alternatives provide proposals and prescriptions that would modify fire behavior during awildland fire event. Both action alternatives include methods that are designed to reduce standdensity through commercial thinning of the overstory and commercial and pre-commercialthinning of the understory. Other treatments include surface fuel treatments, activity fuelstreatments, and prescribed fire. Yarding systems are limited to helicopter in the ProposedAction. The Community Alternative incorporates ground-based skidding where slopes are ≤20%. Prescriptions under both alternatives are varied and site-specific. Please see the DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and DEIS Appendix B and C, for site specific detailsof proposed treatments.III. Description of the Action AreaUnder Ashland Forest Resiliency, only National Forest System Lands would be treated. Thelegal description of the area being considered is T. 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. 1 E., 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 sections 24, 25, 26, 34, 35 and 36; and T. 40 S., R. 1W., section 1 and 2, W. Jackson County, Oregon.IV. Description of the Species Listed Under ESAInformation on the ecology of the northern spotted owl is contained within, Endangered andthreatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl:final rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990), Endangered and threatened wildlife andplants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; Final rule (USDI Fish andWildlife Service. 1992), Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl (Courtneyet al. 2004), and Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls (Anthony et al. 2004).APPENDIX F Page 3Wildlife BE

Information on the ecology of the northern bald eagle is contained within the Draft site-specificmanagement plan for the Emigrant Lake bald eagle nest site (Popp and Isaacs 1995), theWorking Implementation Plan for Bald Eagle Recovery in Oregon and Washington (OR-WAInteragency Wildlife Committee 1989) and within the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDIFWS 1986).Northern Spotted OwlThe northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is listed as Threatened under theEndangered Species Act (ESA) (55 FR 26194) on June 23, 1990 (USDI Fish and WildlifeService 1990).The most recent surveys for northern spotted owl nesting sites were conducted in portions of theUpper Bear Analysis Area during 2001 by district personnel, and again in 2002 by GaleaWildlife Consulting (Galea 2002). Protocol surveys were conducted for six historical sites,primarily in the Proposed Action Project Area by Smeltz Specialty Contracting in 2004. All ofthe Analysis Area will be surveyed in 2005.Under the assumptions of the DEIS and based on previous surveys, fifteen spotted owl pairactivity centers are historically known to be located within the Analysis Area boundary. Amajority of these sites have habitat that would be potentially affected by hazardous fueltreatments proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency because they are in proximity of proposedtreatments.The majority of areas proposed for treatments are within the northern portion of the Mt. AshlandLate Successional Reserve (LSR) RO-248, designated by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994.The majority of the Analysis Area is also part of a Critical Habitat unit (CH) OR-76 designatedby U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the recovery of the northern spotted owl (USDI 1992).Information on historical and primary surveys and food habits for northern spotted owl, prior to1996, within the LSR portion of the Upper Bear Analysis Area can be found in the Mt. AshlandLSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996).Northern spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because they contain thestructures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. A definitionof suitable nesting and roosting northern spotted owl habitat in the Klamath Province is difficultto identify because of the variety of ecological types and frequent fire history (USDA ForestService 1996). The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996) identified standswhich supported northern spotted owl as >17” average diameter and >60% canopy closure (CC).The Rogue River/South Coast Biological Assessment defines Nesting/Roosting/Foraging (NRF)habitat as >21” average diameter and >40% CC (USDA Forest Service 2003b).Zabel et al. (2003) identified habitat models for northern spotted owls in the Klamath Province ofnorthern California which correctly classified owl-occupied sites with >85% accuracy. WithinDouglas-fir habitats below 6,000 ft. elevation in the Eastern Klamath Ecological zone, these siteswere classified as >17” average diameter and >60% CC. Zabel et al. (2003) concluded that theirmodel performed best at the 200 hectare radius (0.5 mi.). For this analysis, the Zabel et al.(2003) definition of NRF has been accepted, and analysis was conducted at the 0.5 mi. radius.APPENDIX F Page 4Wildlife BE

For tracking purposes, habitat is also be analyzed at the 1.3 mile radius from the known orsuspected nest site. This guideline was established by USFWS in 1990 based on research in theCoast Range and the Cascades, and is used for analysis of the potential habitat effects. Theactual habitat used by northern spotted owls in the Klamath province is more often oblong orelliptical (following topographical features), rather than circular.Research has shown that about 40 percent of the home range needs to be occupied by suitablenesting, roosting, and foraging (NFR) habitat for a site to be viable over time. Site specificinformation for owl pairs within the Analysis Area have identified that the majority of nests arelocated in mistletoe platforms rather than cavities, and trees

However, there are far less barred owls known for SW Oregon than other areas in the northernportion of the range and the spotted owl survival is stable in that study area as well as in theKlamath demographic study area (Anthony et al. 2004). There are some indications that Barredowls initially colonize watercourses and riparian areas (Courtney 2004). It is unknown what theeffect of the proposed activities in AFR would have on northern spotted owls regardingcompetition from Barred owls.There have been recent large fires in SW Oregon, in particular the Biscuit and the TimberedRock fires, which have significantly reduced NRF within the province. However, analysisconducted on the effects of the Biscuit Fire using recent work by Zabel et al. (2003) showed thatof the 49 owl pairs affected by the fire, it was likely that only seven were no longer extant. Inaddition, of the 15 spotted owl pairs affected by the Timbered Rock Fire, 11 of those pairscontinue to occupy their historic activity centers even thought they were subject to varyingdegrees of fire severity. There is uncertainty as to how spotted owls respond to fire in SWOregon and research is currently being conducted in an attempt to answer that question.The primary prey of northern spotted owls in the AFR area are dusky-footed woodrat (Neotomafuscipes) and northern flying squirrel (Glaucomy sabrinus) (USDA Forest Service 1996).Dusky-footed woodrats are occasionally abundant in early mixed-conifer forests and present inlate stages of forest development (Carey et al. 1999). Northern flying squirrels are generallyassociated with older forests. Zabel et al. (1995) verified a trend of negative, linear relationshipbetween home range size during the breeding season and the proportion of woodrats in the dietof northern spotted owls. The proportion of northern flying squirrels in the diet was positivelycorrelated with home range size. Reduction in canopy closure and fuels treatments associatedwith AFR has the potential to increase habitat for dusky-footed woodrats through regeneration ofshrub habitats and young stands. Effects of these treatments on northern flying squirrelpopulations are unknown.Bald EagleAn active bald eagle nest (Nest 1034) is located east of the Analysis Area on BLM managedlands around Immigrant Lake. The nest is located in a dominant ponderosa pine within the SlideCreek drainage (V. Arthur, pers. comm.). A Bald Eagle Consideration Area (BECA)encompasses a portion of Forest Service managed lands within the Analysis Area within the Neiland 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 wasobserved roosting in the Neil Creek drainage in 1994 and adult eagles were observed flyingtoward the Neil Creek drainage several times during the evening. It is unknown whether eaglesroost 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 dissuadethem from important breeding area or winter roost sites, particularly during the early nestingseason. Individual pairs have widely variable responses to disturbance. Seasonal and distanceprotection are generally effective in reducing adverse impacts of human disturbance activity tobald eagles. Habitat protection is generally effective if large trees that support nesting androosting are maintained within the nesting or wintering stand and any disruptive activity isscheduled outside of sensitive periods (USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS 2003).APPENDIX F Page 6Wildlife BE

Canada LynxIn late February of 2000, agreement was reached between the Forest Service (Regional Office inPortland) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding presence of lynx on the Rogue RiverNational Forest (RRNF). The results of that agreement are based on the position of the USDAForest Service that the RRNF is not considered to have suitable lynx habitat. The RRNF wastherefore not included in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000),and is not subject to consultation/conferencing for this species under the ESA.The reasons for not including the RRNF with the conservation strategy are; 1) A paucity ofinformation, derived from historical records, concerning lynx on the west slope of the CascadeMountains in southern Oregon, 2) The extremely limited amount of habitat identified by the lynxhabitat model, 3) the lack of habitats known to be used by lynx, and 4) The geographic locationof the RRNF in the overall range of lynx. Historic and current records of lynx occurrence inOregon, and specifically the RRNF, is very limited with no verified records of occurrence on theForest (McKelvey et al. 2000). Canada lynx is not discussed further in this BE.V. Effects on Species Listed Under ESA and CHU OR-76Northern spotted owlNo-Action AlternativeAnalyses of Plant Association Groups (PAGs) has identified that most stand types wherenorthern spotted owls occur (PAGs 1407, 1408, 2003, 2004) within the National forest portion ofthe Analysis Area were in a more open condition prior to effective fire exclusion. Historically,habitat for the northern spotted owl was fairly continuous, particularly in the wetter parts of itsrange in northern California and most of western Oregon and Washington. Habitat for the owl inthe drier portions of its range in parts of southern Oregon and northern California is notcontinuous, but occurred naturally in a mosaic pattern (USFWS 1992). The mosaic patterndescribed was a direct result of natural fire regimes which are, in general, more frequent and lowto mixed severity in SW Oregon within low to mid-elevation habitats compared to those in mostareas west of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington.As a result of effective fire exclusion, many of these stands are now in mid or late-closedcondition. It is unknown how northern spotted owls have responded to effective fire suppressionover the last 80 -100 years. Most of the owls that currently inhabit the Analysis Area occur onthe lower slopes and on northerly aspects.The No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any northern spotted owl nesting,roosting, and foraging habitat. No spotted owl pairs would be affected by reductions in habitatand dispersal opportunities would not be reduced from current conditions. In the absence oflarge-scale disturbance (wildfire, insects, and disease) the densities of northern spotted owlswould likely remain stable, notwithstanding other threats identified by the SustainableEcosystems Institute report (Courtney et al. 2004) which include barred owls and West NileVirus.APPENDIX F Page 7Wildlife BE

The majority of the LSR in the Upper Bear Analysis Area has been identified as being highhazard and risk relative to wildland fire (USDA Forest Service 2003). The Mt. Ashland LSRAssessment (1996) identified the maintenance of existing large blocks of late-successionalhabitat through protection from large-scale high-intensity (stand replacement) wildland fire as ahigh priority.Large scale, stand-replacement fire would remove large blocks of late-and mid-successionalhabitat and likely reduce northern spotted owl presence and pair density within the northernportion of the LSR. Connectivity and dispersal within and between late-successional patches andthe LSR network would likely be adversely affected, albeit to an unknown extent.Effect Mechanisms Common to Action AlternativesOpening a stand through tree removal can provide more light to the ground and increaseunderstory trees and shrubs. The result of this treatment on owl habitat and ecology depends onthe current stand condition (and how close it approximates late-successional characteristicsimportant to owls), how many trees are removed, the residual overstory, the time year thetreatment occurs, and the method of yarding/tree removal (USDA Forest Service; USDI FWS2003). The following text defines effect mechanisms for suitable habitat (nesting, roosting, andforaging), and for dispersal habitat.Within suitable habitat, treatments that reduce the overstory canopy to less than 60% (relativestand density index of less than 0.4), but that would retain canopy closure above 40% woulddowngrade suitable habitat 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 beremoved.Within suitable habitat, where the canopy cover is greater than 60% and understorytreatments such as pruning, underburning, handpile/burn, and removal of small diameter trees< 8” diameter occur, suitable habitat would remain but would be degraded due to loss ofstructure.Stands not considered as suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat with canopies ofgreater than 40%, and are considered to provide dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls.Where understory treatments occur in these stands, dispersal habitat would be degraded. Ifstands are reduced to below 40% (relative stand density index of less than 0.2), dispersalhabitat would be removed.It is expected that current northern spotted owl pairs and territorial singles would exhibit someshifting within and among core habitats and remaining suitable habitats as a result ofimplementation of hazardous fuel reduction treatments under both Action Alternatives.Both Action Alternatives would remove existing spotted owl NRF suitable habitat where newlandings are created or where existing landings are enlarged, where canopy closure is reduced tobelow 40%.Proposed ActionSuitable habitat would be degraded in DFPZ treatments where existing canopy closures are ≥60% through the removal (understory thinning, brushing, and pruning) of the understory withinthe multi-layered canopy to reduce ladder and surface fuels. Where canopy closures are < 60%,dispersal habitat would remain.APPENDIX F Page 8Wildlife BE

Treatments in the Interface Compartments would focus primarily on mid-closed and late-closedstands. Interface compartments prescribe reducing stand density to 0.2 - 0.3. Where thesetreatments are implemented, suitable habitat would be downgraded to dispersal habitat becausecanopy closures would be < 60%. Where treatments occur within known northern spotted owlactivity centers, prescriptions would retain an overstory canopy of ≥ 60% but remove understorystructure and those stands would be degraded.Within Late-Successional Habitat treatments, the focus is to treat mid-seral closed stands whereaverage stand diameter is 5-17 inches. The objective is to reduce fire hazard, and to reducecompetition within these stands and move them toward late-successional habitat sooner. Notreatments would occur within suitable nesting or roosting habitat within the late-successionalhabitat compartments.The proposed treatment within the Research Natural Area (RNA) area would removecompetition for the existing large pines and Douglas-fir. Late-seral, closed conditions withinnorthern spotted owl activity centers and Riparian Reserves would be maintained. Standdensities outside of pair activity centers would be reduced to 0.2 - 0.3. These treatments wouldreduce overstory canopy to < 60% and would downgrade suitable habitat to dispersal habitatoutside of northern spotted owl activity centers. Small diameter trees would also be removed toallow regeneration of pine species. Underburning is prescribed following treatment to maintainthe stand in a more open and natural condition.Based on habitat analysis assumptions and effects by types of treatments discussed above, TableF-3 and Table F-4 provides a summary of direct effects to northern spotted owl habitat, forknown or suspected pair activity centers, within 0.5 and 1.3 mile radius of core center, for theProposed Action.Table F-3. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 0.5 Mi. Radius - Proposed ActionActivity CenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 372/75 147 0 0 0 140013 395/79 96 0 0 0 280016 409/82 74 0 0 0 45019 409/82 80 0 0 0 3023 422/85 77 0 0 0 232024 368/74 74 0 0 0 116043 433/87 61 0 0 0 149046 373/76 87 0 0 0 343049 420/84 68 0 0 0 0050 286/57 178 0 0 0 173051 387/77 91 0 0 0 262052 452/90 44 0 0 0 55065 375/75 93 0 0 0 218069 346/70 138 0 0 0 179071 385/77 110 0 0 0 306Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acres cannot becumulatively added in this table.APPENDIX F Page 9Wildlife BE

Table F-4. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 1.3 Mi. Radius - Proposed ActionActivityCenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 2,734/81 992 2 50 13 541013 2,295/68 731 1 185 23 882016 2,565/76 521 1 129 8 613019 2,339/69 539 1 5 14 89023 2,701/80 519 1 0 5 0024 2,677/79 496 1 2 6 124043 2,734/81 436 3 6 14 469046 2,498/74 722 1 99 37 1,080049 2,666/79 459 0 0 23 10050 1,755/52 1200 2 125 16 545051 2,329/69 640 0 69 2 468052 2,829/83 299 0 34 0 173065 2,295/68 829 1 137 0 687069 2,160/64 944 0 97 1 345071 2,126/63 738 0 82 0 964Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acrescannot be cumulatively added in this table.Community AlternativeWithin the Ponderosa Pine PAG, overstory canopy would be reduced to ≤ 40%. Up to 5% of thearea within this PAG may remain untreated if it does not compromise wildfire or prescribed firemanagement goals. Prescriptions within the Douglas-fir PAGs may reduce canopy closure tobelow 60% (0.4 relative stand density index) within some areas on south and west aspects.Areas within northern and eastern aspects would retain ≥ 60% canopy closure. Removal ofoverstory canopy to < 60% on south and west aspects would downgrade suitable habitat todispersal habitat. Thinning of understory canopy through small diameter tree and shrub removalwould degrade habitat on all aspects even if canopy closure remains ≥ 60%.Prescriptions within the dry and moist White Fir PAGs are similar to Douglas-fir PAGs in regardto aspect, canopy closure, and removal of understory canopy. Effects to suitable habitat are thesame as those described for the Douglas-fir PAGs.Canopy closure would be retained at ≥ 60% on the cool White Fir PAG. Removal of understorywould degrade suitable habitat where it now occurs. Northerly aspects in this PAG would not betreated under the Community Alternative.Where undergrowth inhibits owls from accessing ground-dwelling prey species, over 50% ormore of any stand greater than 40 acres or more, the Community Alternative considers treatmentwithin northern spotted owl activity centers (Priority 9). Twenty five to 35% of a treatment areawould remain untreated to provide habitat for prey species. Site-specific treatment plans wouldbe developed by a wildlife biologist knowledgeable in habitat characteristics prior to treatmentwithin activity centers. Within 0.25 miles of known nest sites, only ladder fuels would betreated. Between 0.25 and 0.5 miles from a nest site, other treatment options are possible.Characteristics of suitable habitat would be retained and canopy reduction would be avoidedwithin currently suitable habitat. More specific prescriptions are described in the CommunityAlternative section of Chapter II, and in DEIS Appendix C.APPENDIX F Page 10Wildlife BE

Based on habitat analysis assumptions and effects by types of treatments discussed above, TableF-5and Table F-6 provides a summary of direct effects to northern spotted owl habitat, forknown or suspected pair activity centers, within 0.5 and 1.3 mile radius of core center, for theCommunity Alternative.Table F-5. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 0.5 Mi. Radius - Community AlternativeActivityCenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 372/75 147 0 0 0 169013 395/79 96 0 0 0 223016 409/82 74 0 0 0 210019 409/82 80 0 0 0 194023 422/85 77 0 0 0 186024 368/74 74 0 0 0 139043 433/87 61 0 0 0 199046 373/76 87 0 0 0 287049 420/84 68 0 0 0 194050 286/57 178 0 0 0 197051 387/77 91 0 0 0 204052 452/90 44 0 0 0 172065 375/75 93 0 0 0 181069 346/70 138 0 0 0 149071 385/77 110 0 0 0 262Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acrescannot be cumulatively added in this table.Table F-6. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Effects within 1.3 Mi. Radius - Community AlternativeActivityCenterReferenceCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalonlyAcresAcres ofSuitableNRFRemovedAcres ofSuitableNRFDowngradedAcres ofDispersalRemovedAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegraded007 2,734/81 992 1 13 10 105013 2,295/68 731 1 35 18 413016 2,565/76 521 1 71 8 662019 2,339/69 539 1 44 12 312023 2,701/80 519 1 61 23 513024 2,677/79 496 1 56 6 438043 2,734/81 436 3 35 13 519046 2,498/74 722 1 67 11 842049 2,666/79 459 0 23 5 135050 1,755/52 1200 2 132 16 869051 2,329/69 640 0 61 12 643052 2,829/83 299 0 31 10 542065 2,295/68 829 1 121 14 670069 2,160/64 944 0 34 9 469071 2,126/63 738 0 51 11 825Note: This analysis is calculated for each activity center; affected acres therefore overlap and acrescannot be cumulatively added in this table.APPENDIX F Page 11Wildlife BE

Critical Habitat UnitCritical Habitat Unit (CHU) OR-76 was designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for therecovery of the northern spotted owl (USDI 1992). Critical Habitat Unit OR-76 is designated toprovide inter- and intra-provincial linkage between the Klamath Mountains Province and theWestern Cascades Province. It is the main link to the Ashland Area of Concern and provideseast-west distribution of northern spotted owl habitat in the Oregon portion of the KlamathMountains Province.There are 56,787 total acres in OR-76, seventy-one percent of these acres (40,351) are in the Mt.Ashland Late-Successional Reserve. There are currently 22,570 acres of suitable NRF habitat inOR-76. This number has only changed by 72 acres since the 1996 baseline (USDA ForestService; USDI FWS 2003). There were 28 historical activity centers within OR-76 as of 1994(USDI FWS 2001).Effects on Critical HabitatCritical Habitat Units are a designation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, primarily designed forthe recovery of the northern spotted owl, in association with the Endangered Species Act. Assuch, 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 effectmechanisms are presented in greater detail under the northern spotted owl habitat discussion(above).No ActionIn the absence of stand-replacement wildfire or large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, CHUOR-76 would continue to provide high-quality habitat for northern spotted owl, fisher (Martespennanti), and other late-successional species. Early and mid-seral stands would continue todevelop into mature habitat. Ecosystem processes such as insect infestations and disease wouldcontinue to create decadence, mortality, and deformities in individual or groups of trees whichprovide diversity in stands and nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities for many latesuccessionalspecies.Large portions of the Analysis Area have missed one or more fire-return intervals resulting inover-stocked stands and high fuel loading. This combined with steep topography and highsummer temperatures creates the potential for large-scale, high severity wildfire. This couldinvolve substantial loss of late-successional habitat, and loss of LSR function and connectivityresulting in potential temporary reduction or extirpation of some late-successional speciesIn the event of large-scale, high-severity wildland fire, travel and dispersal corridors from theSiskiyou and Cascade Ranges could potentially be severely disrupted depending on thejuxtaposition of suitable habitat remaining after a fire, particularly when combined with thebarrier imposed by the Interstate 5 corridor to the East.Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action would downgrade or remove northern spotted owl suitable habitat in OR-76 through removal and reduction of canopy closure and multiple canopies in forested stands.Additional degrading would occur by understory treatments that include burning and understorythinning.APPENDIX F Page 12Wildlife BE

The indicator for effects analysis for CHU is the change in northern spotted owl nesting,roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat. Change in dispersal habitat is also considered. The scalefor analysis of effects is the scale of entire CHU. Downgrading suitable habitat reducesoverstory canopy to less than 60 percent but greater than 40 percent, and changes suitable habitatto dispersal-only habitat. Thinning that removes some overstory, but retains 60 percent canopycoverage or more is considered degraded, but remains suitable.Table F-7. CHU Habitat Effects - Proposed ActionCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalOnlyAcresResultantSuitable/NRFAc/%ResultantDispersalOnlyAcresAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegradedCHU OR-76 22,570/40 8,669 21,535/38 8,556 3,978Under the Proposed Action, approximately 1,035 acres of habitat would be removed ordowngraded within Critical Habitat Unit OR-76 during landing construction and improvement,or treatments within the Interface and RNA. However, these areas are widely dispersed whichwould minimize effects to connectivity. Within the treatment areas, forested habitats wouldremain and continue to provide for movement and dispersal within and across the CHU.Community AlternativeThe Community Alternative would also downgrade or remove northern spotted owl suitablehabitat (approximately 918 acres) in OR-76 through landing construction and improvement orremoval and reduction of canopy closure and multiple canopies in forested stands. Additionaldegrading would occur by understory treatments that include burning and understory thinning.Table F-8. CHU Habitat Effects - Community AlternativeCurrentSuitable/NRFAc/%CurrentDispersalOnlyAcresResultantSuitable/NRFAc/%ResultantDispersalOnlyAcresAcres ofSuitableHabitatDegradedCHU OR-76 22,570/40 8,669 21,652/38 8,580 3,495Under the Community Alternative, Critical Habitat Unit OR-76 would continue to provide eastwestlinkages for northern spotted owl in the Klamath Mountains and across to the Cascadesbecause a very small amount of habitat would be removed during landing construction andimprovement and these areas are widely dispersed. Within the treatment areas, forested habitatswould remain and continue to provide for NRF and dispersal within and across the CHU.APPENDIX F Page 13Wildlife BE

Treatments under both Action Alternatives that degrade Critical Habitat due to removal ofunderstory and overstory canopy but retain canopy closure ≥ 60%, would equate to a “Mayaffect, not likely to adversely effect” determination. However, because treatments under bothAction Alternatives remove or downgrade Critical Habitat due to reduction of canopy to < 60%and modification of understory canopies in forested stands, results in an overall “May affect,likely to adversely effect” determination for Critical Habitat.Bald EagleUnder the No-Action Alternative, there would be no proposed change in habitat characteristicsfor bald eagles. Stand-replacement wildfire may effect eagle habitat through the destruction ofthe nest tree, or perch trees within and adjacent to the nest stand.Both Action Alternatives prescribe treatment of mid-seral stands within 1 mile of the active baldeagle nest site. These treatments would provide some added protection from wildfire byreducing ladder fuels under large legacy trees and snags which could be used as alternate nesttrees and perches by the resident eagle pair. Removal of over-dense young and mid-aged treesaround legacy trees would also reduce competition for resources and should increase survival.Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels would be retained at current levels unless theirretention would create a wildfire management hazard. Snags would be retained as high aspossible on slopes. Snags that extend above the primary canopy, but do not extend above thelevel of the ridgeline would be priority for retention. Some large snags may be removed duringimplementation of the Action Alternatives if they are deemed hazardous to personnel orequipment.Under the Proposed Action, all areas within 1 mile of the active nest site are within the latesuccessionalcompartments. Treatments within these compartments are designed to convert midseralclosed stands to mid-seral open stands. These treatments would have “no effect” to baldeagles given implementation of Mitigation Measures (Project Design Criteria -PDCs).Areas within 1 mile of the active bald eagle nest under the Community Alternative fall underPriorities 2, 4, 5, and 9. Priorities 2, 4, and 5 prescribe treating ladder and ground fuels to reducecompetition for large legacy pines and oaks. Priority 9 are treatments within northern spottedowl activity centers and are described in Chapter II, Section 5. In general, these treatmentswould reduce some small diameter material, but retain ≥ 60% canopy closure where it occursnow within suitable owl habitat. The Community Alternative would have “no effect” to baldeagles given implementation of Mitigation Measures (PDCs).APPENDIX F Page 14Wildlife BE

VI. Description of the Species Listed as Forest Service SensitiveHabitat does not exist within the Analysis Area for the following Forest Service Sensitivespecies. These species are not discussed further within this Wildlife Biological Evaluation.Plethodon stormiLampropeltis getulaFalco peregrinus anatumEmpidonax wrightiiAgelaius tricoloCypseloides nigerPicoides arcticusSitta pygmaeaDeroceras hesperiumPristiloma arcticum craterisSiskiyou Mountain salamanderCommon kingsnakePeregrine falconGray flycatcherTricolored blackbirdBlack swiftBlack-backed woodpeckerPygmy nuthatchEvening fieldslugCrater Lake tightcoilKnown species occurrence or suitable habitat may occur within the Analysis Area for thefollowing species, and is summarized in this Wildlife Biological Evaluation.Aneides flavipunctatusClemmys marmorata marmorataPodiceps grisegenaPodiceps auritusBucephala albeolaSorex pacificus cascadensisMyotis thysanodes vespertinusAntrozous pallidus pacificusCorynorhinus townsendiiGulo gulo luteusMartes pennantiMonadenia chaceanaBlack SalamanderNorthwestern pond turtleRed-necked grebeHorned grebeBuffleheadPacific shrewPacific fringe-tailed batPacific pallid batTownsend’s big-eared batCalifornia wolverinePacific fisherChace’s sidebandSpecies DiscussionBlack SalamanderThe black salamander ranges from a limited distribution in southern Oregon into Santa Cruz andSanta Clara Counties, California. In Oregon, the few records available indicate a small range inextreme southern Jackson and southeastern Josephine Counties (Leonard et al. 1993). Blacksalamanders are found in coniferous forests, mixed deciduous-coniferous forests, and openhillsides from sea level up to at least 1,700 meters in elevation (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Blacksalamanders are most likely to be found in the moist crevices of decaying logs or stumps, withinmoist 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 collectionwere tentatively identified as black salamander by Dr. Stephen Cross. These specimens weretaken in May 1971 from a mine shaft along the eastern border of the RNA (Cross 1973). Sixindividuals (1 adult male, 2 adult females, 1 subadult, 2 juveniles) were located by Forest Serviceand FWS biologists conducting herptile surveys for the AFR project in April 2004. The adultsand sub-adult were located under a large boulder and the juveniles were found under debrisassociated with a large downed log. All of the individuals were found within a 10 meter radiuswithin a dry, fairly open site.APPENDIX F Page 15Wildlife BE

Northwestern Pond TurtleThe northwestern pond turtle occurs in both perennial and intermittent waters including marshes,sloughs, moderately deep ponds, and slow-moving portions of creeks and rivers (Brown et al.1995, Nussbaum et al. 1983). They favor habitats with large amounts of emergent logs orboulders, where they aggregate to bask (Brown et al. 1995).Pond turtles are known to occur in the ponds at Lithia Park and potential habitat exists at ReederReservoir.Red-necked and Horned GrebesThe red-necked grebe breeds from the British Isles east to Siberia, and in N. America fromcentral Alaska south and southeast through the Yukon to eastern Oregon and Idaho east toManitoba (Spencer 2003). The red-necked grebe’s breeding habitat consists of extensive clear,deep-water marshy lakes and ponds in timbered regions (Spencer 2003). Adult diet is composedof small fish, aquatic and terrestrial insects and their larvae, tadpoles, salamanders, crustaceans,mollusks, and aquatic worms. The only consistent breeding population in Oregon consists of 5-20 birds at Rocky Point in the Upper Klamath Lake NWR (Spencer 2003).The horned grebe is holarctic in distribution. In Oregon, it is a rare breeder and all known nestare east of the Cascades. Diet is similar to red-necked grebe. The horned grebe is an uncommonspring and fall transient on lakes, reservoirs, and large rivers west of the Cascades, anduncommon to common east of the Cascades (Spencer 2003).Both red-necked and horned grebes may use Reeder Reservoir for resting during migration inlate spring or fall. These species were not recorded during point-count surveys conducted byKlamath Bird Observatory for the AFR project.BuffleheadThere are isolated breeding populations of Bufflehead in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho,Montana, and Wyoming (Gauthier 1993). In winter, the high densities are found along thePacific and Atlantic coasts (Gauthier 1993). Breeding habitat is primarily in freshwater,permanent ponds with no outlet or only seasonal outflow, and small lakes. Large lakes areavoided except by molting flocks. In the interior of British Columbia, ponds used for nestinghave only a small fringe of emergent vegetation (sometimes none at all) along the shore. Pondswith extensive emergent or submergent vegetation avoided (Gauthier 1993). There are norecords of bufflehead nesting in SW Oregon, however, they are known to winter in the area (N.Barrett, pers. comm.).Buffleheads winter at Fish Lake on the eastern portion of the Ashland Ranger District, and onLost Creek and Willow lakes in Jackson County (N. Barrett, pers. comm.). Reeder Reservoirprovides wintering habitat for bufflehead and it is likely that they occur there during the wintermonths.Pacific ShrewBailey (1936) indicated that this species is often found in moist wooded areas with fallendecaying logs and brushy vegetation. Maser et al. (1981) described occupied habitat for Pacificshrew as identical to the fog shrew; alder-salmonberry, riparian alder and skunk cabbage marshhabitats; the species is less often found in the mature conifer and immature conifer habitats.APPENDIX F Page 16Wildlife BE

Suitable habitat exists within the Analysis Area. Two specimens were collected within the RNAin the Ashland Watershed and are in collections at Southern Oregon University (Verts andCarraway 1998).Pacific Fringe-tailed BatMiller and Allen (1928) (as reported by Verts and Carraway 1998) considered M. thysanodes acave-dwelling bat, even though most of the specimens they examined were from buildings. Itappears to be adapted to living in areas with diverse vegetative substrate.Fringe-tailed myotis are known to occur within the Analysis Area. Cross et al. (1997) reportedcapturing two M. thysanodes (1 male, 1 female) within the Ashland Watershed during August.Pacific Pallid BatPallid bats are known to occur throughout SW Oregon and NW California. Suitable roost habitattypes include buildings, bridges, rock outcrops, and large decadent snags. Pallid bats have beencaptured from several sites on the Rogue River National Forest, including some locations on theApplegate RD. They have also been captured at a site just south of Pilot Rock at 4,500 feet inelevation, southwest of the Analysis Area (Dave Clayton pers. obs.).Pallid 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 AshlandCreek inlet of Reeder Reservoir using mist netting and shooting techniques (Cross 1973). Batsurveys were conducted again by Cross in 1997 in and around the RNA (Cross et al. 1997).Pallid bats were not detected with either effort.Cross (1973) considered expected presence of pallid bats to be marginal or uncommon within theRNA. 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 thepresence of large, decadent snags for roosting, pallid bats may occur within the Analysis Area.Townsend’s Big-eared BatTownsend’s big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitats, its distribution tends to begeomorphically determined and is strongly correlated with the availability of caves or cave-likeroosting habitat (e.g., old mines) (Pierson et al. 1999). The species may also use hollow trees forroosting. Suitable roosts sites and hibernacula fall within a specific range of temperature andmoisture conditions. Moths make up the majority of the diet for C. townsendii.Currently, there are two mines within the Analysis Area that could provide potentialroost/maternity sites for Townsend’s big-eared bats. Lamb mine is near a trail and is frequentedby recreational users which makes it unavailable for C. townsendii because they are highlysusceptible to disturbance. The Ashland Loop Mine has a gate on it which precludes human use,but needs to be re-configured to allow easier access and reduce the potential for predation. Crosset al. (1997) surveyed both mines in 1997 and C. townsendii were not captured.APPENDIX F Page 17Wildlife BE

California WolverineMarshall (1989) described wolverine habitat in Oregon as similar to what was described byHornocker and Hash (1981) in Montana. In Montana, wolverines selected alpine fir (Abieslasiocarpa) forests over ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)and spruce (Picea sp.), but showed some preference for lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) andwestern larch (Larix occidentalis). Wolverines tended to work large areas of scattered conifersbut also pockets, rocky, and ecotonal areas. Young, dense conifer stands were used least.Wolverines were rarely located in burned-over or wet areas, and crossed but did not linger inclear-cuts (Hornocker and Hash 1981).Status of the wolverine in Oregon remains unknown. There are very few verifiable records forthe State (Verts and Carraway 1998), none of which come from Jackson or Josephine Counties.Numerous carnivore surveys and a considerable amount of carnivore research have beenconducted in southern Oregon and northern California in the past decade. These include, but arenot limited to, over 150 baited camera stations on the Cascade Zone of the RRNF, numerousbaited stations on the Diamond Lake R.D. of the Umpqua N.F., and surveys in the AshlandWatershed by agency biologists and private individuals in cooperation with the BLM, SouthernOregon University, and Forest Service. Radio-telemetry studies have been conducted on martenin northwestern California and on the Winema National Forest, and radio-telemetry studies havebeen conducted on fisher in northwestern California and the southern Oregon Cascades. All ofthese efforts have used carrion as bait, none have detected wolverine.In addition, the Winema, Umpqua, and Rogue River National Forests have been conductinghelicopter surveys in the Sky Lakes and Thielsen Wilderness areas for the past 3 years, whichprovide the highest quality wolverine denning habitat in southern Oregon based on known densites (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 ofwolverines have shown their dependence on carrion as forage, and wolverines are known to denat high elevation at or above timberline, it appears highly unlikely that wolverines are resident insouthern Oregon and northern California at the present time. Wolverines are known to coverlarge areas. Dispersing individuals have the ability to enter SW Oregon from neighboring states.It is possible that wolverines will be located in SW Oregon in the future.Pacific FisherPacific fisher were petitioned for listing by the Center for Biological Diversity and several otherenvironmental organizations in November 2000. After a 12-month review, the U.S. Fish andWildlife 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 FederalCandidate species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).The geographic distribution of fishers in Oregon has been greatly reduced in extent from presettlementconditions. Prior to extensive European settlement, the fisher occupied mostconiferous forest habitats in Washington, Oregon, and California (Aubry and Lewis 2003).Currently, there are two documented populations in southern Oregon which appear to begenetically isolated from each other due to the presence of potentially strong ecological andanthropogenic barriers which include the white oak savanna habitat of the Rogue Valley andInterstate 5 (Aubry et al. 2004).APPENDIX F Page 18Wildlife BE

Individuals in the southern Oregon Cascades appear to be descendents of animals re-introducedfrom British Columbia and Minnesota during the late 1970s and early 1980s by the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife (Aubry et al. 2004). Animals in the northern SiskiyouMountains are genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California population, whichis indigenous.The fisher is one of the most habitat-specialized mammals in western North America (Buskirkand Powell 1994). Specialization appears to be tied primarily to denning and resting habitats,because the varied diet of fishers suggests they forage in a variety of habitats.Fishers appear to be highly selective of resting structures. In the northern California coastalstudy area, Zielinski et al. (2004) found that rest sites used by fisher had significantly greatermaximum tree dbh, greater standard deviation of dbh, smaller standard deviation of canopyclosure and greater number of large conifer snags than random sites. Zielinski et al. (2004)reported that approximately 75% of resting structures on two California study areas were instanding trees, and most of them were large (average >100 cm dbh). Zielinski et al. (2004)hypothesized that trees must be old enough to have suffered the type of stresses that initiatecavities, and must be subjected to the ecological processes that form cavities of sufficient size.In the southern Oregon Cascades, Aubry et al. (2002) located 654 individual rest sites. Malefishers primarily used live trees for resting and, to a much lesser extent, logs and snags. Most ofthe female rest sites were also in live trees, but females used snags more often than males did. Inlive trees, both female and male fishers used mistletoe brooms as resting platforms more thanany other platform or micro-site. Mistletoe brooms were verified as resting platforms in 22% ofthe live-tree resting sites and suspected to be used for an additional 38% of the sites. Fishershave been documented in and around the AFR project area for the past 3 years. Treatments thathave the greatest potential of affecting fishers are those that remove standing, large, decadenttrees that have the potential of forming cavities, large standing snags, and those that removemistletoe brooms. Large decadent trees and standing large snags formed the majority of restsites for both male and female fishers in SW Oregon (Aubry et al. 2002).In California, Zielinski et al. (2004) found that resting structures were in the largest diametertrees (both live and dead) available. Fishers select rest sites with significantly higher canopyclosure immediately adjacent to the rest site when compared to random sites. In California,fishers selected rest sites with ≥ 90% canopy closure (Zielinski et al. 2004) In SW Oregonfishers selected rest sites with canopy closure near 80% (C. Raley, pers. comm.). Removal ofunderstory and mid-story canopies around large structures may also reduce the effectiveness ofthe structure as a secure rest site because they contribute to the microclimate of the site. Underandmid-story canopies probably also provide some protection for female and juvenile fishersfrom predation or harassment by large raptors and mobbing by corvids because sight distance isreduced in dense, multi-storied stands.Fishers appear to be a generalist predator and opportunistic in their foraging strategies, which isreflected in their diverse diet (Zielinski and Duncan 2004, Aubry et al. 2002, Zielinski et al.1999, Powell 1993). There is some indication of seasonal variation in the fisher’s diet (Zielinskiet al. 1999) which is likely linked to seasonal abundance of prey and forage species. Whilefishers require structures provided by older aged or residual stands for denning and resting, theyappear to use a wider variety of stands for foraging.APPENDIX F Page 19Wildlife BE

Jones and Garton (1994) found that fishers did not use non-forested sites while resting orhunting, but they did use pole-sapling forests for hunting significantly more than for resting. Theinclusion of berries in the diet of fishers suggests that they do forage, at least occasionally orseasonally, in more open stands where many fruit-bearing shrubs and forbs are found.Fishers have been documented in the Analysis Area. While there have been no telemetry studiesof fishers in or immediately adjacent to the Analysis Area to determine home ranges ofindividuals, it is assumed that fishers are resident in the Ashland Watershed. During the winterof 2001/2002, a biologist associated with Southern Oregon University (Weir 2003) located andphotographed an adult Pacific fisher using carnivore bait stations which were placed to protocolin the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. Forest Service biologists are currently conducting fisher surveyson Mt. Ashland. Current surveys include a hair-snaring device. The objective of these surveysare identify the genetic relationships to determine if individuals from Mt. Ashland are related tothe native California population or the introduced Cascade population and to identify gender. Atleast one individual has been detected as of March 2005.Chace SidebandThe chace sideband may be found within 30 m (98 ft.) of rocky areas, talus deposits and inassociated riparian areas in the Klamath physiographic province and adjacent portions of thesouth-western Oregon Cascades. Areas of herbaceous vegetation in these rocky landscapesadjacent to forested habitats are preferred (Duncan et al. 2003).Two individual specimens were located by a contractor conducting herptile surveys for AshlandForest Resiliency. These individuals were positively identified by Nancy Duncan (Region 6mollusk expert).VII. Effects on Species Listed as Forest Service SensitiveFor many R-6 Sensitive species, the effects between the two Action Alternatives are similar anddo not warrant individual discussion. Both Action Alternatives would affect several of the R-6Sensitive species in a similar fashion. Both Action Alternatives prescribe overstory andunderstory removal, under- and pile burning, and pruning in some areas. The primarydifferences between the two Action Alternatives are in juxtaposition and extent.Black Salamander and Chace SidebandThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by blacksalamanders or chace sideband snail. Movement and dispersal opportunities would not bereduced within current habitats. In the absence of large-scale wildfire, black salamander andchace sideband densities would likely remain stable or increase in the Analysis and Project Areasbecause decadence and decay in timbered stands would increase structure on the forest floor.Under both Action Alternatives, the felling and leaving of large trees in areas deficient of coarsewoody material could benefit black salamander and chace sideband by increasing habitat anddispersal opportunities. Removal of overstory canopy would increase solar radiation in treatedstands and create less desirable habitats than current conditions due to increased temperatures atground level.APPENDIX F Page 20Wildlife BE

Fire has proven to be detrimental for mollusks. The initial fire kills the slow-moving animalsthat are not deeply buried in the soil or large wood pieces. Fire removes fuels that would serveas habitat or forage sites for mollusks. Some black salamanders may be able to escape the initialeffects of fire if they are in close proximity to underground escape routes that are deep enough toprovide protection from the heat. Piling of surface fuels would likely attract some species ofmollusks 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 individualswould be lost when the piles are burned. Underburning would have an adverse effect on bothspecies due to loss of surface fuels that are used as habitats and reduction of movement anddispersal opportunities between suitable habitats.For black salamander and chace sideband, both Action Alternatives “may adversely impactindividuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (Rogue RiverNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” becauseremoval of wood during implementation may cause mortality in some individuals and prescribedburning operations may cause mortality in individuals and would reduce movement and dispersalopportunities.Northwestern Pond TurtleThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used bynorthwestern pond turtles.Reeder Reservoir provides the only potential habitat within the Analysis Area. Pond turtles werenot 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 habitat for the northwestern pond turtle. Thereservoir has very few basking sites currently available. There is potential to increase baskingsites by placing logs in the reservoir if they do not interfere with operations associated with theCity of Ashland’s water supply. Both Action Alternatives have “no impact” to northwesternpond turtle.Red-necked and Horned Grebes, and BuffleheadThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by R-6Sensitive grebes or bufflehead.Both grebe species only use water bodies in SW Oregon for rest sites during migrations, thebufflehead is resident on SW Oregon ponds and lakes during winter (N. Barrett, pers. comm..).The effects to all three of these species for both Action Alternatives are limited to disturbanceduring implementation of hazardous fuel reduction treatments near Reeder Reservoir. Humanactivities associated with hazardous fuel reduction treatments “may adversely impactindividuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (RRNF), norcause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” for all three speciesdue to disturbance.Pacific ShrewThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by Pacificshrews.APPENDIX F Page 21Wildlife BE

It is not clear exactly what type of riparian habitats Pacific shrews occupy. Verts and Carrawaydescribe habitats used by Pacific shrews as those which have alder and skunk cabbage in theirspecies composition. These habitats are not common in the Analysis Area, but at least 2individuals from the RNA are in specimen collections at SOU (Verts and Carraway 1998).Therefore, it must be assumed that Pacific shrew occupy all riparian habitats within the Projectand Analysis Areas.Under the Proposed Action there are approximately 1,400 acres of treatments within RiparianReserves. Within these treatments there are 565 acres of density management, 230 acres ofunderburning, and 505 acres of surface fuel treatments (pile and burn). Treatments associatedwith the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a lossof viability on the planning area, (RRNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss ofspecies viability range wide” because removal of canopy may change the microclimate ofriparian areas which shrews occupy, and fuels treatments and implementation during hazardousfuel reduction treatments may cause mortality in some individuals.Under the Community Alternative there are approximately 507 acres of treatments withinRiparian Reserves. Treatments associated with the Community Alternative “may adverselyimpact 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”because removal of canopy may change the microclimate of riparian areas which shrews occupy,and fuels treatments and implementation during hazardous fuel reduction treatments may causemortality in some individuals.Fringe-tailed, Pallid, and Townsend’s Big-eared BatsThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats currently used by fringetailed,pallid, or Townsend’s big-eared bat.Snags that have exfoliating bark are serve as important roost sites for both fringe-tailed andpallid bats. Under both Action Alternatives, snag levels on lower slopes would be retained atthe upper one-third of the range for that PAG. Along ridges and upper slopes, snag levels wouldbe retained at current levels unless their retention would create a wildfire management hazard.Both Action Alternatives would retain down logs within the upper one-third of the range fordown logs for that PAG.Some snags would be felled during implementation of hazardous fuel reduction treatments ifthey represent a hazard to personnel or equipment. If snags that extend above the level of theridgeline may be removed if they have the potential of spreading wildfire from one drainage tothe next. Some snags may ignite and be lost during underburning.Both Action Alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a lossof viability on the planning area, (RRNF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss ofspecies viability range wide” because some snags would be lost during implementation if theypresent hazards during underburning operations.APPENDIX F Page 22Wildlife BE

California WolverineThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats potentially used bywolverines. There is no habitat within the Analysis Area which is suitable for wolverine denninghabitat. Wolverines are not known to occur in SW Oregon.The Siskiyou crest potentially does provide suitable dispersal habitat or the potential as a travelcorridor for wolverine. Treatments proposed under both Action Alternatives would not createforest fragmentation of the type considered to be a barrier to wolverine movement or dispersal.Both Action Alternatives would have “no impact” on wolverine.Pacific FisherThe No-Action Alternative would not remove or modify any habitats used by fishers.Fishers have been documented in and around the Analysis Area for the past 3 years. Treatmentsthat have the greatest potential of affecting fishers are those that remove standing, large,decadent trees that have the potential of forming cavities, large standing snags, and those thatremove mistletoe brooms. Large decadent trees and standing large snags formed the majority ofrest sites for both male and female fishers in SW Oregon (Aubry et al. 2002).Treatments in the Interface Compartments and RNA of the Proposed Action and within theponderosa pine, and Douglas’ fir PAGs of the Community Alternative are likely to have thegreatest detrimental effect to potential fisher den and rest sites due to removal of overstorycanopy to below 60%. Both Action Alternatives therefore “may adversely impact individuals,but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, (RRNF), nor cause a trendto federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” because some large, decadent treesand snags would be removed during implementation, and treatments that reduce under- and midstorycanopies near large den structures would adversely effect the immediate area by reducingthe suitability of the site as a rest or den structure. Areas that receive treatments would stillprovide suitable foraging habitat.APPENDIX F Page 23Wildlife BE

VIII. Literature CitedArthur, V. 2004. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land Management, Medford, OR. Personalcommunications.Aubry, K.B., S.M. Wisely, C.M. Raley, and S.W. Buskirk. 2003. Zoogeography, spacing patterns, anddispersal in fishers: insights gained from combining field and genetic data. In D.J. Harrison and A.K.Fuller, eds. Proceedings of the 3 rd International Martes Symposium: Martens and fishers (Martes) inhuman-altered environments: and international perspective. Springer-Verlag.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., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in thesouthern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June, 2002. USDA Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station, Olympia, WA.Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna, 55:1-416.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 andConservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 283-296.Clayton, D. 2004. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Forest Service. Medford, OR. Personal communications.Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho,Moscow, ID.Cross, S.P., H. Lauchstedt, and M. Blankenship. 1997. Bat studies in the Ashland and Applegate Districtsof 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.Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manageterrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. USDI Bureau of LandManagement, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from USDA ForestService, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR.Hart, M.M., J.P. Copeland, and R.L. Redmond. 1997. Mapping wolverine habitat in the northern Rockiesusing a GIS. A poster presented at the Wildlife Society’s 4 th Annual Conference. Snowmass Village, CO.Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. CanadianJournal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians ofWashington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.Magoun, A.J., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal ofWildlife Management 62(4):1313-1320.Marshall, D.B. 1989. Status of the wolverine in Oregon. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife. Portland, OR.APPENDIX F Page 24Wildlife BE

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.McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguousUnited States. Chapter 8 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S.McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University ofColorado Press, Boulder, CO.Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the PacificNorthwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID.OR-WA Interagency Wildlife Committee 1989. Working Implementation Plan for Bald Eagle Recoveryin Oregon and Washington.Popp, D. and F.B. Isaacs. 1995. Draft site-specific management plan for the Emigrant Lake bald eaglenest site. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Klamath Falls, OR.Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2 nd ed. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.Reid, Ian. Fisheries Biologist. U.S. Forest Service. Ashland Ranger District. Rogue River-SiskiyouNational 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 lynxconservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDIBureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53,Missoula, MT. 142pp.Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The scientific basisfor conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western UnitedStates. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky MountainForest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp.USDA Forest Service. 2004. Regional Forester’s sensitive species list.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Rogue River/South Coast Biological Opinion. FY 04-08 foractivities that may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for Medford DistrictBLM, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg FieldOffice, Roseburg. Oregon.USDA Forest Service. 2003c. Rogue River/South Coast Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion.FY 04-08 for activities that may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province forMedford District BLM, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rogue RiverNational Forest, Medford, OR.USDA Forest Service. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted owl: Report of theInteragency Scientific Committee to address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted owl. Portland,OR. 427 pp.USDI. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for petition to list the WestCoast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 50CFR 17:69. p.18,769-18,792.APPENDIX F Page 25Wildlife BE

USDI. 1992. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. Final draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Portland, OR. 2 volumes.USDI. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for thenorthern spotted owl: final rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:26,114-26,194.USDI. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service. Portland, OR. 160 pp.USDI/USDA. 2004. Final supplement environmental impact statement to remove or modify the surveyand manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines. Regional Ecosystem Office. Portland, OR.USDI/USDA. 1999. Draft Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 92 pp.Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press.Berkeley, CA.Zielinski, W.J. and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martesamericana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammology, 85(3)Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truax, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitatselection by fishers in California.Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truax, A.P. Clevenger, and R.H. Barrett. 1999. Diet offishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammology, 80(3):961-971.APPENDIX F Page 26Wildlife BE

Ashland Forest ResiliencyBotanical SpeciesBiological Evaluation (BE)for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES)Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens, and FungiPrepared by Wayne Rolle, Forest Botanist, February 14, 2005Notes:1. All relevant findings in this BE about species which are actually known to occur in theProject Area, are included in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project DEIS Chapter II, BotanicalResources sections, effects discussions.2. DEIS Chapter III, Botanical Resources section, “background” subsection, gives projectlocations, some habitat information, and some information about the range, distribution, andabundance of the TES vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi that are known to occur inthe Project Area. The Chapter 3 species information was used, in part, to develop the effectsdeterminations in this BE and is incorporated by reference into this BE.3. DEIS Chapter III, Botanical Resources sections also provides background information andeffects discussions for other uncommon and locally rare vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, andfungi which are present in the Project Area, but are not addressed in this BE because they do nothave Forest Service Sensitive Species status.STEP 1; PRE-FIELD REVIEWFederally-listed Threatened or Endangered Plant Species:There are no known occurrences of Federally-listed plant species in the Project Area. Elsewhereon Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, there are three Federally-listed plant species which areknown to occur or are judged to have potential habitat. One of these, Fritillaria gentneri(Gentner’s fritillaria), has apparently suitable habitat within a reasonable distance of knownoccurrences, in a few small parts of the Project Area, within the Little Applegate and WagnerCreek drainages. There are also limited amounts of apparently suitable habitat in lower elevationportions of the other Project Area watersheds, but, compared to the Little Applegate and Wagnerpotential areas, these places are farther from known occurrences and have been visited moreoften in the past by FS botanists and others who would have reported this species if found.Fritillaria recurva, a closely related and similar-appearing species, is commonly found in allthese areas.Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants:The following are known to occur in the Project Area and also have potential habitat atadditional locations within the Project Area:APPENDIX G Page 1Botanical BE

Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered ladyslipper orchid)Horkelia tridentata (three-toothed horkelia)One species has been tentatively identified, but not confirmed, to be in the Project Area. It is:Cryptantha milobakeri (Milo Baker’s cryptantha)The following are judged to have potential habitat within the Project Area, but have not beenfound there:Camissonia graciliflora (slender-flowered sun cup)Carex serratodens (saw-tooth sedge)Cheilanthes intertexta (coastal lipfern)Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane)Clarkia heterandera (small-fruit clarkia)Eucephalus (Aster) vialis (wayside aster)Festuca elmeri (Elmer’s fescue)Isopyrum stipitatum (dwarf isopyrum)Scirpus pendulus (drooping bulrush)Forest Service Sensitive Bryophytes:There are no FS Sensitive bryophytes known in the Project Area. The only FS Sensitivebryophyte known to occur on the Forest is Encalypta brevicolla ssp. crumiana in Curry Countyin a habitat that doesn’t exist in the Project Area. Potential habitat within a known or plausiblerange of distribution may be present in the Cascades on the northern part of the Forest for twoother FS Sensitive bryophytes. However, there is no potential habitat within any plausible rangeof distribution for any FS Sensitive bryophytes in the AFR Project Area.Forest Service Sensitive Lichens:There are no FS Sensitive lichens known in the Project Area. Potential habitat within a known orplausible range of distribution is present in the Project Area for the following FS Sensitivelichens:Chaenotheca subroscida (a pin-lichen)Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutumLeptogium cyanescensNephroma occultumPannaria rubiginosaPeltigera neckeriPeltigera pacificaForest Service Sensitive Fungi:There are no FS Sensitive fungi known in the Project Area. Potential habitat within a known orplausible range of distribution is present in the Project Area for the following FS Sensitive fungi:APPENDIX G Page 2Botanical BE

Albatrellus avellaneusBoletus pulcherrimusCudonia monticolaGomphus bonariiGomphus kauffmaniiGyromitra californica (in the Ashland Watershed, at 6000’ elev., outside of Project Area)Leucogaster citrinusMycena monticolaOtidea smithiiPhaeocollybia attenuataPhaeocollybia californicaPhaeocollybia olivaceaPhaeocollybia pseudofestivaPhaeocollybia spadiceaRamaria amyloideaRamaria aurantiisiccescensRamaria largentiiSTEP 2: FIELD RECONNAISSANCEFS botanists, contract botanists, and other knowledgeable professional and amateur botanistshave visited many portions of the Project Area over several decades. These visits have been onbehalf of FS planning efforts, academic and student-related botanical investigations, andrecreational visits. Botanical field surveys over these years that have covered substantialacreages on behalf of FS planning efforts are described below.In 1985, contract botanist Vern Crawford conducted field reconnaissance for FS Sensitive plantsin the eastern portion of the Project Area in parts of section 34, 35, 1, 2, and 3, known at thattime as the Eastview Planning Area. Records from the period are scarce and its not certain if thereconnaissance was on specific timber sale units or over the entire planning area.In 1988 contract botanist Richard Brock conducted field reconnaissance for FS Sensitive plantson Forest Service lands in all portions of the Project Area in the Wagner and Horn Gulchwatersheds, known at that time as the Horn Gulch Planning Area. Because Cypripediumfasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum were the most likely FS Sensitive vascular plants to befound in that area, they were searched for thoroughly.In 1988 contract botanist Andy Kier conducted field reconnaissance for FS Sensitive plants inthe northeast portion of the Project Area in parts of section 21, 27, and 34, known at that time asthe Hamilton Planning Area.In 1988 contract botanists Andy Kier and Laurie Montero conducted field reconnaissance for FSSensitive plants in the southeast portions of the Project Area in parts of section 11, 13, and 14,known at that time as the 14-Two Planning Area.In 1996 and 1999 Wayne Rolle conducted field reconnaissance for FS Sensitive vascular plants,and some lichens and bryophytes in portions of the Ashland Research Natural Area proposed atthat time for prescribed burning.APPENDIX G Page 3Botanical BE

In 1995, 1998 and 1999 Wayne Rolle conducted field reconnaissance for FS Sensitive vascularplants in the portion of the Project Area that was previously studied for inclusion in the AshlandWatershed Protection Project, known in its initial planning stages as the “Hazred” planning area.In 1998-2000 Wayne Rolle conducted field reconnaissance for some FS Sensitive lichens andbryophytes in this same area.In July 2003, Wayne Rolle conducted an additional lady-slipper orchid survey in the north halfof section 26 and the NW ¼ of section 25 in the Wagner and Horn Gulch watersheds (surveyedby Brock in 1988). Suitable habitat for FS Sensitive bryophytes and lichens was also searched inthis reconnaissance.In spring and summer 2004, field reconnaissance for FS Sensitive vascular plants, bryophytes,and lichens was conducted by Wayne Rolle, Barbara Mumblo, and Robin Jones in all suitablehabitat proposed for treatment in the AFR Proposed Action that is outside of the previouslysurveyedAshland Watershed Protection Project (Hazred) area and the Ashland RNA.Also in summer 2004, botanical contractor Evan Frost searched 13 polygons in the Ashland,Hamilton, Tolman, and Quartz Creek watersheds judged by the Forest Service to be the mostlikely parts of the AFR Proposed Action to harbor Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripediummontanum.In Fall 2004, Robin Jones and Wayne Rolle conducted surveys for FS Sensitive lichens andbryophytes in the area previously surveyed for Sensitive vascular plants during the planningstages of the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (Hazred). Rayless aster populations werealso examined in this area at this time to determine if they had the morphological features thatwould best fit under the name Eucephalus (Aster) vialis (they did not).When former Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage species were added to the R6 Sensitivespecies list in March 2004, some species which had formerly been considered “surveyimpractical”came onto the Sensitive list. The Forest Service and BLM felt a need to clarifywhat kind of survey requirements were needed to adequately address these species during projectplanning. A May 4, 2004 FS/BLM memo (EMS transmission 05/05/2004/BLM-InformationBulletin No. OR-2004-121) signed by Regions 5 and 6 Regional Foresters, and California andOregon BLM state directors, provides direction. In it, they state “If project surveys for a specieswere not practical under the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines (most category B andD species) or a species’ status is undetermined (category E and F species), then surveys wouldnot be practical or expected to occur under the Special Status/Sensitive Species policies either.”All of the fungi listed in the pre-field review above, and the lone pin-lichen, are in thesecategories. The Forest Service elected not to conduct surveys for the fungi and lone pin lichen,other than to keep a lookout when in the appropriate habitat, in the appropriate season, for thosespecies which the surveyor was already familiar with.Except for the fungi and the lone pin-lichen, all the field reconnaissance was conducted in amanner that would have allowed detection of all FS Sensitive species listed in the pre-fieldreview above, if they had been present in the Project Area. All occurrences of FS Sensitivevascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi that were found during all the fieldreconnaissance efforts are disclosed in the pre-field review above. A number of uncommon andlocally rare species which do not have FS Sensitive status were found during the fieldreconnaissance. They are not discussed in this BE but are addressed in the DEIS Chapter IIIBotanical Resource sections.APPENDIX G Page 4Botanical BE

STEP 3: CONFLICT DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE OFEFFECTSAt the time of the DEIS, field reconnaissance for FS Sensitive species in areas proposed fortreatment in the Proposed Action has been completed on all but some minor portions. Furtherfield reconnaissance will be conducted in the 2005 field season in at least some of theseunsurveyed parts of the Proposed Action. However, all that is likely to be found in these areasare a few more occurrences of Horkelia tridentata, and knowledge of their existence would notchange the effects determinations in this BE. Therefore, estimates of effects of the ProposedAction given below are based on an assumption that all the FS Sensitive species that occurwithin Proposed Action treatment areas are now known to the Forest Service and their locationsare known as well. Exceptions are the fungi, the lone pin lichen, and some possible undetectedlady-slipper orchid patches as discussed below.Botanical field reconnaissance on at least two-thirds of the Community Alternative acres hasbeen completed, including almost all “Priority 1” acres. There remains a possibility thatadditional FS Sensitive species, not yet known to occur in the Project Area, could be found intreatment areas proposed in the Community Alternative which have not yet been visited. If thatoccurs, there could be various project effects to one or more additional species identified in thepre-field review, that will not be discussed in this version of the BE. A Chapter II mitigationmeasure states that these unsurveyed areas will be visited before project implementation andadditional mitigation measures for any additional FS Sensitive species will be developed ifneeded. Mitigation measures already described in that Chapter for Cypripedium fasciculatumand Horkelia tridentata will apply of course, assuming the surveys are conducted and newpopulations are found.The effects determinations below assume that botanical mitigation measures displayed in DEISChapter II Mitigation Measures Common to the Proposed Action and the Community Alternativewould be implemented.Forest Service Sensitive Vascular Plants:Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered ladyslipper orchid): There are roughly 6 occurrences (13small patches) in the Project Area. The majority of the known individuals in the Project Area arein two specific old growth blocks in the Tolman Creek headwaters. These blocks (about 180acres total) would be left untreated under both Action Alternatives in order to preserve theenvironmental and habitat conditions that appear to be optimal (based on local frequency ofoccurrence) for the clustered lady-slipper orchid and also Cypripedium montanum, the mountainlady-slipper orchid.Searches for this species were conducted fairly intensively during 2004 field reconnaissance aswell as in earlier years in most suitable habitat in the Project Area. However, because theseorchids are so hard to detect and are not tied to any specific habitat conditions or micro-siteswithin old growth areas, there is a reasonable likelihood that more undetected patches of theclustered lady-slipper orchid exist in the Project Area, particularly in the two old growth blockswhere these orchids have been most often found.APPENDIX G Page 5Botanical BE

In addition to the 2 old growth blocks to be managed as untreated lady-slipper habitat areas, aDEIS Chapter II mitigation measure common to both Action Alternatives would create 100-200ft. radius no-treatment buffers around all known Cypripedium patches that are in proposedtreatment areas. These buffers are expected to be adequate to protect known occurrences underboth Action Alternatives. Therefore, neither of these alternatives is expected to have adverseeffects to viability of the clustered lady-slipper orchid at any geographic scale.The untreated old growth blocks under the Proposed Action are expected to increase the localviability of this species because apparently optimum habitat would continue to be available if thecurrent population has the ability to expand. Also it is presumed that both Action Alternativeswould provide a protective (beneficial) effect because they reduce the possibility that ladyslipperorchid occurrences and habitat would be lost to wildfire.The No-Action Alternative provides these same protections only as long as wildfires can beeffectively suppressed in areas with orchid occurrences. Presumably wildfires would eventuallyoccur in some or all of these areas and would be hot enough to eliminate or reduce the orchidpopulations and their habitat. Therefore, compared to the Action Alternatives, the No-ActionAlternative could be detrimental to the viability of local populations of the clustered lady-slipperorchid. Since local populations are only a minor fraction of occurrences known throughoutsouthwestern Oregon and northwestern California, loss of Project Area occurrences would havelittle effect on viability of this species at a more regional level.Horkelia tridentata (three-toothed horkelia): A DEIS Chapter II mitigation measure common toboth Action Alternatives keeps slash piles off of horkelia plants and prohibits vehicle andlogging disturbance. This would prevent damage to horkelia plants from project activities underthe Action Alternatives. Another DEIS Chapter II mitigation measure common to both ActionAlternatives (if funding is available) creates canopy openings and gaps where needed to maintainhabitat suitability and retain reproductive potential for the horkelia. Therefore, at a minimum,the Action Alternatives would have no adverse effect on this species and, if the secondmitigation measure is implemented, would have a beneficial effect on this species. Under theNo-Action Alternative, in the absence of large wildfires, the canopy would continue to close inaround existing horkelia occurrences and many would be lost over time. Under this scenario,given that almost all known Oregon occurrences are in the Project Area, the No-ActionAlternative would definitely have an adverse effect on the viability of this species in Oregon. Iflarge wildfires occurred (more likely under the No-Action alternative than under the ActionAlternatives) and burned through a substantial number of Horkelia patches, the viability of thisspecies in Oregon would be enhanced, because of all the newly open and newly suitable habitatfor this plant. Note: Horkelia tridentata plants are probably not super-tolerant of being burned.However, they generally occur in areas of mineral soil or light grass cover which would tend toburn lightly even when the surrounding forest and brushfields burn hotter. So it is expected thatmost horkelia occurrences would survive wildfire and certainly are expected to survive thegenerally cooler prescribed burns.Cryptantha milobakeri (Milo Baker’s cryptantha): Since the presence of this taxon in the ProjectArea is unconfirmed, effects described here, for the DEIS, are abbreviated. If further fieldreconnaissance confirms that this cryptantha is indeed present, more information and rationalefor effects determinations will be provided in the version of this BE. that will be published withthe FEIS for this project.APPENDIX G Page 6Botanical BE

Summary: Mitigation measures common to both Action Alternatives protect the cryptanthaand, if funding is available, would maintain and improve habitat for the cryptantha. Effects ofthe No-Action Alternative could be adverse if large fires do not occur and the canopy closes overthe open habitat needed by the Cryptantha, or, if large fires do occur, new habitat and improvedhabitat could be created under the No-Action Alternative.Forest Service Sensitive Bryophytes:None are known to occur in the Project Area. None are expected.Forest Service Sensitive Lichens:None are known to occur in the Project Area. Field reconnaissance determined they are absentfrom areas proposed for treatment under the Proposed Action. That field reconnaissance andknowledge of their local distribution and habitats indicates they are not likely to be found in theunsurveyed portions of the Community Alternative.There is some possibility that Chaenotheca subroscida, the lone pin-lichen, occurs in the ProjectArea, though this species has never been found on the Forest or elsewhere in Jackson, Josephine,or Klamath Counties. Very little information about range, distribution, abundance, habitat, ordistinguishing features is available. The R6 Sensitive species list indicates it has beendocumented on Umpqua and Willamette National Forests. One other source indicated its rangeextends into California. Casual searches for this lichen were included in the 2004 AFR fieldreconnaissance but only a tiny fraction of its Project Area potential habitat was surveyed. Pinlichens are tiny, hard to see, and there is no guarantee it can be distinguished in the field from adozen other pin lichens unless its yellow excipulum (a part of the “pin-head”) is well developed.Assuming it likes typical pin-lichen habitat, it would be on dry (protected from rain) bark orbarkless areas on the lower boles of medium-sized or large conifer or hardwood trees.If present in proposed project activity areas, Chaenotheca subroscida could be adversely affectedby project activities (such as burning, falling “unhealthy” trees, or changing light andmicroclimate). There is some possibility that this could lead to a threat to viability of a localpopulation. There could even be a threat to viability of this species at larger geographic scales, iflocal populations represented a disproportionate share of occurrences across a larger geographicarea and they happened to be confined to treated areas rather than spread across untreated areasas well. The degree of this threat, though remote, is roughly proportional to the amount ofburning, falling “unhealthy” trees, or changing light and microclimate under each ActionAlternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, effects would vary depending on how many acresare eventually burned by wildfire. The assumption is that burning is detrimental to this species,although there is some possibility that fires can help create future substrate for this lichen.Forest Service Sensitive Fungi:Gyromitra californica is known in the Ashland Watershed, at 6000’ elev. in a spruce wetland,outside of any areas proposed for treatment in either action alternative. In this area it seems tooccur strictly in moist dark crannies along shaded streams and wetlands at moderate and highelevations. This habitat, which is present in the Project Area, is not directly treated under anyalternative. Treatments in riparian reserves beyond 50 ft. from stream channels, as proposedunder both Action Alternatives, could lead to some drying and less shade in the streamsidemicroclimate, and hence adversely affect habitat for this species.APPENDIX G Page 7Botanical BE

The degree of this threat is roughly proportional to the acres of treatments in Riparian Reservesalong gentler gradient perennial streams proposed for treatment in each Action Alternative.Under the No-Action Alternative, effects would vary depending on how much acreage in riparianreserves is eventually burned by wildfire.Mycena monticola is a small rose-colored ephemeral saprobic fungus that can potentially occuranywhere there is a closed or partially shaded canopy of conifers above 3,300 ft. elevation. Thisspecies appears to be uncommon but not particularly rare on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NationalForest or Winema National Forest. It may be present in the Project Area, particularly the upper½ where the habitat is more suitable. Most of the hazardous fuels treatment activities proposedunder the Action Alternatives would reduce the amount of duff and litter over time and decreaserelative humidity at the forest floor. Therefore, these activities are likely to reduce suitablehabitat acres or habitat quality for this little mushroom, under both Action Alternatives.Burning is expected to more or less destroy the substrate for this little mushroom, at least until anew duff and litter layer accumulates. Many acres are proposed for prescribed burning underboth Action Alternatives but the threat of hotter wildfires burning substantial acreage of Mycenamonticola habitat is less under these alternatives than under the No-Action Alternative.There are more acres of suitable Mycena monticola habitat in middle and upper elevation parts ofthe Ashland and Neil Creek watershed outside of proposed treatment areas than insideproposed treatment areas, under both Action Alternatives. For this reason, it is unlikely thatproposed project activities would affect the viability of this species at any geographic scaleabove the project level.Albatrellus avellaneus, Boletus pulcherrimus, Cudonia monticola, Gomphus bonarii, Gomphuskaufmannii, Leucogaster citrinus, Otidea smithii, Phaeocollybia attenuata, Phaeocollybiacalifornica, Phaeocollybia olivacea, Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva, Phaeocollybia spadicea,Ramaria amyloidea, Ramaria aurantiisiccescens, and Ramaria largentii all have at least somepotential to occur in the Project Area. If present, the probability of these taxa being adverselyaffected by project activities is fairly high because most would be dependent to some degree oncurrent microclimates, substrates, and habitat conditions.These former Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage species are usually closely associatedwith late successional forest habitat. The degree of risk to Project Area occurrences, fromactivities proposed under the Action Alternatives, is roughly proportional to the amount of olderforest that is altered under each alternative. The community alternative mostly avoids removalof large trees. The Proposed Action treats late-successional forest areas where they occur awayfrom perennial streams, in DFPZs, Interface Compartments (with the exception of the ladyslipperorchid habitat blocks in the Tolman headwaters) and the Research Natural Area. TheProposed Action does not treat late-successional forest where it occurs in that alternative’s LateSuccessional Habitat polygons in Neil Creek and the west fork of Ashland Creek watersheds.The amount of old growth or late successional forest habitat that might be altered under the No-Action Alternative varies by how many acres might actually burned by wildfires in the future.Fires under the No-Action alternative are likely to be larger and hotter and spread well beyondthe Wildland Urban Interface, compared to wildfires under the Action Alternatives.APPENDIX G Page 8Botanical BE

Since wildfires under the No-Action alternative are likely to burn hotter, they would be expectedto have a more adverse effect on the habitat quality of late successional acres burned than wouldthe activities proposed under the Action Alternatives. Of the above fungi, Cudonia monticolaand Otidea smithii are sabrobic and likely to be adversely affected by the cool prescribed burnsproposed in the Action Alternatives as well, since these burns consume their substrate. Theremaining above fungi are mycorhizal and their likelihood of being present after prescribed fireis more related to the prescribed fire’s effects on microclimate, and on their symbiotic host’shealth, than on the amount of duff and litter burned by the fire.The fungi in this group which are already known from Forest Service and BLM lands in JacksonCounty (Boletus pulcherrimus, Gomphus kaufmannii, Leucogaster citrinus, Otidea smithii,Phaeocollybia californica, Ramaria largentii) are more likely to be present in the Project Areathan the others in the group which have not yet been found this close to the Project Area(Gomphus bonari, Phaeocollybia attenuata, Phaeocollybia olivacea, Phaeocollybiapseudofestiva, Phaeocollybia spadicea, Ramaria amyloidea, Ramaria aurantiisiccescens) .Collectively, the best potential habitat for these fungi may be in the upper portion of the ProjectArea, and in the Proposed Action’s designated Late-Successional habitat polygons, and in middleand upper elevation parts of the Ashland and Neil Creek watershed outside of proposed treatmentareas, compared to the lower parts of the Project Area where most of the treatments are proposedunder both Action Alternatives. This is because there are cooler and moister ground conditionsat higher elevations and in the older forests, which would support more fungal diversity andabundance. The implication is that if any of these species are present in portions of the ProjectArea where treatments are proposed, they are likely to also be present in untreated portions of thesame or adjoining watersheds.These species are locally or regionally rare enough that, if present, it is likely that Project Areaoccurrences would make an important contribution to viability at a local, sub-regional, regional,or state-wide scale. Some of these taxa may be rare enough that Project Area occurrences(though not likely to exist) would make an important contribution to viability across the entirerange of the species.In summary, for this group of FS Sensitive fungi, there is a risk that Project Area populations, ifpresent, could be lost or harmed by activities under the Proposed Action and CommunityAlternative and those losses could impact viability of the affected species at local or highergeographic scales. The Proposed action may have greater effects on late-successional forest, andwhile the Community Alternative may not have as great of impact on late-successional stands, itdoes include more overall treatment acres over an area that is predominately late-successionalforest.There is still a threat that Project Area populations of these fungi could be lost to wildfires underone of the Action Alternatives. But that scenario is much more likely under the No-Actionalternative. While loss of individuals may be more likely under the Action Alternatives, areasoned estimate of effects is that the No-Action alternative probably poses more risk toviability of species in this group of fungi because of the potential to change or lose latesuccessionalhabitat over much larger areas and affect habitat quality to a larger degree.APPENDIX G Page 9Botanical BE

AQUATIC SPECIESBIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (BE)Project name: Ashland Forest ResiliencyAdministrative unit: Ashland Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National ForestProject location by sub-basin and watershed: Middle Rogue / Bear CreekPotentially affected species, status, and habitats assessed:SpeciesCommon (Scientific)Foothill yellow-legged frog(Rana boylii)Cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki)Steelhead trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss)EvolutionarilySignificant UnitESA StatusResident/MigratoryHabitatsAssessedN/A R-6 Sensitive R AllSouthern OregonCalifornia CoastsKlamath MountainsProvinceNot WarrantedR-6 SensitiveNot WarrantedR-6 SensitiveRMAllAllChinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)Coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch)Southern Oregon andNorthern CaliforniaCoastalSouthern OregonNorthern CaliforniaCoastsNot WarrantedR-6 SensitiveMEssentialFish HabitatThreatened M CriticalHabitat,EssentialFish HabitatIntroduction: Under 2672.4, Biological Evaluations are used to review all Forest Serviceplanned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects onendangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species.Determinations of effects to endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species for theAshland Forest Resiliency project are being prepared under an Alternative ConsultationAgreement (ACA). This ACA has been prepared pursuant to the Joint Counterpart EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation Regulations issued on December 8, 2003 (FederalRegister, pages 68254-68265), to support implementation of the ESA. The counterpartregulations complement the general consultation regulations at 50 CFR 402 by providing analternative process for completing section 7 consultations for Federal agency actions thatauthorize, fund, or carry out projects that support the National Fire Plan (NFP).The purpose of the counterpart regulations is to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of theconsultation process under section 7 of the ESA for NFP projects by providing an optionalalternative to the procedures found in §§ 402.13 and 402.14(b) when the Forest Servicedetermines a project is “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) any listed species or designatedcritical habitat.APPENDIX H Page 1Aquatic BE

Implementation of the counterpart regulations and this ACA is expected to maintain the samelevel of protection for threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat as under50 CFR Part 402, Subpart B. It is expected that projects with NLAA determinations by theForest Service would have been considered to be NLAA determinations by the National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).The counterpart regulations (50 CFR 402.30 to 402.34) establish an alternative process formeeting the requirements of section 7 of the ESA on proposed projects that support the NFP,when the Forest Service determines that the project is NLAA any listed species and/or criticalhabitat. Fire Plan Projects (FPP) are actions determined by the Forest Service to be within thescope of the NFP, such as prescribed fire, mechanical fuels treatments (thinning and removal offuels to prescribed objectives), emergency stabilization, burned area rehabilitation, roadmaintenance and operation activities, ecosystem restoration, and culvert replacement actions.Proposed Action: The Proposed Action is treatment of approximately 8,150 acres to reduce riskof large wildfires and restore historic ecological conditions. The Proposed Action is based on astrategy described in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment (USDA FS 2003) that uses four broadconcepts to accomplish the Purpose and Need. These four concepts, in order of priority, are: 1)Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs), 2) Variable Density Management, 3) Late SuccessionalReserve (LSR) Treatment, 4) Research Natural Area Treatment. All treatments could includefuels reduction by understory vegetation thinning, pruning, and burning (both pile andbroadcast). Some treatments could occur in Riparian Reserves, and all treatments could removesome large conifers to meet desired ecological or management objectives. Under the ProposedAction, approximately 2,800 acres would be treated as DFPZs, 3,200 acres under variabledensity management, 850 acres under LSR treatment, and 1,300 acres under RNA treatment.Treatment implementation would not use heavy equipment off of designated roadways andwould not create permanent roads for the purpose of log hauling. However, depending on thelocation of areas being treated, as well as implementation methodology, there may be need foradditional facilities such as helicopter log landings for some density management treatments.These landings would be integrated into DFPZs and in association with existing roads anddesignated safety zones. There may also be need for the construction of access roads to theadditional landings. Any new road segments are likely to be short spurs, located primarily onridge top areas, and temporary. Treatments would be site-specific and take into account localconditions related to geology, slope stability, and presence of proposed, endangered, threatened,or sensitive terrestrial species to minimize environmental impacts.Community Alternative: The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions associated with theCommunity Alternative also include those that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fireevent. Like the Proposed Action, stand treatments are designed to influence fire behavior byaltering available fuel, fuel arrangement, fuel moisture, and affect species composition.This approach would take advantage of the existing heterogeneity in the Analysis Area, andwhere necessary, create additional discontinuity in fuels (both horizontally and vertically) toestablish a fuel discontinuity network and thereby reduce landscape-scale fire hazard notnecessarily by improving control lines but by reducing potential overall severity of fire. Such anapproach would achieve variability in fuel density across the landscape while treating the leastnumber of acres necessary in order to address the Purpose and Need effectively. TheCommunity Alternative would treat a total of approximately 8,990 acres.APPENDIX H Page 2Aquatic BE

The primary vegetation management and fuel reduction treatments are associated with creationof a Fuel Discontinuity Network (FDN). Categories were defined by the citizens group in April2004. Treatment areas, categories and priorities were developed by the AFRCA Technical Team(see EIS Chapter II). Selected treatments exclude primary and secondary Landslide HazardZones, ecologically functioning riparian areas, slopes > 65%, or areas within ¼ mile of spottedowl activity centers, unless noted.Environmental Baseline: For discussion purposes, the Project Area refers to the immediate areainvolved in the action (land within the 8,150-acre or 8,990-acre boundaries), while the ActionArea refers to all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action (such as streamsdownstream of the Project Area) and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Thethree fish-bearing streams in the Project Area are Ashland Creek including its West and Eastforks, Neil Creek, and Horn Gulch. Fish-bearing streams outside of the Project Area that couldbe affected by actions inside the Project Area are Wagner, Clayton, Tolman, Hamilton, and Bearcreeks.Quality and Quantity of Fish HabitatFish habitat distances were calculated with GIS analysis and the Rogue River-Siskiyou NationalForest fish distribution coverage.Neil Creek provides about 44.9 miles of fish habitat; 18.5 miles (41%) inside the Project Areaand 26.4 miles (59%) outside the Project Area. Although large wood frequency is relatively lowand sand frequency relatively high, overall habitat quality in Neil Creek is moderate to highinside 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 sidechannels and large wood; warm, turbid water; reduced stream flow and shallow depth;abundance of fine sediment; and frequent artificial fish-passage barriers (Siskiyou ResearchGroup 2002a).Ashland Creek provides about 27.2 miles of fish habitat; 14.5 miles (53%) inside the ProjectArea and 12.7 miles (47%) outside the Project Area. All anadromous fish passage is blockedfrom the Project Area by two large dams downstream (Granite Street and Hosler). Althoughlarge wood frequency is relatively low and sand frequency relatively high, overall habitat qualityin Ashland Creek is high inside the Project Area, especially above Reeder Reservoir in the Eastand West forks (Abbas 1997; Siskiyou Research Group 2002b). Fish habitat quality in AshlandCreek downstream of the Project Area is low because of channelization; lack of side channels,large wood, and suitable spawning substrate; and warm water temperatures (Siskiyou ResearchGroup 2001).For a more complete description of fish habitat in Neil and East Fork Ashland creeks see USDAFS 2003b.The mainstem of Wagner Creek provides about 5.4 miles of fish habitat; all located outside theProject Area. Approximately 0.5 miles of fish habitat occur inside, and 1.0 miles outside, theProject Area in Horn Gulch.APPENDIX H Page 3Aquatic BE

Clayton Creek provides about 2.5 miles of fish habitat; all located outside the Project Area.Habitat quality in the bottom 0.5 miles is poor due to channelization, bank erosion and invasionby exotic plants, and lack of instream structure and suitable spawning substrate (SiskiyouResearch Group 2004).Tolman Creek provides about 1.3 miles of fish habitat; all located outside the Project Area.Hamilton Creek provides about 0.8 miles of fish habitat; all located outside the Project Area. Fora more complete description of fish habitat and use in Tolman, Hamilton, and Clayton creeks seeUSDA FS 2001.Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Fish Species and Stream AmphibiansPresentProposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) fishes potentially found inside theProject Area are: steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout. In addition to these two species, PETSfishes and amphibians found in the Action Area downstream of the Project Area are Chinook andcoho salmon and foothill yellow-legged frog. See USDA FS 1995 (pp. 50-53) for a cursorydiscussion of coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout life histories and distributions withinthe Bear Creek watershed.Coho Salmon (Threatened)Coho salmon in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts(SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), and were listed as Threatened under theEndangered Species Act on 6 May 1997. Critical habitat was delineated by NOAA Fisheries on5 May 1999, and includes all streams within the Project Area that are accessible to the species.Abundance of the SONCC ESU has declined from an estimated 150,000 to 400,000 native fishto about 10,000 wild fish (Federal Register 1999) because of overharvesting, habitat degradationand loss, and hatchery interactions (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Within the Rogue basin, recentpopulation 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 depresseddue to poor water quality, channelization, loss of off-channel habitat, and changes in flowregimes (USDA FS 1995). Few coho smolts were captured between 2001 and 2004 in BearCreek during a juvenile outmigrant study (Vogt 2004). In contrast, Little Butte Creek is similarto Bear Creek with respect to watershed size and amount of fish habitat—but contains betterhabitat quality—and produced 10,000 to 68,000 coho smolts between 2001 and 2003.Coho salmon have not been documented in the Project Area in Neil and Ashland Creeks. Onejuvenile was observed in the Action Area in lower Hamilton Creek by ODFW in April 1999(GIS files), suggesting lower Hamilton Creek is potential winter rearing habitat. Coho salmonwere not observed in recent August snorkel surveys of lower Ashland and Neil creeks (SiskiyouResearch Group 2001, 2002a) suggesting that coho salmon summer rearing habitat in thesestreams may be limited, or that spawner escapement in the upper Bear Creek watershed is verylow. No coho salmon or redds were detected in spawner surveys conducted in Ashland Creek in2002 or 2003, even though 2002 was an above-average return year for the Rogue basin (ODFW2003, 2004b). However, coho salmon spawning activity was observed in Ashland Creek nearLithia Park in January 2005 (pers. comm.. Jay Doino, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife;Chris Volpe, Medford BLM). Current coho salmon distribution and abundance in Wagner Creekis unknown although the recent removal of migration barriers could have increased coho use ofthis drainage.APPENDIX H Page 4Aquatic BE

Chinook Salmon (Sensitive)Chinook salmon in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coastal(SONCC) (ESU), and were not warranted for federal protection under the Endangered SpeciesAct on 9 September 1999. Essential fish habitat for SONCC Chinook salmon is identified underthe Magnuson-Stevens Act. Most Rogue basin Chinook salmon have a four to five year lifecycle, spending three to four years in the ocean and less than a year in freshwater (Groot andMargolis 1998; Jacobs 2003). The Rogue basin contains both fall and spring Chinook salmonruns, and the Bear Creek watershed currently contains primarily fall Chinook salmon, whichspawn in the fall, hatch in late winter, and enter the estuary by the following fall.Fall Chinook salmon is the most abundant salmonid in the Rogue basin with recent estimatesranging from 150,000 to 291,000 wild adults (Jacobs 2003). Vogt (2002) estimated thepopulation size of juvenile Chinook salmon produced in the Bear Creek watershed was greaterthan 205,000 fish. No recent record exists of Chinook salmon using streams in the Project Areafor spawning or rearing. However, lower Ashland and Neil creeks contain potential spawninghabitat based on their gradient and substrate. While Chinook salmon usually spawn in largerstreams such as Bear Creek and the Rogue River, during large run years they disperse intosmaller tributaries to spawn.Steelhead Trout (Sensitive)Steelhead in the Rogue basin are part of the Klamath Mountains Province ESU, and were notwarranted for federal listing by NOAA Fisheries on 30 March 2001. Both summer and winterruns of steelhead occur in the Rogue basin and Bear Creek watershed and are largely separatedgenetically by spawning timing and location (Everest 1971, 1973). Within the Rogue River,summer steelhead populations are considered depressed and winter steelhead healthy (Busby etal. 1994). In addition to habitat degradation and loss, Everest (1971) listed angling pressure, andsummer water quality and quantity as factors that adversely affect Rogue basin summersteelhead populations. Although habitat has been substantially altered, the Bear Creek watershedis still an important contributor to wild steelhead production in the Rogue basin. Recentestimates of Bear Creek steelhead production range from 10,000 to almost 40,000 smolts, andaverage nearly 240 smolts per mile (Vogt 2001, 2002, 2003). Steelhead spawning has beendocumented in Ashland Creek below Granite Street Reservoir, and Wagner and Neil creeksdownstream of the project area. It is unknown if steelhead spawning occurs in Tolman,Hamilton, and Clayton creeks, however small, sometimes intermittent, tributaries like these arepreferred habitat for Rogue basin summer steelhead spawning (Everest 1973).Distribution of steelhead spawning and rearing in Wagner and Neil creeks is poorly understoodbecause of the effects of passage barriers and lack of survey effort. In 2002, steelhead spawningactivity was observed in Neil Creek above the Interstate 5 culvert (thought to be a barrier), butnot within the Project Area (Wier 2001). If they have access to the ocean, rainbow trout in theRogue basin are generally assumed to be steelhead unless they occur in isolated populationsabove barriers. However, snorkel surveys conducted in Neil Creek within the project area didnot find a dominant young-of-the-year class associated with high steelhead fecundity andsuggested that observed trout in the project area were resident rainbow trout (EcosystemsNorthwest 2000). In winter 2000, Forest Service employees electroshocked a 0.5-mile longsection of Neil Creek near the Project Area lower boundary and found only cutthroat troutsuggesting absence of steelhead in the Project Area (Reid 2000).APPENDIX H Page 5Aquatic BE

Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Sensitive)Coastal cutthroat trout in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Oregon California CoastsESU, and the anadromous form (which does not currently, and probably never occurred in theBear Creek watershed) was found not warranted for federal listing by NOAA Fisheries on 5April 1999. Coastal cutthroat trout is the most abundant salmonid in many Oregon headwaterstreams (Hooton 1995) and its populations are often more genetically diverse and locally isolatedthan other Pacific salmon and trout (Williams and Reeves 2004). Ashland and Neil creeks arenear the southern range limits of coastal cutthroat trout distribution, and contain well-distributed,moderately abundant populations, especially in their upper reaches within the Project Area(Abbas 1997; Siskiyou Research Group 2002a).Genetic isolation occurs in these streams, due to natural and artificial barriers (waterfalls anddams). An adfluvial (lake-dwelling) population of SOCC cutthroat trout exists in ReederReservoir, although its dynamics and spawning behavior have not been studied. Small, oftenintermittent, streams draining into Reeder Reservoir (such as Reeder Gulch) may be importantspawning habitat, while current research has documented lake shoal spawning in coastalcutthroat trout (Saiget 2004). Little is known about the distribution and abundance of SOCCcoastal cutthroat trout in other streams draining the Project Area.Foothill yellow-legged frog (Sensitive)Ecology 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 Group2002a), but not lower Ashland Creek (Siskiyou Research Group 2001), and might occur in lowerHamilton, Clayton, Tolman, and Wagner creeks. The species inhabits streams with cobble,gravel, or sand bottoms and attaches its eggs on rocks underwater (Leonard et al. 1993).Discussion of Effects:While many uncertainties exist about effects of wildlife to fish (see Bisson et al. 2003), ingeneral, direct or short-term physical effects from large scale wildfire can include reduction inground 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,wildfires can improve fish habitat and increase fish production through increased input of largewood, gravels, and nutrients (Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Minshall 2003; Spencer et al. 2003).In Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains, summer water temperature increased as much as 10° C in smallstreams that were intensely burned by the Silver Fire and lost canopy cover (Amaranthus 1990).However, Amaranthus (1990) found water temperatures did not increase at the mouth of large,fish-bearing streams downstream of the fire area, possibly due to increased base flows orgroundwater recharge. In Glade Creek, seven-day average maximum temperatures increased0.7° C the summer following the Quartz Gulch Fire, while no increase was observed in anadjacent unburned watershed (Reid unpub. data). In Glade Creek, Sedell (2003) found anincrease in large wood and bank instability, and a decrease in deep pool frequency the yearfollowing the Quartz Gulch Fire.APPENDIX H Page 6Aquatic BE

Effects of fire-caused physical changes to fish populations vary based on fire intensity; physicalwatershed parameters such as geology, drainage density, slope, land management, precipitation,and vegetation; and connectivity and abundance of fish sub-populations (Dunham et al. 2003;Rieman et al. 2003; Kershner et al. 2004). Fish population abundance and distribution candecrease in the first or second year following a large wildfire, then increase to pre-fire levels orgreater in the following years because of improved spawning and rearing habitats (Howell 2003).These responses were observed during recent large wildfires in Oregon's Siskiyou Mountainswith juvenile steelhead in Silver Creek (Haspiel 1990) and rainbow trout in Glade Creek(Chambers 2003; Reid and Chambers 2005).Many gaps exist in understanding how wildfires affect amphibian populations (see Pilliod et al.2003). It can be assumed that fires that negatively affect fish could also negatively affect streamdwellingamphibians, provided the amphibians and fishes share similar habitat requirements.Wildfires may have more adverse effects on amphibian populations than fish becauseamphibians tend be less fecund and able to disperse efficiently. After the Quartz Gulch Fire,stream amphibian abundance in Glade Creek took longer to recover than fish (Reid andChambers 2005).Direct Effects:The No-Action AlternativePhysical scientists predict a wildfire in the Project Area would have significant effects on soilsand watershed properties (USDA FS 2005). Models predict a negative linear relationshipbetween soil cover remaining after the fire and erosion. A large wildfire in the Project Area thatremoves soil and canopy cover is likely to increase stream temperature and fine sedimentproduction in upper Ashland, Neil, and Wagner creeks.These physical changes would likely have negative effects on fish populations within the ProjectArea. There is the chance of direct mortality from excessive stream temperature caused by theambient heat of the fire. If direct mortality is severe, sub-populations of cutthroat trout abovebarriers could be lost and would not be re-established. There is also the strong likelihood ofreducing trout fitness in the Project Area because of reduced pool depths and degraded spawninghabitat expected to occur the year following the fire, in addition to decreased macroinvertebrateproduction through clogging interstices with fine sediment. Temperature increases in someaffected streams within the Project Area may be great enough to reduce trout fitness. Intensesediment delivery to Reeder Reservoir could greatly reduce spawning success of cutthroat trout,especially if shoal spawning occurs, jeopardizing this sub-population.Downstream of the Project Area, a large wildfire-related increase in sedimentation in lower Neil,Wagner, Clayton, Hamilton, and Tolman creeks and Bear Creek would adversely affectspawning and rearing habitats for coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead. Increased sedimentcould negatively affect foothill yellow-legged frog breeding habitat by smothering eggattachment sites with fine sediment.Input of large wood after a wildfire could improve trout habitat in the Project Area, which haslow abundance of instream large wood (Abbas 1997, Ecosystems Northwest 2000, SiskiyouResearch Group 2002b). Because of numerous dams, culverts, and bridges downstream of theProject Area, it is extremely unlikely large wood would be recruited downstream into mosthabitats where anadromous fish occur.APPENDIX H Page 7Aquatic BE

The Proposed ActionPhysical scientists predict the resulting sediment yield would be much less than the yieldfollowing a large wildfire, and would be similar to baseline conditions (USDA FS 2005). TheProposed Action should not significantly change erosion and sedimentation as a result of surfaceerosion following the projects in streams draining the Project Area or in Reeder Reservoir.Using mitigation measures in the form of Best Management Practices would protect waterquality (e.g. sediment, nutrients, pH, temperature). These Best Management Practices wouldinclude buffers of intact vegetation and duff layers that would separate the treatment areas fromstreams and trap eroded soil before it moves downslope into a stream channel.Because ambient temperature from prescribed burns would not significantly increase streamtemperatures to the point of upper lethal temperature, direct mortality would not occur. Becausethe Proposed Action would not significantly change water quality, no adverse effects to fish inthe Project Area should occur. Likewise, no effects to foothill yellow-legged frogs or theirhabitat should occur from the Proposed Action, because there would be no significant changes inwater quality. Understory thinning in some riparian zones could promote large wood recruitmentin the Project Area by releasing conifers and reducing competition. This action could benefittrout habitat in the Project Area, but is unlikely to have any effect on downstream fish habitatbecause of barriers to wood migration.Community AlternativeThis alternative is similar to the Proposed Action in the effects it would have on erosion andsedimentation. Both alternatives would stay within soil quality standards and guidelines whichare designed to maintain soil quality. There are two primary differences between theCommunity Alternative and Proposed Action: the Community Alternative proposes 1) groundbased yarding equipment and 2) a higher level of tree removal (i.e., more open areas in densitymanagement treatments).Under the Community Alternative, downhill yarding using ground-based equipment on slopegradients less than 20 percent would be allowed. Mitigation measures would limit this activity toless than 20 percent of an area; however there are potentially 230 acres that meet these slopecriteria in the Project Area and could be impacted by ground-based equipment.While the Community Alternative suggests slightly higher rates of erosion and sedimentation, atthe level and intensity of this analysis, it is unlikely that there is a detectable difference betweenthe Community Alternative and Proposed Action on levels of sedimentation that would reachstreams.Indirect Effects:The No-Action AlternativeIndirect effects related to the No-Action Alternative include effects related to fire suppressionand sluicing Reeder Reservoir in the event of intense sedimentation. Suppression activities couldresult in input of fire retardants and construction of fire lines that also contribute to erosion andsedimentation. Fire retardants are toxic to many salmonids and have caused fish kills whenapplied to streams (Norris et al. 1991). Fire lines and other ground-disturbing suppressionactivities can have significant and long-lasting environmental effects, if not rehabilitated (Bissonet al. 2003).APPENDIX H Page 8Aquatic BE

Physical scientists predicted that an indirect effect of the No-Action Alternative could be severesedimentation in Reeder Reservoir and associated reduction in storage (USDA FS 2005).Reduced storage would likely result in mechanical sediment removal, which could potentiallyinclude sluicing. The sluicing of fine sediments and coarse sand from the reservoir bottom couldseverely degrade aquatic habitat in Ashland and Bear creeks, affecting fish behavior throughturbidity and fitness through degradation of spawning and rearing habitats and reduction ofmacroinvertebrate production by clogging interstices and increasing embeddedness.The Proposed Action and Community AlternativePhysical scientists predicted there would be no indirect effects of the treatments on sedimentdelivery beyond those already described (USDA FS 2005). Subsequently, there would be nolong term indirect effects on fish or stream amphibians from the Proposed Action andCommunity Alternative. Locally, at the site scale there may be slight effects to cutthroat troutand yellow-legged frog habitat.Cumulative Effects:Within the Project Area, a major activity being planned by the Forest Service is the expansion ofthe Mt. Ashland Ski Area. The effects of the expansion are documented in the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for this action (USDA FS 2004).Cumulative effects in the Action Area could occur through increased human development, landmanagement, and water allocation throughout the Bear Creek watershed.The increases in erosion and sedimentation associated with a large wildfire would dilute theminor changes in erosion and sediment yield associated with the Mt. Ashland Ski Areaexpansion to a degree that the expansion effects could not be measured (USDA FS 2004).Increased human development and resource management in the Bear Creek watershed arepredicted to have adverse effects to fish and aquatic habitats within the Action Area. Physicaleffects from a large-scale wildfire could be acute to fish populations (primarily coho salmon andsteelhead trout) in the Action Area when combined with effects from increased humandevelopment.Effects to fish and aquatic habitats from the Proposed Action and Community Alternative wouldbe negligible compared to current and predicted future effects from human development in thedownstream watersheds. Implementing the Proposed Action or Community Alternative wouldreduce the risk of wildfire, a disturbance that could combine with other factors to reduce fishproduction in the Bear Creek watershed. The Bear Creek subpopulation of coho salmon is atremnant levels and could be near extinction (Vogt 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). A large wildfire inthe Project Area coupled with specific environmental factors could adversely affect coho salmonhabitat quality throughout the upper Bear Creek watershed.APPENDIX H Page 9Aquatic BE

Determinations of Effects:Based on an extensive review of best available science, input from an interdisciplinary scienceteam, and professional judgment, the effects from the No-Action Alternative under the AshlandForest Resiliency Project combined with a large wildfire would result in conditions that mayadversely affect SONCC coho salmon, SONCC Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead, SOCCcutthroat trout, and foothill yellow-legged frog. The No-Action Alternative combined with alarge and severe wildfire would also likely adversely affect SONCC coho salmon critical habitatand coho and Chinook salmon Essential Fish Habitat.Based on science review, input from an interdisciplinary science team, and professionaljudgment, the effects from treatments under the Proposed Action and Community Alternativeunder the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project would result in a determination of “May Affect, NotLikely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) for SONCC coho salmon (Reid 2005). The sensitivespecies determination is “May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat” but not likely to cause a trendtoward federal listing or a loss of viability” (MIIH) for SONCC Chinook salmon, KMPsteelhead, SOCC cutthroat trout, and foothill yellow-legged frog. These effects are short term.Because it reduces risk of substantial short-term environmental degradation associated with alarge wildfire, in the long term, the Proposed Action and Community Alternative are likely toresult in a beneficial effect to aquatic habitats and fauna by preventing habitat impacts associatedwith large wildfire.The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-267), amended the Magnuson-Stevens FisheriesConservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require federal agencies toconsult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA) on activitiesthat may adversely affect “Essential Fish Habitat”. The Act defines EFH as “those waters andsubstrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” and includesall 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 thedetermination of effect is the same./s/ Ian S. Reid 18 April 2005APPENDIX H Page 10Aquatic BE

References Cited:Abbas, G. 1997. East Fork Ashland Creek level II stream survey report. Available from Ashland RangerDistrict, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.Amaranthus, M. 1990. Stream shading, summer stream flow, and maximum water temperature followingintense wildfire in headwater streams. In: Wildfire recovery and monitoring. Siskiyou National Forest1990 monitoring reports. Available from Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 333 W. 8th St., Medford,OR 97501.Benda, L., D. Miller, P. Bigelow, and K. Andras. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire erosion on channelenvironments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 105-119.Bisson, P.B., B.E. Rieman, C. Luce, P.F. Hessburg, D.C. Lee, J.L. Kershner, G.H. Reeves, and R.E.Gresswell. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge and keyquestions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 213-229.Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, and R.S. Waples. 1994. Status review for Klamath Mountains Provincesteelhead. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-19. Available from National MarineFisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division,2725 Montlake Blvd. E, Seattle WA 98112.Chambers, J. 2003. The impacts of the Quartz Gulch Fire on fish and amphibian population dynamics inGlade Creek, Oregon. Poster. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28February.Dunham, J.B., M.K. Young, R.E. Gresswell, and B.E. Rieman. Effects of fire on fish populations:landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology andManagement 178: 183-196.Dwire, K.A. and J.B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA.Forest Ecology and Management 178: 61-74.Ecosystems Northwest. 2000. Neil Creek level II stream survey report. Available from Ashland RangerDistrict, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.Everest, F. 1971. An ecological and fish cultural study of summer steelhead in the Rogue River. OregonState Game Comission Anadromous Fish Project Annual Progress Report, 49 p. Available from OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, 3406 Cherry St NE, Salem, OR 97303.Everest, F. 1973. Ecology and management of summer steelhead in the Rogue River. Oregon StateGame Commission. Research Division. Fishery report number 7. Federal aid to fish restoration projectAFS 31. Available from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 3406 Cherry St NE, Salem, OR97303.Federal Register. 1999. Designated critical habitat; Central California Coast and Southern OregonNorthern California Coasts coho salmon 64(86) 5 May 1999.Groot, C. and L. Margolis. Eds. 1998. Pacific salmon life histories. Vancouver, BC: University ofBritish Columbia Press. 564 p.APPENDIX H Page 11Aquatic BE

Haspiel, A. 1990. Fish habitat and population in Silver and Indigo creeks. In: Wildfire recovery andmonitoring. Siskiyou National Forest 1990 monitoring reports. Available from Rogue River-SiskiyouNational Forest, 333 W. 8th St., Medford, OR 97501.Hooton, B. 1995. Status of coastal cutthroat trout in Oregon. Pp. 57-67 in J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, andR.E. Gresswell. Eds. Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future conservation. OregonChapter American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.Howell, P. 2003. Effects of wildfire and subsequent floods, debris torrents, and landslides on fishdistribution and abundance in tributaries of North Fork John Day River. Presentation. Oregon ChapterAmerican Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 February.Jacobs, S.J. 2003. Prediction of the 2003 ocean abundance of Rogue River fall chinook salmon.Available on the internet at:http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/reports/rogue%20chf%20prediction%20report%202003.pdfLeonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians ofWashington and Oregon. Seattle, WA: Seattle Audubon Society. 168 p.Kershner, J., L.M. Decker, and D. Winters. 2004. An evaluation of the short-term effects of the HaymanFire on aquatic ecosystems. Presentation. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Sunriver, OR, 18-20 February.Minshall, G.W. 2003. Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology andManagement 178: 155-161.NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2001. Endangered Species Act - Section 7Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation programmatic biologicaland conference opinion OSB2001-0070-PC-AM. Available from NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region,7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2003. Letter of Concurrence 2003/00897 forRogue River Fuel Hazard Reduction Project. Available from NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region,7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1991. Forest chemicals. Pp 207-296 in: Meehan, W.R.Editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Bethesda,MD: American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 750p.[ODFW] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Random coho coastal spawning fish summary.Available on the internet at:http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/summaries/02/SURVEY%20archive%20SUMMRY-CohoRnd.pdf[ODFW] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004a. Estimates of the run size of Rogue basin adultcoho salmon past Huntley Park, 1980-2003. Available on the internet athttp://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/coho/ROGCOHO.pdf[ODFW] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004b. Random coho coastal spawning fishsummary. Available on the internet at:http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/summaries/03/INSEASON%20RANDOM%20COHO%20PEAK%20REPORT.pdfAPPENDIX H Page 12Aquatic BE

Pilliod, D.S., R.B. Bury, E.J. Hyde, C.A. Pearl, and P.S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in NorthAmerica. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 163-181.Raybourn, J. 2003. Biological Assessment for Rogue River Fuel Hazard Reduction Project. Availablefrom Medford District Bureau of Land Management, 3040 Biddle Rd., Medford OR 97501.Reid, I. 2000. Fish surveys of Neil Creek. Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington St.,Ashland, OR 97520.Reid, I. S. 2005. Biological assessment for SONCC coho salmon for Ashland Forest Resiliency Project.Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.Reid, I. S. and J. L. Chambers. 2005. Influence of wildfire and subsequent habitat restoration on loticfishes and amphibians in southwestern Oregon. Poster. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology andthe Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society Joint Annual Meeting, 23-25 February 2005, Corvallis,Oregon.Rieman, B. and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health and conservation ofsensitive species. Fisheries: 22(11): 6-15.Saiget, D. 2004. Coastal cutthroat trout shoal spawning in a high montane lake of the Cascade Range ofOregon. Presentation. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society Annual Conference, Sunriver, OR,18-20 February 2004.Sedell, T. 2003. Impacts of the Quartz Gulch Fire on stream channel characteristics within Glade Creek.Poster. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 February.Siskiyou Research Group. 2001. Ashland Creek 2000 stream survey report. Available from AshlandRanger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.Siskiyou Research Group. 2002a. Neil Creek 2002 stream survey report. Available from Ashland RangerDistrict, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.Siskiyou Research Group. 2002b. West Fork Ashland Creek 2002 stream survey report. Available fromAshland Ranger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.Siskiyou Research Group. 2004. Clayton Creek 2002 stream survey report. Available from AshlandRanger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.Spencer, C.N., K.O. Gabel, and F. R. Hauer. 2003. Wildfire effects on stream food webs and nutrientdynamics in Glacier National Park, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 141-153.[USDA FS] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1995. 1995 Bear WatershedAnalysis. Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.[USDA FS] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2001. Ashland WatershedProtection Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.[USDA FS] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2003. Upper Bear Assessment.Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520.APPENDIX H Page 13Aquatic BE

[USDA FS] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2004. Mt. Ashland Ski Area FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement. Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland,OR 97520.[USDA FS] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2005. Ashland Forest ResiliencyDraft Environmental Impact Statement. Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington St.,Ashland, OR 97520.Vogt, J. 2001. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project report. Available from Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife, Upper Rogue Watershed, 1495 E Gregory Rd., Central Point, OR 97502.Vogt, J. 2002. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project report. Available from Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife, Upper Rogue Watershed, 1495 E Gregory Rd., Central Point, OR 97502.Vogt, J. 2003. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project report. Available from Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife, Upper Rogue Watershed, 1495 E Gregory Rd., Central Point, OR 97502.Vogt, J. 2004. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project report. Available from Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife, Upper Rogue Watershed, 1495 E Gregory Rd., Central Point, OR 97502.Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples.1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA TechnicalMemorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. Available from National Marine Fisheries Service, NorthwestFisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E, SeattleWA 98112.Wier, E. 2002. Steelhead spawning report. Available from Ashland Ranger District, 645 WashingtonSt., Ashland, OR 97520.Williams, T.H. and G. Reeves. 2004. Geographical variation in genetic and meristic characters of coastalcutthroat trout. Presentation. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society Annual Conference, Sunriver,OR, 18-20 February 2004.APPENDIX H Page 14Aquatic BE

THREATENED SPECIES BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONSummary of Conclusion of Effects**PROJECT NAME:ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCYALTERNATIVE: Proposed Action and Community AlternativeSpeciesProposed Action andCommunity AlternativeSONCC cohosalmon and EFHNLAAMay Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)*************************************************************************************SENSITIVE SPECIES BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONSummary of Conclusion of Effects**PROJECT NAME: ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCYALTERNATIVE: Proposed Action and Community AlternativeSpeciesNo ImpactMay Impact Individuals orHabitat, But Would NotLikely Contribute to a TrendTowards Federal Listing orLoss of Viability to thePopulation or SpeciesWould Impact Individuals orHabitat with a Consequence Thatthe Action May Contribute to aTrend Towards Federal Listing orCause a Loss of Viability to thePopulation or SpeciesBeneficialImpact(long term)Foothill YellowleggedfrogXXSOCC CutthroattroutXXKMP steelhead X XSONCC ChinooksalmonXXPrepared byReviewed by/s/ Ian S. ReidFisheries Biologist/s/ Randy FrickForest Fisheries BiologistForm 1 (R-1/4/6-2670-95)APPENDIX H Page 15Aquatic BE

Ashland Forest ResiliencyCumulative Watershed Effects AnalysisAppendix IApril 2005IntroductionThe purpose of this report is to document the assumptions and results of the cumulative effects analysiscompleted for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This documentprovides the basis of assumptions used in analysis and modeling of cumulative watershed effects. Itdocuments methodology and information that is more in technical than the summary of conclusionspresented in the DEIS.On the Klamath National Forest (Forest Service Region 5), an approach entitled the Equivalent RoadedArea (ERA) Methodology (UDSA FS 1999) has been utilized for assessing relative risk of cumulativewatershed effects. It is important to note that the scope of the analysis of existing conditions at the subwatershedscale is dependant on the nature of the historic and ongoing effects and the availability of datafor the watershed being analyzed. In order to provide a consistent analysis for the entire analysis area, theERA Methodology was used to assess the cumulative watershed effects of past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable future activities in the Ashland Creek, Neil Creek, Hamilton Creek, and Upper Wagner Creeksub-watersheds. This method was selected because the data needed to run the ERA model was availableand consistent throughout the watershed analysis areas.Recent environmental analyses completed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF has utilized a methodologyreferred to as the CWE Methodology. This model, sometimes referred to as the “Section 7” model, wasused to aid in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS - now NOAA Fisheries) underSection 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Forest Service developed the CWE Methodology forassessing the relative risk of adverse cumulative watershed effects in response to a request from NMFS(USDA FS 1993). Although, the CWE Methodology has been commonly used in Forest Service Region 6,this analysis uses only the ERA Methodology to assess past, current, and future activities. The cumulativeeffects analysis process described in this document is primarily based on information (data) from the RogueRiver-Siskiyou National Forest Geographic Information System (GIS) databases. The analysis wasprimarily performed using ArcView 3.2, a GIS software.BackgroundCumulative effects analysis can be performed at various scales. For potential effects to be measurable, thesub-watershed scale was selected for analysis. Sub-watersheds are a subset of and smaller in area thanwatersheds and generally referred to as “6 th field”. A sub-watershed, like a watershed, is an area of landthat all drains to a point on a stream. Generally the location for this point is at a confluence with anotherstream. Watersheds are generally 40,000 to 250,000 acres in size and referred to as “5 th field”. Subwatershedsare usually 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size.APPENDIX I Page 1Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

The Bear Creek Watershed (a 5 th field watershed) totals approximately 361 square miles (231,087 acres).This watershed lies approximately 127 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean at the extreme southeastcorner of the upper reaches of the Rogue River Basin. The boundaries of the watershed are formed by aridgeline which travels along the Cascade Mountains on the north and east sides and the Siskiyou/KlamathMountains to the south and west.Ashland Forest Resiliency is located within four separate sub-watersheds, described in DEIS analysis asthe Ashland Creek sub-watershed, the Neil Creek sub-watershed, the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed andthe Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed, all within the Bear Creek Watershed and the Rogue River Basin.The geographic extent of the sub-watersheds for this report are depicted on Map I-1.The Ashland Creek sub-watershed is approximately 24.7 square miles (15,785 acres) in size and isone of the primary tributaries to Bear Creek. This analysis area includes all of the hydrologic area ofthe Ashland Municipal Watershed. This watershed extends from the summit of Mt. Ashland on thesouth to the confluence of Ashland Creek and Bear Creek on the north.The Neil Creek sub-watershed also contributes flow to Bear Creek, and this 21.2 square mile (13,563acre) sub-watershed is located on the east side of the analysis area. The lower boundary of the NeilCreek Watershed is located at the confluence of Neil Creek and Bear Creek. Near the boundary of theRogue River National Forest, the slope of the valley floor decreases dramatically. Downstream fromthe National Forest boundary is primarily pasture or rural developed lands. Several other smallstreams contribute to this sub-watershed.The Upper Wagner Creek sub-watershed is located in a generally north facing basin that is 9.2 squaremiles in size (5,875 acres). The lower extent of the Upper Wagner Creek watershed the same as theUpper Bear Analysis Area boundary, at the confluence with Wagner Creek Horn Gulch Creek, which isin proximity to the National Forest boundary. The sub-watershed is a mix of interspersed privatelyowned and Federally managed lands. Wagner Creek flows to the north and into Bear Creek near thecity of Talent.The 6.5 square mile (4,127 acre) Hamilton Creek sub-watershed is a north facing drainage immediatelyto the south of the City of Ashland. The northern end of the Hamilton Creek Watershed is located atthe confluence of Bear Creek and Hamilton Creek. The majority of this sub-watershed is located onprivately owned land and is mostly within the city limits of Ashland.Note that there is a small area in the northwest corner of the 2003 Upper Bear Analysis Area that is notincluded in one of the four sub-watersheds. This area is not being analyzed here because no actions areproposed to occur within this small area. Because there are no actions proposed, there would be nocumulative effect.Equivalent Roaded Area MethodologyThe ERA Methodology utilizes GIS analysis of land use activities to convert road, timber harvest, fire, andother disturbances within each watershed to equivalent roaded areas based on predetermined coefficientsthat are regionally specific. The resulting equivalent roaded area within each watershed is divided by thearea of each watershed 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 each watershed. Finally, thecalculated TOC is compared to the percent ERA for each watershed to determine a watershed Risk Ratio.The following discussion describes the process and displays the values for each sub-watershed analysisarea.APPENDIX I Page 2Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

MAP I-1. Sub-Watershed Analysis AreasAPPENDIX I Page 3Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) CoefficientsTo determine ERA, coefficients for disturbance classes are compared to values for roads to calculate thearea of road that would produce the same change in peak flows. The information is used to create a tableof Equivalent Roaded Area coefficients. Coefficients have been adjusted over time based on experienceby resource specialists.Satellite imagery was used to develop a disturbance map for the affected sub-watersheds. Variousvegetation classes from the imagery were assigned an ERA coefficient (see Table I-1.). Refer to thecumulative effects analysis performed for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS for a discussion onhow the coefficients were derived. The following table displays the coefficients used to model the satelliteimagery on the analysis area:Table I-1. ERA Coefficient by Vegetation TypeDescription ERA Category CoefficientWithin NFSL - Undisturbed 0Greater than 60% canopy closure,Outside NFSL – Moderategreater than 24” DBH0.11disturbance, 0-20 years oldLate seral forestWithin NFSL - ModerateLess than 60% canopy closure, disturbance, 20-30 years old0.06greater than 24” DBHOutside NFSL – Moderatedisturbance, 0-20 years old0.11Within NFSL - Undisturbed 0Greater than 60% canopy closure,Outside NFSL – Moderate11 - 24” DBH0.11disturbance, 0-20 years oldMature forestWithin NFSL - ModerateLess than 60% canopy closure, disturbance, 20-30 years old0.0611 - 24” DBH Outside NFSL – Moderatedisturbance, 0-20 years old0.11Immature forestGreater than 60% canopy closure, High disturbance.6 - 11” DBH30-40 years old0.06Less than 60% canopy closure,High disturbance,6 - 11” DBH20-30 years old0.17Seedling/sapling0 – 6 “ DBHModerate disturbance,0-20 years old0.11Within NFSL 0Shrub/grass/forb 1Outside NFSL – Moderatedisturbance, 0-20 years old0.11Barren 2Within NFSL 0.5Outside NFSL – High disturbance 1.0Roads Natural or aggregate surface 1.0Non-erodible Paved road 1.0PrivateIncludes lands outside NFSL thatHigh disturbanceare not otherwise mapped in0-20 years oldanother category0.211 Assumes shrub and grass/forb communities within NFSL are recovered or in an undisturbed, natural condition. These vegetation typeslocated outside NFSLs are assumed to be moderately disturbed.2 Does not include some naturally barren ground. For analysis, assumes that 50% of land mapped as barren on NFSL is a result ofmechanized treatment or is a disturbed condition. On lands outside NFSL, analysis assumes 100% disturbed.For this analysis of current condition, it was assumed that lands outside the National Forest boundary wereall disturbed in the last 20 years. This is a conservative assumption due to the lack of current data onprivately owned lands.APPENDIX I Page 4Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

The approach used for this analysis of cumulative effects generally over-estimates disturbance levels andas such, is a conservative approach that would take a “worst case” look at watershed effects. An exampleis the stands mapped as being less than 60% canopy closure. These were assumed to be in this conditionas a result of treatment, when if fact many are naturally occurring.Cumulative effects analysis begins with past and present actions. Many of the past activities are accountedfor in the vegetative mapping that was used (i.e. past timber harvest), as described by the current condition.Projects that have occurred since the mapping was completed or that are ongoing were accounted for inthe analysis. Past actions provide an opportunity to understand the current condition of the watershedsanalyzed in this report. Map I-2 displays known past management actions by the decade in which theywere implemented. Also see Table I-2 for the amount and types of treatment by decade. Other actionsthat have occurred on NFSL that are not shown on the map include fire suppression, road reconstructionand maintenance, recreation trail construction and reconstruction, ski area construction and expansion, andvarious salvage efforts of individual trees as well as roadside hazard tree removal. A major project thatcovered the majority of the Ashland Municipal Watershed was the Helikopter Salvage Sale that removeddead and dying ponderosa pine with a helicopter across the entire Ashland Creek sub-watershed.Table I-2. Past Vegetation Management Within the Analysis AreaDecade of TreatmentHarvest Type 1950 1960 1980 1990 Unknown Total AcresClearcut 39 420 123 78 59 720Partial Removal 106 106Sanitation 72 72Shelterwood 11 11HHSP 16 16Shaded Fuel Break 230 230Total Acres 56 492 353 89 166 1,155Present actions do not include actions that are considered unreasonable to predict, such as winter stormdamage resulting in blowdown/snowdown, unforeseen large scale insect or disease outbreaks, andunforeseen large-scale wildfires, or other natural or human caused disasters.Based on analysis of past and present actions and the current condition, the following percent ERA valueswere determined for the sub-watershed analysis areas:Table I-3. Current Percent ERA by WatershedsAshland Neil Upper Wagner HamiltonTotal acres 15,785 13,563 5,875 4,127ERA 465 1,090 316 1,249Percent ERA 2.9% 8.0% 5.4% 30.3%Note: Even though the same satellite imagery was used, the values shown in the above table will not match exactly to the valuesin other analysis done in these sub-watersheds (Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS). This is due to a different configurationof the sub-watershed analysis areas.The most noticeable value in Table I-2 is the high percent ERA value for the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed(30.3%). This is due to the amount of private land within the city limits of Ashland. Approximately 93% ofthis sub-watershed is off NFSL and has been highly developed and roaded. Not including private land, thepercent ERA for the portion of the sub-watershed on National Forest is less than one percent. The landwithin the city limits, though developed and roaded, is in a static condition with storm drainage, etc. Thismodel was not designed to evaluate these types of situations.APPENDIX I Page 5Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

MAP I-2. Past Treatments By DecadeAPPENDIX I Page 6Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

Of the total area within this sub-watershed, only an estimated 35% is considered forested. Consideringonly forested land within the sub-watershed, the percent ERA would be 10.3%. It could be assumed thatonly the forested land has the ability to be managed so that is all that should be considered in thecumulative effects analysis.Due to the larger size of the Ashland Creek sub-watershed, the lands within the city limits do not influencethe percent ERA value. Private lands have an influence on the percent ERA values for the Neil Creek andUpper Wagner Creek sub-watersheds.Threshold of Concern (TOC)The TOC is developed specifically for each watershed and is based on channel sensitivity (C), beneficialuses (B), soil erodibility (E), hydrologic response (H), and slope stability (S). The ERA Methodologycontains detailed evaluation techniques that are described below to determine the numerical index for eachof the factors. Once the index values have been determined for each watershed, the Watershed SensitivityLevel (WSL) is calculated using the following the equation: WSL = 3C + 2B + E + H + S. Next, the WSL isconverted to a watershed specific TOC value based on the equation: TOC = (43 – WSL) / 2. The number“43” is used because it best fits a regression of the watershed sensitivity levels and previously determinedTOCs on the Klamath NF which has similar conditions as the Analysis Area. Following is a discussion ofeach of the factors used to determine the TOC values for each of the sub-watershed analysis areas:Channel Sensitivity (C)This is based on Pfankuch stream stability ratings for the primary streams and major tributaries througheach watershed. Since Pfankuck ratings are not available in most streams across the Forest, professionaljudgment is used in most cases. Generally, streams are considered moderately sensitive unless there areindications otherwise.Table I-4. Channel Sensitivity RatingParameter Sensitivity Class Index Pfankuch RatingVery High 5 >130ChannelSensitivityHigh 4 115-130Moderate 3 77-114Low 2 39-76Very Low 1

Table I- 5. Beneficial Use DescriptionsParameter Significance Class Index DescriptionVery High 5Contains the entire drainage of a Class 1A streamBeneficialUseHigh 4Moderate 3Low 2Other 1Contains 25% or more of the drainage area of a Class 1Astream or the entire drainage of a Class 1B streamContains 5% or more of the drainage area of a Class 1Astream, 25% or more of a Class 1B stream, or the entiredrainage of a Class 2 streamContains 1% or more of the drainage area of a Class1A stream,5% or more of a Class 1B stream, 25% or more of a Class 2stream, or the entire drainage of a Class 3 streamDoes not meet the criteria of any previous categorySoil Erodibility (E)This index is based on the inherent sensitivity of the soils to surface erosion. This factor is computed byrunning the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model on watersheds to arrive at a background(assuming no disturbance) surface erosion volume in cubic yards per acre per decade.Table I-6. Soil Erodibility IndexParameter Sensitivity Class Index Background Erosion VolumeVery High 5 Greater than 0.115 cy/acre per decadeSoilErodibilityHigh 4 Between 0.081 and 0.115 cy/acre per decadeModerate 3 Between 0.055 and 0.081 cy/acre per decadeLow 2 Between 0.041 and 0.055 cy/acre per decadeVery Low 1 Less than 0.041 cy/acre per decadeHydrologic Response Potential (H)This index is based on the percent of the sub-watershed in the rain-on-snow zone, which is between 3,500and 5,000 feet in elevation.Table I-7. Hydrologic Response IndexParameter Peak Runoff Potential Index DescriptionHigh 4 Rain on snow zone > 50% of the watershedHydrologicModerate 3 Rain on snow zone 25-50% of the watershedResponseLow 2 Rain on snow zone < 25% of the watershedSlope Stability (S)This factor is based on the inherent sensitivity of the watershed to landslides. The index is computed byrunning the landslide model on watersheds to arrive at a background (assuming no disturbance) landslidevolume in cubic yards per acre per decade.Table I-8. Slope Stability IndexParameter Risk Class Index Stability RatingVery High 5Greater than 3.2 cy/acreper decadeHigh 4Between 2.6 and 3.2cy/acre per decadeSlopeBetween 2.0 and 2.6Moderate 3Stabilitycy/acre per decadeLow 2Between 1.0 and 2.0cy/acre per decadeVery Low 1Less than 1.0 cy/acreper decadeAPPENDIX I Page 8Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

The following table displays the TOC values by watershed analysis area that were used for this analysis:Table I-9. Threshold of Concern Values by WatershedWatershedSensitivityLevelThresholdOfConcernWatershedBeneficialUsesChannelStabilitySoilErodibilityHydrologicResponseSlopeStabilityAshland 5 3 2 3 2 26 8.5Neil 4 3 2 3 2 25 9.0Upper Wagner 4 3 2 3 2 25 9.0Hamilton 3 3 2 2 2 21 11.0Risk RatioThe risk ratio is calculated by dividing ERA values by the TOC value. A Risk Ratio approaching or greaterthan 1.00 serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for significant adverse cumulativeeffects occurring within a watershed. Susceptibility of cumulative watershed effects generally increasesfrom low to high as the level of land disturbing activities increase toward a risk ratio value of 1.00 (USFS1988). Watersheds with a “yellow flag” rating of 1.00 are not necessarily in eminent danger ofunacceptable cumulative watershed effects, but these watersheds contain enough disturbance to “warranta closer look” (USDA 1996). It should be noted that the ERA Methodology analyzes watershed conditionsregardless of land ownership.The table below summarizes the risk ratio calculations by sub-watershed analysis area based on currentconditions. These values are used as a baseline against which the alternatives area compared (i.e., No-Action).Table I-10. Current Condition Risk Ratio Calculations by WatershedAshland Neil Upper Wagner HamiltonPercent ERA 2.9% 8.0% 4.5% 30.3%TOC 8.5 9.0 9.0 11.0Risk Ratio 0.346 0.894 0.598 2.751The risk ratios for the Ashland Creek and Upper Wagner sub-watersheds are at levels that do not warrantconcern at this time. The value for the Neil Creek sub-watershed approaches the 1.0 threshold, but iscurrently below.The Hamilton Creek sub-watershed has a value that exceeds 1.0 and indicates a potential for adversecumulative effects. However, as previously discussed, approximately 93% of this sub-watershed is offNFSL and has been highly developed. Of the total area within this sub-watershed, only an estimated 35%is considered forested. Considering only forested land within the sub-watershed, the percent ERA wouldbe 10.9%. Based on this assumption, the current condition risk ratio would be 0.932.Not including private land, the percent ERA for the portion of the sub-watershed on National Forest is lessthan one percent. The land within the city limits, though developed and roaded, is in a static condition withstorm drainage, etc. This model was not designed to evaluate these types of situations.Alternative ComparisonEach of the action alternatives proposed under the DEIS were evaluated by calculating the change in ERAvalues that would be a result by implementing the each action alternative. Coefficients are used to modelchanges in vegetation or land cover. These coefficients were developed by specialists on the Klamath NFand have been updated as a result of monitoring and review of projects. Coefficients are additive, in otherwords the coefficients for prescription are added to logging system coefficients, which are added to sitepreparation coefficients.APPENDIX I Page 9Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

Table I-11. ERA Project-Scale CoefficientsRoads Prescription Logging System Site Prep – FuelsMiles 12 m (40 feet) High disturbance 0.12 Tractor 0.12 Tractor pile 0.12X wide prism,Moderate4.77 slopes >35% disturbance0.06 Tractor – modified 0.04 Tractor bunch 0.06Low disturbance 0.03 Cable 0.02 Hand pile 0.001None 0.00 Helicopter 0.001 Masticate 0.03Miles 6 m (20 feet)Roadside 0.01 Broadcast burn 0.05X wide prism,Feller-buncher 0.08 Jack-pot burn 0.0252.39 slopes

Table I-13b. Neil Creek Watershed by AlternativeNo-ActionProposed(currentActioncondition)CommunityAlternativeTotal Acres 13,559 13,559 13,599ERA 1,090 1,168 1,207%ERA 8.0% 8.6% 8.9%TOC 9.0 9.0 9.0Risk Ratio 0.894 0.957 0.989Table I-13c. Upper Wagner Creek Watershed by AlternativeNo-ActionProposed Community(currentAction Alternativecondition)Total Acres 5,874 5,874 5874ERA 316 419 333%ERA 5.4% 7.1% 5.7%TOC 9.0 9.0 9.0Risk Ratio 0.598 0.792 0.629Table I-13d. Hamilton Creek Watershed by AlternativeNo-ActionProposed(currentActioncondition)CommunityAlternativeTotal Acres 4,128 4,128 4,128ERA 1,249 1,258 1,262%ERA 30.3% 30.5% 30.6%TOC 11.0 11.0 11.0Risk Ratio 2.751 2.770 2.781None of the sub-watersheds show any substantial increase in the risk ratio associated with the actionalternatives for AFR. This is primarily due to the type and intensity of the proposed treatments under eachof the action alternatives. Treatments proposed under both of the action alternatives are primarily “thinningfrom below” or prescribed burning and are of low to moderate disturbance. Relatively few acres of groundbased harvest systems are proposed under the Community Alternative. Though the risk ratio for the NeilCreek sub-watershed is relatively high, it would remain less than 1.0 (“yellow flag” threshold).Although the Hamilton Creek sub-watershed has a high risk ratio, the reasons for this were discussedearlier. If only forested lands were included, the baseline risk ration would be 0.932 and neither of theaction alternatives would change it by more than 8%, result in a ratio of 1.000 or less.Reasonably Foreseeable ActionsCumulative effects analysis requires that future actions that are reasonably foreseeable be examined alongwith the proposed action. For this analysis, a time period of 10 years was selected to examine futureactions. This time period was selected because it is anticipated that this is the length of time that theproposed action or Community Alternative would take to fully implement.APPENDIX I Page 11Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

It is assumed that no other (reasonably foreseeable) fuels management on National Forest lands, otherthan that being proposed under AFR, for the next ten (10) years. It could be argued that fuels andvegetation management has been occurring for over 50 years and will continue into the future and beyondthe next 10 years, however in reality, there is no guarantee that these action would occur in the future.Even if fuels management is proposed in the future (beyond 10 years), there is no reasonable way topredict what methodology, extent, or consequences those future actions would have at this time. Anyproposed action beyond the 10-year timeframe would have to consider (presumably under a NEPAprocess) the current conditions at that time, created by actions at this time.On National Forest lands, the only actions expected to occur already have NEPA decision documents andas such, have been assumed for modeling purposes to already have been implemented. These includeprojects such as the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, and varioustrail construction/reconstruction projects.During the modeling of current condition, it was assumed that most of the lands outside the National Forestboundary have been subject to recent disturbance and as such, it anticipates and models future activities.There are currently no known actions being scheduled off of the National Forest with the exception of theCity of Ashland owned land in section 32 (the “Winburn” parcel). This area has been planned for ahazardous fuels reduction treatment and is scheduled to be implemented within the next 5 years. Otherindustrial forest lands within the analysis areas may or may not be treated within the next 10 years.However, as mentioned before, this has been accounted for in the current condition modeling, by applyinga disturbance coefficient that assumes treatment.Sensitivity Analysis/Margin of ErrorSensitivity analysis is a procedure to determine the sensitivity of the outcomes of a model to changes in itsparameters. If a small change in a parameter results in relatively large changes in the outcomes, theoutcomes are said to be sensitive to that parameter. This may mean that the parameter has to bedetermined very accurately or that the alternative has to be redesigned for low sensitivity.A test of the sensitivity of this model was performed by changing each of the parameters for the Neil Creeksub-watershed (the sub-watershed closet to a risk ratio of 1.0000). No single parameter changed theresulting risk ratio a substantial amount (maximum of 5.3%). An 11% change in acres would be necessaryto move the percent ERA one percentage point.The margin of error refers in this analysis to the reliability of the data. The basis for this analysis is thesatellite imagery. An accuracy assessment performed on the imagery in the Applegate Watershed(immediately west of the Analysis Area) determined the imagery to be 80+% accurate. When used at thewatershed and sub-watershed scales, experience has shown the reliability of the imagery to be relativelyhigh.This analysis could have been performed for the entire Bear Creek Watershed. Assessing cumulativeeffects at this 5 th field watershed would tend to minimize the effects and render any changes so slight thatthey would not be measurable.APPENDIX I Page 12Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

Summary of ResultsThe Equivalent Roaded Area model does not give a quantifiable number (output) for sedimentation, tons ofsoil eroded/detached, or any other similar item. This model does generate a percent ERA value that canbe used to compare an alternative against the current condition. If the ERA for the watershed is below thethreshold of concern, then the watershed is below the threshold and the cumulative effects of the proposedaction or alternatives are not anticipated to be a concern. If the ERA approaches the threshold of concernthen cumulative effects may warrant a closer look.Based on the analysis described for these sub-watersheds and the change that would result from anyalternative of Ashland Forest Resiliency, it is not expected that the risk of adverse cumulative effects wouldbe of concern. Areas outside of the Analysis Area would not likely be affected and as disturbed areasbecome recovered, watershed conditions would continue on an upward trend.Compiled by Don Boucher, Analyst USFS RRNF April 2005Reviewed by Jon Brazier - USFS Forest Hydrologist April 2005REFERENCESUSDA Forest Service. 1988. Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects Analysis. In: USDA ForestService Region 5 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, FSH 2509.22. San Francisco,California.USDA Forest Service. 1993. Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resultingfrom Multiple Activities, Endangered Species Act Section 7. February.USDA Forest Service. 1996. Beaver Creek Ecosystem Assessment. Klamath National Forest.Yreka, California. July.UDSA Forest Service. 1999h. Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Methodology. Klamath NationalForest.USDA Forest Service. 2002. Personal communication from Don Elder, Geologist, KlamathNational Forest regarding cumulative effects and ERA Model.APPENDIX I Page 13Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

APPENDIX JAIR QUALITY ANALYSISA. BackgroundAir quality is a concern in the Upper Bear Creek Valley (referred to as the Rogue Valley) wherethe surrounding mountains tend to hold in pollutants produced by industrial plants, woodstoves,motor vehicles, and other sources. Consideration for potential air quality consequences resultingfrom implementation of the alternatives is important for the health of local residents and forretention of visual values in southwest Oregon and northwest California.The Analysis Area is located immediately adjacent to or within the non-attainment area of thesouthern portion of the Rogue River Valley. The southern portion of the Rogue River Valley isalso known as the “Bear Creek Valley”. Non-attainment areas are identified through ambient airmonitoring conducted by an air quality regulatory agency, and the Department of EnvironmentalQuality (ODEQ), that presently exceed national ambient air quality standards.The Medford area was designated a non-attainment area because air quality exceeded PM 10National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As a result, the Medford area became designated asthe “Medford-Ashland Air Quality Management Area” (AQMA). The non-attainment status ofthis AQMA is not attributable to prescribed burning. Major sources of particulate matter withinthe Medford/Ashland area are smoke from woodstoves (63%), dust and industrial sources (18%).Prescribed burning contributes less than 4% of the annual total.The Oregon State Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-43-043) provides a specific frameworkfor the administration of the smoke management program as administered by the State Forester.The Smoke Management Plan (SMP) instructs the State Forester and each field administrator tomaintain a satisfactory atmospheric environment in designated areas and other areas sensitive tosmoke consistent with the plan objectives and smoke drift restrictions.The SMP establishes a set of limitations applicable to specified burning and mixing conditions.These limitations relate to tonnage of fuel per 150,000 acres, which, ideally, may be burnedunder various sets of mixing conditions. Experience has shown that these standards are adequateto protect designated areas only under ideal conditions. Frequently, in order to meet air qualityobjectives, the State Forester must apply more specific restrictions through issuance of smokemanagement instructions.Additional detail on air quality conditions, atmospheric conditions influencing air quality and theSMP can be found in the RRNF Fire Management Plan, and in the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment(pages 3-36-38).APPENDIX J Page 1Air Quality Analysis

B. Air Quality StandardsNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established by the Clean Air Act(CAA) of 1963 and subsequently amended (as amended, at 42 USCA 7401 to 7671(q)). Primaryair quality standards were established under the act to protect public health; secondary standardswere established to protect public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effectsassociated with the presence of ambient air pollutants.The CAA and its implementing regulations also establish air pollution emission standards for avariety of stationary sources. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) retains oversightauthority, but has delegated enforcement of the CAA to the states. In Oregon, the Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ODEQ) acts as the lead agency. The State, in turn, is required todevelop and administer air pollution prevention and control programs. State standards must beeither the same as, or more stringent than the CAA standards.Federal and State ambient air quality standards have been established for six criteria airpollutants. These are sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) 1 , carbon monoxide (CO) 2 , ozone (O 3 ) 3 , lead (Pb) 4 ,nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) 5 , and particulate matter (TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) 6 . Recent amendments tothe regulations implementing the Clean Air Act expanded requirements to include particulatematter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ), in addition to the previous regulatory standardapplying to particulates 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PM 10 ) (Federal Register, July 18,1997). Ambient air quality standards are shown below.1 SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas primarily emitted by coal or oil burning power plants and industries, as well as refineries. It is converted in the atmosphere intoparticulate sulfuric acid droplets, and to solid metallic sulfates. The hazards to human health of such sulfates include increases lung disease and breathingproblems for asthmatics.2 CO is a colorless, odorless and tasteless gas. It is produced primarily during the incomplete combustion of organic fuels. CO is also created during refuse andagricultural burning and as a byproduct of some industrial processes. CO affects the central nervous system by depriving the body of oxygen, resulting insymptoms including chest pain, headaches, and reduced mental alertness.3 O3 is a highly unstable form of oxygen. O3 is not emitted directly from a source, as are other pollutants, but forms as a secondary pollutant through a chemicalreaction with sunlight. Reactive hydrocarbons typically related to the creation of O3 include automobile exhaust, gasoline, and oil storage and transfer facilities.O3 production is generally highest during summer months. In the summer, more intense sunlight and comparatively stagnant meteorological conditions combineto increase O3 production. Exposure to elevated levels of O3 has been linked to respiratory problems.4 Ambient lead levels have decreased over the past decade, largely due to the decreased reliance on lead as an additive to gasoline. Today, almost threequartersof all lead emissions are related to industrial processes. Lead exposure can result from ingestion or inhalation. Excessive exposure has been linked toneurological deficits.5 As an air pollutant, NO2 is a virtually odorless, and colorless, but can be irritating to the eyes and throat. Nationwide, the majority of NO2 emissions come fromcombustion and transportation, with minor amounts from industrial emissions and other miscellaneous sources. Elevated levels of NO2 can cause respiratorydistress; degradation of clothing, visibility, and vegetation; and increased acid deposition.6 Particulate matter includes tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere. Larger particles tend to settle out of the air and are not considered to have a significanthealth effect. Particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less are considered inhalable and can pose an adverse health risk. Fugitive dust is the primarycontributory to elevated levels of particulate matter, however, burning of fossil fuels also contributes to particulate levels. Effects of elevated particulates dependon the size of the particle. Particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter are a major cause of visibility problems. Inhaled particulates can result in increasedincidence of respiratory ailments. These effects tend to be most acute in the elderly and other at risk populations.APPENDIX J Page 2Air Quality Analysis

Table J-1. Ambient Air Quality StandardsPollutantSO2PM2.5PM10TSPAveraging TimeFederal StandardState StandardAnnual 80 µg/m 3 (0.03 ppm) 52 µg/m 3 (0.02 ppm)24-hour 365 µg/m 3 (0.14 ppm) 260 µg/m 3 (0.10 ppm)3-hour 1,300 µg/m 3 (0.50 ppm) A 1,300 µg/m 3 (0.50 ppm)Annual 15 µg/m 3 -24-hour 65 µg/m 3 -Annual 50 µg/m 3 50 µg/m 324-hour 150 µg/m 3 150 µg/m 3Annual - 60 µg/m 324-hour - 150 µg/m 3O3 1-hour 235 µg/m 3 (0.12 ppm) 235 µg/m 3 (0.12 ppm)CO8-hour 10,000 µg/m 3 (9.0 ppm) 10,000 µg/m 3 (9.0 ppm)1-hour 40,000 µg/m 3 (35 ppm) 40,000 µg/m 3 (35 ppm)NO2 Annual 100 µg/m 3 (0.053 ppm) 100 µg/m 3 (0.053 ppm)Pb Quarterly 1.5 µg/m 3 1.5 µg/m 3µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meterA Secondary standard, all others are primary standardsSource: 40 CFR 50; OAR 340-202-0060 through 0130There are no major sources of SO 2 , O 3 , or Pb in the vicinity of the Analysis Area. The primarysources of CO and NO 2 are direct vehicle tail-pipe emissions and wood burning. The mainsources of PM 10 are vehicular re-entrained road dust (dust that is emitted into the atmosphere bythe mechanical action of moving vehicles stirring up dust from roads) and wood burning. Since1998, ODEQ has been monitoring PM 2.5 and existing Federal standards have not been exceeded,although the levels can get close to the standards (Collier 2003). New NAAQS for PM 2.5 may befinalized and administratively implemented in the next several years (US EPA 2003).The Forest Plan follows Federal and State guidelines and regulations by establishing thefollowing goal for air quality: “Maintain air quality at a level that is adequate for the protectionand use of National Forest Resources, and that meets or exceeds applicable Federal and Statestandards and regulations.” (RRNF LRMP, page 4-1)C. Medford Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)The Rogue Valley, from the Rogue River (Eagle Point to the Gold Ray Dam vicinity) toEmigrant Lake has been designated as the Medford AQMA. AQMAs are designated based onfailure to attain Federal or State standards. A non-attainment area is a geographic area in whichthe ambient level of one or more criteria pollutants exceed Federal or State standards. An areamay have an acceptable level for one pollutant and an unacceptable level for others. Thus, anarea can be in attainment for one or more criteria pollutants while being designated as a nonattainmentarea for one or more other pollutants.A maintenance area is a non-attainment area that has improved its air quality to a degree thatmeets Federal and State standards and regulations for the criteria pollutant but that has not beenre-designated as an attainment area. A maintenance plan is developed by ODEQ for allmaintenance areas within the State and must be approved by the EPA. This plan mustconclusively demonstrate how air quality standards will be met for at least 10-20 years.Maintenance plans are on file, and available from ODEQ.APPENDIX J Page 3Air Quality Analysis

The Medford AQMA is classified as non-attainment for particulate matter less than 10 micronsin size (PM 10 ); wood smoke, wind-blown dust and industrial emissions are the most commonsources of particulate matter. A review of EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval System(AIRS) data and discussions with ODEQ indicated that NAAQS for PM 10 were not exceeded ineither Jackson County, Oregon, or Siskiyou County, California, between 1991 and 2002(per.com. ODEQ, Drake 2003 and Collier 2003). A plan is currently in development to redesignatethe Medford AQMA as an attainment area for PM 10.D. Atmospheric Stability and InversionsAir quality is important for the health and welfare of local residents, and for retention of visualvalues in southwest Oregon and northwest California. Air quality is a concern in the RogueValley where the surrounding mountains and temperature inversions can trap pollutantsproduced by industrial plants, wood stoves, motor vehicles, and other sources.Air quality in the Rogue Valley deteriorates during periods of atmospheric stability. Whenconditions are stable, the lack of wind and temperature changes can limit air mixing, andpollutants can remain trapped at or near the valley floor. Atmospheric stability can occurindependent of, or in conjunction with inversions. Inversions occur when a layer of cool air istrapped by a layer of warm air and is unable to rise. Inversions spread polluted air horizontallyrather than vertically, so that contaminating substances cannot be dispersed. The upper inversionlayer within the Rogue Valley rarely extends above 5,000 feet (USDA FS 2001a).E. Prevention of Significant DeteriorationIn addition to the NAAQS discussed above, the EPA has promulgated regulations to protect andenhance air quality. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations (42 USCA7470 to 7479) are intended to help maintain air quality in areas which attain national standards,and to provide special protections for national parks, Federally designated Wildernesses areas,National Monuments, National Seashores, and other areas of special natural, recreational, scenic,or historical value. These areas are generally designated as Class I Airsheds.Class I designation applies to select pristine airsheds. These areas include National Parks largerthan 6,000 acres and most national Wilderness areas greater than 5,000 acres. Class I areas insouthern Oregon include Crater Lake National Park (60 miles northeast of Mt. Ashland) and twoWilderness areas, Kalmiopsis (50 miles west) and Mountain Lakes (32 miles northeast). InCalifornia, Marble Mountain Wilderness (37 miles southwest) is also designated as Class I.Class II is the designation for clean air areas where a moderate amount of development could bepermitted. In Oregon, Sky Lakes Wilderness (30 miles northeast of Mt. Ashland) and RedButtes Wilderness (26 miles southwest of Mt. Ashland) are Class II areas. The SiskiyouWilderness (45 miles southwest of Mt. Ashland) in California is also a Class II area. Class IIwilderness areas are generally smaller in size, and/or were more recently designated. Class IIareas also include all areas in attainment of NAAQS and not designated as Class I Airsheds.APPENDIX J Page 4Air Quality Analysis

F. VisibilityVisibility is the maximum distance that an object can be perceived against the background sky; italso includes the clarity with which the form and texture of objects can be seen. Visibilityimpairment in Oregon is most often related to fine particulates and nitrogen oxide in theatmosphere; these emissions either scatter or absorb light, obscuring vision. The most commonanthropogenic sources for these particulates are wood burning, and vehicular emissions.Visibility is an important air quality value for scenic and recreational areas, and is generallyconsidered to be a more sensitive criterion because it can be more easily impacted. Clean AirAct section 169A(a)(1) requires the EPA to develop regulations for the “prevention of any futureand remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas whichimpairment results from man-made air pollution.” Thus far, visibility efforts have focused onlarge sources that have obvious adverse effects on visibility. Obvious impacts mean visualplumes extending from a large source to the area of visibility impairment.G. Direct and Indirect Effects of Chemical Pollutants –Action AlternativesLeadThe principle source of lead emissions is the combustion of gasoline containing lead alkyladditives. Particles deposited on vegetation over decades can become re-emitted if thevegetation is burned. However, the lead content of forest fuels is negligible and is not a concernas an air pollutant in prescribed burning.Sulfur DioxideHumans react to sulfur dioxide exposure with an increase in airway resistance. Excess sulfurdioxide can also cause cellular injury to sensitive plant species. Most forest fuels contain lessthan 0.2 percent sulfur; therefore, sulfur dioxides would be produced only in negligible quantitiesduring prescribed burning.Carbon MonoxideCarbon monoxide is a poisonous inhalant that deprives the body tissues of necessary oxygen.Extreme exposure (usually occurring in non-ventilated enclosures) to CO can cause death orcentral 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. Exposureto carbon monoxide may be high for fireline workers. However, carbon monoxide is quicklydissipated where emissions are irregular and there is no atmospheric confinement. Since carbonmonoxide dilutes very rapidly in the atmosphere, it is not likely to be a concern to urban or ruralareas even a short distance down wind from prescribed burning activities. Studies on the effectsof smoke exposure on the respiratory systems of wildland firefighters indicate that long exposureto carbon monoxide during a fire season may result in small changes in lung function. Thehealth implications of short-term exposure and potential long-term effects have not beenquantified (Mangan 1994).Nitrogen OxidesThe formations of oxides of nitrogen occur at temperatures not normally found in prescribedburning. Generally, wildland burning is considered an insignificant contributor of nitrogen oxideemissions.APPENDIX J Page 5Air Quality Analysis

OzoneOzone is a secondary pollutant formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds withoxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. Prescribed burning emits volatile organiccompounds, which can react with urban sources of nitrogen to form ozone. In sufficientquantities, ozone can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation in humans.H. Direct and Indirect Effects of Particulate Matter –Action AlternativesParticulate matter (PM) may cause a toxic effect on humans in the following ways: 1) theparticulate may be intrinsically toxic because of its chemical and/or physical characteristics, 2)the particle may interfere with one or more of the mechanisms which normally clear therespiratory tract, 3) the particle may act as a carrier for an absorbed toxic substance. Medicalstudies have shown a relationship between increases in particulate concentrations and rises in thenumber of clinic and hospital visits for upper respiratory infections, cardiac diseases, bronchitis,asthma, pneumonia, and emphysema.Particulate matter standards were originally promulgated in 1971 and measured total suspendedparticulate matter (TSP). Later studies indicated that most of the adverse health effects causedby particulate matter were caused by the fine, inhalable particles, smaller than 10 microns inaerodynamic diameter, referred to as PM 10 . Presently, standards are being developed forparticulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM 2.5 . These standards are expected tobe finalized, and administratively implemented within the next several years.PM 10 Conformity CalculationsApplicability analysis under 40 CFR (51.853) for annual rates of PM 10 particulates werecompleted for all action alternatives and is summarized below (Table J-2). This table displays arange of estimated tons produced due to the variability of existing and created fuels throughoutthe areas to be treated.Table J-2. Estimated Tons of PM 10 Produced by AlternativeProposedActionCommunityAlternativeYears1-2Years3-4Years5-6Years7-8TotalAnnual Average183.7 - 486.5 254.8 - 628.8 228.1 - 535.6 182.8 - 445.1 894.4 - 2096.0 106.2 - 262.0128.1 -342.9 200.8 - 488.3 189.2 - 436.2 151.2 - 360.2 669.2 - 1627.5 83.7 - 203.4PM 2.5 Conformity CalculationsAn analysis of PM 2.5 using EPA approved emission factors was completed for all actionalternatives and is summarized below (Table J-3). The table displays a range of estimated tonsproduced due to the variability of existing and created fuels throughout the areas to be treated.APPENDIX J Page 6Air Quality Analysis

Table J-3. Estimated Tons of PM 2.5 Produced by AlternativeProposedActionCommunityAlternativeYears1-2Years3-4Years5-6Years7-8TotalAnnual Average173.3 - 459.1 240.5 - 593.4 215.2 - 505.4 172.6 - 420.1 849.4 - 2096.0 100.2 - 247.3120.9 - 323.6 189.5 - 460.8 178.5 - 411.6 142.7 - 339.9 631.5 - 1535.9 78.9 - 192.0Practices that would be employed to reduce emissions include burning concentrations of fuel(jackpot-burning) rather that the entire areas, burning when the fuel moistures are high(particularly in large fuels such as down logs), burning within four drying months of harvestwhen live fuel moisture is present in large fuels, burning when the duff is wet (during spring orwithin 5 days of measurable rain), using rapid ignition to achieve a high intensity fire, andfurther utilization of material prior to burning, i.e., firewood.The burning of piled fuels can further optimize combustion, particularly when the amount of dirtin piles is minimized. The prompt “mopping up” of fires after the flames have diminishedfurther reduces the amount of particulate matter produced.I. Indirect and Cumulative EffectsPrescribed burning is a component of each of the proposed alternatives. Since all burning wouldbe prescribed and controlled, there would be ample opportunity to time burning when theatmospheric conditions are optimal for smoke dispersal. Likewise, there would be anopportunity to limit the size of burning events to control emissions. It is expected that none ofthe action alternatives would result in a violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, oran appreciable reduction in air quality related values.Wildland fires are naturally occurring events, and can be responsible for emissions of substantialamounts of pollutants, particularly CO and particulates. Management activities such as proposedunder Ashland Forest Resiliency are attempting to minimize the risk of large-scale fires.Minimizing this risk subsequently reduces the risk of large, uncontrolled air emissions.Activities designed to minimize the risk of conflagrations through prescribed burning and surfacefuel/ladder fuel reduction may lead to temporary increases in air emissions. However, theseemissions are smaller in volume than natural fires, and can be timed to take advantage offavorable meteorological conditions.Current trends in human activity within the region are anticipated to continue over the life of theproject. Population growth and an associated increase in vehicle miles driven are anticipated tocontinue. 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 leadgasoline additives and the reduction in the volume of logging slash burned have contributed toimprovements in air quality.Neither the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, nor thehazardous fuels reduction proposed under Ashland Forest Resiliency are considered likely tolead to a violation of NAAQS, either independently, or if implemented simultaneously.APPENDIX J Page 7Air Quality Analysis

Therefore, while controlled burns may increase the incidence of emissions, they are unlikely toincrease the incidence of violations of applicable air quality standards. These events areconsidered to be independent of any action proposed or implemented under AFR and aretherefore likely to proceed independent of this evaluation and approval process. While theanticipated effects disclosed under the direct and indirect effects discussion to air quality mayresult in a minor increase in air emissions, they are minor in comparison to the ongoing effects ofhuman occupation within the region, and insignificant either alone or when considered in thecontext of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.APPENDIX J Page 8Air Quality Analysis

APPENDIX KCULTURAL RESOURCESAPPENDIX K Page 1Cultural Resources

APPENDIX K Page 2Cultural Resources