Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Umpqua National Forest Willamette National Forest December 2011

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 COUGAR BLUFFS LAND EXCHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LEAD AGENCY USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS Alice Carlton, Forest Supervisor Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR Phone: Meg Mitchell, Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite D Springfield, OR Phone: FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Scott Elefritz, Natural Resource Specialist Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR Phone: selefritz@fs.fed.us Electronic comments can be mailed to: comments-pacificnorthwestumpqua@fs.fed.us

4 CONTENTS 1. Purpose and Need for Action Introduction 1 Planning Area Location and Environmental Setting 2 Purpose and Need 5 Proposed Action 6 Decision to be Made 6 Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Planning Documents and Analyses 7 Scoping 11 Issues 12 Issues that did not Drive Alternatives 13 Project Implementation 14 Vicinity Map Comparison of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Introduction 16 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 16 Alternative 1: No Action 19 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 19 Comparison of Alternatives Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Introduction 22 Visual Resources 25 Soils 30 Forest Vegetation 32 Botanical Resources 36 Aquatic Resources 52 Wildlife Resources 69 Heritage Resources 86 Recreation 87 Lands 90 Roads 93 Range Resources 97 Other Resources 98 Specifically Required Disclosures Consultation with Others Introduction 103 Agency Consultation 103 Interdisciplinary Team 104 References 105

5 List of Tables Table 1.1 Proposed Federal Exchange Parcels 3 Table 1.2 Proposed Non-Federal Exchange Parcels 4 Table 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives 20 Table 3.1 Past Management Activities in the Planning Area 23 Table 3.2 Ongoing Management Activities in the Planning Area 24 Table 3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Management Activities in the Planning Area 24 Table 3.4 Visual Quality Objectives and Sensitivity Levels by Route 26 Table 3.5 Soil Textures by Parcel 30 Table 3.6 Diminished Soil Productivity by Parcel 31 Table 3.7 Forest Stand Characteristics 34 Table 3.8 Umpqua/Willamette National Forest Sensitive and Strategic Plant List Table 3.9 Surveys & Manage Species List (Settlement Agreement 2011) 44 Table 3.10 Aquatic Habitat Baseline Summary 54 Table 3.11 Water Quality Limited Waters Associated with the Proposed Exchange 55 Table 3.12 Riparian and Wetland Summary by Parcel 58 Table 3.13 Riparian Reserves Summary by Stream Reach 60 Table 3.14 Summary of Federal Stream Miles and Riparian Reserves by Alternative 64 Table 3.15 Summary of Aquatic Habitat Condition Indicators 64 Table 3.16 Effect Determinations of Proposed Action (Aquatic) 66 Table 3.17 Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange Parcel Distribution by 5 th Field Watershed 67 Table 3.18 Seral Stage and Percentage within the Little River Planning Area 72 Table 3.19 Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Data 72 Table 3.20 Determination of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Wildlife Species 77 Table 3.21 Umpqua and Willamette National Forests Management Indicator Species (MIS) 80 Table 3.22 Land Bird Trends from Breeding Bird Survey Routes 81 Table 3.23 Landbirds Showing "Statistically Significant" Population Declines (Sam s Valley Route) 82 Table 3.24 Landbirds Showing "Statistically Significant" Population Declines (Fish Lake Route) 83 Table 3.25 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) by Parcel 88

6 Table 3.26 Survey Corners and Boundary Line Maintenance Related to Exchange Parcels 91 Table 3.27 Survey Corners and Boundary Line Eliminated and Required by Parcel 92 Table 3.28 NFS Roads by Parcel 95 Table 3.29 Proposed Action Reservations and Easements by Parcel 96 Table 3.30 Acreage Proposed for Exchange by County 100 Table 3.31 Populations and Land Base of Counties Potentially Affected 100 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map 15 Figure 3.1 Willamette National Forest Federal Parcel Fish Distribution 61 Figure 3.2 Umpqua National Forest Federal Parcel Fish Distribution 62 Figure 3.3 Non-Federal Parcel Fish Distribution 63 List of Appendices Appendix 1: Proposed Exchange Parcel Location and Land Status 106 Map 1 High Prairie Parcel 106 Map 2 Parcel Map 3 Parcels 5 and Map 4 Parcels 8 and Map 5 Parcel Map 6 Parcels A and B 111 Appendix 2: Proposed Road Reservations & Easements 112 Map 1 High Prairie Parcel 112 Map 2 Parcel Map 3 Parcels 5, 6, 8 and Map 4 Parcel

7 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION INTRODUCTION In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal laws and regulations, the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) on a proposed land exchange between the Forest Service and Cougar Bluffs LLC. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. This document analyzes the proposed action and alternatives and provides the responsible officials with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Any decision will be documented in a Decision Notice signed by the Forest Supervisors of the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests, as the responsible officials. Background: The Forest Service has negotiated with Cougar Bluffs LLC and is willing to exchange two non-federal parcels totaling acres located within the Umpqua National Forest administrative boundary for up to seven parcels of Federal land located on the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests. The two non-federal parcels are located within one eighth mile of each other in the high bluffs above the North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River (WSR). Both non-federal parcels are considered private inholdings as they are surrounded on all sides by National Forest System (NFS) lands. There is no existing road access to these parcels. An NFS trail (McDonald Trail #1515) does provide pedestrian access to these parcels. Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Forest Service is required to grant adequate access for reasonable use of the private land through the Cougar Bluffs Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). Based on high resource values and the likelihood of timber harvest, the Forest has tried to purchase the non-federal inholdings for several years. Each year from 2000 to 2006 Forest Service Region 6 nominated these lands for purchase with Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). When funds were not available to acquire these parcels, the landowners and the Forest Service began discussions about a land exchange. Desah LLC and Seneca Jones Timber Company have entered into a limited liability company, Cougar Bluffs LLC, for the purpose of potentially conveying the non-federal lands to the United States. Since 2005, a land exchange has been discussed with the proponents. A variety of Federal parcels have been suggested through the years. The Federal parcels included in the exchange proposal were identified using a number of factors: 1) 1

8 lands that would not create a new inholding (i.e. parcels already adjacent to non- Federal land), 2) lands not in critical spotted owl habitat, 3) lands that minimize loss of key riparian habitat, and 4) consistent with regulations (ex: no Oregon and California Railroad (O&C) lands) and the Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) for disposal. Due to the O&C land status of many scattered parcels on the Umpqua NF, as well as resource issues, there were a limited number of suitable disposal parcels. During the summer of 2007 two additional Federal parcels on the Willamette and Siuslaw NF s were proposed. The Willamette parcel was previously included in a land exchange which was not finalized. The Siuslaw NF parcel was later dropped due to wetlands issues. In 2009 the Forest Service conducted a feasibility analysis on this land exchange proposal, which included the Federal parcels listed in Table 1.1 and the non- Federal parcels listed in Table 1.2. The valuation consultation indicated that the exchange values between the Federal and non-federal parcels are probably balanced within the legal requirements of 25%, and it is likely that the Federal land value is greater than the non-federal land value, which will provide flexibility if resource or appraisal issues arise. The final conveyances would be balanced using resource and appraisal considerations. PLANNING AREA LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area includes approximately 598 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands within the boundaries of the Willamette and Umpqua National Forests and approximately 280 acres of non-federal lands within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest. The exchange parcels are located in the State of Oregon in portions of Lane and Douglas Counties. See Area Map at the end of Chapter 1 for a vicinity location of the project. The lands included in this proposed exchange are legally described in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 below (See Appendix 1, Maps 1 through 6). Five of the Federal parcels selected for exchange on the Umpqua National Forest, 440 acres, are located in the Little River area on the North Umpqua Ranger District and one 80 acre parcel is located in the Elk Creek area on the Tiller Ranger District. The 79 acre parcel selected for exchange on the Willamette National Forest is located on the eastern end of the High Prairie rural residential area, about six road miles north of the City of Oakridge. The parcels are a mix of young plantations, second growth and some mature, late-seral conifer forest. The Federal parcels all border non-federal lands and have had previous timber management activities. There are no known populations of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species within the selected Federal parcels proposed for exchange. Four of the parcels contain suitable nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for the Northern spotted owl. There are no known critical resources or unique habitat on the selected parcels. NFS lands proposed for exchange are within various Management Areas (MAs) described in the Forest Plans (Table 1.1). These MAs are land areas managed 2

9 towards a common focus. Parcels 4, 5 and 8 (approximately 240 acres) are in MA10 and portions of parcels 6, 9 and 129 are in MA 10 (approximately 180 acres) and MA 11(approximately 100 acres). MA 10 emphasizes timber production, and MA 11 is big game winter range. These allocations allow for timber harvest, dispersed recreation, fuelwood gathering and other multiple use activities. The High Prairie Parcel on the Willamette National Forest is in MA 11C, which emphasizes scenic quality with a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of partial retention in the middleground. This VQO allows human activities to be evident to a viewer, but subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Middleground is defined as 0.25 to 5 miles from the viewer. These areas are also managed for other resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitat. The two non-federal parcels offered for exchange are located in the center of the 6,225 acre Cougar Bluffs Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) on the North Umpqua Ranger District. These private inholdings are surrounded by MA 10 and are comprised of a variety of topographic features and diverse vegetation including, second growth conifer stands mature, late-seral conifer forest, hardwood stands and unique wildlife and botanical habitat. The unique habitat has vegetative and non-vegetative features which differ from the general forest. Although these areas comprise a relatively small area, they contribute greatly to the diversity of wildlife found in the Umpqua National Forest. Both properties contain suitable nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for the Northern spotted owl. The non-federal parcels offered for exchange are the only non-federal lands within the Cougar Bluffs Inventoried Roadless Area. The IRA designation prohibits any timber harvest activities, new road construction or reconstruction except in very limited circumstances (43 CFR and ). They are upslope of the North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Corridor, and come within ½ - 1 mile of the North Umpqua River itself. On the north side of the river is the Rogue-Umpqua National Scenic Byway (Oregon State Highway 138). The North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (amendment to the Umpqua Forest Plan) states that foreground and middleground landscapes seen from the Highway and River Corridor be managed to VQO of retention, which allows for natural ecological changes only. The non-federal lands are within the viewshed of the North Umpqua WSR. The McDonald hiking trail, a non-motorized recreation trail, bisects the parcels and connects to the North Umpqua trail, which parallels the North Umpqua River on the south. Table 1.1 Proposed Federal Exchange Parcels Federal Parcels Parcel Management Area Acres Forest/County T. 20 S., R. 3 E. W. M. Section 35: S1/2NE1/4 excepting 2.48 acres in the NW corner High Prairie 11c Willamette/Lane 3

10 Federal Parcels Parcel Management Area Acres Forest/County T. 27 S., R. 1 W., W.M. Section 20: SE1/ Umpqua/Douglas T. 27 S., R. 2 W., W.M. Section 22: NW1/4SW1/ Umpqua/Douglas T. 27 S., R. 2 W., W.M. Section 22: E1/2NW1/4 and W1/2NE1/4 6 10/ Umpqua/Douglas T. 27 S., R. 2 W., W.M. Section 12: Lot Umpqua/Douglas T. 27 S., R. 2 W., W.M. Section 10: Lot / Umpqua/Douglas T. 32 S., R. 2 W., W.M. Section 12: NE1/4NW1/4, NW1/4NE1/ /11 80 Umpqua/Douglas Table 1.2 Proposed Non-Federal Exchange Parcels Non-Federal Parcels Parcel Acres Forest/County All of HE , more particularly described as: T. 26 S., R. 1 W., W.M. Section 12: E1/2SW1/4NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4SW1/4 A 120 Umpqua/Douglas All of HE , more particularly described as: T.26 S., R. 1 W., W.M. Section 11: W1/2NE1/4NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4NE1/4, S1/2NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4 B 160 Umpqua/Douglas 4

11 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this proposed land exchange is to implement Forest Plan direction by consolidating land ownership and enhancing long-term resource conservation and management. The need for this proposed land exchange is to take advantage of an opportunity to acquire the non-federal inholdings within the Cougar Bluffs IRA and exchange out of Federal parcels in areas of intermingled ownership. Both of these actions would provide efficiencies in land management activities and benefits to the public. This purpose and need can be achieved by exchanging parcels of NFS lands for land owned by Cougar Bluffs LLC. The desired condition for NFS lands is large consolidated blocks which will provide for efficient and effective conservation and management of natural resources. Large, consolidated blocks also help minimize administrative costs. Efficiencies are realized by reducing boundaries requiring survey and maintenance, reducing amounts of roads, reducing the number of easements and the number of agreements necessary to access inholdings. The current intermingled ownership pattern has made it necessary for the Forest Service, private timber companies, and individual landowners to exchange rights-of-way and enter into shared road systems. Contrasting management practices on private land influence resource management efforts on NFS lands and often reduces the ability to apply ecosystem management principals across the landscape. Effective conservation and management of natural resources can be realized by increasing the contiguous land base (ecosystem) where consistent objectives may be applied, and increasing ownership of important plant, wildlife, and fisheries habitats. Cougar Bluffs LLC land management objectives are benefitted by reducing costs and improving efficiencies associated with timber land management. Cost reductions can be realized by reducing the number and miles of existing joint-use roads and boundary maintenance associated with the management of inholdings. This land exchange proposal is consistent with forest-wide goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in both the Umpqua and the Willamette National Forest Plans, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Generally, the objectives are to achieve a landownership pattern that will best meet resource management needs, minimize administrative costs, and dispose of lands which are difficult to manage, isolated, or unsuitable for National Forest purposes. Priorities are to acquire inholdings and eliminate isolated and extruding parcels of land. Specific Forest Plan direction is discussed below under the Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Other Planning Documents and Analyses section. 5

12 PROPOSED ACTION The Forest Service proposes to acquire acres of non-federally owned lands and interests held by Cougar Bluffs LLC in exchange for an equal value of lands and interests from a maximum of acres of NFS lands administered by the Forest Service. The Forest Service will identify Federal lands to be dropped, if needed, to equalize values of lands and interests and comply with the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of October 21, The acres controlled by Cougar Bluffs LLC are located within the Cougar Bluffs Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) on the North Umpqua Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest. The acres of Federal lands proposed for exchange are located within the North Umpqua and Tiller Ranger Districts on the Umpqua National Forest and the Middle Fork Ranger District on the Willamette National Forest. This proposed action is being analyzed to determine the potential effects of the land exchange, as proposed, and the alternatives generated. DECISION TO BE MADE Based on the analysis documented in this Environmental Assessment, the Responsible Officials (the Forest Supervisors of the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests) would decide whether or not to proceed with the proposed exchange, and if so, what process and/or mitigation measures would be required. The scope of the decision to be made is whether or not it is a public benefit to exchange the selected Federal lands and interests for the offered non-federal lands and interests. The scope of the project is focused on the exchange itself, and the analysis is limited to the expected effects of reasonably foreseeable future activities on the lands involved in the proposed exchange. The lands exchanged to the Forest Service would be managed according to the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1990). The lands exchanged to Cougar Bluffs LLC would likely be managed for timber production and comply with the regulations of the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. The Forest Supervisors decision will be documented in a Decision Notice and list any mitigation measures that may apply. A Public Interest Determination will be made in the Decision Notice (36 CFR 254.3(b)(2)). The implementing regulations for the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act (36 CFR 254.3) states that, Lands acquired by exchange that are located within areas having an administrative designation established through the land management planning process shall automatically become part of the area within which they are located, without further action by the Forest Service, and shall be managed in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations, and land and resource management plan applicable to such area. The regulations further state, 6

13 lands conveyed out of Federal ownership shall be subject to local government laws, regulations, and zoning. RELATIONSHIP TO LAWS, REGULATIONS, OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSES Laws and Regulations: The proposed land exchange is being conducted under the authority of: The General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922 (16 U.S.C. 485, 486) And in accordance with: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701) The Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988 (43 U.S.C. 1716, 43 U.S.C. 751) Other laws and regulations which apply to this proposed land exchange include: The Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7609) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) The Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) The National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1660) The implementing regulations for the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act are contained in 36 CFR 254, subpart A Land Exchanges. Development of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is in accordance with implementation regulations of National Forest System Land Management Planning (36 CFR 219) and Council of Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR ). Policy and Plans: This EA is tiered to the Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) for the Umpqua National Forest (USDA, 1990), as amended and the Willamette National Forest (USDA, 1990), as amended, and their accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS). The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, 1994) amended the Umpqua and Willamette National Forest LRMPs and 7

14 established standards and guidelines for management of habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. The Umpqua Forest Plan states the Forest Goal for land ownership is to, Facilitate landownership adjustments which meet the demand for sound, effective resource management and administration, and provides for benefits in the public interest that cannot be provided or assured by non-federal ownership. The Objective identifies priorities for acquisition as 1) Congressionally-designated for acquisition, 2) lands contributing to special management (i.e. IRA) or special public needs, and 3) general forest lands. The Objective for disposal is to, Dispose of lands which are difficult to manage, isolated or not suited for National Forest purposes. The Umpqua Forest Plan has a Forest-wide Standard and Guideline that directs landownership adjustments to be made based upon a determination of the ownership pattern which will best resolve conflicting uses with adjacent landowners and improve resource management efficiency. The Willamette Forest Plan Forest-wide Standard and Guideline (FW-277) states Opportunities to acquire or exchange lands within proclamation boundaries should be pursued to provide for or improve: protection within Wilderness; wildlife and fish management opportunities; access opportunities; efficiency of NFS management through consolidation; and recreation management opportunities. The proposed land exchange is in compliance with the goals, objectives, and Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines of both the Umpqua and Willamette Forest Plans. Non-Federal lands would be acquired within an IRA and the acquisition would reduce the potential for future road construction in an IRA, offer a continued public hiking trail opportunity, increase the amount of federally managed spotted owl habitat, reduce administrative costs associated with boundary survey and maintenance and improve effectiveness of natural resource management activities. Federal lands that would be disposed of are adjacent to non-federal ownership, and are inherently more challenging to manage. Acquisition of the parcels would be consistent with the Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, and would enhance the WSR qualities. The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), which amended Forest Service Planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl, allocated lands into seven categories: congressionally reserved areas; late-successional reserves; adaptive management areas; managed late-successional areas; administratively withdrawn areas; riparian reserves; and matrix. Standards and guidelines for each land allocation provide a coordinated ecosystem management approach to the NWFP planning area (Pacific Northwest Federal forests). The NWFP includes an Aquatic Conservation Strategy which designated Key Watersheds for fisheries and water quality protection. 8

15 The NWFP is generally silent on land exchanges, with the exception of those involving: Late-Successional Reserves Land exchanges involving latesuccessional reserve will be considered if they provide benefits equal to or better than current conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems. Aquatic Conservation Strategy directs the use of land exchange to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and facilitate restoration of fish stocks and other species at risk of extinction None of the Federal parcels proposed for exchange contain areas designated as Late-Successional Reserves. Both non-federal parcels are located adjacent to an area of Late-Successional Reserve. There is suitable owl habitat within and adjacent to these non-federal parcels. The two non-federal parcels contain a total of 58 acres of late-successional forest while only one Federal parcel contains late-successional forest totaling 14 acres. The proposed land exchange would increase the amount of Federal late-successional forest by 44 acres, block up Federal ownership in the area, and enhance conditions of the adjacent latesuccessional forest. The proposed land exchange would provide benefits better than current conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems. Parcel 129 is located within the Elk Creek Tier 1 Key Watershed, although no stream runs through the property. Tier 1 Key Watersheds are those that contribute directly to anadromous salmonid and bull trout conservation. This parcel is situated at the edge of National Forest System lands and downstream land ownership is mixed and heavily managed. The watershed is in poor to fair condition and unlikely to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives whether or not the parcel is retained in Federal ownership. Forest Service management of the non-federal parcels would provide the opportunity to apply Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives to lands that would otherwise remain in non- Federal ownership and could potentially be harvested. Parcels 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, totaling 440 acres, are located within the land allocation designated as the Little River Adaptive Management Area (AMA). AMAs were identified with the objective to develop and test new management approaches to integrate and achieve ecological and economic health, and other social objectives. The primary focus of the Little River AMA is the development of approaches to integrate intensive timber production with restoration and maintenance of high quality riparian habitat. It is not a designated Key Watershed. The High Prairie parcel and Parcel 129, totaling 159 acres, are located within the land allocation designated as Matrix. The primary objective on Matrix lands is the sustained production of wood products while providing for ecological functions. Matrix forests also provide connectivity between Late-Successional 9

16 Reserves and provide habitat for a variety of organisms associated with latesuccessional and younger forests. These lands add ecological diversity by providing early - successional habitat. The proposed land exchange is consistent with Northwest Forest Plan direction and the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Non-Federal lands would be acquired adjacent to Late-Successional Reserve resulting in an increase of federally managed spotted owl habitat and increased ability to meet the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Forest Service manual 5403 and give direction concerning Forest Service policies regarding land exchanges. Agency policy and general guidance for land exchange process are located in Forest Service handbook , chapter 30. This proposed land exchange will follow Forest Service policy. The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) provides the strategic direction that guides the Forest Service in delivering its mission. It addresses the major issues currently important to natural resource management and the strategic goals upon which the agency will focus for FY 2007 through The proposed land exchange would meet the following goals and objectives of the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years : Goal 1 - Restore, Sustain, and Enhance the Nation s Forests and Grasslands Objective 1.4: Reduce impacts from invasive species. The Cougar Bluffs roadless area provides a relatively undisturbed block of important habitat where noxious weeds and invasive species have not become established. The owner of the non-federal parcels is considering development of roaded access for timber harvest purposes. The Forest Service would be required to provide such access as is deemed adequate to secure the owner reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. Disturbance through road building and timber harvesting can lead to increased establishment of invasive species. Acquisition of the non-federal parcels would eliminate the potential risk. The Federal parcels all have legal road access, and a land exchange is not expected to increase impacts from invasive species. Goal 3 - Conserve Open Space Objective 3.1: Protect forests and grasslands from conversion to other uses. Non-Federal inholdings within the National Forests can be a source of management problems and habitat fragmentation. Road construction and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas are likely to alter and fragment the overall landscape, resulting in immediate, long-term loss of roadless area values and characteristics. Acquisition would consolidate Federal ownership within the Cougar Bluffs IRA, thereby conserving the integrity and habitat quality of these undeveloped lands. The Federal parcels being considered for exchange are 10

17 roaded, and are being managed as forest land with timber production. No conversion to other uses is foreseen. Goal 4 Sustain and enhance Recreation Opportunities Objective 4.1: Improve the quality and availability of outdoor recreation experiences. The McDonald Trail, a NFS non-motorized trail, provides recreational opportunities for hikers choosing to visit the Cougar Bluffs IRA. The trail bisects the non-federal parcels, although the United States has not acquired a trail easement. Continued access across this non-federal property cannot be guaranteed. Acquisition of the non-federal parcels would ensure its continued use and eliminate the need to acquire an easement or reroute the trail. The Federal parcels do not offer popular or distinctive recreation opportunities. The proposed land exchange is in conformance with USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan FY and supports the agency s mission to Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Local Assessments: In 2001 the Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis was completed. This watershed analysis, conducted in accordance with the Record of Decision (ROD) for the NWFP, provides context and information to help guide management decisions within the analysis area. The proposal for acquisition of the non- Federal parcels is consistent with recommendations made in the 2001 Middle North Umpqua Watershed Analysis. SCOPING Scoping and public involvement are ongoing processes used to invite public participation and to obtain input on the scope of the analysis, alternatives to be evaluated, and issues to be addressed. The Forest began prescoping for this project in 2007 when Federal lands suitable for exchange were identified and an Agreement to Initiate (ATI) was signed by the Forest Service and Cougar Bluffs LLC in The project proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on January 1, 2011 and has been posted on the SOPA quarterly since then. Based on preliminary issues identified through prescoping and coordination with other Federal, state, county and other local entities, tribal governments and interested publics, the Forest Service developed a Proposed Action. Public comment was solicited through news releases in the local media and the Umpqua National Forest website. On January 28, 2011 a scoping letter describing the Proposed Action was mailed to about 100 interested publics. 11

18 A Notice of Proposed Land Exchange was published in the newspapers of record in Roseburg (The News-Review) and Eugene (The Register-Guard) every Monday for four consecutive weeks in accordance with 36 CFR There were no responses regarding claims to land ownership. ISSUES Issues identified through the scoping process create the necessity for alternatives to the proposed action or generate the need for mitigation once a decision is made. The Forest Service received responses from two commentors during the public scoping process. Both commentors supported the proposed land exchange. The following issues were generated from those public comments. Late-Successional Forests o ensure that sensitive resources on existing federal lands (such as oldgrowth forests, rock outcrops, meadows, streams) are not unnecessarily included in the trade. the Forest Service should minimize the loss of other important ecological values in the federal parcels to be traded away. o The NEPA analysis should consider alternatives such as: federal purchase of the roadless parcels using the land and water conservation fund; excluding mature forests from the list of federal parcels to be traded; conservation easements to protect streams and ecological values associated with older forests. o The EA should include an alternative that exchanges only previously clearcut federal lands. Riparian Reserves o The Forest Service should also avoid trading away riparian reserves that feed coho habitat downstream o ensure that sensitive resources on existing federal lands (such as oldgrowth forests, rock outcrops, meadows, streams) are not unnecessarily included in the trade. the Forest Service should minimize the loss of other important ecological values in the federal parcels to be traded away. Direct Purchase o The NEPA analysis should consider alternatives such as: federal purchase of the roadless parcels using the land and water conservation fund; excluding mature forests from the list of federal parcels to be traded; conservation easements to protect streams and ecological values associated with older forests. 12

19 Deed Restrictions o The NEPA analysis should consider alternatives such as: federal purchase of the roadless parcels using the land and water conservation fund; excluding mature forests from the list of federal parcels to be traded; conservation easements to protect streams and ecological values associated with older forests. ISSUES THAT DID NOT DRIVE ALTERNATIVES The following issues were raised during the public scoping process and are either resolved through existing guidance or beyond the scope of this project: Valuation o Ensure that the public gets a fair deal in the trade fair from the perspective of both economics and ecology. o Any land exchange must be equal monitory [monetary] value. The value on the Cougar Bluffs parcels should be reduced by the lack of road access. Also, if there were a northern spotted owl on the Cougar Bluffs parcels, the timber value would be further reduced by the Endangered Species Act s legal requirements for non-federal lands. o The NEPA analysis might discover some special resources values that need special protection. The FS might want to consider evaluating in the NEPA analysis more federal parcels than the bare minimum needed to accomplish exchange, so that the decision-maker has some options to consider when making the final decision. Lands or interests to be exchanged must be of equal value in accordance with 36 CFR 254.3(c) Land Exchanges, Requirements. This proposed land exchange is structured on a value-for-value basis as required in section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). A qualified, licensed appraiser will appraise the Federal and non-federal lands. The appraisal is prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. These documents require that the land and interests associated with the land be appraised to the highest and best use. 36 CFR 254.9(b)(1) states, In estimating market value, the appraiser shall: (iii) Include historic, wildlife, recreation, wilderness, scenic, cultural, or other resource values or amenities as reflected in prices paid for similar properties in the competitive market. The appraisals prepared for the land exchange are reviewed by a qualified review appraiser to ensure that it complies with the appropriate standards. 13

20 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Implementation could proceed after the Decision Notice is signed, all NEPA requirements and Forest Service appeal regulation requirements (36 CFR 215) are completed, and an Exchange Agreement is executed by both parties. Final land conveyance involves the exchange of Deeds and Patent(s) and recordation of the documents in the respective county offices. 14

21 Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map 15

22 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION INTRODUCTION The purpose of the project is to consolidate land ownership in the Middle North Umpqua watershed on the North Umpqua Ranger District and enhance long-term resource conservation and management. The Forest Supervisors established an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) comprised of Forest Service experts in the disciplines they determined appropriate and essential to the successful completion of the project. The Forest Supervisors guided the IDT in the development of alternatives to the proposed action that meet the identified purpose and need for action and address issues raised through the public scoping process. This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for this project. Some alternatives were considered but not developed in detail for various reasons. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY The following alternatives were considered by the Forest Supervisors to address comments raised during public scoping, however they were eliminated from detailed analysis for various reasons. Exclude Federal Late-Successional Forests Public response to the Proposed Action recommended the Forest Service consider an alternative, excluding mature forests from the list of federal parcels to be traded Another comment suggested the Forest Service should minimize the loss of other important ecological values (i.e. old-growth forests, riparian reserves, etc.) in the Federal parcels to be traded away. The northern portion of Parcel 6 contains 14 acres of late-successional forest. While this parcel is not within the late-successional reserve land allocation, the NWFP states, Land exchanges involving late-successional reserve will be considered if they provide benefits equal to or better than current conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems. If all the Federal land included in the proposed land exchange were required to equal the value of the non-federal parcels, the exchange would result in a net gain of 44 acres of latesuccessional forest. This proposal is being analyzed to determine the potential effects of the proposed land exchange, and whether it is in the public interest. The scope of the decision to be made is whether it is in the interest of the public to exchange lands currently in Federal ownership for those currently in non-federal ownership. Once the appraisal is completed and values are known, both parties to the exchange will negotiate the final mix of lands and cash equalization. It is 16

23 during this post environmental analysis phase that certain parcels or portions of parcels may be excluded from the final conveyances based upon resource considerations documented in this analysis. Because this EA analyzes and discloses the effects of the proposed exchange on all Federal lands included in the proposal, and because the final mix of lands will be negotiated after the appraisal is approved, there is no need to analyze a separate alternative that minimizes or eliminates late-successional forests conveyed out of Federal ownership. For this reason, an alternative excluding mature forests from the list of federal parcels to be traded was not developed further. Include Only Previously Clear Cut Federal Lands Public comments submitted in response to the Proposed Action suggested, The EA should include an alternative that exchanges only previously clearcut federal lands. Under this alternative the High Prairie parcel, parcel 129, and the north half of parcel 6, totaling approximately 240 acres, would be eliminated from consideration in the proposed land exchange. These parcels represent 40 percent of the Federal lands identified for exchange. The Federal parcels included in the exchange proposal were identified using a number of factors (see Background, under Introduction in Chapter 1). As discussed in Chapter 1, the selected parcels are consistent with the Forest Plans and the Northwest Forest Plan for exchange and there is no direction to include only NFS lands that have been previously clearcut. Due to administrative, as well as resource issues, there were a limited number of suitable disposal parcels. All Federal parcels identified as suitable for disposal using these criteria were included in the proposed land exchange. In accordance with 36 CFR cash equalization may not exceed 25 percent of the value of the Federal lands to be conveyed. Due to budgetary constraints, cash equalization to within 5 percent of the value of the Federal lands is a more practical, and realistic scenario. The valuation consultation conducted as part of the 2009 feasibility analysis on the land exchange proposal did not suggest that there was sufficient Federal value to allow for such a substantial reduction in Federal lands and still comply with regulations and the realities regarding cash equalization. Because the Federal lands removed from consideration could not be replaced through substitution of other suitable Federal lands or cash equalization, there would be no possibility of a successful land exchange. Since eliminating the opportunity to consolidate land ownership and enhance long-term resource conservation and management would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed exchange, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 17

24 Exclude Federal Riparian Reserves That Feed Coho Salmon Habitat Scoping of the Proposed Action revealed a public concern about riparian reserves and coho salmon habitat. Public comment suggested, The Forest Service should also avoid trading away riparian reserves that feed coho habitat downstream Parcels 4, 6 and 9 contain perennial stream segments which are tributaries to Little River. Little River itself contains trout, winter steelhead and probably coho salmon. Under this alternative parcels 4, 6 and 9 would be eliminated from consideration in the proposed land exchange. These parcels, totaling approximately 360 acres, represent 60 percent of the Federal lands identified for exchange. This would exclude a substantial portion of the selected Federal lands from consideration for exchange, and these Federal lands could not be replaced through substitution of other suitable Federal lands or cash equalization. Exclusion of these parcels from consideration would render the proposed exchange unfeasible and eliminate the possibility of a successful land exchange. Since eliminating the opportunity to consolidate land ownership and enhance long-term resource conservation and management would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed exchange, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Direct Purchase Under this alternative, the acres of non-federal land would be purchased from Cougar Bluffs LLC by the United States of America. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 897, as amended) is the major source of acquisition funds available to the Forest Service. Purchases using funds appropriated under this Act must be primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes or to conserve habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants, including those listed as endangered or threatened species. The Forest has tried to purchase these non-federal inholdings for several years. Each year from 2000 to 2006 Forest Service Region 6 nominated these lands for purchase with Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). Even though these properties are important to bring into Federal ownership status, they have not competed well for LWCF monies. Based on past history and national and regional priorities, it is extremely unlikely that funds appropriated under the LWCF Act would be available for direct purchase of the non-federal properties. In addition, the non-federal parties are unwilling to sell their land directly to the United States. Since the non-federal parcels could not be acquired through direct purchase, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need of consolidating land ownership and enhancing longterm resource conservation and management of NFS lands. Therefore this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Deed Restrictions Public comments submitted in response to the Proposed Action suggested the Forest Service consider an alternative that uses conservation easements to 18

25 protect streams and ecological values associated with older forests. A conservation easement is a deeded transfer of an interest in real property which restricts the uses that may be made of the property by the landowner, in perpetuity. The use of deed restrictions on some or the entire Federal parcel to be conveyed may be appropriate when a critical resource is identified for protection. No critical resources were identified through the analysis. Because conveyance of the property with deed restrictions is inconsistent with policy, direction, and regulation, and since no critical resources in need of protection have been identified, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need of consolidating land ownership and enhancing long-term resource conservation and management of NFS lands. Therefore this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION The no action alternative represents the existing condition and serves as the baseline for effects analysis of the Proposed Action and alternatives. Under this alternative no lands would be exchanged between the Forest Service and Cougar Bluffs LLC. The current landownership pattern and resource management practices would continue within the project area. Federal lands would continue to be managed as directed by the Umpqua and Willamette Forest Plans, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan; non-federal lands would continue to be managed under existing applicable state and Federal laws and regulations. Management inefficiencies would continue to persist such as, access issues to non-federal land within an IRA, landline and boundary management of isolated Federal parcels and habitat fragmentation. The Forest Service would have to either reroute the McDonald Trail around the non-federal land or acquire an easement from the landowners. ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION The Forest Service would exchange acres of non-federally owned lands and interests held by Cougar Bluffs LLC for an equal value of lands and interests from a maximum of acres of lands administered by the U.S Forest Service. The proposed exchange land parcels are identified in Table 1.1. The acres controlled by Cougar Bluffs LLC are located within the Cougar Bluffs Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) on the North Umpqua Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest. The 598 acres of Federal lands proposed for exchange are located within the North Umpqua and Tiller Ranger Districts on the Umpqua National Forest and the Middle Fork Ranger District on the Willamette National Forest. The proposed action would authorize the transfer of land 19

26 ownership and management authority between the two parties. Site-specific management activities on the parcels acquired by the United States would require separate environmental analysis. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section presents a comparison of the alternatives that were considered in detail. Table 2.1 presents a summary of the consequences by issues and agency considerations for each alternative. Table 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives Issues Alternative 1: No Action Public Scoping Issues Late-Successional Forest (acres) Riparian Reserves (acres) (93.6) Perennial Streams (miles) 1.20 (1.16) Intermittent Streams (miles) 2.53 (1.20) Alternative 2: Proposed Action* Other Resources and Administrative Considerations T&E Species - Botanical No Change No Effect T&E Species - Aquatic No Change No Effect T&E Species - Terrestrial No Change May Affect, and is likely to adversely affect Cultural Resources No Change None Affected Wetlands (acres) Floodplains (acres) 4.36 (4.21) Forest Boundary (miles) (4.50) * Figures in parentheses represent a net loss Purpose and Need Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, meets the Purpose and Need of the project, while the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, does not. Alternative 2 would eliminate private inholdings within the Cougar Bluffs IRA and dispose of Federal parcels in areas of intermingled ownership, thereby enhancing long-term resource conservation and land management. Issues - Issues identified through the public scoping process are addressed in one or more of the alternatives analyzed in this Environmental Assessment. Late-Successional Forests Under the No Action Alternative there would be no change in the amount of late-successional forests in Federal ownership. The 14 acres of latesuccessional forest in parcel 6 would remain in Federal ownership and continue to be managed with an emphasis for timber production, in accordance with management prescriptions for MA 10. The non-federal parcels would remain in private ownership and continue to be managed for timber production. As a result of the Proposed Action, 14 acres of late- 20

27 successional forest may leave Federal ownership and 58 acres of latesuccessional forest would come into Federal ownership. The Proposed Action Alternative addresses the public concern of unnecessarily including sensitive resources (i.e. old-growth forests, rock outcrops, meadows, streams) in the proposed land exchange. The final mix of lands would be negotiated after the appraisals are approved. The Forest Service would identify Federal lands to be dropped, if needed, to equalize values of lands and interests based upon resource considerations (i.e. late-successional forests, riparian reserves, scenic values, etc.) documented in this analysis. Riparian Reserves Under the No Action Alternative there would be no change in the amount of riparian reserves or streams in Federal ownership. The acres of riparian reserves and the 3.73 miles of stream segments (1.2 mi. perennial; 2.53 mi. intermittent) would remain in Federal ownership and would continue to be managed with an emphasis for timber production and a moderate level of scenic quality under the Willamette and Umpqua Forest Plans and the NWFP. The No Action Alternative addresses the public concern of trading away riparian reserves that feed coho habitat downstream. As a result of the Proposed Action, there would be a net increase of 1.6 acres of wetlands and a net reduction of 2.36 miles of streams (1.16 mi. perennial; 1.2 mi. intermittent) in Federal ownership. The Proposed Action Alternative addresses the public concern of unnecessarily including sensitive resources (i.e. old-growth forests, rock outcrops, meadows, streams) in the proposed land exchange. The final mix of lands would be negotiated after the appraisal is approved. The Forest Service would identify Federal lands to be dropped, if needed, to equalize values of lands and interests based upon resource considerations (i.e. riparian reserves, streams, fisheries, etc.) documented in this analysis. Other resource and administrative considerations are discussed in detail in the affected environment section (Chapter 3) of this document. These considerations include but are not limited to: cultural, wildlife, aquatic, botanical and mineral resources, as well as recreation, access, and socioeconomic values. 21

28 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS INTRODUCTION The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed existing guidance, Forest assessments, relevant literature, and used their professional judgment and knowledge of the Forests to determine how implementation of the proposed alternatives are likely to affect the environment. This chapter provides a description of the affected environment in the project area and the expected environmental consequences of the alternatives. The affected environment includes the physical, biological, social, and economic environment and provides the baseline conditions against which environmental consequences are evaluated. In addition to field reviews, much of the effects analysis was conducted using Geographic Information System (GIS) data. GIS generated acreage and mileage figures differ slightly from surveyed acreage and mileage. This discrepancy (<1%) is negligible and does not impact the determination of environmental consequences of the proposed actions. This chapter also incorporates by reference all reports and analysis prepared by resource specialists, which are summarized in this chapter. The expected environmental consequences are disclosed as the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing the alternatives. Direct effects are those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are those that are a result of the action, but occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity. Cumulative effects are those which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Effects are quantified where possible. A wide variety of land use activities have occurred within the project area in the past, continue to occur presently, and may be expected to occur within the reasonably foreseeable future. Past actions and the activities that are presently occurring on the Forests are considered as part of the project baseline conditions. Relevant actions that were considered in cumulative impact analysis include, but are not limited to: Development and maintenance of the Forest transportation system Recreational uses (developed and undeveloped) Timber harvest Forest stand improvement Fire management Fuels management 22

29 Special Use Permits Habitat enhancement Noxious weed control The effects analysis is based on reasonably foreseeable consequences under likely management policies of Cougar Bluffs LLC and the Forest Service. Future management of the lands proposed for exchange to Cougar Bluffs LLC would likely be timber production and comply with the regulations of the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. Lands exchanged to the Forest Service would be managed according to the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1990 as amended by the NWFP). The tables below summarize information known about the subwatersheds (Little River, Middle North Umpqua, Elk Creek), and the North Fork of the Middle Fork Willamette 5 th field watersheds that constitute the project area. They document relevant past (Table 3.1), present (Table 3.2), and reasonably foreseeable activities (Table 3.3) that may contribute to cumulative effects of the proposed land exchange. Table 3.1 Past Management Activities in the Planning Area Activity Decade Acres/Miles Regeneration Harvest (Forest Service land) Commercial Thinning, Partial Harvest, Mechanical/Physical Removal Pre-Commercial Thinning (PCT) 1940 s 1950 s 1960 s 1970 s 1980 s 1990 s Total 1970 s 1980 s 1990 s 2000 s 2010 Total 1960 s 1970 s 1980 s 1990 s 2000 s 2010 Total 5,954 10,048 12,327 9,238 12,220 4,270 ~54,057 acres 3,258 4,679 3, ,337 ~13,664 acres 999 2,809 6,253 2,228 4, ~16,994 acres Hazard Fuels Thinning 2010 ~58 acres Burning of Piled Material 1970 s 1980 s 1990 s 2000 s 2010 Total 3,055 4,182 2, ~9,807 acres Description and Extent of Activity Regeneration harvest primarily through ground based and skyline logging. Commercial thinning used primarily ground based and skyline logging with a small amount of helicopter logging in the 1990 s PCT was accomplished using hand carried chain saws 23

30 Activity Decade Acres/Miles Broadcast Burning System Road Miles (road building) Road Decommissioning In Stream Fish Habitat Enhancement Noxious Weed Treatments 1940 s 1950 s 1960 s 1970 s 1980 s 1990 s Total Total 1980 s s 2000 s Total 1970 s 2000 s Total 233 5,398 4,524 6,130 7,671 5,101 ~26,059 acres 606 Miles ~40 miles miles ~300 acres Description and Extent of Activity Building of system roads for logging and transportation purposes. Includes ML 1, 2, 3, and 4 roads. Placement of large wood in Black Creek (1.5 miles). Placement of large wood in Negro Creek (0.5 miles) and White Creek (2.0 miles). Placement of Large wood in ~4 miles of NFMF. Area release and weeding Pulling of known Scotch Broom. Table 3.2 Ongoing Activities in the Planning Area Activity Type Road Work Noxious Weed Treatment Total Acres/Miles Approximately 60 miles Approximately 100+ acres Notes Blading, ditch clean out, and maintenance as budgeted. Focused on main roads within the project area watersheds Ongoing treatment of noxious weeds in the project area watersheds Table 3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Planning Area* Activity Type Private Land Harvest or Thinning Road Maintenance Natural Prescribed Fire Noxious Weed Treatment Total Acres/Miles 1,484 acres Approximately 60 miles 5,531 acres Approximately 100 acres Notes It can be assumed that private lands within the planning area boundary may be subject to harvest at 40 year intervals Ongoing maintenance of road system in the watersheds Natural prescribed which include Steamboat WUI and Ragged Ridge in the Steamboat Watershed. Upper Cavitt and Blaze (Withrow EA) in the Little River Watershed Ongoing treatment of noxious weeds in the watersheds Commercial Thinning 2,470 acres FS future commercial thinning * Likely to occur within the next five years 24

31 The direct environmental effects of the proposed land exchange would be the change of ownership and those associated with changes in public access and use of respective lands. Other expected effects would be indirect effects, mostly associated with the change in management emphasis. National Forest System lands included in the proposed exchange are managed under the Umpqua and Willamette National Forest Plans. Forest Plans provide direction for the kinds of activities which may take place based on Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and Management Area Goals and Objectives. These Forest Plans have been amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, which generally applied additional requirements for maintenance and protection of riparian areas, wildlife habitats, and late successional forests. The Oregon State Forest Practices Act (ORS ) regulates private forest management activities. Specific standards and definitions relating to the administration of this law are included in Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 629, Division 24. For NFS lands and non-federal lands, these documents provide guidance as it relates to harvest and reforestation activities. Generally speaking, the Forest Plans provide more direction on what kinds of activities can be implemented and under what conditions. This direction will generally result in fewer, smaller trees being available for harvest than under Oregon State Forest Practices Act. Forest Plans will usually provide greater emphasis on maintaining other amenities in association with timber harvest such as big game cover; scenic quality; large snags and down wood; future snags (also known as green tree replacements); reproductive, foraging, and dispersal habitats for a wide variety of wildlife species; plants, and cultural and cave resources. The Oregon State Forest Practices Act rules require protection of water quality; minimizing loss of soil productivity; protection of known nesting sites for bald eagles, northern spotted owls, and great blue herons; protection of known cultural resource sites; and reforestation to a level closely approximating those required on NFS lands. There are no specific requirements for protection of big game cover, caves, or sensitive plant or animal species. VISUAL RESOURCES From high vistas to dense forests, picturesque landscapes are one of the many aspects of National Forests the public values. High quality scenery is valued by many who visit, live, and work in Western Oregon. Western Oregon and the Cascade Mountains are well known for superior outdoor recreation opportunities and beautiful scenery. The importance of the high scenic quality of Western Oregon s National Forests is evidenced by the increased recreational use of the forests and a heightened awareness of, and sensitivity to, visual resource values by forest visitors. High quality recreational experiences can be directly linked to high-level visual resource values. 25

32 Affected Environment The project area can be described as having a diverse landscape character and a variety of scenic resources and dispersed recreational value. The landscape form of the proposed exchange parcels is similar and primarily composed of moderate to steeply sloping mountains containing mixed conifer forests. The Federal parcels proposed for exchange are located in areas where current land use is predominately high yield timber production and multiple use forest management. Forested views along the primary access routes vary from heavily cut and replanted areas to late-successional mixed conifer forests. Other visual features include rocky buttes, ridges, small streams, rivers, and open meadows. The scenic resources on the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests were inventoried under the Forest Service s Visual Management System (VMS). The Forest Plans assigned a range of Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) to Management Areas depending on the broad focus of each Management Area and the specific management direction contained in assigned Prescriptions. The VQO is described along a range of naturalness or degree of acceptable alteration to a landscape, and the VQO can vary dependent on where one is located on a particular road. VQO s are defined as: Preservation (P) allows for natural ecological changes only; Retention (R) is where humans activities are not evident to the forest visitor; Partial Retention (PR) is where humans activities may be evident, but are subordinate to the characteristic landscape; Modification (M) is where humans activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but at the same time, utilizes naturally established form, line, color, and texture; and Maximum Modification (MM) is where human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but it should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed from a distance. Sensitivity levels are a measure of people s concern for the scenic quality of the National Forests. Three sensitivity levels are employed, each identifying a different level of user concern for the visual environment with Level 1 being the highest sensitivity, Level 2 being average, and Level 3 being the lowest sensitivity. Major travel corridors are assigned the highest visual sensitivity levels (Level 1 and 2), and are also referred to as viewsheds. Viewsheds within the project area are listed in Table 3.4 below. Table 3.4 Visual Quality Objectives and Sensitivity Levels by Route Ranger District Route VQO Sensitivity Level North Umpqua Hwy. 138 R 1 North Umpqua North Umpqua Trail Corridor R 2 North Umpqua Little River Road 27 MM 2 Tiller County Road 1 PR 2 Middle Fork Aufderheide Drive Road 19 PR 1 26

33 Highway 138/North Umpqua Trail The North Umpqua River is paralleled by the Rogue-Umpqua National Scenic Byway (Oregon State Highway 138) on its north banks and the North Umpqua Trail on its south. The North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (amendment to the Umpqua National Forest LRMP) states that foreground (from 0 mi. up to 0.5 mi.) and middleground (0.25 mi. up to 5 mi.) landscapes seen from the Highway and River Corridor be managed to retention VQO. This Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridor is recognized as one of the most scenic rivers in the southwestern Oregon region. The canyon landscape is generally characterized by the combination of clear rushing water, boulders and rock outcrops within a mosaic of mountain meadows and Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests. Parcel B is within, and Parcel A is just outside, the viewshed of the North Umpqua WSR. Little River Road The Little River Road (Forest Road 27) parallels Little River as it descends through the coniferous forest of the western edge of the Cascade Mountains to meet the eastern edge of the mixed hardwoods, prairies, and conifers of the Umpqua Valley hills. Due to Little Rivers proximity to the mills in Roseburg and because of its productive high volume forests, the area was intensively harvested during the 1950 s and 1960 s. Federal parcels 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 lie outside the Little River Road viewshed and are managed to allow management activities to dominate the visual landscape. County Road 1 County Road 1 follows Elk Creek through mixed conifer and oak woodlands to where it drains into the South Umpqua River at the town of Tiller. The many unique habitats in the area provide visual diversity and key habitat for several sensitive and rare plants and animals. Parcel 129 lies within the middleground of the County Road 1 corridor, has an average concern for visual quality, and is managed to allow evident management activities. Aufderheide Drive Road 19 Aufderheide Drive follows the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Willamette River through the coniferous forests of the western Cascade Mountains. The lush evergreens and rushing waters along this route provide exceptional scenery for Forest visitors and comprise 31 miles of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway. The High Prairie parcel lies outside the North Fork Willamette viewshed; however it is in Management Area 11c and managed to partial retention VQO. The High Prairie parcel is situated adjacent to a low density residential area interspersed with agricultural (hay) fields. Sensitivity Level 3 Recreation Access Routes are also managed as a priority for visual enhancement and rehabilitation in the foreground along routes accessing trailheads and developed recreation sites, (not applied to other level 3 roads). There are no Sensitivity Level 3 Recreation Access Routes within the project area. 27

34 Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative management objectives for the NFS lands would continue to be guided by the Umpqua and Willamette Forest Plans. Current land management practices that affect visual resources (e.g. fuels treatment, clearing blowdown, maintenance of access roads, etc.) would continue. There would be little or no change to the existing landscape character and management of visual resources. Management of the High Prairie parcel would continue to emphasize scenic quality, where human activities may be evident, but subordinate to the characteristic landscape (partial retention VQO). Parcels 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 129 would continue to be managed for timber production in accordance with modification and maximum modification VQOs, where human activities may dominate the characteristic landscape. All the Federal parcels would continue to be managed for multiple use resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitat. The non-federal parcels would continue to be managed in accordance with the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. The existing landscape characteristics and scenic values would reflect the current forest management philosophies, policies, and styles of the landowners. This forest management would place less emphasis on scenic values and would result in more open forest stands. The lands surrounding the non-federal parcels are managed to retention VQO and the parcels, including the McDonald Trail, and surrounding landscape have high visual quality. It is likely the landowners would apply for legal access through the Cougar Bluffs IRA in order to initiate timber harvest activities at some point in the future. Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Forest Service is required to grant reasonable access to allow private landowners reasonable use of their lands. If feasible, this could include road access. Timber harvest activities on Parcel B would be evident in the middleground from the North Umpqua River corridor and, to a lesser degree, on Parcel A. Harvest activities would be evident in the foreground and middleground along the McDonald Trail (#1515) for most of its 4 mile length. The scenic integrity of the Cougar Bluffs IRA would be compromised by road construction and timber harvest activities. The landowner s forest management activities would not meet Visual Quality Objectives the Forest Service currently applies to the lands surrounding the parcels. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under this alternative the NFS lands exchanged to Cougar Bluffs LLC would remain in timber production and be managed in accordance with the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. The existing landscape characteristics and scenic values would reflect the current forest management philosophies, policies, and styles of the landowners. It can reasonably be expected that forest stands 40 years and older would be included in the harvest schedule within two to three years of being exchanged into private ownership. Parcels 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are in 28

35 an area with large blocks of private land heavily harvested in the past and currently managed to maximum modification VQO. Parcel 129 lies within the middleground of the County Road 1 corridor and is currently managed to modification VQO. Under the proposed action these parcels would no longer be part of the National Forest System and would not have a scenic allocation and management goal. Removal of those goals and removal of 519 acres of mixed conifer forest would not have a substantial effect on the scenic resources of the two areas. The change in ownership and management of these parcels would have little or no effect on the landscape characteristics or scenic integrity of the Little River and Diamond Creek areas. The High Prairie parcel is currently being managed to partial retention VQO. The management goal for this allocation is to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the forest landscape through space and time; visually sensitive landscape will be managed for a moderate level of scenic quality. Alterations of this landscape will remain subordinate to the overall landscape by repeating form, line, color and texture elements which are characteristic (Willamette LRMP, page IV-205). If the proposed action is implemented, this parcel would no longer be part of the National Forest System and would no longer have a Forest Service scenic allocation and management goal. Removal of 79 acres of closed canopy forest would not have a great effect upon the scenic resources of the High Prairie area since the parcel in question is immediately adjacent to agricultural land and the boundary between forest and open land is straight and abrupt and does not now conform to the above scenic goals. It is unlikely that timber harvest activities conducted under the Oregon State Forest Practices Act would emphasize scenic quality and result in a landscape that would meet partial retention VQO. Timber harvest activities on this parcel would not be evident to the average forest visitor from the West Cascades National Scenic Byway (Road 19). The quality of the view from High Prairie road (road 1928), the only place where this area can be seen, would be essentially unchanged and would be similar in appearance to existing agriculturally developed lands and private forest lands on the boundary of local Federal lands. Parcels A and B would be managed in accordance with the Umpqua Forest Plan. While not designated as Inventoried Roadless Area, management of the acquired parcels would be limited to those activities that would be consistent with, and preserve the roadless characteristics of, the surrounding IRA. Acquisition of the parcels would be consistent with the North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, and would enhance the scenic resources of the WSR. The parcels would be managed to retention VQO in accordance with the North Umpqua WSR Management Plan. Acquisition of the parcels would reduce the potential for future adverse impacts to visual resources through road construction in the IRA and timber harvest activities within the viewshed of the North Umpqua corridor. 29

36 SOILS Affected Environment The soils of the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests are considered to be some of the most productive forest soils in the Pacific Northwest Region. Most of the soils in the project area are derived from volcanic parent materials such as pumice, volcanic ash, basalts, andesites, tuffs, and breccias. Forest-wide goals for the management of soil resources on both the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests are to maintain and enhance soil productivity. The maintenance of soil productivity during forest management activities is critical to maintaining healthy watersheds and providing clean water, high quality fish habitat and properly functioning riparian ecosystems. Forestwide, timber harvest and road building are the major management activities with the potential to significantly impact soils and watershed health. Application of Forest-wide standards and guidelines, management area prescriptions, and Best Management Practices, limit management related impacts to soil tilth, hydrology, biology, and fertility. Soils included in the proposed land exchange were identified with Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) mapping from each forest. Soils recorded in Table 3.5 are representative of all soils present within the exchange parcels. Also included in this table is the textural classification for these soils. This information is pertinent to modeling erosion. However, because no ground disturbing activity is included in the proposed action, no erosion modeling was done. Table 3.5 Soil Textures from available mapping Federal Parcels Parcel Location Dominant soil 1 & texture High Prairie T. 20 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 35, S½NE¼ 23 (Loam) 2 4 T. 27 S., R 1 E., Sec.20, SW ¼ S ½ 244 (clay loam) 5 T. 27 S., R 2 E., Sec.22, NW ¼ S ½ 42 (gravely sandy loam) 6 T. 27 S., R 2 E., Sec.22 N ½ 230 (sandy loam) 8 T. 27 S., R 2 E., Sec.12 NW ¼ NW ¼ 135 (clay loam) 9 T. 27 S., R 2 E., Sec.10 NW ¼ NE ¼ 14 (silty clay loam) 129 T. 32 S., R 2 E., Sec.1 N ½N ½ 321 (gravelly loam) Non-Federal Parcels A T. 26 S., R 1 E., Sec.12, NW ¼ 165 (gravelly loam) B T. 26 S., R 1 E., Sec.11, NE ¼ 512 (gravelly sandy loam) Soil texture was used to evaluate parcels for erosion risk. The High Prairie parcel and Parcels 4, 8 and 9 are at an elevated risk for surface erosion from human activities. Elevated risk is from the presence of silty or clay loams, however such risk can be mitigated with less concentrated activities such as thinning, stream buffering or light spring under burning. 1 Parcel may contain inclusions of other soil types, but no variation in texture description. 2 Reference, Willamette Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) 30

37 The non-federal parcels have not been entered for harvest or other major ground disturbing activity. Federal parcels have been previously harvested, with the exception of a portion of Parcel 6 and a portion of the High Prairie parcel (See Table 3.6). Forest soil condition was assessed in Table 3.6. All harvested acreage is assumed to have a diminished level of soil productivity. Given the era of harvest and methods typically used to harvest in the past; it is expected that 10% of the acreage is in detrimental soil conditions. This is not to say that trees and vegetation will not grow, but the growth potential of the trees is considered reduced. Within the harvested acreage there is likely to be a heightened presence of compaction, displacement and burned soils. These soil conditions are indicated by the presence of skid trails, and landings created during harvest. In addition to soil disturbed by equipment the soil can be altered by burning harvest activity fuels. Presence of these features is noted within the harvested acres, however a vegetated cover is evident; thus the soil resource is assumed altered, but not irretrievably damaged. Table 3.6 Diminished Soil Productivity by Parcel Parcel Condition=Harvested (yes or no) (Ac w/o harvest) Acres Diminished soil productivity 3 (ac) High Prairie Yes (7.02 ac) Yes Yes Yes (14 ac) Yes Yes Yes 80 8 A No (120 ac) B No (160 ac) Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no expected changes in soils within the project area, unless the Federal parcels are harvested in the foreseeable future. Currently, there are no timber sales or thinning projects scheduled for the Federal parcels. The private landowners do not currently have the non-federal parcels scheduled for timber harvest. No direct, indirect or cumulative impacts are anticipated under the No Action alternative. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action up to 577 acres of previously harvested NFS lands and 21 acres of unharvested lands would leave Federal ownership and the 3 Observed loss to soil productivity (i.e. Detrimental Soil Conditions); Umpqua NF. Presence of harvest can assume at least 10% loss of productivity from harvest disturbance. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number and are assumed for acreage mapped as previously harvested. 31

38 Umpqua National Forest would acquire 280 unharvested acres. The lands being acquired would be managed similar to the surrounding IRA, which precludes timber harvest and road construction except in very limited circumstances (43 CFR 294); therefore effects to existing soil conditions are unlikely as a result of the proposed exchange. The lands leaving Federal ownership would be managed under the regulatory authority of the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. Once in private ownership, these parcels would likely be regeneration harvested in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Act requires that road location, design, construction, and maintenance be adapted to the terrain and soil properties and that timber harvesting operations be designed and carried out to protect soil properties. Past harvest activities coupled with probable future harvest activities resulting from the proposed action could have the cumulative effect of increasing soil compaction on the parcels leaving Federal ownership. Increased soil compaction and soil displacement associated with harvest activities could have an adverse cumulative effect on soil productivity. While indirect effects to soils could result from changes in land management and methods utilized for timber management, the productivity of the soils within the project area are not expected to be substantially impacted due to the protective soils management practices implemented by both the Forest Service and through the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. FOREST VEGETATION Individual plant species have unique abilities to grow and survive in a particular climate. Groups of species that occur together, referred to as plant associations, represent an integration of site factors such as climate, landform, aspect, and moisture. A forest stand s growth pattern, composition, and structure are influenced by its disturbance history. Factors such as land-use history, fire, and pest and pathogen outbreaks can interrupt developmental dynamics to result in long-term changes in the properties and processes within the forest. Community composition and structure is influenced by successional status. During its development, a stand experiences changes in vertical diversity, an increase in the dominance of shade tolerant species, and a change in the age structure of the stand. Affected Environment The existing landscape condition of the proposed exchange parcels was broadly classified in terms of both forest type and structural class using GIS data, landtype maps, aerial imagery and stand exam data. Structural class and stand type classifications were subsequently validated by field inspection. Structural Class Four stages of stand development (Oliver and Larson, 1996), or structural classes, are used to characterize current conditions on the proposed exchange 32

39 parcels. The first stage, stand initiation (SI), happens after a stand-replacing disturbance (e.g. clearcutting, wildfire, etc.) and involves the establishment of new trees. Competition is very low. The second stage is the stem exclusion (SE) stage when the competition among the established trees is very high and the canopy is completely closed and allows no light into the understory for new trees to establish. Eventually, some trees die and the third stage, understory reinitiation (UR), is reached. During this stage in stand development, gaps in the canopy allow a second generation of trees to establish. Once the age structure becomes unevenaged and most of the regeneration occurs within gaps, the fourth stage, old growth (OG), is reached. These definitions represent four basic stand structure conditions along a continuum of forest succession. Each description is an idealized picture of a stand condition at one point in time. Forest stands will eventually reach a point where they fit that structural class definition. As they grow away from that condition and toward another, many stands will be in a transition area where they do not quite fit either description. Human activity, such as harvesting, homogenizes age structure and creates even-aged stands. The structural class distribution of both the Federal and non-federal parcels is predominately characterized by the stem exclusion and understory reinitiation classes (see Table 3.7). Parcel 6 contains 14.3 acres of the understory reinitiation/old growth classes and the non-federal parcels contain 58.2 acres of late-successional stands in this structural class. Timber harvest records indicate that parcels 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 have been clearcut in the past. Parcel 129 and approximately 14 acres on parcel 6, and the High Prairie parcel have not been clearcut. The non-federal parcels have not been clearcut in the past. Forest Type The proposed exchange parcels were also characterized by forest type, which is defined according to tree species dominance. There are two forest types found on the proposed exchange parcels; the mixed conifer forest type (MC) and the hardwood (HWD) forest type (see Table 3.7). The mixed conifer forest type is dominant on the proposed exchange parcels and includes warm/dry, low elevation forests below 5000 feet which are dominated by Douglas-fir and white fir. The hardwood forest type represents warm/dry, low elevation forests below 2500 feet. This forest type is typically dominated by Douglas-fir with Pacific madrone, golden chinquapin and canyon live oak comprising the dominant understory trees. Other species that are frequently present on these forest types include western hemlock, incense cedar, western redcedar, sugar pine, and Pacific yew. Mixed stands of hardwood and mixed conifer occupy over half of the non-federal parcels, with approximately six (6) acres in hardwood and the remainder comprised of mixed conifer. All of the Federal parcels are mixed conifer forest type. These forest types were further characterized using forest zones and plant associations to describe the potential natural vegetation (the climax vegetation conditions that would be present in the absence of disturbance) of the proposed 33

40 exchange parcels. Potential natural vegetation classifications include two levels, the broader division of forest zone (based on the dominant regenerating tree species on site) and the finer division of plant associations within the forest zone. The potential natural vegetation of the mixed conifer forest type is represented by plant associations where western hemlock and white fir are the dominant overstory species with a shrub component including such species as Pacific rhododendron, dwarf Oregongrape, salal, and creambush ocean-spray. Herb species frequently present in these associations include western sword-fern, whipplevine, and western twinflower. The potential natural vegetation of the hardwood forest type is represented by plant associations where Oregon white oak and Douglas-fir dominate the overstory and species including poison oak and common snowberry comprise the shrub component. Hedgehog dogtail and bur-chervil are frequently found in the herb layer. Table 3.7 Forest Stand Characteristics Parcel Acres Forest Type Age Class Structure Class Clearcut High Prairie 11.8 MC 25 SE Yes 68.0 MC 70 SE/UR No* MC 15 SI Yes 0.5 MC 29 SE Yes 7.2 MC 35 SE Yes 0.4 MC 47 SE Yes 2.2 MC 49 SE Yes MC 61 SE/UR Yes MC 47 SE Yes MC 20 SI Yes 41.5 MC 31 SE Yes 66.9 MC 46 SE Yes 4.9 MC 80 SE/UR Yes 14.3 MC 180+ UR/OG No MC 23 SE Yes 33.5 MC 32 SE Yes MC 20 SI Yes 25.7 MC 48 SE Yes MC 50 SE/UR No 8.9 MC 60 SE/UR No A 49.9 MC/HWD 60 SE/UR No 16.3 MC 80 SE/UR No 15.2 MC/HWD 100 SE/UR No 40.6 MC 180+ UR/OG No B 1.5 Rock 18.8 MC 60 SE No 5.4 MC 60 SE/UR No MC/HWD 60 SE/UR No 5.9 HWD 100 UR No 3.8 MC/HWD 100 UR No 17.6 MC 180+ UR/OG No * Stand-replacing wildfire in 1910 Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative the non-federal parcels proposed for exchange would remain in private ownership. The Forest Service would not acquire 280 acres of 34

41 mixed conifer, hardwood, and mixed conifer/hardwood forest adjacent to the Cougar Bluffs Inventoried Roadless Area. The opportunity to increase the amount of late-successional (old growth) forest under Federal management and to increase and enhance conditions of late-successional reserves would be missed. Management of the NFS lands would continue to be guided by the Umpqua and Willamette Forest Plans. All the Federal parcels would continue to be managed for multiple use resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitat. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action would remove up to 584 acres of young (early-seral) to mature (mid-seral), and 14 acres of old growth (late-seral), mixed conifer forest from Federal ownership. This alternative would remove 79 acres of early to mid-seral, closed canopy and single story forest habitat from the Willamette National Forest. This forest type is common in the High Prairie area and throughout the Middle Fork Ranger District. There are about 12,000 acres of similar forest habitat north of the Camp Six area generated by timber harvest in the 1930 s. Another 5,000 acres of similar habitat west of the High Prairie area was also created by harvest in the 1920 s. Several thousand acres of similarly aged and structured forest exist south and east of the proposed exchange parcel that was created by the 1910 Dead Mountain fire. There are about 775,000 acres on the Willamette National Forest available for sustained timber production. Removing the 79 acre High Prairie parcel from the public land base would have no appreciable effect on the Willamette National Forest timber production or potential future revenues from sale of the timber. Under the proposed action 505 acres of early to mid-seral forest and 14 acres of late-seral (old growth) forest would be removed from the Federal land base of the Umpqua National Forest. Parcels 4,5,6,8 and 9 are located in the Little River watershed. With the exception of the 14 acres of old growth forest in parcel 6, all of these parcels have been regeneration harvested (clearcut) since the 1930 s. Similar stands of this forest type and structure comprise 57 percent (about 76,000 acres) of the watershed while old growth stands represent about 10 percent (about 13,000 acres). Mid-seral forest stands which have undergone selection harvest, similar to Parcel 129, comprise 10 percent (about 5,700 acres) of the Elk Creek watershed. The loss of these parcels from Federal ownership would not have a meaningful effect on the amount of this type or structural class of forest under Federal management in the project area (on the Umpqua National Forest). There are about 621,000 acres on the Umpqua National Forest available for sustained timber production. Removal of 519 acres from the public land base would not have a substantial effect on the Umpqua National Forest timber production or potential future revenues from sale of the timber. 35

42 Once in private ownership, these parcels would likely be regeneration harvested in the reasonably foreseeable future. These stand-replacing harvests would result in 519 acres of mixed conifer forest in the stand initiation structural class on the Umpqua and 79 acres on the Willamette National Forest. If this alternative were implemented, the Umpqua National Forest would acquire 222 acres of mid-seral mixed conifer, hardwood, and mixed conifer/hardwood forest and 58 acres of old growth forest within the Cougar Bluffs IRA. These parcels would not be added to the Forest s timber production base. The acquired parcels would be managed similar to the surrounding IRA, which precludes timber harvest and road construction except in very limited circumstances. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects of the proposed action on forest vegetation are addressed at the scale of the planning area landscape. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities within the project area were considered in the analysis of forest stand type and structural class (Table 3.7). Past regeneration harvests and stand-replacing wildfires have resulted in the even-aged, closed canopy plantations that represent the existing condition on most of the Federal parcels today. Current and reasonably foreseeable management activities include normal road maintenance, noxious weed treatments, and commercial thinning, or selection harvest of these parcels as well as harvest of adjacent private timberland. The proposed action would result in up to 598 acres of NFS lands leaving Federal ownership and being managed as privately owned timberland in accordance with the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. Once in private ownership, these parcels would likely be regeneration harvested in the reasonably foreseeable future. Past harvest activities coupled with probable future harvest activities resulting from the proposed action could have the cumulative effect of increasing soil compaction on the parcels leaving Federal ownership. Increased soil compaction and soil displacement associated with harvest activities could have an adverse cumulative effect on soil productivity. While the growth potential of trees would be considered reduced, the cumulative effect of the proposed action on forest stand type and structural class is anticipated to be minimal. BOTANICAL RESOURCES Unique Habitats Unique habitats are non-forested openings that vary in size from 1 to 75 acres and include meadows, hardwood stands, wetlands, ponds, caves, cliffs, and rock outcrops (USDA Forest Service 1990). They are important due to their scarcity in the forest environment and high wildlife and plant values (Ch. 2 FEMAT 1994, USDA Forest Service 1990). Approximately 85% of the plant species diversity of the Western Cascades is found in non-forested habitats (Hickman 1976) which make up about 3% of the Umpqua National Forest. The desired condition is to 36

43 maintain the habitat quality of the unique habitats. This includes restricting introduction of invasive species and reducing the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire impacts. Timber harvest is not permitted within 150 feet of openings although manipulation of vegetation designed to enhance wildlife habitat is permitted (LRMP IV ). In addition, water table levels in wetlands should be maintained as described under Objective 7 of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Affected Environment There are no unique habitats within the Federal parcels. Parcel 6 has a shrubby wetland of about 0.2 acres that is dominated by willow (Salix sitchensis) and vine maple (Acer circinatum). Parcel 5 has a small part of a wetland dominated by bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) and water hemlock (Cicuta douglasii) that is mostly on private timberland and totals less than one acre. This tiny wetland lies at the head of an ephemeral drainage that feeds eventually into Wolf Creek. Parcel 4 has a big-leaf sedge (Carex amplifolia) wetland of less than 0.1 acre associated with an unnamed tributary that feeds eventually into Black Creek. All of these wetlands appear to have been impacted by previous timber entry. Non-Federal parcel B has a wetland associated with the McDonald homestead. It is slightly over one acre and is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia). This parcel also contains two rocky openings with Oregon white oak (Quercus garryanna). The non-federal portions of these two openings are slightly less than one acre each but both extend into Federal lands that would make each of them larger than one acre. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative would result in no direct effect to unique habitats because no lands would be exchanged. It is anticipated the identified wetland and rocky openings on non-federal parcel B would not receive a 150 foot buffer from timber harvest as would be required under the Umpqua LRMP. However, because the amount of acreage is so small, about three total acres of unique habitat, the cumulative effect would be negligible at the scale of the project area. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a net gain of one wetland over one acre and consolidate ownership of two rocky openings that are over one acre. No habitats fitting the Umpqua or Willamette NF definition of a unique habitat are within the Federal parcels although smaller wetlands have been identified. Since no unique habitats exist within the Federal parcels there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects from either alternative on these parcels. Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds Invasive plant species are alien plants whose introduction do or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health (USDA, Forest 37

44 Service 2005a). Noxious weeds are plant species designated as such by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official, and generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and being new to or not common to the United States. Noxious weeds infest over 420,000 acres of National Forests and Grasslands in the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA, Forest Service 2005a). Relevant Standards and Guidelines Forest Service Region 6 issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in October 2005, for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. The 2005 ROD added a set of standards to Forest Plans (USDA, Forest Service 2005a) Affected Environment The non-federal parcels are relatively free of noxious weeds. This is to be expected since roads are the primarily route of weed dispersal and the area is unroaded. There is an English ivy infestation at the McDonald homestead that was likely planted there as an ornamental at one time. No other weeds were noted within these parcels. The Federal parcels conversely, being well-roaded and previously logged, have the normal weeds that would be expected including: Scotch broom, meadow knapweed, St. John s wort, tansy ragwort, bull thistle, Canada thistle, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, oxeye daisy and queen-anne s lace. There were scattered plants of Canada thistle in and around one of the small wetlands; otherwise these weeds are largely associated with the roads. A single diffuse knapweed plant was discovered and hand-pulled along FS road within Federal parcel 6. The surrounding private timber lands have similar infestations of weeds. The desired condition for the watersheds and planning area is to be free of priority noxious weed infestations and maintain plant communities that are resilient to the introduction and spread of all invasive plants. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects A land exchange is an administrative action. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to the establishment or spread of invasive weeds under the No Action Alternative since no exchange of ownership or change in ongoing weed management would occur. Management of priority weeds within the Federal parcels would continue as funding allows. No management of weeds in the non-federal parcels would be anticipated to occur. Under the Proposed Action there would be an exchange of land that have five miles of roads that are almost entirely occupied by weeds of varying priorities for an unroaded area with only one identified weed infestation. The roads in the Federal parcels represent about 14 acres of weeds while the non-federal weed infestation is 0.1 acre. The Federal parcels would continue to be subject to ongoing colonization of weeds because of road access and continued management of surrounding private 38

45 timberlands under both alternatives. Because these lands are currently in land allocations that emphasize timber production, the potential for at least short-term increases in weedy species beyond the roads would be anticipated subsequent to timber harvest under both alternatives. Management of the non-federal parcels under the No Action Alternative is unknown, however entry and harvest is a possibility. Road construction and timber harvest activities would greatly increase the potential for weed infestation on the private inholdings as well as the adjacent Federal lands (Cougar Bluffs IRA). Under the Proposed Action these parcels would be anticipated to remain unroaded and unharvested since the surrounding land is a designated Inventoried Roadless Area, therefore the potential for weed invasion would remain low. Cumulatively, the watersheds with the Federal parcels may become marginally worse in terms of occupied weed acres under the Proposed Action with earth disturbing activities such as road building and timber harvest occurring after a landownership change is completed; while the watershed with the non-federal parcels would remain largely free of weeds and the Cougar Bluffs IRA would remain at low risk of weed invasion. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species It is Forest Service policy to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired plant or contribute trends towards Federal listing of any species (FSM ). Towards this end all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities are reviewed for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species. This review is called a biological evaluation. The Regional Forester s Sensitive Species list consists of those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density or by a current or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM ). There are currently 36 vascular plant species, 11 fungi, three lichens, and 27 bryophytes listed as Sensitive on the Umpqua National Forest (Table 3.8). There are an additional 53 species being tracked as strategic species. This list represents species that are poorly understood and require additional information to determine whether they are of conservation concern on Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest. Affected Environment There are two species known or suspected to occur on the Forest that are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is listed as threatened and has been documented on the Tiller Ranger District on the Umpqua National Forest. This species occurs in low-elevation upland prairies and is primarily known from Willamette Valley grasslands although there are isolated occurrences documented throughout the Umpqua basin as well. Plagiobothrys hirtus is listed as endangered and is confined to low-elevation wetlands in the vicinity of Sutherlin in northern Douglas County. It has not been 39

46 documented on the Forest to date. No potential habitat was identified in any of the parcels therefore there would be no effect to either species. Table 3.8 Umpqua/Willamette National Forest Sensitive and Strategic Plant List 2011 Habitat Species Name Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Federally listed Species Plagiobothrys hirtus N N Ni Ni Lupinus sulphureus ssp. Kincaidii N N Ni Ni USFS Sensitive Species Bryophytes Anastrophyllum minutum N N NI NI Andreaea schofieldiana N N NI NI Blepharostoma arachnoideum N N NI NI Bryum calobryoides N N NI NI Calypogeia sphagnicola N N NI NI Cephaloziella spinigera N N NI NI Codriophorus depressus Y N NI NI Encalypta brevicollis N N NI NI Encalypta brevipes N N NI NI Entosthodon fascicularis N N NI NI Gymnomitrion concinnatum N N NI NI Harpanthus flotovianus N N NI NI Helodium blandowii N N NI NI Lophozia gillmanii N N NI NI Marsupella emarginata var. Aquatica N N NI NI Meesia uliginosa N N NI NI Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. N N NI NI Vulcanicum Porella bolanderi N N NI NI Schistostega pennata N N NI NI Schofieldia monticola N N NI NI Splachnum ampullaceum N N NI NI Tayloria serrata N N NI NI Tetraphis geniculata N N NI NI Tetraplodon mnioides Y N NI NI Tomentypnum nitens N N NI NI Trematodon asanoi N N NI NI Tritomaria exsectiformis N N NI NI Fungi Boletus pulcherrimus Y U MIIH MIIH Cortinarius barlowensis Y U MIIH MIIH Dermocybe humboldtensis Y U MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus vividus Y U MIIH MIIH Gymnomyces fragrans Y U MIIH MIIH Pseudorhizina californica Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria amyloidea Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria spinulosa var. Diminutiva Y U MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon exiguus Y U MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon inquinatus Y U MIIH MIIH 40

47 Habitat Species Name Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Stagnicola perplexa Y U MIIH MIIH Lichens Lobaria linita N N NI NI Pseudocyphellaria mallota Y N NI NI Ramalina pollinaria N N NI NI Vascular Plants Adiantum jordanii N N NI NI Arabis suffrutescens var. Horizontalis N N NI NI Arnica viscosa N N NI NI Asplenium septentrionale N N NI NI Botrychium pumicola N N NI NI Calamagrostis breweri N N NI NI Calochortus umpquaensis N N NI NI Carex crawfordii Y N NI NI Carex diandra Y N NI NI Carex lasiocarpa var. Americana Y N NI NI Carex nardina N N NI NI Carex vernacula Y N NI NI Collomia mazama N N NI NI Cypripedium fasciculatum Y N NI NI Elatine brachysperma N N NI NI Eucephalus vialis Y N NI NI Frasera umpquaensis N N NI NI Gentiana newberryi var. Newberryi N N NI NI Iliamna latibracteata Y N NI NI Kalmiopsis fragrans N N NI NI Lewisia columbiana var. Columbiana N N NI NI Lewisia leeana N N NI NI Ophioglossum pusillum N N NI NI Pellaea andromedifolia N N NI NI Perideridia erythrorhiza N N NI NI Poa rhizomata N N NI NI Polystichum californicum N N NI NI Romanzoffia thompsonii N N NI NI Rotala ramosior N N NI NI Scheuchzeria palustris var. Americana N N NI NI Schoenoplectus subterminalis N N NI NI Utricularia minor N N NI NI Utricularia ochroleuca N N NI NI Viola primulifolia ssp. Occidentalis N N NI NI Wolffia borealis N N NI NI Wolffia columbiana N N NI NI USFS Strategic Species Bryophytes Anomobryum julaceum N N NI NI Buxbaumia aphylla N N NI NI Chiloscyphus gemmiparus N N NI NI Codriophorus ryszardii Y N NI NI 41

48 Habitat Species Name Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Grimmia anomala N N NI NI Hygrohypnum alpinum N N NI NI Jamesoniella autumnalis var. Heterostipa N N NI NI Pohlia sphagnicola N N NI NI Pohlia tundrae N N NI NI Polytrichum sexangulare N N NI NI Polytrichum strictum N N NI NI Scapania obscura N N NI NI Scouleria marginata N N NI NI Thamnobryum neckeroides Y N NI NI Fungi Albatrellus caeruleoporus Y U MIIH MIIH Arcangeliella crassa Y U MIIH MIIH Balsamia alba Y U MIIH MIIH Cazia flexiascus Y U MIIH MIIH Choiromyces alveolatus Y U MIIH MIIH Chroogomphus loculatus Y U MIIH MIIH Chrysomphalina grossula Y U MIIH MIIH Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus Y U MIIH MIIH Destuntzia fusca Y U MIIH MIIH Destuntzia rubra Y U MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus imbellus Y U MIIH MIIH Gomphus kauffmanii Y U MIIH MIIH Leucogaster odoratus Y U MIIH MIIH Mycena quinaultensis Y U MIIH MIIH Mycena tenax Y U MIIH MIIH Octaviania cyanescens Y U MIIH MIIH Podostroma alutaceum Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria abietina Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria botrytis var. Aurantiiramosa Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria conjunctipes var. Sparsiramosa Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria largentii Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria maculatipes Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria rubribrunnescens Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria suecica Y U MIIH MIIH Ramaria thiersii Y U MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon abietis Y U MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon brunneiniger Y U MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus Y U MIIH MIIH Tricholomopsis fulvescens Y U MIIH MIIH Lichens Calicium quercinum N N NI NI Chaenotheca subroscida Y N NI NI Collema undulatum var. Granulosum N N NI NI Lecanora pringlei N N NI NI Leptogium burnetiae Y N NI NI Leptogium teretiusculum N N NI NI Schaereria dolodes N N NI NI 42

49 Habitat Species Name Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Umbilicaria hirsuta Y N NI NI Usnea lambii Y N NI NI Vezdaea stipitata N N NI NI * N = No; Y = Yes; U = Unknown ** NI = No Impact; MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. WOFV = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species; BI = Beneficial Impact Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects All parcels with potential habitat were surveyed for sensitive and strategic species, other than fungi, between 2004 and No current sensitive or strategic species were identified within any of the Federal parcels or non-federal parcels. Because no sensitive species have been identified to occur within any parcel, there are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects anticipated to any sensitive plant or fungi species under either alternative. Therefore there is no impact to any species under either alternative. Survey and Manage Plant Species The group of species that have become known as Survey & Manage represent species of conservation concern that are closely associated with latesuccessional or old-growth forest (USDA and USDI S&Gs pg3). This group of species was initially identified under the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994). It was subsequently amended on several occasions but a settlement agreement in July of 2011 reaffirmed the 2001 Record of Decision with some modifications. The current Survey & Manage list includes 15 bryophytes, 193 fungi, 41 lichens and 12 vascular plants (Table 3.9). This list of species is sorted into six categories, A-F. Categories A and B are considered to be rare and require management of all known sites. The former requires pre-disturbance surveys; the later requires equivalent effort surveys in old-growth stands for species that have not completed strategic surveys. Categories C and D are uncommon species that require management of high-priority sites but only the former require pre-disturbance surveys. The conservation status is undetermined for categories E and F. Neither category requires pre-disturbance surveys; the former requires management of known sites. Affected Environment The Umpqua and Willamette National Forests are either not in the range or lack potential habitat for many or most of these species. Within the non-federal parcels 58.2 acres of late-successional/old-growth forest were identified while 14.3 acres were identified in the Federal parcels (all in Parcel 6). Only one Survey & Manage plant or fungi species was located within any of the parcels. A single location of the lichen, Nephroma occultum, was discovered within non- Federal parcel B. No Survey & Manage species were identified within any of the Federal parcels. 43

50 Fungi No fungi surveys were conducted on any of the parcels. Because of their unreliable and often cryptic fruiting characteristics, pre-project surveys are not typically considered to be a reliable conservation tool for sensitive fungi. Although many years of multi-visit survey would be necessary to confidently indicate that any given species is not present in a stand, limited survey can provide additional information on range and distribution of species. Such surveys can be considered to be equivalent effort surveys when conducted to provide information on fungi presence within stands with proposed management (USDA and USDI 2001). Otherwise, conservation of fungi on Forest Service lands entails management of known sites, targeted surveys based on Regional priorities and consideration of habitat elements for fungi during project planning. There was no habitat determined to be a high-probability for any individual species. Old-growth habitat is limited and that is largely confined to dry upper slopes and ridges. Most of the riparian stands on the Federal parcels have been cut over with minimal or no buffer remaining. However, because the habitat requirements for most rare fungi are not well described or understood, there is a low possibility that sensitive and Survey & Manage species could occur within some stands. Stands with old-growth characteristics would be more likely to have these fungi species than second growth stands without relict old-growth elements. On the other hand, many species appear to prefer moist riparianinfluenced stands on gentle topography. There is more late-successional/oldgrowth forest in the non-federal parcels but more riparian influenced stands in the Federal parcels. Therefore, there is a roughly equal, albeit low, probability that any fungi of conservation concern could be present in the Federal or non- Federal parcels. Table 3.9 Survey & Manage Species List (Settlement Agreement 2011) Species Category*** Habitat Species Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** BRYOPHYTES Brotherella roellii E N N NI NI Buxbaumia viridis, In CA E N N NI NI Diplophyllum plicatum B N N NI NI Herbertus aduncus E N N NI NI Iwatsukiella leucotricha B N N NI NI Kurzia makinoana B N N NI NI Marsupella emarginata v. B N N NI NI aquatica Orthodontium gracile B N N NI NI Ptilidium californicum, In CA A N N NI NI Racomitrium aquaticum E N N NI NI Rhizomnium nudum, In OR B N N NI NI Schistostega pennata A N N NI NI Tetraphis geniculata A N N NI NI Tritomaria exsectiformis B N N NI NI Tritomaria quinquedentata B N N NI NI 44

51 Species Category*** Habitat Present* Species Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** FUNGI Acanthophysium farlowii B N N MIIH MIIH Albatrellus avellaneus B N N MIIH MIIH Albatrellus caeruleoporus B N N MIIH MIIH Albatrellus ellisii B N N MIIH MIIH Albatrellus flettii, In WA and B N N MIIH MIIH CA Alpova alexsmithii B N N MIIH MIIH Alpova olivaceotinctus B N N MIIH MIIH Arcangeliella camphorata B N N MIIH MIIH Arcangeliella crassa B N N MIIH MIIH Arcangeliella lactarioides B N N MIIH MIIH Asterophora lycoperdoides B N N MIIH MIIH Asterophora parasitica B N N MIIH MIIH Baeospora myriadophylla B N N MIIH MIIH Balsamia nigrens (Balsamia B N N MIIH MIIH nigra) Boletus haematinus B N N MIIH MIIH Boletus pulcherrimus B N N MIIH MIIH Bondarzewia mesenterica (Bondarzewia montana), In WA and CA B N N MIIH MIIH Bridgeoporus nobilissimus (Oxyporus nobilissimus) A N N MIIH MIIH Cantharellus subalbidus, In WA and CA D N N MIIH MIIH Catathelasma ventricosa B N N MIIH MIIH Chalciporus piperatus (Boletus piperatus) D N N MIIH MIIH Chamonixia caespitosa B N N MIIH MIIH Choiromyces alveolatus B N N MIIH MIIH Choiromyces venosus B N N MIIH MIIH Chroogomphus loculatus B N N MIIH MIIH Chrysomphalina grossula B N N MIIH MIIH Clavariadelphus ligula B N N MIIH MIIH Clavariadelphus occidentalis (Clavariadelphus pistillaris) B N N MIIH MIIH Clavariadelphus B N N MIIH MIIH sachalinensis Clavariadelphus B N N MIIH MIIH subfastigiatus Clavariadelphus In Jackson D N N MIIH MIIH Co., Clavariadelphus OR truncatus Outside Jackson Co., OR B N N MIIH MIIH Clavulina castanopes var. B N N MIIH MIIH lignicola Clitocybe senilis B N N MIIH MIIH Clitocybe subditopoda B N N MIIH MIIH Collybia bakerensis F N N MIIH MIIH Collybia racemosa B N N MIIH MIIH Cordyceps ophioglossoides B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius barlowensis (syn. Cortinarius azureus) B N N MIIH MIIH 45

52 Species Category*** Habitat Species Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Cortinarius boulderensis B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius cyanites B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius depauperatus (Cortinarius spilomeus) B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius magnivelatus B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius olympianus B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius speciosissimus (Cortinarius rainierensis) B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius tabularis B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius umidicola (Cortinarius canabarba) B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius valgus B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius variipes B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius verrucisporus B N N MIIH MIIH Cortinarius wiebeae B N N MIIH MIIH Craterellus tubaeformis, In D N N MIIH MIIH WA Cudonia and CA monticola B N N MIIH MIIH Cyphellostereum laeve B N N MIIH MIIH Dermocybe humboldtensis B N N MIIH MIIH Destuntzia fusca B N N MIIH MIIH Destuntzia rubra B N N MIIH MIIH Dichostereum boreale (Dichostereum granulosum) B N N MIIH MIIH Elaphomyces anthracinus B N N MIIH MIIH Elaphomyces subviscidus B N N MIIH MIIH Endogone acrogena B N N MIIH MIIH Endogone oregonensis B N N MIIH MIIH Entoloma nitidum B N N MIIH MIIH (Rhodocybe Fayodia bisphaerigera nitida) (Fayodia gracilipes) B N N MIIH MIIH Fevansia aurantiaca B N N MIIH MIIH Galerina atkinsonia D N N MIIH MIIH Galerina cerina B N N MIIH MIIH Galerina heterocystis E N N MIIH MIIH Galerina sphagnicola E N N MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus imbellus B N N MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus ruber B N N MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus subalpinus B N N MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus turbinatus B N N MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus vividus B N N MIIH MIIH Gastrosuillus amaranthii E N N MIIH MIIH Gastrosuillus umbrinus B N N MIIH MIIH Gautieria magnicellaris B N N MIIH MIIH Gautieria otthii B N N MIIH MIIH Gelatinodiscus flavidus B N N MIIH MIIH Glomus radiatum B N N MIIH MIIH Gomphus bonarii B N N MIIH MIIH Gomphus clavatus F N N MIIH MIIH 46

53 Species Category*** Habitat Species Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Gomphus kauffmanii E N N MIIH MIIH Gymnomyces abietis B N N MIIH MIIH Gymnomyces nondistincta B N N MIIH MIIH Gymnopilus punctifolius, In B N N MIIH MIIH CA Gyromitra californica B N N MIIH MIIH Hebeloma olympianum (Hebeloma olympiana) B N N MIIH MIIH Helvella crassitunicata B N N MIIH MIIH Helvella elastica B N N MIIH MIIH Hydnotrya inordinata B N N MIIH MIIH Hydnotrya subnix B N N MIIH MIIH Hydropus marginellus (Mycena marginella) B N N MIIH MIIH Hygrophorus caeruleus B N N MIIH MIIH Hygrophorus karstenii B N N MIIH MIIH Hygrophorus vernalis B N N MIIH MIIH Hypomyces luteovirens B N N MIIH MIIH Leucogaster citrinus B N N MIIH MIIH Leucogaster microsporus B N N MIIH MIIH Macowanites chlorinosmus B N N MIIH MIIH Macowanites lymanensis B N N MIIH MIIH Macowanites mollis B N N MIIH MIIH Marasmius applanatipes B N N MIIH MIIH Martellia fragrans B N N MIIH MIIH Martellia idahoensis B N N MIIH MIIH Mycena hudsoniana B N N MIIH MIIH Mycena overholtsii D N N MIIH MIIH Mycena quinaultensis B N N MIIH MIIH Mycena tenax B N N MIIH MIIH Mythicomyces corneipes B N N MIIH MIIH Neolentinus adhaerens B N N MIIH MIIH Neolentinus kauffmanii B N N MIIH MIIH Nivatogastrium nubigenum, In entire range except OR Eastern Cascades and CA B N N MIIH MIIH Cascades Phys. Prov. Octavianina cyanescens B N N MIIH MIIH Octavianina macrospora B N N MIIH MIIH Octavianina papyracea B N N MIIH MIIH Otidea leporina D N N MIIH MIIH Otidea smithii B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia attenuata D N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia californica B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia dissiliens B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia fallax D N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia gregaria B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia kauffmanii D N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia olivacea, In OR D N N MIIH MIIH 47

54 Species Category*** Habitat Present* Species Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Phaeocollybia olivacea In WA and CA B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia oregonensis B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia piceae B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia scatesiae B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia sipei B N N MIIH MIIH Phaeocollybia spadicea B N N MIIH MIIH Phellodon atratus (Phellodon B N N MIIH MIIH atratum) Pholiota albivelata B N N MIIH MIIH Podostroma alutaceum B N N MIIH MIIH Polyozellus multiplex B N N MIIH MIIH Pseudaleuria quinaultiana B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria abietina B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria amyloidea B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria araiospora B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria aurantiisiccescens B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria celerivirescens B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria claviramulata B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria concolor f. marrii B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria concolor f. tsugina B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa (Ramaria B N N MIIH MIIH fasciculata var. sparsiramosa) Ramaria coulterae B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria cyaneigranosa B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria gelatiniaurantia B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria gracilis B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria hilaris var. B N N MIIH MIIH olympiana Ramaria largentii B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria lorithamnus B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria maculatipes B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria rainierensis B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria rubella var. blanda B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria rubribrunnescens B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria rubrievanescens B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria rubripermanens In OR D N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria rubripermanens In WA and CA B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria stuntzii B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria suecica B N N MIIH MIIH Ramaria thiersii B N N MIIH MIIH 48

55 Species Category*** Habitat Species Present* Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** Ramaria verlotensis B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon abietis B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon atroviolaceus B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon brunneiniger B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon chamaleontinus B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon ellipsosporus B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon exiguus B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon inquinatus B N N MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon truncatus D N N MIIH MIIH Rhodocybe speciosa B N N MIIH MIIH Rickenella swartzii (Rickenella setipes) B N N MIIH MIIH Russula mustelina B N N MIIH MIIH Sarcodon fuscoindicus B N N MIIH MIIH Sedecula pulvinata B N N MIIH MIIH Sowerbyella rhenana (Aleuria rhenana) B N N MIIH MIIH Sparassis crispa D N N MIIH MIIH Spathularia flavida B N N MIIH MIIH Stagnicola perplexa B N N MIIH MIIH Thaxterogaster pavelekii B N N MIIH MIIH Tremiscus helvelloides D N N MIIH MIIH Tricholoma venenatum B N N MIIH MIIH Tricholomopsis fulvescens B N N MIIH MIIH Tuber asa (Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 2302) B N N MIIH MIIH Tuber pacificum (Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 12493) B N N MIIH MIIH Turbinellis floccosus, In CA F N N MIIH MIIH Tylopilus porphyrosporus (Tylopilus pseudoscaber) D N N MIIH MIIH LICHENS Bryoria pseudocapillaris A N N NI NI Bryoria spiralifera A N N NI NI Bryoria subcana B N N NI NI Buellia oidalea E N N NI NI Calicium abietinum B N N NI NI Calicium adspersum E N N NI NI Cetrelia cetrarioides E N N NI NI Chaenotheca chrysocephala B N N NI NI Chaenotheca ferruginea B N N NI NI Chaenotheca furfuracea F N N NI NI Chaenotheca subroscida E N N NI NI Chaenothecopsis pusilla E N N NI NI Cladonia norvegica C N N NI NI 49

56 Species Collema nigrescens, In WA and OR, except in OR Klamath Phys. Prov. Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, In Dendriscocaulon CA intricatulum, In OR outside of Coos, Curry, Douglas, Josephine, & Jackson Counties; WA Category*** Habitat Present* Species Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** F N N NI NI E N N NI NI A N N NI NI Dermatocarpon luridum E N N NI NI Fuscopannaria saubinetii (Pannaria saubinetii) E N N NI NI Heterodermia sitchensis E N N NI NI Hypogymnia duplicata C N N NI NI Hypogymnia vittata E N N NI NI Hypotrachyna revoluta E N N NI NI Leptogium burnetiae var. E N N NI NI hirsutum Leptogium cyanescens A N N NI NI Leptogium teretiusculum E N N NI NI Lobaria linita, var. tenuoir, In WA Western Cascades (south of Snoqualmie Pass), A N N NI NI Western Lowlands, and Eastern Cascades Phys. Prov.; Lobaria OR oregana, In CA A N N NI NI Microcalicium arenarium B N N NI NI Nephroma bellum, In OR Western Cascades and Coast Range Phys. Prov.; WA F N N NI NI Western Cascades Phys. Prov., Gifford Pinchot NF only Nephroma bellum, In OR Klamath, Willamette Valley, and Eastern Cascades Phys. E N N NI NI Prov.; WA Western Cascades (outside GPNF), Eastern Cascades, Nephroma Olympic isidiosum Peninsula E N N NI NI Nephroma occultum A Y Y MIIH NI Niebla cephalota A N N NI NI Pannaria rubiginosa E Y N NI NI Peltigera pacifica E Y N NI NI Platismatia lacunosa, all except OR Coast Range E N N NI NI Phys. Pseudocyphellaria Prov. perpetua (Pseudocyphellaria sp. 1) A N N NI NI Pseudocyphellaria A Y N NI NI rainierensis Stenocybe clavata E N N NI NI Teloschistes flavicans A N N NI NI Tholurna dissimilis, south of the Columbia River B N N NI NI Usnea hesperina E N N NI NI 50

57 Species Usnea longissima, In Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties, OR; CA Usnea longissima, In OR, except in Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties; WA VASCULAR PLANTS Botrychium minganense, In OR and CA Category*** Habitat Present* Species Present* Alt. 1** Alt. 2** A N N NI NI F Y N NI NI A N N NI NI Botrychium montanum A N N NI NI Cypripedium fasciculatum, In WA outside Eastern C Y N NI NI Cascades Cypripedium Phys. montanum, Prov.; OR; Entire range except WA Eastern Cascades Phys. Prov. C Y N NI NI Eucephalus vialis (syn. Aster A Y N NI NI vialis) *N = No; Y = Yes; U = Unknown **NI = No Impact; MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. WOFV = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species; BI = Beneficial Impact ***Survey & Manage Categories: Pre-Disturbance Surveys Pre-Disturbance Surveys Status Relative Rarity Practical Not Practical Undetermined Rare Category A Category B Category E Manage All Known Sites Manage All Known Sites Manage All Known Sites Pre-Disturbance N/A N/A Surveys Strategic Surveys Strategic Surveys Strategic Surveys Uncommon Category C Category D Category F Manage High-Priority Manage High-Priority Sites N/A Sites Pre-Disturbance N/A N/A Surveys Strategic Surveys Strategic Surveys Strategic Surveys Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There would be no direct effect to the population of Nephroma occultum under either alternative since the land exchange itself does not result directly in any onthe-ground actions. Under the No Action Alternative, this population would remain in private ownership where it would receive no special consideration for 51

58 conservation. If the Proposed Action were implemented, it would be managed as a Category A lichen. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects expected to occur to any other species because they were not identified to occur within any of the parcels. Timber harvest requirements under private ownership are less stringent than Forest Service requirements therefore future management would be anticipated to be less favorable to development of habitat for any fungi of conservation concern. However, because of the generally poor condition of stands for fungi habitat in the Federal parcels already, it is not anticipated that there would be a dramatic difference in indirect effects to habitat under either alternative because of anticipated future timber harvest. Because the non-federal parcels are surrounded by intact forest within an IRA, these parcels would be more likely to develop characteristics suitable for rare fungi than the Federal parcels. The current Federal parcels are too small to retain interior old-growth micro-climatic conditions because they are largely surrounded by clearcuts and young plantations. For these reasons, it is determined that either alternative may impact individuals or habitat but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for all species of fungi. AQUATIC RESOURCES Affected Environment The project area includes land parcels within four 5 th field watersheds; three are located in the Umpqua River Basin and one is located in the Willamette River Basin. The Umpqua River system is renowned for its anadromous fisheries values, including important commercial and sport fisheries for Chinook salmon and a world-class sport steelhead fishery in the mainstem and North Umpqua River. Due in large measure to the location of NFS lands within the basin, fish habitat and water quality are disproportionately important to these fisheries values. Nearly all the healthy salmon and steelhead populations are being spawned and reared in rivers and streams within National Forest boundaries. The Forest also provides refuge habitat for several at-risk salmon species, such as the Federally ESA-listed (Threatened) Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon. The portion of the South Umpqua River within the Forest serves as critical habitat for recovery of coho, a species with coast-wide implications for sport and commercial fisheries and is the sole remaining habitat for a unique population of spring Chinook that is on the verge of extinction. Little River also provides spawning and rearing habitat for OC coho, OC chinook, and OC steelhead trout. All of these watersheds also provide habitat for a number of other resident game and non-game fish species as well as numerous other aquatic species that depend on high quality aquatic habitat. 52

59 Umpqua Basin Rivers in the project area are characterized by forced pool-riffle morphology, or a series of pools and bars created by flow obstructions such as bedrock outcrops, boulders, or large wood. Large wood is not a common feature because the river has a high capacity for floating it downstream. Debris jams at bends, constrictions, or channel margins may locally influence channel morphology and habitat, causing additional scour or sediment deposition and, on rare occasions, contributing to the formation of a side channel and/or island habitat. Channel gradients are predominantly 1 to 2 percent, with steeper gradients present for short stretches. Large boulders and abundant bedrock outcrops create pools and provide channel complexity. Bedrock ledges are divided by deep troughs through which most of the bedload is carried and stored. The North Fork of the Middle Fork Willamette River (NFMFWR) occupies a narrow mountain valley cut into an inter-canyon lava flow, and the reach along the project area can be characterized as generally low to moderate gradient; possessing large, deep, infrequent pools; low on in-stream wood due to the nature of the high stream power transport channel which easily floats the large wood out of this reach during large storm events; and having few side channels and braided channels within the narrow floodplain. Due to its low quantity, large woody material plays a minimal role in creating aquatic instream habitats. The smaller tributary streams in the exchange area include First and Second Creeks. These tributaries are generally low gradient and are non-fish bearing streams. Coarse sediment (boulders and cobble) are dominant features in both the streambed and the streambanks in the upper reaches of these channels. These conditions reduce the capacity of the stream to move laterally. The lower stream reaches are characterized as low gradient with the composition of the streambed and streambanks dominated by sand and gravel. The habitat is relatively simplified due to the absence of large wood in these reaches. The habitat pattern is one of a low energy, meandering stream in which streambanks provided the resistance to storm flow and account for the development of channel-spanning pools. The NFMFWR provides habitat for two ESA-listed species, the Willamette spring Chinook and Columbia River bull trout. Additional resident species that use this segment of the NFMFWR include rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, largescale sucker, speckled dace, redside shiner, torrent sculpin, Paiute sculpin, and shorthead sculpin. Habitat quality in the project area watersheds has been described as Properly Functioning, Functioning at Risk, or Not Properly Functioning for a set of habitat indicators. Indicator Baselines were determined by using 2011 Watershed Condition Factor Ratings, Watershed Analysis, and through Forest Service Level II stream surveys (Table 3.10). In addition, field reconnaissance, field notes, and observations in the planning area were used to make these determinations. Table 3.10 Aquatic Habitat Baseline Summary 53

60 Habitat Parameter Habitat Fragmentation Large Wood **Williams Creek Facial 6 th Field (Cougar Creek) Properly Watersheds in the Project Area Little River (Black Creek 6 th Field) Middle Little River 6 th Field Upper Elk Creek 6 th Field N. Fk. Mid. Fk. Willamette Functioning Properly Functioning Properly Functioning Properly Functioning Properly Functioning Properly Properly Properly Properly Properly Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning at Risk at Risk at Risk Properly Functioning Functioning Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk at Risk at Risk Functioning Properly Properly Properly Properly Functioning at Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Risk Properly Properly Properly Properly Properly Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning 2.2% 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% Channel Condition Native Species Aquatic Invasives *Percent of Watershed *This represents the percentage of the 6 th Field watershed that the exchange parcels occupy. **Watershed containing the parcels the Forest Service would acquire in the exchange. Beneficial Uses of Water and 303(d) Listed Streams The relevant inclusive beneficial uses of the Umpqua River, the Willamette River and their tributaries (including: Middle Fork North Fork Willamette, North Umpqua River, Cougar Creek, Little River, Eggleston Creek, Black Creek and Elk Creek) as determined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2003) are: Public Domestic Water Supply Private Domestic Water Supply Industrial Water Supply Irrigation Livestock Watering Fish & Aquatic Life Wildlife & Hunting Fishing Boating Water Contact Recreation Aesthetic Quality Hydro Power Water Quality The Clean Water Act (1972) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads 54

61 (TMDLs) for these waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. Parcels involved in the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange span the Umpqua and Willamette basins. A suite of TMDLs were approved by the Department of Environmental Quality across both basins between 2002 and However, not all pollutants were adequately addressed in these plans and thus remain on the list of impaired waters. Regardless of whether an impaired waterbody has an approved TMDL established (303(d); Category 4) or one is still needed (303(d); Category 5), the waterbody is still classified as Water Quality Limited for not meeting applicable state water quality standards. Table 3.11 below details relevant water quality limited stream reaches that may be affected by certain land management activities occurring on the parcels if the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange is completed as proposed and then, based upon other decisions, land management activities occur on the parcels as a separate action. Table 3.11 Water Quality Limited Waters Associated with the Proposed Exchange Waterbody Pollutant Season Beneficial Uses Status (2010) North Fork Middle Fork Willamette North Umpqua River Little River Temperature Arsenic Flow Modification Temperature Temperature Habitat Modification ph Sedimentation Sept 1- May 15 All Year (Non- Spawning) All Year Undefined All Year (Non- Spawning) Sept 1 June 15 Undefined Summer Undefined Salmon and steelhead spawning Core cold water habitat Fishing; Drinking water Salmonid fish rearing/spawning; Resident fish and aquatic life; Core cold water habitat Salmonid fish rearing; Resident fish and aquatic life; Salmonid fish spawning Salmonid fish rearing/spawning; Resident fish and aquatic life; Resident fish and aquatic life; Salmonid fish rearing/spawning; Water contact recreation; Anadromous fish passage. Salmonid fish spawning/rearing; Resident fish and aquatic life; Category 4a (delisted) TMDL approved (d) Water quality limited not needing a TMDL Category 4a: (delisted) TMDL approved Category 5: Water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed Water quality limited not needing a TMDL Category 4a: (delisted) TMDL approved Category 4a: (delisted) TMDL approved

62 Waterbody Pollutant Season Beneficial Uses Status (2010) Black Creek Elk Creek Eggleston Creek Temperature ph Temperature Habitat & Flow Modification Temperature Temperature Summer, Sept 1 June 15, All Year (Non- Spawning) Summer Summer Undefined All Year (Non- Spawning) Summer, Sept 1 June 15, All Year (Non- Spawning) Salmonid fish rearing; Anadromous fish passage Salmon and steelhead spawning, Core cold water habitat Resident fish and aquatic life; Salmonid fish rearing/spawning; Water contact recreation; Anadromous fish passage. Salmonid fish rearing; Anadromous fish passage Salmonid fish spawning; Resident fish and aquatic life; Salmonid fish rearing Core cold water habitat Salmonid fish rearing; Anadromous fish passage Salmon and steelhead spawning, Core cold water habitat Category 4a: (delisted) TMDL approved Water quality limited not needing a TMDL Category 4a: (delisted) TMDL approved Category 4a: (delisted) TMDL approved /2006 The proposed land exchange parcels are in compliance with the Water Quality Management Plans derived from the Little River TMDL (2002), Umpqua Basin TMDL (2006) and the Willamette Basin TMDL (2006). Activities on lands under federal ownership are subjected to evaluation under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other associated Water Quality Restoration Plans. The Oregon Department of Forestry enforces forestry activities on private lands to the extent required in the Forest Practices Act (2010). A change in ownership would likely change the regulatory guidance and requirements of the associated lands but will remain consistent with the guidance outlined in the applicable Water Quality Management Plans. Wetlands and Floodplains Wetlands are generally areas soaked by surface or groundwater frequently enough to support vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth 56

63 and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, springs, seeps, bogs, wet meadows, mudflats, natural ponds, and other similar areas. Legally, federal agencies define wetlands as possessing three essential characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The three technical characteristics specified are mandatory and must all be met for an area to be identified as a wetland. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions in the upper part of the soil profile. Generally, to be considered a hydric soil, there must be saturation at temperatures above freezing for at least seven days. Wetland hydrology is defined as permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally (Cowardin, 1979). Methodology Wetlands were initially identified through a review of the National Wetlands Inventory data that were derived from selectively field validated remotely sensed data. The presence of the wetlands identified in this project was validated during the field reconnaissance in preparation for analyses and disclosure. Due to the relatively steep and dissected terrain associated with the project areas, a narrow, standard floodplain of 30 feet (total) was applied to all perennial streams. This estimate is based on field observations. Based on earlier contacts with otherfederal and state officials it was known that no floodplain mapping or, other hydrologic information exists for the exchange areas. Wetland and Floodplain Evaluation A Water Resources Report prepared by the Hydrologist is considered part of the analysis file. The 100-year floodplain on all perennial streams within the proposed exchange parcels is estimated to be less than 30' feet wide. There are no critical facilities located on lands under consideration or downstream of them. On-site values are generally related to wildlife and fish habitat, recreation, and the natural functioning of these watersheds to provide water for domestic livestock, wildlife, and irrigation downstream. Natural erosion rates are low in lands proposed for exchange and all streams are generally stable and functioning. There are approximately 1.6 acres of emergent freshwater wetlands on the Cougar Bluffs LLC lands. There are no known wetlands, surface ponds or lakes over one acre on the Federal lands proposed for exchange. No hazards to life or property are known to exist in the wetland or floodplain areas involved. There is an abundance of these kinds of areas within the watersheds involved in the proposed exchange. Based on these factors, field observations and professional judgment, the proposed exchange is consistent with Executive Orders and and implementing regulations and Forest Service Manual direction. Table 3.12 below is a summary of riparian and wetland values associated with each of the proposed exchange parcels. 57

64 Table 3.12 Riparian and Wetland Summary by Parcel High Prairie Parcel 80 Ac. Parcel # Ac. HUC10/HUC12: Salmon Creek & North Fk. Middle Fk. Willamette / Lower Salmon Creek & Dartmouth Creek HUC10/HUC12: Elk Creek / Middle Elk Creek & Upper Elk Creek Perennial Streams (Mi): 0 Perennial Streams (Mi): 0 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 0.26 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 0 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 7.1 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 0 Floodplains (Ac) 0 Floodplains (Ac) 0 Wetlands (Ac) 0 Wetlands (Ac) 0 Parcel #4 154 Ac. HUC10/HUC12: Little River / Upper Little River & Black Creek Parcel #5 38 Ac. HUC10/HUC12: Little River / Middle Little River Perennial Streams (Mi): 0.43 Perennial Streams (Mi): 0 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 0.65 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 0.21 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 47.3 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 9.0 Floodplains (Ac) 1.56 Floodplains (Ac) 0 Wetlands (Ac) 0 Wetlands (Ac) 0 Parcel #6 158 Ac. Parcel #8 40 Ac. HUC10/HUC12: Little River / Middle Little River HUC10/HUC12: Little River / Upper Little River Perennial Streams (Mi): 0.52 Perennial Streams (Mi): 0 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 1.36 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 0.05 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 71.7 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 1.9 Floodplains (Ac) 1.89 Floodplains (Ac) 0 Wetlands (Ac) 0 Wetlands (Ac) 0 Parcel #9 40 Ac. Cougar Bluffs LLC 281 Ac. HUC10/HUC12: Little River / Middle Little River HUC10/HUC12: Middle North Umpqua / Williams Creek Perennial Streams (Mi): 0.25 Perennial Streams (Mi): 0.04 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 0 Intermittent Streams (Mi): 1.33 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 10.4 Riparian Reserves (Ac): 53.8 Floodplains (Ac) 0.91 Floodplains (Ac) 0.15 Wetlands (Ac) 0 Wetlands (Ac) 1.6 Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action 58

65 This alternative represents the current condition and serves as the baseline for comparison of the action alternatives. Under this alternative, the current condition is not expected to change for the foreseeable future. Consequently, current effects to the watershed and fisheries resources from the no action alternative would persist. It is unlikely that the non-federal parcels located in the Cougar Bluffs area would be commercially logged or developed in the foreseeable future (within the next 5 years). However, if the landowners acquire legal access through the Cougar Bluffs IRA, a regeneration harvest would likely occur on both of the non-federal parcels. The No Action Alternative would not incrementally add to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities to cause a cumulative effect to the aquatic environment since no action would occur. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (50 CFR ). Because a land exchange in and of itself is simply a change in ownership of a piece of property, there are no direct effects of a land exchange on any of the fish species inhabiting the area. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable (50 CFR ). The indirect effect of a land exchange occurs after the exchange takes place and the new owners decide how the land will be managed. The potential effect of the action on these indicators is characterized in terms of proximity to designated critical habitat, probability of effects and magnitude of those effects. Habitat indicators considered in the effects analysis of the proposed land exchange include Temperature, Suspended Sediment (Turbidity), Substrate Character/Embeddedness, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Large Woody Material, Width/Depth Ratio, Physical Barriers, Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-Channel Habitat, Refugia Streambanks, Floodplain Connectivity, Change in Peak and Base Flows, Increase in Drainage Network Road Density and Location, Disturbance History, Riparian Reserves, and Disturbance Regime. It is reasonably foreseeable that if the land exchange is completed as proposed, those lands conveyed by the Federal Government with timber greater than 30 years old would be harvested. In acquiring the Cougar Bluffs LLC parcels, no future harvest or ground disturbing activity would be anticipated. Under Federal ownership these parcels would be managed in the Late-Successional Reserve management allocation and in a similar manner as the surrounding Inventoried Roadless Area. For the parcels exchanged into private ownership and management, the Oregon State Forestry Practices Act would regulate harvest activities on these parcels and there is a probability aquatic effects would be observed at the site scale. As illustrated by Table 3.13, there are parcels that contain perennial and intermittent streams. At the larger scale and in 59

66 downstream occupied or designated critical habitat, the probability of effects is much lower due to proximity and scale. Table 3.13 Riparian Reserves Summary by Stream Reach Stream Parcel Stream Class Stream Length (Miles) Riparian Reserves (Acres) Anadromous Unnamed High Prairie 4 - Intermittent No Unnamed Intermittent No Unnamed Intermittent No Unnamed Perennial No Unnamed Intermittent No Unnamed Intermittent No Egglestron Perennial No Unnamed Intermittent No Unnamed Intermittent No Unnamed Intermittent No Unnamed Intermittent No Unnamed Perennial No Unnamed A 4 - Intermittent No Unnamed A 4 - Intermittent No Cougar B 1 - Perennial Yes Unnamed B 4 - Intermittent No Unnamed B 4 - Intermittent No Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 illustrate the location of the proposed exchange parcels in relation to fish bearing streams. All the Federal exchange parcels are located at least 0.25 miles from the nearest fish bearing stream. The perennial stream channels in the parcels are small headwater channels. Although large wood in these small headwater streams do not provide habitat for fish species they are an important element to downstream fish habitat. Large wood in these channels provide habitat for many species of aquatic insects that can provide prey to downstream habitats. Given the small number and short distance of stream channels associated with the exchange parcels, it is very unlikely that a reduction of large wood from these channels would have any measurable effect in downstream occupied or critical habitat. 60

67 Figure 3.1 Willamette National Forest Federal Parcel Fish Distribution 61

68 Figure 3.2 Umpqua National Forest Federal Parcel Fish Distribution 62

69 Figure 3.3 Non-Federal Parcel Fish Distribution The streams that cross the exchange parcels on the Umpqua NF are typically high gradient, small channels, fairly well armored and not easily eroded. Floodplain connectivity is not a key factor in the functioning of these steep headwater stream channels. The Willamette parcel is located on somewhat flatter terrain. This parcel does not contain any perennial stream channel. Increases in the drainage network are unlikely as the vast majority of the parcels are plantations that have been previously harvested. Roading can increase the drainage network through associated ditch lines resulting in stream extensions. These roads are largely in place and additional roading would likely not be needed to facilitate future harvest. When harvest occurs on the exchange parcels it is likely that the harvest would be regeneration harvest. Not all the parcels are within the age or size range to be economic at this time. Regeneration harvest affects the hydrologic recovery (HRC) of a watershed. All the watersheds are currently rated as recovered. There are up to 320 exchange acres that would likely be harvested in the near future and would not reduce the HRC below the recovered level for any of the watersheds. Changes in peak/base flows would not be affected by future harvest in the watersheds where the exchange parcels are located. The probability of the exchange to have an effect on attributes of hydrologic function is negligible. 63

70 There would be a net loss of riparian reserve under Federal management if the proposed land exchange occurs (Table 3.14). These riparian areas are at least 0.25 miles from the nearest designated critical habitat and are located on intermittent or non-fish bearing perennial streams. The net loss of riparian reserve represents a maximum of less than 1 percent of the riparian reserve acreage of any of the watersheds. There is no direction, policy, law or Executive Order that requires a Federal action to result in no net loss of riparian reserves. Table 3.14 Summary of Federal Stream Miles and Riparian Reserves by Alternative Federal Perennial Streams (mi.) Federal Intermittent Stream (mi.) Federal Riparian Reserve (ac.) No Action Proposed Action Net Gain/Loss to Federal ownership The disturbance regime in all the watersheds that contain exchange parcels are functioning within the range of natural variability. Exchange of the proposed parcels into private ownership is not expected to change the current condition at the watershed scale. A summary of aquatic habitat condition indicators are listed in Table 3.15 below. The probability of indirect affects being transferred downstream to occupied or designated critical habitat is negligible at the watershed scale. Table 3.15 Summary of Aquatic Habitat Condition Indicators Indicators Temperature, Suspended Sediment, Substrate, Character/Embeddedness, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Large Wood, W/D Ratio, Physical Barriers, Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off Channel Habitat, Refugia Streambanks, Floodplain Connectivity, Peak and Base Flows, Increase in drainage Network Road Density and Location, disturbance History, Riparian Reserves, Disturbance Regime Primary Constituent Elements Cumulative Effects Proximity to Designated Critical Habitat Exchange parcels are a minimum of 0.25 miles to the nearest designated critical habitat. Probability of Effects Negligible Discountable Negligible Negligible Discountable or Slightly Negative and Negligible Magnitude of Effects Insignificant N/A Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant 64

71 From a NEPA perspective, cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of agency (Federal or non-federal). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (50 CFR ). The proposed exchange is not expected to adversely contribute to the cumulative effects in any 5 th or 6 th field watershed in or adjacent to the project area. Future Federal actions that occur in the same watershed as the exchange parcels would be subject to cumulative analysis. Determination of Effects Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species A Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared by the Fisheries Biologist is considered part of the analysis file. The BE concluded that the proposed land exchange is not expected to adversely affect Federally Listed Species, Magnusson-Stevens Act (MSA) designated species, or Sensitive Species. There would be no direct or cumulative adverse effects upon water quality/quantity or fisheries. There may be some negligible indirect effects relative to the existing condition. Federal parcels included in the exchange could be subject to management strategies that may not consider all aspects of ecosystem sustainability at the site specific level. Conversely the exchange allows the Forest Service to manage a large intact watershed that includes an inventoried roadless area adjacent to the North Umpqua River. The BE species evaluated and their status are summarized below in Table The proposed Federal exchange parcels were selected, in part, to minimize negative effects to Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon and salmon habitat, while still meeting the resource objectives associated with the project. The implementation of this project would result in a reduction of up to 94 acres of federally managed riparian reserve along non-fish bearing perennial and intermittent stream channels. Conversely, the Forest Service would acquire 280 acres of roadless watershed containing a portion of Cougar Creek, an anadromous stream that flows directly into the North Umpqua River, an important Oregon Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) river system that is crucial in sustaining sensitive and threatened salmonid species. Providing protection for large intact watersheds will help to maintain the river habitat attributes that have supported these fish runs. The negligible indirect effects to the aquatic habitat condition indicators would likely result in no adverse affect to OC coho salmon or their critical habitat. The proposed action would have no direct effects to listed fish or their habitat. No actions are proposed within stream channels, nor are any proposed that would directly affect stream channels, or any stream reaches which may be inhabited by listed fish. 65

72 The Analytical Process (AP) provides a dichotomous key which is utilized to reach the appropriate ESA effect determination. Utilizing the indicator summaries from the Effects Chapter of this document, the key provided an effect determination of No Effect (NE) to OC coho salmon and WR spring chinook. It is the North Umpqua District Fisheries Biologist s determination that the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange Project would have No Adverse Affect (NAA) on OC coho salmon critical habitat. The project may affect individuals or habitat if ground disturbing activities occur on the lands included in this exchange if completed as proposed but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population (MIIH) for Rotund Lanx. The proposed land exchange would have No impact (NI) on OC spring chinook, OC Steelhead, CR bull trout, Oregon Chub, and Western ridged mussel. Table 3.16 Effect Determinations of Proposed Action (Aquatic) Species Determination Status OC coho salmon NE MSA, ESA- Threatened Oregon Coast steelhead (candidate) NI FS Sensitive OC spring chinook NI MSA, FS Sensitive Willamette River Spring Chinook ESA- Threatened NE Salmon Columbia River Bull Trout NI ESA- Threatened Oregon Chub NI ESA- Threatened Umpqua Chub NI FS Sensitive Western ridged mussel NI FS Sensitive Rotund Lanx MIIH FS Sensitive OC coho critical habitat NAA Essential Fish Habitat NAA Aquatic Conservation Strategy The Record of Decision for Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI, 1994) developed an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. A goal of this strategy is to maintain a "natural" disturbance regime. In addition, management activities must comply with nine objectives that are included in the strategy. A variety of tactics to accomplish these goals and objectives incorporated four primary components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. These four components, along with Late Successional Reserves, are designed to operate together to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The following discussion shows how the activities proposed in the action alternative conforms to the nine ACS objectives. The watershed (5 th field) is the typical scale of analysis for the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. However, this proposed land exchange spans 2 basins, 3 sub-basins and 5 watersheds. Therefore, this discussion will also evaluate the merits of the proposed land exchange, as they pertain to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, across all affected watersheds. It is reasonably foreseeable that under the 66

73 proposed action, private parties acquiring federal parcels would harvest timber on suitable lands in a manner consistent with the Forest Practices Act. These activities could likely degrade fish/wildlife habitat and riparian quality at the site scale. However, in each watershed the additional contribution of these reasonably foreseeable actions constitutes only a fraction of a percent of the total land area and would not affect the degree of hydrologic recovery in any watershed (Table 3.17). Additionally, fish/wildlife habitat, aquatic connectivity, wetlands and riparian areas on lands acquired by the Forest Service would be managed in accordance with the 2001 Roadless Rule (FR Vol. 66, No. 9, 2001, pp ) which established prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in IRA s except in very limited circumstances (43 CFR and ). Table 3.17 Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange Parcel Distribution by 5 th Field Watershed Watershed (5 th Field) Watershed (ac.) Salmon Ck 82,153 NFMF Willamette 145,062 Parcels High Prairie High Prairie Parcel Acres Foreseeable Actions (ac.)* Watershed Affected (%) Little River 131,950 4,5,6,8, Elk Creek 54, Middle N. Umpqua 145,062 A,B *Foreseeable actions are defined as lands that would be planned for harvest (stands over 30 years old) immediately after an approved land exchange. Objective #1 - Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted. The Proposed Action would not affect the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features. The exchange, being an administrative action involving change only in landownership, would likely have no measurable adverse effects to the system at the watershed level. Objective #2 - Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide 67

74 chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. The Proposed Action would not affect the spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. There are no fish bearing streams or high quality aquatic refugia proposed to leave federal custody. Adverse effects resulting from reasonably foreseeable actions may occur at the site scale but would have no measurable effects at the watershed or landscape scale. Objective #3 - Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. The proposed land exchange would maintain the physical integrity of the aquatic system at the watershed scale. Reasonably foreseeable actions (timber harvest) on lands leaving federal custody may compromise the integrity of shorelines, banks and bottom configurations at the site scale. Cougar Bluffs LLC lands acquired by the Forest Service would be managed in accordance with the 2001 Roadless Rule (FR Vol. 66, No. 9, 2001, pp ) which established prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in IRA s on NFS lands, further preserving the aquatic system at the site scale. Objectives #4 and #5 - Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. The Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange is in compliance with the Water Quality Management Plans derived from the Little River TMDL (2002), Umpqua Basin TMDL (2006) and the Willamette Basin TMDL (2006). Activities on lands under federal ownership are subjected to evaluation under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other associated Water Quality Restoration Plans. The Oregon Department of Forestry enforces forestry activities on private lands to the extent required in the Forest Practices Act. A change in ownership would change the regulatory guidance and requirements of the associated lands but the new owners are expected to remain consistent with the guidance outlined in the applicable Water Quality Management Plans. Objectives #6 and #7 - Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected. Neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would have a measurable effect to in-stream flows at the watershed scale. It is conceivable that peak flows may be affected in the transient snow zone (all federal parcels except 8 and 9) following harvest activities. However, the increased contributions to the peak flows would be immeasurable at the watershed scale. 68

75 Neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would affect the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Objective #8 - Maintain and restore the species compositions and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would have a measurable effect to species compositions and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands at the watershed scale. However, at the site scale on lands that leave federal custody, riparian areas could be degraded as a result of reasonably foreseeable actions such as timber harvest and other soil disturbing activities, if implemented as proposed. No wetlands are proposed to leave federal ownership. Under the Proposed Action the Forest Service would acquire high quality, completely intact and fully functional riparian areas and 1.6 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands. These water resources would be managed under the 2001 Roadless Rule (FR Vol. 66, No. 9, 2001, pp ). Objective #9- Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. The project would maintain habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species at the watershed scale. Under the Proposed Action, site scale habitat on lands leaving federal custody could be degraded as a result of reasonably foreseeable actions. WILDLIFE RESOURCES Affected Environment Coarse Woody Debris Coarse woody debris (CWD) is defined here as standing dead trees (snags) and large down woody debris ( 6 diameter). These forest components provide essential habitat for many species of wildlife, plants, fungi, liverworts, mosses, lichens, and ecological processes. Coarse wood helps provide for the maintenance and eventual recovery of late-successional organisms in the matrix land allocation (ROD B-7). Relevant Standards and Guidelines Forest Plans provide Standards and Guidelines to direct management actions. Standards and guidelines and management area prescriptions were considered mitigation measures as discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 1990, II-23). The FEIS (USDA 1990, 11-23, IV-2) states that 69

76 mitigation measures are an integral part of implementation and are taken to cause an action to be less harsh or severe: they may take the form of avoiding, minimizing, correcting, or compensating for adverse effects. Parcels to be acquired by the USDA Forest Service if the exchange is completed as proposed would be managed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines in the future. Of the 589 acres of Federal land that would be exchanged to private ownership, 91 acres are in Umpqua National Forest Management Area 11. The remaining 418 acres of Umpqua National Forest land is in Management Area 10. The Willamette National Forest High Prairie Parcel is 79 acres of Willamette National Forest Management Area 11c. All 282 acres of private land that would become Umpqua National Forest land if the exchange occurs would be classified as Umpqua National Forest Management Area 10. Although the parcels the Forest Service would acquire as a result of the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange have previously been owned by a private entity, they are roadless, occur adjacent to Matrix and Late Successional Reserve Land Allocations (NWFP, 1994), and during initial observations, appear to be largely unmanaged. No timber harvest operations or associated activities are planned to occur on these parcels in the foreseeable future. Umpqua National Forest Management Areas Management Area 10 - Focus is to produce timber on a cost-efficient sustainable basis consistent with other resource objectives for wildlife habitat, riparian habitat and water quality, visual quality, and recreation. Adequate snag habitat must be provided in this management area to meet the 60 percent potential population capability (PPC) for cavity nesters (FEIS IV-128). A snag is defined by the FLMP as any dead, partially dead or defective (cull) tree at least ten inches in diameter at breast height and at least six feet tall (FEIS III-72). Modifications for snag habitat prescriptions (and down wood) were provided by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994), which led to watershed analyses (WA) and LSR assessments (LSRA). These modifications are based on site specific information and the latest scientific information. The Standards and Guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan were designed, in part, to maintain [through time] ecological components such as down logs, snags, and large trees (ROD B-2). These CWD components account for two of the five structural elements of late-successional forest stands, described as: 1. Live old-growth trees 2. Standing dead trees (snags) 3. Fallen trees or logs 4. Multiple canopy layers 5. Canopy gaps The ROD further states that desired late-successional and old-growth characteristics include (ROD B-5): 70

77 1. Multi-species and multi-layered assemblages of trees 2. Moderate-to-high accumulations of large logs and snags 3. Moderate-to-high canopy closure 4. Moderate-to-high numbers of trees with physical imperfections such as cavities, broken tops, and large deformed limbs 5. Moderate-to-high accumulations of fungi, lichens, and bryophytes For coarse woody debris management within matrix lands, the ROD included a standard and guideline to develop models for groups of plant associations and stand types that can be used as a baseline for developing prescriptions (ROD C- 40). DecAID (Mellen et al. 2009) was developed to address this standard and guideline. The DecAID Advisor is a planning tool intended to advise and guide managers as they conserve and manage snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity. Management Area 11 Focus is to provide big game winter range habitat and timber production consistent with other resource objectives for wildlife habitat, riparian habitat and water quality, visual quality, and recreation. Adequate snag habitat must be provided in Management Area 11 to meet the 60 percent potential population capability (PPC) for cavity nesters (FEIS IV-133). Existing and Desired Conditions Coarse Woody Debris The abundance of snags and logs varies substantially across forested landscapes in the Pacific Northwest (Ohmann and Waddell 2002). Levels of snags and downed wood vary across landscapes and forest types. A snag and downed wood survey was completed near the Cougar Bluffs planning area for a separate project within the Little River Watershed which documented late successional stand and coarse woody debris levels. The snag inventory followed methods described in Bate et al. (1999), and downed wood was counted using the same method utilized for counting snags (Davis 1998). The snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) survey documented variable levels of snags and downed wood by forest strata. A total of 452 pieces of down wood and a total of 35 snags were inventoried across all strata. Species composition of snags was very similar to the downed wood measured. A CWD survey was also completed adjacent to the planning area in This survey was completed on 88,000 acres of the 2002 Apple fire perimeter (Davis 2003). Also, during the planning process for the 2010 Little River Timber Sale (which is adjacent to Parcels 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, A and B), stand exams were completed throughout the Little River Planning Area. These data sources (Davis 1998, 2003 and 2010 project stand exam data) were used to classify the seral stage within the Little River Planning Area (Table 3.18). Currently, across the landscape within the Little River Planning Area, there is an average of 3.9 snags/acre (Table 3.19). This is greater than the 1.15 snags/acre required by the Forest Plan to meet 60% PPC identified in Table B-28 (USDA, 1990). Currently, the Umpqua and Willamette Forest Plans and Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines for coarse 71

78 woody debris are being met within the NFS proposed exchange parcels. The Umpqua and Willamette National Forest s forest-wide standards and guidelines are the bounds and constraints within which all management activities and practices will be implemented by the Land and Resource Management Plan. The forest-wide standards and guidelines are applicable to all management areas and would be met after the implementation of any alternative. Table 3.18 Seral Stage and Percentage within the Little River Planning Area Seral Stage Percent of the Little River Planning Area Recent Harvest 0.8 Early to Middle Successional 94 Late Successional 4 Low Severity Burned 1 Medium Severity Burned 1 High Severity Burned 0 Table 3.19 Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Data CWD Category Source of Information Range Average Snags 10" dbh (snags/acre) Inventory Data DecAID (High) DecAID (Moderate) DecAID (Low) Snags 20" dbh (snags/acre) Inventory Data DecAID (High) DecAID (Moderate) DecAID (Low) Down wood =5" diameter (% cover) Inventory Data DecAID (High) DecAID (Moderate) DecAID (Low) Snags The Federal exchange parcels have snag densities that meet Umpqua and Willamette National Forest LRMP and Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. These snag density standards and guidelines would be met for all 72

79 parcels under both the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action. It is likely that the 2 snags/acre, which is the 100% PPC, would be exceeded. Percent Downed Wood Cover Downed wood cover for conifer-hardwood stands surveyed averaged lower rates of cover than data from DecAID with an average of 1.2%, which falls below the 30% (low) tolerance level. However, within conifer-hardwood stands, the downed wood cover is likely to increase as the current snags begin to fall and new snags are recruited. The Umpqua and Willamette National Forest LRMP and Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines for downed woody material are being met, and will be met after the implementation of any alternative for conifer-hardwood percent downed wood cover in non-nesting roosting and foraging habitat. Alternative 1: No Action The No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect effect on CWD in the planning area because no land exchange would occur. It is unlikely that the non- Federal parcels would be commercially logged in the foreseeable future (within the next 5 years). The No Action Alternative would not incrementally add to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities to cause a cumulative effect to the coarse woody debris levels since no action would occur. Alternative 2: Proposed Action For all parcels, Federal and non-federal, the action alternative would not affect CWD levels. Direct effects to CWD are the immediate changes that would occur and the indirect effects focus on how the alternatives would modify the stand CWD dynamics later in time. Because a land exchange in and of itself is simply a change in land ownership, there are no direct effects of a land exchange on the coarse woody debris levels within the planning area. If the Proposed Action is implemented, after the exchange takes place, the new owners would be responsible for deciding how the land will be managed. Timber harvest operations would likely occur in the foreseeable future on those parcels that would be conveyed into private ownership. Of the 589 acres of Federal lands proposed for exchange, 516 acres would be of harvestable age and the levels of coarse woody debris could be affected if timber harvest operations and associated activities occur. These potential alterations of levels of coarse woody debris would have to be analyzed in a separate report by the private landowner, specifically addressing the effects of the timber harvest. It is likely that snags and downed wood would increase in Parcels A and B over time, and that they would be available indefinitely under Federal management (i.e. IRA and LSR). Parcels 4, 5, 6, 8, and 129, as well as the High Prairie Parcel are all adjacent to industrial forests with little to no snags and coarse wood. Parcels A and B are located within an older forest and would serve as a source of increased snags and coarse wood over time. 73

80 Cumulative Effects Adverse impacts to levels of CWD at both the stand and planning area scale have resulted from past clearcut timber harvesting, road building, roadside salvage, and various other activities listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not contribute to a cumulative impact to the CWD as no ground disturbance activity would be occurring as a result of the proposed land exchange. Future foreseeable actions on the parcels conveyed into private ownership could potentially contribute to a negative cumulative impact to the CWD resource in the planning area as a result of timber harvest activities on lands leaving Federal ownership. The action alternative, as proposed, represents no impact to the dead wood resource within the planning area. Overarching long-term ecological benefits (i.e. large trees, large limbs, deep crowns, etc.) are expected for the parcels conveyed into Federal ownership through natural aging and forest succession. No timber harvest activities would be planned in the foreseeable future in these parcels once they become NFS lands. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, because of the small scale of this project, and because there is no ground disturbance associated with this project, the action alternative is not be expected to result in a meaningful cumulative impact to the CWD resource on federal lands. Effects Determinations for Coarse Woody Debris Alternative 1 would maintain current snag and CWD densities. Alternative 2 would have no direct effect to overall snag recruitment or downed wood levels at the landscape-scale, due to the nature of the proposed action; to exchange parcels of land. However, there would be an indirect effect of an overall reduction of snags and downed wood in parcels that would become private due to the merchantable age of the stands and the likelihood that they would be harvested (Table 2). As a result of Alternative 2, Federal parcels would continue to increase in snags and downed wood over time due to their location (IRA) and land allocation (LSR). See Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 for a complete list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange planning area. No future timber harvest activities would be planned in the foreseeable future for Parcels A and B when they enter into Federal ownership. The No Action alternative would allow for the most snag and coarse woody debris to be retained on the landscape as no snag or CWD densities would be altered. A decrease of snag and downed wood over time could occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species A Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) prepared by the Forest and District Wildlife Biologist is part of the analysis file. The BE concluded that 74

81 under the Proposed Action alternative, the proposed land exchange may adversely affect (LAA) the Northern Spotted Owl, a Federally Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. The BE also concluded that for Forest Service Sensitive Species with habitat present within the action area, the action alternative May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). There would be no direct or cumulative adverse effects upon terrestrial habitat. However, there may some negligible indirect effects relative to the existing condition. Survey and Manage and Management Indicator Species were also considered in the Biological Evaluation. Federal parcels included in the exchange could be subject to management strategies that may not consider all aspects of ecosystem sustainability at the site specific level. Conversely, the exchange allows the Forest Service to manage a large intact watershed that includes an inventoried roadless area adjacent to the North Umpqua River. The BE species evaluated and their status are summarized below in Table The Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange parcels were selected, in part, to minimize negative effects to a variety of wildlife species, including the Northern Spotted Owl and Northern Spotted Owl habitat, while still meeting the resource objectives associated with the project. While no critical habitat would be affected, implementation of the proposed exchange would result in a reduction of approximately 68 acres of federally managed Northern Spotted Owl Nesting, Roosting, Foraging (NRF) habitat. Conversely, the Forest Service would acquire 151 acres of roadless Northern Spotted Owl NRF habitat. Providing protection for large intact watersheds will help to maintain the NRF habitat attributes that have supported the Northern Spotted Owl. As documented in USDI/USDA (2008) and agreed upon amongst the Level One Team, any removal of NRF or dispersal-only habitat within the nest patch would likely cause adverse effects to, and may rise to the level of take, of the NSO. Further, core use areas with 50 percent or greater suitable NRF habitat and home ranges with at least 40 percent suitable NRF habitat are considered necessary to maintain NSO life history function (USDI/USDA 2008). Alternative 1: No Action The No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect effect on Federally Threatened or Forest Service Sensitive Species in the planning area because no land exchange would occur. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Technically, the decision to be made is only to exchange lands, which in and of itself would not result in habitat modification, thus there would be no direct effects as a result of this project. However, it is reasonably foreseeable that the parcels exchanged into private ownership would be subject to regeneration harvest sometime in the near future. Therefore, indirect effects of this project include the 75

82 removal of approximately 68 acres of NRF habitat. Owl site 2818 on the Willamette National Forest near the High Prairie parcel would experience the most adverse effect as a result of the proposed land exchange in that 30 acres of NRF at the home range scale would likely be removed as a result of the proposed exchange. This habitat loss would occur on the outside edge of the home range, thus effects would primarily be to roosting and foraging habitat rather than nesting habitat. Owl site 526 (located near Parcels 5 and 6) in the Little River area would have the second most adverse affects as a result of the proposed land exchange in that 27 acres of NRF would be removed at the home range scale, and 4 acres of NRF would be removed at the core scale. This removal of habitat at overlapping scales, and the contiguous blocks of private industrial timberland in this home range (28%) would increase to 34% as a result of the proposed exchange. Finally, owl site 475 (located near Parcel 129) would have 7 acres of NRF removed at the periphery of the home range scale. As studies have documented a positive association between spotted owl fitness and amounts of habitat at the territory (1.2 mile) scale, any reduction of habitat at the territory scale may have an adverse effect on owl fitness (Franklin et al. 2000, Dugger et al. 2005, Olson et al and USFWS 2011). Parcels A and B are located in the middle of the Cougar Bluffs Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). This portion of the Cougar Bluffs IRA is located within Matrix and Late Successional Reserve land allocations, but as a result of them being located within an IRA, it is not reasonable to assume that these parcels will be harvested by the Forest Service in the foreseeable future. Parcels A and B contain 152 acres of NRF habitat, which would in all likelihood remain unharvested and be preserved as NRF habitat. Overall this would result in a net gain of at least 83 acres of NRF habitat as a result of the proposed land exchange. The NRF habitat within Parcels A and B is surrounded by the Cougar Bluffs IRA; therefore the adjacent NRF is also likely to remain intact in the foreseeable future. Owl site 337 would have an increase in 128 acres of NRF at the home range scale and 10 acres on the core scale which would be reasonably and foreseeably preserved as NRF habitat into the future. Owl site 563 would have 23 acres of NRF which would be reasonably and foreseeably preserved as NRF habitat at the home range scale. Owl site 579 s home range slightly overlaps the non-federal land to be exchanged, which would not be measurably affected by the land exchange. This likely protection of habitat due to land allocation and location could have benefits to the fitness of the owls potentially occupying the two owl territories in this portion of the action area (Franklin et al. 2000, Dugger et al. 2005, Olson et al and USFWS 2011). The Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange would likely result in the removal of approximately 68 acres of NRF habitat sometime in the near future, while 151 acres of NRF habitat would likely be preserved as NRF habitat. Therefore, the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the NSO. As there is no Critical Habitat within the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange parcels, there would be no effect (NE) to 2008 NSO critical habitat. 76

83 The project may affect individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population (MIIH) for Johnson s hairstreak, Coronis fritillary, Mardon Skipper, Siskiyou short-horned Grasshopper, Evening fieldslug, Salamander slug, Oregon shoulderband, Chase sideband, Crater Lake tightcoil snail, Foothill yellow-legged frog, Oregon spotted frog, Oregon slender salamander, Northern pacific pond turtle, American peregrine falcon, Northern waterthrush, Pallid bat, Pacific fringed myotis, Townsend s big-eared bat, Pacific fisher, Wolverine. The project would have no impact (NI) on Red-necked grebe, Horned grebe, Bufflehead, Black swift, Lewis s woodpecker, White-headed woodpecker, Purple martin, Bald eagle, or the Harlequin duck. Table 3.20 Determination of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Wildlife Species Threatened & Sensitive Wildlife Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Northern spotted owl (Threatened) NE LAA Johnson s hairstreak NI MIIH Coronis fritillary NI MIIH Mardon skipper NI MIIH Siskiyou short-horned Grasshopper NI MIIH Evening fieldslug NI MIIH Salamander slug NI MIIH Oregon Shoulderband NI MIIH Chase Sideband NI MIIH Crater Lake tightcoil snail NI MIIH Red-necked Grebe NI NI Horned Grebe NI NI Foothill yellow-legged frog NI MIIH Oregon Spotted Frog NI MIIH Oregon Slender Salamander NI MIIH Northern Pacific pond turtle NI MIIH Bufflehead NI NI Black swift NI NI American Peregrine Falcon NI MIIH 77

84 Threatened & Sensitive Wildlife Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Yellow Rail NI NI Northern Waterthrush NI MIIH Lewis s Woodpecker NI NI Whiteheaded Woodpecker NI NI Purple Martin NI NI Bald Eagle NI NI Harlequin Duck NI NI Pallid Bat NI MIIH Pacific fringed myotis NI MIIH Townsend s big-eared bat NI MIIH Pacific fisher NI MIIH Wolverine NI MIIH Survey and Manage Wildlife Species The USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Office determined that because the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange project is not a habitat disturbing activity, surveys for Survey and Manage species are not triggered. The Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) is considered to be a regionally Rare and Uncommon wildlife species whose known range includes the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests. The Great Gray Owl is not included on the Regional Forester s Sensitive Species list for the Umpqua or Willamette National Forest (updated January 2008), but it is included on the Regional Forester s sensitive species in Washington State. Great Gray Owls have been observed on all four ranger districts of the Umpqua National Forest and extensively across the Middle Fork Ranger District. The Proposed Action does not prescribe any treatments around meadow habitat. There are no meadows greater than 10 acres included in the proposed exchange parcels. Neither the Proposed Action alternative nor the No Action alternative would be expected to cause a consequential negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site. Some surveys for terrestrial mollusks occurred in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009 in suitable habitat for survey and manage mollusk species (Chace sideband (Monadenia chaceana), Crater Lake tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris), Oregon slender salamander (Batrachoseps wrightorum), Oregon megomphix (Megomphix hemphilli), Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium) or Salamander slug (Gliabates oregonius)) - utilizing the protocol from the 78

85 Terrestrial Mollusks Version 3.0 (2003). These surveys were conducted on the High Prairie Parcel of the Willamette National Forest and Parcels 6 and 129 on the Umpqua National Forest. No survey and manage mollusk species were found during the course of these surveys. As a result of the Proposed Action there would be a net loss of up to 306 acres of terrestrial habitat as well as 1.2 miles of perennial stream. There would also be a net gain of 2 acres of rock habitat, 1.6 acres of perennial wetlands, and 44 acres of old growth terrestrial habitat. However, there may be 14 acres of old growth habitat loss if Parcel 6 is included in the exchange. Considering the scale of this project compared with the range of these species, neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action alternative would be expected to cause a consequential negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site. Because the land exchange is not a habitat disturbing activity, red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) surveys were not carried out in mixed conifer stands at or below 5,800 feet in elevation (Biswell et al. 2002). The entire planning area occurs below 5,800 feet. Although there is not any Red Tree Vole nests documented in the proposed exchange parcels there are documented nests within 1 mile of the High Prairie parcel and Parcel 8. Standards and guidelines from the 2001 Survey & Manage ROD for White-headed woodpeckers (Picoides albolarvatus), Black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus), Pygmy nuthatches (Sitta pygmaea) and Flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) are currently being met in all Federal parcels and would continue to be met in all federally owned parcels of land. As a result of the proposed land exchange there would be a net loss of 306 acres of terrestrial habitat. However, there wouls be a net gain of 44 acres of old growth terrestrial habitat associated with each of these species, although 14 acres of old growth habitat would be lost as a result of the exchange of Parcel 6. There are no Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the project area, thus Canada lynx were not discussed in the analysis. Management Indicator Species The Umpqua and Willamette Forest Plans (USDA 1990) designated 7 species, and one group of species (cavity nesters) as Management Indicator Species (MIS) (Table 3.21). They were selected to track and evaluate the effects of Forest management activities on all wildlife species that occur on the Forest. The Northern Spotted Owl, Pine Marten, and Pileated Woodpecker represent mature and old growth conifer habitats. Primary cavity excavators represent the dead and defective tree habitat. Big game winter range is represented by Roosevelt elk and black-tailed deer. The Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon are sensitive species that require special management. 79

86 Table 3.21 Umpqua and Willamette National Forests Management Indicator Species (MIS) Umpqua and Willamette N.F. Management Indicator Species Habitat Species Common Name Present Present in Scientific Habitat in the the Name Indicator Analysis Analysis Area Area Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis Mature/Old Owl caurina Growth Habitat Yes Yes Pileated Dryocopus Mature/Old Woodpecker pileatus Growth Habitat Yes Yes Cavity Excavators Snag Habitat Yes Yes Martes americana High Elevation Pine Marten* Mountain Hemlock/Lodg epole Pine No Historical Observation Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus None/Special leucocephalus Management No Yes American Peregrine Falco peregrines None/Special Falcon Management Yes Yes Roosevelt Elk Cervus elaphus Big Game roosevelti Winter Range Yes Yes Blacktail Deer Odocoileus Big Game hemionus Winter Range Yes Yes *As no suitable habitat for these species is being proposed to be included in the land exchange, this species was not considered in the analysis. No alternative considered for the Cougar Bluff Land Exchange project would affect the population trends or viability for Northern Spotted Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, Cavity Excavators, American Peregrine Falcon, Roosevelt Elk, or Blacktail Deer on a scale that would affect population trends throughout their ranges on the Umpqua or Willamette National Forests as the impacts associated with either alternatives are negligible when compared to the overall range of the species. Landbirds Population declines of some landbirds have resulted in a Landbird Strategic Plan (USDA 2000) that set management goals and actions for providing sustainable landbird habitat. A conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington was developed to guide land management planning efforts to help ensure functional ecosystems with healthy populations of landbirds (PIF 1999). These plans and strategy documents are not regulatory, but provide management recommendations for reversing declining population trends and achieving stable or increasing trends within the next couple of decades. A Presidential Executive Order (signed January 10, 2001) required the Forest Service to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (signed January 17, 2001) to incorporate recommendations from these types of landbird conservation plans into forest planning. 80

87 Existing and Desired Conditions The planning area is located on the west-slopes of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon. There are two Cascade Mountain breeding bird survey (BBS) routes adjacent to the planning area. One route, Sam s Valley (#69127) is situated 3 miles to the southeast of Parcel 129. The Fish Lake Route (#69062) is located 9 miles to the east of Parcel 4. These routes are part of a large-scale survey of North American breeding birds and have been used to monitor landbirds on an annual basis for many years (Sauer et al. 2008). The conservation strategy for the coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington (PIF 1999) describes the conditions found within the proposed land exchanged parcels as pole forest - stem exclusion, as described below (PIF 1999): These forest conditions are structurally simple and characterized by an even aged, single-layered, closed-canopy with little or no understory development. Where understory vegetation exists, it is generally low growing and dominated by one or two shade-tolerant species. Stands may range from sapling trees with high foliage ratios that have attained canopy closure, to large pole trees that are densely stocked and have low foliage ratios and a high degree of canopy lift. These forest conditions are relatively depauperate in landbird species composition and richness. The conservation strategy identified two focal bird species for this forest type, black-throated gray warbler and Hutton's vireo. The black-throated gray warbler is associated with overstory deciduous trees and Hutton's vireo is associated with the understory shrubs. It also identifies the hermit warbler as a younger forest, closed-canopy associated species. Monitoring data from the local BBS routes show declining trends for the black-throated gray warbler in this area. Hutton s vireo and the hermit warbler were not detected along this route. Long-term ( ) and short-term ( ) population trends for the Cascade Mountains show stable populations for the warblers, and increasing population trends for the vireo (Table 3.22). Table 3.22 Land Bird Trends from Breeding Bird Survey Routes Focal Landbirds Sam s Valley (69127) located 3 miles to the southeast ( ) Sam s Valley (69127) located 3 miles to the southeast ( ) Fish Lake (69062) located 9 miles to the east ( ) Fish Lake (69062) located 9 miles to the east ( ) Huttons vireo Increasing Increasing Not detected Not detected Black-throated gray warbler Declining Declining Declining Declining Hermit warbler Increasing Increasing Not detected Not detected 81

88 A total of 102 landbird species have been detected on the Sam s Valley Route through the North American breeding bird survey (Sauer 2008). Of these, 7 are showing statistically significant (p 0.05) declining population trends (>2% decrease per year). However, because two routes cannot be considered representative of the entire area, species considered to be declining at the regional scale (31 of the 102 landbird species listed for this route) were identified. These locally declining species are listed below in Table Table 3.23 Landbirds Showing "Statistically Significant" Population Declines* (Sam s Valley Route) Species Trend estimate P Ring-necked Pheasant Killdeer Common Snipe Mourning Dove Common Nighthawk Rufous Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Northern Flicker Olive-sided Flycatcher Willow Flycatcher Willow/Alder Flycatcher Pac.-sl/Co Flycatcher Cassin s Vireo Violet-green Swallow Barn Swallow House Wren Golden-crowned Kinglet Swainson s Thrush Hermit Thrush American Robin Orange-crowned Warbler

89 Species Trend estimate P MacGillivray s Warbler Chipping Sparrow Song Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Western Meadowlark Brewer s Blackbird Brown-headed Cowbird Pine Siskin American Goldfinch House Sparrow * "Statistically significant" (p 0.05) population declines ( 2% decline per year). Data was collected from the Regional Scale associated with the Sam s Valley breeding bird survey route for the period (Sauer et al 2008). A total of 135 landbird species have been detected on the Fish Lake Route through the North American breeding bird survey (Sauer 2008). Of these, 15 are showing statistically significant (p 0.05) declining population trends (>2% decrease per year). However, because two routes cannot be considered representative of the entire area, species considered to be declining at the regional scale (26 of the 135 landbird species listed for this route) were identified. These locally declining species are listed below in Table Table 3.24 Landbirds Showing "Statistically Significant" Population Declines* (Fish Lake Route) Northern Pintail Species Trend estimate P Ring-necked Pheasant Eared Grebe Killdeer Common Snipe Ring-billed Gull California Gull

90 Species Trend estimate P Mourning Dove Common Nighthawk Belted Kingfisher Willow Flycatcher Alder Flycatcher Horned Lark Barn Swallow Rock Wren House Wren Chipping Sparrow Brewer s Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Fox Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Bobolink Brewer s Blackbird Cassin s Finch Pine Siskin American Goldfinch * "Statistically significant" (p 0.05) population declines ( 2% decline per year). Data was collected from the Regional Scale associated with the Fish Lake breeding bird survey route for the period (Sauer et al 2008). Alternative 1: No Action The direct (short-term) and indirect (long-term) effects to land birds were analyzed at the planning area scale. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts to land birds because no habitat modifying activities would occur. Alternative 2: Proposed Action There are no thinning or other habitat modifying activities associated with Alternative 2. Landbird habitat within proposed land exchange parcels would not change. No direct effects to any landbird species would be expected to occur. There are potential beneficial indirect impacts for a variety of landbirds 84

91 associated with the Proposed Action alternative. Future potential timber harvest activities could open up the forest canopy and result in an increase in the deciduous tree and shrub component, as well as increasing ground vegetation in openings. Insects that comprise a large component of landbird prey base would respond favorably to these conditions. Recent studies are leading research scientists to conclude that commercial thinning in dense, young Douglas-fir plantations can increase diversity of breeding songbirds (Hayes et al. 2003, Hagar et al. 2004). A variety of thinning intensities and patterns, ranging from no thinning to very-widely spaced residual trees, is recommended to maximize bird diversity at the landscape scale and structural diversity both within and among stands (Hagar et al. 2004). Reducing crown density and creating small openings in dense stands may maintain suitable habitat for the dusky flycatcher (Marshall et al. 2003). For the two focal species associated with stem exclusion forest types, proposed activities would reduce habitat quality in the short-term within the treated stands. Hayes et al. (2003) and Hagar et al. (2004) found that thinning young Douglas-fir in western Oregon caused localized declines in black-throated gray warblers and Hutton s vireo over 5 years, but did not cause extirpations. Given the abundance of stem exclusion stands within the planning area that are not proposed harvest units, potential impacts to habitat for the black-throated gray warblers and Hutton s vireos are considered to be minor and inconsequential to the species. For the Proposed Action alternative, future potential timber harvest and associated activities could represent a potential disturbance impact to nesting landbirds depending on the time of year when these activities take place. However, currently there are no timber harvests or associated activities planned to occur on any federal or future federal parcels of land associated with the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange. Thus, although impacts are anticipated, due to the limited magnitude, and spatial and temporal distribution of the impacts and the abundance of unimpacted habitats in the planning area, potential impacts are not considered consequential to the species. There are no meaningful differences between the No Action and Proposed Action alternative relative to their potential impacts on landbirds. Cumulative Effects Given the broad geographic range of these landbird species, it is difficult to determine an appropriate and meaningful scale for assessing potential cumulative impacts of the project. However, at the planning area scale, past timber harvesting in the 5 watersheds associated with the planning area (Table 3.15) has resulted in high existing levels of habitat in the stem exclusion stage. Past, ongoing and foreseeable future activities (Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) in the area that would impact landbird habitat in this structural category are very limited. There are thousands of acres of year-old stands adjacent to the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange planning area that would be reaching the stem-exclusion successional stage over the next few decades, thus potential habitat for landbirds associated with stem-exclusion conditions is not expected to be limited in the 85

92 near future. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there are no consequential cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Action. Alternative 1 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to landbirds and thus, no cumulative impacts. Effects Determination for Landbirds Implementation of the No Action alternative or the Proposed Action would not alter the population trends observed for these land bird species throughout Oregon, or the Cascades of Washington and Oregon as the effects of the alternatives are limited to small portions of the overall ranges of the species discussed. This is because of the small scale of disturbance related to their range associated with the action alternative. HERITAGE RESOURCES The Forest Service has the responsibility of protecting historic properties under numerous laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. Historic Properties are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, sites, buildings, structures, or objects included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR (1)(1)). Affected Environment The Umpqua and Willamette National Forests have been occupied for thousands of years. Archaeological sites have been discovered beneath Mazama ash dated 6,845 before present. Various archaeological site types have been recorded during inventories. These include village, quarry, cairn, rockshelters, rockshelters with rock art, lithic scatters with features, and culturally modified trees. These sites are protected under the Archaeological Protection Act from damage with both civil and criminal penalties. The affected environment for heritage resources falls within proposed activities with the potential to affect those resources (e.g., timber harvest, fuels treatment, road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning, subsoiling, landing construction). As required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a pedestrian survey was conducted to determine the presence of heritage resources within the Federal parcels proposed for exchange. Forest Plan goals and objectives and Cultural Resource (Heritage) Standards and Guidelines are listed in Chapter IV, pages of the Umpqua Forest Plan and Chapter IV, pages of the Willamette Forest Plan. All applicable Standards and Guidelines have been met through the inventory and evaluation of any historic or prehistoric heritage resources. A records search found no previously recorded heritage resource sites (either pre-historic or historic) within the project area boundaries. Following surveys conducted at 20-meter-wide transect intervals, there were no properties located that were recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 86

93 Government-to Government consultation is initiated with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians on undertakings that have the potential to affect heritage resources. The Umpqua National Forest sent a cover letter with the quarterly copies of the Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) to each of the Tribes. Each quarter, the cover letter highlights new projects and projects that may be of interest to the Tribes; the Cougar Bluffs Land Exchange was identified as a new project when the project was first initiated. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians were contacted by letter. Other contacts in the form of phone calls, letters, and opportunities to participate in public tours and public meetings, and meetings at Tribal offices were also utilized to interact with the Tribes. No interest in this project was expressed by any of the tribes. There are no trust resources or reserved treaty rights for the lands managed by the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests. Therefore, no effects to trust resources or reserved treaty rights would occur with the land exchange if completed as proposed. Alternative 1: No Action There would be no changes in or effects to historic properties under the No Action alternative. Completed surveys of the Federal parcels are retailed for future land management projects that may be planned in the future. The Forest Service would continue to assess, record, and, if required, protect and/or mitigate for effects to cultural resources in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800). Alternative 2: Proposed Action According to Federal guidelines, the proposed land exchange constitutes an undertaking which could adversely affect cultural resources. Following archaeological field survey, the Umpqua National Forest s Forest Archaeologist determined that this undertaking meets the criteria under the 2004 Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, for a No Historic Properties Affected determination. A report documenting the results of this survey was sent to the SHPOs office for review. The Oregon SHPO concurred with the Forest Service determination. RECREATION It is through the pursuit of recreational activities that many forest visitors gain their only impression of the Forest Service and Forest management. Public recreation is a vital part of multiple use resource management. Recreation settings and opportunities are to a large extent affected by (and affect) the 87

94 availability and demand for timber products, clean water, fish, wildlife, and habitats. Affected Environment The forest-wide goal for recreation on both the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests is to provide a broad spectrum of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities. Management of recreation opportunities on the Forests is based on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as directed in the standards, guidelines, and prescriptions contained in the Forest Plans. The ROS is an array of recreational activities, settings, and experiences used as a basic framework in planning and managing outdoor recreation resources. The activities, settings, and experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into seven classes; primitive (P), semiprimitive non-motorized (SPNM), semiprimitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). The primitive ROS is used to supplement the wilderness resource spectrum (WRS) direction for wilderness. The urban classification is not present and/or implemented on NFS lands on either Forest. Management Areas (MA s) in the Forest Plans provide focus or emphasis and prescriptions provide specific direction, including goals, desired future condition, and standards and guidelines that are unique to each Management Area. The proposed Federal exchange parcels, their MA s and their prescribed ROS classes are summarized below in Table Table 3.25 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) by Parcel Federal Parcel High Prairie Management Area 11c ROS RN 4 10 RM 5 10 RM 6 10/11 RM 8 10 RM 9 10/11 RM /11 RM ROS Description Roaded Natural Area characterized by predominately natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Roaded Modified An area characterized by a natural environment with much evidence of the works of humans. Such evidence usually dominates the natural environment. There are no developed recreation sites on the Federal lands proposed for exchange. The parcels in the Little River area (4, 5, 6, 8, and 9) are all within three to four road miles of NFS (White Creek and Cool Water) or BLM (Emile Creek) developed campgrounds. Parcel 129 is within one mile (three road miles) of Threehorn NFS campground. The High Prairie parcel is within three miles (ten road miles) of the Salmon Creek Falls NFS campground. Dispersed recreation in the form of day use such as walking, hiking, wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, 88

95 bicycling, horseback riding, driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, and nordic skiing takes place on public and private lands within and around the project area. Additionally, camping (overnight use) is permitted on NFS lands. Recreation use on the proposed Federal exchange parcels, other than driving established roads, is generally light. No specific or unique public uses of these parcels were identified during internal and public scoping. The non-federal parcels are surrounded by the Cougar Bluffs IRA, which is managed to provide a physical setting that meets or exceeds the ROS class of roaded natural. The McDonald Trail (#1515), a 4.1 mile non-motorized NFS trail, passes through both of the non-federal exchange parcels. The McDonald Trail runs from its junction with the North Umpqua Trail (#1414) about 1.5 miles east of the Wright Creek trailhead, through the non-federal parcels, to the trailhead on NFS road The trail passes through the McDonald homestead site, located on parcel B. The trail is rated most difficult and use is considered light. There is no easement for the trail across the private lands. To date the landowners have not objected to the use of this trail by the general public. Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no lands would be exchanged and there would be no effect to recreation opportunities, use or management on the proposed exchange parcels. The Federal parcels would continue to be managed for multiple use resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitat. Under this alternative the United States would not acquire the 280 acres of private inholdings within the Cougar Bluffs IRA. With no legal easement, the landowners could deny public access on that portion of the McDonald trail located on private land. The Forest Service would be required to reroute the trail, purchase legal easement, or abandon and eliminate it from the NFS trail system. The recreation experience on the McDonald trail is somewhat dependant on the vegetation on the surrounding lands. If the landowners acquire legal access through the Cougar Bluffs IRA, a regeneration harvest would likely occur on both of the non-federal parcels. Public use on that portion of the trail would be precluded during harvest activities. It is expected that the visual impact of harvest activities would result in decreased use of the trail for several years until forest vegetation became reestablished. Alternative 2: Proposed Action If the Proposed Action were implemented, up to 598 acres of NFS lands currently available for dispersed recreational use would be removed from the public land base. There are over 1,675,000 acres available on the Willamette National Forest for dispersed recreational use. The Umpqua National Forest has over 980,000 acres that are available for dispersed recreation activities. A reduction of 598 acres of NFS lands adjacent to private land would have no noticeable effect on recreational opportunities available to the general public. 89

96 Public access would be retained for roads on all the parcels leaving Federal ownership except Parcels 5 and 6. The roads on these parcels begin on private land, would end on private land, and do not provide access to any other NFS lands. Legal access on approximately 2.5 miles of roads could be eliminated (see Roads section). While legal access on these Federal parcels may be eliminated, use of the roads for recreational use (i.e., driving for pleasure, accessing other areas of the Forest) may not be affected if the private landowners allow the public use of these same roads. The Umpqua National Forest would acquire the 280 acres of private inholdings within the Cougar Bluffs IRA. Federal acquisition of these lands would secure the public access and continued management of the McDonald trail as a NFS trail. The acquisition of these parcels would ensure the recreation value associated with the scenic quality and integrity of the Cougar Bluffs IRA could be maintained into the foreseeable future. LANDS Affected Environment The Umpqua and Willamette National Forests were originally designated as part of the Cascade Range Forest Reserve by President Grover Cleveland in In 1908, Congress designated close to a million acres as the Umpqua National Forest. The Willamette National Forest was administratively organized in its current form as a National Forest in 1933 though it has been managed by the Forest Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture since All federal parcels have Reserved Public Domain status. The parcels on the Umpqua National Forest were reserved from the public domain by proclamations dated 1/25/1907 and 3/2/1907, which added lands to the Cascade Range Forest Reserve. The High Prairie parcel on the Willamette National Forest was acquired through a land exchange in 12/22/1965, under authority of the General Exchange Act of 3/20/1922. The desired condition for NFS lands is large consolidated blocks which will provide for efficient and effective conservation and management of natural resources. Compared to a consolidated or blocked up land ownership pattern, an intermingled ownership pattern creates a number of complexities or difficulties in conducting land management functions. Contrasting management practices on private land reduces the Forest Service s ability to apply ecosystem management principals across the landscape. More effective conservation and management of natural resources can occur in a contiguous land ownership pattern where consistent resource objectives may be applied on a broader (ecosystem) scale. A consolidated ownership pattern also helps minimize administrative costs. Efficiencies are realized by reducing boundaries requiring survey and 90

97 maintenance, reducing amounts of joint-use roads, reducing the number of easements and the number of agreements necessary to access inholdings. By law, the Forest Service is required to post and maintain all exterior boundaries. These boundaries define Forest Service management units. Surveying of internal boundaries is frequently required for inholdings, when management activities are proposed, or to reduce the potential for trespass. In an intermingled ownership pattern, the cost of surveying, posting, and maintaining land lines is much larger than in a consolidated pattern. The existing survey corners and maintained boundary line associated with the proposed exchange parcels are listed below in Table Table 3.26 Survey Corners and Boundary Line Maintenance Related to Exchange Parcels Parcel Existing Survey Corners Boundary Line Maintained (mi.) High Prairie A B Totals There are 38 survey corners and approximately miles of boundary line maintenance associated with the proposed exchange parcels. Approximately 0.75 miles of that boundary line is Umpqua National Forest exterior boundary (Parcels 5, 8 and 9 each have 0.25 miles of exterior boundary). There are special use permits located on the High Prairie parcel and Parcel 4. Lane County Electric Cooperative Inc. has a special use permit for powerlines on the High Prairie parcel. Their overhead powerline runs along road until the road heads SW; then the line runs cross-country south south-east to the south boundary of this parcel. Qwest Cooperation has a special use permit for a buried telephone cable line in the High Prairie parcel. The buried line runs along road Both utilities service the Dead Mountain Communication Site, located southeast of the parcel. Red Butte LLC has a special use permit for a buried powerline in Parcel 4. The line runs along the road that crosses through the parcel. Cougar Bluffs LLC would grant easements to the special use permittees (Lane County Electric Cooperative, Qwest Corporation and Red Butte LLC) for power and telephone lines as a condition of a land exchange. Easements have been granted on roads within parcels 4, 5 and 8 (see Roads), and parcel 129 is included in a grazing permit (see Range Resources). 91

98 Alternative 1: No Action The No Action Alternative would maintain the land ownership patterns as they exist today. Both the Forest Service and the private landowners would retain small isolated tracts. The intermingled ownership pattern would continue to complicate management of NFS lands. The current costs of surveying and maintaining boundaries would continue. The Forest Service would continue to grant easements and special use permits for use of NFS land associated with access to non-federal land. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under this alternative, the federal estates for the parcels being exchanged would be granted through a patent issued by the Bureau of Land Management since they all have Reserved Public Domain land status. Intermingled land ownership patterns would be reduced. Administrative and resource management efficiencies would be realized through blocking up federal ownership. Implementation of the Proposed Action would eliminate the private inholdings in the Cougar Bluffs IRA. This would provide the opportunity to enhance Federal management of the IRA, late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems, and apply Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives to lands that would otherwise remain in non-federal ownership and could potentially be harvested. Implementation of this alternative could eliminate the probable expense and legal challenges associated with granting access, permitting road construction, and harvest of private timberland in this politically sensitive area. Acquisition of the non-federal parcels would eliminate the need for 16 survey corners and maintenance of approximately 4.5 miles of Forest boundary line. Disposal of the Federal parcels would eliminate the need for 20 survey corners and maintenance of approximately 5.35 miles of boundary line. There would be new costs associated with establishing and posting new boundary lines. Implementation of the Proposed Action would require up to 9 survey corners and 3.85 miles of new boundary line established. Table 3.27 lists the survey corners and boundary line associated with each parcel. There would be a net reduction of 27 survey corners and 6.0 miles of boundary line requiring maintenance. Table 3.27 Survey Corners and Boundary Line Eliminated and Required by Parcel Parcel Survey Corners Boundary Line (mi.) Eliminated Required Eliminated Required High Prairie

99 Parcel Survey Corners Boundary Line (mi.) A B Totals Under the Proposed Action the Forest Service would terminate portions of five easements that currently provide public access to Parcels 5, 6 and 9. The Forest Service would grant road easements to Cougar Bluffs LLC for access to the proposed exchange parcels. (See Table 3.29 in Roads section below) Cougar Bluffs LLC would to grant easements at closing to Lane County Electric Cooperative, Qwest Corporation and Red Butte LLC for power and telephone lines currently authorized under Special Use Permit allowing their continued use on the parcels that leave Federal ownership. ROADS Forest roads are constructed, operated, and maintained for the administration and protection of NFS lands. They are typically designed to standards commensurate with their intended use, considering safety, cost, and impacts on land and resources. In areas of intermingled ownership, legal access is granted, and acquired, through the use of road easements, permits, or agreements. The Forest Service is required by law (ANILCA) to allow adequate access for reasonable use of the landlocked private inholdings upon request. In order to provide legal access across NFS lands, the location and type of access must be approved and authorized. Private landowners however, are not required to allow access to isolated tracts of NFS lands. The Forest Service has authority to acquire easements across private land. When the Forest service acquires an easement it is usually for access to existing national forest system lands. Rights for general public use are typically included with easement acquisition. In some instances the Forest Service will acquire an easement solely for agency or administrative use. Oftentimes, a road provides beneficial use to both parties and easements are granted can be reciprocated. In the case of land exchanges, legal access for roads on NFS lands leaving Federal ownership may be reserved or existing easements may be terminated as a condition of the exchange. Affected Environment The Umpqua National Forest Plan identifies the forest-wide goal of developing and managing an economical and safe Forest transportation system that is responsive to land and resource management goals (Umpqua LRMP p. IV-81). The Willamette National Forest Plan defines the strategic (forest-wide) goal of providing visually pleasing and efficient access for the movement of people and materials involved in the use, protection and management of forest lands (Willamette LRMP p. IV-3). Direction for management of Forest Service road 93

100 systems is contained in Forest Service Manual 7700 Travel Management, Forest Service Handbook Travel Planning Handbook, and Forest Service Handbook Road System Operations and Maintenance Handbook. Roads are designed to different standards and maintenance levels. National Forest System (NFS) roads are categorized by assigned maintenance levels (ML) 1-5, in accordance with road management objectives identified and documented for each road. ML 3, 4 and 5 roads are subject to management in accordance with the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (P.L ). ML 1 roads are in storage for periods exceeding 1 year between intermittent uses. They are typically closed at the entrance with physical barriers to eliminate traffic and some may be under legal closure orders to prohibit traffic. ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles, while user comfort and convenience are not considerations for low clearance vehicles (passenger cars). Use by low clearance vehicles is discouraged by signing and/or other physical indicators at the entrance. ML 3 roads are maintained for use by standard passenger cars, though user comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. ML 4 roads are maintained to provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience for passenger cars. They are typically paved single or double lane roads, though some are aggregate surfaced. ML 5 roads are maintained to provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience for passenger cars, and are typically paved double lane. There are approximately 4790 miles of NFS roads administered by the Umpqua National Forest. Approximately 1235 miles are managed as closed ML 1 roads. They are typically native surfaced, though some are gravel. Approximately 3034 miles are managed for high clearance vehicle use as ML 2 roads. They are typically gravel roads, though some are native surface and some are paved with asphalt. There are 521 miles of ML 3-5 roads (360 miles ML 3, 123 miles ML 4, and 38 miles ML 5), open and suitable for use by passenger cars. The Willamette National Forest administers a total of 6,541 miles of NFS roads. Approximately 1032 miles are managed as ML 1; 4953 miles as ML 2; 325 miles as ML 3; 85 miles as ML 4; and 146 miles as ML 5 roads. Approximately 4.55 miles of NFS roads are located on the proposed Federal exchange parcels. There are no existing roads on the non-federal parcels. Table 3.28 lists the roads occurring on each Federal parcel. 94

101 Table 3.28 NFS Roads by Parcel Federal Parcel High Prairie Road Maintenance Level Length on Parcel (mi.) Surface Type Crushed Aggregate Crushed Aggregate Crushed Aggregate Crushed Aggregate Native Material Crushed Aggregate Crushed Aggregate Crushed Aggregate Crushed Aggregate Native Material Crushed Aggregate Native Material Crushed Aggregate Native Material Crushed Aggregate Total: 4.55 There is both physical and legal access to all Federal parcels included in the proposed land exchange. Easements were acquired by the Forest Service for those portions of roads that cross private and BLM lands. Access to parcels 5, 6, 8, and 9 is provided by County Road 17, also known as Little River Road, and Forest Service roads starting at the road. Access to parcel 4 is by County Road 17 and Forest Service road Access to parcel 129 is by County Road 1 and NFS road Access to the High Prairie parcel is from the High Prairie County Road and NFS road , also known as Dead Mt. Road. Access to the non-federal parcels is provided by a trail that starts on the Wright Creek Segment of the North Umpqua Trail (a National Recreation Trail). A spur trail, the McDonald trail, accesses the parcels. The Forest Service does not have an easement for legal public access across the non-federal parcels. To date, the landowners have not objected to public use of the trail. Currently, there is no road access to the two non-federal parcels, with the nearest system road, , located 0.6 air miles to the southeast. Alternative 1: No Action National Forest System (NFS) roads and their use are not expected to change as a result of the No Action Alternative. All the NFS roads located on the proposed exchange parcels would continue to be managed in accordance with Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks) and Forest Plan direction. Under this alternative the landowners of the non-federal parcels would likely apply for legal access through the Cougar Bluffs IRA. If the landowners 95

102 object to the public s use of the McDonald Trail, the Forest Service could relocate that portion of the McDonald Trail that crosses private land or acquire an easement for that portion of trail in its existing location. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a change of ownership of certain roads which provide access to the proposed exchange parcels. The Forest Service would reserve in deed ownership of certain roads for access on approximately 3.35 miles of road leaving Federal ownership. In order to provide legal access to conveyed parcels, the Forest Service would grant easements to Cougar Bluffs LLC for approximately miles of existing road. The Forest Service would terminate approximately 1.49 miles of existing easements held by the United States. Road reservations and easement grants and terminations are summarized below in Table 3.29 and represented visually in Appendix 2 Map 1 through Map 5. Table 3.29 Proposed Action Reservations and Easements Actions by Parcel Parcel High Prairie Road Reservation (mi.) Grant Easement (mi.) Terminate Easement (mi.) & ,6,8, ,6,8, ,6, Totals

103 Access would be reserved by the United States in patent for roads on the High Prairie parcel, and Parcels 4, 8, 9, and 129. Access would be terminated by the USDA Forest Service for the road segments on Parcels 5, 6 and 9. The Forest Service would terminate the segments of easements it currently holds on roads accessing these parcels. The reason for these terminations is the roads begin on private land, and would end on private land. They would no longer provide access to or have potential to provide access to adjoining Federal lands. The USDI Bureau of Land Management has legal access from other road systems to public lands they administer located adjacent to and directly west of Parcel #5. The Forest Service would grant road easements to Cougar Bluffs LLC on NFS road and for legal access to Parcel 129, on road for legal access to the High Prairie parcel, on roads , , , , and to access Parcels 8 and 9, and , , , , to parcels 5 and 6, if these parcels are exchanged as proposed. Implementation of the Proposed Action would eliminate the private inholdings within the Cougar Bluffs IRA and thereby eliminate the need for the Forest Service to provide adequate access across NFS lands to these parcels. RANGE RESOURCES Affected Environment Domestic livestock grazing has occurred on the Umpqua and Willamette National Forests since the mid-1800s. Sheep ranchers were grazing their flocks on the unassigned lands in the Cascade Forest Reserve prior to the creation of the National Forests. Since the turn of the century, grazing permits have been required on the National Forests. The Forest Service issues two types of grazing permits, term and temporary. Term permits are issued to qualified livestock operators for a ten-year period. Livestock operators must meet certain requirements in ownership and base property to qualify for these permits. Temporary permits are issued for a shorter period, usually one grazing season, and do not require the same base property qualifications as a term grazing permit. The Umpqua National Forest Plan has a forest-wide goal to manage the forage resources for an upward or stable vegetative trend, and utilize suitable range in a manner that is compatible with other resource objectives (Umpqua LRMP p. IV- 40). The Willamette National Forest Plan defines the strategic (forest-wide) goal of providing forage for domestic livestock, and facilitate use of the Forest s transitory range consistent with demand (Willamette LRMP p. IV-5). Livestock grazing on NFS lands is authorized in accordance with 36 CFR 222 Range Management. Direction for grazing and livestock use on the Forests lands is contained in Forest Service Manual 2200 Rangeland Management, and Forest Service Handbook Grazing Permit Administration Handbook. The 97

104 Umpqua National Forest administers 6 grazing allotments and the Willamette National Forest administers 19 grazing allotments. Parcel 129 is located within the boundaries of the Diamond Rock allotment. This is an active grazing allotment which includes 21,819 acres of Federal land on the Umpqua National Forest. Grazing on the Diamond Rock allotment is authorized under a term grazing permit (Permit # 15693). The permit authorizes 680 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of use with a summer/fall season of use (May thru October). The permittee manages the single- pasture cattle allotment as a cow-calf operation and can graze up to 140 pairs during the six month season of use. There are no existing authorized range improvements on Parcel 129. Federal regulations (36 CFR 222.4(a)(1)) require that, except in emergencies, the Forest Service notify holders of term grazing permits two years in advance of any proposal, including land exchanges, which could result in NFS lands being devoted to another purpose that excludes authorized livestock grazing. The two year notification requirement for this project has been met. Alternative 1: No Action There would be no change in livestock management or administration of the Diamond Rock grazing allotment under this alternative. Parcel 129 would remain in Federal ownership and the grazing permit would not be modified. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under this alternative Parcel 129 would leave Federal ownership and be excluded from authorized grazing. Implementation of this alternative would not require the modification of the Diamond Rock term grazing permit. The allotment record would be modified to reflect the loss of 80 Federal acres from the allotment land base. There would be no appreciable effect on livestock operations on the allotment. The season of use, numbers, kind and class of livestock permitted would be unchanged. The grazing permittee may be required to fence the former Federal parcel of land out of the grazing allotment, or obtain permission to continue to graze the private land under the terms and conditions of the Diamond Rock term grazing permit. OTHER RESOURCES Potential Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA s) and Other Undeveloped Areas Forest Service Handbook (70) sets forth the guidance on evaluating project impacts to areas that may be considered as potential wilderness areas. Areas qualify for placement on the potential wilderness inventory if they meet the statutory definition of wilderness (FSH (71.1-Inventory Criteria)). Approximately 171,100 acres on the Umpqua National Forest and 172,000 acres on the Willamette National Forest meet the Forest Service s definition of potential wilderness. Of this potential wilderness, approximately 110,100 acres (64%) on 98

105 the Umpqua, and 92,100 acres (53%) on the Willamette National Forest, are IRA s and managed in accordance with the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule of The 2001 Roadless Rule generally prohibits road construction and timber cutting, sale or removal in IRA s (36 CFR 294). Potential wilderness and IRA s are identified and evaluated based on Forest Service criteria, applied by Forest Service personnel. In addition to potential wilderness there are approximately 120,100 acres of other undeveloped areas on the Umpqua, and 303,600 acres on the Willamette National Forest. These are areas that are generally free of developments such as NFS roads or timber harvest units, but are not IRA s and also do not meet the Forest Service s criteria for potential wilderness. These areas may have special resource values due to their undeveloped character. On the Umpqua National Forest, these other undeveloped areas, in conjunction with Forest Service potential wilderness, are included in a citizen-proposed wilderness (Oregon Wild s Umpqua Wilderness proposal). Both non-federal exchange parcels are private inholdings located within the boundaries of the Cougar Bluffs IRA. None of the proposed Federal exchange parcels are within potential wilderness, IRA s, or other undeveloped areas. Acquisition of the non-federal parcels would provide for more efficient management of the Cougar Bluffs IRA and ensure that the roadless characteristics could be maintained into the future. While not designated as Inventoried Roadless Area, management of the acquired parcels would be limited to those activities that would be consistent with, and preserve the roadless characteristics of, the surrounding IRA. Socio-economics The proposed exchange lands, both public and private, are valued by local, regional, and to some extent, national residents for a variety of purposes. The values include recreational, spiritual, and residential settings and amenities as well as direct and indirect economic benefits from the monetary value of the natural resources provided by those lands. The region offers a multitude of opportunities for people to live, work and recreate within a natural environment, since much of the region is in Federal ownership or private timberlands. The communities around the project area are diverse, but all are characterized by a preference for privacy, natural, open space, and the outdoors. This preference is reflected by the number of county residents outside of major population centers. The forests provide an essential setting for much of the economic activity of the region. Recreation, tourism, and forest products industries are all dependent to a varying degree upon the mixture of private and public forest lands. These sectors benefit from local residents as well as destination visitors. The timber and wood products sectors have declined in the region over the past two decades while the retail sales and service sectors have risen. 99

106 The social and economic effects of the proposed land exchange would be localized in Douglas and Lane Counties of southwestern Oregon. Approximately 91% of the lands included in the proposed exchange are located in Douglas County and 9% in Lane County (See Table 3.30). Table 3.30 Acreage Proposed for Exchange by County County Cougar Bluffs LLC % Exchange Forest Service % Exchange Total % Exchange Lane Douglas Total Douglas County is 3,245,440 acres in size and has a population of over 104,000. Lane County includes 3,022,080 acres and supports over 351,000 people (See Table 3.31). Table 3.31 Populations and Land Base of Counties Potentially Affected County Population Total Land Proposed (1000s) Base (ac.) Exchange (ac.) % Land Base Lane 351 3,022, Douglas 104 3,245, Communities in Lane County whose residents would potentially be affected by the exchange include the city of Oakridge, the town of Westfir, and the Camp Six rural development area. Potentially affected communities in Douglas County include the City of Roseburg, the towns of Tiller, Glide, and Idleyld Park, and the Little River rural development area. The proposed exchange parcels represents a negligible portion of the total land base of Douglas and Lane Counties. Based on the small amount of lands involved in the proposed exchange when compared to the total land base of the counties, it is unlikely that changes in the social and economic conditions of the region could reasonably be traced to the activities which would occur within these lands, regardless of ownership. Implementation of either of the alternatives is not expected to have any meaningful effect on way local residents live, work, and recreate in the project area. Minerals The Cascade Range is a chain of extinct and intermittently active volcanoes that extends over 700 miles from northern California into southern British Columbia. The project area is situated within the tectonically uplifted and well-dissected western flank of the Cascade Range. Extrusive volcanic deposits correlated with the Late Eocene through Early- Miocene age Little Butte Volcanics underlie all the Federal and non-federal parcels. 100

107 On Federal lands, minerals are divided into three categories: locatable, leasable and salable. Locatable minerals can be located and claimed under the 1872 Mining law, as amended; for example, gold, platinum, and gemstones. Leasable minerals are defined in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970; for example, oil, gas, coal, and geothermal energy. Usually a royalty is paid for these minerals. Salable minerals are those common varieties defined in the Materials Act of 1947, as amended; for example, sand, gravel, pumice, and cinders. A mineral report was completed by a Certified Mineral Examiner after completing a field inspection of the Federal and non-federal exchange parcels. Both the Federal and non-federal proposed exchange parcels have a low potential for the accumulation of locatable, leasable, or salable mineral resources. There are no unpatented mining claim locations encumbering any of the Federal exchange parcels. Cougar Bluffs LLC has no outstanding third-party mineral rights on the non-federal exchange parcels. None of the lands proposed for exchange are within a known Geothermal Resource Area. The demand for salable minerals is met by other sources. No effects are expected to mineral resources because there is a low potential for the accumulation of locatable, leasable, and salable minerals. Air Quality Motor vehicles produce exhaust emissions and create air-borne dust when operated on dry road, trail, or soil surfaces. These effects are generally localized in extent, short-lived, and well dispersed within a large airshed. Selection of either alternative is not expected to change the number of vehicles or other types of emissions operating on or associated with the use of the national forests in the project area. There are no anticipated or foreseen impacts to air quality with the selection of either alternative. SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED DISCLOSURES Based on the Interdisciplinary Team s evaluation of effects, it was the conclusion that: This EA is tiered to both the Umpqua and Willamette Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statements, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, and is consistent with those plans and their requirements. Implementation of any of the alternatives would not conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including Tribes. None of the alternatives would conflict with any other policies, regulations, or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. 101

108 No pre-disturbance surveys or management of known sites are necessary for any rare species, including threatened, endangered, sensitive or other rare or uncommon species, since no alternative proposes any new habitat disturbing activities. None of the proposed alternatives would affect known prehistoric or historic sites. As outlined in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, no effects are anticipated on American Indian social, economic, subsistence rights, or sacred rights. No adverse effects on unique habitats, wetlands and floodplains, wilderness, or wild and scenic rivers are anticipated; and no prime farmlands, rangelands, forestlands, or parklands would be affected because none are present on the Forest. A Water Resources Report which includes a Wetlands and Floodplains Declaration prepared by the Forest Hydrologist is part of the project record. No potential or unusual expenditures of energy or adverse impacts to potential development of energy sources are associated with the implementation of either alternative because both alternatives represent administrative action only. None of the proposed alternatives would affect minority groups, women, and consumers differently than any other groups. None of the alternatives adversely affect civil rights, as no contracts are to be awarded as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order This order directs Federal agencies to address environmental justice by identifying and disclosing the effects of the proposed activities on minority and low-income populations. The effects of alternatives on the human environment (including minority and low-income populations) are expected to be minor, as the change in the NFS land base and use of the Forests is negligible. Any impacts would be similar for all human populations regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income. No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations are expected as a result of implementing any of the alternatives, due to the limited impacts expected. No impacts to environmental justice would occur under the no action alternative, as no actions would be taken that would change current or future use. 102

109 CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS INTRODUCTION As described in Chapter 1, comment on the Proposed Action was solicited through letters, newspapers, the Forest website, and the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The following is a summary of Forest Service consultation with Federal, state and local agencies and tribes and interested publics during the development of this Environmental Assessment. AGENCY CONSULTATION Forest Service - The Umpqua and Willamette National Forest Supervisors and Specialists cooperated throughout the project. Bureau of Land Management - The Bureau of Land Management s Eugene and Roseburg Districts were informed of the project during initial scoping. US Fish and Wildlife Service - The US Fish and Wildlife Service was informed of the project during initial scoping. The Biological Evaluation determination was May effect, and is likely to adversely affect. The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the FS determination and rendered a Biological Opinion (BO) of not likely to jeopardize the continued existence through Formal Consultation. The record of Formal Consultation and the BO are part of the project record. US Congressional Representatives - Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden and Representative Peter DeFazio were informed of the project during initial scoping. Tribes - The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians were informed of the project during initial scoping. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) was informed of the project during the initial public scoping process. State Historic Preservation Office - The State Historic Preservation Office was informed of the project s proposed actions during the initial public scoping process. County Commissioners - County Commissioners of Douglas and Lane counties were notified of the proposed action during initial scoping. 103

110 INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM The members of the interdisciplinary team involved in the preparation of this environmental analysis are: Rick Abbott Joy Archuleta Jim Archuleta Miles Barkhurst Debra Barner Bill Blackwell Michael Brown Josh Chapman Beth Christensen Scott Elefritz Richard Helliwell Ron McMullin Silviculturist Hydrologist Soils Scientist Forest Road Manager Heritage Program Manager Recreation Program Manager Hydrologist Forest Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist Natural Resource Specialist, IDT Leader Forest Botanist Fisheries Biologist Other team members involved in the project are: Cheryl Caplan Carol Cushing Alice Carlton Joe Doerr Ed Hall Kevin Heikkila Susan Henry Diana Hsieh Meg Mitchell Public Affairs Officer North Umpqua District Ranger Umpqua Forest Supervisor, Deciding Official Wildlife Biologist GIS Analyst Western & Central OR Zone Lands Program Manager Realty Specialist Conveyance Program Manager Willamette Forest Supervisor, Deciding Official 104

111 REFERENCES USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volume 1. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 86 p. USDA Forest Service Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 254 Landownership Adjustments, Subpart A Land Exchanges. USDA Forest Service Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Roseburg, OR: Umpqua National Forest. USDA Forest Service Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Eugene, OR: Willamette National Forest. USDA Forest Service Record of Decision for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR. 2 vols. 105

112 APPENDIX 1: PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL LOCATION & LAND STATUS Appendix 1: Map 1 106

113 Appendix 1: Map 2 107

114 Appendix 1: Map 3 108

115 Appendix 1: Map 4 109

116 Appendix 1: Map 5 110

117 Appendix 1: Map 6 111

118 APPENDIX 2: PROPOSED ROAD RESERVATIONS AND EASEMENTS Appendix 2: Map 1 112

119 Appendix 2: Map 2 113

120 Appendix 2: Map 3 114

121 Appendix 2: Map 4 115