Eden Ridge Timber Sales Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest Objection Statements and Responses June 2014

Eden Ridge Timber Sales Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest Objection Statements and Responses June 2014 Objectors The Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS) American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) Objection Numbers 14-06-00-0011-218(B) 14-06-00-0036-218(B) Economics Overview and Suggested Remedies: The objector is concerned about the economic viability of the Eden Ridge Project. Remedies include not incorporating any additional modifications to the selected alternative, Alternative 2 modified, that would impact project economics. Objector Statement #1: The objector states that it is unclear how the modifications to the selected alternative changed the benefit/cost ratio of the Project and how they affect the Project s economic viability. The objector asserts that the Forest Service failed to respond to this concern in Appendix A of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). AFRC at 2. Response: I find that the Responsible Official considered the economic impact of the Alternative 2 modifications and appropriately responded to the objector s comments listed in Appendix A of the FEIS and coded within the Objection Record. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1502.23 states that when a cost/benefit analysis is prepared, discussion of the relationship between that analysis and any analyses of unquantified environmental impacts, values, and amenities be included. It also states the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative considerations. In addition, the regulation at 40 CFR 1502.16 and 40 CFR 1508.7 requires that the environmental consequences be disclosed in an FEIS including the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The regulation at 40 CFR 1503.4 states that an agency preparing an EIS shall assess and consider public comments as well as attach substantive comments to the analysis. The Responsible Official made the decision to modify Alternative 2 based on the recommendations of the interdisciplinary team as well as public and other agency comments. Draft Record of Decision (ROD) at 3. The draft ROD at 8 through 11 responded to significant issues regarding hydrology, soils, water quality, and economics. The modifications either reduced or eliminated potential hydrologic and soils effects from units in the sensitive Coal Creek sub-watershed area. Draft ROD at 8 through 9. This discussion in the draft ROD displayed that the Responsible Official weighed environmental impacts and values as well as economic viability when he made his draft decision. Page 1 of 18

The modifications to Alternative 2 reduced the overall environmental impact of this alternative. Draft ROD at 3. This allowed silvicultural treatments to be implemented in areas without the impacts of additional roads or ground based logging, increasing the cost of implementing the Project. Draft ROD at ROD-11. The FEIS at II-14 stated that there is an operational concern for economics between the various systems being considered, i.e. ground based systems are the most economic from an operational cost viewpoint, skyline systems increase in operational costs, and aerial (full suspension or helicopter) systems are the most costly. The elimination of proposed classified system roads and the one proposed temporary road would partially offset the higher costs of the new yarding methods. The FEIS at II-14 stated that [r]oad access and landing accessibility and construction costs are also factors to consider. In summary, the Responsible Official considered the economic impacts of Alternative 2 and its modifications. In addition, the draft ROD at 11 through 12 (Table ROD-3 Important Economic Indicators) displayed the benefit/cost ratio between Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with modifications. FEIS Appendix I at 34 (Table I-7 Estimated Yarding Costs by Alternative and Table I-8 Transportation Cost Estimates), the FEIS at III-66 through III-67, and the FEIS at II-81 displayed yarding and transportation costs by alternative. FEIS Appendix I at I-35 stated that a change in harvest methods have an impact on the economic feasibility of the Project. FEIS Appendix I at I- 36 also stated that Alternative 2 has the highest positive net value and benefit/cost ratio due to no proposed helicopter yarding and the addition of low impact roads to allow access for tractor and cable yarding. Finally, FEIS Appendix I at I-36 stated that Alternatives 3 and 4 have a negative benefit/cost ratio because of the inclusion of additional high cost yarding methods (i.e. helicopter logging) as opposed to conventional yarding systems. The Responsible Official responded to the objector s comments submitted during the Project s 45-day commenting period on March 31, 2012. FEIS Appendix A at A-2 and A-6. Specifically, the Responsible Official responded to the objector s comments that were considered nonsubstantive. The objector s comments not listed as substantive in FEIS Appendix A (Response to Comments) were addressed as opinions, outside the scope of the Eden Ridge Project, or lacked sufficient detail to support a change in the analysis. FEIS Appendix A at A-2; Objection Record, D-02-AFRC. The economic concerns from the objector in their comments were responded to further by the Responsible Official when he detailed the economics of the Project in the draft ROD, outlining how the selected alternative with its modifications affected the economics of the whole Project. Draft ROD at ROD-12. Final Remedies/Resolution: Since Forest Supervisor Rob MacWhorter supplied an adequate economic analysis, including displaying how he considered economics in his draft decision, I find that no remedy as suggested by the objector is needed. Page 2 of 18

Roads Overview and Suggested Remedies: These objection issues surround the development of permanent system roads and complying with law, regulation, and policy. The objector s remedies include eliminating road re-construction of the 299 road and eliminating construction of S1 through S9 and segment U and construction of the proposed ridge road T as a permanent system road with some short temporary spurs at its terminus in section 26. Also, the objector requests that all other newly constructed roads would be put in storage when they are no longer needed for the Project. Objector Statement #2: The objector states that the development of permanent system roads are not identified in the purpose and need sections of the FEIS and are not necessary to meet the principal purpose of the Eden Ridge timber harvest. KS at 6 through 7. Response: I find that the Responsible Official identified road construction and reconstruction as a connected action to the selected alternative; thus, it was appropriate to analyze road construction in the Eden Ridge FEIS. The regulation at 40 CFR 1502.13 states the purpose and need statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding to in proposing the alternatives, including the proposed action s connected action effects. The regulation at 40 CFR 1508.25 states that an EIS needs to consider the connected actions within the scope of the project. The initial Notice of Intent (NOI; April 26, 2010) stated that approximately 8 miles of new system road construction and/or reconstruction of new temporary roads to facilitate treatments would be considered. After further field reconnaissance, the proposed action was refined and the NOI was corrected to reflect updated road construction and re-construction needs. FEIS at I-18. The Eden Ridge Project s purpose and need is to maintain and restore Riparian Reserves, improve the Project Area so this area better meets the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), improve overall forest vigor and resiliency, and contribute commercial timber to the Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ). FEIS at I-16 through I-17. The Responsible Official stated how the selected alternative met the purpose and need. Draft ROD at ROD-7 and ROD-8. For example, Alternative 2 modified would increase vegetative and structural diversity and species (over current conditions); maintenance or improve shading capability of streams; improve large wood retention and recruitment, and provide suitable amounts of snags and/or replacement habitat for dependent species. Draft ROD at ROD-8. The need for new system roads was identified in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, which explained that the Project Area s current road system does not adequately meet the implementation needs or Page 3 of 18

harvest system requirements to achieve the Project s purpose and need or the alternative that best meets this purpose and need. FEIS at II-20. The draft ROD at 5 explained that permanent system roads would be used over temporary roads because permanent roads are designed to a higher standard that will reduce potential resource impacts. The Responsible Official stated that it is likely that there is a long term need for access on these Matrix lands and therefore, access to these lands would be better suited by permanent roads. Furthermore, all new proposed system roads would be managed as operational Maintenance Level 2 roads when in use and Maintenance Level 1 (storage) when not in use for management activities. In addition, FEIS Appendix A, response to comments, identified important elements of what constitutes a temporary road: temporary roads are not constructed to serve long-term future uses. A recommendation to construct more temporary roads rather than constructing permanent roads does not consider that a permanent classified system road can be designed to a higher standard for resource protection in the short and long term. FEIS Appendix A at A-5. The standard and guidelines in the Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; IV-57) states that construction of temporary roads should normally be discouraged and that those roads which subsequently are determined to be needed for additional use, shall be entered into the Transportation Information System with appropriate road management objectives developed. This was stated in the transportation planning analysis. FEIS Appendix I at I-7. The transportation analysis (FEIS Appendix I at I-8 and I-26) also identified situations when a specified road, rather than a temporary road, should be used. This included areas where it is necessary to reduce resource impacts and where construction is required to maintain a road quality that permits future use. See my response to the Objector Statement #4 where I outline how the Responsible Official minimized the proposed road construction in the Eden Ridge Project, addressing to some degree the objector s concern. Specifically, I outline the additional action alternatives that the Responsible Official developed to address aquatic concerns around road building. I also display how the Responsible Official selected Alternative 2 modified, which further mitigates aquatic impacts with its modifications. Objector Statement #3: The objector states that the reconstruction of an abandoned railroad logging grade (Road 299) is inconsistent with the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Standard and Guideline RF-2 (a). Specifically, the objector stated, [d]ue to its historic and undesirable midslope location, the reconstruction of road 299 would require new road construction at 9 Riparian Reserve stream crossings (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9 as illustrated on Map ROD A- 1, p. ROD A-11) and new culver[t]s at an unknown number of additional Riparian Reserve stream crossings. Reconstruction and use of this road would increase sediment risks and increase risk of [Port-Orford-cedar] POC disease introduction. Reconstruction and use of this abandoned railroad grade for Eden Ridge logging would have adverse affects to its historical value (ROD 17) despite mitigations (ROD B25-26). KS at 7. Page 4 of 18

Response: I find that the Responsible Official followed the Forest Plan, as amended by the NWFP and the 2004 ROD for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon. Specifically, the Responsible Official displayed the impacts from the reconstruction of roads within Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds, impacts to water quality, impacts to Port-Orford-cedar root disease, and impacts to heritage resources. The regulation at 40 CFR 1502.16 directs the Forest Service to discuss the impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives. The NWFP provides specific standards and guidelines applicable to all land allocation categories and to specific designated areas, specifically Matrix and Key Watersheds within this Project. These standard and guidelines provide direction for road management activities in Riparian Reserves; in general, these standards and guidelines are designed to provide an attainment of ACS objectives in Riparian Reserves. The NWFP SF-2(a) states that [f]or each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by: minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Reserves. NWFP at C-32. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management published the 2004 ROD for the FSEIS on Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon. This 2004 ROD amended the Forest Plan by replacing its management direction with new direction. The 2004 ROD included a Risk Key clarifying the environmental conditions at the 7th field watershed level that requires the implementation of one or more site-specific disease-controlling management practices for Port-Orford-cedar. See my response to the Objector Statement #4 concerning how the Responsible Official minimized the road locations in the Eden Ridge Project. In addition, the Responsible Official outlined landing project design criteria, showing that landings will be minimized throughout the Project Area. FEIS Appendix I at I-30; Appendix H at H-21, and H-23 through 24. The draft ROD for the Eden Ridge Project (ROD-6 through ROD-7) provided the Responsible Official s decision rationale, including the consideration of applicable laws, regulations and policies, and compliance with Forest plan direction. The draft ROD described how the selected alternative responded to significant issues of hydrologic conditions and water quality (ROD-8 through ROD-11), and provided a finding of Forest Plan consistency for Matrix, Riparian Reserve and Aquatic Conservation Strategy management direction. Draft ROD at ROD-16 through ROD- 17. Consistency with other legal requirements and policies were described in the ROD at ROD-17 which includes consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the documentation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SHPO that described the measures to be taken to mitigate the adverse effects of the Project on the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad at Eden Ridge. The Responsible Official described that following the mitigation and design criteria, listed in the draft ROD Attachment B at B-1 through B-28, will move the Page 5 of 18

Project toward meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as amended by the NWFP and the 2004 ROD for the FSEIS on Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon. Chapter 3 of the Eden Ridge FEIS outlined the impacts associated with the reconstruction of Road 299 on sediment delivery (FEIS at III-24 through at III-26), stream temperatures, and turbidity (FEIS at III-36 through III-39), soil productivity (FEIS at III-61) and the ACS (FEIS at III-70 through III-82). The FEIS summarized the effects from road maintenance and road construction for the alternatives considered. FEIS at III-155 through III-161. The FEIS described the effects of the alternatives concerning the Port-Orford-cedar. FEIS at III-104 through III-108. The FEIS described consequences to the historic values of the railroad grade in the heritage resources section from FEIS at III-172 through III-177. In addition, the Forest goes into further detail on the hydrology, soils, Port-Orford-cedar, and heritage impacts in the appendix of the FEIS. FEIS Appendix B, the Port-Orford-cedar Management Report at B-1 through B-16; FEIS Appendix C, Hydrology Report at C-24 through C- 35; FEIS Appendix D, Geology and Soils Report at D-9 through D-17; FEIS Appendix H, Aquatic Biological Evaluation H-17 through H-33; FEIS Appendix I, Transportation and Logging Systems Report at I-26 through I-27; and FEIS Appendix J, Heritage Resources at J-1 through J-19. Objector Statement #4: The objector asserts that there should not be any increase in road mileage in the South Fork Coquille key watershed, per NWFP direction. The objector states that the Eden Ridge Project establishes new permanent system roads in the Coal Creek watershed; thus, violating the NWFP. KS at 7. Response: I find that the Responsible Official appropriately followed the Forest Plan, as amended by the NWFP. Specifically, the Project does not increase the net amount of roads in Key Watersheds since the inception or effective date of the NWFP ROD (1994); thus, following Forest Plan standard and guidelines. A summary of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy for Key Watersheds from the NWFP states that, [t]he amount of existing system and non-system roads within Key Watersheds should be reduced through decommissioning of roads. Road closures with gates or barriers do not qualify as decommissioning or a reduction in road mileage. If funding is insufficient to implement reductions, there will be no net increase in the amount of roads in Key Watersheds. That is, for each mile of new road constructed, at least one mile of road should be decommissioned. NWFP at B-19. See my response to Objector Statement #3, where I explained how the Responsible Official displayed the impacts the Project has on hydrology and sediment, and how the Project will meet the ACS objectives. The Eden Ridge Project Area falls within the South Fork Coquille River and the Middle Fork Coquille River 5 th field watersheds. These watersheds are comprised of the Lower Rock Creek, Myrtle Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille River, Coal Creek, and Mill Creek 6 th field Page 6 of 18

watersheds. The South Fork Coquille River is designated as a Tier 1 Key Watershed in the NWFP, while the Middle Fork Coquille 5 th field watershed is not. The parameters of the NWFP standard and guideline are to be applied at the 5 th field watershed scale and not at any of the smaller scale subwatersheds. FEIS at III-74. The FEIS at III-74 through III-78 provided a detailed analysis of road decommissioning that has occurred within the Key Watershed as compared to the miles of new road construction that has occurred since 1994 when the NWFP was signed. Table III-27 in the FEIS summarized decommissioned road miles that qualify as restoring hydrologic function, thus meeting the intent of the NWFP definition of decommission. Additional review and validation of road decommissioning records were completed in 2012 and 2013. A 2013 monitoring report determined that 10.9 miles of road within the South Fork Coquille watershed had been properly decommissioned and that their condition meets the intent of the ACS objectives in the NWFP. Thus, the Responsible Official determined that up to 10.8 miles of new classified system roads could be constructed on the Eden Ridge Timber Sale Project with no net increase in the miles of roads within a Key Watershed. FEIS at III-78. This conclusion was also summarized in the Responsible Official s decision rationale. Draft ROD at ROD-7. Alternative 2 in the FEIS proposed to construct 9.1 miles of new road construction or reconstruction in the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed. FEIS Appendix I at I-42. Since the Forest has decommissioned 10.9 miles of roads in this watershed since 1994 (the inception of the NWFP), the FEIS displayed that the watershed would have a net decrease of 1.8 miles of roads in the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed after Alternative 2 would be implemented. FEIS Appendix I at I-42 through I-43. The Responsible Official recognized the objector s concern for constructing roads in this Project Area and modified Alternative 2 to balance this concern and appropriately meet the Project s purpose and need. For example, the original Alternative 2 had proposed constructing 9.1 miles of new system roads within the South Fork Coquille Tier 1 Key Watershed. FEIS Appendix I at I- 42. After considering public comments and looking further into decreasing the Project s impacts in this Key Watershed, the Responsible Official adjusted the implementation requirements for that area to further reduce the amount of system roads that need to be constructed, concluding that 7.6 miles of system roads will need to be built. Draft ROD at ROD- 8 through ROD-9. Specifically, the Responsible Official dropped the road construction proposed for one of the road systems that were of greatest environmental concern (road segments Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4). Draft ROD at ROD-9. After the Eden Ridge Project is implemented, the South Fork Coquille Tier 1 Key Watershed will have a net decrease of roads, approximately 3.4 miles of roads less than 1994 levels or NWFP inception. The Responsible Official further responded to the objector s concern by developing alternatives (Alternative 3 and 4) that utilizes only existing roads for treatment access or reduces the resource impacts from roads. FEIS at II-3, II-44, and II-51. Alternative 3 was designed to address and proposes to reduce the environmental effects associated with Significant Issues (Chapter I) including Hydrologic Conditions (channel morphology, large woody material, Page 7 of 18

sediment delivery, and peak flows; Water Quality (stream temperature, turbidity, and water quality (303(d) listed waterbodies); Cumulative Watershed Effects (risk for adverse cumulative watershed scale impacts); and Soils, Geology, and Site Productivity (soils, geologic stability, and site productivity through detrimental soil disturbance, erosion, or effects on woody material), over Alternative 2. FEIS at II-44. Alternative 4 goes further in addressing the resource impact reductions described above for Alternative 3, doesn t construct any new roads, and further reduces skyline and ground based logging systems, utilizing helicopter-logging systems. FEIS at II-51. In addition, the Responsible Official considered but eliminated from detail study an alternative that did not utilize or construct permanent classified roads. FEIS at II-75 through II-76. The Responsible Official concluded that [e]xclusive use of roads as temporary was not considered in detail because a permanent classified system road is managed by the Forest Service and can be designed to a higher standard for resource protection in the short and long term. Also, the Responsible Official stated that the Project needs for roads will extend for longer than a year and extending the use of a temporary road to multiple years will increase the potential impacts to surrounding resources. FEIS at II-76. The Responsible Official described why he selected Alternative 2 modified versus Alternative 3 and 4 within his draft decision. In summary, Alternative 2 with modifications improves the most acres, accomplishes the most improvement in Riparian Reserves (further meeting the ACS objectives), accomplishes the most improvement in forest vigor and resiliency, and accomplishes the most contributions to Probable Sale Quantity in Matrix lands. Draft ROD at ROD-13 through ROD-14. During the June 27, 2014 Eden Ridge Objection Resolution Meeting, I asked the Responsible Official to look again at the need for constructing new system roads in the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed. The Responsible Official invited all objectors to discuss the road concerns in this watershed on July 10 th, 2014. The Responsible Official, members of the interdisciplinary team, and an American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) representative attended this field trip to discuss further how the proposed road system could be reduced while balancing other resource concerns, including Project economics. Unfortunately, the objector (Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center) with the road building concerns was not able to attend this field trip; however, to continue with addressing their concern, the Responsible Official held a productive dialogue to further reduce the permanent road system in the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed. From these discussions, the Responsible Official voluntarily dropped the proposed road construction for S3 and the road reconstruction from unit 310 and the intersection of the T-road. He recognized after further field reconnaissance that the benefits of this road construction wouldn t warrant the potential resource impacts in the area since access to the surrounding selected alternative units could be achieved through other avenues. In summary, the Responsible Official thoroughly outlined how the Eden Ridge Project meets the Forest Plan, as amended by the NWFP. In addition, the Responsible Official showed numerous Page 8 of 18

iterations of considering and balancing the objector s concerns with road building in the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed with meeting the purpose and need of the Project. Final Remedies/Resolution: Forest Supervisor Rob MacWhorter in the Project Record displayed in detail the Eden Ridge Project s compliance with law, regulation, and Forest Service policy concerning the proposed road building. During the June 27, 2014 Objection Resolution Meeting it was evident that this concern around road building in the Project Area was the primary concern of both objectors. Therefore, I suggested that Forest Supervisor Rob MacWhorter continue the dialogue around mitigating road construction concerns, while meeting the purpose and need of the Eden Ridge Project. On July 10, 2014 the Forest Supervisor and the interdisciplinary team extended an invitation to all objectors to discuss the proposed road construction concerns expressed by Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center. This discussion included additional field reconnaissance in the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed. From this dialogue and additional field reconnaissance, the Forest Supervisor and his staff found that some proposed units could be accessed from other directions and some proposed road construction and reconstruction could be dropped, some of the sections that Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands suggested. The Forest Supervisor voluntarily decided to drop proposed S3 and the road reconstruction from unit 310 and the intersection of the T-road. Since Forest Supervisor Rob MacWhorter has followed law, regulation, and Forest Service policy and has continued to show how he considered and addressed the objectors concerns, there is no further remedy or clarification needed concerning this topic. Riparian Reserves Overview and Suggested Remedies: The objector s concerns below are around the removal of trees within Riparian Reserves, no-cut buffers for Riparian Reserves, and gaining timber volume for the Probable Sale Quantity in Riparian Reserves. The objector outlines remedies that included identifying approximately 500 acres of Riparian Reserves that should have no action implemented in them, the Coal Creek main stream should have 150 ft. no-cut buffer and all others should have a buffer of 85 ft., and the removal of unwanted competing trees in between 85 to 175 feet from streams should be limited to less than 17 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) trees. Objector Statement #5: The objector states that the FEIS and Decision failed to take a hard look at the ecological trade-offs between proposed cutting, yarding and road construction to remove commercial sized trees from Riparian Reserves and the ecologically superior alternative of merely killing and leaving those same trees KS at 3. The objector is not convinced that the potential benefits to riparian habitat outweigh the potential risk to water quality and aquatic resources. KS at 4. Page 9 of 18

Response: I find that the Responsible Official adequately considered the benefits from the Eden Ridge Project in Riparian Reserves versus potential impacts to water quality and aquatic resources, considering and incorporating snag creation into all action alternatives. The regulation at 40 CFR 1502.16 states that a federal agency is required to consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, and no action. The regulation at 40 CFR 1503.4 states that an agency preparing an EIS shall assess and consider public comments as well as attach substantive comments to the analysis. The Responsible Official incorporated and analyzed snag creation in all action alternatives, since snags would be created if the existing snag levels are not adequate in the Project Area. FEIS at II-8 and II-24. Therefore, the Responsible Official considered the objector s comments concerning the killing and leaving of trees. The Responsible Official summarized the purpose and need of the selected alternative and the potential consequences of not meeting the needs identified in Riparian Reserves with certain alternatives. FEIS at S2 through S3. The Responsible Official further compared the consequences of action versus no action in Riparian Reserves. FEIS at S5. A variety of mitigation measures were included in the FEIS that specifically propose to offset potential adverse effects in Riparian Reserves. FEIS at II-61 through II-67. The Responsible Official outlined alternatives and elements considered but eliminated from detailed study in the FEIS and specifically discussed the exclusion of Riparian Reserve treatments. FEIS at II-75. The FEIS analyzed each of the nine ACS objectives for consistency at the appropriate scales to help identify potential effects and risks associated with the action alternatives. FEIS at III-78 through III-82. Each alternative, including the no action alternative, was analyzed to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. FEIS at III-155 through III- 163. Consideration was given to total exclusion of Riparian Reserve treatments in multiple action alternatives. This option was not pursued in detail because based on current and desired conditions most of the Riparian Reserve areas proposed for treatment would greatly benefit from treatments. FEIS at II-75. For the Eden Ridge Project Area, within Riparian Reserves, there is an initial need to restore and improve riparian conditions for aquatic habitat associated with ACS objectives that was lost by historical clear-cut logging. FEIS at I-15. Specifically, see my response to Objector Statement #4, where I outline the additional action alternatives that addressed aquatic concerns around road building and here I display how the Responsible Official selected Alternative 2 modified, which further mitigates aquatic impacts with its modifications. Objector Statement #6: The objector asserts that the FEIS inappropriately discounts Spies et al. (2013) research s key findings, not demonstrating a need to change the commercial Riparian Reserve logging prescriptions or acknowledge Spies s reported adverse impacts from Riparian Page 10 of 18

Reserve logging in the FEIS. KS at 4. In addition, the objector states that Appendix A at A-24 erroneously says that Spies report has no definitive findings even though it has been identified as the best available science in a June 6, 2013 memo signed by Regional Forest Kent Connaughton (attached). KS at 4. Response: I find that the Responsible Official utilized the best available science and adequately considered the findings from Spies et al. (2013), documenting how each of the 15 Key Points from Spies et al. (2013) related to the Eden Ridge Timber Sale Project. A memorandum was signed on June 6, 2013 between BLM, USFS, USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries which addressed two issues that had been elevated through the Streamlining Agreement (referred to here as Regional Forester Memo). Issue 1 pertained to disagreements about the identification and the interpretation of the best available scientific information to determine the effects of riparian forest management and restoration on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Issue 2 referred to the Streamlining Agreement between the agencies in order to accomplish Endangered Species Act consultation requirements for timber management projects. A Science Review Team (SRT) was established to determine where there was scientific agreement on issues related to riparian thinning and to address how to use the best available science to avoid jeopardy and conserve listed salmon in order to resolve Issue 1. The SRT was divided into three groups and each group produced a scientific white paper. One of these products was Effects of Riparian Thinning on Wood Recruitment: A Scientific Synthesis authored by Spies, Pollock, Reeves, and Beechie (referred to here as Spies et al [2013]). The SRT acknowledged that the published science is limited and therefore their results were also limited. The Spies report states that [i]n general, there is very little published science about the effects of thinning on dead wood recruitment and virtually none on thinning effects on wood recruitment in riparian zones. We conducted some limited simulation modeling to illustrate some of the relationships between thinning and dead wood recruitment. The simulations (and comparison of models) were not comprehensive or a rigorous analysis of thinning effects and should be viewed as preliminary. Spies et al. (2013) at 1. The SRT then went on to identify 15 Key Points related to the effects of thinning riparian stands on wood recruitment potential and discussion of these points. The Responsible Official responded to a number of comments related to the Spies et al (2013) paper. FEIS Appendix A at A-25. The Responsible Official also listed the 15 Key Points from Spies et al. (2013), discussed how each point related to the Eden Ridge Timber Sale Project, and discussed how each was either analyzed, mitigated, or was not applicable. FEIS Appendix A at A-27 through A-31. Also, Spies et al. (2013) was cited in Chapter 3 of the FEIS multiple times in the silviculture as well as the aquatics sections of the document. FEIS at III-10, III-79, III-80, and III-82. Thus, I find the Spies et al. science was adequately addressed and incorporated in the Eden Ridge Project. Page 11 of 18

Objector Statement #7: The objector states that the decision applied an incorrect no cut shade zone (50-85 feet) when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended 70 to 85 feet. KS at 4. The site potential tree is 175 ft and [s]tand exams showed [riparian] tree heights ranged 67 to 145 feet with an average height of 95 feet (ROD A-16). Thus, it seems appropriate to use the trees >100-140 feet TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load] standard and not the standard for trees >60 to 100 ft. KS at 4. In other words, the Objector would like the Forest to utilize the bottom row of Table II-7 (70 ft. 85 ft.) instead of allowing smaller shade zones or no cut buffers (50 ft. 85 ft.). FEIS at II-28. The objector asserts that the FEIS s response to this issue (FEIS Appendix at A-30) does not acknowledge the discrepancies between the Spies et al. suggested buffer of 82-148 feet and the FEIS s 50-85 feet standard buffer width. KS at 5. Response: I find that the Responsible Official applied adequate no-cut buffer or shade zone widths according to the existing condition of the Riparian Reserves in the Project Area and that the project strategy meets the intent of the NWFP ACS. The NWFP ACS was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. NWFP ROD at B9. The ACS identifies nine objectives that management actions must maintain or improve when analyzed at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Spies et al. (2013) is a literature review of existing science related to the effects of riparian thinning on wood recruitment over time. Spies et al. (2013) list 15 Key Points in their summary of findings. Key Point #9 identifies that 95% of instream wood recruitment occurs within 82 148 of a given stream. Forest conditions and geomorphology account for the variance in the buffer widths suggested, i.e. young stands generally provided wood recruitment from shorter distances due to the shorter trees present in those stands. The stand age in the Eden Ridge Project Area ranges from 53 to 73 years. FEIS at I-7. The Forest incorporated site specific data and The Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies (2011) to develop site specific shade zones or no cut buffer widths, maintaining stream shade based on topographic and vegetative conditions and meeting ACS objectives. The Implementation Strategy identifies minimum no-cut buffer widths based on tree height and hill slope that range between 12 and 85 feet, supporting these parameters with science. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies at 29. When applied correctly, the appropriate buffer width will adequately maintain stream shade that will in turn maintain stream temperature. FEIS at III-36 through III-39. The Responsible Official identified a shade zone strategy that will employ a variable range of no-cut buffer widths immediately adjacent to streams. FEIS at II-30. The Project s no-cut buffer width within a riparian reserve stand will be determined on a site-specific basis considering stream type, tree height, and hill slope topography. The Responsible Official stated that this strategy of evaluating riparian reserve stands on a site-specific basis allows for greater flexibility in utilizing a broad range of no-cut buffer widths that accounts for stream shade and wood Page 12 of 18

recruitment over time. Draft ROD Attachment B at B-2, FEIS at II-26, and FEIS Appendix A at A- 25. The recommendation from the EPA letter used the largest trees identified in proposed treatment stands as their standard to determine a standard no-cut buffer width. FEIS Appendix A at A-36 through A-37. The Responsible Official has chosen to make site specific recommendations which will allow for greater flexibility if a stand is comprised of trees less than 100 tall and require a narrower no-cut buffer width to maintain shade and wood recruitment over time. Draft ROD at ROD-10 through ROD-11. Objector Statement #8: The objector states that the decision failed to disclose that the commercial volume from Riparian Reserves is not programmed to meet Probable Sale Quantity. KS at 5. Throughout the documents the volumes from Riparian Reserves and Matrix are combined and volume from Riparian Reserves is euphemistically called a by-product of commercial logging of riparian reserves. KS at 5. Response: I find that the Responsible Official appropriately disclosed the rationale and estimated volume for timber harvest within the Riparian Reserves land allocation. NWFP standards and guidelines, TM-1 Timber Management, states that Riparian Reserve acres shall not be included in the calculations of the timber base (i.e. lands classified as suitable for timber production). Timber harvest is prohibited in Riparian Reserves except as described in the NWFP (TM-1), to (for example) attain ACS objectives. There is no requirement within the NWFP that subsequent volume from proposed Riparian Reserve timber harvest treatments being done to meet ACS objectives be excluded, or listed separately, from Matrix treatments. The FEIS at I-15 stated that there is a need to restore (improve) riparian conditions for aquatic habitat associated with ACS objectives lost by historical clear-cut logging within the Riparian Reserves in the Project Area. The Responsible Official stated that the proposed treatments within Riparian Reserves will accelerate the development of late-successional stand conditions such as older forest stand characteristics, increase conifer growth rates and provide for larger remnant conifers and hardwoods. This will allow aquatic conditions to improve and to meet intent of ACS objectives in the long term. Draft ROD at ROD-7. Final Remedies/Resolution: Since Forest Supervisor Rob MacWhorter appropriately followed and displayed compliance with Riparian Reserve standards and guidelines, I find that no remedy as suggested by the objector is needed. Dead and Down Wood Overview and Suggested Remedies: The objector s concerns below are around the dead wood effects analysis of the Project, and utilizing the best available science. The objector did not outline specific remedies for this concern; however, an analysis that incorporates the Spies et al. (2013) research or adjusts the no-cut buffers would appear to remedy this concern. Page 13 of 18

Objector Statement #9: The objector states that the FEIS failed to incorporate the best available science (Spies at al. 2013) into its dead wood effects analysis. KS at 4. Response: I find that the Responsible Official utilized the best available science within the Eden Ridge Project s dead wood effects analysis, considering the Spies et al. science. The regulation at 40 CFR 1502.24 requires that [a]gencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements. The Forest Plan is the existing direction for snags and coarse down wood objectives. The Forest is currently using plant series data from new Plant Association Group (PAG) classifications for determining snag and down wood objectives on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest that meets or exceeds Forest Plan standards for snag and down wood objectives. The NWFP requires project consistency with the nine ACS Objectives. Alternative 2 with modification meets the ACS Objectives, including Objectives #6 and #8, to maintain Riparian Reserve amount and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. FEIS at III-78 through III-82. Spies et al. science is cited in numerous areas in the FEIS, concerning dead and down wood. For example, the Spies et al. report is cited in Chapter 3 of the FEIS in the silviculture as well as the aquatics sections. FEIS at III-10, III-79 through 80, and III-82. The FEIS at III-10 described the need to restore riparian conditions for aquatic habitat in areas harvested in the past where there is a shortage of large wood for recruitment into streams. This objective ties closely with ACS Objective #8 that is to maintain and restore riparian plant communities and distribution of coarse woody debris. Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling of untreated upland stands in the Project Area projected higher tree mortality, smaller tree diameters, and slower basal area growth when those stands were compared to the proposed treatments. The FEIS at III-10 cited Spies et al. discussing how thinning in young stands less than 80 years old has the greatest potential ecological benefits to accelerate development of older forest structure. Riparian Reserve thinning would increase tree growth and lessens the time needed to establish future large wood delivery. Thinning would result in a long-term beneficial effect to fish habitat by promoting the growth of large trees that would provide stream shade and large wood that creates complex in-stream habitats, thereby promoting vigorous fish populations. FEIS at III- 10. The FEIS at III-79 cited Spies et al. stating that young, high density conifer stands can interfere with the movement of riparian-dependent species, and thinning can improve connectivity between habitats of riparian-dependent species (Spies et al. 2013). The FEIS at III-80 stated thinning that maintains or increases (through stream enhancement) wood loads to streams can help maintain and restore the physical integrity of the stream beds (Spies et al. 2013). Page 14 of 18

Also the FEIS at III-82 cited Spies et al. stating that thinning that increases dead wood loads in streams and riparian areas can help to sustain physical complexity. The FEIS Appendix H at H-34 discussed that the treatments proposed would allow other species to come in under the current Douglas-fir dominated stands which would put these stands on a trajectory of attaining old growth characteristics sooner within the Riparian Reserve. The 25-foot no cut buffer on either side of the channel would ensure that a source of small woody material for aquatic species that depend on riparian areas would be maintained. The proposed timber harvest would not impact future large wood recruitment to fish habitat. The FEIS Appendix A at A-24 through A-26 summarized the interdisciplinary team responses to the key points of the Spies et al. science and their specific relationship to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. The FEIS Appendix A at A-25 discussed recruitment of dead wood to streams stating that there would likely be some decrease in the short-term, but the thinning of young stands promotes the development of larger diameter green trees faster over time than in unthinned stands. The FEIS Appendix A at A-19 discussed how the treatments would not affect the immediate stream channel where large wood would come from. Also, the objector cites one of the key points of the Spies et al. memorandum which states that [i]nstream wood placement gets wood into streams much sooner than by natural recruitment, and can offset negative effects of thinning on dead wood. The Responsible Official addressed instream wood placement in the FEIS Appendix H at H-26 and the draft ROD Attachment B at B- 9, which lists the Stream Enhancement Project Design Criteria selected as part of the draft decision. The draft ROD at ROD-8 stated that the treatments within Riparian Reserves would improve habitat conditions for wildlife and fish. This included an improvement in large wood retention and recruitment. The Responsible Official stated that enough large woody material (dead and down) in order to maintain a healthy forest ecosystem will be retained. Also, large woody material left from historical logging represents a unique situation and every effort will be made to avoid disturbance in order to maintain this existing material. Final Remedies/Resolution: Based on the science used in the FEIS as well as a throughout the response to comments that pertained to the Spies at al. research, I find that the Spies et al. research was considered in the dead and down wood analysis for the Eden Ridge Project; thus, no additional remedies are recommended. Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives Overview and Suggested Remedies: The objector s concerns below are around the Eden Ridge Project meeting the ACS objectives, specifically objectives 6 and 8. The objector s remedy for this concern is to select the No Action Alternative which meets all the objectives of the ACS. Page 15 of 18

Objector Statement #10: The objector states that the draft decision does not meet the ACS objectives. KS at 5. Depleting future dead wood with commercial removal of live trees would not meet ACS objectives 6 and 8. Removing commercial sized trees from Eden Ridge Riparian Reserves is not needed to meet ACS objectives. KS at 5. Response: I find that the Responsible Official s decision to select Alternative 2 with modification meets the ACS objectives, including objectives #6 and #8, which provide direction to maintain Riparian Reserve amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. The ACS objectives #6 and #8 describe the standards and guidelines for the retention of wood for routing of in-stream flows and to maintain and restore the composition of the riparian plant communities that supply amounts and distribution of coarse wood to sustain physical complexity and stability of the Riparian Reserves. NWFP ROD at B-11. Chapter 3 of the FEIS described the impacts of implementing all the alternatives. The Responsible Official acknowledged that the removal of current live trees would reduce recruitment of small diameter wood in the short term; however, this thinning would not deplete the future down wood in the forest stands. FEIS Appendix A at A-24 through A-31. The FEIS at III-10 described how thinning (removal of small diameter live trees in these young stands) enhances the growth on residual trees, benefitting recruitment of future large diameter trees. The FEIS described consistency with the ACS objectives, including down wood recruitment. FEIS at III-81 and III-82. The Responsible Official further described Project consistency with ACS objectives #6 and #8 in his draft decision. Draft ROD at ROD-17. The draft ROD stated, [t]he analysis of the existing conditions relative to Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines (1994 NWFP ROD, pages C-31 through C-39) and the nine ACS objectives is presented for each alternative considered in detail in FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 1 I find that none of the impacts associated with my decision (Modified Alternative 2), either directly, indirectly, individually or cumulatively, will prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, compliance with the Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines, or consistency with the nine ACS Objectives, at the site, watershed or landscape scales. Draft ROD at ROD-17. Additional details about the selected alternative s impacts on the wood delivery to surrounding streams can be found in the hydrology specialist report. FEIS Appendix C at C-33 through C-39. The Preliminary Silvicultural Diagnosis (FEIS at B-19 through B-25) described stand condition, including snag and down wood conditions and Forest Plan guidelines for down wood. FEIS Appendix B (B-28 to B-38) projected the selected treatments (utilizing FVS modeling) on forest growth attributes, including Riparian Reserve treatments (B-40). The Responsible Official described the future down wood for each alternative considered in detail. FEIS Appendix at (Hydrology Report) C-23, (Wildlife Report) G-52 through G-54, and (Aquatic Biota Report) H-25 through H-26. Page 16 of 18