Alternatives, including the Proposed Action

Environmental Assessment II. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project. It includes a description of each alternative, a map, and presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between alternatives and providing a clear basis for choice among options for the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., the number of acres treated, or miles of road used or closed) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., the amount of income produced or degree of effects to recreation, etc.) in relation to the identified issues. A. Alternatives Alternative 1 - Proposed Action See Tables 2a, 2b and 2c and Figure 3 below for locations of these proposed activities. Acreages are presented as gross and net; gross acreage includes the entire stand of trees or special habitat complexes and net acres are those where activities would actually occur. For thinning units, the difference between gross and net acres is typically due to the presence of riparian buffers that would not be treated. Proposed Actions Commercial Thinning of Young Managed Stands Many of the older plantations resulting from past even-aged harvest in this portion of the watershed are quite dense, leading to some of the problems and concerns mentioned in the Purpose and Need discussion. The project area contains about 4,663 gross acres (in 91 separate stands, as illustrated in Figure 3) of young managed stands between the ages of 30 and 75 that need to be thinned to provide for structural and species biodiversity, for stand health, and which contain trees of commercial size. This commercial thinning would occur primarily within Forest Plan P Management Allocations 6e, 11c, and 14a, roughly in proportion to the percentage of those Management Areas in the project area. Thinning within the North Fork Wild and Scenic River corridor (Management Area 6e) would occur as directed by the Wild and Scenic River Plan (USDA, 1995; page D-4). Thinning would be accomplished as described below. Thinning would also occur with Riparian Reserves where it is needed to enhance riparian habitat and function, but a no treatment buffer from 30 to 100 feet either side of stream channels (depending upon stream class) would be used to protect stream channels and water quality. Thinning would be accomplished with a number of methods depending upon slope conditions and road access; ground based machinery would be used on slopes less than 30 percent, skyline yarding would be used on slopes greater than 30 percent or where intervening steep slopes prevent ground based access to more gentle ground, and helicopters would be used to yard some areas not accessible by the existing road system. Some of the original harvest in the WSR corridor was accomplished by a railroad system that is no longer practical to use. Feller buncher type machines may be used on slopes less than 45 percent to fell and pre-bunch trees in areas where skyline and helicopter yarding systems would be used. In order to provide for accelerated development of large trees, and for the longest lasting effect to revitalize or establish a diverse suite of understory species, these young stands would be thinned Willamette National Forest 23

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project to a wide spacing, though in a variable fashion. The closure (as measured by a vertical projection; see Ganey and Block, 1994) of the canopy provided by the dominant conifer and hardwood trees in areas to be thinned would be variable, ranging from 30 to 50 percent and would average about 40 percent. Thinning Prescription #1 Matrix lands: (MAs 14a, 11c) These stands would be thinned using a variable spacing (ranging from 22 to 30, averaging 26 ) to result in an average post-treatment crown closure of 40 percent (counting understory conifers and hardwoods and riparian areas). Gaps from ¼ to ½ acre in size (with an average 85 radius) would be created, with about two per five acres, centered on the largest trees in the stands, which would be retained in the gaps. Several trees would be used if they are large and in a clump (growing within 6 to 8 feet of each other). Slash would be abated by yarding tops, with some grapple piling along roads and skid trails. The average canopy closure after thinning would be quite variable but could range from nearly zero within gaps to 50 percent and average about 40 percent, including unthinned portions of the stands such as riparian buffers. Thinning Prescription #2 Wild and Scenic River Corridor (MA 6e) This prescription would occur in all or portions of units within the corridor (see Tables 2a and b). These stands would be thinned with a variable spacing to average 24 feet. Slash would be underburned in the older stands (typically those downstream of Cedar Creek) aside from a no-fire buffer 100 from FS Road 19. Tops would be yarded along with the tree stems and some grapple piling along roads and skid trails would occur in all other areas. All understory conifers and hardwoods within this buffer would be retained and protected. The average canopy closure after thinning (not including unthinned areas) would be variable, ranging from 30 to 50 percent and averaging about 50 percent, including unthinned portions of the stands such as riparian buffers. Thinning Prescription #3 Late Successional Reserve (MA 16a; unit 1225) The REO Exemption Criteria would be used except for within riparian reserves: 10 percent of the stand would be retained in an unthinned condition, ¼ to ½ acre openings would be created to equal 10 percent of the stand (equates to a circular opening with an average radius of 85 every four acres), 10 percent of the stand would be thinned to a variable but average spacing of about 36 feet. The remaining 70 percent of the stand would be thinned with a variable spacing to average of 26 feet. The average canopy closure after thinning would be quite variable but could range from nearly zero within gaps to 50 percent and average about 40 percent. Prescription #4 Riparian Area buffers (MA 15; all units) Class IV (intermittent) streams A 30 foot buffer would be maintained to reduce the probability that soil could enter the stream channel, and to provide for channel stability, wildlife dispersal habitat, and survey and manage species habitat; Class III (permanent) streams no thinning within the primary shade zone, at least 60 feet either side of streams channels, except as described below, 24 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Class II and I (permanent and fish-bearing) streams the same as Class III streams but primary shade zone may be wider. The no-treatment buffers along the North Fork proper would be at least 100 feet wide. The average canopy coverage after thinning (not including unthinned areas) would be variable but would range from 30 to 50 percent and average about 40 percent. A 100 foot wide no treatment buffer would be placed along all perennial streams 1000 upstream of listed fish habitat (the North Fork river) within unit 1256, and a 50 foot wide no treatment buffer would be placed along all intermittent streams 500 feet upstream of listed fish habitat where ground based or skyline yarding would occur. Non-buffer portions of riparian reserves would be thinned the same as adjacent upland areas. No gaps would be placed within Riparian Reserves. Small streams within Special Habitat Areas would be protected but not buffered, unless they contain fish, in which case a buffer the width of the local vegetation height would be used. In all cases, stream channels would be protected from disturbance from machinery or log movement. See the Silviculture Prescription in the Analysis File for more detailed information on how these stands would be thinned. Willamette National Forest 25

Figure 3 Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project 1912 1912 1927 633 1912 642 654 Elk Camp Shelter!0 180 857 126 1912 792 879 1191 1218 862 961 962 6813 1393 1420 672 730 Hammer Creek 1728 1724 6822 848 925 1012 McKinley Creek 1116 1093 1055 1205 1161 1283 660 6814 1290 1216 1437 1422 1474 1530 1547 1568 High Creek 1920 839 812 822 824 674 981 642 Chalk Creek 1919 1518 1575 1433 8244 1209 1210 Scout Lake 1062 979 725 270 025 721 720 713 728 1925 Ninth Creek 704 717 817 255 Eighth Creek 705 704J 261 7616 Tumble Creek 055 186 700 7601 706 1926 1928 847 811 810 708 Martie C 742 reek Sidewalk Creek 1188 703 631 Coffee Creek Plateau Creek Whiterock Creek 1154 302 279 059 721 1256 Shale Creek 1006 Cedar Creek Hemlock Creek Memaloose Lake Huckleberry Mtn Huckleberry Lake 058 641 061 1930 Evergreen Creek 1059 062 841 895 701 874 881 1026 905 684 North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River 063 1934 Roosevelt Creek 064 1057 Steer Creek 939 7679!9 Kiahanie CG 1054 Major Cre ek 991 750B 749 1097 Parker Creek 746 1939 935 1173 065 1011 7698 756 929 1007 1021 739 1940 803 850 891 080 755 1938 878 6185 815 910 897 5739 1051 1225 Captain Creek 764 068 762 760 070 Brock Creek 1942 810 753 105 19 1912 274 674 702 736 1876 Legend Chalk Parker Project Area Roads!Ã Helicopter Landing Site / Thinning SHAB Restoration Roads To Be Closed Spur Reconstruction!9 Kiahanie CG!0 Elk Camp Shelter Forage Enhancement Spur Construction Huckleberry Mtn Perrenial Streams

Environmental Assessment Special Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Some diverse habitats in this portion of the North Fork watershed (including meadows, savannas, wetlands, and shrub types) have experienced conifer tree encroachment and desirable species have declined. A total of six special habitats (most along the North Fork Valley bottom) including the Glade Creek Aspen Swamp, Brock Meadows, Major Prairie, Camp Five, the mid-slope Scout Lake, and the ridge-top meadows near Elk Camp Shelter along Alpine Ridge have experienced conifer encroachment and would be restored to their historic size and vegetation structure. Nearly all of these special habitats have some amount of noxious weeds within them. Special Habitat restoration prescriptions include: Commercial and non-commercial tree cutting and/or girdling; Release of all quaking aspen and Oregon white oak by cutting all conifers within one tree height; Planting of meadow species in encroached areas that are cleared and have lost most of the original meadow vegetation; brush cutting through manual and machine methods; Retention of at least 40 percent of the shrub types in late-seral conditions; Mature tree removal on up to 62 acres of encroached meadows; Retention of older trees (greater than about 150 years) in cleared encroachment areas, in addition to replacement trees where windthrow or other mortality has eliminated legacy trees; Abatement of non-native and invasive plants and replanting of native vegetation where applicable; Creation of snags, especially in the mixed shrub/conifer communities within Brock Meadow; Use of prescribed fire, now and in the future, to maintain all vegetation types, with protection of older retained vegetation in the process; Underburning in older and otherwise untreated stands (primarily in north end of Brock Meadows and the southern edge of Major Prairie); Closure of the lower road in Major Prairie (FS road 1939.759), the spur to the south of the Elk Camp Shelter meadows (FS road 1842.291), and installation of road-side rocks at Camp Five and Brock Meadow to eliminate vehicle travel in the meadows and to restore meadow hydrology; Relocation of the dispersed camp sites in Brock Meadows to the clump of trees at the junction of the FS 1900.768 and 760 roads; move the boulders currently along the east edge of the 768 road to the perimeter of the above tree clump and close the FS 768 road to further reduce vehicle travel in the meadow. Willamette National Forest 27

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Additional prescriptive details, habitat descriptions, and treatment locations can be found in Table 2b below, the Vegetation Section of Chapter III, and in the Silviculture Prescription, Wildlife Report and Botany Report contained in the Analysis File. Forage habitat enhancement Brush and small tree cutting, native seeding, and fertilization would occur to improve big game habitat conditions in conjunction with the above, special habitat restoration, and on 189 acres within ten poorly reforested plantations as shown on the following map (Figure 3) and as displayed in Table 2c. Fish habitat enhancement In addition to culvert replacement covered under road maintenance, in-stream large woody material placement would occur on approximately four miles of the NFMFW river, to include two miles upstream of the Forest Road 1926 bridge and two miles downstream of the Forest Road 19 bridge just above its junction with road 1938. Some of this wood placement would entail tipping of bank-edge trees into the channel Connected and Similar Actions Temporary road construction About 12 miles of non-system road (those built and abandoned long before the current road system tracking was emplaced) or main skid trails in 80 locations (see Figure 3)would be reconstructed (consisting primarily of brushing and clearing, reestablishment of the drainage system where needed, and replacement of surface rock depending upon surface condition) to provide for efficient log haul. About 2.6 miles of temporary spur road in 17 locations (see Figure 3) would also be constructed, to provide for the use of appropriate yarding systems and log haul. Both types of roads are considered temporary and all would be closed and rehabilitated after use. Road maintenance Maintenance would occur on about 147 miles of the existing Forest road system that would be used for log hauling to provide for continued safe public and commercial use of these roads, to minimize existing and potential future road related erosion problems, and to facilitate fish passage. Maintenance would consist of some or all of the following: brushing, surface rock replacement, cross drain and stream culvert replacement, and ditch cleanout. In addition to these routine road maintenance activities, one more involved road maintenance project would also occur; a bin wall about 150 feet long would be installed along FS Road 19 just above its junction with FS Road 1926 to repair road fill erosion caused by the adjacent North Fork river. Road closure Approximately 94 miles of system roads would be closed to motorized use (as shown on the map in Figure 3 and as listed in Table 3) to reduce road related erosion problems and improve big game habitat conditions. Such closure would occur as appropriated funding becomes available. Road closures in this area would implement recommendations made in the North Fork Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1995) in relation to the area s Key Watershed status, and the District and Forest Road Management Plan documents (USDA 2004 and 2003, respectively). The Current MVUM Status column in Table 3 refers to whether each road is shown as being legally open to motorized vehicles on the recently issued Middle Fork Ranger District Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Some roads shown as already closed are included due to some inaccuracies in this new mapping of open roads and in part because some roads which are actually physically closed 28 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment were not properly closed from a resource protection perspective. The rationale for closing each of these road segments is contained in the two documents above and is displayed in Table 3. Generally, these roads proposed for closure to reduce the overall road density in the watershed and to avoid ongoing and potential water quality degradation. Most of these road closures would be done in a manner such that the roads can be reopened in the future to provide for subsequent management activities. Road closure would include installation of water bars, ditching over or removing culverts, and seeding, in addition to construction of a closure structure such as a gate or ditch and berm. Only one road, 1939.764 would be completely decommissioned to restore the hydrologic conditions in Major Prairie and prevent illicit off-road vehicle use. Fuels reduction Commercial thinning and the proposed special habitat restoration would generate fuels that would need to be reduced to meet Forest Plan direction (FW-252) and accomplish the primary proposed actions. Fuels reduction would consist of one or more of the following prescribed activities: 1. yarding of tops/limbs; burn on landing, 2. broadcast underburning, 3. hand piling and burning 4. roadside grapple piling and burning, 5. on-site mastication (mowing), 6. No treatment See Tables 2 a and b and Tables 26 and 27 for unit specific prescriptions. No fire lines would be constructed. Summary of Alternative 1 This alternative is focused most strongly on restoration. Ground-based yarding where ever reasonable would provide the opportunity to begin restoration of productive soil conditions, as this yarding system would provide access, over the travel ways created, for machinery that can ameliorate compaction through tillage, which would generally entail a lifting and loosening of the soil using tongs rather than plowing type equipment. Forage restoration within particular degraded sites could also involve some soil tillage to remediate extreme soil compaction where cultural resources are not present. This alternative would provide for full restoration of all special habitats in the planning area that have experienced encroachment or other degradation. Implementation of the Elk Camp Shelter meadow restoration portion of this proposed action would require a site-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment. The encroached portions of this meadow are currently within a 100 acre LSR (MA 16b). The trees to be removed range from 20 to 140 years of age and the Northwest Forest Plan direction for management of young stands within LSRs prohibits cutting of trees greater than 80 years of age. To facilitate this restoration, the boundary of this LSR would need to be adjusted to exclude the younger trees and substitute a similar or greater acreage of trees that are about 400 years of age. This proposed boundary change has been reviewed and approved by the Regional Interagency Ecosystem Committee. See the Wildlife Report in the Analysis File and Section B. of this Chapter for details Willamette National Forest 29

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project of this review the rationale for this proposed boundary change, and the benefits that would accrue to the LSR in substituting marginal and non-habitat with higher quality habitat. Table 2a. General Stand Conditions in the Proposed Action Thinning Units Stand Road # Gross Acres Net Acres 1 Thinning Rx 2 Harvest volume- MBF Logging System 3 Age Average diameter (dbh) Fuels Treatment Rx 0730 1912 35 35 1 350 G, S 35 14 1,4 14a 0792 50 42 1 380 G, S 35 14 1,4 14a 1420 54 49 1 392 S 48 13 1,4 11c 1530 31 29 1 406 S, G 37 15 1,4 11c 1728 18 14 1 210 S 41 12 1,4 14a 1724 26 21 1 210 S 39 13 1,4 14a 1876 26 24 1 360 S 41 14 1,4 11c 0654 1925 44 35 1 280 S 35 15 1,4 11c 0824 30 30 1 360 G 40 12 1,4 14a 0822 15 12 1 98 S 38 12 1,4 14a 0839 6 5 1 35 S 40 13 1,4 14a 0812 9 9 1 63 He 40 12 6 14a 6822 20 17 1 204 S 40 14 1,4 14a 0879 1920 25 24 1 192 G 35 13 1,4 14a 0862 27 25 1 375 S,G 38 11 1,4 14a 0848 50 43 1 645 S,G 40 14 1,4 14a 0925 43 41 1 615 S 38 15 1,4 14a 0981 26 26 1 390 S 38 12 1,4 11c 0962 42 40 1 480 G,S 40 12 1,4 11c 1012 54 47 1 846 S 39 10 1,4 11c 1218 11 9 1 90 S 33 14 1,4 14a 1191 46 44 1 528 S 37 12 1,4 14a 1283 41 36 1 540 S 42 15 1,4 14a 6813 38 28 1 224 S 45 14 1,4 11c 1393 27 20 1 160 S 41 10 1,4 11c 1055 89 77 1 1,540 S 50 10 1,4 11c 1116 87 72 1 1,440 S,G 53 12 1,4 11c 1172 135 120 1 3,000 S 56 12 1,4 11c 6814 17 17 1 170 S 40 12 1,4 11c 1209 58 37 2,1 555 He 63 12 2 6e 1290 1920 50 50 1 750 S,G 42 13 1,4 11c 1161 30 25 1 450 S 40 14 1,4 11c 1205 80 71 1,2 1,775 S,G,He 56 14 6 6e MA 4 1 Less riparian buffers 2 All units contain some riparian reserves with Rx #4 3 G = ground-based, S = skyline, He = helicopter 4 Forest Plan Management Area 30 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Stand Road # Gross Acres Net Acres 1 Thinning Rx 2 Harvest volume- MBF Logging System 3 Age Average diameter (dbh) Fuels Treatment Rx 1093 46 35 1 700 S 53 13 1,4 11c 9903 30 24 2 480 He 64 15 6 6e 0979 406 363 2,1 7,260 He 63 14 1,3 6e 1210 25 21 2 420 He 64 14 6 6e 1216 1919 22 21 2,1 420 He 63 13 6 6e 1422 16 12 2.1 240 S,He,G 65 15 6 6e 1518 22 21 1 252 S,He 39 12 6 11c 1575 1919 97 89 1 1,780 S,G 57 13 2,3 11c 1433 11 8 2 160 He,G 54 14 6 6e 8244 60 56 2 1,120 He,G 65 15 2,3 6e 1474 35 29 1 580 S 40 12 1,4 11c 1547 30 29 1 290 G,S 41 12 1,4 11c 1568 47 45 1 675 S 43 13 1,4 14a 1437 42 36 1 648 S,G 41 12 1,4 11c 7601 1928 77 62 1 1,240 G,S 62 14 1,2,4 6e 0810 405 360 1,2 9,000 S,G 60 13 1,4 11c 0811 34 29 1,2 725 G 61 11 1,4 11c 1188 192 179 1 3,580 G,S 63 14 1,4 14a 7616 1926 46 45 2 900 S,G 60 15 1,4 6e 0817 29 29 1 290 S,G 43 12 1,4 11c 1256 1930 442 420 1,2 8,400 S,G,He 52 12 6 11c 1154 27 18 1 180 S 36 10 1,4 14a 1006 28 24 1 240 S,G 37 14 1,4 11c 1059 6 6 1 72 S 40 12 1,4 11c 0841 1934 27 24 2 480 G 48 15 1,4 6e 0895 63 62 1 744 S,G 43 14 1,4 11c 0881 15 15 2,1 150 G 30 10 1,4 6e 0874 39 33 2 330 G 30 10 1,4 6e 0905 56 51 1 1,020 S,G 51 12 1,4 11c 0991 20 16 1 160 S 38 12 1,4 11c 1026 56 49 1 588 S,G 39 12 1,4 11c 1057 73 64 1 1,280 S,G 44 12 1,4 11c 0939 51 44 1 528 S,G 39 13 1,4 11c 1054 40 39 1 588 S,G 46 12 1,4 11c 1097 28 28 1 224 S,G 40 12 1,4 11c 1173 34 33 1 660 G,S 45 12 1,4 11c 0684 1940 26 21 1 210 S 30 9 1,4 11c 0850 37 34 1,2 408 G 47 14 1,4 11c 0803 47 41 1 738 S,G 44 13 1,4 11c 0891 39 36 1,2 432 G 45 13 1,4,2 11c 7698 132 121 1 2,420,GS 53 14 1,4 11c MA 4 Willamette National Forest 31

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Stand Road # Gross Acres Net Acres 1 Thinning Rx 2 Harvest volume- MBF Logging System 3 Age Average diameter (dbh) Fuels Treatment Rx 0878 1942 33 33 2 396 S,G 53 14 2 11c 0815 33 24 1 360 S,G 38 13 1,4 11c 0910 44 37 2,1 555 G 40 12 2,3 11c 0897 36 31 1 465 S 40 13 1,4 11c 0935 1938 40 40 1 800 G 46 15 1,4 11c 1011 42 42 1 630 S 40 12 1,4 11c 0929 1939 29 29 1,2 580 G 42 14 1,4 11c 1021 27 24 1 360 S 38 13 1,4 11c 1007 24 20 1 300 S 45 10 1,4 11c 1051 22 22 1,2 330 G 42 12 1,4 6e 1225 35 32 4 320 G 35 12 1,4 16a Total 4,663 4,180 73,821 MA 4 Table 2b. Special Habitat Restoration Stands Stand # Name 0857 Elk Camp shelter meadows Gross Acres Acres Harvest 5 Tree Ages Acres Brush Cutting 6 Individual Tree removal 7 Meadow burn 8 28 16b a 2 2 b 18 20-130 2 c 8 2 1062 Scout Lake 7 7 2 6e 0847 Camp Five 21 6e a 10 55 1,4 b 5 2 Fuel Rx MA # c 3 3 3 7679 Major Prairie 36 6e a 16 80-130 2 b 7 3 2,5 c 10 2 5 This is harvest of closed canopy stands with retention of scattered older trees where current canopy closure is in excess of 60 percent. Generally a scattered overstory of the largest, oldest trees will be retained to yield a post-treatment canopy closure of less than 15 percent. Closure here refers to a vertical projection of the primary canopy. 6 Hand cutting and/or mastication of 30 percent to 80 percent of existing dense brush patches, broadcast or piling burning. Gross acreage; riparian buffers will be maintained on permanent streams. 7 Removal of individual mature trees or most trees in a small clump that are growing in meadow or brush areas 8 Removal of encroaching conifers, noxious weeds, burning, seeding 32 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Stand # Name 6185 Brock Meadow Gross Acres Acres Harvest 5 Tree Ages Acres Brush Cutting 6 Individual Tree removal 7 Meadow burn 8 71 6e a 18 60-110 2 b 4 2 c 1 2 d 1 2 e 15 6 f 9 7 2 g 1 2 h 2 2 i 2 2 j 4 4 2 k Underburn only 7 acs. l 3 2 5739 Glade Creek Aspen Swamp 63 6e a 28 2 2,5 b 10 75-120 2,3 c 45 6 2,3 d 3 6 2,5 e 3 f 5 3 5 TOTAL 226 72 ------ 65 49 40 Fuel Rx MA # Table 2c. Plantation Forage Improvement. Treatments: Brush cutting, native forage plant seeding, noxious weed removal, young conifer cutting/pruning, fertilization, tilling, and/or burning. Stand # Acreage-gross Acreage-net 0835 30 9 0764 36 11 0834 16 9 6995 58 40 0799 56 22 6994 48 36 0898 14 2 0828 61 15 0911 37 22 0882 47 23 Total 401 189 Willamette National Forest 33

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Table 3 Road Closures Alternative 1 Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1824180 0.09 open low Low Access Use 1824181 0.10 open low Low Access Use 1824182 0.15 open low Low Access Use 1824291 0.61 open low Low Access Use 1900055 0.27 open low High Aquatic Risk 1900056 0.12 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1900057 0.39 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1900066 0.24 open low Low Access Use 1900101 0.07 open low High Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1900705 0.35 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1900709 1.48 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1900710 0.68 closed low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1900711 0.45 closed low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1900728 0.34 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1900749 0.29 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1900760 0.36 closed low High Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1900762 0.95 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1900764 0.49 closed low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1900768 0.10 open low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1912053 0.55 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912121 0.18 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912122 0.15 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 9 Motor Vehicle Use Map( USDA, 2010) 34 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1912123 0.18 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912124 0.20 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912126 0.05 open moderate Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1912270 0.12 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912272 0.56 closed low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1912274 0.22 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912278 0.16 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912279 0.13 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912280 0.04 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912291 0.29 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912663 0.05 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912665 0.39 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912669 0.58 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912670 0.51 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912672 0.33 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912673 0.52 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912674 0.35 open low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1912675 0.13 open low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1912676 0.47 open moderate High Aquatic Risk 1912680 0.53 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912682 0.30 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912694 0.46 open moderate Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1912695 0.16 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1912696 0.33 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk Willamette National Forest 35

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1919 0.74 closed low Moderate Aquatic/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1919661 0.81 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1919665 0.25 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1919666 0.25 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1919668 0.19 open low Low Access Use 1919669 0.32 open moderate High Aquatic Risk 1919671 0.32 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1919676 0.14 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920 0.57 open low Moderate Aquatic/High Terrestrial Risk 1920051 0.39 closed moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920052 0.25 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920053 0.11 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920055 0.21 closed low High Aquatic Risk 1920220 0.05 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920601 0.28 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920602 0.15 closed low Low Access Use 1920603 0.08 closed low Low Access Use 1920604 0.13 open moderate Low Access Use 1920605 0.27 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920606 0.14 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920607 0.25 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920608 0.18 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920619 0.22 open low Low Access Use 1920620 0.07 open low Low Access Use 36 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1920622 0.21 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920623 0.08 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920658 0.29 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920660 1.73 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920661 1.30 closed moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920662 1.46 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920663 1.01 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920664 0.54 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920665 0.21 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920666 0.53 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920670 0.13 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1920671 0.68 open low Moderate Aquatic/High Terrestrial Risk 1920672 0.82 open low Moderate Aquatic/High Terrestrial Risk 1920673 0.24 open low Moderate Aquatic/High Terrestrial Risk 1920674 0.44 closed low Moderate Aquatic/High Terrestrial Risk 1925101 0.25 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1925104 0.21 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1925643 0.63 open low Low Access Use 1925644 3.02 open moderate High Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1925656 0.50 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926013 0.17 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926021 0.10 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926101 0.05 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926102 0.15 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk Willamette National Forest 37

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1926104 0.21 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926105 0.11 closed low Low Access Use 1926106 0.12 closed low High Aquatic Risk/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1926107 0.18 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926108 0.10 closed low Low Access Use 1926110 0.06 closed low Low Access Use 1926122 0.08 closed low Low Access Use 1926609 0.10 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926631 1.05 open low High Aquatic Risk/Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1926633 1.33 open low Low Access Use 1926634 0.58 open low Low Access Use 1926635 0.45 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926636 3.70 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926637 2.45 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926638 0.58 open low Low Access Use 1926640 0.64 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk 1926642 0.42 open low Low Access Use 1926643 0.60 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1927016 0.61 closed low Low Access Use 1928100 0.63 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928109 0.06 open low Low Access Use 1928261 0.38 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928270 0.13 open low Low Access Use 1928278 0.20 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 38 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1928279 0.07 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928301 0.14 closed low Low Access Use 1928302 0.06 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928699 0.21 closed low Low Access Use 1928703 0.17 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928706 1.19 closed moderate Moderate Aquatic / Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1928707 1.01 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928709 0.36 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928711 0.90 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928718 0.16 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1828722 0.97 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1928742 0.54 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930023 0.14 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930101 0.10 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930680 0.14 open low Low Access Use 1930681 0.05 open low High Aquatic Risk 1930684 0.11 open low Low Access Use 1930690 1.09 open low High Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1930694 0.36 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930695 1.10 open low High Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1930696 0.38 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930701 0.95 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930702 1.46 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1930703 1.76 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk Willamette National Forest 39

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1930704 0.40 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930705 0.21 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930705 0.42 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930706 0.28 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930707 0.30 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1930708 0.88 closed low High Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1934013 0.09 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1934014 0.19 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1934019 0.04 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934040 0.07 open low High Aquatic Risk 1934105 0.05 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934106 0.07 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934107 0.17 closed low High Aquatic Risk 1934108 0.07 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934109 0.06 closed low High Aquatic Risk 1934391 3.11 open low High Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1934701 0.09 open low Low Access Use 1934702 0.11 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934719 0.15 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934722 0.07 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934723 0.08 open low High Aquatic Risk 1934724 0.14 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934725 0.32 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934729 0.78 open low Moderate Terrestrial Risk 40 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1934737 0.81 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934738 0.53 open low Low Access Use 1934739 0.24 open low Low Access Use 1934740 0.60 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1934744 0.87 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1934745 2.28 closed moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1934746 0.49 closed moderate High Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1934747 0.42 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1934748 0.59 open low Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1934752 0.41 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1934756 0.36 open low Low Access Use 1934757 0.60 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1938 1.15 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1938101 0.13 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1938102 0.17 open low Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1938103 0.21 closed low Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1938104 0.10 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1938105 0.09 closed low Low Access Use 1938202 0.54 open low High Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1938410 1.30 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1938414 0.22 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1939 0.58 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1939758 0.40 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1939759 0.36 closed decommissi on Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk Willamette National Forest 41

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Road Number Miles Current MVUM 9 Status Proposed Closure Reason(s) for Closure Level-Alt 1 1939759 0.50 closed decommissi on Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1939760 0.22 open moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1940101 0.06 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk 1940102 0.20 closed low Low Access Use 1940103 0.07 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1940104 0.08 open low Low Access Use 1940105 0.22 closed moderate High Aquatic Risk/ High Terrestrial Risk 1940750 0.14 closed moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1940756 0.30 closed moderate Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1940757 2.62 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1940760 0.49 closed low Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1940761 1.30 open moderate High Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1940763 0.36 open low High Aquatic Risk 1942753 0.20 open low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1942753 0.25 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1942757 0.22 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk 1942760 0.36 closed low Moderate Aquatic Risk/ Moderate Terrestrial Risk Total 93.97 Alternative 2 Commercial Thinning of Young Managed Stands This alternative would implement commercial thinning prescriptions on the same stands proposed under Alternative 1 with similar thinning prescriptions but would utilize more costly felling and yarding systems in order to minimize soil disturbance cumulative effects. This use of more costly yarding methods would result in less stumpage receipts and thus less funding available to accomplish various restoration activities. Yarding and felling with ground-based machinery 42 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment would occur only in stands or portions of stands that are 10 percent or less in slope. Soil productivity would be restored only in areas with less than a 10 percent slope that currently exceed compaction guidelines (where ground-based equipment capable of soil tillage could use travel ways established by ground-based yarding equipment). Special Habitat Restoration and Maintenance SHAB restoration would be limited to those units or portions thereof that would pay for themselves in terms of harvest of commercially valuable trees. The mature stands that have encroached into historic meadow areas within the Major Prairie, Brock Meadow and Glade Creek Aspen Swamp, complexes (units 7679a, 6185a, and 5739b) would be the only SHAB restoration within this alternative and activities in those stands would be similar to those presented under Alternative 1. No restoration of non-forest vegetation types would occur. This alternative would not entail a Forest Plan amendment, since the Elk Camp Shelter meadow restoration would not occur and there would be no need to modify the LSR boundary. The encroached trees at this location have a low commercial value due their size and species, and probably cannot be sold to facilitate restoration of this area. Fish Habitat Enhancement Only the culvert replacement covered under road maintenance would occur under this alternative. Connected and Similar Actions - Temporary Road Construction About 16 miles of non-system road (those built and abandoned long before the current road system tracking was emplaced) or main skid trails would be reconstructed (consisting primarily of brushing and clearing, reestablishment of the drainage system where needed, and replacement of surface rock depending upon surface condition) to provide for efficient log haul. About 2.7 miles of temporary spur road would also be constructed to provide for log haul. Both types of roads are considered temporary and all would be rehabilitated and closed after use. Road Maintenance Alternative 2 would maintain somewhat less system road mileage since fewer haul roads would be needed. Maintenance would occur on about 140 miles of the existing Forest road system to provide for continued safe public and commercial use of these roads, and to minimize existing and potential future road related erosion problems and facilitate fish passage. Maintenance would consist of some or all of the following: brushing, surface rock replacement, cross drain and stream culvert replacement, and ditch cleanout. Road Closure This alternative would not close any roads to avoid the cost. Fuels Reduction Commercial thinning and the proposed special habitat restoration would generate fuels that would need to be reduced to meet Forest Plan direction (FW-252) and accomplish the primary proposed actions. Fuels reduction would consist of one to all of the following activities: broadcast burning, hand and machine piling and burning, yarding of tops, chipping and removal, or on-site mastication, as shown in Tables 2a and b. Willamette National Forest 43

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project Forage Habitat Enhancement This activity would not be done under this alternative to avoid the cost. No forage enhancement (other than that occurring as a byproduct of thinning) would occur under this alternative. Summary of Alternative 2 This alternative focuses most strongly on enhancing the structural and species diversity of second-growth stand that would produce an economic return to the government. Ground-based yarding would be limited to only gentle slopes to avoid additional soil disturbance, but also does not provide for the use of machinery that potentially could ameliorate past soil compaction. Reliance of yarding systems less impactful to soil resources is also considerably more expensive, so it can be expected less stumpage receipts would be received, therefore activities that require expenditures but would generate no revenue were not included in this alternative. This alternative would provide for restoration of special habitats in the planning area that have experienced encroachment only where that activity involves harvest of commercially valuable trees. Alternative 3 - No Action Consideration of the No Action alternative would not contribute to any accomplishment of the purpose and need for action, but is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to provide a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 Environmental Policy and Procedures, Chapter 10, 14.1). Under the No Action alternative existing second-growth stands would be left to develop into latesuccessional habitat on their own schedule. No SHAB restoration would occur; including removal of invading conifers, removal of invasive species, burning, and seeding of native meadow, plants. Vegetation succession in this area would be left to proceed on its own. No maintenance prescribed fire would be applied to these areas and aggressive initial attack of wild land fires would continue. No activities would occur to mitigate soil compaction that currently exceeds Forest Plan standards. This alternative would not provide for any road maintenance or closure, nor would it improve fish passage at road/stream crossing or improve in-stream fish habitat. No big game forage enhancement would occur. Sale Area Improvement Activities The following activities are part of these alternatives and their effects have been included in the discussions contained in Chapter III. These activities apply primarily to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would include only Creation of snags in Special Habitat Areas. maintenance of the Camp 5 slide drainage system in unit 7616. Installation of interpretive signing along Road 19. Trail rehabilitation within the Huckleberry OHV area. 44 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment Rehabilitation of dispersed campsites along the North Fork within treatment units, using Respect the River strategies. Moving the Dispersed campsites in Brock Meadows. Trail maintenance on North Fork and Alpine trails. B. Forest Plan Compliance and Need for a Forest Plan Amendment Implementation of Alternative 1 would require a site-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment as per 36CFR 219.10(f). This amendment would be needed to facilitate the restoration of the Elk Camp meadows, since the Late Successional Reserve boundary within which these meadows occur would have to be modified. Northwest Forest Plan guidance (USDA/USDI, 1994, page C-12) prohibits harvest within LSRs in stands over 80 years of age. Since some of the trees that have encroached into these meadows are greater than that age, Alternative 1 includes a revision of this 100 acre LSR s boundary to exclude the younger encroaching stand and the associated meadows and include a greater acreage of higher quality late-successional habitat, as shown in Figure 4. This Forest Plan amendment would remove 25 acres of unsuitable and foraging habitat (10 acres of that being meadow vegetation) and replace that acreage with 38 acres of high quality habitat (closed canopy Douglas-fir stands from 350 to 400+ years old) to the north and west of the current LSR boundary (See figure 4). A more detailed discussion of the conditions of the LSR and the need to modify the boundary can be found in Section X. of the Wildlife Report (page 25) titled MA-6b (100 acre LSR) Boundary Modification (see Analysis File). This Forest Plan Amendment has been determined to be non-significant based upon the criteria presented in FSM 1926.51. The amendment is not significant because it would not significantly alter the multiple use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management, and it constitutes a minor adjustment of a land management boundary resulting from on-site analysis. Forest Plan Amendments that change LSRs need to be approved by the Regional Interagency Ecosystem Committee, (RIE) Can oversight group composed of representatives from a number of Federal agencies and associated experimental stations, since the LSR system is a fundamental aspect of the Northwest Forest Plan. Approval for this proposed amendment was received from the RIEC in October of 2010. Willamette National Forest 45

46 Middle Fork Ranger District

Environmental Assessment C. Alternatives Considered but Not Developed Several other alternatives were considered during the development of this restoration proposal but they ultimately did not warrant full development and analysis. They were not fully analyzed primarily because it was readily apparent they did not respond well to the purpose and need for action. In some cases these alternative approaches also could involve excessive resource risk, result in implementation feasibility problems, or were likely to be unacceptable to the general public. Thinning prescriptions differing from the proposed actions were discussed; primarily thinning regimes that would be lighter (closer spacing) than what is proposed. These alternative prescriptions were ultimately not developed fully for three reasons; 1) light thinning would not achieve the purpose and need to increase structural and species diversity of the young stands very well; 2) slight variations in thinning spacings were unlikely to result in a materially different degree in effects for other issues, i.e. a reduced spacing and resultant reduction in volume harvested still entails the use and maintenance of the road system, and some amount of ground disturbance resulting from the thinning, the most likely activities that could impact water quality; and 3) lighter thinning regimes could result in a need to thin stands again in a relatively short time (within the next 15 to 20 years), resulting in an additional set of environmental effects. A heavier thinning (wider spacing between dominant trees) with more and larger created gaps than described for the Proposed Action was also considered. Such a thinning prescription could diversify understory vegetation even more and allow retained trees to have an even longer sustained period of diameter growth and crown expansion than the Proposed Action. Such a heavy thinning would drop the initial canopy coverage so low as to preclude these stands from providing northern spotted owl dispersal habitat for some time and dead wood recruitment would be reduced for a considerably longer time than would be the case for the Proposed Action. Such an alternative would also maximize volume production in this entry and maximize stumpage receipts, but it was ultimately decided not to fully develop such an alternative due to the perceived large environmental effects it would have. Alternatives that would implement various treatments in the 4700 acres of mature stands within the project area (primarily those resulting from natural wildfire events over the last 150 years) were also briefly considered. These larger, contiguous stands are concentrated in the Devil s Canyon Creek and Captain Creek drainages in the south-central portion of the planning area. These alternatives were not fully developed as preliminary analysis determined that these relatively even-aged natural stands are not particularly uniform and natural mortality events such as root rot centers, random individual tree mortality, and windthrow are performing their expected role in developing in-stand diversity. It was also noted that this planning area is deficient in mature and late-successional forest habitat and the remaining stands in those categories are generally quite fragmented (contain an excessive amount of young/old forest edge) by previous even-aged harvest. The mature stands addressed in this potential alternative are still relatively intact from a fragmentation perspective. Treatments such as gap creation (which would have to be larger than those proposed in the second-growth stands to provide much species diversity benefits given the greater height of these trees) would continue this fragmentation and these mature stands tend to be the least fragmented in the planning area. Therefore, no alternatives providing for such treatment were fully developed. The Proposed Action initially (at the beginning of the scoping process) included precommercial thinning of up to 400 acres of young stands. This activity was eventually deleted from this Willamette National Forest 47

Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project proposal because given the current low stumpage values for timber of the size and quality that would be harvested, it is unlikely there would be an adequate amount of stumpage receipts to fund such an activity without taking away from more important restoration efforts, and because there is a small but continuing regular program of precommercial thinning that can accomplish this type of work with allocated funding. D. Mitigation and Design Features Common to All Alternatives (unless noted otherwise) In response to analysis findings and public comments, specific alternative design features and/or mitigation measures were developed to reduce, avoid, or eliminate undesirable environmental impacts the action alternatives might cause. The following activities and actions are a part of those alternatives. Many of the measures or design criteria implement established Forest Plan standards and guidelines or Best Management Practices to comply with management direction and environmental laws. The list also briefly indicates what resources the mitigations protect. These criteria and features apply to both action alternatives unless noted otherwise. These measures and criteria can be all be considered standard ways to avoid or mitigate unacceptable environmental effects and they have been routinely used in similar projects to minimize environmental effects and assure their results of the project are as desired and projected; there is abundant local and regional evidence that such measures are effective in achieving those objectives. Many are measures to avoid effects, such as no treatment riparian buffers to avoid stream channel disturbance or helicopter yarding to avoid soil disturbance, are intuitively effective in that they avoid the potential for effects altogether. Specific details can be found in the Analysis File under individual resource prescriptions. 1. General Standards for All Activities Activities would comply with the standards and guidelines in the Willamette Forest Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Activities would comply with the executive orders specifying wetland and flood plain protection (see the relevant discussions in Chapter III). The General Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP's) of Pacific Northwest Region (USDA, 1988c) applicable to proposed actions such as timber harvesting will be practiced in each alternative (see the Soils and Geology, and Hydrology and Fisheries Reports in the Analysis File). 2. Specific Measures Helicopter yarding (as opposed to road construction and cable yarding) to protect cultural resources, prevent soil disturbance and water quality impacts, and avoid legacy tree damage; Riparian buffers a no treatment buffer averaging 60 feet either side of most permanently flowing stream channels would be protected. A buffer 100 feet either each side of the North Fork proper and along all perennial streams would be protected, as well as 1000 upstream of listed fish habitat (the North Fork river) within unit 1256. All areas within 50 feet of all intermittent streams 500 feet upstream of listed fish habitat where ground based or skyline yarding would be protected. A 30 foot buffer would be placed on all other intermittent streams. These buffers would reduce the probability that soil would enter the 48 Middle Fork Ranger District