Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project

Environmental Assessment

NEPA #DOI-BLM-OR-M070-2012-004-EA May2012

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Medford District Grants Pass Resource Area

Responsible Official: Allen Bollschweiler Grants Pass Field Manager 2164 NE Spalding Avenue Grants Pass, OR 97526

For further information: Martin Lew Grants Pass Interagency Office 2164 NE Spalding A venue Grants Pass, OR 97526

Abstract:

Indian Hill, LLC submitted a request to construct a road across Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to access their private property and amend O&C Logging Right-of-Way and Road Use Agreement Mll66. The constructed road would be 1,337 feet in length with a 45 foot clearing width. Pursuant to 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2812, the Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford District, BLM proposes to amend Right-of-Way and Road Use Agreement M-1166 to include certain roads for hauling of forest products, construct the proposed road, and add 0.75 miles of existing Road 38-7-32A to the M-1166 Agreement. The proposed location is within the Matrix land use allocation within the Deer Creek fifth­field (HUC 5) watershed The legal description is T 39 S, R 7W, Section 5.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. 0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Purpose of aud Need for Action .......••.............•..•.•..........•..•..........•..•..••................•.•..•..•........... 5

1.2 Project Location and Land Use Allocation ..•..........•.••.•..........•.••.................••.•.••..................••. 6

1.3 Conformance with Land Use Plans and Other Documents: .................................................. 6

1.4 Permits and Approvals Required ...••..•.•...........•..•.••.........••.•..............•..•.•••..................•.••........ 7

1.5 Decisions to be Made ................................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2. 0 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................. 8 2.1 Alternative 1: No Action ..•.............••..•..............•.•.............•.••..........•..•..•..••...............•..•..••.•...... 8

2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ••................••..•.........•..•..........•.••.••..•.................•..•.•................. 8

2.3 Project Design Featores ...........•..••.............•..••.••.........•..•..........•.••..•.................•.••..•...............••. 9

Chapter 3. 0 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 11 3.1 Soils and Hydrology...............•..••..•..........••.•...•............•..•.......•..•..•..•.................••.••...............•. 13

3.2 Fisheries ........•..•..•..•.................•..••.•..........••..••.••.........•..•..........•..•..•.................•..••.•...............•• 17

3.3 Wildlife...................................................................................................................................... 21

3.4 Botanical Species/Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................... 25

3.5 Cultural Resources..•..••..............•.••.•..•............•..•..........•.•..•..........••..•..•.................•.•..•..•......... 30

3.6 Fire and Fuels .••..•.................•..•.••.............••..••..........•.••.•........•....•...............•..•..•.••..................• 32

3.7 Vegetation ...•.•..•..•...............•.••.•..••..............•.••..........••.•...........•.•..•............•..•.••.•...................•.. 33

Chapter 4. 0 List ofPreparers............................................................................................................ 35 Chapter 5. 0 Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................................................................. 36

5.1 Public Involvement .•.................•..••.•...........•...•..........•..•..•..........•..••.•..............••.••....•.............. 36

5.2 Agencies Consulted ........•..•..•..•.............•..••...........•..•..........•..••................••..•.••.•..............•.•..•.• 36

5.3 Availability of Document and Comment Procedures ........................................................... 36

Appendix A. Map................•.......................................................................................................... 37 Appendix B. References Cited •••.••.•••••....•••••••••••••..•.•••••.•••.•..••.••.•••......••.••.•••••.••.••......•.••.••..••••••••• 38 Appendix C. Public Comment Summary and Response..............................................................41 Appendix D. Survey and Manage Species Tracking Forms ........................................................ 44

Indian Hill ROW ii

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Based upon review of the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project EA (Environmental Assessment# DOI-BLM-OR-M070-2012-004-EA) and supporting project record, I have determined that Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) is not a major federal action and would not have any significant effects beyond those described in the broader analyses conducted and disclosed in the environmental impact statements for the Medford District Resource Management Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan, or the effects have been determined to be insignificant. Environmental effects do not meet the definition of significance in context or intensity as defined in 40 CFR § 1508.27. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not necessary and will not be prepared.

In making this finding, I considered the following criteria, suggested by the Council on Environmental Quality, for evaluating the intensity or severity of the impacts ofthe activities proposed in the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project.

Context. The Proposed Action is a site-specific action directly involving approximately 1.4 acres ofBLM (Bureau of Land Management) administered land that by itself does not have international, national, region-wide, or state-wide importance. The Proposed Action is located within the matrix land use allocation, and within the 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 6) boundary of the McMullin 6th field subwatershed.

The discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to the intended action and is within the context oflocal importance. Chapter 3 of the EA details the effects of the Proposed Action. None ofthe effects identified, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects, are considered to be significant and do not exceed those effects described in the 2008 ROD/RMP and the 1995 ROD/RMP.

Intensity. The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significance Criteria described in 40 CFR 1508.27.

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. The predicted environmental effects of Alternative 2, most noteworthy, include:

a) The Proposed Action would add approximately 1.4 acres of road surface in the 6th field HUC. Given the small addition, roaded acres in the subwatershed would essentially remain at 3%, which is below the level that research has detected measurable changes to streamflow. Under the Proposed Action there would be disturbance caused by log hauling and road renovation. Since there are six small tributary stream haul road crossings, there would likely be a small amount of fine sediment that would reach McMullin Creek however it would not likely be transported any more than 100 feet downstream from where affected tributaries meet McMullin Creek. This amounts to a very small, short-term, addition to existing cumulative effects. Cumulative effects would remain at moderate levels with the addition of this ROW proposal to fine stream sediment (EA p.l7). Only short term effects to aquatic habitat were identified at the project level; no effects to fish would be expected to result from the proposed action in this alternative at the 6th or 5th field watershed scales (EA p.l8). In addition, the ROW proposal is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Indian Hill ROW I

(ACS) (EA p.21).

b) There are no effects from road construction to special status botanical species because none are present. Consistent with the RMP EIS (p. 4-42), there is a potential for weed spread due to vehicle access. However, PDFs will reduce the risk ofweed spread to an inconsequential level, which is indistinguishable from existing levels of spread such as wind, animals, vehicles and development not associated with this project (EA p.30).

c) See effects to ESA threatened and endangered species in criteria# 9 below.

The assessment has considered both beneficial and adverse impacts. None of the individual or cumulative effects have been identified as being significant or outside of the scope of the management plans to which the project EA is tiered.

2. The degree to which the selected alternative will affect public health or safety. Public health and safety would not be affected. The Proposed Action is comparable to other right-of-way (ROW) road construction projects which have occurred within the Grants Pass Resource Area with no unusual health or safety concerns.

The Grants Pass Resource Area introduced this project through the quarterly BLM Medford Messenger publication. A previous McMullin Road Construction and Right-of-Way Creek EA was made available for public comment in 2010. This EA supersedes that EA and fully analyzes Indian Hill LLC's request. The McMullin EA was available for public review from September 9 through October 9, 2010. It incorporated analysis of the proposed actions and addressed issues raised in scoping comments. Letters were sent to individuals, landowners, groups and agencies that requested that they be kept informed of the project or owned land adjacent to the project.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There are no park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, or ecologically critical areas in Alternative 2. There are no developed recreation sites that would be affected by the Alternative 2.

While there might be increased logging truck traffic during the operational months, this type of activity is typical for the area because ofharvesting on private and other government owned lands within the state of Oregon. Management direction includes protecting and managing the integrity of all historic I prehistoric sites identified in the cultural survey for this and other projects. No sites were located during the survey, and with the inclusion of Project Design Features (PDFs), there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to cultural resources.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects ofAlternative 2 on the quality of the human environment are adequately understood by the interdisciplinary team to provide analysis for the decision. There are no highly controversial effects from Alternative 2. A complete disclosure of the predicted effects is contained in Chapter 3 of the EA.

Indian Hill ROW 2

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks The Proposed Action is not unique or unusual. The BLM has experience authorizing similar actions in similar areas in accordance with 43 CFR 2812 and have found effects to be reasonably predictable. The environmental effects to the human environment are fully analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA. There are no predicted effects on the human environment which are considered to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Public scoping and comments received on the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project did not identify unique or unknown risks.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The Proposed Action does not set a precedent for future actions that might have significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about future consideration. Any future projects would be evaluated through the NEP A (National Environmental Policy Act) process and would stand on their own as to environmental effects.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The interdisciplinary team evaluated Alternative 2 in context ofpast, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Significant cumulative effects outside those already disclosed in the Medford District Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (199 5) are not predicted. A complete disclosure ofthe effects of the Proposed Action is contained in Chapter 3 of the EA.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or other objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. A cultural survey was completed for the project and no sites were found. Alternative 2 would not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or other objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor would Alternative 2 cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Coho salmon - Threatened There are no streams in the route of the proposed road construction. The haul route crosses six streams on BLM land, none of which contains fish. Selmac Lake blocks upstream passage of anadromous salmonid species and McMullin Creek does not contain designated critical habitat for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho.

Spotted owl -Threatened The road construction under Alternative 2 would remove approximately 1.4 acres of spotted owl dispersal-onlyhabitat. However, this impact would be negligible because of the small scope of the action. The proposed road would affect less than 0.01% of the spotted owl dispersal-only habitat provided in this section. The proposed action would not preclude owls from dispersing

Indian Hill ROW 3

within the watershed. Therefore, road construction is not expected to diminish survival or recovery of the spotted owl due to the small percentage ofhabitat affected.

Plants- Federally listed plant species, Bureau Special Status plant species, and Oregon State listed species were not found in the Planning Area; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to these species. Implementation of this project would not contribute to the listing of vascular plants, non-vascular plants.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Alternative 2 does not violate any known federal, state, or local law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. Furthermore, the Proposed Action is consistent with applicable land management plans, policies, and programs (EA, Chapter 1.3).

Indian Hill ROW 4

Chapter 1.0 Introduction

On July 21, 2009, Indian Hill LLC submitted a request to construct a road 1,337 feet in length and 45 feet in width across BLM land to access their tract ofland. In September 2010, the BLM completed the McMullin Road Construction Right-of-Way Environmental Assessment (EA # DOI-OR-M070-2010) in response to Indian Hill LLC's request. However, the BLM only analyzed for the construction of 1,200 feet of road 35 feet wide. This EA will fully analyze the impacts of Indian Hill's request and also the effects of an alternate route for access if the BLM denies the request. The EA will provide the decisionmaker, the Grants Pass Field Manager, with current information to aid in the decision making process. It will also determine if there are significant impacts not already analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Medford District's Resource Management Plan and whether a supplement to that Environmental Impact Statement is needed or if a Finding ofNo Additional Significant Impact is appropriate.

Chapter 1 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project provides a context for what will be analyzed in the EA, describes the kinds of action being considered, defines the Planning Area, describes what the Proposed Action needs to accomplish, and identifies the criteria that will be used for choosing the alternative that will best meet the purpose and need for this proposal.

1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of this environmental assessment is to analyze the environmental effects associated with Indian Hill LLC' s request to amend Reciprocal Right-of-Way M -1166 Agreement, pursuant to 43 CFR 2812, to authorize the construction of 1,337 feet of road across BLM land to access their property for the purpose of timber harvest.

The Medford District Resource Management Plan ROD (RMP ROD) identifies the following objectives for rights-of ways:

• Continue to make BLM-administered lands available for needed rights-of-way where consistent with local comprehensive plans, Oregon statewide planning goals and rules, and the exclusion and avoidance areas identified in this RMP (p.82).

• Consider new locations for rights-of-way projects on a case-by-case basis. Applications may be approved where the applicant can demonstrate that use of an existing route or corridor would not be technically or economically feasible; and the proposed project would otherwise be consistent with this resource management plan and would minimize damage tothe environment (RMP, p.83).

• Develop and maintain a transportation system that serves the needs ofusers in an environmentally sound manner (RMP, p.84).

Indian Hill ROW 5

1.2 Project Location and Land Use Allocation

The Indian Hill Planning Area (PA) is located twenty miles southwest of Grants Pass, Oregon (Appendix A, Map) on BLM lands. The PAis within the matrix land allocation. Indian Hill's 320 acre harvest tract they want to access is in T 39 S, R 7 W, Section 4. Road construction on BLM lands would occur in T 39 S, R 7W, Section 5.

1.3 Conformance with Land Use Plans and Other Documents:

The actions proposed and analyzed in this EA were developed to conform to the following documents:

• Final EISIROD for the Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP 1995) • Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record ofDecision for

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau ofLand Management Planning Documents Within the Range ofthe Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS 1994 and ROD 1994)

• Final SEIS for Amendment to the Survey & Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2000), and the ROD and Standards and Guidelines for Amendment to the Survey & Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001)

• Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Management ofPort-Orford­Cedar in Southwest Oregon (FSEIS 2004 and ROD 2004)

• Medford District Integrated Weed Management Plan Environmental Assessment (1998).

In addition to the documents cited above, project planning drew from information and recommendations from Deer Creek Watershed Analysis (1998)

Compliance with Court Rulings

Survey and Manage On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, eta/. v. Sherman, eta/., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), granting Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEP A violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or ModifY the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007). In response, parties entered into settlement negotiations in April201 0, and the Court filed approval ofthe resulting Settlement Agreement on July 6, 2011. Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

The Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project is consistent with the Medford District Resource Management Plan/Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the 2001 Record ofDecision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

Indian Hill ROW 6

The 2011 Settlement Agreement states:

"For projects with signed Records ofDecision, Decision Notices, or Decision Memoranda from December 17, 2009, through September 30, 2012, the Agencies will use either ofthe following Survey and Manage species lists: a. The list ofSurvey and Manage species in the 2001 ROD (Table 1-1, Standards and Guidelines, pages 41-51). b. The list ofSurvey and Manage species and associated species mitigation, Attachment I to the Settlement Agreement. "

Project Consistency: The Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project applies the Survey and Manage species list in the 2001 ROD (Table 1-1, Standards and Guidelines, pages 41-51) and thus meets the provisions of the 2001 Record ofDecision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement (Survey and Manage Species Tracking Forms, Appendix D)

1.4 Permits and Approvals Required

In advance of amending Reciprocal Right-of-Way M-1166 Agreement (Alternative 2) Indian Hill LLC would be required to pay the BLM the full stumpage value of the estimated volume of merchantable timber to be cut in the construction of the spur road (43 CFR 2812.5-1).

1.5 Decisions to be Made

The Grants Pass Field Manager is the official responsible for deciding whether a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared based on whether the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts to the human environment not already analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statements prepared for the Medford District Resource Management Plan and its amendments. If there are any such additional impacts that are significant, project proposals could be modified to mitigate the impacts so a SEIS would not be necessary. If it is determined that there is no need to prepare a SEIS, a Finding ofNo Significant Impact (FONSI) would be prepared.

The decision maker will also decide whether to approve or deny Indian Hill LLC's request to amend O&C Logging Right-of-Way and Road Use Agreement M-1116 as proposed, not at all, or to some other extent.

Indian Hill ROW 7

Chapter 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

This chapter compares the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) with the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as specified in 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)§ 1502.14. Descriptions summarize potential actions and outputs. Project Design Features were identified to ensure project compliance with laws, higher level NEP A documents, and BLM guidelines. Since there were no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources identified by the interdisciplinary team, there was no procedural requirement to develop additional action alternatives. As such, the alternatives that will be analyzed in detail in this EA include the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.

2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

The No Action Alternative is defined as not implementing the Proposed Action, thus denying Indian Hill LLC's request. Under this alternative, the federal management actions described under Alternative 2 would not take place at this time. Indian Hill LLC would pursue alternate access to their land to harvest their unit in T 39 S, R 7 W, Section 4. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline for evaluating the effects of the Proposed Action.

2.1.1 Alternative Access Consideration

Access through private lands is not within BLM's control. Also existing reciprocal right-of-way agreements Indian Hill LLC has through BLM lands to access their land is non-discretionary and not under BLM control. IfBLM denies Indian Hill LLC's request, it is feasible for Indian Hill LLC to reconstruct and use the existing 1,700 foot Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right­of-way M-1166, to access their land. The reconstruction and use of Road 39-7-5 is a non­discretionary action. Therefore, project design of the road would be speculative and effects will be discussed qualitatively in the EA.

Road 39-7-5 is located along a tributary of McMullin Creek. A cursory assessment by the project engineer determined that at least two culverts 36 inches in diameter would need to be installed. The road would need to be widened to accommodate logging traffic. Side slopes are steep from 60% to 85% and require full bench construction. Slides have occurred in one section and the old road is nonexistent having slid and washed out by the creek. New road construction is required in this section as the road no longer exists.

2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The BLM considered the potential effects of alternate access to Indian Hill LLC's tract and determined that the Proposed Action would have the least environmental impacts where the BLM has discretionary control. The Proposed Action is to amend Indian Hill's reciprocal ROW to: a) use certain BLM roads for hauling of forest products, b) construct 1,337.3 feet (0.25 miles) of road across BLM lands (Appendix A, Map) and c) add 0.75 miles of existing Road 38-7-32A to the M-1166 Agreement. Specifically, Indian Hill requested a ROW for road construction and

Indian Hill ROW 8

a permit to haul timber across existing roads shown in Table 1 below, and across the newly constructed road.

a) Right-of-way for hauling commercial forest products Indian Hill LLC requests use ofBLM road listed in Table 1 to haul forest products. Indian Hill LLC would renovate the existing road by surface blading, cleaning the ditches and culverts, and brushing roadsides as needed for safety and visibility. Road use would be restricted to dry periods except as noted below in section 2.3, Project Design Features. The roads would also be used for access to conduct fuel hazard reduction, brush field conversion and pre-commercial thinning, although a ROW is not required for these activities.

Table 1: BLM Haul Roads Road No.

Surface Type Length (miles)

38-7­32A

Natural 1.35

Natural: Ummproved surface

b) Road construction Indian Hill LLC has requested authorization to construct a road totaling 1,337.3 feet (0.25 miles) in length across BLM lands in the NE comer ofT39S, R7W, Section 5 (Appendix A, Map). The right-of-way would be 45 feet wide. Two culverts would be installed 1) an 18" CMP at intersection with Road 38-7-32A and 2) a 24 inch bottom lay culvert in a draw near the edge ofBLM lands in Section 5.

The road segment would be constructed at a maximum grade of 1 0%; would have a 17 foot wide sub grade width; a 14 foot running width; and a 2% outslope for drainage. Vegetation would be cleared the minimum amount necessary to provide visibility for safety. The road would be naturally surfaced.

2.2.1 Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail There are existing access roads to the Indian Hill LLC parcel from the east. Indian Hill LLC has improved the existing roads and they are using them to access other portions of their land. Due to the terrain, it is infeasible to access this parcel.

Helicopters could also be used for logging; however, while a viable option, this would not allow Indian Hill LLC access for fuel hazard reduction, brush field conversion and precommercial thinning. Therefore, this option was not analyzed further.

2.3 Project Design Features

Project Design Features (PDFs) are specific measures included in the site specific design of the Proposal to eliminate or minimize adverse impacts on the human environment. The following list also identifies specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the Federal Clean Water Act to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the maximum extent practicable. The BMPs are methods, measures, or practices selected from Appendix D of the 1995 ROD/ RMP to ensure that water quality will be maintained at its highest practicable level

Indian Hill ROW 9

• Road construction or use would not occur when roads are wet or during the wet season (May 10 - October 15) with the following exception:

Should Road 38-7-32A be needed for hauling during wet conditions, durable rock of sufficient depth would be present across the road surface to prevent road damage, offsite erosion, or stream sedimentation as determined by the Authorized Officer. Durable rock would be from a BLM approved source. Currently the road condition for these roads are adequately surfaced for dry season or extended season hauling only.

• Unmuffled blasting would not occur from March 1 to June 30 within one mile of known spotted owl sites. This seasonal restriction may be waived if non-nesting is determined through protocol surveys.

• Slash created during clearing activities would be placed in a windrow below the road and within the ROW to help capture road related sediment.

• Snags felled for safety reasons or that are within the proposed ROW would be left outside the ROW.

• Construction equipment would be confined to the 45' Right ofWay.

• Construction debris would be cleared from ditches and culverts prior to fall rains.

• Cultural surveys have revealed no sites. If cultural sites are found during project implementation, activities around the site would halt until a BLM cultural resource specialist reviewed the site and determined appropriate protection measures.

• Heavy equipment would be clean and free ofleaks before any use adjacent to or within stream channels. Spill containment materials would be kept on site at all times. Equipment refueling would not occur within 150 feet of streams.

• Sediment entering the stream would be minimized through the use of filter fabric. Filter cloth would be used in culvert replacement and placement of rip rap.

• All heavy equipment, including brushing machinery, would be pressure washed to remove all dirt and debris prior to entering BLM lands.

• Roadsides disturbed by project implementation (culvert and road shoulder work).would be re-vegetated after implementation.

• Seed and straw used for restoration, replanting ofbare soil, and post treatment throughout the Planning Area would be native species and weed free to prevent the further spread of noxious weeds. All seeding would be contingent on seed availability.

Indian Hill ROW 10

Chapter 3.0 Environmental Consequences

This section provides the basis for the comparisons of the alternatives and the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences to the human environment of the proposed action. These consequences can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. This analysis considers both the direct effects that are caused by the action and would occur at the same place and time, and the indirect effects that are caused by the action, but would occur later in time or offsite (40 CFR 1508.8).

Under 43 CFR § 46.115 it states that when considering cumulative effects analysis, it must analyze the effects in accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). As the CEQ, in guidance issued on June 24, 2005 points out, the "environmental analysis required under NEP A is forward-looking," and review ofpast actions is required only "to the extent that this review informs agency decision-making regarding the proposed action." Use of information on the effects on past action may be useful in two ways according to the CEQ guidance. One is for consideration of the proposed action's cumulative effects, and secondly as a basis for identifying the proposed action's direct and indirect effects.

The CEQ stated in this guidance that "[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects ofpast actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions." This is because a description of the current state of the environment inherently includes the effects ofpast actions. The CEQ guidance specifies that the "CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects ofpast actions." Following review of the guidance and examining the proposed project, the team found that an exhaustive listing of past projects and speculation on the effects of each would not provide needed data to make an informed decision.

Information on the current environmental condition is comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a baseline condition for a cumulative effects analysis than attempting to establish such a starting point by adding up the effects of individual past actions. This would provide a list of effects without addressing the changes or improvement in conditions since the action originally occurred; unlike current conditions, past actions and perceived effects can no longer be verified by direct examination.

Therefore, the affected environment and No Action effects section for each resource incorporates the current condition, and past present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Following the Code of Federal Regulations and CEQ guidance, the effects sections add the anticipated effects of this project to the current conditions, resulting in the cumulative effects analysis for the project.

When encountering a gap in information, there is an implicit question in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations on incomplete and unavailable information: is this information "essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives?" (40 CFR §1502.22[a]). While additional information would often add precision to estimates or better specify a relationship, the basic data and central relationships in the analysis in the EA are sufficiently well established that any new information would not likely reverse or nullify understood relationships. Although new information would be welcome, the team did not identify any

Indian Hill ROW 11

missing information as essential for the Decision Maker to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives.

The planning team weighed the scientific evidence offered through public comment, as well as that gathered by each resource specialist. Environmental consequences of each alternative were analyzed utilizing the best scientific data available, knowledge of on-the-ground conditions, and professional expertise of each member of the planning team.

Watershed Overview/History The following overview provides a context in which to analyze the effects of the Planning Area. Specifically this context integrates past action, current conditions, and future foreseeable activities. Not only does this information provide needed data and content for effects analysis but also provides information on the context and intensity of activities occurring across the landscape. Further, the information puts the project in perspective and aids in comparison of the action alternative with the No Action Alternative (existing conditions coupled with current and future foreseeable actions).

Fifth Field Watershed The project lies within the Deer Creek 5th field watershed (72,679 acres). BLM manages 29,924 acres ( 41%) within the Deer Creek Watershed. The remainder of the land base in the watershed is managed by the U.S. Forest Service, private, state, and the county. Within the Deer Creek 5th field is the McMullin 6th field subwatershed, which occupies 16,469 acres (BLM 1997). There are no Late-Successional Reserves or critical habitat units in the 6th field subwatershed. Deer Creek is not a key watershed.

Harvest on BLM lands began in the mid-1950s, peaked in the 1980s, and declined in the 1990s. Since 1950, the BLM has harvested a total of 17,257 acres, representing 24% of the watershed. The project lies within the area of the South Deer Landscape Management Project (EA #OR11 0­05-1 0). A decision was signed for this project in 2005. The decision authorized approximately 3 78 acres of timber harvest, 6,100 acres of fuel hazard reduction, 520 acres of thinning for forest health, 500 acres of actions under the Natural Selection Alternative, and a variety of young stand management treatments, recreation, road maintenance and other activities; however, no actions are being implemented under this project as the project decision is currently under administrative protest. A decision for the Deer North Timber Sale was signed in June 2011, and includes 98 acres of commercial thinning. It was analyzed under the Deer North Vegetation Management Project EA (EA #OR M070-2009-0010-EA) and is currently under administrative appeal. Other future foreseeable actions on BLM lands in the watershed include fuel hazard reduction and young stand management under other projects; and road maintenance.

Within this 5th field watershed, foreseeable actions include harvest on county, state, and private lands. It is assumed that nonfederallands would be extensively managed, with an average rotation of60 years. The analysis also assumes that county, state and private operations would comply with regulations of the Oregon Forest Practices Act, including standards and guidelines designed to minimize project effects. Project consistency with established state planning documents is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Indian Hill ROW 12

Equally important to past harvest history in understanding current conditions and trends in the watershed is the management regime shift resulting from the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). With the implementation of the Medford District RMP, which tiered to the NWFP, harvest was expected to decrease by 75%. Resource Plan evaluations found that harvest implementation occurred at 40-70% of the expected value in the NWFP. Further, the NWFP established 10 million acres ofreserves to develop late-successional and riparian habitat. Effectively, in the Medford District, the reserves reduced the percent of acres available for harvest from 70% to 29% (RMP EIS 4-96). The NWFP and RMP also instituted the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) establishing a network of key watersheds, riparian reserves and aquatic restoration practices. Road decommissioning and improvement were integral to the ACS. A drastic reduction in harvest; establishment of a network of late-successional and riparian reserves; and implementation of the ACS and habitat restoration, has led to reduced soil disturbance and sedimentation, improved water quality, and maturing of terrestrial habitat. Because of these factors, there has been an improving trend in environmental conditions on public land.

Only substantive site specific environmental changes caused by implementing the proposed action or alternatives are discussed in this chapter. If an ecological component is not discussed, it should be assumed that the resource specialists have considered effects to that component and found that the proposed action or alternatives would have minimal or no effects. In addition, unless addressed specifically, the following were found to be unaffected by the proposed action or alternatives: air quality, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs ), cultural and historical resources, Native American religious sites, recreation, prime or unique farmlands, floodplains, Wild and Scenic Rivers and wilderness areas. Port-Orford-cedar does not occur in the Planning Area.

As other access is possible for timber harvest and other activities in the Indian Hill tract in section 4, the proposed road construction is not a connected action to their proposals and thus requiring analysis of their project ( 40 CPR 1508.25). Therefore, this analysis will be restricted to the proposed road construction and grant of right-of-way over existing BLM roads.

3.1 Soils and Hydrology

3.1.1 Affected Environment Soils and Hydrology

Background Average annual precipitation in this watershed is approximately 70 inches and the dominant form of precipitation is rainfall. Topography in the Planning Area consists of steep (up to 50% slope at project site), dissected ridge slopes.

Soils in the proposed road construction area are 72F, Speaker-Josephine gravelly loam complex, 30 to 55% south slopes. These are well drained soils with depths of 20 to 40 inches (Speaker) and 40 to 60 inches (Josephine), to weathered metamorphic bedrock. Both soils have gravelly clay loam lower subsoil. Both soils have a high erosion hazard under bare soil conditions due to steep slopes. Generally these soils may be subject to slumping cutbanks, however cutbanks on the existing, nearby road (38-7-32) are stable.

Indian Hill ROW 13

Roads-Assumptions for Peak Flows and Sediment

Peak Flows The three primary effects of roads on hydrologic processes (peak flows) are: 1) they intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and cutbanks, and affect subsurface water moving down the hillslope; 2) they concentrate flow either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and 3) they divert or reroute water from paths it otherwise would take were the road not present (Gucinski eta!. 2001 ). Roads connected to stream channels through ditch lines effectively extend the stream channel network, changing runoff timing and ultimately increasing the magnitude of peak flows (Wemple et a!. 1996). The effect of roads on peak stream-flows depends strongly on the size of the watershed and the percentage of the watershed in roaded condition. For example, capture and rerouting of water can remove water from one small stream while causing major channel adjustments in another stream receiving the additional water (Gucinski eta!. 2001 ). Roads have relatively insignificant effects on peak flow in large watersheds where they constitute a small proportion of the land surface; they do not seem to change annual water yields, and no studies have evaluated their effect on low flows (Gucinski et a!. 2001).

Roads on steeply-sloped ground intercept surface and subsurface water, routing it to a draw or other natural drainage way within the stream system. This routing of water may cause drainage water to reach streams more quickly than the natural rate, increasing the magnitude of flows and altering the timing ofrunoff. Increasing road surface coverage in a watershed to a total of over 5% may cause measurable increases in peak stream flow over an unroaded condition. Jones (2000) found no statistically significant increases in peak flows attributed to roads when roads occupied 6% of the small watershed. Similarly, Wright (1990) and Ziemer (1981), found no changes to the hydro graph when roads occupied 5% of the acreage of the small watershed. Harr eta! (1976) found that peak flow increases were detectable when 12% of a small watershed was compacted by roads and skidroads.

In the Deer Creek watershed, roaded area is generally greatest on non-BLM land, greater than 3%, and less on BLM land, less than 2%. The proposed road is located in the McMullin 6'h Field subwatershed. Table 2 illustrates the area of roads in the 16,469 acres ofBLM managed lands within the McMullin subwatershed.

Sribwat~r~hed Roaded Percent in Subwatershed Acres Acres Roads

McMullin 16,469 506 3

Since the current level of roaded area is less than 5% of the subwatershed, there are no effects to peak flows from past actions.

Sediment

Indian Hill ROW 14

Some natural surface roads are typically sources of fine sediment to streams during runoff periods. This is typically due to routing water and delivering sediment to the stream network. Luce and Black ( 1999) found that a small portion ofroads generated the majority of sediment. BLM surveys conducted for the South Deer project indicated road-related sediment problems for McMullin Creek in section 31 but not for sections 5 or 29 (Mathews, M. 2004). Some of these problems were fixed through normal road maintenance; where still existing, problems will be fixed through road renovation provided by this project (Roper, J. 20 I 0).

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences Soils and Hydrology

Alternative 1: No Action Effects to Soils and Hydrology If Indian Hill's request is denied, some portions of the haul route could be used but the proposed road segment under Alternative 2 would not be constructed. However, Indian Hill LLC has indicated that it is feasible to reconstruct the existing Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-1166, to access their land. The reconstruction and use ofRoad 39-7-5 is a non­discretionary action and project design and effects are speculative. The road is located along a tributary of McMullin Creek. At least 2 culverts 36 inches in diameter would need to be installed. The road would need to be widened to accommodate logging traffic.

Road 39-7-5 follows very closely a main tributary ofupper McMullin Creek. Portions of the road prism are nonexistent as channel movement has undercut and eroded the original road grade. Slumps from the cut bank onto the road have side slopes up to 85% from the top to the stream channel. Reconstruction would keep the road adjacent to the stream. The reconstruction footprint would be approximately 1700' long by 45' wide (1.76 acres). The route begins at the junction with road 38-7-31 with a steep 15% grade for 100' with evidence of erosion. This transitions into a narrow, down to 8', road with a 6% grade but the hill slope increases to 50%. This would need to be widened and a minimum 36" culvert installed. Moving up the road the road grade stays below 10% but the hill slope is between 60-85%. Reconstruction would require full bench construction. Slides have occurred where the road enters Indian Hill LLC owned lands requiring new construction and the installation of a minimum 48" culvert.

The haul could still potentially deliver large amounts of sediment and runoff directly to the creek because of general wear to the road surface and the future risk of the channel recreating the undercut.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects to Soils and Hydrology

Alternative 2 proposes to add 0.25 miles of road on the BLM in the McMullin subwatershed. Hauling offorest products is also proposed. Indian Hill LLC would haul approximately 150 log truck loads on 2.16 miles of existing natural surfaced and rocked road, as well as renovate by; surface blading; cleaning the ditches and culverts; and brushing roadsides as needed for safety and visibility.

Peak Flows The proposed road would add to the current roaded area slightly. The proposed road would add 1.4 acres of road surface or 0.002% of the McMullin 6th field subwatershed. This addition is too small to have any effect on peak flows over the existing condition because it is far less than 5%

Indian Hill ROW 15

additional road surface needed to add to peak flows. The total road percentage would remain rounded to 3%.

Sediment If subsurface water were exposed at the surface and flowing over uncovered soil due to road construction, runoff may transport fine sediment off-site. However, this is highly unlikely because new road construction would occur on a convex slope on the upper half of the ridge where exposed subsurface water is not generally adequate to create free water surface flow across a road. In addition, PDFs minimizing wet season operations, seeding and straw mulching bare soil road slopes, and armoring of culvert outlets would greatly limit subsequent sediment transport. Further, the new road's drainage design, placement of rock, and windrowed slash below the road would limit road related overland water flow and capture any routed sediment. Due to these multiple design features, chances of sediment from road construction reaching the mainstem McMullin Creek, over a quarter mile downslope from the road, are very unlikely. Therefore, there would be no change to McMullin Creek's sediment regime that would be due to this new road construction.

The combination of road renovation and log hauling on 2.16 miles of natural surfaced and rocked roads has potential of creating fine sediment. The road renovation would likely occur on the first year. The hauling produces fines at the road surface through the grinding ofroad surface rock and pumping action. Grinding and pumping occur through dynamic pressure applied and released as haul trucks roll over the surface. Grinding produces fines from road rock surfaces sliding on one another under pressure. Pumping action occurs when the road is wet and water penetrates into the road bed. Pumping action creates suction in voids within the road bed. The suction pulls water and fine particles up through voids to the road surface. Renovation loosens the road surface and exposes water routing surfaces like ditch bottoms after ditch cleaning. Surface runoff water may take the mineral fines, in suspension, off the road. Most of the fines are generally caught or trapped before reaching streams. However, these particular roads cross six small tributary streams of McMullin Creek. This makes the possibility of fine sediment reaching McMullin Creek likely. This type of sedimentation is short term, lasting one to two years (Luce and Black.1999). The amount of sediment reaching McMullin Creek would be small. It would likely deposit no more than an estimated 100 feet downstream McMullin Creek from an affected tributary stream. The length of tributary from road crossings to McMullin Creek is 90 feet or more.

There is a potential for increased OHV use due to construction on new roads. The primary mechanisms ofnegative impacts to soils and hydrology from OHV use are improper trail construction and off-trail use. One of the most common and important effects of OHV activities is soil compaction (Liddle. 1997), which reduces water infiltration and increases rates of erosion from water and wind. As a result, soil moisture available for plant growth declines, precipitation runoff increases (Webb et al. 1978; Iverson et al. 1981; Webb. 1982; Hinckley et al.1983; Wilshire.1983b).

In addition, effects of OHV use on water quality include sedimentation (deposited solids) and turbidity (suspended solids). Sedimentation increases because compacted soils and reduced vegetation cover can lead to increased amounts and velocities of runoff; in turn, this accelerates the rates at which sediments and other debris are eroded and flushed to· streams. Altering soil

Indian Hill ROW 16

texture and reducing vegetation cover can increase the soil's susceptibility to erosion. Consequently, rates of sedimentation and turbidity levels can increase and alter the water quality of a watershed (Forman et a!, 2003).

It is highly unlikely that any substantial increase of OHV use will occur because of the new road segment. The proposed road location is in an area that receives minimal, if any, OHVuse. We anticipate that OHV use would continue to be minimal with the addition of the new road.

Summary and Conclusions for Soils and Hydrology The Proposed Action would add approximately 1.4 acres ofroad surface in the 6th field HUC. Given the small addition, roaded acres in the subwatershed would essentially remain at 3%, which is below the level that research has detected measurable changes to streamflow. Under the Proposed Action there would be disturbance caused by log hauling and road renovation. Since there are six small tributary stream haul road crossings, there would likely be a small amount of fine sediment that would reach McMullin Creek however it would not likely be transported any more than 100 feet downstream from where affected tributaries meet McMullin Creek. This amounts to a very small, short-term, addition to existing cumulative effects. Cumulative effects would remain at moderate levels with the addition of this ROW proposal to fine stream sediment.

3.2 Fisheries

3.2.1 Affected Environment to Fisheries There are no streams in the route of the proposed road construction. Cutthroat trout habitat is present and is connected to a tributary of McMullin Creek. This tributary also contains residential non-salmonid fish species. The haul route crosses six streams on BLM land, none of which contains fish. Selmac Lake blocks upstream passage of anadromous salmonid species and McMullin Creek does not contain designated critical habitat for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences to Fisheries The following analysis considers the likelihood that the proposed actions of the project would affect fisheries and aquatic resources, and then assesses the potential magnitude, duration, and nature of effects. The proposed actions are evaluated on how they would change fish habitat, and for this reason, the fisheries analysis is linked closely to the soil and water effects analysis (Soils and Hydrology section 3.1). The effects on habitat are in tum used to evaluate the potential of the proposed actions to affect fish populations through production and survival.

Alternative 1: No Action Effects to Fisheries Iflndian Hill's request is denied some portions of the haul route could be used but the proposed road segment under Alternative 2 would not be constructed. However, Indian Hill LLC has indicated that it is feasible to reconstruct the existing I,700 foot Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-1166, to access their land. The reconstruction and use of Road 39-7-5 is a non-discretionary action and project design and effects are speculative. The road is located along a tributary of McMullin Creek. It is speculated that at least two culverts 36 inches in diameter would need to be installed. The road would need to be widened to accommodate logging traffic. Side slopes are steep from 60% to 85% and require full bench construction.

Indian Hill ROW 17

Slides have occurred in one section and the old road is nonexistent having slid and washed out by the creek. New road construction is required in this section as the road no longer exists. Anticipated effects would be short term sediment increases from installation of the culverts. Road construction and maintenance would have associated effects on runoff into the McMullin Creek tributary that contains cutthroat trout.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects to Fisheries Road construction has the potential to generate fine sediment which, under certain conditions, can be transported off-site. However, in this proposal, due to the implementation ofPDFs directing the design, construction, and use of the roads, only an inconsequential amount of sediment is likely to reach fish habitat in McMullin Creek (EA, p. 16). There would be no measurable increases in stream substrate embeddedness or in the amount of fine sediments in the gravel, and any turbidity in fish habitat would be expected to be short term and indistinguishable from background levels. Therefore, there would be no measurable change to McMullin Creek's water quality or sediment regime. There would be no effect on salmonid migration, spawning, egg incubation, rearing, and feeding. Downstream salmonid production and survival would be unaffected.

Summary and Conclusions for Fisheries The potential effects described above are negligible in Alternative 2 because of the efforts to eliminate sediment delivery mechanisms and disturbance through PDFs. Short term effects from small amounts of sediment transport were identified in the cumulative analysis of impacts to soil and water (EA, p.17). Only short term effects to aquatic habitat were identified at theJ'roject level; no effects to fish would be expected to result from the Proposed Action at the 6 or 5th field watershed scales. If Indian Hill reconstructs Road 39-7-5 under the No Action Alternative, the anticipated effects from sediment runoff associated with road construction and maintenance would be expected to be measurable at the local scale on the fish bearing tributary and poses a potential chronic source of sediment input.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) The Aquatic Conservation Strategy developed and identified nine objectives to maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. The strategy is designed to protect salmon and steelhead habitat on federal lands managed by the BLM within the range of the Pacific Ocean anadromy. The components of the ACS are riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration (RMP p. 22).

Riparian Reserves Riparian reserve widths conform to the interim widths prescribed in the Northwest Forest Plan (p. C-20). Fish bearing streams would have a riparian reserve width of380 feet (2 site potential tree heights), and perennial and intermittent streams and springs would have riparian reserve widths of 190 feet (I site potential tree height).

Key Watersheds The project is not within a key watershed (RMP p. 23).

Indian Hill ROW 18

Watershed Analysis The actions proposed in the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project EA occur entirely within the Deer Creek s'h field watershed, analyzed in the Deer Creek Watershed Analysis (USDI 1997). The actions proposed are consistent with the recommendations of the Watershed Analysis, such as maintaining water quality in McMullin Creek through correct road maintenance and design (WA, p. 1 02). The Watershed Analysis recommends that roads built across streams be constructed in a manner to minimize sediment production and maintain riparian habitat (W A, p. 1 00).

Watershed Restoration The actions proposed are consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives because the most important components of a watershed restoration program include control and prevention ofroad-related runoff and sediment production (RMP p.23). Road maintenance and renovation would result in minimal, short term transport of fine sediments but would not increase cumulative effects due to sediment production (EA, p. 17).

The ACS was used as a guide to develop and refine the actions proposed in the riparian reserves. The ability to meet and promote the ACS objectives below is used to evaluate the project actions.

1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

The project would maintain and restore components of the watershed; there would be no increases in peak flows (EA p. 15). Road maintenance and drainage improvements, causing small amounts of fine sediment transport, would be short term (EA p. 17). Due to its small scale the project would not affect watershed or landscape-scale features (EA p. 13).

2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

The project would not affect the watershed connections. The proposed road improvements would not be likely to degrade habitat or to negatively affect salmonids' life history requirements such as migration, spawning, egg incubation, rearing and feeding (EA pp.17 -18).

3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

It is anticipated that the beneficial effects from road maintenance and renovation will maintain downstream salmon survival and production. There would be no measurable increases in stream substrate embeddedness or in the amount of fine sediments in the gravel, and any turbidity in fish habitat would be expected to be short term and indistinguishable from background levels. Therefore, there would be no measurable change to McMullin Creek's water quality or sediment regime (EA, p. 18).

Indian Hill ROW 19

4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Proposed actions, which include project design features, maintain the current channel and water quality conditions. There would be no adverse effects to channel or water quality conditions from road construction (EA, p.17).

5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

Due to design features, chances of sediment from road construction reaching the mainstem McMullin Creek, over a quarter mile downslope from the road, are very unlikely. Therefore, there would be no change to McMullin Creek's sediment regime that would be due to this new road construction (EA p.16).

6. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

The project would have no effect on instream flows or the timing, magnitude, duration, or spatial distribution ofpeak, high, and low flows at both the project and watershed scale (EA p.l7).

7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

As there are no anticipated changes to water flow, channel structure or conditions, and reduction of sedimentation, the project would have no effect on timing, variability or duration of floodplain inundation or water table levels at both the project and watershed scale (EA p. 17).

8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient mtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Neither the road construction and renovation, nor the hauling would have an effect on the species composition and structural diversity ofplant communities in riparian areas (EA p. 30).

9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Habitat supporting riparian-dependent species would be maintained in the Deer Creek watershed and well-distributed populations would still be supported due to the extremely small scale of the project (EA p. 17).

Indian Hill ROW 20

Based on the review ofproject effects at both the site and watershed scales and the nine ACS objectives, the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (RMP EIS p. 2-5).

3.3 Wildlife

Special Status Species (Federally Listed, Federal Candidate, and Bureau Sensitive wildlife species) known or suspected to be present within the project area or adjacent BLM lands and potentially impacted by the proposed actions are addressed in this EA.

3.3.1 Affected Environment Wildlife

Northern Spotted Owl (Federally Threatened} Spotted owls are closely associated with older forests for nesting, foraging, and roosting throughout most of their range (Forsman et al. 1984; Carey et al. 1990; and Solis and Gutierrez 1990). Suitable spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF) is characterized by forested stands with older forest structure, multiple canopy layers, and a canopy closure of 60% or greater. The best quality NRF habitat has large old trees with cavities, broken tops or mistletoe platforms, large branches, dead standing and fallen decayed trees, and multiple canopies of shade tolerant hardwoods and conifers that support prey base. NRF habitat can also function as dispersal habitat. Dispersal-only habitat for spotted owls is defined as stands that have a canopy closure of 40% or greater and provides cover, food, and protection on a temporary basis to non-nesting owls moving between patches ofNRF habitat (USDI, 2006).

The proposed road construction on BLM is in spotted owl dispersal-only habitat. There are approximately 33 acres of suitable spotted owl NRF and 178 acres of dispersal-only habitat located on BLM land in section 5, where the project is located. The nearest historic spotted owl site is approximately 1 mile east of the Planning Area, also within section 5.

Fisher (Federal Candidate)

Fishers are associated with low to mid-elevation forests with a coniferous component, large snags or decadent live trees, large fallen trees for denning and resting, and complex physical structure near the forest floor, which provide habitat for fisher prey (Aubry and Lewis 2003). Suitable spotted owl NRF habitat also adequately describes suitable fisher denning and resting habitat because there is a direct correlation ofkey habitat features captured in the rating system and fisher habitat (high canopy cover, multi-storied stands, large snags, and large down trees on the forest floor). The proposed road construction on BLM is not within or adjacent to suitable denning and resting fisher habitat.

Forest carnivore surveys conducted throughout the Grants Pass Resource Area have detected fishers near Galice, the vicinity ofWilliams, and within the Deer Creek drainage The nearest fisher camera detection on BLM is approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the proposed action. Two other camera detections are within 3 miles of the proposed action. Additionally, a visual observation of a fisher occurred approximately 1 mile southeast of the Planning Area.

Survey and Manage Species

Indian Hill ROW 21

RTV April2002, red tree vole (RTV} surveys were completed for the South Deer Landscape project, which included the stand where the proposed road construction is located. One active RTV nest was located near the proposed road location. Twelve additional RTV nests were located in this stand (7 Inactive and 5 Active). In May, 2010, the proposed road location was walked and surveyed for new nests. No additional nests were located along the proposed road location. One historic nest, located during the 2002 surveys was checked and the nest has since blown out of the tree.

Mollusks Potential habitat exists for the Survey and Manage mollusk, Monadenia chaceana. However, the pre-disturbance survey requirement for the Grants Pass Resource Area was removed in The Survey Protocol for the Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 3.0 due the Monadenia chaceana range change (USDA and USDI 2003). Additionally, since the late 1990s, more than 17 landscape management planning areas throughout the Grants Pass Resource Area have been surveyed for mollusks using the terrestrial mollusk survey protocol (USDA and USDI 1997 and USDA and USDI 2003). Surveys have revealed no detections ofMonadenia chaceana. Surveys have also been completed for Helminthoglypta hertleini across the resource area; however, all detections were found in rocky areas associated with damp grassy areas, oak woodlands, and shrub lands, or in conifer forests closely associated with these habitat types. This habitat type does not occur in the Planning Area.

Great Gray Owls The project does not occur in suitable great gray owl nesting habitat and the nearest known site on BLM is approximately 15 miles from the proposed road location.

Additional Wildlife Down logs and snags are present within the proposed road route that may provide habitat for some special status species and land birds (neotropical birds and year round residents). These habitat characteristics also exist in the adjacent landscape. Land birds use a wide variety of habitats, including late-successional forests, riparian areas, brush in recovering clear-cuts, and small trees in developing stands.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences Wildlife

Alternative 1: No Action Effects to Wildlife Iflndian Hill's request is denied some portions of the haul route could be used but the proposed road segment under Alternative 2 would not be constructed. However, Indian Hill LLC has indicated that it is feasible to reconstruct the existing 1,700 foot Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-1166, to access their land. The reconstruction and use of Road 39-7-5 is a non-discretionary action and project design and effects are speculative. The road is located along a tributary of McMullin Creek.

The BLM is proposing to implement the South Deer Landscape Management plan and Deer North Project (See Chapter3 Introduction) within the Deer Creek 5th field watershed. No South

Indian Hill ROW 22

Deer or Deer North timber harvest units are located in Section 5, where the proposed private­land access road is located. It is assumed that private land would be harvested on a 60-year rotation (RMP EIS p. 4-5) and would be maintained in early to mid-sera! habitat.

Northern Spotted Owl (Federally Threatened) Under the No Action Alternative, spotted owl dispersal habitat would not be removed as a result of the proposed new road construction on BLM land. Indian Hill LLC could improve Road 39­7-5 to access their land that would treat, but maintain dispersal habitat. The proposed road improvements, including road widening, would occur on the edge of the dispersal stand and adjacent to a young stand that currently doesn't function as spotted owl habitat. Since the action would occur at the edge of a 91 acre dispersal stand, there would be negligible effects to the dispersal habitat. This would not preclude owls from dispersing within the treatment area or watershed.

Fisher (Federal Candidate) Under the No Action Alternative, no fisher denning and resting habitat would be removed as a result of the proposed new road construction on BLM land. The road improvement that could occur on Road 39-7-5 to access Indian Hill LLC land would not remove fisher denning and resting habitat since it is not present at the site. The potential road improvements, including road widening, would not contribute to the need to federally list the fisher as threatened or endangered because of the small size and scale of the project and denning and resting habitat would not be removed. Additionally, the large acreage of adjacent suitable habitat that would not be treated which would continue to provide habitat for fisher in the area.

Survey and Manage Species- RTV Under the No Action Alternative, RTV habitat would not be removed as a result of the proposed new road construction on BLM land.

The road improvement that could occur for Road 39-7-5 to access Indian Hill LLC land is proposed within a RTV habitat area where one active and three inactive RTV nests were located during 2002 RTV surveys. The potential road improvements, including road widening, would remove RTV habitat and alter the canopy cover within the buffered area Since there are known nests along this old road and within the RTV habitat area, it is likely that the road improvements for road 39-7-5 could remove new, undiscovered RTV nests. There are approximately 91 acres of occupied RTV habitat adjacent to the proposed road improvement that would not be affected. Additionally, RTVs are abundant within the watershed. BLM surveys have located 235 RTV nests within the Deer Creek 5th field watershed. This number is likely even higher, but only proposed treatment units have been surveyed in the past 15 years. RTVs are also abundant in the portion of the Lower Applegate 5th field watershed north of the Deer North Planning Area. Therefore, even ifRTV nests are removed as a result of road improvements to Road 39-7-5, the action would not affect the persistence of the species and their habitat at the site or at the watershed scale.

Additional Wildlife Under the No Action Alternative, potential habitat for neotropical birds, amphibians, and other wildlife species would not be removed as a result of the proposed new road construction on BLM land. The road improvement that could occur on Road 39-7-5 to access Indian Hill LLC land

Indian Hill ROW 23

would modify some habitat along this route. The proposed road improvements, including road widening, would be minimal and the effects would be negligible or undetectable to neotropical birds, amphibians, and other wildlife species.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects to Wildlife

Northern Spotted Owl (Federally Threatened) The road construction under Alternative 2 would remove approximately 1.4 acres of spotted owl dispersal-only habitat. However, this impact would be negligible because of the small scope of the action. The proposed road would affect less than 0.01% of the spotted owl dispersal-only habitat provided in this section. The proposed action would not preclude owls from dispersing within the watershed. Therefore, road construction is not expected to diminish survival or recovery of the spotted owl due to the small percentage ofhabitat affected.

Fisher (Federal Candidate) Even though the project would remove approximately 1.4 acres of mixed conifer forest, the effects to fishers from the proposed action would be negligible because the project would not remove suitable fisher denning or resting habitat. Additionally, due to the small scope of the project, the proposed road construction would not preclude fishers from using the BLM lands within the watershed. Project activity disturbance effects to fishers are not well known. Fishers may avoid roaded areas (Harris and Ogan 1997) and humans (Douglas and Strickland 1987; Powelll993). Disturbance from the proposed action would be temporally and geographically limited. Fishers have large home ranges and would be able to move away from the action area while the disturbance is occurring, without impacting their ability to forage and disperse within their home range. Habitat features, such as large snags and coarse wood, as well as untreated late-successional forest habitat, would be retained in the adjacent BLM stands and would continue to provide denning and resting habitat within the Deer Creek 5th field watershed. The proposed action would not contribute to the need to federally list the fisher as threatened or endangered because of the small size and scale of the project, and large acreage of adjacent suitable habitat that would not be treated.

Survey and Manage Species No effects to Survey and Manage species are anticipated as a result of this project. No active RTVs were located during protocol surveys and the project doesn't include habitat for S&M mollusks or great gray owls.

Additional Wildlife The Proposed Action would remove approximately 1.4 acres ofpotential habitat (conifers, hardwoods, brush, snags, and coarse woody material) for neotropical birds. However, this loss would be negligible due to the large amount of suitable habitat retained on adjacent BLM and private land. Some individuals may be displaced during project activities. However, untreated adjacent lands would provide refuge and nesting habitat, which would help minimize short term loss ofhabitat and temporary displacement during project activities. Additionally, the failure or loss of a nest during one nesting season would not be expected to reduce the persistence of any bird species in the watershed due to the small scope of the project.

Indian Hill ROW 24

Road construction could cause warmer, drier conditions in adjacent interior forest habitats because ofreduction of the canopy closure and increased solar and wind exposure (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). This could result in reduced reproduction and survival of species with low dispersal capabilities, such as mollusks and possibly amphibians (Marsh and Beckman 2004). Species with greater dispersal capabilities could likely move to areas with more favorable microclimate conditions if suitable habitat were nearby. However, due to the small scope of this project, effects would be negligible or undetectable.

Summary and Conclusions for Wildlife Even though the proposed actions may potentially adversely disrupt local individuals of sensitive wildlife species and may cause the loss ofhabitat in some cases, this project is not expected to affect long-term population viability of any Bureau Sensitive wildlife species known to be in the area because of the small scope of the proposed action compared to the untreated lands in the Deer Creek 5th field Watershed. This project would not remove spotted owl NRF or fisher denning and resting habitat. Even when combined with other foreseeable actions in the watershed, this project would not contribute to the need to federally list any Bureau Sensitive wildlife species.

3.4 Botanical Species/Noxious Weeds

3.4.1 Affected Environment Botanical Species/Noxious Weeds The Planning Area was surveyed for federally listed (T &E) plant species, Bureau Special Status (BSS) plant species, Survey and Manage (S&M) species, and Oregon State listed (STO) species during the 2010. field season. The Planning Area is in the range of the federally listed species Lomatium cookii however, L. cookii and its associated habitat were not found in the Planning Area. There is no proposed critical habitat for L. cookii in the Planning Area. Surveys did not document any occurrences ofT&E, BSS, S&M, and STO species in the Planning Area and there are no previously known sites of those species in the Planning Area.

Special Status Fungi Surveys have not been conducted for Bureau Sensitive fungi, which is consistent with the BLM Oregon State Office Information Bulletin# OR-2004-145. Above-ground fruiting structures (sporocarps) are short-lived, seasonal, and annually variable making surveys difficult (USDA, USDI 2000). It is expected that field units will not conduct field surveys for these species due to survey impracticality. Protection ofknown sites along with on-going large scale inventory work would provide the measures and means to meet agency policy.

There are 20 Sensitive fungi species that are suspected or documented on lands administered by Medford District BLM. For these 20 fungi species, specific information regarding connectivity, range, habitat requirements, and response to disturbance are lacking. The NWFP, RMP, and technical information contained in the 2004 S&M FSEIS acknowledge incomplete or unavailable information regarding these species. Given the broad habitat and the lack of surveys completed for these species, it is assumed that more sites exist in the area of the NWFP. It is unknown how rare these species really are, but it is known they are associated with common tree species (Table 3). Given the acknowledged uncertainty, the association between these species and late-

Indian Hill ROW 25

successional conditions, as well as unknown information regarding connectivity, habitat needs and range is not well understood.

Table 3 sunnnarizes the known information regarding the 20 fungi. The table shows how many known sites for each species are located in the range of the NWFP, how many of the sites are in reserves, and the forest communities where these species may be found. The fifth column sunnnarizes the likelihood of occurrence in the Medford District, which can assist in conservation planning (USDA!USDI Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species program website).

Table 3: Sensitive Funlti Location, and Forest Community Components in the Medford District

Scientific Name

Sites in NWFP1

Sites in Reserves2

(%)

Forest Community Component

Likelihood of Occurrence and Risk to

I Species

Known Sites in the Deer Creek

s•• Field Watersheds

Boletus pulcherrimus

36 5 (14%) PSME, PIPO, ABCO

Low likelihood of occurrence; low risk to

species viability

None

Dermocybe humboldtensis

4 1 (25%) PSME, PIPO

Low likelihood of occurrence; low risk to species

viability

None

Gastroboletus vividus

4 2 (SO%) ABCO,Pine

Low likelihood of occurrence; low risk to

species viability

None

Gomphus kau[{manii

75 Unknown Unknown Unknown None

Gymnomyces fragrans

2 Unknown Unknown Unknown None

He/vella crassitunicata

27 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1

Leucogaster citrinus

52 Unknown Unknown Unknown None

Otidia smithii 10 Unknown Unknown Unknown None

Phaeocollybia californica

30 5 (17%) PSME

Reasonable likelihood of

occurrence; low risk to species

viability

None

Phaeocollybia olivacea

93 19 (20%) PSME, ABCO,

QUKE,Pine

Reasonable likelihood of

occurrence; low risk to species

viability

I

Phaeocollybia oregonensis

11 5 (46%) ABCO Low likelihood of

occurrence; None

Indian Hill ROW 26

low risk to species viability

Phaeocollybia pseudofestivia

49 Unknown Unknown Unknown I

Ram aria largentii

20 Unknown Unknown Unknown None

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva

I 0 PSME,Pine

Low likelihood of occWTence; low risk to

species viability

None

Reasonable None

Rhizopogon chamaleontinus

I 0 PSME likelihood of

occurrence; low risk to species

viability Rhizopogon c/avitiSp<JYUS

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown None

Reasonable None

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus

3 0 PSME likelihood of

occurrence; low risk to species

viability Reasonable None

Rhizopogon exiguus

5 3 (60%) PSME likelihood of

occurrence; low risk to species

viability

Sowerbyella rhenana

57 Unknown Unknown Unknown None

..Source. ISMS database II-20-04, Handbook to Strategy I Fungal Spectes m the NWFP, Handbook to Addtttonal

Fungal Species of Special Concern in the NWFP, Medford District data. 2 Reserves~ Land Use Allocations, such as Late Successional Reserve and Congressionally Reserved areas. Bold species ~ occurs on or within Medford District. Acronyms: PSME ~Douglas-fir, forest conununity component; PIPO ~Ponderosa pine, forest conununity component, ABCO ~White ftr, forest conununity component; QUKE ~ California black oak, forest conununity component; Pine~ Pinaceae family (includes pine, ftr, Douglas-frr, spruce, hemlock), forest conununity component.

There are no previously known sites of sensitive fungi located in the Planning Area. Even though sensitive fungi surveys are not required there are records in the Bureau Special Status Species database of sensitive fungi that were found incidentally during vascular or nonvascular plant surveys. A search of the database shows three BSS fungi species located within the Deer Creek 5th field watershed. Phaeocollybia pseudofestivia is located 3.5 miles north of the Planning Area, He/vella crassitumicata is located 6.5 miles north of the Planning Area, and Phaeocollybia olviacea is located 6.7 miles north of the Planning Area.

The Planning Area was surveyed for noxious weeds during the 2010 field season. There is one noxious weed species, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) located in the Planning Area. Additionally there are two noxious weed species located along the road leading to the Planning Area. Those species are Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and meadow knapweed (Centaurea pratensis).

Indian Hill ROW 27

The following is a description of the noxious weed species located in or near the Planning Area.

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) is a perennial bramble introduced from Western Europe that forms large impenetrable thickets of prickly canes. It colonizes disturbed sites including waste areas, pastures, forest plantations, roadsides, and waterways. Detrimental effects include displacement of native species, decrease of plant diversity, reduced forage, inaccessibility by humans and animals. Successful control methods include mechanical, prescribed burning, and chemical.

Scotch broom ( Cytisus scoparius) is a perennial shrub native to Europe and Africa. It was introduced into the United States as an ornamental, and later used to stabilize roadcuts. Scotch broom invades roadsides, pastures, and other disturbed places. It produces a large amount of long-lasting seed (up to 80 years). It can form dense fields that displace native plants and degrade habitat for wildlife. Successful control methods include manually pulling the entire plant, herbicide application, controlled burning, and a combination of cutting and herbicide treatment.

Meadow knapweed ( Centaurea pratensis) is a perennial forb that is a fertile hybrid between black knapweed (C. nigra) and brown knapweed (C.jacea), which are both native to Europe. Meadow knapweed was originally introduced as a potential forage species. This species invades moist sites, including irrigated pastures and moist meadows, river banks, streams, irrigation ditches, and opening in forested areas. It primarily reproduces by seed, but root crown fragments will resprout when disturbed by heavy equipment or cultivation. Meadow knapweed seed are carried in rivers, streams, or irrigations water, in hay or by vehicles along roadsides. Successful control methods include grazing, herbicide application, mowing, manual digging if only a few plants are present, competitive planting, and biological controls.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences Botanical Species/Noxious Weeds

Alternative 1: No Action Effects to Botanical Species/Noxious Weeds If Indian Hill's request is denied some portions of the haul route could be used but the proposed road segment under Alternative 2 would not be constructed. However, Indian Hill LLC has indicated that it is feasible to reconstruct the existing 1,700 foot Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-1166, to access their land. The reconstruction and use of Road 39-7-5 is a non-discretionary action and project design and effects are speculative. There would be no direct or indirect effects to the botanical/noxious weeds resources as a result ofBLM's denial of Indian Hill request. Management and treatment activities would continue to occur on private lands where there are no laws or regulations to govern management of listed species. Plant species on federal lands would continue to be protected and conserved following policy and management guidelines. Populations on non-federal lands would most likely remain undetected and unprotected because there are no laws governing rare plants on non-federal lands. Because habitat and populations for botanical species are found throughout the resource area, district, and in southern Oregon on federal land, impacts associated with the project would not lead to the listing of any plant species. Conditions Road 39-7-5 would remain the same and no habitat modifications would occur. There would be no effects to T &E plant species, BSS plant species, STO species, or S&M species or their habitats.

Indian Hill ROW 28

Noxious weeds can out-compete native plants, reduce habitat for native insects and animals, and threaten biological diversity. They can alter soil fertility, dry up water supplies, poison animals, decrease agriculture production, increase fire danger, infest rivers, and reduce recreational value. Noxious weeds find disturbed sites favorable for habitat. Vehicles are a primary method for transporting noxious weeds and creating new populations of noxious weeds. Road maintenance, new and temporary road construction, tractor harvest, trails and landing construction present a potential risk for seed dispersal ofnoxious weeds from outside the Planning Area as well as the spread of existing seed within the Planning Area.

Current data for BLM lands along with verbal communication from other agencies, organizations, and communities in Josephine County has shown that noxious weeds have been found to occur throughout the county. The numbers of species and known specific locations have not been recorded for Josephine County and the Grants Pass Resource Area. Therefore BLM can only act on the assumption that I) there is a source ofnoxious weeds on adjacent non­federallands that can spread to federal lands, especially when the land ownership is checkerboard, as within the watershed; or 2) conversely, in considering effects ofBLM action on adjacent non-federal lands that noxious weeds are not already established in these lands. Under either assumption, there is an equal need to reduce the risk of spread ofnoxious weeds from federal lands to the adjoining non-federal lands and vice versa. Seeds are spread by the wind, animal I avian vectors, natural events, and human activities. Additional human disturbance and traffic would increase the potential for spreading noxious weeds, but regardless ofhuman activity, spread ofthese weeds would continue through natural forces. Thus, the BLM cannot stop the spread of noxious weeds to and from non-federal lands; it could only reduce the risk or rate of spread and control ofknown populations.

The No Action alternative would not create additional disturbance or access that may result in new weed populations. Existing populations would continue to increase in size and possibly spread to uninfected areas through vectors such as, wind, wildlife, water and unauthorized trail building and OHV use.

Indian Hill LLC's potential reconstruction of the existing I ,700 foot road 39-7-5 is located along a tributary of McMullin Creek. Federally listed plant species, Bureau Special Status plant species, and Oregon State listed species were not found in the Planning Area. Additional human disturbance and traffic would increase the potential for spreading noxious weeds, but regardless ofhuman activity, spread of these weeds would continue through natural forces. Thus, the BLM cannot stop the spread of noxious weeds to and from non-federallands; it could only reduce the risk or rate of spread and control of known populations.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects to Botanical Species/Noxious Weeds Federally listed plant species, Bureau Special Status plant species, and Oregon State listed species were not found in the Planning Area; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to these species. Implementation of this project would not contribute to the listing of vascular plants, non-vascular plants.

Special Status Fungi

Indian Hill ROW 29

This alternative proposes to build approximately 0.25 miles of road with a 45 foot clearing width. This is approximately 1 acre ofnew disturbance.

Dahlberg and Stenlid (1995) found that ectomycchorizal mycelia networks may range in size from 1.5 to 27 meters (5 to 89 feet). Given the potentially small range of mycelia networks, the ground-disturbing road building may fragment the mycelia network, reducing or eliminating local populations if Sensitive Fungi are present in the disturbed area. However, given the small amount of ground disturbance (1 acre), loss oflocal populations is not likely and the probability of adverse effects is low given the scale.

Project design features would be implemented to prevent the spread ofnoxious weeds and to prevent new populations from becoming established (Chapter 2). The existing population of Himalayan blackberry would be eradicated before road construction occurs. Monitoring and treatment would be put in place if any noxious weeds are found in the Planning Area.

Summary and Conclusion for Botanical Species/Noxious Weeds There are no T &E, BSS, S&M, or STO botanical species located in the Planning Area. As there will be no project level effects, there will not be additional effects that would add to the existing level of effects, therefore, there are no cumulative effects from this project.

Noxious weeds have started to impact plant communities, especially in drainages and along roadsides in the Planning Area. Foreseeable activities in the Planning Area are expected to be similar to past and current activities: motor vehicle traffic, recreation use, development, timber harvest, and road construction. These types of activities would result in new disturbed sites available for colonization by existing noxious weed populations, and they offer the possibility of introduction of new noxious weed species under any alternative, including the No Action alternative. Noxious weed sites have not been found within the Planning Area. Project design features have been put in place to eliminate any potential impacts that noxious weeds would have from any action that may occur from this project. Given unpredictable vectors for weed spread, such as vehicle usage by private parties, wildlife, water, and wind currents, it is not possible to quantify with any degree of confidence the rate of weed spread in the future, or even the degree by which that potential would be increased by the proposed actions. However, the proposed action, inclusive ofPDFs, would minimize the spread ofnoxious weeds. The BLM is working to increase communication and treatment opportunities with other land owners, agencies, and organizations through the Josephine County Cooperative Weed Management Area with the hope of increasing the effectiveness of treatments and a cumulative decrease in the spread ofnoxious weeds.

3.5 Cultural Resources

3.5.1 Affected Environment Cultural Resources The Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project is situated in a region that has a rich history. Prior to Euro-American settlement in the 1850's, indigenous groups inhabited the region of the proposed ROW. The planning area is located within the homelands of the modem day Confederated Tribes of the Siletz and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde. These two groups occupied traditional areas located on the ridges, valleys and tributaries of the current

Indian Hill ROW 30

day Deer Creek Watershed. The two groups can be characterized as hunter-fisher-gatherers and followed a subsistence pattern ofprocuring food as it became available throughout different seasons.

Land settlement, railroad construction and gold mining were the primary development activities taking place in the watershed during the mid to late 1800's.

Gold was discovered in the Rogue Valley in 1851 bringing an influx ofminers into the region. Gold mining began in the Deer Creek watershed in the midl800s. The first gold miners panned along the rivers and creeks picking up the "easy" gold and then moving on to new locations. Panning for gold was hard and strenuous work and soon other methods were introduced into the area. Hydraulic methods were established as early as 1856, lode mining in 1864, and by the early 1900s dredges and excavators were used along certain stream courses (Heylum 1998; Oregon Mining Joumall897). By 1911, most of the principal placer deposits in the county had been found and worked. Chromite and cooper mines were also known to have been located in the watershed.

Construction of the Oregon and California Railroad began in 1868 and in 1884 the railroad line was fmally completed to the town of Grants Pass, Oregon. A shift to agricultural pursuits began to be seen in the area after the arrival of the railway. This allowed for large shipments of produce from the valleys to be delivered quickly to other cities.

Currently, tourism is the mainstay of the economy in the lllinois Valley.

Cultural resource inventories were completed in the Planning Area on November 4, 2009 by the Grants Pass Resource Area BLM archaeologist. No cultural sites were located during the survey of the proposed ROW. There are no recorded sites within a mile of the Planning Area, although a recorded spring board stump is located in the NWY-1 quarter of section 5 (ORll 0-13381F).

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources

Alternative 1: No Action Effects to Cultural Resources Iflndian Hill's request is denied some portions of the haul route could be used but the proposed road segment under Alternative 2 would not be constructed. However, Indian Hill LLC has indicated that it is feasible to reconstruct the existing 1,700 foot Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-1166, to access their land. The reconstruction and use ofRoad 39-7-5 is a non-discretionary action and project design and effects are speculative. No cultural sites were located in the Planning Area therefore there are no impacts to the resource

Management activities would continue to occur on private lands. Cultural sites on non-federal lands would most likely remain undetected and potentially could be impacted and destroyed. Cultural sites on federal lands would continue to be protected and conserved following policy and management guidelines.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects to Cultural Resources No cultural sites were located in the Planning Area therefore there are no impacts to the resource.

Indian Hill ROW 31

Summary and Conclusions for Cultural Resources Management direction includes protecting and managing the integrity of all historic I prehistoric sites identified in the cultural survey for this and other projects. No sites were located during the survey, and with the inclusion of Project Design Features (PDFs), there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to cultural resources.

PDFs include additional protection for cultural sites that may not have been detected during the survey. If any cultural sites, not located during the cultural resource survey, are found during project implementation, activities around the site would halt until a BLM archaeologist reviewed the site and determined appropriate protection measures.

3.6 Fire and Fuels

3.6.1 Affected Environment Fire and Fuels Lack ofrecent wildfire has increased fuel loading and fire hazard in this portion of the Deer Creek watershed. The increased fuel hazard trend is expected to continue in the absence of wildfire or fuel reduction activities. Roads are valuable in the suppression of wildfires due to the speed firefighters can arrive on scene to keep the fires small.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences Fire and Fuels

Alternative 1: No Action Effects to Fire and Fuels If Indian Hill's request is denied some portions of the haul route could be used but the proposed road segment under Alternative 2 would not be constructed. However, Indian Hill LLC has indicated that it is feasible to reconstruct the existing 1,700 foot Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-447, to access their land. The reconstruction and use of Road 39-7-5 is a non-discretionary action and project design and effects are speculative. The current trend of increasing brush and fuels would continue, with a resultant increase in fire hazard. The reconstructed road segment would provide an additional 1,700 feet of drivable road to fire suppression personnel. In the event of a large wildfire the extra time saved could be beneficial to contain the fire.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects to Fire and Fuels The proposed action would add a new road segment to existing BLM roads totaling approximately 1,337 feet. The action would provide an additional1,337 feet of drivable road to fire suppression personnel. In the event of a large wildfire the extra time saved could be beneficial to contain the fire.

Vegetation placed on the fill slope, cut from the ROW, would not increase fuel hazard. Standing brush and understory vegetation would be piled and rowed on the ground surface. This re­arrangement would reduce flame height and ladder fuels in the event of a wildfrre.

Summary and Conclusions for Fire and Fuels Future activities in the Deer Creek watershed include up to 1,442 acres of commercial harvest, 3,120 acres of fuel reduction treatment, and 1,571 acres of young stand management. Any future timber harvest on BLM lands likewise would not add to frre hazard as post harvest fuel

Indian Hill ROW 32

treatments would occur. Combined, the increase in access with future fuel reduction activities would result in a decrease in fire hazard.

3.7 Vegetation

3.7.1 Affected Environment Vegetation The Indian Hill ROW is located on BLM lands allocated as matrix lands identified for timber production, page 38 in the 1995 RMP. The vegetation in this particular stand was harvested as shelterwood in 1958. Approximately 40 acres of this same area was salvage logged in 1966 for mortality.

Today the vegetation within the ROW and the 84 acre stand consists of two layers; each layer consists ofDouglas-fir, California black oak, tanoak, Pacific madrone, and a small amount of sugar pine. The upper layer contains approximately 60 trees per acre averaging 20 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) with approximately 6 of these trees per acre greater than 30 inches dbh. The lower layer contains approximately 160 trees per acre averaging 11 inches dbh. The plant association for this stand is Tanoak/Black Oak (LIDE-QUKE). Approximately 30% of the ROW has some form of vegetative ground cover consisting ofblack oak, bracken fern, canyon live oak, Pacific madrone, poison oak, little prince' s-pine, rose spp., and whipplevine. Ground cover increases up to 70% on skid roads and ridges where more sunlight reaches the forest floor. The dominant aspect of the ROW is south and west. The average canopy cover is greater than 60% except along more open ridgelines and skid roads where it drops below 60% canopy cover.

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences Vegetation

Alternative 1: No Action Effects to Vegetation There would be no direct or indirect effects to vegetation resources as a result of BLM's denial of Indian Hill's request. Growth would co~tinue on its current trend and future management options for this stand would remain unchanged.

Indian Hill LLC has indicated that it is feasible to reconstruct the existing 1,700 foot Road 39-7­5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-447, to access their land. BLM has no jurisdiction or discretion in deciding how Indian Hill LLC would reconstruct or improve this road. The road is located along a tributary ofMcMullin Creek. Growth would continue on its current trend and future management options for this stand would remain unchanged

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects to Vegetation The proposed action would remove vegetation on approximately 1 acre of this stand from future production and management. Within the ROW, all ground cover and an estimated 293 trees greater than 4 inches dbh would be removed. Approximately 226 trees to be removed are greater than eight inches dbh, of which an estimated 23 trees are greater than 20 inches db h. Both conifers and hardwoods would be removed in the ROW. Canopy cover will be reduced, but not completely eliminated as larger trees will still provide shade over the road. The amount of shade provided is dependent upon the size of tree and the proximity of the tree to the edge of the road. This 84 acre stand would be reduced to approximately 83 acres available for treatment.

Indian Hill ROW 33

Summary and Conclusions for Vegetation There are 12,205 acres of matrix land in the Deer Creek Watershed (USDI 1997). This ROW affects 0.008% of the matrix land allocation in the watershed. Such a small percentage ofland taken out ofproduction management is negligible.

Indian Hill ROW 34

Chapter 4.0 List of Preparers

The following individuals participated on the interdisciplinary team or were consulted in the preparation of this EA:

Name Title Prim!!!}' Resnonsibility Jim Roper Engineer Transportation

Jon Raybourn Fish Biologist Fisheries

Dave Maurer Soil Scientist Floodplains; Wetlands; Soils and Water

Lisa Brennan Archaeologist Cultural Resources

Robin Snider Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, TIE Animals

Rachel Showalter Botanist Botany, Noxious Weeds, TIE Plants

Susan Fritts Botanist Botany, Noxious Weeds, TIE Plants

Martin Lew Ecosystem Planner Environmental Compliance, NEP A

Indian Hill ROW 35

Chapter 5.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted

5.1 Public Involvement

The BLM extended an invitation to the local and regional communities, Native American tribes and other state and federal agencies, private organizations and individuals to develop issues and resources important to local, state, national, and international economies.

BLM sent 45 scoping letters to agencies, nearby residents and interested public in December 2009. BLM received one scoping response.

5.2 Agencies Consulted

BLM consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding project activities that may affect northern spotted owls. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), consultation with the USFWS has been completed and a Letter of Concurrence Fall 09 FYI 0-11 (Tails #13420-2010-1-025) has been received from the USFWS. In terms of Consultation, the ROW construction "may affect, but would not likely adversely affect" (NLAA) spotted owls. No suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging (NRF) habitat would be removed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a revised critical habitat proposal for the northern spotted owl on February 28, 2012 and is under a court-ordered deadline to finalize a revised critical habitat designation by November 15, 2012. This project contains no acres of critical habitat and no acres of proposed critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. The Endangered Species Act requires the BLM to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when a proposed project may affect critical habitat for a listed species and to conference when a project may adversely affect proposed critical habitat for a listed species

The following agencies were also consulted during the planning process: Josephine County, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife.

5.3 Availability of Document and Comment Procedures

Copies of the EA will be available for public review in the Grants Pass Interagency Office. A formal 30-day public comment period will be initiated by an announcement in the Grants Pass Daily Courier. If you would like a copy of the EA, please stop by the office or contact Martin Lew, Environmental Coordinator at (541) 471-6504. Written comments should be addressed to Karen Schank, Acting Field Manager, Grants Pass Resource Area, at 2164 NE Spalding Avenue, Grants Pass, OR 97526. E-mailed comments may be sent to Medford Mail@blm.gov.

Indian Hill ROW 36

Appendix A. Map

Indian Hill ROW 37

East McMullin Cr T39S R7W Sec 5 lndianHill, LLC Scale 1" =1000'

INDIAN HILL, LLC M-1166

NPLATfor ROAD 39-7-5._

Point 13 being 451.9 ft N & 620.4 ft Scale 1 in" 100ft

WofWi/4 cor of Sec 4

10

·wo

T39S R7W Sec4 W1/4cor

wo

N68'00'00"W 70.70' N87'00'00"W

7

~ ssa·oo·oo"W =..

R!W timber to be: ,__,2_-~;,eo::...-----'1 ~ Purchased by Indian Hill t./~ w

R9ad leave;; BLM at pt 1 beingOr decked:._____-r-_ 369.6 ft S&15.5 ft W of the W1/4 cor

Page 2 of2

Appendix B. References Cited

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (1):79-90.

Carey, A.B., J.A. Reid, and S.P. Horton. 1990. Spotted owl home range and habitat use in southern Oregon coast ranges. Journal ofWildlife Management 54:11-17.

Dahlberg, A., J. Stenlid. 1995. Spatiotemporal patterns in ectomycorrhizal populations. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: 1222-1230.

Douglas, C.W. and M.A. Strickland. 1987. Fisher. In Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, Eds. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources. Pp. 511-529.

Forman, R.T.T., Sperling, D., Bissonette, J.A., Clevenger, A.P., Cutshall, C.D., Dale, V.H., Fahrig, L., France, R., Goldman, C.R., Heanue, K., et al. 2003. Road ecology-Science and solutions: Washington, D.C., Island Press, 481 pp.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Biology and Management of the northern spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs No. 87: 1-64.

Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis ofScientific Information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Harr et al. 1976. Forest Practices and Streamflow In Western Oregon. PNW-49, Portland, OR: USDA

Harris, J. E., and C. V. Ogan. Eds. Mesocarnivores ofNorthern California: Biology, Management and Survey Techniques, Workshop Manual. August 12-15, 1997. Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA. The Wildlife Society, California North Coast Chapter. Arcata, Ca. 127 p.

Heylum, Edgar B., Ph.D. 1998. Gold in Josephine County, Oregon. In International California Mining Journal. January 1998.

Hinckley, B.S., Iverson, R.M., and Hallet, B. 1983. Accelerated water erosion in ORV off-road vehicle-use areas, in Webb, R.H., and Wilshire, H. G., eds., Environmental effects of off-road vehicles-Impacts and management in arid regions. New York, Springer-Verlag, pp. 81-96.

Iverson, R.M., Hinckley, B.S., and Webb, R.M. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular disturbances on arid landscapes. Science, v. 212, no. 4497, pp. 915-917.

Liddle, M.J. 1997. Recreation Ecology. London: Chapman & Hall

Luce, Charles H., and Thomas A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 35, No.8, Pages 2561-2570, August 1999

Indian Hill ROW 38

Marsh, D.M and N.G. Beckman. 2004. Effects of forest roads on the abundance and activity of terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications: Vo. 14, No.6, pp. 1882-1891.

Oregon Mining Journal. 1897. Southern Oregon: A Brief Outline of its History. Midsummer Edition. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Powell, R.A. 1993. The Fisher: Life History, Ecology and Behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN. University of Minnesota Press. 237 p.

Solis, D.M. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in Northwest California. Condor 92:739-748.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 18-30.

USDA.l983. Soil Survey of Josephine County Oregon. Soil Conservation Service. December, 1983.

USDA, Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Government Printing Office.

USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Appendix J2 Results ofAdditional Species Analysis. Portland, Oregon.

USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Southwest Oregon Late­successional Reserve Assessment.

USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR.

USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (IS SSP) website. www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/isssp/planning­tools/

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Record of Decision and Resource Management plan. Medford District Office, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford Oregon.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 1997. Deer Creek Watershed Analysis. Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford District Office, 3040 Biddle Road Medford, Oregon

Indian Hill ROW 39

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Medford District Integrated Weed Management Plan. Environmental Assessment and Record of Decision (EA OR110-98-14).

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Informational Bulletin OR-2004-145-Attachement 5.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 2005. South Deer Environmental Assessment. Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford District Office, 3040 Biddle Road Medford, Oregon

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. http://migratory birds.fw.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf

Webb, R.H., Ragland, H.C., Godwin, W.H., and Jenkins, D. 1978. Environmental effects of soil property changes with off road vehicle use. Environmental Management, v. 2, no. 3, pp. 219­233.

Webb, R.H. 1982. Off-road motorcycle effects on a desert soil. Environmental Conservation, v.9, no.3,pp. 197-208.

Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones, G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel Network Extension By Logging Roads In Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 32, No.6, American Water Resources Association.

Wilshire, H.G. 1983b. The impact ofvehicles on desert soil stabilizers, in Webb, R.H., and Wilshire, H. G., eds., Environmental effects of off-road vehicles-Impacts and management in arid regions. New York, Springer-Verlag, pp. 31-50.

Wright, K. A., K. H. Sendek, R.M. Rice, and R.B. Thomas. 1990. Logging Effects on Streamflow: Storm Runoff at Casper Creek in Northwest California. Water Resources Research, 26(7): 1657-1667.

Ziemer, Robert R. 1981. Storm flow response to road building and partial cutting in small streams ofnorthern California. Water Resources Research 17: 907-917.

Indian Hill ROW 40

Appendix C. Public Comment Summary and Response

The Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project EA replaces the McMullin Road Construction and Right of Way Project's EA. The McMullin EA formal public comment period was from September 9 through October 9, 2010. The public was notified of these comment opportunities via newspaper notices, and letters to individuals, Tribes, organizations and govermnent entities.

The BLM received a letter from KS Wild et a!. These comments were considered in the development of the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project EA. The following is a synopsis of the key or primary issues and concerns raised in the comment letter received by the BLM.

1. Range of Alternatives

Response: The range of alternatives considered in an EA is largely dependent on the purpose and need for the project. The purpose and need for the action is to make lands available for needed ROWs (RMP P.82). The EA analyzed the Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. The Interdisciplinary Team examined the option for Indian Hill to access the SW comer of their parcel. As stated on page 8 of the EA:

Access through private lands is not within BLM's control. Also existing reciprocal right­of-way agreements Indian Hill LLC has through BLM lands to access their land is non­discretionary and not under BLM control. IfBLM denies Indian Hill LLC's request, it is feasible for Indian Hill LLC to reconstruct and use the existing 1,700 foot Road 39-7-5, currently under reciprocal right-of-way M-1166, to access their land. The reconstruction and use of Road 39-7-5 is a non-discretionary action. Therefore, project design of the road would be speculative and effects will be discussed qualitatively in the EA.

Road 39-7-5 is located along a tributary ofMcMullin Creek. A cursory assessment by the project engineer determined that at least two culverts 36 inches in diameter would need to be installed. The road would need to be widened to accommodate logging traffic. Side slopes are steep from 60% to 85% and require full bench construction. Slides have occurred in one section and the old road is nonexistent having slid and washed out by the creek. New road construction is required in this section as the road no longer exists.

The team also examined access via other private and BLM roads and found the access proposed by Indian Hill to be the most ecologically sound way to access the SW comer of their parcel ofland. Helicopters were considered for logging; however, while a viable option, this would not allow Indian Hill LLC access for fuel hazard reduction, brush field conversion and precommercial thinning. Therefore, this option was not analyzed further (EA, pp. 9, 10).

2 Noxious weeds

Indian Hill ROW 41

Response: Project design features have been put in place to minimize any potential impacts that noxious weeds would have from any action that may occur from this project (EAp.30). Known noxious weed populations in the project area will be treated with methods analyzed in the Medford District Integrated Weed Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (USDI 1998).

3. Road Width

Response: Vegetation will be cleared the minimum amount necessary to improve visibility for safety (EA p.9). The 45 foot clearing analyzed in the EA is the maximum amount of clearing allowed. The 45 feet not only accounts for horizontal clearing it also accounts for vertical clearing as well as backfilling required to properly construct the road.

4. O&CAct

Response: This action will remove 1.4 acres ofland from future commercial timber harvest. This will not constitute a violation of the O&C Act and the road could facilitate future BLM timber harvest.

5. Deer Creek Watershed Analysis

Response: The actions proposed are consistent with the recommendations of the Watershed Analysis, such as maintaining water quality in McMullin Creek through correct road maintenance and design (WA, p. 1 02). The Watershed Analysis recommends that roads built across streams be constructed in a manner to minimize sediment production and maintain riparian habitat (WA, p. 1 00). This project is consistent with these recommendations.

6. Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Response: The EA at p. 21 states that actions proposed are consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives; the most important components of a watershed restoration program include control and prevention of road-related runoff and sediment production (RMP p.23). Road maintenance and drainage improvements would generate isolated short term sediment transport. Based on the review ofproject effects at both the site and watershed scales and the nine ACS objectives, the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way proposal is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (RMP EIS p. 2-5) (EAp. 18-21).

7. Clean Water Act:

Response: The BLM will comply with the Clean Water Act to the e~tent required. Through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs), the Indian Hill Road Construction and Right-of-Way Project will minimize sediment delivery to streams to the maximum extent practicable. The project is designed under management direction in the Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP), which ensures consistency ofmanagement activities with Oregon's Statewide Water Quality Management Plan for forest practices and with Oregon's water quality criteria and guidelines (RMP p. 42). The BLM incorporates BMPs (RMP pp. 157-166), which are incorporated into Project Design Features (PDF) (EA pp. 9-1 0) to help meet the Clean

Indian Hill ROW 42

Water Act. The EA (p. 17) acknowledges that because of log hauling and road renovation, " ... there would likely be a small amount of fine sediment that is expected to reach McMullin Creek." To minimize these potential effects, and to meet the Clean Water Act, the PDFs incorporate BMPs such as, no hauling when roads are wet enough to cause rutting (RMP p. 162); resurfacing roads if they are going to be used during wet periods (RMP p. 163); confining equipment to roadway construction limits (RMP p. 160); and clearing ditches and culverts prior to fall rains (RMP p. 161), in addition to others. These measures would ensure that Oregon water quality standards are maintained and that activities are in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

8. Road Density

Response: The proposed action will add approximately 1.4 acres of road surface in the 6th field HUC. Given the small addition, roaded acres in the subwatershed will essentially remain at 3%, which is below the level that research has detected measurable changes to streamflow (EA p.l7).

9. Cumulative impacts

Response: Cumulative effects were analyzed at an appropriate scale for each resource. Some resources address cumulative effects on the s'h field or 6th field watershed level because effects are usually not discemable at analysis areas larger than this .. Other resources address effects at additional scales as appropriate to that resource. The EA did not identifY any cumulative effects at the project level. The EA addressed the level of harvest within the Deer Creek watershed, disclosing that BLM projects will commercial harvest on approximately 476 acres across the 72,769 acre Deer Creek watershed (p. 12). Note that effects from other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watershed area included in the Affected Environment for each resource. As stated in the EA (p. 11):

Information on the current environmental condition is comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a baseline condition for a cumulative effects analysis than attempting to establish such a starting point by adding up the effects of individual past actions. This would provide a list of effects without addressing the changes or improvement in conditions since the action originally occurred; unlike current conditions, past actions and perceived effects can no longer be verified by direct examination.

Therefore, the affected environment and No Action effects section for each resource incorporates the current condition, and past present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Following the Code of Federal Regulations and CEQ guidance, the effects sections add the anticipated effects of this project to the current conditions, resulting in the cumulative effects analysis for the project.

Indian Hill ROW 43

Appendix D. Survey and Manage Species Tracking Forms

Survey & Manage Tracking Form: Wildlife Species Survey and Site Management Summary

Medford District BLM, Grants Pass Resource Area

Project Name: Indian Hill McMullin Ck ROW Prepared By: Robin Snider Project Type: Road Construction (ROW) Date: 5/13112

Location: T39S, R7W, Section 5

S&M List Date: 2011 Settlement Agreement

Table A: Survey & Manage Wildlife Species Tbe Medford District compiled the species listed below from the 2011 Settlement Agreement Attachment 1. Tbe list includes those vertebrate and invertebrate species with pre-disturbance survey requirements (Category A, B, or C species), whose known or suspected range includes the Medford District according to:

• Survey Protocols for Amphibians under the Survey & Manage Provision ofthe NorthwestForest Plan v3.0 (Oct. 1999),

• Survey protocol/or the Great Gray Owl within the Range ofthe NorthwestForest Plan v3.0 (Jan. 2004),

• Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole v2.1 (Oct. 2002) • Survey Protocol for Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Draft

Version 2. 0 (October 1997), and Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the NorthwestForest Plan, Version 3.0 (2003).

There are no known Category D, E or F wildlife species with known sites located within the Indian Hill McMullin Creek ROW Area.

Species

B N/A N/A

Indian Hill ROW 44

Species S&M Category

Survey Triggers Survey Results

Site Management

Within Range of

the Species?

Project Contains Suitable habitat?

Project may negatively affect species/habitat?

Surveys Required?

Surveys completed

(month/year}

Sites known or Found?

Crater LakeTightcoil (Pristilomaarcticumcrateris)

A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Evening Fieldslug ( Derocerashesperium)

8 No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

*''Habitat disturbing" and thereby a trigger for surveys as defined in the 2001 ROD S&Gs (p. 22}.

N/A= Not Applicable

1 No nests were found during protocol surveys completed in 2010 in the area of the discretionary ROW road construction proposal. Buffers were not required since no nests were located (Management Recommendations for the Oregon Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus, Version 2.0, September 27, 2000).

Statement of Compliance. The Grants Pass Resource Area applied the 2011 Settlement Agreement Species List to the Indian Hill McMullin Creek ROW project, completing pre-disturbance surveys and management ofknown sites (Table A) required by Survey Protocols and Management Recommendations to comply with the 2001 Record ofDecision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD S&Gs).

Surveys resulted in positive findings for red tree voles as described below:

Red Tree Vole: • In April2002, red tree vole (RTV) surveys were completed for the South Deer

Landscape project, which included the stand where the proposed road construction is located. One active RTV nest was located near the proposed road location. Twelve additional RTV nests were located in this stand (7 Inactive and 5 Active). In May, 2010, the proposed road location was walked and surveyed for new nests. No additional nests were located along the proposed road location. One historic nest, located during the 2002 surveys was checked and the nest has since blown out of the tree. Since no nests were found during protocol surveys buffers were not required (Management Recommendations for the Oregon Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus, Version 2.0, September 27, 2000).

• The road improvement that could occur for Road 39-7-5 to access Indian Hill LLC land is proposed within a RTV habitat area where one active and three inactive RTV nests were located during 2002 RTV surveys. The potential road improvements, including road widening, would remove RTV habitat and alter the canopy cover within the buffered area. Since there are known nests along this old road and within the RTV habitat area, it is likely that the road improvements for road 39-7-5 could remove new, undiscovered RTV nests. This area has not been re-surveyed to

Indian Hill ROW 45

determine the current status of the nest trees or to look for new nests.

Robin Snider 5/13/12 Wildlife Biologist Date Grants Pass RA

Indian Hill ROW 46

Survey & Manage Tracking Form:

Botany Species Survey and Site Management Summary

Grants Pass Resource Area -Medford District

Project Name: Indian Hill ROW Prepared By: Rachel Showalter, Botanist Project Type: ROW Permit for Road Construction Date: May 15, 2012

Location: T39S R7W Sec 5, Josephine County, Willamette Meridian.

S&M List Date: 2011 Settlement Agreement

Table A. Survey & Manage Botany Species The Medford District BLM compiled the species listed below from the 2011 Settlement Agreement Attachment 1. This includes those vascular and non-vascularplant species with pre-disturbance survey requirements (Category A or C species), whose known or suspected range includes the Medford District BLM according to:

• Species distribution maps located at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfunw/issssp/planning-tools/species-distribution-maps.shtml

• Management Recommendations for Vascular Plants, USPS and BLM, 1999 • Survey Protocols for Survey & Manage Category A & C Lichens in the Northwest Forest

Plan Area, Version 2.1 (2003), BLM, USPS, and USFWS

The Indian Hill ROW project is comprised ofboth constructing and amending a road in 39S 7W SeeS. A 45'x1337' portion of road would be constructed, and approximately% mi of existing road would be amended to the ROW agreement. The Proposed Action is to amend Indian Hill's reciprocal ROW to: a) use certain BLM roads for hauling of forest products, b) construct 1,337 feet (0.25 miles) of road across BLM lands and c) add 0.75 miles of existing Road 38-7-32A to theM­1166 Agreement. The construction portion of the project would affect approximately 1 acre ofmid­seral forested habitat, and such activity would result in habitat disturbance to these stands. No adverse impacts to Bureau Status, Survey and Manage, or TIE species are anticipated because no new sites of species in these categories were located during surveys for Bureau Special status, S&M category A or C, or TIE species. This project is in range of one T/E species, Lomatium cookii, but it does not contain suitable habitat for the species. Strategic surveys have been completed for two S&M category B lichens that occur in the Medford District - Chaenotheca chrysocephala and Chaenotheca ferruginea (USPS and BLM, 2006, p1 ). No other Category B lichens or bryophytes are documented or suspected of occurring in the Medford District BLM.

There were 0 incidental fungi sightings within the project area units.

Indian Hill ROW 47

Table A. SURVEY AND MANAGE TRACKING TABLE FOR THE INDIAN HILL ROW PROJECT

MAY2012

Species S&M Category

Survey Triggers Survey Results

Site Management Within

Range of the

Species?

Contains Suitable habitat?

Habitat Disturbing*?

Surveys Required?

Survey Date (month/year)

Sites Known or

Found?

Va:scular ·PlaD.ts < . . ·.• • "·' ' ·.·.· ·..· ". y;: . : '>·; .• ·.·.·, ....• ··.··· I ·•· ·" ...·. ·.......:·· .,·.·...• ;" ' ...... ". .... : I'· . ;. " : .

Cypripediumfasciculatum c Yes ·.··· ·.......

Yes Yes Yes May~July

2010 No NA

Cypripedium montanum c Yes Yes Yes Yes May-July 2010

No NA

Eucephalus via/is A Yes Yes Yes Yes May-July 2010

No NA

Lichens!Jlryophytes . •;' ; ·. ·,·· ·. < •.:. ; .•. . ·y·.·. ..:· ..··· ·•.• ·.··. •• ••• • • • I , .··.• ; >,· •.·. >'' " 1·,,; '.c " • . . "·...... ·:·.•·.· ; •: ····.·:· ....

Leptogium cyanescens A Yes Yes Yes Yes May-July 2010

No NA

Usnea longissima A Yes Yes Yes Yes May-July 2010

No NA

*"Habitat disturbing" and thereby a trigger for surveys as defined in the 2001 ROD S&Gs (p. 22).

N/A= Not applicable

Statement of Compliance. The project area was surveyed in spring of 20I 0 for vascular and nonvascular plants. The Medford BLM applied the 2011 Settlement Agreement Species List to the Indian Hill ROW project, completing pre-disturbance surveys, and management ofknown sites (Table A) required by Survey Protocols and Management Recommendations to comply with the 2001 Record ofDecision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

Project surveys discovered sites for 0 Survey and Manage Category A or C flora species. No known sites are present within the project for 5 additional species (Survey and Manage Category B &D). No historic sites of special status species are present.

Rachel Showalter, Grants Pass RA Botanist May 15, 2012 NAME, Botanist Date NAME District or Field Office

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. April3, 2006. Bureau ofLand Management-Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2006-038. 3 pp. On file at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/ss.htrn

Indian Hill ROW 48