Siskiyou Project Technical Comments

Submitted to

Oregon Bureau of Land Management State Office

Concerning the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the

Western Oregon BLM Districts.

January 4, 2008

Richard K. Nawa

rich@siskyou.org

Staff Ecologist

Siskiyou Project

213 SE "H" Street

Grants Pass, OR 97526

**1. The action alternatives violate the Endangered Species Act.**

**A. The DEIS failed to identify Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionary
Significant Unit as threatened (DEIS 336, 1071).**

Since the DEIS was published circumstances have changed. The court has
reversed the Dept. of Commerce decision to delist the Oregon Coast Coho
Salmon ESU and the WOPR must evaluate effects on this ESU and formally
consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service for this ESU.

**B. WOPR action alternatives will jeopardize the survival and recovery
of Oregon Coastal Coho Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit and Southern
Oregon Northern California Coho Salmon ESU.**

The WOPR action Alternatives are most similar to Alternatives 7 and 8 in
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of
Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forrest related Species
within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994b) and
Alternatives A, B, C in the Medford District Proposed Resource
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDI, BLM
1994e; see p.xix for comparisons of Riparian Management

Area Protections and narrative comparisons on p. 4-19). These FEIS's
made scientifically credible comparisons between alternatives that
contained all aspects of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (WOPR No
Action with ACS) and alternatives which primarily rely on minimized
riparian protective buffers (WOPR action alternatives). The USDI/USDA
1994b:3&4 200-201 states that:

> \[A\]lternatives 7 & 8 \[and most resembling WOPR action
> alternatives\] had the lowest likelihoods of attaining sufficient
> aquatic habitat to support well-distributed populations of the seven
> races/species/groups of anadromous and resident
> salmonids\...Alternative 7 rated low \[10% for coho\] primarily
> because of the small amount of riparian area that would receive
> special management consideration and the amount of activity that would
> be allowed in this area....**The principal reasons \[for the low
> ratings in Table 3&4-34 p.197\] are the reduced size of Riparian
> Reserves for non fish-bearing perennial streams and for intermittent
> streams.** (emphasis added)

In comparison, Alternative 9 with the added ACS protection for
intermittent streams "received a greater than 80 percent likelihood of
achieving the \[desired\] outcome for the evaluated salmonds."
(USDA/USDI 1994b: 3&4-198). Coho salmon protection was so poor in
Alternatives 7 and 8 that the panel of scientists said that there was a
20 percent chance that coho would be extirpated with alternative 7 and a
10 percent chance that they would be extirpated with alternative 8.

Similarly USDI, BLM 1994e (p.4-19, 20, 21) identifies a high risk for
landslides, sedimentation, and turbidity from Alternatives A and B (most
similar to WOPR action alternatives) because a "large percentage of
these first and second order streams would not have a sufficient amount
of vegetation either prior to or following a harvest operation to
provide a sediment filter or to reduce fire intensity. Increased
sediment loads in the first and second order streams would be
transported downstream to larger order streams." (UDSI,BLM 1994e 4-19)

**C. The BLM has failed to initiate required ESA consultation with
National Marine Fisheries Service.**

The DEIS:829 states that the revision of Resource Management Plans is
subject to Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Specie Act but no
Biological Assessment has been prepared and no request for the required
consultation has been made. The ESA directs that consultation be
initiated [early in the process]{.underline}. The BLM has not made a
good faith effort to comply with the ESA. Merely stating the process or
describing future intentions does not substitute for actual consultation
or compliance with the ESA.

**D. The DEIS failed to provide an assessment of ESA listed fish
[viability]{.underline} or [risk]{.underline} of extirpation with action
alternatives that do not provide for the existing Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (ACS). A scientifically valid comparison of action alternatives
(that do not include the ACS) has not been made with the No Action
alternative, which legally requires the ACS.**

The models and assessments in the DEIS do not directly assess the risk
of extirpation or the viability of ESA listed fish populations. The
analysis does not provide compelling scientific data for a "no jeopardy"
determination. The focus of Environmental Consequences for Fish
(DEIS:723) is primarily on Large Wood (DEIS:723-333), Fish Productivity
(DEIS:733-740) with only brief discussions of Fine Sediment Delivery,
Peak Flows and Stream Temperature (DEIS:741-743). The DEIS fails to
integrate these parameters into a discussion that could be evaluated for
use in determining compliance with the ESA (See for example USDI/USDA
1994b 3&4 190-203). Legal compliance with the ESA for listed fish
species is currently based on compliance with the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (USDA/USDI 1994c: B11-34, aka "The ROD"). The DEIS failed to
provide a scientific rational for amendments to existing Northwest
Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 1994c) because the WOPR analysis failed to
disclose how management decisions would be based on a distinctly
different set of criteria that would not include the ACS. For example,
current projects on BLM are legally required to meet all Aquatic
Conservation Strategy Objectives (USDA/USDI 1994c:B11). The DEIS fails
to disclose which, if any, of these objectives would be required to be
met for projects (e.g. timber sales). A logical starting point for
analysis of major amendments to the Northwest Forest Plan would be the
1994 FEIS that analyzed ACS alternatives similar to those now proposed
by BLM (USDI/USDA 1994b 3&4 190-201).

The DEIS has created a time consuming, wasteful, and distracting tangent
from previous programmatic impact statements by inappropriately using
large wood as a surrogate for fish production. Such modeling may be
useful for restoration activities (USDA/USDI 1994c: B30) or watershed
analysis (USDA/USDI 1994c: B20) but is entirely inadequate for guiding
project decisions (e.g. timber sales) or providing certainty of
protection for ESA listed fish species. For example, the need to
prioritize instream wood placement based on intrinsic potential of
stream reaches (rather than key watersheds) is valid (DEIS: 740) but a
single [technique]{.underline} that emphasizes large wood in fish
bearing streams cannot effectively replace a proven
[strategy]{.underline} (i.e. ACS) that integrates all aspects of
watershed management at multiple scales on the landscape.

**2. The DEIS violates the National Environmental Policy Act.**

A.  **Analysis techniques for Environmental Consequences to Fish fail to
    sharpen the differences among alternatives as required by NEPA and
    must be replaced.**

The NEPA directs agencies to use analysis that sharpens the differences
among alternatives to give the decision maker and public clear reasons
for choosing one alternative over another. Analysis in the DEIS is
contrary to the intent of the NEPA because it blurs and obfuscates the
differences among alternatives. For example the use of large wood for
modeling fish productivity found essentially [no
differences]{.underline} in fish production among the alternatives (
DEIS:733,Table 210) . Alternative 2 with [maximum]{.underline}
clearcutting and roadbuilding had nearly the identical fish productivity
index as the [no harvesting]{.underline} reference analysis. The
DEIS:LXI states "\[t\]he differences among the alternatives, in terms of
fish productivity, would be less than 3%" and DEIS:726 footnote 17
states that "sources of error in modeling may be greater than any
differences in large wood contributions in these representative
watersheds." These unacceptable and scientifically preposterous results
should have alerted the BLM to the obvious conclusion that the technique
BLM chose (i.e. modeling large wood as a surrogate for fish production)
is inappropriate for a programmatic impact statement seeking to evaluate
reductions in riparian protection standards in its Resource Management
Plans. See for example the sharp differences for risk of extinction for
salmonids among alternatives analyzed in USDA/USDI 1994b: 3&4 198 with
index percents ranging from 12-82 percent. See for example the sharp
differences for fish production among alternatives analyzed in the
Medford District RMP FEIS (USDI,BLM 1994e:xxx). The Medford BLM
programmatic FEIS reported **[low]{.underline}** fish production
potential for alternatives with riparian protection similar to WOPR DEIS
action alternatives and **[mod+]{.underline}** fish production for the
"PRMP" which is the same as the "No Action" or Northwest Forest Plan
alternative in the WOPR DEIS. How can the 1994 Medford BLM FEIS have one
set of results and an FEIS 13 years later (with similar proposals) have
completely different results? There is no compelling "new" information
indicating that the series of 1994 BLM programmatic FEIS's were wrong
and this new analysis is correct. The series of BLM 1994 programmatic
impact statements (USDA, BLM 1994a,b,c,d.e,and f) have been found to be
scientifically credible and legal by the courts. The WOPR DEIS does not
begin to meet either a legal or scientific standard as did previous
programmatic FEIS's with respect to impact analysis for salmonids due to
substantial differences in amounts of riparian protection from logging.

The use of large wood to predict long-term salmonid productivity in
programmatic impact statements is not a "new" concept. This concept was
discredited by the scientific community (Frissell and Nawa 1989) when
the Siskiyou National Forest attempted to use large wood to predict
salmonid outputs for the Siskiyou National Forest Plan (USDA 1989, see
response to comments in Appendix K). The problem with these large wood
models is that they 1) rely entirely on large wood to drive numeric fish
production and 2) they decouple sediment and stream temperature impacts
from logging which eliminates numeric negative "multipliers" from
logging. For example, the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest FEIS predicted
nearly the same amounts of high fish production for 11 alternatives with
no apparent numerical affect from varying degrees of riparian protection
or amounts of logging (USDA 1989: Table IV-8 p. IV-89 and Table II-7 p.
II-144).

"Habitat degradation is a factor of decline for all the listed fish
species and is a major risk factor that continues to threaten fish
populations. (DEIS: 337). Unfortunately the DEIS failed to adequately
describe or quantify the risk to threatened fish populations from
proposed logging of formerly protected areas (riparian reserves, late
successional reserves).

B.  **The DEIS is biased towards reduced impacts to fish from logging
    because of arbitrary BLM decisions to include or exclude
    intermingled private lands in impact analysis. Cumulative impacts
    from sediment are not disclosed because impacts from intermingled
    private lands were not included in analysis.**

On one hand the BLM chose to [include]{.underline} private lands with
predictions of large wood inputs to streams, thus, increasing the amount
of wood delivered and increasing fish productivity (DEIS:724-725). But
then the DEIS diminished the negative impacts of sediment by
[excluding]{.underline} private roads from sediment assessments of
alternatives. Only sediment from new BLM roads within 200 ft of steam
channels are assessed for sediment contribution. DEIS:760 footnote 4
states "\[n\]ew roads include BLM new roads only. Information is not
available to predict the number of miles of new roads on other lands."
In other words, when the inclusion of private lands would diminish
logging impacts they were used, but when assessing the cumulative
impacts of sediment, the private lands were excluded. This is important
because previous assessments of Oregon Forests Practices Act have found
it deficient for protecting viable populations of salmonids (IMST 1999).
The DEIS fails to recognize previous assessments of minimized riparian
buffer and integrate their findings into analysis and discussion. For
example, the decision maker needs to know that salmonids populations in
intermingled ownerships will have a high probability for risk of
extinction due to poor riparian protection standards on intermingled
private lands and no restraint on road building. The BLM decision maker
must be informed by [BLM impact analysis]{.underline} that various
management options on intermingled BLM lands either does or does not
increase the risk of extirpation**.**

C.  **Sediment impacts that can jeopardize the viability of salmonid
    populations were not adequately analyzed. The DEIS fails to alert
    the decision maker to chronic and catastrophic cumulative sediment
    impacts related to logging, road building, off highway vehicles,
    increased log hauling, and suction dredge mining. New road BMP's are
    impractical and not feasible.**

    a.  The DEIS fails to identify dust mobilized by increased log
        hauling and anticipated increased off-highway vehicles as a
        significant factor contributing fine sediment to salmonid
        streams. Road dust mobilized during the summer cannot be
        dismissed as negligible as studies in Idaho and elsewhere have
        found it to cause measurable increases in stream sediments. For
        example, BLM needs quantify dust delivery to streams from OHV
        emphasis areas. I have experienced extreme and prolonged periods
        of dust at Elderberry Flat OHV emphasis area while collecting
        sediment data from Evans Creek. Increased logging will mean
        increased [winter hauling]{.underline} that will increase
        sediment delivery to streams from all ownerships. BLM cannot
        dismiss sediment from existing haul routes that traverse
        checkerboard land ownership. Cumulative sediment impacts are
        understated because of increased log hauling on new and
        [existing]{.underline} roads, especially during wet season
        hauling (see numerous stream crossings by roads on DEIS:341).
        Table 212 (DEIS 760) is not accurate because it indicates that
        alternative 2 (with the most logging and road increases) has the
        lowest "potential fine sediment delivery". The DEIS does not
        explain why alternative 2 has a much lower proportion of roads
        within the sediment delivery distance (DEIS:759, Figure 270). If
        current BMPs (DEIS 1134-) work, why change them? New wording in
        BMPs for roads (DEIS: 1135 first 3 BMP's) to attain desired
        sediment modeling result (1109) is not practical or feasible.
        BLM must be truthful about sediment from new roads based on
        experience from existing roads. Rewriting BMPs will not make the
        sediment from roads disappear.

    b.  The DEIS fails to identify denudation of vegetation and
        subsequent erosion from streamside areas caused by all terrain
        vehicles, off highway vehicles, and OHV emphasis areas. The BLM
        has documented significant damage to vegetation and erosion due
        to off highway motorized vehicles but has failed to quantify or
        evaluate the impact of fine sediment from these activities to
        salmonids. Cumulative sediment impacts are understated.

    c.  The DEIS analysis incorrectly assumes that increased [fine
        sediment]{.underline} is the [only]{.underline} sediment related
        factor adversely affecting rearing salmonids through increased
        turbidity and egg incubation through increased percent fines
        DEIS:355-357). The DEIS fails to identify [streambed scour and
        fill]{.underline} as an equally important mortality factor for
        egg-to-fry survival of fall spawning salmonids such as coho
        salmon (See Nawa and Frissell 1992, Harvey and Lisle 1998). The
        DEIS:356 is biased in that it states beneficial effects of scour
        (e.g., "\[f\]ine sediment can be cleaned from the stream bottom
        gravel by scouring during peak flows") but fails to report that
        these same scouring flows [may scour out and kill incubating
        salmonid eggs]{.underline}. This is important because the
        alleged "viable" coho salmon population in Evans Creek
        (DEIS:357) may survive increased fines only to be extirpated by
        excessive logging related [bedload]{.underline} . For example,
        coho salmon extirpations in Oregon (Frissell 1992, Frissell 1993
        ) and Northern California (Brown et al. 1994) are probably more
        linked to excessive bedload transport (Jackson and Beschta xx)
        than excessive fines.

    d.  **The threshold for increased peak flow impacts to fish is set
        to high**. The DEIS:743 falsely states that '\[p\]eak flows
        would not increase in fifth field watershed under any of the
        alternatives to a level that would affect fish habitat because
        they would not cause 5-year, 24 hour flow to occur at the
        2-year, 24-hour interval." First, the analysis needs to be done
        on much smaller watersheds [where coho are known to
        spawn]{.underline} (e.g., upper West Evans Creek). Coho
        generally do not spawn in main stem channels of 5^th^ field
        watersheds. Second, the threshold is set to high because salmon
        eggs are likely to be scoured when bedload begins to move (see
        Jackson and Beschta 198?). Increased logging and roadbuilding
        that causes bedload to be moved at smaller rainfall events will
        kill more salmon eggs. Finally, Watershed Analyses have
        identified peak flows from rain-on-snow as a threat in specific
        areas that were not analyzed (e.g.,USDI BLM 1996b:7 identified
        headwaters compartment 5,440 Ac). The DEIS must explain why
        numerous assessments in existing BLM Watershed Analyses are
        wrong with respect to expected impacts from peak flows.

    e.  The DEIS:356 incorrectly states that "thresholds beyond which
        \[sediment\] impairment occurs in the field have not been
        established". Methods for assessment and thresholds for sediment
        have been identified in published literature by EPA Corvallis
        Lab (Whittier et al 2007a and Whittier et al. 2007b[). I suggest
        the BLM contact EPA authors at Corvallis Research Lab and
        replace outdated literature reviews (e.g. Everest 1987) with
        21^st^ century published research results]{.underline}.

    f.  **The fine sediment delivery model (DEIS742,758,1106-1113) is
        not appropriate for predicting sediment related impacts to fish
        in a programmatic EIS**[.]{.underline} The sediment delivery
        model (DEIS:1106) is designed for predicting fine sediment
        transported from road surfaces via overland flow from average
        rainfall events. The model fails to identify sediment inputs
        from mass erosion (debris flows, earthflows, debris slides
        etc.), sediment from road fill failures, and sediment from
        gullying, when streams are diverted down road fills due to
        plugged culverts. While it is possible to predict
        [chronic]{.underline} erosion from road surfaces
        (DEIS:1106-1113) the often more devastating
        [episodic]{.underline} erosion (DEIS:344) can also be estimated
        with empirical data from past events e.g., 1964, 1955 1996/97,
        and 07 floods ( Weaver and Hagans 1996). Since the DEIS is
        looking at fish viability over a 100 year period (DEIS:724-725)
        and it takes nearly that long for a forest to recover from
        regeneration logging, the DEIS must evaluate the consequences of
        episodic landsliding and elevated sediment transport in the
        action alternatives. Several large storm events are certain to
        occur on lands denuded by logging and roadbuilding. Models for
        mass erosion and threshold for fish impacts are "available
        information" as defined by NEPA. Previous BLM impact statements
        have provided credible mass erosion modeling (USDI,BLM
        2004b;USDA/USDI 2004d) where anticipated logging and road
        building would overwhelm the transport capacities of streams
        causing significant harm to fish (obvious sediment related
        thresholds for fish). The DEIS sediment model would be
        appropriate for watershed analysis in the context of identifying
        restoration opportunities or additional BMPs to reduce
        management created sediment, but the model is clearly not
        adequate or appropriate for guiding programmatic decision
        making. I recommend that BLM begin immediately to disconnect
        road systems from streams to realize the sediment benefits
        predicted by the model (DEIS:1198).

    g.  The DEIS:742 falsely states that "\[u\]nder all four
        alternatives, the rate of susceptibility to shallow landsliding
        from timber harvesting and road construction over the next ten
        years would not increase." The BLM would rely on existing
        administrative land withdrawals of unsuitable lands for logging
        or \[unsuitable lands\] would be withdrawn when identified with
        a project activity. This strategy has failed miserably in the
        past to protect fish streams from landsliding as evidenced by
        recent catastrophic landsliding in southwest Washington and
        northwest Oregon during December 2007 floods. I incorporate by
        reference accompanying articles and pictorial by Seattle Times
        [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/photogalleries/localnews2004075607/5.html](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/photogalleries/localnews2004075607/5.html )
        (accessed 12/29/07) which demonstrate the ineffectiveness and
        futility of BLM strategy for preventing landslides in areas
        scheduled to be logged with WOPR action alternatives. Many of
        the lands currently identified as unsuitable (DEIS 762, USDI BLM
        1995b) are landslide areas within existing plantations or roads
        leading to them. It does little good to withdraw lands after the
        damage has been done. The current management on BLM lands (No
        Action-Northwest Forest Plan) requires a minimum 150 ft no
        logging buffer for [all]{.underline} intermittent stream
        channels. This alone captures most of the unstable ground
        without doing any assessments in the field (See USDA/USDI,BLM
        2004d). In addition the Northwest Forest Plan requires that all
        unstable or potentially unstable lands be included with riparian
        reserves [without any administrative requirements such as
        required by BLM for "unsuitable lands".]{.underline} Automatic
        150 ft protection for all intermittent stream channels and no
        cumbersome administrative procedures for potentially unstable
        lands are the major reasons the current Northwest Forest Plan
        (No Action) was found superior for fish viability as compared to
        piecemeal riparian protection in WOPR action alternatives
        (USDA/USDI BLM 1994b).

    h.  **The DEIS provides biased treatment of debris flows.** The DEIS
        models debris flows to provide beneficial large wood to streams
        (DEIS:732,1089) but then claims shallow landsliding harmful to
        fish will not occur in logged areas due to administrative
        withdrawals of unsuitable lands. In addition, the intermittent
        stream channels with the highest probability of debris flows to
        fish bearing stream channels (DEIS:732) [are not protected with
        100 ft no cut buffers.]{.underline} TheDEIS:80 footnote 4 states
        that "\[o\]nly stream channels that are below unstable headwalls
        (as identified by the timber production capability
        classification (TPPC) codes indicating significant instability
        (i.e. FGNW, FPNW, and FGR2) that would periodically deliver
        large wood to fish-bearing streams. Intermittent streams that
        would not deliver large wood to fish-bearing streams because of
        geomorphic conditions (such as stream junction angle and low
        stream gradient) or roads would not be included." Thus the DEIS
        provides a criteria (wood delivery) and standard (buffer only
        below admin withdrawals) for inevitable sediment impacts to
        fish. If the channel will not provide wood to fish it is not
        protected with meaningful 100 ft no cut buffers and is at the
        same time at high risk for contributing huge amounts of fish
        killing sediment as evidenced by photos from Seattle Times and
        numerous case studies (Frisell 1992, FEMAT V-19).

    i.  **Earthflows**. The DEIS: 426 describes slumps and earthflows as
        occurring on BLM lands in western Oregon "in deep, saturated
        soils that are high in silt or clay on gentle to moderate
        slopes. Soils derived from volcanic and deeply weathered
        sedimentary materials are subject to this mass movement
        process." The environmental consequences DEIS:797 identifies
        various types of mass soil movement but does not specifically
        identify earthflows. Only "high" risk areas are withdrawn from
        timber management and the BLM admits that ["areas that are
        judged to be of lower risk have occasionally failed in the
        past."]{.underline} (emphasis added) The Northwest Forest Plan
        ROD p. B-24 describes how earthflows need to be identified in
        watershed analysis and incorporated into riparian reserves and
        specifically states that earthflows would be protected from
        logging as part of riparian reserves (ROD C-31). Analysis for
        action alternatives in the WOPR provide no discussion of how
        earthflows would be identified or managed. Earthflows are a
        second type of mass movement quite different from debris flows.
        Once activated, the earthflow can deliver sediment directly to
        stream channels for years if not decades. Chronic sediment from
        earthflows is particularly damaging to fish and fish habitat.
        The DEIS fails to adequately describe or quantify impacts to
        fish and fish habitat from earthflows. "Occasional failures"
        identified in the DEIS could be catastrophic for specific
        populations of coho salmon. The anticipated BLM assertion that
        earthflows would be discovered during project implementation,
        the same as other unstable lands (DEIS:797 and elsewhere), is
        not likely to be effective because identification of earthflows
        often requires landscape analysis and expertise not generally
        available for typical timber sale projects. Earthflows may cover
        many hundreds of acres requiring land allocation decision-making
        at higher levels than timber sale projects, hence, the need for
        watershed analyses in the Northwest Forest Plan. The IMST 1999
        found that a site-specific approach for regulations (similar to
        WOPR action alternatives) is not sufficient to accomplish
        recovery of wild salmonids.

    j.  **Numerous Watershed Analyses produced by BLM and the US Forest
        Service since 1995 were not used to describe current watershed
        conditions (DEIS Chapter 3) or used to develop meaningful
        sediment impact analyses relevant to fish habitat and fish
        viability (DEIS Chapter 4).** I wish to incorporate by reference
        all ACS Watershed Analyses including but not limited to those
        available at BLM websites below:

>  <http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/inventas.php>
> <http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/inventas.php>
> <http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/plans/inventas.php>
> [http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php](http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php )
> (sites accessed 12/29/07) The DEIS:356 falsely states that "some
> aquatic systems may function with high background levels of fine
> sediment. For example, in Evans Creek, a tributary to the Rogue River,
> a viable salmonid population exists even though the stream has a high
> sediment load." Watershed Analyses by BLM and the 1995 RMP appear to
> contradict this assertion. The West Fork Evans Creek Watershed
> Analysis (USDI,BLM 1995b:7) found that "\[e\]xcessive amounts of
> sediments and sands (granitcs) are filling pools and glides (reduces
> cover and spawning habitat for coho and Chinook). Granitic sands
> reduce aquatic insect population and simplify habitat complexity. Pool
> frequency ranged from 20% to 43% (threshold is 50% level). Channel
> substrate is heavily embedded and provides minimal cover for small
> fish and reduces aquatic insect populations." The West Fork Evans
> Creek Watershed Analysis 8) further states on p.28 that " \[l\]arge
> depositions of granitic sediments both within and downstream of the
> West Fork of Evan Creek adversely effect the quality of the fish
> habit." and on p. 42 states that \[t\]imber harvest and road
> construction has had a major influence on soil erosion and subsequent
> sedimentation of streams. As a result, the fisheries habitat ahs been
> degraded and is in need of restoration." The "downstream" sediment
> impacts are important because the DEIS sediment analyses failed to
> describe likely adverse sediment impacts to "high potential" stream
> segments on non-BLM lands located downstream of action alternative
> logging. The current Medford District RMP (Appendices 195) deferred
> timber harvest in portions of the West Evans Creek watershed for ten
> years beginning in 1993 because of a "high potential for water quality
> degradation due to increased sediment resulting from past management
> activities. The DEQ 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessments of Nonpoint
> Sources of Water Pollution rates West Evans Creek as having moderate
> stream problems due to turbidity and sediment" (USDI, BLM 1994e,
> Appendices p. 175). The data from various BLM and state watershed
> analyses support the conclusion that the viability of coho in West
> Evans watershed is at risk of extirpation because of logging related
> sediment and that risk will be increased significantly with the WOPR
> action alternatives. The WOPR DEIS fails to provide analyses as to the
> expected viability of coho salmon in West Evans Creek or elsewhere
> where it is federally listed.

k.  **Suction Dredge mining disturbance is known to cause increased
    mortality to fall spawning salmonids such as coho salmon.** The
    DEIS:1438 Table 290 identifies 50 instream suction dredging notices.
    New information indicates this activity is harmful to spawning
    success of fall spawning salmonids such as coho salmon (Harvey and
    Lisle 1998, USDA Siskiyou National Forest 2001). Impact analysis for
    fish must also consider cumulative impacts of streambed disturbance
    by suction dredging at an estimated 50 locations in the Medford
    district. Decreased egg-to-fry survival is likely regardless of size
    of suction dredge.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **The BLM is biased in its use of riparian stream survey data. The
    DEIS failed to use the BLM inventory of riparian stream channels in
    assessing current condition/trend and failed to use the data in
    assessing long term condition/trend with action alternatives,
    however, [the BLM selectively used one measured parameter of the
    inventory data to boost the ASQ (DEIS:566).]{.underline}** The East
    Evans Watershed Analysis (USDI, BLM 1996d) on p. 27 states that
    "\[r\]iparian stream surveys were undertaken on East Evans Creek WAU
    \[Watershed Analysis Unit\] from October through December 1995 on
    all BLM lands except for four sections. [The objectives are to
    evaluate the current riparian condition, collect baseline data for
    long term trend assessment, verify GIS hydrologic data and utilize
    the information collected for watershed analysis and management
    actions]{.underline}." ([emphasis added]{.underline}) The BLM has
    illegally limited the use of riparian stream survey data in NEPA
    analysis by only using "verified GIS hydrologic data" to support the
    increased ASQ for the No Action Alternative (DEIS:566). All riparian
    stream survey data are available as per NEPA. I strongly suggest
    that the BLM compile these data by appropriate watershed scales into
    functional condition classes for Chapter 3 Water. For example the
    East Evans Watershed Analysis p. 27-28 reports "no reaches
    classified as "Nonfunctioning Condition"\...There are 17.2 (57%
    miles of streams in "Properly Functioning Condition" comprising 57
    reaches, and 12.9 (43%) miles of stream in "Functioning at Risk"
    comprising 47 reaches." Analyses based on compilations of these
    classification data from watershed analyses would show that current
    Northwest Forest Plan (No Action) would improve the condition class
    of these mostly intermittent streams. WOPR action alternatives would
    put more stream miles in the undesirable "Functioning at Risk"
    category. Analysis of this criterion (riparian function) with the
    BLM's own field data would clearly show the ecological differences
    among alternatives.

E.  **The DEIS failed to describe BLM scientists' support for current
    riparian reserve widths in numerous watershed analyses. The DEIS
    fails to use BLM's data and analyses from their own scientists to
    make scientifically valid comparisons between the No Action
    alternative (Northwest Forest Plan) and action alternatives (with
    greatly reduced riparian protection).**

> a\. While watershed analyses are not decision documents per se they
> are intended to be used in NEPA analysis to guide decision making.
>
> b\. The East Evans Watershed Analysis p.31 states that "\[c\]urrently,
> no specific riparian reserves have been identified for widening or
> narrowing based upon biological or physical features." Watershed
> Analyses are either moot on this issue or show scientific support for
> current reserve widths, none recommend reducing widths as is proposed
> in WOPR action alternatives.

F.  **The DEIS failed to provide adequate cumulative effects watershed
    analyses to demonstrate that areas previously deferred from timber
    harvest now warrant intensive regeneration harvests in WOPR action
    alternatives.** In 1994 the BLM deferred harvest in 16 subwatersheds
    (including portions of upper Evans Creek) due to high cumulative
    effects (USDI BLM 1994e Appendix U). The Medford RMP (USDI BLM
    1994g:42) stated that the areas deferred will be reevaluated during
    the next planning cycle or by January 2003. The WOPR DEIS does not
    provide cumulative effects analysis that would demonstrate that
    conditions have improved to warrant renewed timber harvest as
    proposed in the WOPR action alternatives. The Peak Flow analysis
    misuses research results by Gordon Grant. The threshold for
    increases is percent in open category, not basal area (DEIS: 1096).
    Grant (2007) suggested the threshold was at 30%. Rain-on-snow
    modeling in WOPR does not agree with results using different
    techniques in NEPA documents and watershed analyses. Sensitivity
    testing is needed on watersheds that were known to be damaged from
    recent 96/97 rain-on-snow events (e.g. Fish Creek near Salem
    District, Sucker Creek in Medford District). Would the WOPR model
    predict damage to these watersheds? The analysis did not look at \>5
    year event which are certain to occur (see effects to SW Washington/
    Veneta OR from December 07 rain only storm).

G.  **The WOPR DEIS failed to adequately analyze the adverse impacts of
    not managing for optimum coarse wood levels in intermittent streams.
    The DEIS falsely implies (with analysis restricted to fish) that
    large wood is only important if it can be transported to fish
    bearing streams.** Wood is extremely important to all stream
    channels regardless of presence or absence of fish because of
    potential for undesirable incision and accelerated erosion without
    large wood (See FEMAT V13,14). The analysis of Coarse Woody Debris
    in USDI, BLM 1994e: p.4- 47,48 and USDA/USDI 1994b 3&4 61 provide a
    credible scientific analysis which clearly shows the ecological
    differences between alternatives with no protection or minimal
    protection for intermittent streams (WOPR action alternatives) and
    no cut 150 ft minimum protection for all intermittent streams (NW
    Forest Plan /WOPR No Action). For example USDI,BLM 1994e states on
    p.4-48 that "\[in alternatives most similar to WOPR action
    alternatives\] long term recruitment of CWD \[coarse woody debris\]
    would be greatly diminished in first and second order intermittent
    streams. Adverse effects on these streams would include decreased
    channel stability, increased stream gradients, velocities, and
    channel erosion, reduced sediment trapping capability and increased
    movement of sediment downstream." Conversely, "the PRMP \[NW Forest
    Plan\] would provide 100 percent of the optimal amount of long term
    CWD to first and second order intermittent streams, which is
    substantially greater than other alternatives."

H.  **The DEIS fails to disclose the risk to stream temperature from
    debris flows that destroy shade trees and scour stream channels to
    bedrock. Blow down is likely for narrow buffers, especially near the
    coast (Coos Bay District)** Increased regeneration logging and
    increased road building will increase debris flows as has occurred
    previously during episodic flood events (Weaver and Hagans 1996).
    The DEIS:343,763,797 fails to describe the consequences of debris
    flows in perennial stream channels. Nawa et al. 1992:21-29 measured
    nearly a 10 degree C increase in maximum stream temperatures in a
    3rd order perennial channel scoured to bedrock from a debris flow
    originating in an 8 year old clearcut. The width of the disturbance
    (5m-20 m) destroyed most of the shade from the fir/alder buffer
    along the 3.5 m wide perennial stream. Direct sunlight on a bedrock
    channel exacerbated temperature increases. Debris flows from the
    1997 flood caused about a 5 degree C temperature increase to two
    small tributaries to the Left Fork Sucker Creek because shade trees
    were destroyed (unpublished data R. Nawa). The West Fork Evans Creek
    watershed analysis identifies elevated temperatures and stream
    channels scoured to bedrock. The DEIS failed to disclose that blow
    down is likely to damage the minimum buffers prescribed (as compared
    to robust buffers in No Action). Because the new buffer widths are
    minimums, any losses of standing trees will cause temperature
    increases. During December 2007, 100 mph winds flattened some
    forests within ten miles of the Oregon coast. Greater than expected
    temperature increases are likely in the Coos Bay District due to
    blow down of proposed minimum buffers, especially areas adjacent
    Coquille Forest (DEIS 756). Merely providing alleged adequate shade
    (DEIS:754) does not mean the shade will be effective over the next
    100 years due to increased risk of debris flows and increased risk
    of blow down with the action alternatives.

I.  **The DEIS fails to disclose impacts to deciduous oaks due to fire
    suppression and encroachment of Douglas-fir. Encroaching Douglas-fir
    (due to fire suppression during past 40-80 years) is shading out and
    killing both white oaks and black oaks primarily in the Medford and
    Roseburg Districts.** The loss of old growth deciduous oaks (\>200
    years old) is significant as these trees are now present mostly as
    snags and down wood in mature stands of nearly pure Douglas-fir.
    Encroachment into white oak stands is at the edges of stands but the
    results are the same: dead and dying oaks due to shading by
    Douglas-fir. This is important because the deciduous oak component
    of pine/oak woodlands and mixed evergreen forests is
    disproportionately important to a myriad of wildlife species,
    especially neo-tropical migrant birds, cavity users, and mast
    foragers. The Vegetation and Wildlife sections need to address this
    important but vanishing component of the low elevation forest.
    Management must direct thinning projects at encroaching of
    Douglas-fir most of which are under 80years old. Large openings are
    needed around black oaks to ensure high mast production.

J.  **The DEIS fails to estimate decreased tons of carbon sequestration
    and increased tons of atmospheric carbon from various amounts of
    logging.** Ironically, the previous BLM RMP/FEIS (USDI BLM
    1994e:4-7, 8) in 1994 provided an analysis on this issue but the
    WOPR DEIS (13 years later) provides no meaningful analysis, only
    excuses and disclaimers (DEIS:491). During the October 2007
    Technical Work session in Medford the BLM claimed that decreased
    carbon sequestration cannot be calculated for alternatives because
    the fate of the wood harvested is unknown, however, in 1994 the BLM
    stated that about 42% of the timber harvested in the northwestern
    U.S. enters long term storage in products, while paper production
    largely results in the loss of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
    (USDI,BLM 1994e:4-7). People are intensely interested in how forests
    are managed to sequester carbon. Carbon sequestration is a major
    hope for the future moderation of climate change. It is
    unconscionable for the BLM to destroy significant (i.e. measurable)
    carbon storage on public lands with logging and then deceive the
    public by not disclosing impacts to carbon sequestration. Given the
    world wide attention to global climate change and known links to
    carbon sequestration, one would expect [more]{.underline}
    information on this issue with programmatic impact analysis, not
    less.

**3. The DEIS action alternatives would violate the Clean Water Act.**

> A.Water quality management plans for 303(d) listed streams on BLM
> (DEIS:365) would no longer be valid because the criteria and standards
> from the ACS would no longer apply to BLM lands with the WOPR action
> alternatives. For example, the Sucker Creek Water Quality management
> Plan was approved by EPA because the BLM agreed to follow the
> Northwest Forest Plan. The temperature TMDL for the Willamette Basin
> would be violated. EPA is not likely to approve the new riparian
> standards in the action alternatives unless major changes are made.
> Broadcast burning adjacent intermittent streams would violate the
> Clean Water Act by creating chronic sediment sources. Similar
> violations of anti-degradation policy would apply to all BLM 303(d)
> listed streams.
>
> B. Stream temperatures would increase beyond predictions of models
> because some streams flowing after June 1 or after July 1 would be
> logged over as "intermittent" and cause thermal warming to downstream
> waterbodies. In other words, BLM lacks the data to identify precisely
> where a stream transitions from "perennial" to "intermittent". The
> definitions for perennial and intermittent (DEIS:364 footnotes a, b)
> would not preclude logging of streams flowing on July 1 because they
> could fall under the definition for intermittent. Verification of
> intermittent or perennial classifications would not be practical for
> most specific stream segments within upland timber sale units.
> Misclassifications of actual "perennial" streams as "intermittent"
> will cause stream warming for decades.

**4. Recommendations common to all Alternatives and No Action.**

A.  **OHV Emphasis Areas**. Please eliminate all references to OHV areas
    including maps. Maps are particularly dangerous because they invite
    increased use regardless of decisions made. The checkerboard land
    pattern is inherently unsuitable for OHV management due to concerns
    by adjacent private landowners. Increased erosion from OHV use is
    not acceptable in watersheds with ESA listed fish species and
    fragile soils (e.g. Elderberry Flats and others).

B.  **Please provide management direction for deciduous oaks.**
    Currently these species are lumped with "hardwoods" in the
    vegetation section. Deciduous oaks are much different than broadleaf
    evergreen trees (e.g. tanoak) because deciduous oaks are shade
    intolerant and relatively low growing (as compared to conifers).
    Deciduous oaks are easily shaded out by the faster growing and
    taller Douglas-fir.

> a.**White Oak**. Historic stands of white oak/black oak/pine need to
> be mapped more accurately and with more decision than OI inventory.
> Encroaching conifers, particularly Douglas-fir, must be eradicated
> from these areas because they quickly shade out and kill the centuries
> old deciduous oaks.
>
> **b.Black Oak**. Thinning and density management projects must give
> preference for older black oaks by thinning heavily around the largest
> remaining black oaks to ensure their survival as well as increase mast
> production. Fuels treatment along roads would remove competing firs to
> favor the larger deciduous oaks (see below).
>
> C**. Fuels Management in Klamath Siskiyou.**
>
> The first priority of fuels management would be forest edges along
> roads and where BLM borders small tax lots with dwellings. Second
> priority would be plantations. Roadside treatments would eliminate the
> need to pile and burn and allow chipping (Trees- Are-Us routinely chip
> small trees and shrubs under power lines). The interiors of natural
> stands would be the last priority for fuels treatments. The Deer Willy
> project primarily in the upper Williams Creek watershed in the Medford
> District is a good example of emphasis on roadside fuels. Management
> of broad leaved trees (aka hardwoods) for wildlife must be integrated
> into fuels management along roads with the removal of encroaching
> Douglas-fir (\<20"dbh) and shrubs while preserving the larger hardwood
> trees (e.g. black oak, madrone, white oak) and some pines. These sun
> loving broad leaved trees and pines will thrive on the edges of
> forests bordering roads if encroaching Douglas-fir and shrubs are
> eradicated for the first 50-100 ft from the road. The desired
> condition would be pine/oak woodlands bordering roads that would be
> relatively fire resistant (low fuel loading on ground). The pine/oak
> woodland strip along roads would provide superlative wildlife habitat
> due to increased production of madrone berries and acorns. Easy access
> for fire suppression would be assured by removing the most combustible
> fuels along roads.
>
> D. Best Management Practices (DEIS 1132-1183) must explain how these
> are changes from existing BMPs, otherwise its impossible to know if
> the new BMP is more restrictive in preventing resource damage or
> allows more discretion. Previously each District had its own set of
> BMPs which seems appropriate, why change to uniform but confusing
> state-wide BMPS. If current BMPs work, why change them? Unattainable
> and impractical BMPs for roads (DEIS:1135 first 3 BMPs) to attain
> desired sediment modeling result (DEIS 1109) is not practical. BLM
> needs to be truthful about new roads and expected sediment based on
> previous road building.

**[New References not listed in DEIS:869-921]{.underline}**

\*Brown, L.R., P.B. Moyle, and R.M Yoshiyama. 1994. Historical Decline
and Current Status of Coho Salmon in California. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 14: 237-261.

\*Frissell, C.A. and R.K. Nawa. 1989. Oregon Chapter AFS and the
Siskiyou National Forest Plan: The Critical Role of a Professional
Society in Natural Resource Planning.

**\***Frissell, C.A. 1992 Cumulative Effects of Land use on Salmon
Habitat in Southwest Oregon Coastal Streams. PhD Thesis. Oregon State
University.

\*\*Frissell, C.A. 1993. Topology of Extinction and Endangerment of
Native Fishes in the Pacific Northwest and California (U.S. A.).
Conservation Biology 7:342-354.

\*Harvey, B.C and T.E. Lisle. 1998. Scour of Chinook Salmon Redds on
Suction Dredge Tailings. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
19:613-617.

\*\*Nawa, R.K., C.A. Frissell, J.L. Ebersole, and W.J. Liss. 1992. Life
History and Persistence of Anadromous Fish Stocks in Relation to Stream
Habitats and Watershed Classification. Annual Progress Report FY 1991
prepared for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR.

\*\*Nawa and Frissell 1992. Measuring Scour and Fill of Gravel
Streambeds with Scour Chains and Sliding-Bead Monitors. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management. 13:634-639.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Land and Resource Management Plan. Siskiyou National Forest. Medford,
Oregon.

USDA, Siskiyou National Forest. 2001. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Suction Dredging Activities. Siskiyou National Forest,
Medford, Oregon.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI BLM 1994c Record of Decision for
Amendments of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning
Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and
Guidelines for Management of habitat for Late-Successional and Old
Growth Forest related species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted
Owl.

USDI,BLM. 1994g. Medford District Record of Decision/Resource Management
Plan

USDI,BLM 1995b. Watershed Analysis of West Fork Evans Creek. Medford
District, Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford ,OR

USDI,BLM 1996d. East EvansWatershed Analysis. Medford District, Butte
Falls Resource Area, Medford, OR.

\*Whittier, Thomas R., Hughes, Robert M., Lomnicky, Gregg, and **Peck,
David V**. 2007. \"Fish and amphibian tolerance values and an assemblage
tolerance index for streams and rivers in the western USA.\"
Transactions of the American Fisheries . Vol. 136:254-271. WED-06-124
(also available from US EPA Corvallis OR)

\*Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, **J.L. Stoddard,** G.A. Lomnicky, D.V.
Peck, and A.T. Herlihy. 2007. A Structured Approach for Developing
Indices of Biotic Integrity: Three examples from Streams and Rivers in
the Western USA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
136:718-735. WED-06-064 (also available from US EPA Corvallis OR)\
\
 \*abstract or \*\* full publication attached